that job was created in 2025, long after she started making videos
and its role seems to be teaching the rest of faculty, and maybe even some pesky students, how to communicate maths to the public, rather than sponsoring her video work. Likewise, her presidency was about her public profile than her proving the riemann hypothesis. She started making popular maths vids in her field, bringing a kind of Nigella Lawson sensiblity that probaby didn't hurt her viewship among blokes. But now she makes content on any science topic, along with about five or six similar youtubers that now all seem to appear in each other videos.
I'm not fussed what her and the rest do with her time or how they make money. But none of the research is hers like the rest of them, and being a scientist the algorithm always pushes them to me. (at least Brian cox is doing active research at CERN). And I have noticed even up to several years after any interesting article appearing in Nature or other journals my work pays for, these people make videos about it without ever citing them. I guess it's less impressive if you start a vid saying, "so, I read this article in the Lancet in the doctors waiting room and now I'm going to summarise it for you"
In response to having their publishing thievarised, I've seen some of the journals like New Scientist hire similar kind of easy on the eye presenters to make content themselves e.g. www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLrAJo6-SH4
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 10 Mar 2026, 7:06,
Reply)