this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
205 points (99.5% liked)

Technology

37603 readers
448 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] echodot 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

What, one failed experiment about 15 minutes after the paper was first published is sufficient grounds for declaring the technology a bust is it?

[–] drwho@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

For the last twenty-some years, yeah. Unfortunately. People love to hate on stuff.

[–] laylawashere44@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

No but a previous history of making shit up and falsifying data along with a failure to replicate?

[–] echodot 14 points 1 year ago

They don't have a history of making stuff up. Just because one group did doesn't automatically mean everyone else is. The probability that something is made up doesn't change just because somebody previously did or did not make something up.

[–] Erk@cdda.social 5 points 1 year ago

Jeez you seem like you have some personal vendetta against this lab

Nope, but I'm leaning toward the side of caution. If the super-conductor is real it will be shown as such within a few weeks and will be revolutionary, and if not I'll be less disappointed if I've steeled myself to the possibility.