Uh… what do you call mass downvoting anything reasonably skeptical? I saw comments saying “I’ll wait until the data can be replicated to believe it” turn grey almost immediately on most threads. And after we knew it didn’t replicate it took the community the better part of a week to grieve and admit that the “it’s not a superconductor” results were real and not operator error.

> who doesn't want that to be real.

I think that's exactly the point the person you're responding to is calling out. That's a massive bias.

If anything it's been replaced with a far more naive and gullible cohort, not a more skeptical one.