The only other channel I would give the same pass is neo.
I did not want to watch a video and preferred reading about this irrespective of the length of the video.
"You won't BELIEVE what everyone got wrong"
Here's the trumped up drama from people involved.
Here's an interview
Here's a restatement of the cliffhanger
Oops the author dropped enough info that I can read the Wikipedia article in 30 seconds. End streaming media.
The amount of "good podcasts" that are ultimately a Wikipedia page drawn out over 20-30 minutes is just ridiculous.
"Good tv" like a good john Oliver show or Frontline is chock full of information, further avenues of research if interested, and dense.
Geewhiz podcasts like these seem like the result of YouTube algorithmic game theory result rather than an improvement to the access and organization of info that Wikipedia represented.
I'm cranky this morning, sorry
Writing and structuring to fit the length you want/need has been the norm for a century or two at least before social media came about. Hell, there's evidence that Shakespeare padded out a couple of his plays to fit the 4-pages per folio printing techniques of the time so that there weren't blank pages at the end.
I have seen John Oliver state errors or misrepresent data/leave out information in favor of the comedy/supporting a particular viewpoint. A good HN thread with people knowledgeable about the subject or in the field about a John Oliver episode will usually be full of more information.
After reading the NYT article, I would say there was no need for me to spend an additional 15min watching the video.
Videos have all the tips and tricks missing from conventional repair manuals and shop guides.
For academic material, I prefer the written word. For repairs around my home? I'll go to YouTube.
[1] https://vimeopro.com/fisherpaykeltechnical/training-videos/v...
That said, the channel is more popular than ever so who knows.
Looking at just the video he left the feeling that all electricity being taught is completely wrong while actually he was talking about some edge case and failed to put it into the proper context. He did not mention at all that the proportion of what he was talking about was essentially irrelevant unless you are an electronics board designer.
In a simplified circuit model it would work like a circuit, in a as-real-world-as-possible model it would always be dominated by interference. In a carefully-segregated-semi-real model, it would be less than 1% on after 1/c seconds, would you really call that on? If it was, then 100% on would be way too much current!
So many minutes spent without explaining that the real world is very complicated and EEs apply different models to different situations as appropriate, and it's silly to say that only the field matters not the electrons because of course the electrons cause the field while the field moves the electrons, and the original question is a trick because it's an idealized thought experiment which tries to trick you into applying the wrong model but that's silly because it's an idealized thought experiment which wouldn't work in the real world so it's only purpose is to exercise a simplified model ...
Great fodder for a series of viral-y videos from multiple youtubers though. (electroboom's response was pretty good IMHO)
I'm not entirely sure if Derek didn't really understand what he was presenting in that video or deliberately based it on a really misleading bullshit gotcha to troll people and stir debate for clicks, and neither reflects very well on him.
For anyone following science in mice, this seems like an extremely huge red flag. That together with the cosmetic surgery and a clear financial incentive for the him to lie here, seeing as he is selling a book about it, was triggering just about every bullshit detecting neuron in my brain.
Veritasium however seems perfectly fine with it, and still posted the video.
I haven't ever seen anyone else bring this up, so if anyone wants to share their own hot take on this, I'd be interested to know :)
He also made it clear that the light globe in the original video did not receive enough current to light up.. it was hooked up to an alternative power source and an oscilloscope and upon receiving any signal above baseline would switch on the globe.
It really put me off his channel for a long time. I still watch his channel to be fair and get a lot out of it, but his videos hit different after seeing him double down on criticisms and contorting controversy instead of just saying sorry.
If you want to get that detailed most people would freak at conventional vs electron flow. The + wire is actually where the negative electrons are emitted. But as electricity was developed people didn't know that but it all works out so it was left as is. For physics or any other scientific experiments electron flow is used.
Even the term "negative" is a can of worms it could have been called green or red or yellow not "negative". It comes from Ben Franklin and accounting terms.
Nice, thanks for the mention, I'll check this out. At first sight, typically looks like stuff I would enjoy.
Fortunately we have youtube.
According to last years research, over 50% of people are still watching linear TV via broadcast or cable:
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/08/for-the-first-time-e...
Live sports are the only exception, but I would say that is down big time also (as Nielsen indicates). Or rather, a series of gambling ads interspersed with a sporting event.
Overall, I don’t think Nielsen is able to properly assess which screen has people’s focus.
Thank you for clarifying what "often" means.
Say, how can you tell which ones should get a pass?
Is there a way the less intelligent folks (like myself) could get a notification for when you decide to watch or not watch one of Veritasium's latest creations?
Do you feel more intelligent after watching that video? If so, could you share some of the techniques you used to capitalize on passive learning?