https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2201.11883/Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.enMon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMThttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33003384urn:hackerpapers:mention:2201.11883:33003384Wed, 28 Sep 2022 01:46:57 GMT<p>They were not at all forthcoming. In the original paper they stated: &quot; The background signal, determined from a non-superconducting C–S–H sample at 108 GPa, has been subtracted from the data.&quot; Then after questions were raised, they published https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.11883v1, where they say: &quot;We note here that we did not use the measured voltage values of 108 GPa as the background.&quot; If the second statement is true then, at best, the first statement is highly misleading. Furthermore, they have not been at all forthcoming about how exactly that background subtraction was performed - despite…</p><p><a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2201.11883/">Paper and discussion history</a>. A mention is not an endorsement.</p>cond-mat.supr-con