October Video: Dark Matter Stars (and more!)

I absolutely love PBS spacetime. I really appreciate the density of information and the inclusion of out-there ideas. I loved physics in school but chose a different major and watching years of PBS feels like an interesting insight in the things I could have been working with if I chose that path. I like watching and rewatching their videos to help me fall asleep because of the way it allows my thoughts to wander off. All of that is true of your videos as well. Obviously your style is very different, but for me personally it works just as well.

PBS Spacetime regularly picks up topics they touched on years earlier and add more details. You can also see this in their playlist compilations for big topics like DM or DE etc. They also regularly re-explain something from a few weeks earlier, if some comments show that key points weren't really understood by some people. And regarding this DM star thing and your objection that they didn't even mention the SMBHs: that is totally in line with their approach to not drown viewers in too much complexity. Very often they hint at there being more complicated things relating to the current video, but that "that's too much for now and deserves its own video some time later". Regarding the clickbaity titles: anyone who has seen a few of their videos knows that they will very very likely debunk that. I get a very strong feeling that they intentionally do that to reach people that would otherwise just watch crackpot videos. Totally valid approach, imo.

Oh and since this is another video that you ended with "I've been talking for so long / too long" etc, or saying sorry that you went off on a tangent for 20 minutes ... : Not once have I watched one of your vids and thought "oh man, get to the point" or "I wish this was a bit more TL;DR". I think if you're excited about something, then for one, you're probably not alone with that perspective, esp. on your YT channel, let alone your Patreon. And also, to me, if the presenter is excited about something and lets it shine through, then that can be really infectious. If in doubt, make it your fallback assumption that your audience is here because we really enjoy and appreciate listening to your thoughts!

Since you asked for comments from viewers whether they watch PBS Spacetime: yes I do - now! Ok I have just watched a few videos. But I only became aware of them because you talked about them.

Sabine Hossenfelder is weaponizing crackpottery

I'm also just catching up on all your stuff. I loved this video so much! The buildup for the ... thing was really cool. And I will miss the couch background, that was so cozy.

I'm just catching up with your vides (thank you!). I wanted to respond to the question at the end of the video about watching PBS. I do watch PBS and Dr. Becky. I like them, a lot. I think the content is way more important than the clickbaity thumbnail or even title, I subscribe to both channels and watch most of what they post regardless of thumbnails. I most of the time don't even notice the thumbnail. I think Dr. Becky does a great job explaining stuff in a balanced way (I don't think I got a wrong idea about MOND, "the crisis in cosmology"), and Dr. Matt O'Dowd from PBS Spacetime does a good job although most of the stuff goes way over my head (but I'm sure it's not his fault). I don't find the videos about aliens or speculations about our Universe being inside a black home particularly interesting, but also I have a feeling they have a schedule and they need to release stuff so sometimes the subject is not very inspired or interesting. I think one of the excuses youtubers use for clickbait is that "I get more people to watch my message, so it's a net positive if the message is correct". I can see both sides of the argument, but I think it's a bit extreme to think that people leave a video with a conviction only from title and thumbnail -- I have a feeling that those people would not get the content even with the lest clickbaity title. But also I don't think inflating the clicks artificially is as useful as some content creators seem to believe and they do turn off people who are serious about the subject.

Angela out here a full year ahead of the current YouTube hot take trends. Shoutout to Professor Dave

my lukewarm pbs take is that their old videos (like seven years ago old) are good. When they were explaining established physics and sticking to agreed facts I found them so useful while taking my pre university exams... It was all so interesting and so new and when I lost motivation I would watch their videos and be like "ok I need to work because I want to be able to understand the maths behind this particle thing they just explained in words". It was the only decent channel which actually told me what I'd be doing on my degree and they were actually right (back then). I actually referenced their video on Noethers theorem in my personal statement to be like "I can't wait till I get the maths behind this concept". Now it feels like they ran out of established theories to explain and are just churning out the same sensationalist stuff all the other big corporate physics channels do. Idk if it's just because they're out of ideas, the writers changed, they got told to keep up this huge audience they have, whatever. But it's not the same. I stopped watching like 18 months ago and even before then I skipped most of the new videos. It's honestly so sad when their old stuff was so interesting to me :( although I guess now I'm actually learning it at uni! :)

(and one of the better non-sensational sci communicators has been sick for a few years and I hope she gets better. Physics Girl always did a great job of simplifying without dumbing down and without using analogies that end up being misleading)

Kinda late to this conversation (finally joined the patreon), but I like your sci-comm style because it's all clearly your take and your interpretations, and reflects how science really is. And includes good levels of snark where appropriate. Too much sci-comm presents stuff as "here's a thing we know, deus ex machina, it's complete, the end", even when it's some totally speculative paper with a clickbaity title even in the original journal.

Late to the party (as a new patron), but I thought I'd throw this in here: I don't watch any of the channels listed at the end, except occasionally Sabine's. (Although I don't follow it.) The only two science channels I follow apart from this one are "Cool Worlds" and "Fermilab".

