I'm wondering why the 'Which GNU/Linux distribution do you use Guix on?' question has answers that sum to less than 40%. I mean, even if most users try guix on the Guix OS and that is trivial, the option should also be visible in the result.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I do recommend the Velocity Raptor as it imposes on me visually on Relativity's time and space magic.