The results weren't formally published.
The only reason this story has a happy ending is the authors included manufacturing instructions. But everything else about the paper is not a good model of how to publish (wild claims that you will revolutionise the world, the title, the bad graphs, the 2nd paper that was published with different authors...).
The fact that papers get retracted is nothing new. Science as a field is already generally good at retractions. Science is generally bad at incentivising reproduction... But this case was extreme and not a good model. It should not require sensationalist news and dozens of labs to reproduce a paper that was failing peer review.
The paper wasn't published, despite the phrasing in the nature article. arXiv is effectively a moderated blog
The failures of science are the papers that are outright fraud and as such are cunningly crafted to deceive and it actually works, and we believe falsehoods to this day - which I think we agree on being the failure of science.
This however was not. Yes the paper shouldn’t have been published. But it was. Etc. As humans are wont to do. Science didn’t happen in the news - excitement happened in the news. Human failures and bias reigned. Yet Science happened in the lab. That is victory.
Yet, the fact there are failures in no way impugns the victories.
You're right that the system ultimately worked.
But doing things "well" isn't just to win some aesthetics contest. It's essential precisely because, due to all our human flaws, it's too easy to delude yourself by doing sloppy work.
In this case, doing sloppy work has won the authors international fame and attention -- an insult to all those who do their experiments properly.
The LK-99 authors probably didn't do themselves any favors in the long run, but it is easy to think of examples where sloppy work leads to some quick social media wins, but the topic is not as sexy so ultimately isn't scrutinized in the same way.
Social media clout is already playing a role in hiring decisions, and social media is only becoming more important. If they haven't already done so, it's just a matter of time before funding agencies factor it into their decisions.
Performative show science designed to wow a mass public is exactly what we don't need.
These things actually require real, deep study, talent, and tens of thousands of hours of hard work to do and assess properly. The people doing that need to be able to do their work in peace without needing to pander to crowds.