PBS spacetime is the only other physics channel I watch, and I mostly just put it on to fall asleep to lmao. I have related thoughts about the PBS Eons channel. I am a PhD student in genetics (studying proteins!) and I just... cannot watch YouTube in my field. I've accepted that science communication in bio/biochem just isn't "for me," but PBS Eons is... not great. Repeatedly they will pose a thesis question that they never get around to answering in the video. Anyway, all that to say I think it totally makes sense to (1) be turned off by other science communication in your field, especially if (2) it's superficial and misses all the interesting deep nuggets that brings us to our science field in the first place.

I have zero formal education, I am relatively intelligent, but poor at school. I am a tool and die maker. Because of videos like PBS spacetime, I actually chose jobs and made things for Fermi 's M-2 Muon experiment. As well as argon national laboratory. A different YouTube I know says he supports a variety of tactics. Sometimes the person saying something matters more than what they are saying. I acknowledge that they are simplifying things for consumption, but it inspired me to look for more in-depth explanations.

What about the 'Dark Matter is not a theory' shames you? It's not a clickbaity Question Mark??? title, the thumbnail isnt PoggersFace, and the title matches the video contents.

Thank you so much for this video and the topic. I have followed many 'science' channels for many years (some will show up in your analytics), and I have never been able to really find out why I have felt uncomfortable about them. Having grown up with shows like 'Cosmos (TOS)' and BBC programs like The Sky at Night, I was use to science programs to be about science. Watching some of the PBS shows, I always felt like, there is some science in there, but they are wrapping it in a bunch of garbage that I don't like. So, I click off the video and I have never subscribed. So, I try harder and harder to not click on the clickbait. I wish you could take back the view if you felt like you were duped. But then again it is hard to know when the real story does come along. I am starting to answer my own questions, don't click on them, and if it is real news it will show up all over the place. Anyway - thanks and Cheers.

Another great video! Totally on board with your opinion on the stupid click-bait face thumbnails. The sound played on the title slides strongly reminds me of the Firefly series — I like it

Very cool that lots of your subscribers watch Some More News. For those who haven’t seen it, it’s a very funny and informative news channel that does deep dives on specific political topics. Kind of like Last Week Tonight but the videos are longer and a bit more edgy in their humor.

This is really random but during the dot.com boom, the “different views of an elephant” story for some reason really took off in the business world. Just about every new company used it as part of their pitch, I think because so many of those dot.com companies were “we’ll put out a bunch of fluff, do an IPO, get rich and sell our stock before people notice we have no viable business” But what really aggravated me was the way the meme morphed. More and more people started saying “elephant in the room” when they meant “big problem we should be talking about but are ignoring” and I wanted to scream “that’s not what that means!”

Catching up on videos that I've fallen behind on since astrophotography season started back up, here in Alaska. Hey!! Finally figured out the magic key press combination to actually get paragraphs! Woohoo! So, productive. I watch about a quarter to a third of the channels you listed at the end. I actually patreon StarTalk Radio, consume pretty much every video Anton makes (he is a machine, I tell you), enjoy Sabine and Dr Becky quite a bit, and although I like Dr. Dowd I've never warmed up to the PBS channel all that much and if I were to guess why it is because I hate click baity thumbnails. In fact, I avoided your videos, early on, because for the ones that came across my feed, the titles were just way too click baity for me to bother with. But I did eventually watch one and then binged all of them and then began throwing money at you in hopes to support your work and interest in making more. Love, love, love, your channel. That said I think the shocked face channels you are commenting on serve a very different purpose that your channel does and I think, in the large, it is probably better thing they exist that if they did not. The "science is bullshit and stupid" lot aren't going to have their minds changed great informative videos done thoughtfully. Most such folks aren't built that way ... I suspect they want validation of their views far more than they want to be right about something nobody around them understands or takes part in anyway. Your channel is AWESOME for science tourists, like myself, that have the background to understand okay enough to enjoy it. Astronomy is a life long enjoyment of mine and although I have a minor in mathematics and in physics none of that has ever paid my bills. Databases and business programming (boring and stupid stuff because the world desperately needs yet another automated accounting report) are what have allowed me to feed my family but now that they are almost all adults I have been able to, in the last couple years, start injecting the fun, difficult, things back into my life and hobbies. As you point out your audience is more technical and science interested than the typical PBS channel viewer and I come here exactly for the science and fun you bring to your videos. I absolutely know you could drown me in minutes, if you chose to, with extreme technical jargon and processes if you chose to, just the same I could almost certainly drown you in the same sorts of things on the computer programming side (yes, even AI programming) if that were the goal. But the awesome thing is that doesn't appear to be the goal. You genuinely appear to want folks like me to understand better, to get past the headlines, and to sink our baby fangs into some real, tangible, science meat and potatoes. Your demographic, I would imagine, includes the very sort of people that would have taken your undergraduate classes. Sad as it may be many of us watching you are the ones that went a different path and/or didn't quite have what it took to go where you have gone. But we did try, back in the day, or will try when we get out of high school. Your focus seems to include the undergraduate level interests and capabilities which is awesome and I love you for it. But what about the folks that never made it through college level work? Or never went to college at all? Or didn't have the passion, yet, developed to struggle through the hard stuff on their own? Or had to focus on many other things that kept an academic track far too costly to warrant chasing after? My sister holds two undergraduate degrees and a has a graduate degree in Nursing. She has worked for decades as a Nurse Practitioner and is a tremendously capable woman currently trying to publish her first book because that was an item on her bucket list. But she will tell you point blank that I'm the one that got all the math genes and she comes to me to help explain some of the non-medical sciencey things that she wants to know more about. And she totally watches Dr Hossenfelder, and Dr Becky, and Dr. Tyson. She really likes science but went a particular direction in life that wasn't science. I've actually tried to get her to watch some of your videos but I don't think they resonate for her like they do for me. The math, even though you dumb it down for us, just reminds her how hard math was for her and she just wants to enjoy the train ride ... she absolutely has no interest in knowing how to run the train or how the train even runs. But I come here for those very things. Maybe it is more that many of those folks are more "front line" science communicators. Sort of like the Tuna fisherman trying to hook the next one out of the abyss and into the boat. They are fighting a different, but related, fight. I suspect you love teaching, and specifically love teaching those that burn to know more and learn hard things. I suspect many of the others enjoy teaching, also, but love teaching those folks that don't know yet that this is something that is actually possible for them to do. They recruit many into trying. They ignite passion where literally none existed before. They get into very ugly, and public, battles with very nasty people that would love nothing more than to shut all this science shit down as hard and fast as possible ... and more than a few of those nasty people are actually scientists, themselves. Even if they can't pass on great science they are often able to sway public opinion enough to something more supportive or, at the very least, not destructive. I have no idea if they do more harm than good but I suspect they are a net positive. Heck, I haven't even watched a StarTalk episode in eight months but I still patreon the channel because I believe in and support the effort. Different fight and definitely a different effort. But your efforts are no less important, to me ... and honestly are more important to me. You (and others like you such as miniminuteman), are that next step when folks are wanting to head to a deeper end of the pool and see what's under the water. You are younger folks that show what young scientists are capable of and can be and that speaks volumes, so powerfully, to even younger folks trying to figure out what they want to be when they grow up.

