5 ms·

I don't think they meant it was fraud, just that it's sensationalist drivel. It's choosing a way to interpret results for the sake of sounding impressive, rathe

by gnode 7y ago

I don't think they meant it was fraud, just that it's sensationalist drivel. It's choosing a way to interpret results for the sake of sounding impressive, rather than improving understanding. Choosing a temperature in order to say "this will last as long as the universe's current age", or finding ways to count extra dimensions is the behaviour of marketeers, not academics.

lvh 7y ago
And yet, I pulled those claims out of the paper, which I linked. Are you suggesting Peter G. Kazansky, a research professor with over two decades of experience in optics, does not count as an academic? Or are you saying the paper doesn't make those claims? Or are you saying the paper also isn't a real academic paper and just marketeer noise? (I'm not quoting the other authors, who are of course also distinguished scholars :-))
- sombremesa 7y ago
  The complaint here appears specifically to be a lamentation that academics are behaving this way, so in attempting to prove their priors you're only strengthening the argument. Your tone seems to be adversarial, so I'm guessing that's not your goal...
  - lvh 7y ago
    "The paper isn't a real academic paper and itself also marketeer noise" is one of the options I've outlined as a debate position. But let's be clear: we started by calling research "phony" over something that would've been trivially clarified by reading a short paper. In order to even get to that point, I have to acknowledge that maybe you get to call research "phony" without seriously implying fraud. I have a hard time taking that as a serious, bona-fide argument.
    - airesearcher 7y ago
      There are actual papers. Press releases and popularizations are not the same thing. If you look you can find the actual papers.
      - lvh 7y ago
        It appears you’re agreeing with me? I’m suggesting the confusion would have been alleviated by reading the actual paper.
        5D 7y ago
        Dude, you're a fucking faggot.
  - tudelo 7y ago
    While his tone seems a bit adversarial, at least he is providing relevant information to the topic instead of a generic rant. I greatly prefer the former.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
daveFNbuck 7y ago
The temperature at which it will last the universe's current age is 462K. This is 189 Celcius, or 372 Fahrenheit. They didn't choose an unreasonably low temperature to say it'll last the universe's age. They picked a temperature to say it'll last the universe's age even if you crank up the heat to an absurd degree. They could have given a much larger timespan if they stuck to room temperature.
daenz 7y ago
"Room temperature" is a pretty meaningful rough measurement for storage of anything.
- gnode 7y ago
  But the temperature was 462K (about 189C), far beyond room temperature, or what we'd expect to store data at. This is just the temperature at which the expected lifetime is the age of the universe, which has no bearing on the technology itself.
  - ConceptJunkie 7y ago
    It's obvious, isn't it? They are trying to take global warming into effect.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

by gnode 7y ago

lvh 7y ago

And yet, I pulled those claims out of the paper, which I linked. Are you suggesting Peter G. Kazansky, a research professor with over two decades of experience in optics, does not count as an academic? Or are you saying the paper doesn't make those claims? Or are you saying the paper also isn't a real academic paper and just marketeer noise? (I'm not quoting the other authors, who are of course also distinguished scholars :-))

sombremesa 7y ago
The complaint here appears specifically to be a lamentation that academics are behaving this way, so in attempting to prove their priors you're only strengthening the argument. Your tone seems to be adversarial, so I'm guessing that's not your goal...
- lvh 7y ago
  "The paper isn't a real academic paper and itself also marketeer noise" is one of the options I've outlined as a debate position. But let's be clear: we started by calling research "phony" over something that would've been trivially clarified by reading a short paper. In order to even get to that point, I have to acknowledge that maybe you get to call research "phony" without seriously implying fraud. I have a hard time taking that as a serious, bona-fide argument.
  - airesearcher 7y ago
    There are actual papers. Press releases and popularizations are not the same thing. If you look you can find the actual papers.
    - lvh 7y ago
      It appears you’re agreeing with me? I’m suggesting the confusion would have been alleviated by reading the actual paper.
      - 5D 7y ago
        Dude, you're a fucking faggot.
- tudelo 7y ago
  While his tone seems a bit adversarial, at least he is providing relevant information to the topic instead of a generic rant. I greatly prefer the former.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

daveFNbuck 7y ago

The temperature at which it will last the universe's current age is 462K. This is 189 Celcius, or 372 Fahrenheit. They didn't choose an unreasonably low temperature to say it'll last the universe's age. They picked a temperature to say it'll last the universe's age even if you crank up the heat to an absurd degree. They could have given a much larger timespan if they stuck to room temperature.

daenz 7y ago

"Room temperature" is a pretty meaningful rough measurement for storage of anything.

gnode 7y ago
But the temperature was 462K (about 189C), far beyond room temperature, or what we'd expect to store data at. This is just the temperature at which the expected lifetime is the age of the universe, which has no bearing on the technology itself.
- ConceptJunkie 7y ago
  It's obvious, isn't it? They are trying to take global warming into effect.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]