476 karma · joined February 15, 2021
Get in touch at https://buoyant.aero/contact
"These aren’t immutable aspects of your personality. They’re more categories for how you approach the job of software engineering - you’ll move around between quadrants as you change your approach to work, for all the usual reasons."
In other words, there's a tradeoff between the autonomy to do things to your body and the real costs that drug addiction imposes on others.
https://www.cell.com/cell-chemical-biology/pdfExtended/S2451...
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/city-of-hope-scient...
Edit: Or better yet, the paper https://www.cell.com/cell-chemical-biology/fulltext/S2451-94...
Edit - Here is the FDA record page for the relevant clinical trial: https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05227326?titl...
The press release says they've published a paper today, but doesn't link to it or say where it was published. So if anyone has journal access and can see or share the paper let us know.
Edit2 - The paper is here: https://www.cell.com/cell-chemical-biology/pdfExtended/S2451...
I've got no clue what you're trying to imply. Most things aren't an internet conspiracy. Skepticism is warranted, and the claims about LK-99 are far from proven. But there's 100s of thousands of researchers out there in the real world, doing research and publishing papers, and that really is what's happening here.
The authorship of the papers is relevant to the science here, since both papers have quality issues, so I wrote out the accusation as best I understood it. The evidence is nowhere near enough to prove anything and largely rumor right now, but I do think it's suggestive.
The first paper submitted is titled "The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor." It lists three authors: Sukbae Lee, Ji-Hoon Kim, and Young-Wan Kwon. Its timestamp is Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 07:51:19 UTC. [1]
The second paper submitted is titled "Superconductor Pb10−xCux(PO4)6O showing levitation at room temperature and atmospheric pressure and mechanism." This paper lists six authors: Sukbae Lee, Jihoon Kim, Hyun-Tak Kim, Sungyeon Im, SooMin An, Keun Ho Auh [2]. Its timestamp is Saturday, July 22nd, 2023 at 10:11:28 UTC, or two hours and twenty minutes after the first paper. The second paper was updated a week later, on Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 01:53:47 UTC,
In both papers the first author is Sukbae Lee and the second author is Jihoon Kim, and in both their affiliation is given as "Quantum Energy Research center, Inc." in Seoul. The first paper posted has Young-Wan Kwon as third author. The second paper does not have Young-Wan Kwon as an author, and has four additional authors with various affiliations.
The second paper appears to have been was prepared in LaTeX, and the first paper appears to have been prepared in Word. The title and abstract of the first paper explicitly claim LK-99 is a room temperature superconductor. The title and abstract of the second paper don't explicitly claim that, though to me some of their terminology suggest LK-99 is a superconductor.
The accusation in [3] is that Young-Wan Kwon published the first paper without the consent of the rest of the LK-99 team, listed himself as third author, and left off the other four authors. The rest of the LK-99 team rushed to stuff what they had into the second paper, and released it 2 hours later [4]. This explains why there are two different papers from the same group submitted on the same day, it explains why the author lists are different between the two, and it explains why the second paper and not the first has been updated. I'm not in the field and have only read each paper once, so I'm not certain, but I'm betting it also explains a lot of the mistakes and messy bits of the papers.
This makes cautiously optimistic that this might be for real [5]. The papers on arXiv as of Monday night are consistent with a research group that succeeded in producing and identifying a room temperature superconductor using a fabrication process that is a bit tricky, and who were then forced to publish prematurely. There's nowhere near enough evidence to conclude LK-99 is a room temperature superconductor. But one failed replication doesn't prove LK-99 isn't a superconductor - if the fabrication process is finicky we'd expect to see a few dozen failed reproductions and a few successful reproductions.
Edit: Here's an appendix to bring us up to date to Monday night U.S. time. Two additional papers have been published in response to the LK-99 claims, for a total of four.
The 3rd paper is an unsuccessful attempt to reproduce the LK-99 group's results experimentally. It is titled "Semiconducting transport in Pb10-xCux(PO4)6O sintered from Pb2SO5 and Cu3P." 9 authors, all affiliated with the Materials Science department of Beihang University in Beijing. Timestamp Monday July 31st at 16:13:05 UTC. [6]
The fourth paper is a set of simulations of LK-99 that observes some similarities between LK-99 and other materials that are high-temperature superconductors. It is titled "Origin of correlated isolated flat bands in copper-substituted lead phosphate apatite." A single author, who is affiliated with Materials Science at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab in California. Published on Monday, July 31st, 2023 at 17:58:17 UTC. [7]
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12008
[2] https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.12037
[3] This comment was originally written in reply to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36952499
[4] Though I don't think we know publicly whether the all authors agreed to publish the second paper, either. It seems equally plausible that some portion of the group rushed to publish, or even that one author published it independently.
[5] And by cautiously optimistic, I really mean "extremely excited and nervous, enough to stay up until 3am collating arXiv timestamps"
[6] arXiv link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16802 HN link": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36951140
[7] arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.16892 HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36951815
The first paper submitted is titled "The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor." It lists three authors: Sukbae Lee, Ji-Hoon Kim, and Young-Wan Kwon. Its timestamp is Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 07:51:19 UTC. [1]
The second paper submitted is titled "Superconductor Pb10−xCux(PO4)6O showing levitation at room temperature and atmospheric pressure and mechanism." This paper lists six authors: Sukbae Lee, Jihoon Kim, Hyun-Tak Kim, Sungyeon Im, SooMin An, Keun Ho Auh [2]. Its timestamp is Saturday, July 22nd, 2023 at 10:11:28 UTC, or two hours and twenty minutes after the first paper.
