this post was submitted on 29 Jul 2023
90 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

37705 readers
91 users here now

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 33 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] collegefurtrader@discuss.tchncs.de 89 points 1 year ago (1 children)

JUST HAPPENED!!1!11

I’ll believe it when its not just youtube clickbait.

[–] abbadon420@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I mean, publishing on youtube gets more viewers than publishing in a scientific paper

[–] kjack@lemmy.ca 30 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm not sure that "number of eyeballs" is the metric by which a successful scientific discovery should be judged...

[–] Bipta@kbin.social 6 points 1 year ago

Nonsense; this is the future.

Everything is shit in the future!

[–] abbadon420@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

You're right, of course, but more eyeballs can lead to more sponsorship and more money, which leads to a greater chance of succes. Downside is that you've picked the commercial road and you'll probably end up in the pocket of some Nestle or Shell.

[–] coffeekomrade@lemmy.ml 59 points 1 year ago

It would be cool if these YouTubers could wait til the paper was peer reviewed and its results replicated before shooting their mouth off

[–] OttoVonGoon@beehaw.org 47 points 1 year ago (2 children)

For people put off by the shitty title, the video is actually really good and comprehensive, and sets realistic expectations. It's a shame that these garbage clickbaity titles are a thing.

[–] wargreymon2023@sopuli.xyz 14 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Being a content creator these days is not easy! I forgive him for the clickbait.

[–] OttoVonGoon@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago

Agreed! If it lets people like this guy make videos like this, a little clickbait isn't so bad. I just wish they'd phrase titles slightly differently, like "THIS COULD CHANGE EVERYTHING" would still draw eyes without being a lie.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

I found the arxiv papers more interesting, but it's not a bad divulgation video.

[–] galilette@mander.xyz 33 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Not to be snobbish or anything, but at this juncture I wouldn't trust anyone who can't pronounce arXiv (or Schrieffer for that matter) correctly to explain room temperature superconductivity to me. Hell I barely believe anyone with a materials/physics degree...

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Doing that cute "X is chi" thing TeX does is kinda obvious but I have to tell you that it's probably you who's pronouncing Schrieffer wrong. Because Americans can't pronounce German names, not even their own.

Also just wait until your hear the takes economists will have. They're going to set the record for how many fields a single statement can be simultaneously wrong in (including, of course, their own).

[–] galilette@mander.xyz 5 points 1 year ago

The point is there are established conventions among the practitioners on how these are pronounced, and not getting them right says something about the youtuber who may otherwise appear as an expert.

You might be right on how the name 'Schrieffer' should be pronounced in its original tongue, but I've heard multiple former students and colleagues of Bob Schrieffer pronounce it otherwise to conclude that theirs is probably how Schrieffer himself intended his name to be pronounced.

Yeah, can't wait to hear economists' take, or The Economist's..

[–] bermuda@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't see where the person you're responding to said they're American

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago

John Robert Schrieffer, one of the original superconductivity guys, is American.

[–] Damage@feddit.it 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

juncture

at this junction, you mean! wink wink

[–] galilette@mander.xyz 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Hi ~~Joe~~ Brian

[–] anlumo@feddit.de 28 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We get one of those about once a year, and none of them have been replicated yet.

[–] VanillaGorilla@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Yes, see... it stops working when it leaves their lab.

[–] anlumo@feddit.de 3 points 1 year ago

Then we should build a huge battery right there in their lab and let it store energy for the whole world.

[–] bluGill@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Did it even work in the lab? Replication is needed, otherwise they might have had something else happen. For that matter even if it really happened, if it can't be duplicated it changes nothing

[–] dandroid@dandroid.app 15 points 1 year ago (4 children)

If this gets peer reviewed and confirmed, what would that mean? What applications would this material have?

[–] Solemn@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 year ago

Remote power generation becomes much more useful since you can eliminate transmission losses. Things like covering the Sahara with solar panels to sell energy to Europe become possible to think about.

[–] SmoothSurfer@lemm.ee 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

what I can think of

No resistance => faster tech, less temp in tech

Hovering things, especially for public transportation

Cheaper mri

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] wargreymon2023@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 year ago

everything uses copper wire and want to reduce resistance can use superconductor.

[–] Starmina@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

Everything. Instant prize too

[–] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Bipta@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

260° F?!

If that's true, this would be a huge fucking deal. But most room temperature superconductors don't operate anywhere near what laymen would call room temperature.

[–] Elbrond@feddit.nl 7 points 1 year ago

Yes, not so fast. Only if other teams can replicate LK-99 and they can confirm room temperature super conductivity will it be time to say that this changes something.

[–] Twashe@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So actual hover boards soon?

[–] wargreymon2023@sopuli.xyz 5 points 1 year ago

Superconducting skateboard looks like a reality.

[–] Centurix@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Turns out we were putting Lead into the wrong thing all along.

[–] jarfil@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago

But the guy who put lead into gasoline proved how it wasn't poisonous, even washed his bare hands in it! (then died from totally unrelated lead poisoning)