Comments by "" (@sirtra) on "Veritasium" channel.

@emanueleluciani99 you've just demonstrated bias with a leading question, replace door with car window. IE leaving your car windows down a crack in summer is considered by most as "open" even though it's only 10% open rather than "90% closed" If something is typically black or white, not grey.. it's extremely misleading (technically leading) to pose a scenario which only holds up when there is ambiguity in what is being asked, rather than what is being sought. If upon clarification or better wording the majority of participants would alter their answer.. all you've really proven is how deceptive the original question was.
8
Notice none of the anti capitalist people are complaining about the legal fees for the settlement? Why are none of them calling for the rich lawyers to throw him a bone? It just wasn't possible for his own legal team to reduce their fees huh? And it just so happens the settlement just baaaaarely covered their fees?! What an uncanny co-incidence hey 🤣
7
@freshrockpapa-e7799 "trust the science" 😂 Learn what peer review is and how important it is in science - science is the pursuit of knowledge based on the data from repeatable experimentation and evidence... not what two people tell you it is.
4
 @-vaniii- investing is a risk, gambling is a risk
4
 @b8888whale premium doesn't eliminate in-video ad reads.. such as at the end of this video
3
@freshrockpapa-e7799 and since you are probably too flustered to click on a link and read, here is a pertinent excerpt: Scientific knowledge is best established by evidence and experiment rather than argued through authority[13][14][15] as authority has no place in science.[14][25][26] Carl Sagan wrote of arguments from authority: "One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority.' ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else."[24]
2
@freshrockpapa-e7799 you keep assuming things i've never said nor thought about the paper. I was merely criticizing your use of the word science. You talk like a bitter academic with an arts major, makes sense why you'd get upset when someone isn't impressed. Don't stress i hear it gets easier as you get older. Good luck buddy, chin up!
2
Derek goes out of his way to obscure the answer to the point where it's confusingly misleading and detrimental. The 100hz tone doesnt go away. Extra ones are added, one of them happens to be lower. We hear them all. He wanted to draw attention to the added frequency which is lower. But the wat he goes about it is weird. If he asked "which of these contains the lowest frequency" and then you take the answer for that to mean, that one must be lowest of the 2 and therefore the OTHER must be higher... you will arrive at how he got his answer. It's intentional as at 6:50 he has the "big reveal" of this lower frequency we were not meant to hear and be all like omg wow! I'm rapidly losing respect for his content, the topics he covers are actually interesting but the deceitful manner in which they're communicated and presented is infuriating at times. This is a prime example.
2
@FireHydrantForeheadNyquil without creme you have a 1 in 5 chance of being trampled by a unicorn. With creme you have a 1 in 3 chance of being trampled by a unicorn. The creme may be labelled as "Unicorn Repellent" but have you considered the creme might actually attract unicorns not repel them?
2
Whilst I agree with everything you've outlined but as someone who subscribes to lots of channels and use the 'subscriptions' feed in addition to 'recommended' the title and thumbnail really are key to what I click on or don't. I'd make a small clarification on 'clickbaity' though as obvious clickbait stuff has the opposite effect on me. To me, what gets my click is a thumbnail and title that is: 1) descriptive (but not misleading) 2) intriguing (but not intentionally vague) Whilst this shares characteristics with 'clickbaity' stuff I actually consider it different and avoid like the plague actual 'clickbait' or sensational/misleading titles. One thing which really rubs me the wrong way and doesn't get my click (or if it does i'll watch for only a few seconds whilst i harshly judge the content and the moment it contradicts the title/picture i stop) are titles which speak as if they know what I'm thinking or claim to provide something they don't, eg: 5 thing you didn't know about something you won't believe this about that why something is better than this And don't even get me started on titles in all caps or certain words in caps like DESTROYS. Your 96 million balls vid is a perfect title and thumbnail and amusingly i wouldn't even know it went viral unless i watched this - i would of been one of the early viewers who watched it hours after it was uploaded and helped make it trend as i watched it in its entirety. So keep with the 96 million balls style title/picture - it tells me enough to know what the video will be about, gives an illustrative picture that makes me want to see more and also gets me curious. More importantly it doesnt claim to be something it's not and doesn't assume anything about the audience. A bad and clickbait title/picture for that video which is all too common and wouldn't have got my click and full watch would be: You won't BELIEVE why theres 96 million balls on this lake!! (then a picture that just shows a bunch of balls with no way to assess the size of the balls or lake - you being in the thumbnail or some object to help assess overall size like a car or boat really helps)
1
@joshuazeeman7553 we (general public) sit though enough youtube ads that Derek makes serious bank from that he shouldn't need to push an additional sponsor... you seen his house?!? Dude is living in a manchin from his youtube earnings not patreon or sponsorships... those are just icing on the cake at this point. So spare us all the guilt trip.
