Youtube comments of Overly Sarcastic Productions (@OverlySarcasticProductions).

  1. 36000
  2. 35000
  3. Hey gang! Can't help but notice the comment section is a little bit on fire. That's all good with me, but one recurring complaint I've noticed has started to get under my skin - namely that my explanation of non-euclidean geometry was insufficient, or even - dare I say - inaccurate. Now this is a fair complaint, because after a lifetime of experience finding that people's eyes glaze over when I talk math at them, I concluded that interrupting a half-hour horror video with a long-winded explanation of a mathematical concept wouldn't go over too well. I put it in layman's terms and used a simple example to illustrate the point. However, since some of the more mathematically-inclined of you took offense, I now present in full a short (but comprehensive) explanation of what exactly non-euclidean geometry is. First, we axiomatically establish euclidean geometry. Euclidean geometry has five axioms: 1. We can draw a straight line between any two points. 2. We can infinitely extend a finite straight line. 3. We can draw a circle with any center and radius. 4. All right angles are equal to one another. 5. If two lines intersect with a third line, and the sum of the inner angles of those intersections is less than 180º, then those two lines must intersect if extended far enough. Axiom #5 is known as the PARALLEL POSTULATE. It has many equivalent statements, including the Triangle Postulate ("the sum of the angles in every triangle is 180º") and Playfair's Axiom ("given a line and a point not on that line, there exists ONE line parallel to the given line that intersects the given point"). Euclidean geometry is, broadly, how geometry works on a flat plane. However, there are geometries where the parallel postulate DOES NOT hold. These geometries are called "non-euclidean geometries". There are, in fact, an infinite number of these geometries, and because the only defining characteristic is "the parallel postulate does not hold", they can be all kinds of crazy shapes. (As you can see, my explanation of "this is just how geometry works on a curved surface" is quite reductive, but at the same time serves to get the general impression across without going into too much detail.) An example of a non-euclidean geometry is "Elliptic geometry", geometry on n-dimensional ellipses, which includes "Spherical geometry" as a subset. Spherical geometry is, predictably enough, how geometry works on the two-dimensional surface of a three-dimensional sphere. In spherical geometry, "points" are defined the same as in euclidean geometry, but "line" is redefined to be "the shortest distance between two points over the surface of the sphere", since there is no such thing as a "straight line" on a curved surface. All "lines" in spherical geometry are segments of "great circles" (which is defined as the set of points that exist at the intersection between the sphere and a plane passing through the center of that sphere). The axiom that separates spherical geometry from euclidean geometry and replaces the parallel postulate is "5. There are NO parallel lines". In spherical geometry, every line is a segment of a great circle, and any two great circles intersect at exactly two points. If two lines intersect when extended, they cannot be parallel, and thus there are no parallel lines in spherical geometry. Since the Parallel Postulate is equivalent to Playfair's Axiom, the fact that no parallel lines exist in spherical geometry negates Playfair's Axiom, which thus negates the Parallel Postulate and defines spherical geometry as a non-euclidean geometry. Also, since the Triangle Postulate is another equivalent property to the Parallel Postulate, it is thus negated in spherical geometry. Hence, my use in-video of an example of a triangle drawn on the surface of a sphere whose inner angles sum greater than 180º. Hope that cleared things up (and helped explain why I didn't want to say "see, non-euclidean geometry is just a geometry where Euclid's Parallel Postulate doesn't hold - hold on, let me get the chalkboard to explain what THAT is-" in the video) Peace! -R ✌️
    24000
