Yeah. I’ve seen her do other videos and she doesn’t play a game. I think it might just have been a way to keep the tone conversational. Near the end, as she got the complex stuff, the game got harder and her presentation suffered a little. I’m hoping she doesn’t stick with this format: not my favority.
I watched the video a couple of weeks ago, I think, so my recall might not be exact. However, my takeaway wasn’t that the scientists expressed excitement about their ideas. Instead, I think her issue was that they continued to outwardly express excitement and hype their field even after it was obvious that it was an avenue of inquiry that could never be meaningfully tested. I think she found these later actions to be disingenuous and harmful to the larger field.
Whether her assessment is accurate, I can’t really say since this isn’t my field. However, I recall many of the discussions she cites in her summary and her characterization seems fair. My gut says that there is at least some validity to her criticisms.
The discussion section of the paper is an interesting read (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2023GL103509). While I am not in a position to critique the authors’ conclusions, they seem to indicate that their work is confirming other estimates of ground water depletion. So, I believe this is more about showing that previous estimates of 2,150 GTons of ground water depletion are plausible. They state that “neglecting groundwater depletion in the PM excitation budget leads to a trend that is more westward than observed.”
In other words, they show that the amount of ground water depletion estimates by some climate models would be expected to have the same effect on polar motion that they have observed. Their paper doesn’t specifically address whether this depletion is anthropogenic–that is an assertion made by the models they are testing through their observations.
Well, let’s face it: logistics and executive details aren’t something he is good at. He may have just assumed that since he said it, someone else would make it so. That is, as you say, “painfully on brand.”
YouTube is a great resource…it just seems weird how precarious it is. You have all these creators who have spent countless hours creating high quality content for them (and even more low quality content!) and all of it could go away in an instant depending on the whims of a large corporation. Sure, some people have managed to make a lot of money from their YouTube content…but not as much as Google has! They can change the rules any time they want and most of their creators have no recourse.
YouTube could disallow this kind of script any time that they wanted and what could Tom Scott do about it? I haven’t watched this video in a while, but I seem to recall it ties in with his thesis.
High quality creators (of which, Tom Scott is one) need to find ways to own their own distribution or at least get firm contractual control over the terms of its distribution. They are the engine that drive the YouTube economy and my guess is that most do not get to share in anything but crumbs of the revenue they bring in.
Honestly, as I get older, I appreciate seats with lots of leg room more and more. I got “theater knees” that would bother me more than the neck pain and retinal damage that probably comes with that seat.
It’s Nolan, so it’s going to be unbearably loud…it might as well be unbearably bright, right?
It will be near the top of the list of fonts since it begins with “A”. I think that was what they were getting at.