I just wanted to mention that i really appreciate what you mention about your string theory video thumbnail. I have an aversion to thumbnails that look like clickbait. It was nowhere near the really bad ones and the title of the video was interesting, but i kept avoiding watching it. I'm so glad I finally did click on one of your videos, because i think your channel is probably my favorite thing I've found on YouTube in a couple years, at least.

Angela doing her best Becky Smethurst impression at 33:38

I watch @acollierastro to scratch a particular kind of parasocial-online-discourse-about-interesting-things itch, not *necessarily* because the content is astrophysics related, which I have no particular relationship to. I suppose lots of people follow the topic not the artist, but that's generally not how I consume YouTube media. Just because I follow Philosophy Tube doesn't mean I'm *automatically* interested in other philosophy YouTubers. Good content is good content and that's what I'm interested in. I did subscribe to PBS Spacetime, but I think mostly because I was itching for more @acollierastro videos, which didn't exist. Probably worth thinking about the acollierastro => spacetime pipeline that you yourself create a demand for. :) I recently unsubbed from Spacetime and became a patron and this was a much better solution to my problem than watching astrophysics videos that I don't actually like.

I just want to make two personal observations about PBS Spacetime. 1) I teach undergrad Physics at a "good" university and I can tell you that many students literally chose the major because of PBS and PBS-style content. I know for a fact that in 2022 about 80% of the class had watched it. So it's certainly "inspiring" people to learn more physics. I view it like reading some amazing explorer's biography and being inspired to go and walk for 5 hours in the park. Ultimately the biography got people walking, even if it was a bit embellished. Like I was really inspired by Cosmos magazines from the early 2000's. I re-read some recently and honestly, the content is also pretty sensationalised. Functionally, I was inspired by the same sort of rhetoric as these PBS inspired Zoomers. 2) With respect to covering topics like Aliens etc. Many people out there believe in that stuff and actively go searching for content on it. Whatever they get from a PBS video\thumbnail will be better than 99% of the "Aliens" content out there. So even if what they get from the video is kind of trash in an absolute sense, they still leave more informed than they would have been had they never been exposed to it. It's a low bar - but honestly anything that even slightly grounds the "aliens" crowd gets a big thumbs up from me. tl;dr: PBS ST inspires people and grounds loopy people. While the content could be better, the masses don't want to engage with better content. So it's a tradeoff of getting a million people to 65% understanding, or 50k people to 95% understanding. Which is better? I lean towards the former. But that's just, like, my opinion :)

I too do not believe any of your thumbnails have been "clickbaity." I discovered your channel when longtime string-theory critic Peter Woit posted a link to your video about string theory on his blog, and am skeptical he (and hence I) would have come across it had the title been muted in some fashion. Moreover "String Theory lied" was simply your premise, and a correct one at that! I have a doctorate in physics but know nothing about astrophysics, so it's been a delight to learn about some aspects of this field from you. (I also thoroughly enjoy your politics and sense of humor.) When I saw your thumbnail titled "Dark matter is not a theory," I thought, "great, now I'll learn about the observations that led to the idea of dark matter" and that's exactly what you delivered. I do agree with your hot take... I just don't think you're guilty of it. Now that I've defended you, I'll say this: Am I surprised that people in the YouTube universe (including Joe Rogan fans, ugghh!) will leave comments that misconstrue what you're saying, no matter how good a science communicator you are, and no matter how seemingly innocuous the thumbnails? No, not all. But I'm fortunate: I will read comments on Patreon but not on YouTube. As an experiment I did watch three PBS physics videos, including the one to which you linked, all of which seem to have the following tone: "I'm going to speak about everything with a sense of excessive wonderment while computer graphics whirl about. And intentionally or unwittingly what I say does not communicate proper skepticism--or proper confidence--in the various pieces of the story." As Marshall McLuhan might put it, mush is the message.

