6 ms·
You may be interested to see this critique of Veritasium which cooled my views on the channel significantly since I saw it: https://youtu.be/CM0aohBfUTc https:
by TaylorAlexander 3y ago
You may be interested to see this critique of Veritasium which cooled my views on the channel significantly since I saw it:
https://youtu.be/CM0aohBfUTc https://youtu.be/CM0aohBfUTc
- gnicholas 3y agoGiven the length of the video (50+ mins), could you give us a TLDR? What aspects of the channel does the critique take aim at?
- gruez 3y ago[dead]
- nojs 3y agoHe claims Derek’s Waymo video was a paid PR piece and too favourable to the company. He also spends 2 minutes explaining why you need Surfshark VPN
- ramraj07 3y agoWhich is obvious to anyone with half a brain though. So what. We have discretion to choose which of his videos to watch. I doubt he got paid by the laws of thermodynamics to make his entropy video.
- j4yav 3y agoSure, but there are lots of good science content creators out there and I'd rather just watch one where I don't have to worry about it. The Waymo video is over the top credulous, even for something they were being paid to review. In general, the idea of building a channel based on "the element of truth", establishing yourself as an educator, and then shamelessly selling your credibility in that way is kind of a turn off. At least I'm not going to see you as credible in the same way anymore, and others feel the same. That said, the channel is more popular than ever so who knows.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- moffkalast 3y agoHe's just in the pocket of Big Physics! /s
- gnicholas 3y agoSo it's just about the one video? It's not about technology reviews in general, or any of the math stuff (like what was linked in the video above)?
- hoten 3y agoThis guy does hour long videos on many large popular YouTubers. I tried watching one but it was so. drawn. out. Is he just creating controversy from nothing?
- jnsaff2 3y agoThe thing that put me off veritasium was the electricity video which was immediately controversial. 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.
- ploxiln 3y agoEE details relevant to electronics board designers are kinda important and interesting, and I have a lot of sympathy for "technically correct". But that veritasium video was a trick question, and a misleading video. It subtly shifted between ideal model to real-world effects to smugly show how most skilled EEs are wrong about electricity, but Derek knows the truth. 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)
- quailfarmer 3y agoHah, that video really ticked me off at the time. Technically true, but only in the least meaningful way possible.
- moffkalast 3y agoYeah I really liked the AlphaPheonix video[0] where he actually built the thing in a field and explained the entire effect properly. 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. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8
- _fizz_buzz_ 3y agoThe Veritasium video is kind of weird. The example is good and interesting and when I watched I thought he would then introduce the concept of transmission lines (as taught in EE classes). It would make things clearer and gives an explanation and also maybe some intuition to problems like that. Instead he starts talking about the poynting vector, which makes things even more abstract and weird (and also he is slightly misleading about the poynting vector, especially for the DC case). It seems like he is trying to make things weird for the sake of weirdness and not trying to explain anything.
- dghughes 3y agoDerek Muller from Veritasium replied to the video it seems there was some behind the scenes communication which the video author (Tom Nicholas) ignored but replied to in a long comment. It seems to to create sensationalism. He got 2.1M views so I guess it worked.
- arijun 3y agoJust watched the video—it has the same failings as most other debunking videos (e.g. Thunderf00t): in order to get views he must show that what he is debunking is very wrong, and so manufactures gotchas. It’s a little ironic that his video accusing Veratasium of lacking nuance is completely lacking nuance itself. Although admittedly, he’s not wrong that Veratasium is lacking nuance and is too breathless in his praise.