Hacker News Reader

Comment by stronglikedan | Hacker News Reader

Veritasium is quality content. Those eyes don't hurt nothing either.

They unfortunately recently (last few years) sold out to private equity (which tends to glaze over fundamentals and tries to pump out massive content using previous brand quality to give it credence), so beware of quality in more recent vids:

https://youtu.be/hJ-rRXWhElI?si=Zdsj9i_raNLnajzi

Yesterday I was reading comments about how the market could pay for research and avoid the “distorting effects” of public funding.

Is there any way to get a better outcome for the public here, or is “do good stuff then sell out” the way it’s always going to be?

What distorting effects of public funding? What about the distortionary effects of the market? I'll offer the suggestion that what you read is brainrotting private market propaganda designed to erode the public institutions that make America happier, healthier, and wealthier.

In economics discussions regarding public funding policy, the concern of "crowding out" commercial firms or nonprofits is a real concern. It's definitely an observed, measured, and reported phenomenon.

In the end, incentives matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowding_out_(economics)

There is no private market entity with an incentive to provide research to the public, so in this sense there is no crowding out. Providing research to the public enables the discovery of new products which would otherwise have not been created. Public research is a public good that makes our nation happier, healthier, and wealthier.

Let's ignore FOSS contributions for a moment, which very much contradict your claim that private companies don't contribute research to the public.

Outside software technology: there is a series of papers from Grossman (going back to the 80s!) that analyzes basic versus applied research in a macroeconomic framework. Basic research _can_ be a public good, applied research can be crowded out. Combined with microeconomic research that monopolies can be dynamically efficient (investing in applied and basic R&D, like Bell Labs) and you get several examples and theories that contradict your statement that "there is no private market entity with an incentive to provide research to the public."

Another real world example in hardware that contradicts this claim is the evolution of building control systems. Before the advent of IOT, so, circa 1980s - 2010s, you saw increasing sharing and harmonization of competing electronics standards because it turned out to be more efficient to be modular, not have to re-hire subcontractors at exorbitant rates to maintain or replace components that go haywire, etc.

Including FOSS software is so wild in this conversation that it's ridiculous. You mean creating a product as a loss leader to get people into an ecosystem, farm social capital, create a sales funnel, or get free labor from the community to provide QA? The creation and release of software is NOWHERE NEAR the same category as "doing actual real scientific research" that it just smells of incredibly bad faith argumentation.

Economic analysis? Another intelligence product that requires essentially no staff, no actual R&D, no equipment besides computers? Brother, you have to be kidding me.

The hardware thing is just companies evolving to a shared standard.

Do you have even a little bit of a clue how hard it is to do good pharmacological research? Toxicological? Biological? Chemical? Physical? You have mentioned intelligence products with 0 investment cost and 0 risk of failure.

This is perhaps one of the most fart-sniffing tech-centric perspectives I have ever been exposed to. Go read some actual research by actual scientists and come back when you can tell me why, for instance, Eli Lilley would ever make their data or internal R&D public.

Jonas Salk did it. He is an extremely rare exception, and his incentive was public health. Notice that his incentive was markedly not financial.

Market entities with a financial incentive, whose entire business model and success is predicated on their unique R&D results, have 0 incentive to release research to the public.

I apologize that my points in my prior comment were so easy to misunderstand. Your response here shows a dramatic superficiality in understanding each of these areas I brought up, when not missed entirely. My hope is you can move past your rhetorical stumbling blocks in the conversation -- if that proves impossible, I'm happy to leave things as this being my last comment in our shared thread.

(1) FOSS is not only the next hyped front-end framework or modern data stack funnel. I encourage you to do more research for what European universities and organizations are doing. Not everyone follows the American or Chinese extractive approaches to software.

Further, while many corporations do indeed farm social capital and perform other appreciably maladative and cynic-inducing behaviors, the universe and the space of organizations is large. There are a great many examples of governments adopting public research and development released by private entities -- in FOSS and in other contexts.