I'm finally getting around to watching this video and it's AWESOME so far I love it. But one thing I really wanted to comment on was the title of the "Supermassive Dark Star candidates seen by JWST?" paper and how that title ends with a question mark, which you aptly pointed out. It makes me think of the whole Homo Naledi and Rising Star Cave fiasco. The discoveries in those papers were really cool, but you can basically sum up all the "science" as, "we found some super awesome stuff, but in order to get publicity we are absolutely jumping the gun on a declaration that this creature made art, had fire, and buried its dead intentionally, despite the (so far) lack of conclusive evidence for or against such hypotheses." In contrast, the Dark Star paper outlines its thoughts, identifies the possibility of a really amazing discovery, but ultimately begs for more research and observation. THIS is what good science is. And it's what Lee Berger should have done with the Homo Naledi papers, as opposed to making concrete statements without evidence so he could push out a Netflix series.

I don't think your titles and thumbnails are too clickbaity at all, not even the ones you pointed out. I would hate to see you lose out on potential audience that might really find your videos interesting by swinging too far in the "avoid clickbait" direction. I'm sure a decent amount of your subscribers originally found your channel from one of those.

I voted for three body problem for the physics. I had never heard about the book.

What I like about PBS Space Time is their videos about older topics, rather than recent developments. I am not a scientist (software engineer) and find them to be pretty accessible. Whenever they were reporting about recent developments it feels more click-baity.

I need a 45 minute video of you saying quantum in different ways and tones of voice. That would make my life easier

Can you please (PLEASE) respond to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy4rOY0Bjko

that's a cute dog you got on your couch, also, great video!

I love Dr. Becky and Joe Scott i used to watch them a lot, probably the reason the algorithm suggested me the String Theory video that started my journey into the Acollierastro Multiverse I guess from all the creators she is the one closer to Dr. Collier in terms of academics credentials since she have a PHD on astrophysics But the one video with the DID the JW Telescope proved Einstein wrong question mark ? Didn't seat well with me and spoiled her channel to me Like the Einstein disproven youtubesphere are the iceberg tips of conspiracy theories and anti science pipeline usually mixed with some form of antisemitism and a strange obsession with Nikola Tesla So giving in into that audience is irresponsible to say the least But Dr. Becky at least only do that in the thumbnail, the worst of all IMO is that onr German uber phisicist who actually subscribe to some crazy theories, even outside her expertise field

It's way cathartic to hear someone put into words the reason I've become less and less into pop-sci channels over the last few years. I used to loved PBS Spacetime because it went deeper into math of the physics and cosmology than most other mainstream pop-sci stuff but, lately, the clickbait titles and thumbnails have turned me off so much. I think you also talked about this, but the way they go deep into some really niche theory or whatever, but don't provide context around it, that bugs me big time. Anyway, I just want to say how much I appreciate you just doing straight science communication on your channel. It's super encouraging to hear that you know that it will get you fewer views, but that that's OK. One day, I hope every YouTuber can adopt this mentality.

PBS Space Time has never sat right with me and I think you hit the nail on the head. The explanations are wonky and don't bother to build knowledge through the explanations. They attempt to present a linear narrative in a way that cuts out the important building blocks. So I've never taken away anything useful from their videos. Meanwhile I was watching your video, I skipped the part about stellar evolution because I'm decently familiar, but then you got to the self-annihilation portion and the concept of dark matter star -> supermassive black hole clicked before you got there. So I wanted to say, for me, your communication style is wonderfully effective. I think you explained the premise of the paper in a way that constructed basis of a dark matter Star, specifically that it's self annihilating. Additive knowledge built the idea because it hinges on a theory that it's self annihilating which seems very foreign to me. But saying "if it's self annihilating, then maybe that explains this JWST observation" makes a TON more sense. And then throwing the conflicting theory that maybe dark matter consolidates baryons without the dark matter star without an energy release helped seal the deal. I think one of the things that helps me is the "put a pin in that" style you have. Setting aside complicated topics to build on another pillar of information is really effective to help an audience follow along with your reasoning. Also I really enjoy the more casual editing here! It's more fun to see the flubs if you're not worried about a larger audience.

Hi folks—- I just realized I called these “medium size black holes” but if you want to learn more they are called “intermediate mass black holes” or “IMBHs” for short.

It feels like there's an unseemly hunger for iconoclasm deeply embedded in our culture. Its influence can explain phenomena ranging from stupid thumbnails on physics youtube videos to blatantly awful people getting elected to political office. It also explains why people and theories viewed rightly or wrongly as iconoclastic (Wolfram? MOND?) claim a far greater share of attention than they objectively deserve. Of course this is not a new insight. *The Paranoid Style in American Politics* was published 59 years ago. In this light I find PBS's thumbnails quite harmful. While an individual thumbnail can be justified as necessary to attract viewers to what is otherwise a sane and grounded video, it also endorses and reinforces a cultural trope that really ought to be criticized and undermined instead. And I worry that message is more enduring than the specific scientific content, which most viewers will soon forget. EDIT: I guess I'm using a lot of words to say I agree with your hot take.

