god yeah, she's clearly stupid and shit
(
Invisible Wizard - 12th Level Errorer, Tue 10 Mar 2026, 14:12,
Reply)
You seem quite the fanboy
I’m sure she’s bright, just as I’m sure Nigella Lawson is a good cook. And how both of them maintain that constant coquettish smile whether they’re talking about pork chops or black holes is quite impressive. My beef with these pop science YouTubers is that in their demand to put out constant content they mostly rip off the work of good science writers or research in these journals without attribution. The hard work was done by the science writers, these YouTubers aren’t pulling it from their own knowledge or research, Hannah exhausted all that several years ago. And like all journos, science writers are struggling as are the journals themselves
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 10 Mar 2026, 21:04,
Reply)
But part of the job is to communicate complex ideas to the uneducated
It's not aimed at those who find edutainment it beneath them.
I think she presents this stuff very well. So, yes, I'm a fanboy too.
(, Tue 10 Mar 2026, 21:46, Reply)
i think you misunderstand my issue
which is with her and the others stealing content from journals (without attribution), rather than the quality of their presentation or their smarts. It's a bit unethical and might eventually kill the hand that feeds it. It's like how google, facebook and now AI show or summarise news article without the paper or writer benefiting as there's no eyeballs back to the original publisher. As I said in my first post, I'm not against pop science vids. That she's undistinguished in her field (maths, not science communication) is no slight on her, about half of professors at any uni would have a similar output.
As an observation I noticed that a bunch of them, that beardy bald bloke, the clean cut yank bloke, de grasse tyson, etc have gone from plying their individual content to now constantly appearing in each others videos like some tv crossover metaverse. Maybe they get more views if they pool their respective followers.
And as a general 'old man shakes fist at sky' point, science is more than just watching facts, it's using your brain to question and being critical. That's not elitist, if you watch these vids and understand the concepts they're explaining, you're more than capable of not just accepting things at face value, of digging deeper and thinking for yourself at the assumptions they make and where and how they got their data. Like that line in her research about rioters acting rationally. Do you think that's a defensible assumption? Why or why not? It's a really useful but underpromoted science skill in a world increasing full of bullshit and lies.
(
cumquat may will not be commenting further on the allegations, Tue 10 Mar 2026, 22:41,
Reply)