Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

forums.spacebattles.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 659 posts

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#271

Post by alchemist1e9 »

marcosdumay wrote: post #251
alchemist1e9 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Markets don’t ignore it, they learn from it. They don’t need you or any authority to protect them. Edit: Understand that the scammer has to buy, then release the false information, and then sell. They only “scam” the buyers that don’t critically assess this new information, such as it’s provenance and quality. This means that over time only the best analysts survive and thrive. Smart speculators likely sold the spike…

> they learn from it And the lesson is that betting markets are a scam. But then you get people criticizing the ones telling you that lesson. Is it because newborn fools must be preserved until people can take their money?

How are betting markets a scam? They are remarkably useful, you can watch the LK-99 market now and you will know immediately as new information arrives.

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#272

Post by Symmetry »

swombat wrote: post #231
rcme wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, citing who you copy doesn’t remove copyright protection.

Go look up "fair use" under copyright laws.

I did, there's nothing about including a citation to the original making something fair use. Although if I cite some work using its title like so

   Person *et al*(2023). "The Unbearable Lightness of Tardigades", *Little Creatures*, 27, 100-110
Then even though the title is really clever and creative copying it into my citation list is still fair use.

EDIT: I guess you could argue that the absence or presence of a citation is a factor in the character of the use or the use's effect on the market value of the original with a straight face but it's very, very much not going to be either necessary or sufficient for either of those tests.

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#273

Post by marcusverus »

matusp wrote: post #30
ant6n wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's nothing more revolutionary than a discovery of a new class of materials. After all, we often name eras throughout our history after them :) (Stone age, etc) I wonder what was involved in the discovery of stone.

A rigorous peer review by graduate students.

Abstract: Our rigorous dialectic treatment shows that stone, while well suited for the smashing open of certain types of nut, is not well suited for any other purpose. Advocates from the more radical fringes of the tribe who suggest stone may be employed in varied areas such as warfare or even homebuilding(?!), are herein put in their proper place.

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#274

Post by Ajedi32 »

Whether or not this turns out to be real the whole incident has been extremely entertaining, way more than I would have expected. Replication attempts being documented in real time on Twitter and livestreamed on Twitch, news about infighting and drama among the researchers who published the paper, constant fluxations in the betting markets as new news comes out. It's been a wild ride.

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#275

Post by junofan »

bhouston wrote: post #269
nmwnmw wrote: post #267

Isn't it sufficient to have another lab confirm that the existing sample is a super conductor? Then we can all sprint to replication.

Yeah, having another lab confirm the behavior and makeup of that sample would go a long way. I wonder why that isn’t happening? Does anyone have an explanation on why no one is examining/validating the sample they already have?

I mean they already characterized it six ways to Sunday and posted a video of it levitating.

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#276

Post by buildsjets »

nmwnmw wrote: post #267

Isn't it sufficient to have another lab confirm that the existing sample is a super conductor? Then we can all sprint to replication.

How do you know for sure that the existing sample was actually produced by the LK-99 process?

Even if it was produced by the LK-99 process, how do you know if all of the required steps and conditions to achieve replication are adequately documented in the process? Reference the FOGBANK debacle.

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#278

Post by nemo44x »

nmwnmw wrote: post #267

Isn't it sufficient to have another lab confirm that the existing sample is a super conductor? Then we can all sprint to replication.

Do we know they haven’t? The published papers were rushed (due to rogue ex-team member publishing one unauthorized) and they maybe weren’t ready.

I’ve heard a rumor a team from MIT has travelled to Korea.

Who knows right now.

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#279

Post by senttoschool »

orangepurple wrote: post #219
est wrote: post #53

Why does China alone have so many reproduction attemps? I assumed it would be tried everywhere.

China has more people, more money to spend on research, more equipment, more manufacturing base, more STEM graduates, more everything, and all of that by huge margins.

I'm not sure about the other claims but the most logical reasoning is that China has better supply chains and way more STEM graduates.

Re: LK-99: The live online race for a room-temperature superconductor

#280

Post by Larrikin »

buildsjets wrote: post #276
nmwnmw wrote: post #267

Isn't it sufficient to have another lab confirm that the existing sample is a super conductor? Then we can all sprint to replication.

How do you know for sure that the existing sample was actually produced by the LK-99 process? Even if it was produced by the LK-99 process, how do you know if all of the required steps and conditions to achieve replication are adequately documented in the process? Reference the FOGBANK debacle.

What does it matter if the sample is a room temperature super conductor?
Post reply on HN