Also, I assume you've seen it but if not Veritasium has 20 minutes on the hand Youtube (and other media) has in encouraging the click bait, structuring their platform for it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2xHZPH5Sng

I think your frustrations are valid. Some of those channels are worse that others of course. For the ones that I do watch like PBS I realize that I'm effectively ignoring the click-bait spins in the titles and thumbnails and just taking away what the topic will be, if that makes sense? I continue to watch the new ones because the content itself is interesting and will drop enough nuggets that I can go digging deeper if I'm really interested, or if I'm not then it's still entertaining and not too long. For those that I don't watch, like Becky, I find the content to be a continuation of the dramatization and that just drives me up the wall. In particularly speaking with dramatic pauses every sentence or two. Hey, completely separately... I'm wondering on the dark matter stars thing, you mentioned that a condition of the hypothesis is that dark matter is its own anti-particle as something that's just accepted, but I'm not clear on why that is? Can we not have dark matter elements and dark matter fusion to provide the pressure? Is that interesting enough to elaborate on some time?

so I'm a total layman in physics, sans reading about it casually when I can. Graduated in psych but never did grad school. published a few papers and got a knack for calculus but most high-level stuff is over my head. found your channel through the "string theory lied" video and appreciate when people go after the scientists turned celebrities because I find ppl understand the subject less if these celebs are their primary sources. I like PBS space-time, the thumbnails are frustrating but I've kind of accepted that the YouTube business model works that way. Matt does an alright job explaining in the videos that these are just interesting questions to ask and that we have no real answers but I understand being frustrated with the idea of people only seeing the headline and taking away a wrong conclusion. I can only speak to someone who casually consumes this stuff but I enjoy sci-comm because I like learning how the actual smart people think about this stuff. Personally, I think its on the consumer to know that "new data" is not any kind of definitive conclusion and someone's new idea does not discount 50 years of science. If you can't figure that out for yourself, maybe you're just not the ideal audience and that's ok. but I'm a dummy, I'm not sure. I just don't think a professor can teach a class if they're too preoccupied with the stubborn contrarian who won't stop raising his hand in class and is applying no critical thinking to a broad simplification from a textbook, ya know?

I watch your channel primarily as a dad trying to find quality science material for my son, so this struggle is very familiar to me. Good science communication is so important, but it's at risk of getting drowned out by all the noise. I haven't watched PBS Spacetime, but I think you are probably correct to spin it in terms of it being a job for a number of people. I would like to see more YouTubers (and other artists) working on passion projects, not just content, filler or fluff.

I don't know if was already said but i want to celebrate that Dr. Collier channel just hit 100k followers in the last hours, that's a huge more than deserved benchmark Now to 1 million

I think your hot take is right on.

I only watch 8 out of 15 of the "Channels your audience watches." I think I've watched one PBS Spacetime video ever. And as I recall, I think, I didn't really like it. I think it was a lot "fluffier" than what I usually watch.

You went through the whole thing about how the various types of fusion happen, and then you describe the supernova as a “bounce back”. And that’s it? Why is there so much energy released? Where do the elements heavier than iron come from?

Is it possible (given the theory of dark matter) that dark matter stars self-annihilation caused the rapid expansion of the early universe?

I'm the type of patreon subscriber who is here for the Sarah McLachlan I Will Remember You gags

A lot of other people have explained how PBS Spacetime makes a point to assume that you have watched quite a bit of their previous videos which does put their content in a slightly different perspective. But one thing I think they, and so many other science communicators, does poorly is to differentiate between "speculative" and "established" science. I am just a layman but I watch quite a lot of this stuff so usually I can just tell but I know a lot of people can't. And lately I feel like they have done more and more videos about "speculative" science. But differentiating the two is something I think Dr. Becky does better than most. And there are plenty of examples of where I get confused as well about the level of speculative vs. established and the fact that I know how poorly that is usually communicated it makes it hard to grasp some ideas.

The PBS thumbnail thing is not just about money, it's also the algorithm: more people seeing the thumbnail in their feeds also means more people will actually watch the video, and that's a net positive. They optimize for that, and it's a valid choice given the sorry state of online video (i.e. a monopolistic monster that imposes arcane rules based on terrible criteria that actively make the world a much worse place). I wouldn't worry too much about people who just look at the thumbnail and use it to reinforce their prejudices, if they don't do it with your videos, they will do it with another channel that will have both terrible thumbnails and terrible content (the algorithm will sadly make sure of that). Now the part of that audience that does click and watch, maybe they can be convinced by high quality contents that they had biased ideas about the topic. Personally, as a former expert, I do appreciate their content. I don't have time personally to read papers. Their videos, along with other channels such as yours, help me stay in touch with my former field and science in general. They also take the time to explain the underlying concepts (in fact, their explanations of things like spacetime diagrams are pretty good), in a way that I think is good for non-experts with some science education. (new patron here)

I don't usually watch popular science or engineering videos. Many are just too long and slow or offer only surface level explanations, both are often overproduced. They're not for me. Funny thing, I don't even care about astronomy that much (I have a EE/CS background) but I like your videos because you're just speaking your mind about various subjects. You seem to know what you're talking about, you don't dumb things down too much (show the math!) and you keep things interesting with little jokes and tangents. The things I watch on Youtube/Nebula are more about urban planning (NJB, Adam Something), social issues (Shaun), economy, law and media/entertainment (Lindsay Ellis). Basically things I'm not academically trained in, so there might be a little Gell-Mann Amnesia going on there.

