Hacker News Reader

Comment by chc4 | Hacker News Reader

More people saying it sounds feasibly like it could be a superconductor is great, but agreed - https://nitter.net/MichaelSFuhrer/status/1686267690770739200 and similar threads by actual experts in the field have outlined that DFT studies ignore a lot of variables that need to line up for superconductivity, in harsh contrast to techbros on Twitter claiming they're proof of the next thousand year golden era.

View on HN

Thanks for linking someone who knows what he's talking about, very painful to see these DFT papers overhyped as some kind of proof... It proves almost nothing

What does DFT prove beyond the pedantic "it proves what it proves"? Or rather, does it not heavily lean towards some reality?

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, "it is probably not going to replicate," especially CMTC.

Techbro speculation on physics should be considered harmful.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don’t have anything to do with them and I went to Caltech.

*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.

Some of the tech bros are actually into technology though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com