5 ms·

3.4 Mio views in 4 days. Wow…

by baxtr 1y ago

stronglikedan 1y ago
Veritasium is quality content. Those eyes don't hurt nothing either.
- tbalsam 1y ago
  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 https://youtu.be/hJ-rRXWhElI?si=Zdsj9i_raNLnajzi
  - fn-mote 1y ago
    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?
    - edwardbernays 1y ago
      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.
      - tomrod 1y ago
        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) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowding_out_(economics)
        edwardbernays 1y ago
        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.
        tomrod 1y ago
        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.
        edwardbernays 1y ago
        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.
  - 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
    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?
    - tbalsam 1y ago
      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.
- aarond0623 1y ago
  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.
  - QuadmasterXLII 1y ago
    Private equity baby! not just for shitting up your dentists and toy stores anymore
  - deadso 1y ago
    What was wrong with the 1 light second wire and the light taking infinite paths videos?
    - keeda 1y ago
      +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.
    - aarond0623 1y ago
      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.
      - ChadNauseam 1y ago
- edwardbernays 1y ago
  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.
  - pstuart 1y ago
    > 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.
    - edwardbernays 1y ago
      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.
  - anitil 1y ago
    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.
  - rowanG077 1y ago
    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.
- jjraden 1y ago
  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 https://youtu.be/vqeIeIcDHD0?si=WoxpqZOuRTWD2XYd

3.4 Mio views in 4 days. Wow…

by baxtr 1y ago

3.4 Mio views in 4 days. Wow…

stronglikedan 1y ago

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

tbalsam 1y ago
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 https://youtu.be/hJ-rRXWhElI?si=Zdsj9i_raNLnajzi
- fn-mote 1y ago
  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?
  - edwardbernays 1y ago
    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.
    - tomrod 1y ago
      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) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowding_out_(economics)
      - edwardbernays 1y ago
        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.
        tomrod 1y ago
        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.
        edwardbernays 1y ago
        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.
- 0xDEAFBEAD 1y ago
  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?
  - tbalsam 1y ago
    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.
aarond0623 1y ago
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.
- QuadmasterXLII 1y ago
  Private equity baby! not just for shitting up your dentists and toy stores anymore
- deadso 1y ago
  What was wrong with the 1 light second wire and the light taking infinite paths videos?
  - keeda 1y ago
    +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.
  - aarond0623 1y ago
    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.
    - ChadNauseam 1y ago
edwardbernays 1y ago
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.
- pstuart 1y ago
  > 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.
  - edwardbernays 1y ago
    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.
- anitil 1y ago
  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.
- rowanG077 1y ago
  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.
jjraden 1y ago
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 https://youtu.be/vqeIeIcDHD0?si=WoxpqZOuRTWD2XYd