Your documentation made me cry

Posted by on . No comments.

I was reading through some documentation a few days ago. It’s nicely written – easy to understand AND not boring as hell. But then I came across this line:

You’ll also (obviously) need a working C compiler.

Ok, yes, that is obvious to me at this point in my life and probably to just about everyone who would ever have any interest in reading about R and C. And it did make me chuckle a bit.

But my reaction this documentation when I was first learning about computer-y things might have been different. Words like “obviously” made me feel like if it wasn’t obvious to me, then I must not know enough or be clever enough to even be trying this sort of thing. It feels a bit silly now to admit that I was so affected by such small things, but it really did slow me down sometimes. I bring it up because I didn’t have that reaction to similar language in most other subjects. (Math was another area I found – and still find – “clearlys” and “obviouslys” really off-putting.) I think it’s because as a girl I already felt like I wasn’t supposed to be doing math-y or computer-y things. While I managed to ignore those feelings most of the time (or could directly combat some of the more obvious sexism), subtle things like this could really wiggle under my skin and exploit those feelings.

While you’re waiting for the bus

Posted by on . 2 comments.

The enormous cost of propping of the banks was justified by the refrain “too big to fail.” You know what’s really too big to fail? Ecosystems.

Zen Faulkes wonders about the constant pressure to explain the relevance of your science:

People love all sorts of things that aren’t relevant to them apart from their own intrinsic interest. Why does science have this higher bar to jump?

A new apple to look for at the grocery store?

You’ve submitted your questions or answers for the queer allies in academia FAQ, right?

An excellent paper teaser on the Oikos blog.

John Cook talks about code as whirlpools and pipelines. My code is like a giant whirlpool with a fleet of broken ships all swirling to their doom.

We should work less.

Next time my officemates glare at me for pacing/stretching/dancing at my desk, I’m going to send them this.

By Catherine Nelson

by Rune Guneriussen

[UPDATE: fixed broken links. Sorry!]

Commenting code

Posted by on . One comment.

I was digging through some old code this morning when I came across this snippet from what was clearly not a good day of data analysis:

I may want to check comments more carefully when I share code.

 

 

Science-ese (slight understatement edition)

Posted by on . No comments.

From Sambaraju et al. 2011:

Abundant availability of host trees due to altered disturbance regimes has facilitated an unprecedented, landscape-wide outbreak of this pest in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada, during the past decade.

Translation:

ALL THE TREES ARE DEAD. ALL OF THEM.

British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range/L. Maclaughlan

British Columbia Ministry of Forests and Range/L. Maclaughlan

Dealing with rejection

Posted by on . 3 comments.

A few years ago, I applied for and received a really prestigious fellowship. I had to turn it down because they don’t let you take it out of the country (GRRR). But I didn’t give up. I took that application, made it even better, and applied for a similar fellowship in my new country. I didn’t get it, but I was very, very close. This year, I improved the application even further and added all the cool new things I’ve done in the last year.

My application didn’t even make it through the first round of selection.

After the initial round of boo-hooing, I had two thoughts

  1. funding in academia is a fucking crapshoot and
  2. I am so glad that my sense of self worth is not defined by my academic accomplishments

On the plus side, all that work applying for the fellowship wasn’t in vain. With just a bit of tweaking, the research proposal part of the application will be perfect for my first committee meeting!