In both papers the first author is Sukbae Lee and the second author is Jihoon Kim, and in both their affiliation is given as "Quantum Energy Research center, Inc." in Seoul. The first paper posted has Young-Wan Kwon as third author. The second paper does not have Young-Wan Kwon as an author, and has four additional authors with various affiliations.
The second paper appears to have been was prepared in LaTeX, and the first paper appears to have been prepared in Word. The title and abstract of the first paper explicitly claim the creation of the world's first room temperature and pressure superconductor. The title and abstract of the second paper don't explicitly claim demonstration of the first superconductor, though they use some terminology that sounds like superconducting properties.
The accusation is that Young-Wan Kwon published the first paper without the consent of the rest of the LK-99 team, listed himself as third author, and left off the other four. Two hours later, the rest of the LK-99 team stuffed as much as they had into the second paper, and released it as soon as possible.
To me that totally seems like what happened. It explains why there are two different papers from the same group submitted on the same subject on the same day, and it explains why the author lists are different between the two. I haven't yet looked in detail, but I'm betting it also explains a lot of the oddities that people have noted in the first two papers.
This also makes me way more excited about the possibility these claims are legit. The information so far is consistent with a research group that was forced to publish early, and who produced a superconductor through a fabrication process that is a bit tricky. There's nowhere near enough evidence to conclude LK-99 is a room temperature superconductor. But one failed replication doesn't prove LK-99 isn't a superconductor - if the fabrication process is finicky we'd expect to see a few dozen failed reproductions and a few successful reproductions
It's a machine that's ~95% fuel by mass. Explosion is the default outcome, not exploding is a triumph of engineering.
Brilliant!
You absolutely can tell people things! But to tell someone something, you need to do three things:
- Establish enough shared context that they can understand you
- Speak about something they actually care about (or convince them to care)
- Use a format that works for what you're trying to communicate
The article is frustrating because it puts the blame onto the listener. But that's not how communication works! You don't have the right to just "tell people things" - you have to put in the work to be understood and to show people it's worth their time to pay attention. Communicating well is part of the job.
The author does this even in this piece. He says: "For example, with just a few magic HTML tags we could stick avatars on a web page — pretty much any web page. For months Randy kept getting up at management meetings and saying, “We’ll be able to put avatars on web pages. Start thinking about what you might do with that.”
Well yeah - if someone stood up in a management meeting and told me to think about what I might do with an avatar, my first thought would be "What's an avatar" and my second thought would be "I'm already busy with other things". He hasn't said what an avatar is or why anyone should care about them. So people pay no attention.
Then the demo shows what an avatar is and lets people see immediately how it might be useful, in a format that works regardless of the skill of the communicator. And so of course now they understand!
And maybe the thing you're trying to communicate is so novel that you can't establish context or convince people to care without showing them a demo. But at least take the time to understand why you can't tell people about it.
Just because you don't like crypto tech companies doesn't mean the SEC can just not do its job.
The SEC regulates the market for investment contracts (securities). The CFTC regulates the market for commodities. The legal point is that the SEC says Coinbase is a securities market, but haven't made a specific accusation, and Coinbase disagrees. But if some digital assets are securities, then the SEC definitely has jurisdiction.
Nobody regulates the pokemon card market or sneaker market. I suppose congress could decide that it's super important to regulate sneakers, and set up the Sneakers and Exchange Comission. But they haven't yet
"The SEC staff told us they have identified potential violations of securities law, but little more. We asked the SEC specifically to identify which assets on our platforms they believe may be securities, and they declined to do so"
- https://www.coinbase.com/blog/we-asked-the-sec-for-reasonabl...
Coinbase seems to be trying their best to comply with regulation, but getting nowhere
Securities are regulated even more tightly because it's *really* easy to commit fraud and fleece people of their money by lying about investments. Capitalism works because most people trust that they can make investments without being defrauded.
With hookers, non-profit donations, political donations, drugs, overpriced art, etc., the consumer knows more or less what they're getting. Lots of crypto coins are scams, and it's reasonable for the government to regulate them
That said, as Coinbase complains, the SEC is doing a really bad job of regulating crypto securities in a usable way.
- Criteria #2 is debatable
- They don't meet criteria #3
- Or they don't meet criteria #4
Coinbase believes that all of the tokens they list are securities. The SEC will need to tell Coinbase specifically what it believes they are doing wrong. At the very least, if they eventually file suit they will need to make a specific accusation.
It feels like a lot of people have knee-jerk crypto=bad reactions. But read their press release - it really sounds like Coinbase is trying their best to comply with U.S. regulation, and the regulators aren't doing their jobs.
And last - For digital assets that do look like securities, the SEC provides no way to register them, and thus vaguely implies that Americans can't own digital securities. That's not their decision to make - they either have to do their job and regulate crypto securities, or get congress to ban them.
https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/privacy-and-security/o...
There is a disagreement of fact - Coinbase says they don't list any securities, and the SEC claims they do and are violating securities law, without providing any specifics. Assuming the SEC goes forward, a court will have to decide.