If a headline or video title is in the form of a question, the answer to the question is almost always "no."

I would love to see titles that followed a pattern like “So your know-it-all brother in law / that one loud guy at the pub wants to argue with you that insert-dumb-false-controversy-here. Here’s what to tell him!” Also, now that I know that stars are like both cars and onions, I’m picturing giant American truck onions wobbling around the streets of Boston. It’s a weird picture 🤔

after the revolution, click bait science videos will be outlawed

Great video. I have watched a few PBS science videos but I don't like them for various reasons including that the presenter just annoys me. But there are other YouTubers that I watch including some you showed but didn't mention that I think do a decent job of science communication IN their videos, but have for whatever reason gone the "sensational thumbnail" route. As you mention the incentives provided by YouTube are aligned with getting the most views and the clickbait strategy works. So I am reluctantly drawing the conclusion that people are the problem.

Great video! Yeah I agree with the comments about PBS-ST and enough has been said. I just wanted to draw attention to the Sleepy Pikachu plushie.

Came here for the physics, (pleasantly!) surprised with the leftism. Kinda embarrassing that I watch a lot of the channels shown from the analytics lol

I think one real problem in science communication is that people think of science as the knowledge instead of a process for gaining knowledge. So when the process rejects or modifies previously held knowledge to better fit observations, it makes it seem inconsistent. If people would just push the idea of science being a process of getting to the truth instead of the truth itself, there would be better understanding and less dismissal of the process.

PBS is just not my cup of tea. It's way too smooth for my taste, the videos are too well-paced and too well-structrued, the animations are too supporting, the content is too accessible. While watching, I get this feeling that the dopamine level of my brain is under an intimidating outer control. And two days later I have no idea what the video was about. I may respect them and watch them time after and I never would blame them for their clickbaity ads. These are for capturing an audience to turn them into the right direction for the greater good. I'm just not their audience. I'm also not the great fan of science communication in general. Particularly when they advertise, dumbify, worship, fanboy/fangirl and kibitz science. The usual subtext of "that's a club and you ain't in it" is also not very helpful. So I'm probably just a moderate fan of science communication, it's still an enjoyable way to learn about new things. The thing I'm truly into it is when a real person talks freely for hours with 100% honesty about real things and every sentence he says is the truth even if he is not always quite right and he is just a flawed human being at the end of the day. This is some ancient kind of permorming art. Consequently, I'm an avid fan of Ben Finegold (who is a shabby and moderately successful ridiculous old man), I somehow respect Jenny Nicholson (who is okayish, but she is not always that smart that she tries to show, that's why I'm shocked she is a millionaire superstar nowadays) and yes, I'm also a huge Lindsay Ellis fan. At her peak she is able to combine innocence and brutal honesty with an insurmountable amount of knowledge, dedication and hard work and she is also a very capable performer.

There's this great Grant Sanderson (3b1b) talk at the joint math meetings called Math's pedagogical curse and he discusses his most watched videos. I really like his analysis - yes there's some (very nerdy) clickbait, but as others have said the clickbait can help set up the story or topic or generate interest. While not a necessary evil, it's easy for me to have some forbearance. It's not bad to make math or science interesting! (Even using the lowest form of interest generation)

There is a growing problem in Science “Communication” imho and it’s exactly what you highlight — science communicators thinking they need to write headlines, and I don’t mean the ones inside a newspaper at the top of articles or a news story, I mean the ones on the front cover that make people buy the newspaper. The ones that are usually attention grabbing, speculative (in the bad way) and typically misleading or downright wrong. Typically these has been without exclamation marks or should have a question mark at the end but pretty often that’s a not there. And like a lot of things the internet has made this whole situation worserer. In summary: Yes you’re right — science isn’t a set of Was Einstein Wrong? questions. It’s thousands of people waaaay past that point and asking far far more perplexing questions. Education is communication but not all communication is education which sorta brings me onto Schrödinger. At some point you have to do the math (or mathematics as we say in Merrye Olde England) and the thing is there are young people who get exposed to math they don’t understand but when they see what you can do if you learn it can produce amazing discoveries and it inspires them to learn. I was and still am one of them. I loved it when I was 7 and calculus was explained to me by my Dad while on a train (it was that exciting I still remember it and OK I’m weird) but that love has stayed with me: tell me about something I want to learn new things and if I don’t know something show me where I can learn about that thing I don’t know. So do Schrödinger your way. It’s probably going to be different than the way I learned about it and that’s good because along the way I’ll learn something I didn’t know or an implication I wasn’t aware of. There is no one way of explaining things and if there’s calculus I’ve forgotten how to do it’s just going to make want to revisit it and if it’s some other branch of maths or physics I’m exactly the same. You make great videos: they’re interesting informative you have a great sense of humour and have an honesty and intelligence that is inspiring to watch. If you enjoy making videos keep making videos (please keep making videos because they’re some of the best things on YT but no pressure). They’re great videos, you’re not imposter and you’re not Vertasium or PBS (that’s a big compliment and a good thing by the way). Loved the video btw :)

I haven't watched this yet and have no idea what it is about, but there better be some sort of sponsorship discount for RAM trucks at the end, or I'll be speaking to the BBB about bait and switch tactics.