  4. Hey dudes! Noticed a few running themes in the comments that I felt I hadn't adequately addressed, so I just wanted to pop in and discuss a couple of 'em! FIRST OFF: Yes, I know what a Gary Stu is. I didn't explicitly mention it because I consider it to be a subtrope of Mary Sue. SECOND OF ALL: I've seen a number of comments getting grumpy and saying that I lost them when I segued into "the gender thing," usually saying that I'm ascribing to sexism something that can simply be explained by overall trends in media and characterization. And I understand the anger! I knew that was going to happen when I decided to address the gender thing in the first place, and I almost didn't, because backlash is uncomfortable and I hate feeling like I've failed my audience. But in this case I felt like I'd regret it more if I didn't address something that I perceived as a real problem. I try not to censor myself just to avoid pissing off people who would disagree with me, so… here we are. Full disclosure: the idea that Mary Sue is a gender-weighted term is not mine. I agree with it, but I didn't come up with it. Heck, the Wikipedia page on "Mary Sue" even has a section that specifically addresses the idea that Mary Sue is disproportionately used to criticize female characters! (Check it out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Sue#Criticism) This is a large part of why I felt I had to address it in the video, backlash be damned - it clearly wasn't something that only I was bothered by, you know? A lot of what I've seen in response has been "well on the message boards I hang out on, <male character> is CONSTANTLY called a Gary Stu, and I've never seen a female character called a Mary Sue!" And that's totally fair. We've all had different experiences! I only have my own to go on, and for the most part my experience in this particular area was seeing female characters I really liked being systematically demolished by fandoms for the crime of Sueness, and fans of those characters being hassled for liking such "problematic" content. And, of course, given that I personally quite like standard heroic characters, especially female ones, it makes sense that I would encounter a lot more female heroes being branded as Sues than those of you who don't share my preferences. Clearly a number of you have had a very different fandom experience than I have, and that's great! Life would be boring if we all lived it the same way. But just because we see things differently doesn't mean one of us is necessarily seeing things wrong. And, of course, the worst case scenario is that we recognize our disparate experiences and resulting worldviews, and agree to disagree. ;) Anyway, that's all I got tonight. Peace! ✌️
    11000
  5. 10000
  6. 9600
  7. 8900
  8. 8400
  9. 8100
  10. 8100
  11. 8100
  12. 7700
  13. 7600
  14. 6800
  15. 6600
  16. 6400
  17. 5800
  18. 5500
  19. 5300
  20. 4900
  21. 4700
  22. 4300
  23. 4200
  24. 4000
  25. 3900
  26. 3700
  27. 3600
  28. 3600
  29. 3500
  30. 3500
  31. 3300
  32. 3100
  33. 2700
  34. 2600
  35. 2400
  36. 2400
  37. 2400
  38. 2300
  39. 2200
  40. 2000
  41. 2000
  42. *HISTORICAL ACCURACY ADVISORY*: In this video I describe the siege of Caffa (dead bodies trebuchet-ed into the city and infecting the refugees) as being the inciting incident of the Black Death. This account was first described by Italian chronicler Gabriele de Mussi, who wrote in response to the plague arriving in Italy. His account has more or less been the accepted story since the 14th century. In the course of my research, I found various sources casting doubts on the accuracy of De Mussi's claims – but as a matter of protocol, I prefer to stick to consensus wherever it is available (in my case, CDC analysis), as the last thing I want to do is pick up a new and unverified take on XYZ and present it as The True Story. When in doubt, I'd rather be wrong with an out-of-date interpretation than wrong with a radical hot-take. However! Since uploading this video, I've received a good amount of notes in the comments, on Twitter, and on the Discord notifying me that the doubts on De Mussi are rather more thorough than I first took them for. Essentially, De Mussi's account of Caffa is not an eyewitness account (we knew that) but follows a handful of tropes and cut a handful of analytical corners that make the entire scene of uh, how did I put it ... "Yeeting the s**t out of their plague-infested corpses," not in fact the cause of the infection, at best, and at worst is a wholesale fabrication. Previous analysis assumed that open-wound contact between the dead and the people of Caffa were responsible for transmission, but this may not in fact have been sufficient to infect the population and cause, you know, all the rest. The new conjecture hinges on rats entering the city from the Mongol camp and stowing away on seafaring grain shipments. This may explain why the ships leaving Caffa were able to go so far and dock at so many ports without any apparent trouble, but only suffered infections when the grain shipments were opened. Whatever the ultimate case, there is sufficient academic doubt about the traditional story I relayed that I should let you all know the narrative is not so clear cut, even after so many years. As always, I appreciate those of you who took the time to share this information with me. It's rightfully embarrassing to make a mistake like this, and I'll strive to do better next time. TL;DR: prooooobably not actually the mongol corpse-trebuchets that did it, might have been rats in grain shipments. Sorry.
