Of course.

A suggestion to inform myself, perhaps a link or two, would have been preferable compared to mention these things in a post that was about memories of my times as young student. I understand your very fair point, but my post had another point.

Richard was a man of many sides, I'm sure (especially given the period he grew up in and the success he had), he had very bad ones too.

I might have been naive, but the messages I got from this interview (the one I linked) were mostly about how to view my approach to understanding, the fundamental search, and some sweet, difficult, and genuine bits from his personal past. Not sure about the rest, but could not find it in here...

If the crystallographer sees something weird or messy, feel free to drop me a message 🙂‍↕️

Thanks Xing-Zhe, interesting. Looking forward to knowing more once the structure comes out

Wow... Very curious about the metric relationship (if any) of those structures

The last figure in this article shows why this is more important than many believe pubs.rsc.org/en/content/a...

(I'm talking about the "atom radius" slider... that can be an atom only in the very coincidence where there is only one atom per unit cell, in x,y,z=0,0,0; if you make that "lattice node", the app becomes valid for any crystal, not only for one very unique case)

Oh that's cute! Although there is one very big problem: they should not call them "atoms", but "lattice nodes". Calling them atoms lead people to think that crystal structures and crystal lattices are the same thing... which is a very common and dangerous mistake

(Yes, I know it's nothing new: that's the problem, and sometimes it has a bitter existential flavour)

True, but I imagine in most cases people need to falsify data because real measured data does not support their (possibly sensational) claims... what could save us from sleepless nights is the the cold judgement of reproducibility. No escape from that 😌

What scares me is that if I were to falsify (non-raw) data, I would do a pretty damn good job. Professional 'data fakers' are ghosts, we'll never know anything about their real number except that it is underestimated. Without raw data, anything is, fundamentally, 100% trust...