Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We're building computers wrong [video]

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 83 posts

Re: We're building computers wrong [video]

#61

Post by somat »

periheli0n wrote: post #50

Yes, analog computing can be more efficient and faster. But there are reasons why analog was eclipsed by digital. 1. Flexibility. Reprogramming digital computation is easy and quick. 2. Robustness. One can mass-produce devices that operate in the digital domain and sell them as working as spec'd. But operate them in the analog domain, and you will work with a million snowflakes that all operate slightly differently,…

on point 2 another way to put it is that digital computers take much much lower tolerance components than analog computers.

A digital computer transistor has to operate(assuming ttl logic) at around 5 volts and 2 volts the transistor behavior in between does not really matter.

The analog computer transistor has to operate to a high precision at all voltage ranges.

Go ahead and start pricing out high precision transistors and the environmental controls needed to keep them there and you will see why we use digital computers.

The history of the navy NTDS air defense system is interesting because they were in a position where they could have gone ether way. use known and understood analog computers or go with the unknown new tech, digital computers.

https://ethw.org/First-Hand:No_Damned_Computer_is_Going_to_T...

Re: We're building computers wrong [video]

#62

Post by mannykannot »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #55
mannykannot wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One could quibble over the details of the experiment, such as what sort of lamp to use, but Maxwell's laws would have to be repealed for the experiment to not work essentially as Veritasium claimed. Check out "electromagnetic induction" and "displacement current".

The problem is that he frames the whole whole experiment as if the inductive current is a property of the circuit rather than a property of two separate wires being next to each other - he heavily implies the inductance is result of the current "starting" to travel through the loop, and IIRC never once uses the term "inductance" (which seems odd for a video purporting to promote understanding rather than just be clic…

Veritasium may not have mentioned either inductance or displacement current; I don't recall. He did, however, talk about an even more abstract concept which subsumes the effect of both: the Poynting vector. Pedagogically speaking, it was probably a mistake to go there without covering the prerequisites in considerable detail, but that does not, IMHO, make it clickbait: for someone who has some background, this could be food for thought.

Whether the distant end of the loop is closed or not makes a difference eventually, where 'eventually' means once the initial EM wave has reflected from the end and returned to the load.

Re: We're building computers wrong [video]

#63

Post by LordDragonfang »

mannykannot wrote: post #62
LordDragonfang wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that he frames the whole whole experiment as if the inductive current is a property of the circuit rather than a property of two separate wires being next to each other - he heavily implies the inductance is result of the current "starting" to travel through the loop, and IIRC never once uses the term "inductance" (which seems odd for a video purporting to promote understanding rather than just be clic…

Veritasium may not have mentioned either inductance or displacement current; I don't recall. He did, however, talk about an even more abstract concept which subsumes the effect of both: the Poynting vector. Pedagogically speaking, it was probably a mistake to go there without covering the prerequisites in considerable detail, but that does not, IMHO, make it clickbait: for someone who has some background, this could…

> Pedagogically speaking, it was probably a mistake to go there without covering the prerequisites

And considering the fact that Derek has a Ph.D. in physics education research [1] that seems like an odd mistake for him to make, unless it was intentional.

As another commenter pointed out [2] Derek's content lately seems to be tailored to the maxim of "Make people believe they're thinking and they'll love you. Make them actually think, and they will hate you." It seems intended to invoke incredulity rather than understanding, presumably because he's decided the former is more marketable - because providing incomplete understanding and phrasing things in a way that's just technically correct enough to invite flame wars boosts engagement and therefore virality.

Yet another commenter [3] invoked https://xkcd.com/169/, which I think is apt.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Muller#Early_life_and_ed...

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30558859

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30559815

Re: We're building computers wrong [video]

#64

Post by [deleted] »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #63
mannykannot wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Veritasium may not have mentioned either inductance or displacement current; I don't recall. He did, however, talk about an even more abstract concept which subsumes the effect of both: the Poynting vector. Pedagogically speaking, it was probably a mistake to go there without covering the prerequisites in considerable detail, but that does not, IMHO, make it clickbait: for someone who has some background, this could…

> Pedagogically speaking, it was probably a mistake to go there without covering the prerequisites And considering the fact that Derek has a Ph.D. in physics education research [1] that seems like an odd mistake for him to make, unless it was intentional. As another commenter pointed out [2] Derek's content lately seems to be tailored to the maxim of "Make people believe they're thinking and they'll love you. Make th…

[deleted]

Re: We're building computers wrong [video]

