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

Science Communications on YouTube

blogs.memphis.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 64 posts

Re: Science Communications on YouTube

#51

Post by andrewflnr »

mmooss wrote: post #48
andrewflnr wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not science communication, but I don't know where to find anything quite like Perun's content in written form. It's military/economics issues, often pretty granular, at just the right level of detail for an interested layman.

There are endless military and economic publications, from nonsense to easy overviews to serious research. What does Perun produce? Do you have an example? (I can suggest some if you are interested and give me a better idea.)

Between easy overview and serious research, probably just a bit shy of university intro course (depending on the university I guess). Some of the really fun stuff for me is organizational issues like procurement failures, corruption, etc. He also has does some pretty up-to-the-week analysis of major events (i.e. pretty recent, but late enough that the dust has settled and meaningful analysis is actually possible).

Re: Science Communications on YouTube

#52

Post by andrewflnr »

hermitcrab wrote: post #41
MPSimmons wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know to what extent it has directly impacted his quality, but it appears that Derek sold Veritasium to a private equity firm https://www.electrify.video/post/electrify-completes-majorit...

I can't imagine that is going to end well. Hopefully I am wrong about that.

You're already right about that.

Re: Science Communications on YouTube

#53

Post by andrewflnr »

xvilka wrote: post #28

List is incomplete without some other high quality channels already mentioned in other threads, but also Anton Petrov[1]'s channel, Sixty Symbols[2], Science Clic[3] and Artem Kirsanov[4]. Animalogic[5] certainly worth mentioning. And absolutely stunning Journey to Microcosmos[6]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/@whatdamath [2] https://www.youtube.com/@sixtysymbols [3] https://www.youtube.com/@ScienceClicEN [4] https://w…

I want to hijack this comment to plug AlphaPhoenix (https://youtube.com/@alphaphoenixchannel), who is responsible for by far the best explanations of electricity that I've encountered in any format. For instance, this one that clarifies what happens when you try to send electricity on an open circuit, and (IIRC this is the right one) what impedance mismatch is actually about: https://youtu.be/2AXv49dDQJw

Re: Science Communications on YouTube

#54

Post by andrewflnr »

AuthAuth wrote: post #24
estimator7292 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On your homepage, click the three dots next to a video and click "do not recommend channel" It's one of the very few things that actually work

Do not recommend channel doesnt work. It only pauses recommendations for a few weeks. I've selected do not recommend on channels several times and they still sneak back in.

This is weird to me. I've banned a bunch of channels and never seen them again. You're not just doing the "I'm not interested" thing, right?

I've heard this from a couple other people, though, which makes me wonder if the alleged "don't recommend channel" button is hooked up to different API calls in different UIs...

Re: Science Communications on YouTube

#55

Post by freefaler »

MangoToupe wrote: post #50
freefaler wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For serious lectures (not story telling like history or other humanities) you can't be doing anything on the side if you want to understand. Try listening to a math lecture, or chemistry lecture while doing dishes :) I found the same to be true with audiobooks, nothing serious can't be "just listened to". I've tried to "listen" to a good biology non-fiction on how live evolved from the primordial soup. Shit, in the f…

Referring to "math" as serious just makes me want to discount your opinion entirely. Lectures (or indeed any linear encoding) are a bad medium for discussing formal languages. This has nothing to do with how much you care about a topic or whatever "serious" is supposed to imply here. Regardless, listening to something intently and doing mechanical actions are not exclusive.

Well try to listen to a group theory lecture (for example on cohomology of groups) while doing chores :) But the lecture was indeed useful if you stop and rewind and see how the lecturer was explaining (there were some interesting graphs).

Your brain can't hold the context long enough to go to the required level of abstraction, while you're multitasking (may be walking or something deeply automated doesn't count.

