The fun part is when these errors happen on the supercluster that you’ve been waiting forever on to get the job submitted.
And this is why I’m always wary of papers I read which don’t give any simulation details and just present the results.
Quick, use your academic influence to get your friends to cite the name you’ve chosen, making it appear standard in the community!
The number of times I’ve wanted to know the details of a simulation and was given nothing is truly impressive.
I mean, clearly that evidence just isn’t good, so I’ll ignore it.
I need to call Customer Service to the Universe and demand an explanation. Clearly I should have been right!
Most of my struggles in research start here.
“That’s not how you pick your research projects? Huh, I guess that’s why you don’t get as much funding as I do…”
In my experience, the bulk of my work as a PhD student is uncovering all of the hidden assumptions in papers I read. (And hopefully, making sure I write down the explanation to them for both my future self and others!)
When I was an undergraduate, I did my best to stay away from a computer to do physics. I saw myself as a theorist, and in my head, a good theorist could get everything they wanted done with pencil and paper. I remember one particularly vivid time that I used a computer algebra system to calculate Riemann tensors for my research in gravitation theory, and I hated dealing with the complexity of the program. It…