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

YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 609 posts

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#591

Post by denton-scratch »

iso1631 wrote: post #311
CM30 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, both are to blame here. The platforms/broadcasters for hosting this content and not removing it when it's proven to be dangerous/illegal/whatever, and the creators for making such content and putting people's lives at risk. It's like the situation with fake products on Amazon; yes Amazon shares some of the blame for not policing their marketplace, but we can't let the scammers/counterfeiters off the hook either,…

The greatest trick companies like google and facebook made was to remove themselves from blame. If a newspaper publishes something like this, they are liable and have punitive punishment. If a TV channel does the same applies. If google publishes it, they just say "not our problem", while continuing to rake in the cash.

But @mrtksn (the GP?) states that google doesn't publish it, rather it's published by the author/uploader.

I think that's sophistry.

If I visit Youtube's website, search for "xyz", and play the first result, which happens to have been uploaded by "abc", that's analogous to visiting guardian.co.uk, and reading the top article on the page, bearing the byline "Paul Mason". Paul Mason didn't publish it; The Guardian published it.

The legal fiction that a system like Youtube or Faceache is not a publisher is to protect independent message-boards from being sued, e.g. for libel. But I think even a tiny indy message-board, with say 100 users and no income, is still a publisher. I don't see how you can draw a clear line between the tiny indy publisher and a giant one like Youtube.

And I don't see how you can draw a clear line between something like Youtube, and Guardian Online. Both publishers accept content submissions from multiple authors, review them (The Guardian perhaps not so much), and make them available to the public, possibly with amendments (e.g. overlaid or prefixed with ads).

So I'm sorry: I can't see how Faceache or Youtube is not a publisher, while The Guardian is.

If the laws relating to what you can and can't publish are wrong, then they should be fixed. But simply declaring that a system is a "platform" doesn't make it not a publisher, and doesn't fix the defective publishing laws.

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#592

Post by lotsofpulp »

InefficientRed wrote: post #575
lotsofpulp wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I filter out all that garbage too, but because it is text, I can filter it out 100x faster than video.

If you don't mind explaining: how? I constantly find myself on those (very heavy) pages and haven't found a good way to avoid them except to restrict my search to certain domains (SO, Reddit, etc.)

I guess it is mostly heuristics learned over a couple decades. I use an ad blocker (Wipr), so if there are problems loading the page, that is a flag. If it looks like an SEO churned out page with lots of links and poor sentence structure, another flag.

A lot of times, you do end up on Reddit and SO, but there are some good forums available if you dig deep, especially for car/HVAC/home maintenance related stuff. Sometimes you have to join a forum and post a question.

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#593

Post by elif »

throwaway9870 wrote: post #150
raldi wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than admonishing everyone for wondering the obvious question, why not just explain your reasoning?

Current flowing through your body is what kills you. But it doesn't flow through you just because it is a high-current supply (think car battery for example). It flows through you because the source voltage divided by your impedance is what controls how much current flows through you. Impedance is the general concept for resistance and basically indicates how current and voltage are related. The higher the impedance,…

You haven't explained anything unsaid in this thread, including by me, but merely completely ignored my argument that there are far more hazards with electronics than merely fatal electrocution.

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#594

Post by stephen_g »

foobarian wrote: post #363
throwaway744678 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's not much more than that to it: high voltage, high current and exposed wires. It does not take a PhD to understand what can go bad.

It actually does "take a PhD." Having insulated wires can still be dangerous with a high enough voltage because of dielectric breakdown. Furthermore even if you don't get electrocuted but have a vacuum chamber with high voltages you can get irradiated. What I would have liked is, "OK this here wire is where the high voltage is, if you touch it you will get hurt and possibly die. If you need to manipulate it use long…

Honestly, the How To Cook That video that was taken down goes way further into the technical details than I expected it was going to when I first watched it, and correctly explains how the transformer works and how that stops the only protection device (RCD/GFCI) from being able to operate.

At the end of the day, for almost all of the viewers of the channel, adding meaningful protection and doing the wood burning safely is simply not within their capabilities.

The Big Clive does pretty well of doing a “still don’t do it, but here are some ways that it could be made somewhat safer” explainer.

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#595

Post by stephen_g »

robonerd wrote: post #491
reportingsjr wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I made the mistake of not testing _all_ of the wires in an outlet a couple of months ago. I used a non contact voltmeter, and had shut off the breaker to the outlet I was working on. Little did I know that the jackass that did some previous wiring in the house had run wires from a different breaker in to this box. It was done in such a way that I didn't fully realize it could have separate live. My palm below my thum…

Look at the slotted screw heads on outlet face plate. Are they both aligned vertically/horizontally, or are they at odd angles? If they are both aligned, the outlet was probably but not necessarily last worked on by a real electrician. If the screws are at odd angles, the outlet was probably but not necessarily last worked on by a DIYer. Real electricians align the screws, as a sort of professionalism and a nod to an…

Where? Here electricians leave cable offcuts, stripped insulator, plaster around on the floor so consistently it’s a meme (I know because for some reason I was getting tradie reels popping up flipping through Facebook).