I have nothing smart to say on this topic. But I do have a very important question. Will Eevee be a permanent addition to your videos?

I'm on another YouTuber's Patreon, and she's expressed similar disdain for clickbait headlines and thumbnails. But... she and her peers have encountered a dramatic increase in views for the clickbait. Outside of specialized/targeted services (like Nebula) the clickbait is probably here to stay.

I often get PBS science videos recommended to me on youtube and i try to avoid them kind of the same way i try to avoid ads. They seem more like sales pitches for new ideas rather than science information at a layperson's level, and as much as i'd like to keep up with the latest developments in science i'm painfully aware the whole time i'm watching the video that it's the channel's job make everything seem more interesting and shocking than it probably is.

I also wonder if these clickbaity titles unintentionally give legitimacy to bad takes from the other end of the reporting spectrum ("[real scientist]'s video thumbnail says the same as [Daily Mail article from last week] so I guess it _must_ be true?").

Great video and great dense-starfield nail art. This channel is a treat (and quite a healthy one at that). Science-wise, that video introduced me to two very cool concepts (thanks!). I had never heard of the idea of dark matter stars. Plus I had no idea that there was no established mechanism for forming super-massive black holes. How did I not know about those two things? But (thank goodness) you fixed it! To make a larger point: it’s easy to think of overviews or summaries as being simplifications best suited to educating lay-people. Whereas by contrast the experts are living on a pure diet of primary-source papers. But most of the peeps here, and many of your YouTube subscribers, don’t really fit in either of those camps which is part of why this channel is gold/fire/neat. Presumably one can’t easily do a lay-person explanation of dark matter stars because there’s a fair bit of physics and cosmology you have to cover before it all make sense. Plus dark matter stars are a potential way to fill in a missing piece of the cosmology puzzle, and lay people by definition aren’t at the level of filling in gaps yet. So if you’re minded to do more of them, I’d love occasional videos that give somewhat technical and sophisticated overviews aimed at knowledgeable outsiders which cover concepts that haven’t yet made it out into the wider world, such as dark matter stars. Also, I liked the Nebula podcast. Very glad that the show was a good showcase for your thoughts and opinions (unlike with the Not Aliens episode). One little thing that struck me: there was general agreement that trying to appeal to everyone is impractical and a more focussed approach has many advantages. But then why don’t creators ever seem to explicitly state who the video or podcast is aimed at? Because (to pick up my earlier point) that way you’d have the flexibility to sometimes say, “Unlike my usual videos which assume, at minimum, a solid high school education, this one assumes more of a 1st year science undergrad education, or equivalent.” Also, also, let’s have a fund-raising drive for that Thor Labs microscope kit (mentioned on the Nebula podcast). What about a new Patreon tier that’s (I dunno) $10 p.m. which is like “Contranarian” plus an extra $7 p.m. for the Angelascope fund?

In my experience, watching a PBS Spacetime video always follows the same pattern: - First there is 1 to 2 minutes of nodding along with what the video is presenting going "Yeah that makes sense" in my head. - Then the explanations gradually takes a left turn on 4th and Bananas, introducing new concepts and confusing math without building up to them or giving a clear concept of how they fit into the bigger picture. Now, this is probably perfectly fine if you already know the math and the physics, but to me - having only taken some basic courses in math and physics in university before going into software development - it can read very close to "just making shit up". The presentation and style of the video screams "this is for the layman" but the actual communicated content immediately assumes a lot of preexisting knowledge and never explains concepts, it just presents them.

Thanks for the discussion you all! Maybe my perception on the importance of thumbnails is skewed and most people just ignore them.

Just listening to the Podcast. My perspective from the audience: * Essay and video length Dan posted his followup to "Line goes up" just yesterday. It's casually 2 1/2 hours long. Maybe one day you can weigh in on essay length. For myself, I do like longer videos almost all the time. Is the tradeoff between release schedule, audience attention and arguments that are "complete" something you thought about before? * "Audience" vs. "Capitalism is bad" Part of why you are successful is because you don't disrespect your audience by pandering to it. Yes, this is sometimes bad for the metrics. I hope you can keep staying detached in a way. * "Talking about stuff I am not trained in (generative ML models)" Here is a bit of tough love on your ALMA ransomware video. I was pretty distraught about your confusion about how ransomware "works". I am sure others already tried and hopefully succeeded in explaining how ransomware is generating money from affected organizations. Your essay starts by you displaying your unfamiliarity with the underlying concept. If this was to try to make the viewers ask questions and then guide them to the concept on their own terms, the 2nd part of actually carving out paths to there is missing. After the video, I do think viewers had a bad idea on what ransomware is, how it works and why it works. The video also includes some harmful elements. The "graph" you plotted is just wrong and misleads people with technical aptitude into thinking they can not be a vector for introducing ransomware (or other threats) into an org. My honest take is, that you should private the video, as it can do harm by introducing confusion about the topic. Unlike most other videos I saw of you, the video was poorly researched and did not try to communicate a concept or argument. If this comes out of left field and no one has told you the technical error of in the video, I'd be happy to do a write-up. Fair warning: This would be longer.

