Always cool to see stuff from your niche field on hn. Note: this measurement is done at cryogenic temperatures, although somewhat similar molecular spin work (from ~same group [1]) works at ambient.
105 karma · joined October 17, 2021
I find this kind of opinion hard to understand. The difference is incredibly high contrast to me.
What I do care about is my bitmap font, which all these new terms don't seem to like supporting.
The way to clean garbage from gems is to spend half a decade plus in grad school (literally).
If you just want to enjoy reading about the latest & greatest in science, then Science & Nature are good reading. But for any real perspective you need to read non-academic writing from those researchers willing to exert that effort.
My comment was worded strongly, I meant more that funding could come from different streams fo4 different purposes.
Scientists tend to be interested in 'neat cool solutions' or 'neat cool problems' and there should be separate funding for 'important problems with boring solutions' that sits separately to current science funding. I agree leave the small-scale iteration to industry.
As a society we have decided that (e.g.) physics should/shall solve our problems with better technology. But that is not what pure academic science is about, or what pure academic scientists care about.
You want to iteratively improve technologies? Give more funding to proper engineers, not physicists/chemists, even if they're sometimes in the 'school of electrical engineering'.