Additionally, the fact that FOSS-product-focused companies tend to launch _after_ FOSS becomes successful to support the FOSS offering with associated services is quite a bit different from what is perhaps a FAANG-induced cynicism. To reiterate - the universe and the space of organizations is large.

(2) You interpreted that I did pointed to economic analysis as public vs. private R&D. This is a misinterpretation on your part and I encourage a re-read. I pointed to findings and studies to help you understand where the organizational and market frameworks for analysis stand.

(3) I am a researcher and regularly publish my findings, under the banner of the university I support, under non-profits I support, and under the company I run. I appreciate your experience has made you cynical. Lets break down this section.

> This is perhaps one of the most fart-sniffing tech-centric perspectives I have ever been exposed to.

This was not received as a good-faith statement, and further discussion on it will only engender argument. I suggest we move beyond trivial digs.

> Eli Lilley would ever make their data or internal R&D public.

Not to shill for them, but your point on Eli Lilly is incorrect. Eli Lilly has worked towards more transparent release of information -- they voluntarily launched an online clinical trial registry starting in 2002 (for Phase II–IV trials initiated on/after October 15, 2002) and extended full trial registration (including Phase I) from October 1, 2010.[0] Since 2014, Lilly has published clinical study results (Phase 2/3) regardless of outcome, adhering to PhRMA/EFPIA transparency principles. Patient-level data on marketed-approved indications is available to qualified researchers via a controlled-access third-party portal.[1] Beginning in 2021, Lilly has also produced plain‑language summaries of Phase 2–4 results in English, and more recently extended plain‑language summaries to Phase 1 trials in the EU in compliance with new regulations.[1]

Especially the third point is relevant -- good government regulation leads to better sharing and transparency. Smart companies take regulation as an innovation opportunity.

> Jonas Salk did it. He is an extremely rare exception, and his incentive was public health. Notice that his incentive was markedly not financial.

Aye, and I wish that all medical and life-enhancing research could be accomplished as relatively cheaply or as magnanimously as Jonas Salk.

> Market entities with a financial incentive, whose entire business model and success is predicated on their unique R&D results, have 0 incentive to release research to the public.

Please refer to (2) for studies and theory for why this is untrue.

The number of market entities who only are built on unique R&D tend to fail due to poor delivery of product, so their incentive to release their R&D to the world is more or less moot. I do acknowledge existence of market entities who are built solely on operationalizing R&D -- I challenge the implicit claim that all market entities fall into this category.

[0] https://www.lilly.com/au/policies-reports/transparency-discl...

[1] https://sustainability.lilly.com/governance/business-ethics

You could argue that Bell Labs was essentially government funded, as the monopoly/concession of the entire US telephony infrastructure is what made it possible, and research at universities was not funded anywhere near current levels.

They were also forced in the 1950s to license all their innovations freely, as compensation for holding a monopoly. Which only strengthens the parent’s point that private institutions have little incentive to work for public benefit.

Galileo wants a word with you ... from heaven.

That whole discussion is based on the assumption that commercial firms or nonprofits are better in some way than publicly funded research. That is the stupid neoliberal dogma that private and market economy always are better than things that are run by our elected officials. That dogma has to die.

Completely agree. Neoliberalism and its consequences have been a disaster for mankind.

I disagree. I think Neoliberalism has done a remarkable job bringing the majority of the world out of subsistence. I also think it is a target for hijack by neofeudalists as neoliberalism is realpolitick without self-reference.

Price as a market signal precedes neoliberalism by several decades to several millennia, depending on which economic historian you speak with. Is your argument that basic research which has no immediately attributable applications is better handled by publicly funded research? I mostly agree to that. Applied research is definitely handled better by commercial firms and nonprofits when handling is defined by what people are willing to value (pay for).

