• 20 days

    I hate when they se terms like “cannot be explained” in the headline, and then proceed to explain it in the article.

    How lazy are journalists and editors these days?

    • I’m right there with you when that kind of clickbaiting crops up, but this article actually isn’t doing that; they’re directly quoting the researchers:

      [Manganese]-based passivation is a counter-intuitive discovery, which cannot be explained by current knowledge in corrosion science.

      This seems like a genuinely novel discovery.

    • 20 days

      If something in a headline is in quotes, it should be a direct quote. In this case, they are following that standard. It’s a direct quote of Dr. Kaiping Yu who worked on the research.

      It also happens to make for a very catchy headline.

    • 20 days

      It’s all clickbait, people see a headline like that and read the article because it sounds like someone is making magic metal.

    • 19 days

      Except the article says the same thing that the title does. They explain that it does work but that they don’t know why because by all expectations it shouldn’t.

      A material that should make the alloy less resistant to corrosion actually makes it more so, and they can’t explain why.

  • 19 days

    Are these the same researchers baffled by fucking magnets?

  • 20 days

    Damn, they’re scrapping UFOs now for their high purity steel (/s)

  • This was discovered 6 years ago, and tons of the steel has been produced since then. This is much further along than I expected

  • 20 days

    The title makes it sound like it just walked around the corner and declared itself.

  • 20 days

    You can definitely tell who read the article based on how people are commenting.