3 ms·

Rather than wonder, why not read the tweet thread from the man who supposedly did all the work, which is linked from the Post article? https://twitter.com/this

by comex 8y ago

Rather than wonder, why not read the tweet thread from the man who supposedly did all the work, which is linked from the Post article? https://twitter.com/thisgreyspirit/status/1116518544961830918 https://twitter.com/thisgreyspirit/status/111651854496183091... TL;DR: “the repo” in question was one of multiple imaging libraries that were used, and the lines-of-code count was vastly inflated by counting machine-generated files, so the original claim was basically nonsense. In terms of Bouman’s contributions, she was the primary author of “the imaging framework that rigorously tested all three codes”, so she did play a meaningful role, as one of many different people involved in the collaboration. On the other hand, assuming the Post article’s mention of an “algorithm” is meant to refer to CHIRP, it is in error, since CHIRP was not used to create the current images: > Data from the EHT was analysed by four separate teams to verify the findings. Two teams relied on a tried-and-true computational imaging method called CLEAN, while the other two used a newer technique called regularised maximum likelihood (RML), which had been honed by Bouman, astrophysicist Andrew Chael from Harvard (who has also been celebrated for this work), and colleagues for the needs of the black hole imaging project. - https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.1.20190411a/full/ https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.1.2019041...

anjc 8y ago
> On the other hand, assuming the Post article’s mention of an “algorithm” is meant to refer to CHIRP, it is in error, since CHIRP was not used to create the current images. Yeah? You wouldn't find this confusing as a lay person? Many articles said she created the algorithm. As I said, she didn't "accidentally" become the face of the image. It's due to these journalistic errors.
- comex 8y ago
  Confusing? I said it was in error. Unfortunate, for an article written to debunk others' errors. But it is still a lot closer to the truth than what it debunks. In particular, both of the articles you linked make clear that (a) she was a meaningful participant in the project but (b) it was a large team effort and the credit doesn't belong to any one person, while (c) people on social media have created the exaggerated impression that she was solely responsible. I'm not going to blame "the media" for the existence of an exaggerated impression based on two articles that explicitly debunk that impression, even if one of them has an error. Also, while false impressions are one thing, I don't really regret that she became the face of the black hole image, per se. People fundamentally want to praise other people rather than abstract entities, and if it was going to be anyone, it might as well be the subject of such a great photo – the juxtaposition of the laptop (with black hole image visible) and the look on her face really captures the idea and emotion of scientific accomplishment.

by comex 8y ago

anjc 8y ago

> On the other hand, assuming the Post article’s mention of an “algorithm” is meant to refer to CHIRP, it is in error, since CHIRP was not used to create the current images. Yeah? You wouldn't find this confusing as a lay person? Many articles said she created the algorithm. As I said, she didn't "accidentally" become the face of the image. It's due to these journalistic errors.

comex 8y ago
Confusing? I said it was in error. Unfortunate, for an article written to debunk others' errors. But it is still a lot closer to the truth than what it debunks. In particular, both of the articles you linked make clear that (a) she was a meaningful participant in the project but (b) it was a large team effort and the credit doesn't belong to any one person, while (c) people on social media have created the exaggerated impression that she was solely responsible. I'm not going to blame "the media" for the existence of an exaggerated impression based on two articles that explicitly debunk that impression, even if one of them has an error. Also, while false impressions are one thing, I don't really regret that she became the face of the black hole image, per se. People fundamentally want to praise other people rather than abstract entities, and if it was going to be anyone, it might as well be the subject of such a great photo – the juxtaposition of the laptop (with black hole image visible) and the look on her face really captures the idea and emotion of scientific accomplishment.