If we're talking about applied technology in the public goods space, then it can be a toss up. Sustainability research, for example, can be quite blurry as to whether the market is pricing it in or not as applied or basic research -- really depends on how a government handles externalities and regulatory capture!

I'll 100% agree to government entities as well as some well-chartered public entities being absolutely awesome at setting up incentive structures for desired outcomes. There is actually a whole field of research dedicated to the topic of incentive structuring called mechanism design -- think of it as the converse to Game Theory and strategic behavioral analysis -- that policy design and analysis learn from.

I'll also note that governments aren't structured to efficiently provide benefits or just-in-time delivery in most situations. Though the discussion has made me more curious about how operationally efficient the DOD is for civilian goods distribution, given it supports a massive population.

I'm pointing out that there is an implied assumption that private always is better than public, and that assumption in many cases is just plain wrong. Not in all cases, market economy works great for many things, but there are also many cases it plainly sucks. When you warn that private initiatives might be crowded out, it is implicit that those are more desirable than public initiatives.

This kind of discussion is a bit off topic here, but I think it is important to remind people that the idea that private always is better than public is ideological dogma, not science. But your latest comment makes me believe you agree with that.

Yep, we agree in total. You often hear the opposite dogma too, that governments are wonderfully efficient and all markets are broken.

A moderate path, like what we see in the Scandinavian countries, looks to be a better model.

What's the easiest way to reliably check if a Youtube channel was sold to private equity? Is that info always a matter of public record?

I'm not entirely sure, to be honest. If you look at the linked video, they state that it's oftentimes not in the best interest of the private equity group's moneymaking capabilities to announce that a channel has been sold out to them.

How that is in practice, I'm not sure, and I'm sure with some sleuthing it would be possible to find out at least some of it. But on the whole, I'm honestly not sure beyond that.

He's had a couple of misleading videos over the last few years that finally made me unsubscribe. Specifically the lightbulb with a 1 light second wire and the more recent video about light taking infinite paths.

There was also the Waymo ad and the Rods from the Gods video where he couldn't bother to use a guide wire to aim.

Private equity baby! not just for shitting up your dentists and toy stores anymore

What was wrong with the 1 light second wire and the light taking infinite paths videos?

+1 I would like to know too. Especially the experimental demo of infinite paths -- I'm a complete noob in quantum physics, and the video made sense of so many topics I "learned" in college but never managed to grok. It'd be good to know what the alternative explanation is.

The first one was portrayed in a clickbait "everything you know about electricity is wrong" way. There have been several response videos to it that lay out why it's misleading that explain it better than I can, but suffice to say that the lightbulb does not turn on immediately like he claims.

There second one takes a mathematical model for the path integral for light and portrays it like that's actually what is happening, with plenty of phrases like light "chooses" the path of least action that imply something more going on. Also, the experiment at the end with the laser pointer is awful. The light we are seeing is scattering from the laser pointer's aperture, not some evidence that light is taking alternate paths.

> suffice to say that the lightbulb does not turn on immediately like he claims

Many people said this, but he set up an experiment to test it and the light does turn on instantly as claimed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI_X2cMHNe0

> There second one takes a mathematical model for the path integral for light and portrays it like that's actually what is happening

I know nothing about this. Is there a more accurate mathematical model available than the one he uses? Otherwise, I think it seems sensible to portray our best mathematical model as "what's really going on". And I didn't get the sense that light was "choosing" anything when watching the video, I got the sense that the amplitudes of all possible paths were cancelling out except for the shortest path (or something along those lines)

There are many equivalent formulations of quantum mechanics, the one the above post takes issue with is the path integral formulation. But because you can show an exact mathematical equivalence it makes all the same predictions as, for example, Hamiltonian evolution.

The words people like to use for the path integral is a sum over histories---that corresponds tightly with the ingredients in the path integral. So in this formulation it's what's "actually happening". But in other mathematical formulations other words are more appealing and what someone claims is "actually happening" sounds different.

