5 ms·

Johnny Harris makes well produced videos that contain a lot of old information and misinformation. If any of his videos cover a topic you're an expert in, you'l

Johnny Harris makes well produced videos that contain a lot of old information and misinformation. If any of his videos cover a topic you're an expert in, you'll see immediately.

ninetyninenine 2y ago
Then choose some other educational channel in which there are thousands.
- coupdejarnac 2y ago
  Just putting it out there for people who care about the quality of information they consume.
teddyh 2y ago
I also often see the same said about Veritasium.
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  No veritasium is pretty legit imo. Johnny Harris is not bad, I’ve heard the same criticism too. I think he won an award in journalistic integrity at one point. Theres no YouTuber without criticism. Referring to no one in particular: There’s even offensive snobbish garbage comments equivalent to the banality of Mr. Beast videos here on HN yet this doesn’t reflect the overall vibe here. Don’t try to bring my overall point down by attacking one particular aspect of one particular example. What should the snobbery of some of the commentary on HN here render the entire site moot? No. My point stands regardless.
  - Nullabillity 2y ago
    > Don’t try to bring my overall point down by attacking one particular aspect of one particular example. What should the snobbery of some of the commentary on HN here render the entire site moot? No. My point stands regardless. No, you giving two for two garbage suggestions shows how easy it can be for garbage content to masquerade as good. Both on YouTube, in HN comments, and elsewhere.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - ninetyninenine 2y ago
      Highly disagree. Those are not garbage channels.
- kragen 2y ago
  it's not true of veritasium; he is meticulous about correctness. it's true that his videos do include a lot of old information, but it's correct old information such as the theory of relativity
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    agreed. This one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI_X2cMHNe0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI_X2cMHNe0 generated a lot of controversy and he ended up being right. Hence the criticism. It's almost like the Monty Hall problem for Marilyn vos savant where even people with PhDs derided her for being wrong when in fact they were all wrong themselves.
    - kragen 2y ago
      well, the truth turned out to be quite complicated; see also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AXv49dDQJw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AXv49dDQJw. the result is more complicated than just a single time delay, and the details of the experimental setup (like the wire diameter! and load impedance relative to transmission-line pulse impedance) matter a lot. in alphaphoenix's first experiment, putting 5 volts into a kilometer of wire, he got 0.2 volts across his resistor immediately, then after about 1.6μs, a jump up to about 2 volts, and then a gradual rise to 1.7 volts, some overshoot peaking after another 1.6μs, and then settling back down to the 1.7-volt level (derek's results in the linked video, which incidentally links to one of the two i linked above, were quantitatively different but qualitatively similar) the really unintuitive thing about this i think is that people think of electrical energy as flowing inside wires, when actually almost all of it flows around the wires, as veritasium explained quite ably. this is something people doing high-speed pcb layout have to deal with a lot in order to avoid emi problems as i understand it, derek has a ph.d. in physics, or actually in physics education research https://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/Veritasium https://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/Veritasium. that doesn't mean he knows everything about physics, but generally my experience with people in ph.d. programs is that they're good at listening to counterarguments and admitting when they're wrong, and also seeking out experts before publishing (i think the veritasium video does contain a minor error in that it says electrons collide with metal ions, which as i understand it is not exactly how ohmic resistance works—the 'electrons' moving through the lattice are not exactly electrons but virtual particles similar to phonons or plasmons, and so the things they scatter off of are not individual ions—but possibly derek knows this and was intentionally simplifying, or possibly my understanding is wrong. i mean, i don't have a ph.d. in anything, much less solid-state quantum physics! derek certainly knows the electrons traveling through the wire aren't point-like particles bouncing around like billiard balls, and that the ions aren't red spheres with plus signs on them, despite depicting them that way.)

Johnny Harris makes well produced videos that contain a lot of old information and misinformation. If any of his videos cover a topic you're an expert in, you'll see immediately.

ninetyninenine 2y ago

Then choose some other educational channel in which there are thousands.

coupdejarnac 2y ago
Just putting it out there for people who care about the quality of information they consume.

teddyh 2y ago

I also often see the same said about Veritasium.

ninetyninenine 2y ago
No veritasium is pretty legit imo. Johnny Harris is not bad, I’ve heard the same criticism too. I think he won an award in journalistic integrity at one point. Theres no YouTuber without criticism. Referring to no one in particular: There’s even offensive snobbish garbage comments equivalent to the banality of Mr. Beast videos here on HN yet this doesn’t reflect the overall vibe here. Don’t try to bring my overall point down by attacking one particular aspect of one particular example. What should the snobbery of some of the commentary on HN here render the entire site moot? No. My point stands regardless.
- Nullabillity 2y ago
  > Don’t try to bring my overall point down by attacking one particular aspect of one particular example. What should the snobbery of some of the commentary on HN here render the entire site moot? No. My point stands regardless. No, you giving two for two garbage suggestions shows how easy it can be for garbage content to masquerade as good. Both on YouTube, in HN comments, and elsewhere.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - ninetyninenine 2y ago
    Highly disagree. Those are not garbage channels.
kragen 2y ago
it's not true of veritasium; he is meticulous about correctness. it's true that his videos do include a lot of old information, but it's correct old information such as the theory of relativity
- ninetyninenine 2y ago
  agreed. This one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI_X2cMHNe0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI_X2cMHNe0 generated a lot of controversy and he ended up being right. Hence the criticism. It's almost like the Monty Hall problem for Marilyn vos savant where even people with PhDs derided her for being wrong when in fact they were all wrong themselves.
  - kragen 2y ago
    well, the truth turned out to be quite complicated; see also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vrhk5OjBP8 and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AXv49dDQJw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AXv49dDQJw. the result is more complicated than just a single time delay, and the details of the experimental setup (like the wire diameter! and load impedance relative to transmission-line pulse impedance) matter a lot. in alphaphoenix's first experiment, putting 5 volts into a kilometer of wire, he got 0.2 volts across his resistor immediately, then after about 1.6μs, a jump up to about 2 volts, and then a gradual rise to 1.7 volts, some overshoot peaking after another 1.6μs, and then settling back down to the 1.7-volt level (derek's results in the linked video, which incidentally links to one of the two i linked above, were quantitatively different but qualitatively similar) the really unintuitive thing about this i think is that people think of electrical energy as flowing inside wires, when actually almost all of it flows around the wires, as veritasium explained quite ably. this is something people doing high-speed pcb layout have to deal with a lot in order to avoid emi problems as i understand it, derek has a ph.d. in physics, or actually in physics education research https://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/Veritasium https://youtube.fandom.com/wiki/Veritasium. that doesn't mean he knows everything about physics, but generally my experience with people in ph.d. programs is that they're good at listening to counterarguments and admitting when they're wrong, and also seeking out experts before publishing (i think the veritasium video does contain a minor error in that it says electrons collide with metal ions, which as i understand it is not exactly how ohmic resistance works—the 'electrons' moving through the lattice are not exactly electrons but virtual particles similar to phonons or plasmons, and so the things they scatter off of are not individual ions—but possibly derek knows this and was intentionally simplifying, or possibly my understanding is wrong. i mean, i don't have a ph.d. in anything, much less solid-state quantum physics! derek certainly knows the electrons traveling through the wire aren't point-like particles bouncing around like billiard balls, and that the ions aren't red spheres with plus signs on them, despite depicting them that way.)