We have a joke at work that you know that an electrical engineer (and not a licensed electrician) did the wiring if it’s too neat (for example, a colleague of mine seriously has cable trays through his roof cavity)

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#596

Post by goosedragons »

bee_rider wrote: post #399
conductr wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my take. Mid 40s and I’ve never owned a toaster in my adult life, but the toaster oven gets frequent use. However I don’t make plain toast ever. I suppose if I did, especially in the AM, I’d see the appeal.

I still don't see the appeal, what's the advantage of the non-oven toaster? Maybe it is quicker or something? But the toaster oven is a timed device anyway, just run it while the water is boiling for coffee...

Non-oven toaster is better at making toast. They do a more even job on both sides. Toaster ovens never quite get it right and bread placement is finicky, too close to the door and it often doesn't brown well especially in cheap models. I still use a toaster oven because it's more versatile but it IS worse at making toast.

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#597

Post by justAlittleCom »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #567
justAlittleCom wrote: post #544

I am sorry but I strongly disagree with most comments here. I do a lot of things potentially extremely dangerous, like burning wood with a microwave, or driving a motorcycle, or playing with hydrogen and oxygen in stoichiometric ratio, I tried to melt a wrench with a 12V battery, and all that makes me a better engineer and a better person, more aware of the weakness of flesh and how reality is scary and how it dont c…

Trying to be charitable but this is insane. I'm not against people taking risks as long as it's very clear what risks they're taking, and as long as the reward is worth it (for any reasonable definition of "worth it"). Pretty much everyone knows how dangerous motorcycles are, and plans (or doesn't, but still their choice) accordingly. The whole point of Ann Reardon's video is that tons of people tried this, and at le…

That's not really her point, she says "even professional electrician" and so on, she adopt a very of moral approach and I am not very fond of moral.

It's a substantial risk of death only if you doing it wrong. I mean, the problem here is not playing with a microwave transformer, it's doing it inside, it's holding both electrodes in both hands, it's the lack of isolation, it's having a device you can switch on by accident and so on.

A lot of people here seems to consider it's moral imperative to not do that, this wont make people smarter, nor more reasonable.

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#598

Post by logifail »

t_mann wrote: post #543
logifail wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How would I know what's realistic and what's not (in areas so far outside of what I do) if I didn't rely on people with this knowledge? If it's realism you're after, how about listening to a professional talking about their profession? Why bring Hollywood into it? Watching a clickbaity-titled video of a professional "reacting" to a movie just seems ridiculous. It's all done for the clicks.

> If it's realism you're after, how about listening to a professional talking about their profession? I actually do that too, why the false dichotomy? > Why bring Hollywood into it? Because I've already watched the movie and now I want to know what to make of it. Claiming that it's all completely unrealistic 'because Hollywood' is a far more uninformed position than listening to an expert give a balanced account. Wat…

> Because I've already watched the movie and now I want to know what to make of it. Claiming that it's all completely unrealistic 'because Hollywood' is a far more uninformed position than listening to an expert give a balanced account.

It's a action movie. It's designed to entertain you for a couple of hours. Did it entertain you? Did you enjoy it? What did you think of it? What did you like? What didn't you like?

Spoiler: You know the plot was completely made up, right?

I honestly can't understand why one would want to seek help on YouTube to know "what to make of" an entertainment experience which is an action movie with a made-up plot.

Maybe this is an age thing :( I guess I was watching action movies before the web was born.

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#599

Post by logifail »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #583
logifail wrote: post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Tom Cruise is a really bad example, because he actually does have a pilot license since 1994 and is allowed to fly some jets Some jet ... but not the jets in the movie! So what's the point in getting a Navy pilot to watch him "flying" them? Apart from - of course - being able to make clickbaity videos showing their "reactions". > perspective how (un)-realistic those movies are Erm, why? Movies are movies. There's l…

Cruise owns an L39 trainer (and the Mustang that was at the end of the movie). It’s a bad ass jet. It’s A LITTLE HARD to own an F18, I have zero doubt he has dozens of hours on them though. Same with the F14 which there are a few privately owned. You picked a bad example. Just move on.

> You picked a bad example

He's an actor. He acts for a living.

There are Navy pilots. They fly fast jets with live weapons for a living.

It really isn't a bad example.

Did this discussion slip into some kind of metaverse where we can't tell the difference between an action movie and real Navy pilots?

Re: YouTube removes criticism of dangerous fractal wood burning, but leaves up tips

#600

Post by philistine »

mrtksn wrote: post #541
denton-scratch wrote: post #537

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are like electrical company that provides you with cables and electricity. Well, except that they don't provide anything similar to cables or electricity; what they distribute is content. How's that not a publisher?

> they distribute is content. How's that not a publisher? Because they are not involved in the publishing? They are a platform where the publishers engage in publishing.

They're publishers to me. They produce, even if it's with computers, a landing page where they recommend different. They produce recommendations. I don't get how that's not publishing.
Post reply on HN