I’ve seen similar things with a physical keyboard connected. There are plenty other Android apps that can handle connected keyboards corrected by not showing the on screen keyboard(OSK) (the now defunct RIF being one). Right now the only way to not have flashing OSK is to turn it off system wide under android settings, which is not ideal (because it won’t turn itself on automatically when the physical keyboard disconnects)
OK, but where are they when the LK99 first came onto scene?
Documentation is different from demonstration. Text (with graph or animation interspersed to unpack unintuitive terms) wins for documentation. Video could be good for demo if presented in a no-nonsense manner.
Now let’s see which youtube “science channels” do a debunk on their own content pushed out a mere month ago.
You guys do know the affordability of the chips you’re using to comment on this is a direct consequence of TSMC “efficiency”, right?
Copy text doesn’t cut it because sometimes I just need to select a sentence or a link, not the full text.
This is also a problem for the post itself, not just comments.
On android, long press for text selection is standard operation.
Mind you, the DFT calculation from the Griffin paper is not a proof of LK 99 being a superconductor in any way. What it showed is the (potential) formation of flat bands near the Fermi surface. Band dispersion is associated with the kinetic energy of the electrons, so materials with flat band (and therefore electrons with suppressed kinetic energy) at the Fermi surface are more susceptible to interaction effect (and strong interaction causes all sorts of nonintuitive quantum effects). I’m not a DFT expert in any sense, but from what I’ve heard, it is quite easy to “tune” your model to produce narrow (the limit of which being flat) bands from substitutions (e.g. the Cu substitution in this case) and such, which don’t necessarily lead to superconductivity.
So I’ll take the DFT papers (there are quite a few now) as saying, “hey you want some flat band? Here’s some. We’ve done our part. Now some other theorist, do your magic and conjure up some superconductivity”. It’s a cog in the full picture, if there is a full picture
Getting it to make a sound is (probably) easy but realistically emulating piano action would be really hard. Reputable electronic pianos all mimic real piano mechanics to a degree, e.g., the visible portion of an individual key is only a fraction of its entire length in order to give you the “weight” and “speed” of the real key action, which would be hard to reproduce with e.g. a shorter key + spring. A search of “hammer actions” should give you some idea
The point is there are established conventions among the practitioners on how these are pronounced, and not getting them right says something about the youtuber who may otherwise appear as an expert.
You might be right on how the name ‘Schrieffer’ should be pronounced in its original tongue, but I’ve heard multiple former students and colleagues of Bob Schrieffer pronounce it otherwise to conclude that theirs is probably how Schrieffer himself intended his name to be pronounced.
Yeah, can’t wait to hear economists’ take, or The Economist’s…
Give me a way to physically shut off the microphone (like a camera shield on business laptops), then we will talk.
Strange topics had popped up in my Google feed after l spoke to someone about something I’ve never googled before
Creator already exceeded 100wpm and said it works equally well for random strings iirc.
Not quite sure how to think about the ergonomics though. This is different from steno as each chord only produces one letter, so on average there are nominally more keystrokes than letters produced. Exclusive chording probably also don’t work too well with keywells etc with uneven key heights. Would be interesting to know long term effect regarding comfort/stress
Hi Joe Brian
It is waiting for reproducibility is what it is. It won’t matter much if it got published today in some no name journal – a journal is going to gamble just as this youtuber did, for the slim chance of this being true (not saying it isn’t)
Also, a quantum well is just particle in a box. Nothing fancy about it. Guy mentioned tunneling a lot but tunneling happens in metal, semiconductor, and insulator. Doesn’t really mean anything. In fact if you need to tunnel, that means there’s a chance to back scatter, so it won’t be superconducting.
Not to be snobbish or anything, but at this juncture I wouldn’t trust anyone who can’t pronounce arXiv (or Schrieffer for that matter) correctly to explain room temperature superconductivity to me. Hell I barely believe anyone with a materials/physics degree…
Thanks for the pointer, I actually have accessibility turned on via bitwarden (a password manager) and never thought that might be correlated. Will test when I get the chance.