4 ms·
Somewhat disappointed the russian twitter anon isn't included, since they seem to have made the first replication attempt that might have panned out.
by generalizations 3y ago
Somewhat disappointed the russian twitter anon isn't included, since they seem to have made the first replication attempt that might have panned out.
- lost_tourist 3y agoI suspect that account is just a troll who knows a bit about material science. They spend more time arguing and promoting the Soviet Union than sciencing. I gathered that after just 5 minutes of scrolling through their twitter. I suspect a retired and bored Soviet scientist maybe?
- yreg 3y agoAh this again. No offense to you, but yes, the obnoxious anonymous Russian troll who's only proof is a photo of a spec of dust (glued?) in a syringe, who refuses to take a video, who says she didnt follow the paper beause she immediately invented a better way to make a different room temp superconductor, who says she doesnt care about superconductors and who keeps tweeting bizzare USSR propaganda? I wonder why she's not included in the Wikipedia article. /s
- sashank_1509 3y agoAnon is fine, I’m inclined to promote anons who do credible replications. Russian anon is not one of them, she really should take a video at the very least, even then her speck is so small until she released detailed measurements one can’t in good faith trust her. I won’t be surprised if at the end of all this, she just claims she was trolling in good fun and we’re the fools for taking anything she says seriously.
- Workaccount2 3y ago>I won’t be surprised if at the end of all this, she just claims she was trolling in good fun and we’re the fools for taking anything she says seriously. Ahhh, you gotta love the internet
- dclowd9901 3y agoIris? That person comes off as completely unhinged. If their result is genuine, I’ll eat my curtain.