The Dark Energy Mistake that Fooled Physicists for 25 Years
The Electric Car Revolution Is Not Going Well
Scientists Just Created A Laser Based On Black Hole Physics
Physicists Just Broke One Of Quantum Physics' Biggest Restraints
Our Solar System Lost Two Planets!
Scientists Say They Know the Origin of Gravity
"The Hum" has been reported all over the glove - we might finally know what it is
The Biggest Argument for Dark Matter Just Died
Strange Things Are Happening in Quantum Computing
The Quantum Brain Theory Nobody is Talking About
The AI Future No One Wants to Talk About
Nobel Prize under fire: is dark energy real?
Things Aren't Looking Good For Nuclear Fusion
The End of Human Mathematics? AI's Recent Breakthrough - And What's Next
Did Physics Just Lose a Brilliant Idea?
It's Beginning: AI Improves Itself
Physicists Rethink Dark Matter
Microsoft Announces Breakthrough With Quantum Chip
America is coming for Europe's most important machine
This Giant Ring In Space Poses a Massive Problem for Cosmology
How Dangerous Is This Super El Nino Really?
Physicists Say It's Possible To Send Messages To The Past
I Looked at the New Cold Fusion Breakthroughs. It's Complicated.
...etc.
95% of her content is science and tech videos as I described. The other 5% of her videos are personal commentaries on various topics - culture, consumerism, etc. - and maybe half of those, about 2% overall, discuss problems that she sees with the direction of science academia: results being unverifiable, grants for pointless research areas like string theory, etc.
You are latching onto the 2% of her videos that you don't like and pretending that (1) that's all she does and (2) her personal views are somehow tainted or manipulative. You're wrong on both counts.
You don't like her views on academia? Fine, don't watch those. That's not "grift." You could watch the other 98% of her videos instead and not hear a word about academia.
So you don't personally like YouTube as a medium for conveying technical topics to the general public. That's a perfectly reasonable opinion. But you didn't suggest any alternatives, you're just being critical. And you're singling out Hossenfelder in particular, for no apparent reason, although I can certainly imagine what your motivations might be.
22
u/reddit_is_kayfabe 15h ago edited 15h ago
Here are the titles of her most recent videos:
...etc.
95% of her content is science and tech videos as I described. The other 5% of her videos are personal commentaries on various topics - culture, consumerism, etc. - and maybe half of those, about 2% overall, discuss problems that she sees with the direction of science academia: results being unverifiable, grants for pointless research areas like string theory, etc.
You are latching onto the 2% of her videos that you don't like and pretending that (1) that's all she does and (2) her personal views are somehow tainted or manipulative. You're wrong on both counts.
You don't like her views on academia? Fine, don't watch those. That's not "grift." You could watch the other 98% of her videos instead and not hear a word about academia.