Yeah, the light propagation videos are just high on misleading theories.

The 1 light second wire video is kinda set up to bamboozle you. But it's still correct and taught me about EM.

Especially the way he (or the team) responded to the criticism they got for doing those «sponsored content» pieces put me off hard enough to unsubscribe.

Speaking of eyes, Veritasium's occasional collaborator Dianna Cowern (Physics Girl) is doing much better after complications from long covid left her bedridden for two years. It's good to see her up and at 'em.

Her latest video, showing her out of bed and going for short walks, is here: https://youtu.be/vqeIeIcDHD0?si=WoxpqZOuRTWD2XYd

Nah, he transparently accepted money from waymo to peddle propaganda. Once somebody takes propaganda money, there's no trusting them anymore. From then on out, everything they do is in service to propaganda paymasters. Even just doing regular, good quality work can only be viewed through the lens of acquiring social capital to liquidate into financial capital later.

See: Brian Keating licking Eric Weinstein's jock strap in public and then offering mild criticism on Piers Morgan.

> transparently accepted money from waymo to peddle propaganda

If transparent enough (and not from an abhorrent source), I'd be ok with his product. He's even allowed to make the occasional mistake as long as he properly owns up to it.

Theres been a lot of valuable learning from him and it would be a pity to dismiss it all over a single fumble.

Lying or misrepresenting a product for a paycheck is not a fumble. It's a propagandist making a bag. Once they have put effort into creating a polished piece of propaganda, which they then release, it can not be considered a fumble any longer. It is something that they endorse. If they rescind it within some critical window that meaningfully impacts their bottom-line, maybe then I can believe them. Otherwise? No, I see no reason to offer them the benefit of the doubt. There are many people doing actually good work. Veritasium is not unique in their content or quality. We should not reward propagandists.

I agree that Waymo video was probably a poor decision. He does say that the video is sponsored but it just comes off a bit odd. It's not uncommon that youtubers are paid either in money or access - Destin for example gets access to military sites and technology on his channel with it being a semi-explicit tool for recruiting.

You are essentially saying any creator that has ever done sponsored content becomes a creator non-grata. I somewhat disagree with that. Sponsored content is a perverse incentive but it's also important to understand that creators can pick and choose for what they make sponsored content. So if you have an ethical creator can create sponsored content of a product they agree is actually that good. Well now the question is "How can you tell". And I don't think you generally can. Some people are really good at lying. In the end it's really about do you trust this creator or not. Which is what's it's about regardless if they took a sponsorship or not.

> Well now the question is "How can you tell". And I don't think you generally can.

You can, actually, with a simple rule of thumb: if it's being advertised on YouTube, it's statistically low quality or a scam. The sheer number of brands that sponsor videos just to be exposed later for doing something shady is just too high.

That's the point. You can't tell. Applying a low resolution filter like you are proposing will filter out a ton of worthwhile products. Here is just a small list of products you can no longer buy if you subscribe to your philosophy: apple, dell, HP, framework, tuxedo and basically almost all laptop manufacturers. The same goes for smartphones. No GPUs at all for you. The filter is so crude it fails spectacularly at what it should be doing.

Perhaps a more fitting variant would be that the trustworthiness decreases with increasing number of sponsored channels and ad frequency. Although I have never seen any video directly sponsored by Apple, Dell or HP for example, same for GPUs and many smartphone brands. They provide free units for review at most, and those at least go to channels with fitting content and the trustworthiness can be judged more easily. Whereas some new brand you never heard of aggressively sponsoring videos of every major channel for months basically guarantees there's something wrong with the company, product or both.

I thought it goes without saying that I don't mean ads shown directly by YouTube, if you don't already block those in 2025 I don't know what to say.

Sponsored content is fine. Sponsored content with improper public disclosure, or with irresponsible claims that do not reflect reality, is not fine. Super simple standard: if they lie or substantively misrepresent for a sponsor, they can no longer be trusted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com