    2000
  43. 1700
  44. 1700
  45. 1700
  46. 1600
  47. 1600
  48. 1500
  49. 1500
  50. 1500
  51. 1500
  52. 1400
  53. 1400
  54. If you're Italian, please share your favorite place-name in your local language! I've seen a handful of comments saying that Venice in Venetian is closer to "veNESSia", and others saying there's hefty internal variety even within the Venetian language. Sourcing that pronunciation for the Venetian Language itself and not just the Venetian dialect of Standard Italian was a pain in the ass, so even if "veNEEsa" turns out to be wrong I'll take it as further proof of local language wackiness. EDIT: NEVERMIND I FIGURED IT OUT, I'M JUST STUPID. The Venetians in the comments are absolutely correct and it's like "Venessia" – the problem is I'm a dumbass who can't read IPA notation to save my life. The only place I could find an IPA pronunciation notation for Venésia was the Venetian language wikipedia page ( https://vec.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venesia ) and the only place that could help me decipher it was the Venetian Language IPA wiki page page ... ... WRITTEN IN VENETIAN. The notation is [veˈnɛːsja] and the ː and j characters are what screwed me. The ː lengthens a sound but my stupid ass mistranslated it as DOUBLING the sound, hence my "veNEE-". As for the "-sa" at the end instead of "-sia", I screwed up the "j" IPA character, which is a completely standard "I" sound in Venetian, but I misread it as the "ʃ". This maps to a "sc" sound, but I lazily and stupidly thought "oh I know that one, that's the medieval variant of the letter S". Cascading failures from stupid assumptions in a video about not making assumptions. Lesson learned, ask a Venetian next time, and check my assumptions. Any similar mistakes with the pronunciations of other local-language endonyms stems from the same source - ya boi is bad at IPA. I don't think this failure breaks the thesis of the video, but it's an oversight I don't intend to replicate. You all deserve the best research possible, even when that means better deciphering a Venetian-language IPA chart. -B
    1400
  55. 1400
  56. 1400
  57. 1200
  58. 1200
  59. 1100
  60. 1100
  61. 1000
  62. 1000
  63. 953
  64. 882
  65. 814
  66. 807
  67. 796
  68. 745
  69. 744
  70. 738
  71. 733
  72. 706
  73. 668
  74. 667
  75. 667
  76. 659
  77. 641
  78. 640
  79. 638
  80. 625
  81. 604
  82. 577
  83. 553
  84. 531
  85. 526
  86. 507
  87. 504
  88. 484
  89. 469
  90. 463
  91. 458
  92. 452
  93. 445
  94. 434
  95. 379
  96. 332
  97. 330
  98. 314
  99. 300
  100. 287
  101. 286
  102. 255
  103. 249
  104. 246
  105. 246
  106. 244
  107. 219
  108. 214
  109. 214
  110. 211
  111. 206
  112. 199
  113. 192
  114. 192
  115. 187
  116. 187
  117. 186
  118. 182
  119. 173
  120. 170
  121. 167
  122. 165
  123. 165
  124. 163
  125. 162
  126. 157
  127. 136
  128. 135
  129. 135
  130. 132
  131. 126
  132. 124
  133. 123
  134. 114
  135. 113
  136. 107
  137. 105
