and then some bozo says that biology is just complicated chemistry and chemistry is just complicated physics and we can simulate physics
curious thing is that i never hear biologists or chemists saying that, only some physicists and techbros. just trying to simulate your way out of small organic chemistry problems will make you even more hopelessly lost than you were before
What is a geographer? Seems like a super broad category. Are you a cartographer? Surveyor? Or do you just like, talk about mountains and the shape of the coast line?
That’s the thing: we do a bit of everything. I work in the development department for a very small city with a LOT of complicated development. We have a dozen employees for the wholencity, so having a wide skillset is necessary as I wear a lot of hats.
I am the GIS department, half the Planning department, lanning, and code enforcement. I analyze stormwater discharge, review rainwater harvesting water treatment plans, Dark Sky compliance, and other plan review I’m needed for.
If I have to get too deep into complicated engineering, construction code, or legal issues, I coordinate all third-party review services. I also handle any interlocal development-related issues (county and state compliance and water, fire, and school district).
I also act as the recording secretary for most public meetings, handle non-police Open Records, and run the city website.
I’m always stressed and super busy, but I’m also someone who thrives on spinning plates and chasing squirrels versus being bored doing the same thing day to day.
As a (micro)biologist, I totally support that notion. Biology is, indeed, chemistry, which is in turn physics, which is in turn mathematics.
The problem is, good freaking luck simulating biological processes on a physical level. We do biology and not physics, because it’s a reasonable shortcut we have to make to work on what’s important without waiting another millenia for a decent enough physical simulation.
some people would tell you that we can simulate small bits of chemistry but it’s flat out wrong (i might be biased as i’ve wrangled for a year with computational chemists about results that don’t conform to reality) and even then errors are so large that’s it’s useless
I was involved with a project trying to simulate growth of a crystal cluster a couple of years ago. The guy doing the coding said it would be easy. It never worked and never came remotely close.
in my case the size of the system was so small they didn’t have that excuse, yet they were only ever able to get correct results after experimental data was handed over to them, zero predictive power, useless
Ah, the innocence of inexperience. (Giving them the benefit of the doubt of course. )
I work on old undocumented c/c++ spaghetti code for embedded systems. In multiple planning meetings I have gotten to use lines like “this looks like a single character change but testing it makes me really nervous” and have gotten zero pushback or raised eyebrows.
It’s usually a few laughs and often another engineer or our manager will chime in to agree with me and describe some more of the context or whatever, lol.
and then some bozo says that biology is just complicated chemistry and chemistry is just complicated physics and we can simulate physics
curious thing is that i never hear biologists or chemists saying that, only some physicists and techbros. just trying to simulate your way out of small organic chemistry problems will make you even more hopelessly lost than you were before
This is why I’m a geographer. We know what we are.
I get to gleefully embrace my role as generalist who fanboys over real science.
What is a geographer? Seems like a super broad category. Are you a cartographer? Surveyor? Or do you just like, talk about mountains and the shape of the coast line?
That’s the thing: we do a bit of everything. I work in the development department for a very small city with a LOT of complicated development. We have a dozen employees for the wholencity, so having a wide skillset is necessary as I wear a lot of hats.
I am the GIS department, half the Planning department, lanning, and code enforcement. I analyze stormwater discharge, review rainwater harvesting water treatment plans, Dark Sky compliance, and other plan review I’m needed for.
If I have to get too deep into complicated engineering, construction code, or legal issues, I coordinate all third-party review services. I also handle any interlocal development-related issues (county and state compliance and water, fire, and school district).
I also act as the recording secretary for most public meetings, handle non-police Open Records, and run the city website.
I’m always stressed and super busy, but I’m also someone who thrives on spinning plates and chasing squirrels versus being bored doing the same thing day to day.
thank you, hope your community appreciates all that work!
Wow, thanks for the answer. GIS was my next guess lol. Sounds like a pretty interesting job, lots of variety. Mind sharing what you have a degree in?
GIS and Public Administration.
As a (micro)biologist, I totally support that notion. Biology is, indeed, chemistry, which is in turn physics, which is in turn mathematics.
The problem is, good freaking luck simulating biological processes on a physical level. We do biology and not physics, because it’s a reasonable shortcut we have to make to work on what’s important without waiting another millenia for a decent enough physical simulation.
I mean the relation between those isn’t wrong but like… we can’t simulate complicated physics. At least not at any reasonable speed.
some people would tell you that we can simulate small bits of chemistry but it’s flat out wrong (i might be biased as i’ve wrangled for a year with computational chemists about results that don’t conform to reality) and even then errors are so large that’s it’s useless
I was involved with a project trying to simulate growth of a crystal cluster a couple of years ago. The guy doing the coding said it would be easy. It never worked and never came remotely close.
in my case the size of the system was so small they didn’t have that excuse, yet they were only ever able to get correct results after experimental data was handed over to them, zero predictive power, useless
Ah, the innocence of inexperience. (Giving them the benefit of the doubt of course. )
I work on old undocumented c/c++ spaghetti code for embedded systems. In multiple planning meetings I have gotten to use lines like “this looks like a single character change but testing it makes me really nervous” and have gotten zero pushback or raised eyebrows.
It’s usually a few laughs and often another engineer or our manager will chime in to agree with me and describe some more of the context or whatever, lol.
Model fetishism