4 ms·

There are now several authentic videos of bits of rock (lead apatite) appearing to do things around magnets that they have no business doing. Maybe there's a l

There are now several authentic videos of bits of rock (lead apatite) appearing to do things around magnets that they have no business doing. Maybe there's a lot of smoke and no fire, but there's videographic evidence of something weird going on.

wahern 3y ago
Unfortunately, we live in the age of TikTok. Videos on their own bring no more credibility than written text; they no longer evince a substantively greater investment of resources. I'm more inclined toward the cheerleading section of the LK-99 audience, but watching the videos I realized now is a perfect opportunity to apply recalibrated B.S. detectors.
- drexlspivey 3y ago
  This doesnt pass the smell test. Why would multiple independent labs fake their videos? What’s the conspiracy here? There is no upside, we will know in a couple of weeks if it’s real or not.
  - ekianjo 3y ago
    > Why would multiple independent labs fake their videos Why would different newspapers spread hoaxes? Yet it happens...
    - drexlspivey 3y ago
      newspapers get paid by the click
    - Larrikin 3y ago
      Which hoax specifically was completely fabricated by the newspapers and spread by multiple newspapers? State run media obviously doesn't count. Poor source checking and then issuing a retraction is not the same as a conspiracy among the papers to make something up completely.
    - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
      why would you respond to the question with an unrelated question instead of answering directly?
      - ekianjo 3y ago
        because incentives are the same
        ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        if that were true, you could have answered the question directly you couldn't, suggesting that it isn't true by the way, you forgot to respond to [0] [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36984443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36984443
  - imtringued 3y ago
    If it takes X weeks to do research and someone publishes results before that time, then the conclusion that the results are suspect is warranted and is in no way a conspiracy theory.
  - wahern 3y ago
    I didn't mean to insinuate that anybody faked anything. Just that video evidence on its own isn't per se any more credible than if they unambiguously made the same claim in writing. The technology for making fake or misleading videos is easy to come by, so why mentally lean on the fact that they were videos at all? Our answers wrt likelihood of truthfulness simply lie in provenance and other indicia of credibility that would be shared with claims in any other trivially falsified medium, like writing. Why, indeed, would multiple seemingly non-cooperating supposed researchers make the set of claims that have been made? I don't think anything was faked, nor did I think anything was faked before videos began appearing. But that's precisely why this is an opportune time to exercise recalibrated judgment in not allowing the videographic character to inflate my cautious enthusiasm.

wahern 3y ago

Unfortunately, we live in the age of TikTok. Videos on their own bring no more credibility than written text; they no longer evince a substantively greater investment of resources. I'm more inclined toward the cheerleading section of the LK-99 audience, but watching the videos I realized now is a perfect opportunity to apply recalibrated B.S. detectors.

drexlspivey 3y ago
This doesnt pass the smell test. Why would multiple independent labs fake their videos? What’s the conspiracy here? There is no upside, we will know in a couple of weeks if it’s real or not.
- ekianjo 3y ago
  > Why would multiple independent labs fake their videos Why would different newspapers spread hoaxes? Yet it happens...
  - drexlspivey 3y ago
    newspapers get paid by the click
  - Larrikin 3y ago
    Which hoax specifically was completely fabricated by the newspapers and spread by multiple newspapers? State run media obviously doesn't count. Poor source checking and then issuing a retraction is not the same as a conspiracy among the papers to make something up completely.
  - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
    why would you respond to the question with an unrelated question instead of answering directly?
    - ekianjo 3y ago
      because incentives are the same
      - ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
        if that were true, you could have answered the question directly you couldn't, suggesting that it isn't true by the way, you forgot to respond to [0] [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36984443 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36984443
- imtringued 3y ago
  If it takes X weeks to do research and someone publishes results before that time, then the conclusion that the results are suspect is warranted and is in no way a conspiracy theory.
- wahern 3y ago
  I didn't mean to insinuate that anybody faked anything. Just that video evidence on its own isn't per se any more credible than if they unambiguously made the same claim in writing. The technology for making fake or misleading videos is easy to come by, so why mentally lean on the fact that they were videos at all? Our answers wrt likelihood of truthfulness simply lie in provenance and other indicia of credibility that would be shared with claims in any other trivially falsified medium, like writing. Why, indeed, would multiple seemingly non-cooperating supposed researchers make the set of claims that have been made? I don't think anything was faked, nor did I think anything was faked before videos began appearing. But that's precisely why this is an opportune time to exercise recalibrated judgment in not allowing the videographic character to inflate my cautious enthusiasm.