Re: Science Communications on YouTube

#56

Post by mmooss »

MangoToupe wrote: post #50
freefaler wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For serious lectures (not story telling like history or other humanities) you can't be doing anything on the side if you want to understand. Try listening to a math lecture, or chemistry lecture while doing dishes :) I found the same to be true with audiobooks, nothing serious can't be "just listened to". I've tried to "listen" to a good biology non-fiction on how live evolved from the primordial soup. Shit, in the f…

Referring to "math" as serious just makes me want to discount your opinion entirely. Lectures (or indeed any linear encoding) are a bad medium for discussing formal languages. This has nothing to do with how much you care about a topic or whatever "serious" is supposed to imply here. Regardless, listening to something intently and doing mechanical actions are not exclusive.

> listening to something intently and doing mechanical actions are not exclusive

If it's 'serious' and worthwhile, I often don't even have the bandwidth to keep up with the lecture or book. Why spend my time on anything less?

Re: Science Communications on YouTube

#57

Post by bane »

mmooss wrote: post #16
bane wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me turn your question around, what are the benefits of communicating science via video such that it's a very popular medium that people use to learn about science?

I think video is much more compelling to people in many ways (similar to TV vs reading a book), including to me. Part of that is seeing a person talking to you with all the cues of expression, voice, etc. There's a lower cognitive threshhold for engaging. Video also has communication modes that text/print lacks: dynamic graphics and empirical video (showing the thing itself happening), audio, speech and expression (a…

Thanks for answering! I'll ask you this question as another form of an answer. Is it possible you are making a false dichotomy expecting that the different media are expected to provide the same result for their relative consumers?

Re: Science Communications on YouTube

#58

Post by griffzhowl »

freefaler wrote: post #55
MangoToupe wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Referring to "math" as serious just makes me want to discount your opinion entirely. Lectures (or indeed any linear encoding) are a bad medium for discussing formal languages. This has nothing to do with how much you care about a topic or whatever "serious" is supposed to imply here. Regardless, listening to something intently and doing mechanical actions are not exclusive.

Well try to listen to a group theory lecture (for example on cohomology of groups) while doing chores :) But the lecture was indeed useful if you stop and rewind and see how the lecturer was explaining (there were some interesting graphs). Your brain can't hold the context long enough to go to the required level of abstraction, while you're multitasking (may be walking or something deeply automated doesn't count.

I would say the main reason it's hard to follow abstract maths lectures by listening is not the difficulty of the concepts per se, but simply because it's so visual: it relies on notation and diagrams

But mathematicians can talk to each other about arbitrarily abstract concepts, as long as they have enough shared background, and they don't (always) need a blackboard to do it.

Conversely, you can have conceptually very simple things that are basically impossible to follow just by listening, like multiplying two nine-digit numbers or following one of Euclid's proofs in plane geometry. The difficulty isn't about abstraction, but how many things you have to hold in working memory

Re: Science Communications on YouTube

#59

Post by griffzhowl »

MangoToupe wrote: post #43
griffzhowl wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's similar to the benefits of attending lectures (or watching them on yt): there are more informal asides and intuition-pumps, and maybe more detailed explanations of intermediate steps in calculations than you usually get in books. And for videos specifically, it can obviously help understanding in many cases to have animated visualizations

Lectures have the added benefit of not relying on video, though. You can consume them when doing chores, driving, etc.

Yes, maybe, but for many maths or physics lectures you might have to imagine what's going on as you're listening to the squeaking of chalk on the blackboard:)

Re: Science Communications on YouTube

#60

Post by vinceguidry »

the__alchemist wrote: post #33
andrewflnr wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She's very hit or miss in her quality IMO. Also, she's explicitly disclaimed the title of "science communicator", so she might not want to be on this list anyway. :) I kind of wish they hadn't included Veritasium either. He seems to have gone downhill.

Her content is mostly meta, vs science comm/teaching. I am really torn on her: Great communicator, funny, accomplished. Seems confident/smug?/conservative for a scientist. Something about her word choice and style feels more politician than learner/researcher. Not sure how to phrase this.

I think this tone is definitely a deliberate creative choice, and is something I personally enjoy. I'm reminded of this line from Taylor Swift's new album: "did you girlboss too close to the sun?"

It's borne out of the mountains of disrespect women scientists have to deal with, something she talks about towards the end of her video on Richard Feynman.

Post reply on HN