No.54532
>>54529Do we look like a search engine to you?
No.56482
>>54514Regular flu ~ contagious but mild <1% death rate among the infected
Ebola ~ certain death but not contagious
Covid-19 is somewhere in between. Sure, you may survive it but not before passing it on to 3 or 4 others. Exponential growth ~ do you comprehend it?
https://virusncov.com/covid-statistics/usa No.56486
The Thought Emporium
When we think of science and scientists, we tend to think of people in perfect white lab coats, working in a shiny and expensive lab. Well I'm here to break that image. From biohacking and biology, to nuclear physics and nanotech, any topic is fair game. I don't just talk about concept and theory, I do the real science. Under controlled conditions, I'll use high voltage, corrosive solutions, extreme temperatures and more to create some very exciting machines and materials. Best of all, I'll show all of it can be done at home using as many off the shelf and DIY parts as possible.
https://yewtu.be/channel/UCV5vCi3jPJdURZwAOO_FNfQ No.58018
>>57985Have no clue why people trust those DNA companies. I've been tempted to order one of those tests in the past just for shits but the idea of my whole genome being locked away in some corporate archive is just too dystopic to consider imo.
No.58019
>>58018If one of your relatives does it then you're still screwed.
No.58022
>>57739I remember watching this video on chlorine production in Britain that was very similar to this style, but I haven't been able to find it ever since.
No.58461
>>5845920 minutes in and this is the most normie shit I've ever heard. Does it get any better, or does it just keep doubling down?
No.58462
>>58461I don't know what you are talking about.
It just goes over the research in a objective and scientific fashion with the occasional joke thrown in to keep things from getting too dry.
What do you mean by "normie shit"?
What do you mean by "get better?
Double down on what?
No.58463
>>58462not him but I don't think sociology can be objective, with stats and derivations based on those stats. The case definitely isn't helped by the fact that people casually lie on surveys all the time. I expected a more philosophy based analysis
No.58464
>>58463>I expected a more philosophy based analysisWhy? This isn't a philosophy thread.
Just because you have a bias against the field in general doesn't mean that quantitative methodology can't be applied to sociology, which is the case in the video.
No.58475
>>58464it aint really a bias. quantitative methods applied to sociology, at one particular point in the video, said that 'people who work make more money than those who dont'. This is admittedly the weakest example but even the main point of the video — not working while getting money makes you 'happy' but being 'happy' isn't necessarily a predictor of long term happiness doesn't feel like a profound point. Philosophy is my preferred 'edutainment' because its always profound
No.58476
>>58475I am not seeing what you argument is here beside the video simply not being to your preference.
No.58480
I found the worst informative channel on the internet
https://youtu.be/ufSDOHKIjVU No.58484
>>58483
it's gone now
nobody would have watched it anyway, so i might as well get rid of it for your sake
No.58486
>>58480Meh, it's ok for trivia I guess.
No.58487
>>58462Sounds like I upset you. Are you a female?
In general, here are the cognitive faults I find with it:
1 - There's a cognitive trick that's being used VERY frequently recently. Cite the hell out of a bunch of random facts, and then throw in uncited opinions in the middle of that stew. The uncited opinions get taken as true. E.g., and this should come as no surprise that I'm mentioning this as the stickling point given the forum we're on, how the narrator kept harping on about "sex is a human need." Notice the lack of citation on that one? Or, dropping a bunch of studies…and then throwing Nicomachean Ethics in the middle there.
2 - Another trick is to point out cited studies, but no way to actually find them for the actual audience. Or to give a way to find certain studies, but the ones that are really bad studies or studies taken completely out of context you only mention an author without the title at all. This video did a lot of this.
3 - When you can find it, it's either p-hacking (I think the replication crisis is proof enough of this), the author has some pretty severe biases (most meditation studies fall prey to this, if you look into the paper it was either funded by a Buddhist center or one of the authors is a practicing Buddhist, I don't think I've been able to find a meditation study that didn't have one of those two qualities), or the methodology is just poor.
As to your questions:
>What do you mean by "normie shit"?>What do you mean by "get better?>Double down on what?Do they stop playing the whole "You need to have sex and get more friends" angle at any point in the video? In other words, all the stuff that flies in the face of rules 2 through 4 of this board?
No.58489
>>58487>Starts off with personal insults for no reasonNot wasting my time
[-]
No.58492
>>58489Weird flex, but fair. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised you didn't start off the same way, since that's kind of how things fly on the internet.
No.59149
>>58836wow I had no idea they were going to build one of these in the US. The first leg will actually be passing through my city too. Very exciting.
No.59151
>>59149I wouldn't hold my breath.
HSR projects tend to be vaporware in the US for a number of reasons.
Until it is actually running and being profitable I will continue to doubt the project.
Super cool if they pull it off though.
No.59823
Cool thread. I too would like to add my findings.
The series is called The mystery of Matter, I really found it interesting
Part 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3Gt5IOjAucPart 2:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbuDmY5gpXQPart 3:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQZE0HPoAY No.60615
>>60613
This thread isn't about what is or isn't useful to wizards in particular.
No.60650
>>43101Most of those are pop-science shit. You are not seeking knowledge by watching them, just following the "I fucking love science" group.
No.62829
Any good informational YouTube channels without insufferable narration and dumb dramatised crap? I mostly like mysterious eerie rabbit hole type stuff but I like general infotainment type channels too. Here are some I’ve been watching:
- Barely Sociable
- Fascinating Horror
- Half as Interesting
- Kurzgesagt
- Lasy Masquerade
- Lemmino (best YouTube channel I’ve found)
- Real Life Lore
- Vsauce
I liked CGP Grey and Sam O Nella but they don’t upload anymore really.
No.64983
>>64973This is what happens when wikipedia infoboxes become the record of history. Alliances that never existed, form because the nations are neatly lined up in their columns.
Not necessarily false, depending on your definition of support, but highly misleading.
No.66643
I love longform videos reviewing video games. watch people review fnaf and fallout for hours
No.66781
>>66780There’s a link in the description to actually download and play the game yourself. It’s really cool