Clicked through 3 links to be greeted with "Disclaimer: I’m no physicist nor chemist...It turned out that LK folks were not talking about some stupid shit."
-- combined with "(Note: was written and published hours before this demonstration.)", and there wasn't an attempt to explain the connection between TFA and this new other article I'm supposed to read.
"I’m no physicist nor chemist" means that I have no qualification to say whether the theory is legitimate or not.
"It turned out that LK folks were not talking about some stupid shit" means that their theory is not out of the thin air, but rather based on some alternative theory that has not been actually disproven but simply forgotten. This one is much easier to verify.
"was written and published hours before this demonstration" means that I have no prior knowledge about this demonstration. Otherwise you could argue that I have written the article to justify this demonstration.
The last point doesn't make much sense since there were multiple prior similar demonstrations. It's still a prediction made after the experiment has concluded and the results are widely disseminated.
To my knowledge this is the first ever demonstration to show the exactly same thing as Q-center's original video (partly because this sample is much larger than others), so I believe my argument is probably safe. But I understand your and GP's judgements given the recent craze. To be fair, I'm still conservative about the whole thing, but it does look clear to me that we are witnessing the conflict between two big theories of SC, rather than some crackpot versus "legit" scientists, hence my new article.
This isn't a big deal but to explain a bit why it came off wrong, sometimes I have a hard time socially and wish people would just explain their reactions instead of focusing on having the reaction:
- It's not the first, to wit, the repro's author pointing out it looks the same as effect from China repro from...3 days ago? Time is elusive.
- The Russian catgirl superconductor theory stuff is a blind alley, you've gone very far down it for someone without physics/chemistry background, it's unintelligible to people who haven't followed the sociology of every repro attempt and people who do have a background and know that's a massive theoretical question that can't be resolved via twitter or LK99, particularly when we're still figuring out LK99
- It's odd to reframe news of a room temperature superconductor as a "conflict between two theories of SC", we're just scratching the surface, we're months and months away from that, if it is resolvable at all.
- You've gotten wrapped up in the meta and express it via namecalling in a way that distracts, c.f.
---- my reference to the "stupid shit" quote.
---- "crackpot versus legit scientists": what I call They'ing, what smarter people would call creating dichotomous groups out of thin air and then attributing positions to them.
---- "recent craze" "still conservative": the metajudgements don't contribute anything and there's plenty of it to be found, it's mostly gone/downvoted on HN over last 24-48 hours because it became stifling.
You could have just requested more contexts then. You instead picked three particular phrases, which are actually least relevant parts of the linked article, and concluded (or appeared to conclude) that my article is not worthwhile to read. It might be, but I want it to be worthwhile to read and your reply had no hints to avoid that. Especially given that the very point of my article is about providing those contexts.
