• Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’ll take a no any day over an " I dunno,maybe, probably not, your methods might have been totally backwards and there’s not enough funding to ever do this again the right way." that’s often what data seems to whisper to me.

    • tempest@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s missing the last two panels where he pulls out a knife and carves up the data

    • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      2 days ago

      That’s how you get your paper published. Find the stat with the happiest (see, statistically relevant) outcome, publish based solely on that.

    • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      NO is good scientific information! Now you just take your old grant application, insert NOT and NO throughout as necessary, and reapply!

      • iAvicenna@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        I hate it when I realize I failed to understand something (especially if I was very certain that I did). Making the possibilities set slightly smaller offers little consolation.

        Otherwise I agree.

        • Mouselemming@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Well, now you have succeeded in understanding the limits of your previous comprehension, and that’s the rung you need to stand on to see further. Onward and upward, friend.

  • OpenStars@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 days ago

    Incorrect, the smile should be beaming in the last panel. One small step for mankind and all that jazz. :-D