The article does not explain how they entered it into the public domain. One cannot just declare something is public domain. Public domain is a special circumstance.
Depends on the jurisdiction—e.g. Germany[1] is known to be particularly problematic. But in this particular case, the model has been released under CC0[2], which has a fallback permissive license alongside its public domain dedication, specifically to avoid this problem. That’s why the CC0 is a thousand words long instead of a couple of sentences. Most sites hosting “public domain” works also use the CC0 or something similar.
NAL either but D. J. Bernstein [https://cr.yp.to/publicdomain.html] says that you can use a work under public domain in Germany same as any other country (e.g. copying), but there's a separate right to be credited for the work where applicable and protection for the author's reputation.
So if I made Benchy longer and turned it into a rendition of the Titanic, I can't claim that it's 100% mine and no one else had a hand in making it under those rules.
Surrendering work to the public domain is actually more complicated. It's easy to make the claim that a work is public domain, but the law may not allow you to actually relinquish all copyright claims. This also depends on which country you are in.
>I'm actually very curious now what led you to the line of thinking that it isn't possible?
The public domain is the set of all works in which no copyright subsists. Copyright automatically subsists in a work from its creation until it expires. Copyright is a property right. All property must have an owner.
Therefore a work cannot enter the public domain unless the copyright subsisting in it has expired.
(This is from the perspective of the law of England and Wales, at least. Other jurisdictions have similar legal axioms that produce the same result, though)
Blatant fraud is rare in physics, engineering, chemistry. Lying is rare. Quality is high at the highest institutions of physics and chemistry. Exaggerated claims occur, but much less than in day to day life. Top visibility work is quickly reproduced. Reproduction is the essence of science.
Did you google "fraud in physics" or "fraud in chemistry"? (I just did.)
> Exaggerated claims occur, but much less than in day to day life.
"Day-to-day life" does not lay the foundation for millions of dollars in followup research, or set the direction of a grad student's research, i.e. their career.
Measuring the three-dimensional (3D) distribution of chemistry in nanoscale matter is a longstanding challenge. Here, high-resolution 3D chemical imaging is achieved near or below one-nanometer resolution. Multi-modal data fusion enables high-resolution chemical tomography often with 99% less dose by linking information encoded within both elastic (HAADF) and inelastic (EDX/EELS) signals. We thus demonstrate that sub-nanometer 3D resolution of chemistry is measurable for a broad class of geometrically and compositionally complex materials.
The algorithm is made available; may be of interest to HN comp sci community. Fused multi-modal electron tomography reconstructs three-dimensional chemical models by solving an optimization problem seeking a solution that strongly agrees with (1) the HAADF modality containing high SNR, (2) the chemically sensitive spectroscopic modality (EELS and/or EDX), and (3) encourages sparsity in the gradient domain producing solutions with reduced spatial variation.
A lot of non-quantum waves have discrete allowed values. EM cavities, guitar strings, etc. Quantum waves are described by a special wave equation, actually a complex diffusion equation (first order in time, second order spatially).
Be careful with large numbers: 10^23 shoes would be roughly 854B shoes for every (~117B) human that have ever lived, that is about 14 million pairs of shoes per individual and per day. I am pretty sure there has never been a market for that many shoes.
An average paper clip is 204.8mm^3. 10^23 of those would be 2.048x10^19 L in volume[1]. That would be only two orders of magnitude less than total volume of oceans 1.33x10^21 L [2]. So I think not.
Headline is misleading. Waterbears are quite fragile, albeit tougher than most. I bought some and found nearly all would die after short exposure to low vacuum. Manuscripts seem to corroborate our findings. It is the exaggerated headlines that lead me to believe they are indestructible.
reply