Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 20:37:37 UTC No. 16446314
>>16446300
Terrence who?
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 22:45:19 UTC No. 16446465
Bro when does it start breakdancing
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 02:24:41 UTC No. 16446693
>>16446300
>trusting Korean scientists
That's your problem, you should know by now
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 05:35:45 UTC No. 16446828
>>16446300
It was fake
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 08:39:12 UTC No. 16446909
>>16446300
Wait, so was this just a super strong diamagnet? That's worth our attention too.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 09:41:10 UTC No. 16446944
>>16446300
1) Anyone with one braincel knew it was fake the second they started the mass Gook nationalism propoganda campaign.
2) There was never anything promising even if they weren't lying. Everyone with three braincels know that superconductor performance is limit not just by temperature, but by current density, without these measurements all the glorified magnets are useless and certainly not "civilization changing technology" like the midwits with two braincels kept spouting.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 09:41:19 UTC No. 16446945
>>16446300
it just had traces of metal inside it because the production process was shit. when they replicated it for real, of course it didn't work. shame, it would have been cool
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 15:06:28 UTC No. 16447256
>>16446944
saying it was fake is the reason we have a reproducibility crisis
sometimes you reproduce the results and they don't work, you don't go back and harass and abuse the scientists for publishing
the work was interesting enough to spark immediate interest in the topic and did more to advance material sciences than any "real" innovation
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 15:09:29 UTC No. 16447260
>>16447256
>get harassed, doxxed, and publicly embarrassed for publishing paper clearly outlining reproducible steps but failed in the end
scientists would 10000% much rather publish papers that are not reproducible at all and rely on argument by authority (prestige, reference count)
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 16:51:47 UTC No. 16447461
>>16447256
>saying it was fake
It was fake.
> is the reason we have a reproducibility crisis
Unfettered horseshit.
>sometimes you reproduce the results and they don't work, you don't go back and harass and abuse the scientists for publishing
You absolutely end the career of liars and frauds. Ensure they never work in research again. Their lies cost tax payers hundreds of millions globally trying to reproduce their work.
Additionally in this case, we mock the naive rice dick supremacists who used the whole ordeal to promote rice dick nationalism only to have it backfire like every other time they hype up milestones already achieved by the West a century ago.
They failed miserably and embarrasingly, the researchers and grifters alike deserve redicule.
>the work was interesting enough to spark immediate interest in the topic and did more to advance material sciences than any "real"
It was interesting to midwits who have zero power or influence over anything. It caused annoyance and valuable time to any serious researcher in the field.
Did you really fucking think that important people didn't know that superconductors -a routine engineering materials in MRIs etc.- wasn't interesting and worth researching?
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 09:21:44 UTC No. 16450223
>>16446300
nook the gook
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 22:24:51 UTC No. 16451326
>>16447461
It was either fake, or a one-time fluke. There's some papers published afterward detailing that the metals need to bond at specific sites, which is difficult if not nearly impossible to achieve. If true, and if this achieves superconductivity (which I doubt), then I'm not surprised that the original authors with their haphazard way of synthesizing and observing superconductivity managed to get a single sample amongst what? A thousand other non-superconducting samples?
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 16:40:13 UTC No. 16452381
>>16451326
They were just lying man. Now they are just trying cover the first white lie, with as many thick dark lies as long as they can.
Anonymous at Sun, 27 Oct 2024 17:44:49 UTC No. 16452463
>>16446300
**IF** they had a single sample of a high-temperature superconductor they would have had EVERY independent laboratory in the world verify their result.
It is always easy to stop the fakes, they NEVER allow their 'samples' to be independently confirmed.
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 28 Oct 2024 01:14:21 UTC No. 16453038
>>16446300
I remember some batshit NPD russian troon that was baiting a ton of gullible retards with claims of synthesizing it. Pic rel.
Lots of troons were swarming around this when it happened and feeding the mania - Dan "danielle" fong was the other really prominent epistemic pool pisser narcissist failed male.
Both also hyper-aggressive activists for child mutilation.
I hate them so much it's unreal.
>OMg le floaty rocks xD
ACK
Anonymous at Tue, 29 Oct 2024 13:10:27 UTC No. 16454710
>>16452463
A lot of international labs did buy into the hype and billions of dollars of manpower, equipment and materials were wasted to try and replicate what they did.
Allowing these liars a platform has enormous consequences. All South Koreans should face a decade embargo for this.
Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 11:27:41 UTC No. 16455760
>>16452381
>They were just lying
Unlikely. Two of them (L and K) had been working on this for years, but it was the third guy who betrayed them by publishing it before it was fully tested.
Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 09:49:06 UTC No. 16456782
>>16455760
Whether or not the publication was rushed their names were on it and they never once demanded a retraction.
The actual work in the initially uploaded preprint itself is fraudelent as well, according researchers in superconductors employed at US national labs.
They lied, stories like yours are just lies built on top of lies, with glaring holes like not instigating their own retraction.
Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:37:35 UTC No. 16458149
>>16456782
>They lied
Did they? It was the third guy who published it without their permission, and then forced their hands. Had they retracted it, they would not have been able to lay claims to the discovery had it later been found to work.
They had been working on it since 1999, and was no no hurry to publish before the rogue article was out.
Anonymous at Sat, 2 Nov 2024 15:19:13 UTC No. 16459703
>>16458149
>Did they?
Yes.