• MJBrune@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ah, I skim, read it, and missed that they were talking about a completely different material and paper. Honestly, fairly silly of Wikipedia and rare to bring up something that isn’t really related to that specific topic.

    • FaceDeer@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It explains why Nature might have been quicker to reject another paper about room temperature superconductivity than they otherwise would have been. But yeah, it’s a little misleading stuck in there like that.

      • MJBrune@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The confusing part specifically is “Similarly-presented research” which doesn’t say why it’s similarly-presented. It sounds like looking into it that it’s just “both were room temperature superconductors” but it could have also meant that “both are about LK-99”, “both are from the same university” or something like that. It’s ambiguous.