Now that I am really new to HN mechanics, I am wondering how to decide which examples to follow. For example, despite the guideline statements, many threads around blog posts on HN actually use new titles.
Thanks, but I simply quote "hint of near-room-temperature superconductivity" from the article. AFAIK the original title still contains too much details (the composition） for general audience on HN. Of course, the way I change the title will result in more clicks, so it could be "clickbait" in a way.
So how do I know that which title serves better? I'll appreciate the comments in this special case if it is hard to say in general.
Best to follow the guidelines (although you'll notice they mention a few occasions where the original title might be replaced - mostly for clickbait reasons).
For past stories, it's not always easy to tell what happened at the time. One of the other guidelines Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter can lead to a submission URL getting changed later without the title being updated (and so in retrospect the title doesn't seem to match).
In that particular case @wokwokwok did point out the submission had the wrong title, although perhaps they didn't email the mods to ask for a title update.
One line explainer for non-experts like me: the paper presents a material with strange electric behavior at around 260K (approx. -10 celcius or 10 fahrenheit) that seems to be superconductivity, i.e. near-room-temperature superconductivity.
No, I'm getting a smile out of the optimism. Six data points, each derived quite subjectively itself, that could just as easily fit a line or some other curve.
That said, quadratic is a more conservative interpretation than a linear fit.
For those eager to view the authors' opinions, you can probably bookmark the question [0] on Zhihu, with an account (as the site updated a login wall weeks ago) and a Chinese translator.
Update: One of the authors have left official comments there. If you have a real-name authenticated account, you can ask the authors about the thing.
The author is considering streaming the electrical measurement experiments in a day, according to the Zhihu answers.
Since this thread is down from the top, I'm also considering posting another one as soon as the stream link comes out. I'm not sure if this violates the "duplicate" rule of HN, but I think broadcasting such a major physics breakthrough is worth a try.
22 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 61.6 ms ] thread(please use the original title) https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Now that I am really new to HN mechanics, I am wondering how to decide which examples to follow. For example, despite the guideline statements, many threads around blog posts on HN actually use new titles.
So how do I know that which title serves better? I'll appreciate the comments in this special case if it is hard to say in general.
For past stories, it's not always easy to tell what happened at the time. One of the other guidelines Please submit the original source. If a post reports on something found on another site, submit the latter can lead to a submission URL getting changed later without the title being updated (and so in retrospect the title doesn't seem to match).
In that particular case @wokwokwok did point out the submission had the wrong title, although perhaps they didn't email the mods to ask for a title update.
That said, quadratic is a more conservative interpretation than a linear fit.
The materials are cheap and readily available. This could be reproduced by random YouTube chemists, so expect confirmation or not within weeks.
Update: One of the authors have left official comments there. If you have a real-name authenticated account, you can ask the authors about the thing.
[0] https://www.zhihu.com/question/659946224
Since this thread is down from the top, I'm also considering posting another one as soon as the stream link comes out. I'm not sure if this violates the "duplicate" rule of HN, but I think broadcasting such a major physics breakthrough is worth a try.