Not to be rude, but what makes this person such an authority that a contextless Tweet from them is worth discussing? They appear to be somebody who recently finished an undergraduate degree in physics at Princeton and now works for a coffee start-up. I'm sure they know more physics than I do, but I don't see why I should trust their assessment of this situation.
(Or maybe they "showed their work" in a more extensive form that is not visible to me in whatever Twitter is now.)
>LK-99 is probably a new and interesting diamagnetic material that exhibits a phase change from an insulator to a conductor at 400K, but it does not exhibit features of superconductivity
>Still worth trying to replicate, but there's essentially no data left in the original paper that can only be explained by superconductivity. All the main findings have more plausible alternate explanations.
Given how Twitter doesn't allow you to see anything without an account now, this link is essentially useless. It's just someone stating a contextless opinion, which is guess is what the original Twitter was.
By that logic every WSJ and Forbes post is useless as well since they require a paid subscription to read more than a couple articles (if not immediately).
At least you can register a twitter account for free, with a throwaway email, in a few seconds.
There are numerous common paywall dodgers available for everything I run across on this site.
I understand changing the useragent to GoogleBot used to route around Twitter's new silliness, but as someone on mobile, the mainstream browsers block extensions, alas. I'm not sure what good bypass options there are.
The requirement for articles to have a bypass option is in the HN faq: It's ok to post stories from sites with paywalls that have workarounds.
You could disable javascript or try reader mode on Safari but sites have wised up on both. Plus there's no quick toggle for JS, it's buried in the settings.
I've been following this guy on twitter and it seems like he's kind of jumped the gun twice at this point. Was really quick to celebrate the new superconductor, and now he's convinced it's over. I think we just need to wait for replication attempts
That's a classic clickbait behavior. Gets the clicks for an "OMG WORLD JUST CHANGED" thread, then gets the clicks for an "I WAS SHOCKINGLY WRONG" thread.
Yes. The trick is that Elon is paying for people to open a thread, because the reply ads are monetizable by the authors. So these are tailored specifically to open the thread. Groundbreaking claim, but vague and "to be continued" in the thread. Gotcha.
(Or maybe they "showed their work" in a more extensive form that is not visible to me in whatever Twitter is now.)