| ▲ | Superconducting monolayer cuprate with a single CuO2 plane(nature.com) |
| 30 points by sbulaev 4 days ago | 8 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | gavinray 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| > "a single layer of Bi2Sr2CuO6+δ (Bi-2201)"
I did not realize one could learn how much chemistry they did not know from a single name. "+δ" is one I've never seen before. |
|
| ▲ | iandanforth 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The writing here seems very odd. It reads like a product announcement or blog page, not an article in Nature. I'm left questioning its validity. |
| |
| ▲ | ironqcold an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I noticed that too.The writing style itself seems a bit strange. I'm not deep into superconductors, so I can't judge the science itself but I have doubts about how much trust this article can give. | |
| ▲ | pama 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Hmm. I didn’t get that impression from a quick skim. Just curious: what makes you think that? | | |
| ▲ | kzrdude 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I would guess it's the 'vast' and the 'unprecedented' for example. | | |
| ▲ | gestalt1 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Maybe just a combination of academic jargon and English not being the authors first language? At this point I would also not be surprised if language models are used for writing abstracts. | | |
| ▲ | p-e-w an hour ago | parent [-] | | This is Nature. If they stopped doing editorial work regarding writing style, and use LLMs to generate abstracts, it seems they have outlived their usefulness. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | oliculipolicula 2 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| That was fun but this is gun? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-026-03375-4 The two teams could "synergize" their tacit knowledge, overcome "involution"? Without open peer review like in the old days it's hard, even with frontier models, for nonexperts to know if the above breakthrough was (unfairly?) relegated or how significant TFA is truly |
