Hacker News Reader

Comment by formerly_proven | Hacker News Reader

Asianometry is kind of interesting because on the one hand, if you were to make a presentation like he does in a school you'd obviously fail the class and get an F (blatant plagiarism, unsourced, no media attribution, pls put coins in my patreon), if you did this in university it'd even be grounds for being expelled (probably needs doing it at least twice though).

On the other hand if you look at the comments he's inspiring a few people to go into this field and many people who wouldn't engage with these topics at all otherwise, do. And these two groups don't care about the mistakes either, one doesn't really need to, the other will actually learn the stuff anyway. So I guess this makes him a net positive, even if his conduct as a "youtube creator" is rather disgusting (which is pretty much par for the course on that site obviously).

View on HN

you'd obviously fail the class and get an F

Why is this even on one of your hands? It's not a scientific paper, it's not a product he's selling, it's an informative youtube video. Whining about a youtube video not citing sources because it's not a valid classroom project makes as much sense as complaining that it's in English so you couldn't air it on Telemundo. It's completely irrelevant. If you're talking to someone and he tells you an interesting story do you go "Oh that was really cool, but you didn't tell me exactly where you learned all the details of the story, so that really detracted from my experience of listening to you"?

What's the alternative to education in this subject? What's the purpose of comparing it to professional education? I work in a fab and never learned this history. I've encountered a single person outside of work with interest in my industry and it's because he watches this channel. I think this comment is sour on youtube for education, which sucks, because youtube is one of the most accessible tools for education today.

That was hard for me to read. I’ll try to do better.

I've been in the semiconductor industry for 25 years. I do digital physical design using Cadence and Synopsys tools. I'm working in 5nm right now on huge SoC's

I enjoy your videos and always look forward to watching them. I've actually learned quite a bit from you about fabs and lithography. I've never been in a fab and most of the theory I learned was in the 1990's. I meet DRC rules for stuff like double and quad pattering in 20/14/10nm but the industry is so segmented that I never see the actual challenges that lithography engineers run in to and how EUV has helped.

Anyway, keep up the good work, everyone can always get better, but I would the ignore the overly negative comments

I want to apologize on behalf of the internet. Like a previous commenter, I have 25 years in the industry, and thought this was a great and informative video. That poster was using ridiculous criteria to judge your work -- I mean, if you were writing a research paper you'd obviously cite sources in more detail, but you're making a YouTube video. If that poster wants sources, they can Google it.

Also, I think the comment qualifies as a "shallow dismissal of others' work", which is discouraged by HN rules.

Seems like their only real complaint is lack of sources, which i understand. But i also understand that there's probably dozens if not hundreds of sources for videos like this and things like where the images come from are also implied based on the specific company that's being discussed at the time. But other than like a source doc in the description, i think if you gave this presentation at my school you'd get engaged and interested discussion, and a few marks off for sources, but this is a youtube doc. The rest of us really liked the video, and that other guy will probably just find something else to complain about if you fix the source.

I think that rather than trying to be perfect, it's much more important that you continue to make videos in a way that is sustainable for you. Like, if you make perfectly sourced videos but only ever have the time and energy for 3 more then that's on the whole a loss compared to whatever you were going to do anyway.

Anyways, it's very late, hope that made sense. Love the videos

Hey, just wanted to let you know that you're doing great and the parent poster is out of line for some of the comments they made.

I graduated from one of the top EE schools in the world a couple of decades ago but focused on CS. I've used sites like Anandtech, EETimes and Semi Engineering to keep up, but your videos have largely replaced that for me because they are engaging, well-researched, and branch out into other relevant areas like the various important economics and technology history topics that the industry sites never cover. I also like your levity, it's hard to read/watch someone who takes themselves too seriously.

I have absolutely no doubt that you're having a substantial impact on an audience of younger people around the world, who may not know why they should be interested in EE. Larger than many academics who profess that as their job. Which is especially important to us in the US now that we've decided to onshore a bunch of that. So thank you.

For me the main thing that detracts from the content is that the images you use are often irrelevant to what you are saying which makes the format feel like a straight-forward way how to make video out of what should be a blog post.

Two examples in this video: you are talking about SOIC and it's gull-wing leads while showing picture of SOJ package, which does not have gull-wing leads. You are talking about flat packs in military missile guidance systems and the image is of a board from AGC.

Content-wise, the second example leads to question of why you did not mention the AGC in the video at all. Another such weird ommision is mentioning IBM in the context of PGA, but without any mention of SLT. As an hybrid process it might look irrelevant for "true IC" packaging, but the SLT paper (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1147/rd.82.0102 finding full-text for free on the internet is somewhat hard, but it certainly exists somewhere) contains many ideas that are used in SMT and modern packaging technologies.

It feels to me that your process is writing the voice over first and then somehow coming up with the pictures/video. That gives the videos this distinct feeling of being very low-effort, regardless of how much effort you actually put into researching and writing the content itself. This is something you probably want to work on.

Keep up the good work.

Here is an easier one to read: You're actually doing very well, keep going.

Sources would be great, but honestly not sure I would read to much into this assessment.

Idk what your background is, but if I had to guess you did research for a financial firm that sold memos or a were a consultant.

Information you present seems high quality and it may all be available on the internet, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you had to talk to people offline because it’s not just on wikipedia.

All this to say, I fucking love your channel because it is well-researched. Honestly in my first read of GP’s comment, I was expecting him to critique our academic institutions for being unable to reward such content.

Focus on the praise you are receiving in this thread instead. That whole comment was irrelevant anyhow.

Thanks for an enjoyable and informative episode!

Having watched hundreds of academic presentations and been at many technical conferences, I don't agree.

If you compare a paper published in a conference's proceedings with the corresponding oral presentation (which is what his videos are) there tends to be a difference. The worst presentations are those that try to copy/paste the paper into PowerPoint resulting in walls of text and those are the most likely to have a references slide.

The ad for the newsletter is very reasonable for the venue (Youtube) and if it would be unacceptable in a different context, like showing the videos in a classroom, that is not the author's fault.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com