joefigura

The author makes this point.

"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."

A person who becomes addicted to opiods, methamphetamine, or other "hard" drugs will with some probability require medical treatment, and and some people who uses those drugs will cause other costs to society. I don't know what those percentages are, but for opiods it's definitely not negligible. Many people begin using opiods and become addicted without intending to, and later need medical assistance. So there is a public interest in how much these substances are used, and it's legitimate for government to regulate them.

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.

This is the paper on AOH1996 which a flagged front-page AI-generated story was based on. The title of the paper is "Small molecule targeting of transcription-replication conflict for selective chemotherapy," but that was too long for HN, so I substituted a title

Well, half the comments are making fun of the spotty quality of the evidence and it's been barely a week since the paper was published. I think it's reasonable to wait for at least a pre-print of a successful replication. I don't think it's fair to say the MSM is ignoring it, the possible discovery literally just happened and some combination of low awareness and caution with the evidence means they haven't covered it yet.

I mean it's been like 3 weekdays since the preprint was widely noticed. Labs in the U.S. are working on it and will publish. I don't think the difference between publishing a replication in 3 days or 2 weeks is meaningful to make inferences about the two countries

Dude sometimes scientific progress really does happen, and it's messy when it's happening live, and people get excited about it because they really do find science inherently exciting.

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.

In general I'd agree with you, but in this case I think the second group very likely didn't reproduce the first group's material. The measured electrical properties of the two groups aren't even close to each other. I think that strongly suggests the two groups were measuring different materials, and that the structure of the second group's material differed in some way. A more convincing failed replication would find mostly similar electrical properties and reproduce the levitation that the first group found, but explain it with a phenomenon other than superconductors

idk if it turns out this material is a room temperature superconductor, the rushed second paper will have been the right thing to do. Science happening in real time is gonna be messy

The evidence is all the weird bits about how the paper was published, and other internet comments about the third author's relationship to the group.

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.