#65

Post by droopyEyelids »

ModernMech wrote: post #22
kgwxd wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if you're curious as to why it's clickbaity, there's a Veritasium video for that too :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng

I didn't watch the whole thing but is the ladder ever explained? I didn't understand why he's doing the video on a ladder. Is that part of the clickbait? You have to have a crazy face and be on a ladder, and that's how you make Youtube's algorithm happy? At this point it seems like a vicious spiral. Someone clicks on a guy on a ladder and all of a sudden you're being recommended guys on ladders, so now everyone needs…

Youtube runs the thumbnails through a sentiment analysis AI and promotes videos more when they rate with a high likelihood of the bucket of emotions that have been found to correlate with ad impressions.

Re: We're building computers wrong [video]

#66

Post by mannykannot »

LordDragonfang wrote: post #63
mannykannot wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Veritasium may not have mentioned either inductance or displacement current; I don't recall. He did, however, talk about an even more abstract concept which subsumes the effect of both: the Poynting vector. Pedagogically speaking, it was probably a mistake to go there without covering the prerequisites in considerable detail, but that does not, IMHO, make it clickbait: for someone who has some background, this could…

> Pedagogically speaking, it was probably a mistake to go there without covering the prerequisites And considering the fact that Derek has a Ph.D. in physics education research [1] that seems like an odd mistake for him to make, unless it was intentional. As another commenter pointed out [2] Derek's content lately seems to be tailored to the maxim of "Make people believe they're thinking and they'll love you. Make th…

You appear to have seen way more of Veritasium's videos than I have, which seems rather odd, given that you dislike them so much.

Re: We're building computers wrong [video]

#67

Post by Brian_K_White »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #56
Brian_K_White wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know how to articulate it either. It's some form of uncanny valley type of thing where every detail or facet or property I might point out, there are other people exhibiting the same nominal qualities without bothering me. But something here is just slightly off in some way, but so subtly you can't say what it is. I honestly can't say he's doing anything actually wrong. I don't think even the most dumbed down…

To me the videos feel like a sustained form of clickbait. I keep expecting a payoff at the end of the video, but instead he sort of weaves together a grand narrative that nevertheless feel unfulfilling to my analytical mind. Take this video for instance. In the beginning he talks about analog computers and how they differ from digital computers. Then he talks about how neural networks work. Then he explains how neura…

I did like the impossible to measure the speed of light one, even though it has Smarter Every Day.

Ok that one has something I can identify clearly: The way Justin (Smarter Every Day) seems to be just badly hamming up the whole "this is so weird and hard to visualize" as though to pander to the audience who are expected to be baffled by the idea being presented. That was Justin though not Veritassium.

I agree with what you point out about this one.

Re: We're building computers wrong [video]

#68

Post by gaze »

autokad wrote: post #38
phendrenad2 wrote: post #2

With a clickbaity title like that, I knew this would be Veritisium before I clicked it. And now, having verified that it is, I share this information with you.

One thing about Veritasium is that they do get things wrong. They did one on electric circuits where if you had a circuit that was miles long with the energy source sitting right next to you, you would get current as soon as you turned on the electrical circuit because 'electricity doesnt follow the wire' or something along those lines. This has been disproven by people doing experiments

No, you’re wrong. If you hook an ohmmeter to a 10 light-second long piece of LOSSLESS coax, you’ll measure the characteristic impedance (50 or 75 ohms, probably) of the cable for 20 seconds.

I have done this personally with shorter coax and TDR.

Re: We're building computers wrong [video]

#70

Post by l33t2328 »

boxed wrote: post #23
jalgos_eminator wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its interesting you mention Destin from Smarter Every Day, because he always came off as a very earnest learner in his videos. Yeah, he's still putting on a show, but it does seem like he genuinely enjoys and revels in the things that he does. It seems to me like Veritasium has a more contrarian thread of: "Oh, you thought the world worked like that? Well you were wrong, and here's a 15 minute video all about how you…

Funny. Veritasium actually has some videos talking about why he has this approach :) I saw something similar all the time as a dance teacher: explaining stuff and showing over and over made the students feel like they learned a lot. But they just didn't. It was mostly a total waste of time. I switched to showing ONCE then they had to try. Then I showed again. The speed of learning went up dramatically. The problem I…

See, I’ve heard that, but I like being challenged. I like to have to “pause and ponder” as the excellent Youtuber 3Blue1Brown puts it, but Vertiassium is just annoying.
Post reply on HN