Hacker News Reader

Comment by pluma | Hacker News Reader

I thought the History Channel was already widely considered non-factual. Aren't half the documentaries about space aliens?

"Source": http://www.cracked.com/funny-5720-the-history-channel/

View on HN

And the rest are mostly about Hitler, Hitlers dog, Hitlers secretary, Hitlers lunch.

Hence "Hitler Channel".

"Hitlery Channel"

There's also the overlap with Hitler's flying saucers.

I almost miss the days when everything was about Hitler. At least then it had the veneer of being historical.

Now it's about ice road truckers, pawn shops, and things hillbillies like.

They also went full on Jesus some years back. They're firmly in the blue collar reality TV camp now, its mostly truck drivers, pawn shops, and surprisingly, blacksmiths.

Sorta like how the Sci Fi channel was all about pro wrestling, fantasy, action movies, pretty much anything but science fiction.

When I was a little kid (a long time ago) the snarky wisdom was if a country had "democratic" in its name, it wasn't. The snarky wisdom today is a cable TV channel broadcasts everything except what its name would imply. So the History channel never broadcasts anything factually historical, the sci fi channel never broadcasts science fiction, or The Learning Channel only broadcasts fashion and style never anything educational. "Home and Garden" TV is endless real estate "FIRE sector" complimentary copy, containing no garden shows. Even the weather channel pretty much stopped weather forecasts and replaced it with agitprop documentaries that the faithful don't watch because they're already faithful and the unfaithful don't watch because they're nonbelievers.

Don't forget Music Television.

And Fox News

Yeah... no news about fox... sad but true.

...the original offender.

Similarly, if you have science in the name, no science is generally involved: Political Science, Computer Science, Exercise Science...

The scientific method is a core part of research design in poli sci. We have entire classes dedicated to Karl Popper and fun topics like that. We do real research with hypotheses, testable results, and conclusions. It is science, even if it isn't hard science.

Dunno why it matters....back to your rant.

Not trying to turn my original joke into an argument, but does applying the scientific method make something a science in your mind? By that definition, couldn't any subject be a science?

Joke flew over my head. Sorry too touchy these days...

What is science other than the application of the scientific method?

Computer science at least in my experience of it, definitely involves lots of science. I can't speak for the others.

This one also illustrates that if it has "science" in it, it can't get a joke...

Are you sure the parent was joking? Also, are you sure I wasn't? ;)

In which way - interested - does it involve science or what is your definition of science?

I'm not the OP, but effective debugging makes use of the scientific method.

Not OP, but maths, maths again, and still more maths.

Type systems, algorithm proof, complexity, boolean logic...

And if we go into CS applications: games are maths, bioinformatics is maths, accounting is maths, ...

Or in the implementation: electronics, semi-conductors physic, eletrical engineering, ...

I wouldn't think math is science. Otherwise, the acronym STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) would be awfully redundant. And yeah, I'd say CS is closer to math than science, except maybe when you look at things like manufacturing processes and such, which is more of an engineering or materials science track.

I was thinking of science in terms of "uses the scientific method." This is a pretty loose definition, but I think it's a reasonable one. I find I regularly apply the scientific method in terms of the observe, hypothesize, test, revise cycle.

The quote is of Hal Abelson and one of his lectures at MIT disagrees with you [1]. The introduction is amusing and opens with Computer Science has nothing to do with Computers and little to do with Science. It's really a poorly named field. I believe it's a bit tongue in cheek and not defining science entirely by "uses the scientific method".

[0] https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hal_Abelson

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Op3QLzMgSY

At least Literary Studies were honest enough not to call themselves a science (in English anyway).

AE Housman called it a science. Of course, the way Housman did it _was_ a science.

(If you haven't read Housman's prose, incidentally, it's a fine as his poetry, and very different.)

BBC America is going in the same direction as it morphs into the "Star Trek and action movies" channel.

Not that I can really complain, though, since it's gradually becoming what the SciFi Channel could've been before it got renamed to SyFy.

Syfy recently started broadcasting excellent programming: The Expanse, KillJoys, DarkMatter...etc.

They go through quality boom-and-bust cycles. They had an excellent shared universe of Warehouse 13 and Eureka a number of years ago.

I'm reluctant to trust the brand...

I think the main driver of this is simply the changing demographics of TV viewers. Ever since the rise of the Internet, social media, and smartphones, traditional television viewing hours have been plummeting for some demographics.

The young and affluent are moving away from TV, and the poor and aging are not. Programming reflects that demographic shift.

> I think the main driver of this is simply the changing demographics of TV viewers. Ever since the rise of the Internet, social media, and smartphones, traditional television viewing hours have been plummeting for some demographics.

No. This trend predates the full development of most of that. IIRC, TLC ("The Learning Channel") went from educational stuff (like videos of surgeries) to full-on home improvement over the course of the 90s. The internet in 1999 was GeoCities and email, not social media and smartphones.

What really happened was these channels started out programming to a little niche audience, then they realized there was a lot more ratings and money programming to the lowest common denominator. In TLC's case, I think it started with some husband and wife home improvement show and snowballed from there.

When I go thru Netflix UK, their catalogue listings would make me think they have something for Hitler. I mean, sure he had great negative impact n the UK, but it seems overboard. Or maybe it's me overreacting. I mean, seems so obsessive.

As a German, it always seems like Brits are even more obsessed with Hitler than Americans. I guess it has something to do with Germany actually having bombed the UK in WW2 and it all therefore being a bit more personal than what the US went through.

I mean, it's a critical time now for Germany and Europe, also globally. Economically we're pretty good. We have been better, but we're very vibrant in the theatre and arts and so on. And Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler...[0].

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTCIbtyTy7Y

Hitlers ufo..

At least it was interesting when it was the "Hitler Channel" now it seems to be mostly pseudo-science and quasi-reality TV - like National Enquirer on the air.

The History Channel's Hitler obession happened because the last WWII vets were dying off so the History Channel rushed to interview them, putting out a bunch of WWII documentaries

It used to be a decent channel. Modern marvels was great. Discovery, NatGeo, Animal and History Channel used to be good a times. They all sold out for cheaper to produce reality shows.

PBS and BBC docs are still hanging on and pretty good. NOVA and Planet Earth series are great.

Nova is one series I've been continually excited about since being a small child. Fantastic stuff.

Who doesn't like "ancient astronaut theorists"?

http://chronicle.su/wp-content/uploads/tsoukalosaliens1.jpg

That's pretty much what I think of as a non-American when I hear "History channel".

Is the European version pretty much the same?

I think the ancient aliens theories are fun little 'what if' dips into scifi, but treating them seriously like History does is just stupid. And people who buy into that are equally stupid, if not more so.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com