>anonymous Not anonymous. >Russian Not Russian, depending on who you're asking. Not Ukrainian, depending on who you're asking. There's a reason she describes

>anonymous Not anonymous. >Russian Not Russian, depending on who you're asking. Not Ukrainian, depending on who you're asking. There's a reason she describes herself as being ethnically Soviet. >troll Sure, she's a character alright. Doesn't mean she's wrong. >proof is a photo of a spec of dust Explicitly labelled as fanservice and not presented as proof of anything - she has explicitly requested that if people want proof, they should follow her procedures with appropriate safety and then once they get the same results as her they will have proof. She has also explicitly stated that her Twitter posts are not and are not intended to be a replacement for academic replication. >She refuses to take a video She insisted video was easily faked and the harassment + demands for proof would only increase if she did what her annoying reply guys wanted. She didn't make the decision I would like (I'd love to see the video), but it's probably the decision I would make in her shoes, going from a couple dozen followers to more than 20,000 in a week. I initially thought she was over playing the "video is easily faked" thing, until a literal faked video (store bought pyrolitic graphite sputtering target on a magnet displaying its regular diamagnetism) went viral and got cited as replication of LK-99. That convinced me she was right, video can convey a false sense of authority. Better to report results and methods accurately. >she says _she didnt follow the paper_ beause she immediately invented a better way to make a different room temp superconductor If you are familiar with the academic history of what "replication of Western academic papers" looked like in the Soviet Union, you would understand where this academic methodology comes from. They were never given samples, could not reach out to authors for help, always had to understand the theory of what the authors were communicating at a base level and then try and implement it themselves. It is consistent with her professional background and culture that she would view it this way. If her method turns out to be correct, it probably deserves its own paper (appropriately citing the Korean paper, of course). >she keeps tweeting bizzare USSR propaganda. I think you maybe need to read more history or meet more Soviet-trained scientists if you think that this is a point against her as a scientist. Politically inconvenient, maybe, but the USSR had a very impressive academic tradition and made a lot of very good scientists. We have our own politically opinionated scientists here, too. Let the results speak for themselves.