Comments by "" (@TheDavidlloydjones) on "Stanford" channel.

  1. Brad, Small note on top of the customary thank you #1:   Thank you also for publishing the "playlist" on a separate page.  I download stuff in bulk, because I have a lousy Internet connection and don't really have video in real time.  Then I end up with a bunch of files with names like "~yp456BD79.tmp" to convert, and I have no idea what goes with which.   So your playlist, and your title at the beginning of each lecture make it all doable.   Good work: Thank you 2.0.   -dlj.
    7
  2. Fer shure. But you don't necessarily know what they are, do you?
    3
  3. Pointing a camera at a lecturer in a classroom is one way of exploring how to do education over the Internet, I suppose. Sorta like bonobos trying to figger out how fire works. But could we at least have a competent sound person doing the audio?
    1
  4. Warning: This is a man so delusional that he thinks Ulysses Grant is buried in Grant's Tomb. Worse than that, he footnotes the whole of Shannon's Bell Labs information-theory paper in a single lump, in support of his own nutso assertions which are totally unsupported by Shannon. At last one major attribution of Susskind's to t'Hooft, on which a large part of Susskind's theorising rests, in non-existent. The man is a major-league flake. -dlj.
    1
  5. This is the sound, younger, Leonard Susskind, before he settled down for long evenings of "Werner Erhardt" bullshit in San Francisco and decided that all the problems of physics could be solved if you just replace any inconvenient zeroes with little itsy-bitsies you call strings. Why do you call them strings? Why not lumps? Or nice straight rods maybe? Your problem with lumps or rods is that people might start asking questions. How big? How do you know? Where did you see them? Do they go bump in the night? All of a sudden you'd be subject to the conventions of empirical science. Strings don't have these problems because we've been studying them for thousands of years, so we know all about them. They're harmonic, and they just behave mathematically. At first people thought they could get away with them all being sinusoidal, and that's still the starting point for every creative meander. Still, there's nots of new mathematicses in the past four hundred years, so there are other things to try out, too. All you have to do is "Just do the math, fellas," and that's what every soi disant physicist has been doing ever since. The volume of maths produced in this effort is impressive -- if you're impressed by page counts. The amount of physical reality, though, seems, uh, is "invisible" the word I'm looking for? But yeah, Leonard Susskind on Einstein up to 1905 is reasonably OK.
    1
  6. Seven-minute shorter version is at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UF8uR6Z6KLc
    1