> There a lot of hate because the people here know how easily biased and misleading these models are
If only they had thought to ask HN whether it was useful.
People doing this are EXCEPTIONALLY aware of the drawbacks and limitations of what they're doing. Nobody in the scientific world is under the impression that a simulation on a large approximation of molecules could be used to say "hey so water actually does behave exactly this way". If you go read the actually paper and not the press release the abstract pretty much says "This phase transition is observed in a few distinct models of water, so it's probably useful to try and understand this further"
The self aggrandising press release and statements from the scientists are pretty silly, sure, but the actual publication is not making claims about demonstrating that water does anything. And if you look at statements quoted in the press release, most statements are talking about how the work might provide direction on where to look later:
It's just like the string theory or dark energy threads where all the software engineers who've read a pop science book pontificate about how all the physicists are just so obviously wrong and you need to do it in so-and-so way, bonus points if you get some sort of "maybe lambda calculus is the true representation of the universe"
Calm down, you’re attacking some kind of strawman representation of who is on HN. Has it occurred to you that a non-trivial subset of the HN commenters are scientists?
I believe it was a response to the comment, "...the people here know how easily biased and misleading these models are." That looks like a suggestion that HN by-and-large understands how this research is flawed.
> Calm down, you’re attacking some kind of strawman representation of who is on HN. Has it occurred to you that a non-trivial subset of the HN commenters are scientists?
Read literally any thread about science here, and it's stuffed full of people who will say "now I'm not a scientist but it's clear they're all doing it wrong". I'm not an idiot and yes, it has occurred to me that there might a some scientists here, but there's a much larger subset of arrogant software engineers who think if anybody would just listen to them all the world's problems would be solved.
This isn't specific to software engineers, at this point it's a running joke where a physicist decides "oh, if only <some other field> knew <some advanced math/physics concept> all of their problems would be solved
> Read literally any thread about science here, and it's stuffed full of people who will say "now I'm not a scientist but it's clear they're all doing it wrong".
This happens on literally any thread regarding computer science or programming in general as well. Perhaps you just don’t notice on topics you don’t care about?
This website isn’t moderated for wrongthink so you need to use your brain to parse what people are saying and contextualize it.
If only they had thought to ask HN whether it was useful.
People doing this are EXCEPTIONALLY aware of the drawbacks and limitations of what they're doing. Nobody in the scientific world is under the impression that a simulation on a large approximation of molecules could be used to say "hey so water actually does behave exactly this way". If you go read the actually paper and not the press release the abstract pretty much says "This phase transition is observed in a few distinct models of water, so it's probably useful to try and understand this further"
The self aggrandising press release and statements from the scientists are pretty silly, sure, but the actual publication is not making claims about demonstrating that water does anything. And if you look at statements quoted in the press release, most statements are talking about how the work might provide direction on where to look later:
It's just like the string theory or dark energy threads where all the software engineers who've read a pop science book pontificate about how all the physicists are just so obviously wrong and you need to do it in so-and-so way, bonus points if you get some sort of "maybe lambda calculus is the true representation of the universe"