Facts can be seen as important without implying any specific interpretation of them.
I consider the speed of light being 299,792 km per second as worth remembering even if I have no specific use in mind.
I consider the speed of light being 299,792 km per second as worth remembering even if I have no specific use in mind.
This isn't even true. In the example you gave, you clearly remember the speed of light because you think it may be useful someday.
When someone believes a fact is important or "worth noting", they used some reasoning to arrive at that conclusion. Whether or not that reasoning is flimsy is another matter.
In this case I think there are a few reasons of note which were already alluded to, but I don't personally think it need call any questions about the validity of the experiments and the other reasons being around the potential future value of associated company, any opinions of which are for the individual and their financial advisors to consider.
I wasn't aware of the fact there was already a company created for it but it does say something about the confidence these researchers have placed in the results, even if that may not be noteworthy, per se, regarding the results.
Of course it is. This is one of those 'only on HN' moments. You absolutely can be cognizant that a fact may give rise to any number of competing interpretations, and you can understand those interpretations to be significant if true, while not endorsing them.
>When someone believes a fact is important or "worth noting", they used some reasoning to arrive at that conclusion
Again, you can understand that a fact gives rise to certain interpretations without endorsing those interpretations, and this could nevertheless be enough of a reason to merit sharing the fact.
My point is that when one determines that a fact is notable, there is an underlying reason for making that determination, whether it involves several "competing interpretations" or not. It is perfectly reasonable to ask for that underlying reason so I can assess the validity of the statement. If someone refuses to give it, as we've seen here, then its reasonable to dismiss their assertion. I'm not responsible for justifying their own argument for them.
As for the 'only on HN' remark, I think that was unnecessary. At any rate, this will be my last comment on the subject.
On one level it’s essentially random trivia you can easily lookup, but on another level it’s fundamental in a way that few things are. Individual mutations from random events wildly shaped human history making most facts people remember essentially happenstance. However, c is more closely tied to the underlying aspects of reality.