Fuck gawd damn, I don’t know who I’m angrier at more: myself or the joke writer.
The humor lies in the dual meaning of the horticultural labor task and the selective bias fallacy having the same idiomatic phrase of “cherry picking”. And that is all there is to the humor.
Right?
If you don't get the Jo try this:
Citing extensive experience, anti-vaxers are hired by cherry farm as cherry pickers.
One such cherry picker was shown to pick cherries 340% faster than non-anti-vax pickers. The anti-vax cherry picking spokesman was heard to be explaining that this data proves anti-vaxers are the superior farm laborers, and expects the farm to see a correlation in overall productivity improvement across farms employing anti-vax cherry pickers.
This picture is going to be cited by someone as actual evidence against vaccines. I guarantee it.
"Anti Vaxxers in demand as orchards seek expert cherry pickers"
Thanks for the title, I think I'd never got it otherwise
I don't get it. Could be because I was still asleep 20 minutes ago.
Anti vaxers cherry pick information to state their claims are correct. Therefore they're super good at it
There's also a sort of second level to the joke in that reporting on the results for a single orchard is in itself cherry picking.
I thought they kept dying and adding nurtiants to the soil
Ahhhhhhhhhh. That would make sense. My mind initially was asking if there was some form of an extract or essential oil that came from cherries that they claimed was a wonder anti drug.
I thought the death rate among antivaxers was so high that they provide regular fertilization for the trees.
My dumbass thought it was programming related
I thought like the cherry picker carts that help you drive around at elevated altitude
For the sleepy brains and ESL-ers: It is an idiom.
I still don't get the 340% increase in the production part though.
They're very experienced at cherry picking, since they do it all the time. Therefore they're able to do it better / faster than most.
Anti-vaxxers love cherry picking.
Yeah, but if your results are only a biased subset of your total gamut (vaccers + anti-vaccers) then 340% is still an astonishing result when only taking your preferred group.
It actually does build credibility that the group you're biased towards had the most significant result.
If the total gains were 1000% including contributions from both groups, then yes I can understand the point the post is making (340 from anti-vaccers, 660 from vaccers, clear cherry-picking).
But 340 is already an incredibly high number, so it sort of weakens the post, if you catch my meaning
You are overthinking a (bad) joke
Me either, but assuming it's a real screenshot, the date is 2018. I didn't do much digging, but 2018 saw an increase in cherry crops according to this source https://upnorthlive.com/news/local/usda-2018-cherry-crop-production-up-from-last-year.
An overall increase of 60% is pretty big! If this specific farm had an especially bad year in 2017, a 340% increase isn't out of the question.
It's from an Onion-esq science blog.
I figured they were making hugel mounds out of the dead people and planting cherries on them.
A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
