100%. Technical staff rarely have exceptional political awareness and that seems to be the case this weekend. To be fair we don't know what triggered everything so while the dust settles this position may change.
It pays to be skeptical but this was a super unique situation with cofounders with different goals and a very unique (absurd?) structure. Wikipedia and Wikimedia worked. Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Wikipedia is mostly written by its users though. Wikimedia is just a glorified site host, if it went rouge the encyclopedia could simply be forked and hosted elsewhere. Microsoft has the right to build on the GPT trained models but others do not, they'd have to start from scratch.
You shouldn't trust corporate entities, you should trust the people that run them. The people in charge can always do what they want, at least for a while.
In our society, why should they be expected to build for free? Unless you only hire previously wealthy individuals the idea that there's this class of selfless scientists at the top of their field that don't need to pay a mortgage or support a family is absurd.
In case you do not understand why you are being downvoted. This is precisely what the person you are replying to is saying. When push comes to shove, will these builders prefer a paycheck or stand on their principles.
Tell me in which country Linux was first developed?
Which part of the world is that?
Do the countries there have something special which they are well known for, and which might make unpaid passion projects more attainable than, say, 2020s North America?
You don't actually think all these articles are "organic sentiment" do you? Biggest money always wins this kind of game. And the circle of people who really know what went down is pretty small atm. I'll wait for more info before jumping on bandwagons
> It's something that literally has to be grown from the bottom-up, atom by atom --- in bulk, that's essentially a UFO-tier tech.
isn't that how your CPU is made?
No, your CPU is made from the top-down, via lithographic techniques.
The silicon wafers are grown from the bottom-up, but silicon is as chemically simple as it gets -- a pure element!
LK99 would be tougher to grow (correctly, and assuming that there is a specific superconducting configuration from among several semiconducting configurations,) by at least several orders of magnitude. Growing pristine crystals of such a complex and entropic material is something that has never been attempted.
They did show a thin film sample in their paper, where they show the superconductivity measurement setup. They even mention it is a thin film sample of the material. looks transparent on the probing station. That is what they measured for superconductivity, not the rock/ingot form. That seems to be only a sort of magnetic demo for the material, nothing more. But the superconductive applications material seems to be thin film tech, as they state in their original paper.
not sure why everyone completely overlooks the fact that the superconductivity measurement from their paper is made on a thin film sample which nobody replicated as there's no manufacturing details for that version of the material.
whoever (from the original team) said that the ingot itself is to be tested for superconductivity?
Huh? Can't they just hire new people instead? They are a non profit org after all.