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.