• abbadon420@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      I mean, publishing on youtube gets more viewers than publishing in a scientific paper

      • kjack@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not sure that “number of eyeballs” is the metric by which a successful scientific discovery should be judged…

        • abbadon420@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re right, of course, but more eyeballs can lead to more sponsorship and more money, which leads to a greater chance of succes. Downside is that you’ve picked the commercial road and you’ll probably end up in the pocket of some Nestle or Shell.

  • coffeekomrade@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    1 year ago

    It would be cool if these YouTubers could wait til the paper was peer reviewed and its results replicated before shooting their mouth off

  • OttoVonGoon@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    ·
    1 year ago

    For people put off by the shitty title, the video is actually really good and comprehensive, and sets realistic expectations. It’s a shame that these garbage clickbaity titles are a thing.

      • OttoVonGoon@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed! If it lets people like this guy make videos like this, a little clickbait isn’t so bad. I just wish they’d phrase titles slightly differently, like “THIS COULD CHANGE EVERYTHING” would still draw eyes without being a lie.

    • jarfil@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I found the arxiv papers more interesting, but it’s not a bad divulgation video.

  • galilette@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    1 year ago

    Not to be snobbish or anything, but at this juncture I wouldn’t trust anyone who can’t pronounce arXiv (or Schrieffer for that matter) correctly to explain room temperature superconductivity to me. Hell I barely believe anyone with a materials/physics degree…

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Doing that cute “X is chi” thing TeX does is kinda obvious but I have to tell you that it’s probably you who’s pronouncing Schrieffer wrong. Because Americans can’t pronounce German names, not even their own.

      Also just wait until your hear the takes economists will have. They’re going to set the record for how many fields a single statement can be simultaneously wrong in (including, of course, their own).

      • galilette@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        The point is there are established conventions among the practitioners on how these are pronounced, and not getting them right says something about the youtuber who may otherwise appear as an expert.

        You might be right on how the name ‘Schrieffer’ should be pronounced in its original tongue, but I’ve heard multiple former students and colleagues of Bob Schrieffer pronounce it otherwise to conclude that theirs is probably how Schrieffer himself intended his name to be pronounced.

        Yeah, can’t wait to hear economists’ take, or The Economist’s…

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          John Robert Schrieffer, one of the original superconductivity guys, is American.

  • anlumo@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    We get one of those about once a year, and none of them have been replicated yet.

      • anlumo@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Then we should build a huge battery right there in their lab and let it store energy for the whole world.

      • bluGill@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Did it even work in the lab? Replication is needed, otherwise they might have had something else happen. For that matter even if it really happened, if it can’t be duplicated it changes nothing

  • Dandroid@dandroid.app
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    If this gets peer reviewed and confirmed, what would that mean? What applications would this material have?

    • Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Remote power generation becomes much more useful since you can eliminate transmission losses. Things like covering the Sahara with solar panels to sell energy to Europe become possible to think about.

    • SmoothSurfer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      what I can think of

      No resistance => faster tech, less temp in tech

      Hovering things, especially for public transportation

      Cheaper mri

    • Bipta@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      260° F?!

      If that’s true, this would be a huge fucking deal. But most room temperature superconductors don’t operate anywhere near what laymen would call room temperature.

  • Elbrond@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    Nederlands
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yes, not so fast. Only if other teams can replicate LK-99 and they can confirm room temperature super conductivity will it be time to say that this changes something.

    • jarfil@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      But the guy who put lead into gasoline proved how it wasn’t poisonous, even washed his bare hands in it! (then died from totally unrelated lead poisoning)