1
@freshrockpapa-e7799 i said you talk like one, which you do. Academics come in all shapes and ages. My remarks hold true no matter your age and i stand by every word. Your reading comprehension seems pretty sloppy for someone throwing around accusations and demanding others read a study... It begs the question, have you actually read it yourself? And don't stress it's a rhetorical question, i don't care either way nor would it change my opinion. Hope things get better for you soon!
1
1:10 you can't make a rainbow without an observer huh? 🤨
1
There is no "almost" impossible 🤨
1
Wouldn't a triangular path solve this? Run the test twice in both diections and if they don't match then there is a difference in speed due to direction, if the are the same there isn't. Ie instead of just bouncing it there n back in a straight line, it goes from point A to B, B to C, C to A. Then run the test in reverse, A to C, C to B, B to A. I guess it technically doesn't measure the speed in each step but it rules out the instantaneous theory.
1
@thoughtricity4296 By shifting the orthogonal plane and thereby making the pathway in one direction longer than the other it should make it possible to detect if there is a difference in speed based on the direction - not what the speed is but just if its different. Ie you rule it it or out. Think of it like this, you're at home and you send a friend in a car to get a bottle of milk from the shops - you stay at home and time how long it takes them. If they go there and back in a straight line, the distance there and back would be equal. Now lets say the speed limit on the way there is 90mph, and 10mph on the way back - this is the unknown variable though. Naturally going to the shop would be quicker than coming back, but since you have no idea when they got to the shop only the total trip time there is no way to determine if one direction is faster than the other... as they are traveling on the same plane there and back the distance in one direction is equal to the distance in the other and any gain or loss in one direction gets cancelled out in the other in theory. Running the test in reverse (ie start at the shop, deliver milk to home, then return to shop) merely creates an indistinguishable scenario, its essentially just re-ordering the sequence of the same journey. If however they go straight to the shops, but on the way back they have to stop by grandmas house well then suddenly one direction becomes longer than the other (this is the triangle, A to B is to the shop, B to C is grandma, C to A is home). This breaks up the symmetry problem and whilst you still can't technically measure the speed (since you still dont know when they got to the shops or grandmas) i THINK it would be possible to determine if the direction of travel has any influence on speed by running the test in reverse (ie they stop by grandmas on the way there)
1
@thoughtricity4296 thats not how optical fibre works, the example of a loop in the video was fine for illustrative purposes but it falls flat when you get into the nitty gritty technical details. Fibre cable is inappropriate for this type of experiment but not for the reason given. The light travelling down a fibre cable actually bounces off the sides of the glass strand. Light actually travels longer than the length of a cable since it's not travelling perfectly straight down the line, even for a perfectly straight cable. The entry angle is highly important and furthermore the end if the glass tube is also angled - thats what fibre cables really are, very thin glass tubes. There is a limit on the angle for the refraction of light VS passing through - you can observe this in the wild with puddles of water, at a certain angles you will see a reflection and at other angles you will see through the water (ie whats under it). The diameter of said tube is also important deoending upon the wavelength and distance used, it may surprise you that its actually thinner for SM vs MM which in lamens terms is long haul VS short haul. If you bend a fibre cable beyond a certain threshold, or if you zig zag it you almost certainly will cause the light to exceed the threshold for refraction and it wont make it to the other end. Not to be rude but i'm not sure what value you can bring to this conversation if you aren't aware of this.
1
@thoughtricity4296 i don't believe you a are PhD student, but even if you are it gives no validation to your argument, particularly if you're still a student - then again it seems academics these days often believe "argument from authority" or "qualifications" is a way to give more weight to your words. The light may travel the same axis but by detouring to grandmas house it alters the time spent travelling in one direction versus the other, hence if the light is travelling at differing speeds depending on the 2-way axis there would be a difference in round trip time depending on whether grandmas house is first or last, or the clockwise/anti-clockwise path etc. Think of it like sailing ships and the wind. Again, not to be rude but the fact you haven't (or maybe can't) even come up with your own analogy to illustrate your thoughts tells me you don't have a firm grip of the science, it's what i'd call book-smart rather than intelligent- the difference being whether you have simply memorized what is in the texts versus comprehending the subject adapting it to the context. I wish you well with your qualifications and future study.
1
@TheGuyAcrossSpace the same way some people can switch which way the spinning dancer is spinning.. it's both Which one you see/hear comes down to how you focus attention
1
You have ground news, who just happen to have a product about bias and politics, to thank for this paid promotion involving bias and politics.
1
In my mind this can be simplified by assuming the coin is placed into either Sleeping Beauty's left or right hand depending if its tails or heads... What is the probability the coin is in her left hand? Doesn't matter which hand is which, what day it is or number of times you've been woken up.. that coin can only be in one of two hands. Unless she's an alien. Actually that's my final answer, she's an alien and the coin is not real.
1
Pure oxygen baby. One pure full breath and i walked around for minutes easy. With training and practice, it's a marathon not a sprint 🤷
1