xorbax

10 ms·

121.
by xorbax 3y ago
> a person who never experienced an unexpected financial calamity. That's what his parents are for
122.
by xorbax 3y ago
Very thorough finance-bro autofellatio The part where he complained that his lawyer couldn't game his FAFSA to get him government-subsidized loans was particularly odious
123.
by xorbax 3y ago
Chemistry also covers nano/microscale. I'm not sure "macroscopic phenomena of matter" adequately describes it. Computational chemistry tends to be done in collaboratiin between specialists, especially after grad school.
124.
by xorbax 3y ago
And that's why they'll keep getting smaller and faster until I can fit a half dozen cell phones in a blood cell by 2050, right?
125.
by xorbax 3y ago
I think I'd ask you what I'd ask L/K - why do you think it works? They're experimentalists: they didn't find the material from first principles, they appear to have made it and decided to continue. So did you make
126.
by xorbax 3y ago
It's more in fashion to hype things beyond their capabilities and ignore important details you're not fluent in
127.
by xorbax 3y ago
It's not "personification", it's the universe tending toward entropy increasing overall. I don't think I've heard anyone claim that heat death "should have happened" as an argument against it, or what
128.
by xorbax 3y ago
The 90s? It depends on where you worked and what you read. Li-ion wasn't exactly a bolt from the blue. Material properties are an issue to consider. If they've been working for 25 years "knowing" this product is there,
129.
by xorbax 3y ago
If DFT agrees with reality, it's fine If it produces unphysical nonsense, you can always say "You should have considered xyz !" Computational chemistry inherently cannot consider everything we understand about chemistry or p
130.
by xorbax 3y ago
And now you know why, even if real, we won't build power lines from Alaska to New York with it
131.
by xorbax 3y ago
Meissner and flux pinning have to be mutually-exclusive, so so do we know the transition condition in LK99? NB: This may be painfully obvious from the figures.
132.
by xorbax 3y ago
I have the same thought: "25 years? Why the fuck . Buy a new salt and publish a fucking paper." I suppose they saw something favorable in that 99 sample and nobody else knew. The vagaries of chemical synthesis helped. But it does
133.
by xorbax 3y ago
24 years is nothing in the scale of the universe If it increases entropy as much as many suspect and it only took 1/3 of a couple humans' lives to open that phase space, the Universe has done what it wanted - to hasten heat-death.
134.
by xorbax 3y ago
They (1) claim not to know what the craft are, which somebody told him contained (2) nonhuman biological whatever It could be a Chinese drone with rat-cell-on-a-chip inside it The guy's testimony was that somebody told him stuff and it
135.
by xorbax 3y ago
I think a funded and forward-thinking lab with enough postdocs would be trying to grind out a version replacing lead with gold, per the DFT calculations Few will remember the million replications, but whoever describes a novel version - e
136.
by xorbax 3y ago
So you never need good data. "They're trying so hard and it looks like what I want! Forgive them!" This is why people think Bigfoot 3xists after 60 years We need proof - real and clear data. Reliable data. Reproducible data.
137.
by xorbax 3y ago
Yeah, a shaky video is visually convincing and allows for slight-of-hand If you want your work to mean something, make sure the focus of attention is totally convincing. Or soothe yourself in knowing all that work is destined to be an uncon
138.
by xorbax 3y ago
Sorta? Except her career is less "stopped publishing" and "left academia with her department chair and set up a DoD-attached corp that did something for decades we don't know about"
139.
by xorbax 3y ago
You're producing a nanoscale material through macroscale processes It's not quite like asking somebody with a hammer and chisel to produce a microchip, but depending on how many processes and sensitive variables affect your chemic
140.
by xorbax 3y ago
Chemistry is a wierd field It's too complex to be perfectly predictable, like particle physics But without instruments,you have to hope the nanoscale changes are slow and visible in solution at 1,000,000x larger scale The fact that we
141.
by xorbax 3y ago
I'll have to give that movie a watch. A huge part of science is being a knowledgeable and rigorous experimentalist. You can do every great for years, but you still have to do things right 25 years in or you'll be unable to sleep
142.
by xorbax 3y ago
This is part of my...curiosity. They didn't have a theory to drive them to doggedly pursue this system as an SC. Was it just the blip 20 years ago? Why wouldn't you wonder if your machine was shitty? If I was them, its decades p
143.
by xorbax 3y ago
Apparently an important step is that he accidentally cracked one of the sealed quarts tubes after annealing.
144.
by xorbax 3y ago
No, I think a half decent paper is expected to 3ither explain their methods or reference a paper that explains their method You don't get to handwave away the instructions of your experiment in my mind. Maybe other fields are fine with
145.
by xorbax 3y ago
Yeah, most of peer review is private If journals posted first-submission comments for published papers I think there's be a radical change in comments. For good or ill, I have no idea.
146.
by xorbax 3y ago
Right. But this is social-media science, so there needs to be an answer by Saturday or - at worst - Sunday. Entertain our sudden fickle intellect! We're paying attention now , so you should all hop to, regardless of theory or eviden
147.
by xorbax 3y ago
Eventually somebody will say "what if arXive, but we had really smart people who were volunteer experts read this bullshit first and decide if it was good enough? It would be like arXive but way more efficient for the end user!"
148.
by xorbax 3y ago
Sure, peer review is peer review. It depends on your peers. I'm a chemist, who has considerable established competition. So our reviwers know the systems and studied the method in grad school and sweated over it as a postdoc and had to
149.
by xorbax 3y ago
It's a little strange that they don't do multiple grinding/crystallization when their best sample produces...gimpy diamagnetism If it's been 1000 experiments, do another. I'm not convinced that 1000 experiments ov
150.
by xorbax 3y ago
I find it sort of implausible that somebody high in their field is totally ignorant in English, if only because so many papers are only published in English. I've known so many researchers who apologize every other sentence because the

More ›