Re:Electronic Structure of LK-99
by carabiner on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @10:38PM
(#36966315)
Yeah the techbros have been the worst. Coffee guy went from saying the first DFT paper should deserve a Nobel to, "it's not a strong signal of anything" in 12 hours. WTF. All the actual scientists have been rock steady at, "is probably not going to replicate," especially CMTC.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
CMTC comes of as a whiny little POS tbh. They have the exact opposite of the attitude I would have expected from a scientist.
In their first thread regarding this topic they were almost flat out belittling the og authors. WTF.
Re:Electronic Structure of LK-99
by selimthegrim on Tuesday August 01, 2023 @11:38PM
(#36966695)
Because CMTC has high theory standards and the authors, to put it charitably, didn’t
This is the one from the all infamous University of Maryland correct? lol.
Re:Electronic Structure of LK-99
by selimthegrim on Wednesday August 02, 2023 @08:06AM
(#36969711)
They may have been throwing a bit of shade around lately but they are by and large reputable scientists barring whatever SDS’s past MA announcement involvement was. It’s more than just him there.
I do not (almost everyone else too) associate "reputable scientist" with University of Maryland. So they should show a bit of humility.
Re:Electronic Structure of LK-99
by selimthegrim on Wednesday August 02, 2023 @11:11AM
(#36971972)
Show me where on the doll they touched you.
Hey no need to get sensitive about it. I am seriously saying University of Maryland (chuckle) is just not enough for bragging rights. Do not worry may he when you grow up you will end up in an ivy.
Re:Electronic Structure of LK-99
by selimthegrim on Wednesday August 02, 2023 @06:16PM
(#36978498)
I don’t have anything to do with them and I went to Caltech.
Re:Electronic Structure of LK-99
by selimthegrim on Wednesday August 02, 2023 @07:07PM
(#36979099)
*MS not MA
>All the actual scientists have been rock steady at, "it is probably not going to replicate," especially CMTC.
Sinéad Griffin isn't an actual scientist?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin%C3%A9ad_Griffin
Plenty of real scientists are excited by the DFT results while cautioning they are merely supporting evidence and not conclusive evidence.
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 physics or consider beyond certain scales, so its accuracy and precision are limited. You have to constrain the space properly, which makes people a little dismissive.
> tech bro speculation on physics should be considered harmful
why?
Unfounded hype is bad and they're usually low-key trying to gain attention for their failing startups.