641–650 of 659 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More interesting that they found a way to work with poor quality iron
I have repeatedly read that Japan has poor quality iron, but what exactly does that mean? Iron is an element, so all of the reserves were in an unfortunate oxide requiring sophisticated refining? Just low total abundance?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By the rumors that I read in forums, Sukbae Lee and Ji-Hoon Kim hit the first sample (the prototype of LK-99) in 1999 trying to prove the theory of their professor Choi Dong-Shik. Around 2017 YoungWan Kwon joined to the team and they got investment enough for to buy an SQUID and a EPR. In 2020, L and K hit with LK99. They tried to submit a paper to Nature, but was rejected. They contacted with HyunTak Kim after read…
Important additional rumours I heard from a little birdie: The Nature rejection was because of the Ranga Dias affair, and it wasn't an outright rejection but a requirement that the paper be submitted to a local journal and peer reviewed by local scientists before it would be considered. Before Kwon joined the team at LG's alleged insistence, the reason that Lee and Kim had restarted research at all was because Choi D…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Important additional rumours I heard from a little birdie: The Nature rejection was because of the Ranga Dias affair, and it wasn't an outright rejection but a requirement that the paper be submitted to a local journal and peer reviewed by local scientists before it would be considered. Before Kwon joined the team at LG's alleged insistence, the reason that Lee and Kim had restarted research at all was because Choi D…
> If true, that is objectively insane. I dunno about that. Look at it this way: we don't know how to make a room temp superconductor, we don't know how to learn what we need to learn to make one. There were some more obvious ideas, they didn't work. There were a lot of less obvious ideas, lots of people tried them, they didn't work. At this point, one could argue that continued research specifically directed to makin…
To me it just sounds more like we are just playing around a little bit and not actually taking finding a room temperature super conductor seriously.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They tried to submit a paper to Nature, but was rejected This should be "were rejected" because "were" refers to "they". It cannot refer to the paper even though that would make sense. You could say "but it was rejected" to force the sentence to refer to the singular paper.
Okay, if we don't correct English on HN that's okay. My foreign friends ask me to do this with them but I get that HN is a different forum and that we are not friends.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't understand how a movie largely about the psychological horrors of developing and using a nuclear weapons is being construed to be "pro physics" lol. If anything it's the opposite
I was massively let down by Oppenheimer. It’s 90% interpersonal/political drama (Including a bunch of unnecessary nudity thrown in for dramatic effect), a few token scenes with Albert Einstein, a 10 minute detonation with decent SFX, and a small fraction of real physics and engineering. If you’re actually interested in the Manhattan Project you’ll be way more inspired by a history channel documentary than anything in…
Instead it's a richly weaved tapestry asking an important question in various ways and giving various answers. "can you commit sin and expect sympathy"? We see this asked about nukes, about infidelity, and suicide, political maneovering. About science itself(original sin).
Take even the scene with the poisoned apple Bohr, Placket and Oppenheimer.
Bohr and Oppenheimer talk about forbidden knowledge (don't lift the rock if you're not prepared for the snake) as Bohr holds and apple. The forbidden fruit tempted by the snake in the garden of Eden.
No one with knowledge of WWII science sees a cyanide poisoned apple and doesn't think of Turning. Discarded after the war and persecuted for being gay (as Nazis persecute Jewish scientists and Americans communist scientists).
As Izzy Rabi says, bombs fall on the just and the unjust alike. As Oppenheimers constructed this bomb, the poisoned apple, which is about to hit the just (Bohr) and not Blackett (who he thinks unjust). Before regretting it.
Einstein regrets the bomb before he even started work after writing the letter with Szilard, others reject.it after construction, after testing, after Hiroshima, Oppenheimer seems to think enough is enough after Nagasaki. Teller goes further still... Where do we draw the line?
The apple scene alone is deeply layered with the major themes of the movies.
That's why people enjoyed it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was massively let down by Oppenheimer. It’s 90% interpersonal/political drama (Including a bunch of unnecessary nudity thrown in for dramatic effect), a few token scenes with Albert Einstein, a 10 minute detonation with decent SFX, and a small fraction of real physics and engineering. If you’re actually interested in the Manhattan Project you’ll be way more inspired by a history channel documentary than anything in…
Hmm the “token” scene with Einstein was the pivotal interpersonal misunderstanding / paranoia trigger for the antagonist.
He had the medal pinned on him, he thinks this is a badge of honour. A mark of the lowly shoe sales man come good. Einstein tells us this was the marking of the end of his usefulness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36940489 .
Why not to just shadow ban me again, but leave thread intact? Or cut it at one level up???
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Important additional rumours I heard from a little birdie: The Nature rejection was because of the Ranga Dias affair, and it wasn't an outright rejection but a requirement that the paper be submitted to a local journal and peer reviewed by local scientists before it would be considered. Before Kwon joined the team at LG's alleged insistence, the reason that Lee and Kim had restarted research at all was because Choi D…
> If true, that is objectively insane. I dunno about that. Look at it this way: we don't know how to make a room temp superconductor, we don't know how to learn what we need to learn to make one. There were some more obvious ideas, they didn't work. There were a lot of less obvious ideas, lots of people tried them, they didn't work. At this point, one could argue that continued research specifically directed to makin…
Really? I’m not convinced of that. If anything, the prior papers published by other authors pointing in this direction say the exact opposite to me.