  138. Good questions! First, I'm of the opinion that something is better than nothing when it comes to founding stories, so if a myth is all we really have, I'm going to go with it. The Romans were 100% of the mindset that they came from the Trojans, so that in itself makes the story worth relaying. While epic poetry obviously isn't fully accurate, archaeological evidence has more or less confirmed that a lot of the information in, say, the Iliad and Odyssey is too on the nose to have been simply made up years after the fact, and thus, must be at least partly grounded in historical fact. It's similar for Rome. Is Aeneas' story as Virgil told it true? Almost certainly not. But I (and many classicists far better trained than myself, and a vast majority of Romans) are of the opinion that the Romans descended from the Trojans, and the Aeneid is an embellished version of that story. Those greek influences didn't come out of thin air. Second, perhaps my phrasing didn't come across properly, but I wasn't insinuating that the Romans had some 500 year plan for world domination. What I was trying to say was that the Romans were careful never to overextend themselves. With the sole exception of Italy, once, for three years, Rome never saw a province secede throughout the course of the Republic. Compare that to Alexander or the Mongols, who just kept conquering until they stopped, and their empires promptly disintegrated within a century each. My point is that Rome was patient. No, they didn't have everything mapped out. BUT they knew that any conquering needed to be done sustainably. They didn't take over a province unless they knew they could hold it — which, again, throughout the Republic and well into the Empire, they did, almost flawlessly. I genuinely appreciate you asking that question, because it's important to discuss this stuff — I'm certainly not infallible. Hope this clarifies the choices I made. -B
    102
  139. 99
  140. 97
  141. 97
  142. 93
  143. 93
  144. 90
  145. 81
  146. 74
  147. 73
  148. 68
  149. 62
  150. 56
  151. 54
  152. 53
  153. 51
  154. 51
  155. 49
  156. 46
  157. 45
  158. 44
  159. 43
  160. 41
  161. 39
  162. 33
  163. 32
  164. 30
  165. 29
  166. 27
  167. 26
  168. 25
  169. 24
  170. 24
  171. 22
  172. 19
  173. 19
  174. 18
  175. 18
  176. 17
  177. 16
  178. 14
  179. 11
  180. 10
  181. 10
  182. 9
  183. 9
  184. 9
  185. 8
  186. 8
  187. 8
  188. 8
  189. 8
  190. 8
  191. 7
  192. 7
  193. 7
  194. 7
  195. 7
  196. 7
  197. 7
  198. 7
  199. 7
  200. 6
  201. 6
  202. 6
  203. 6
  204. 5
  205. 5
  206. 5
  207. 5
  208. 4
  209. 4
  210. 4
  211. 4
  212. 4
  213. 4
  214. 4
  215. 4
  216. 4
  217. 4
  218. 4
  219. 4
  220. 4
  221. 4
  222. 4
  223. 4
  224. 4
  225. 4
  226. 3
  227. 3
  228. 3
  229. 3
  230. 3
  231. 3
  232. 3
  233. 3
  234. 3
  235. 3
  236. 3
  237. 3
  238. 3
  239. 3
  240. 3
  241. 3
  242. 3
  243. 3
  244. 3
  245. 3
  246. 3
  247. 3
  248. 3
  249. 3
  250. 3
  251. 2
  252. 2
  253. 2
  254. 2
  255. 2
  256. 2
  257. 2
  258. 2
  259. 2
  260. 2
  261. 2
  262. 2
  263. 2
  264. 2
  265. 2
  266. 2
  267. 2
  268. 2
  269. 2
  270. 2
  271. 2
  272. 2
  273. 2
  274. 2
  275. 2
  276. 2
  277. 2
  278. 2
  279. 2
  280. 2
  281. 2
  282. 2
  283. 2
  284. 2
  285. 2
  286. 2
  287. 2
  288. 2
  289. 2
  290. 2
  291. 2
  292. 2
  293. 2
  294. 2
  295. 2
  296. 2
  297. 2
  298. 2
  299. 2
  300. 2
  301. 2
  302. 2
  303. 2
  304. 2
  305. 2
  306. 2
  307. 2
  308. 2
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1