I have definitely watched some of many of the PBS Space Time videos over the years, but I get frustrated because I can't always follow most of the topics because the foundation isn't always laid in the video. Or the video will tell me to go watch 15 more videos to get some of these concepts and then come back. Sometimes that can be fine, but usually each one of those videos asks to also watch 15 more to get up to speed. Of course, I understand that the topics are incredibly complex and sometimes, even a lifetime of study wouldn't be enough to have a grasp of subject matter. I really enjoy your videos because I think that you communicate the foundation needed for the topic much better. I feel like I walk away with a bit of understanding of these overwhelmingly complicated and expansive topics. So, that is why I am going to keep requesting things like quantum videos (one day that hierarchy problem video will happen… maybe) just to get a grasp of these topics that are so far removed from my field, but I have a massive urge to somewhat understand. The way that you build your videos just clicks for me.

There is an astrophysicist that I like named Rebecca Smethurst, and she has a YouTube channel (Dr. Becky). Her thumbnails were showcased in this Patreon video, and it made me realize that yes, her channel actually has those weird thumbnails with catchy and weird titles. I dislike those too, but I've always overlooked them on her channel because I like her videos. She often cites her sources and encourages her audience to read the papers with caution. I will watch her videos despite the titles and thumbnails, which I can say the same for Acollier's videos. The Patreon video discussed that we, this group of people here, will get past the titles and thumbnails, but the majority of viewers won't. I don't know if this is true; I don't have the data to support how these videos are being perceived by the public, but I can be convinced that it is. Unfortunately, for reasons beyond the control of the communicators, YouTube has strict criteria that need to be met in order for it to suggest videos to viewers. I even believe that the thumbnail and title are so important that big communicators will have a separate team solely to deal with them. There are even companies providing A/B testing for thumbnails and titles, and unfortunately, these horrible thumbnails are more effective. If the audience is not getting anything past the title and thumbnail, then I will agree with Acollier's argument and say that they are doing a disservice. But if they are luring people in because this is how they can get the reward of being suggested by YouTube — that is, increasing their reach —, yet providing good value, then I will tend to conclude that it is YouTube's fault (and capitalism, it ruins everything!), and not the science communicators'. And then hope that the audience can see that as well.

On the click-bait title issue on Youtube, I stopped watching Veritasium because of the titles and thumbnails. Those features indicate that the video style is just not for me. Given the discussion in the comments above about the PBS series, I doubt that I'll start watching those, either (they aren't the style that interests me).

Respectfully, yeah, I think it might be a bad take. You said, "You can't call yourself a science communicator, and have a whole playlist about aliens." All of those videos say clearly the answer is never aliens. They sell T-shirts that say 'it's never aliens'. If they can have a click-baity title and thumbnail that might draw in some of the conspiracy theorists that run rampant on Youtube, and pull some of them back I believe that's a positive, and worth it. More generally, I wouldn't lump PBS Spacetime, Veritasium, and Dr. Becky (bad thumbnails aside) in with the rest of them.

Agreeing with what a lot of other people have already said, the appeal the PBS Spacetime to me is that they are willing to go into more technical and specific topics. I've been interested in physics/astronomy since I was a kid, so I've read/watched a lot of science communication on those topics, and it's nice to watch things that assume the viewer already has a surface level understanding of the basics. I do also like that they're willing to do a series building up to a topic, or point to older videos and build off what they said there, but I agree that the once a week videos with clickbait headlines does way more harm then good. I actually had a roommate at one point that watched Spacetime in the way you've described so I know it happens. Also now that I think about it the first video's I watched on both yours and Spacetime's channel were the string theory ones. Having an understanding about what happened with string theory and science communicators around it that I remember as a kid helped rekindle my interest in physics again as an adult.

The one channel I've come to enjoy a lot is "History of the Universe." It's a sister channel of one I followed called "History of the World" that deals with evolutionary and geological history. They do longer form videos (25-50 minutes) dealing w/ a range of topics. https://www.youtube.com/@HistoryoftheUniverse The persistent problem I have with trying to let new channels into my brain though as a layman is having no idea if I'm getting bad info or the people are just cranks; it feels like the kind of knowledge I need to vet channels like this would mean I probably don't need channels like this to begin with

I was shocked by how many channels I was subscribed to when the analytics were brought up. Your String Theory video is what brought me in to the fold, and i can't argue against your reasons for not wanting to make more videos like it. I like hearing science communication gossip :-) I want to do a lil defense of Dr Becky. Her videos kind of follow the PBS space time show format (like Ryan pointed out earlier) in that she has heaps of videos that get cross-referenced and build off of each other. She is definitely playing the youtube game. But she usually takes a deflationary/nuanced approach to the clickbait titles. I usually feel like i understand her videos much better than pbs space time for what it's worth. And this may be a cheap point, but Dr Becky is not a crank like Sabine Hossenfelder that spreads misinformation about trans issues.

The sensational thumbnails emphasize drama, not discovery. Entertainment needs drama or it's boring. I think most people are watching those videos for entertainment rather than education. (Alliteration FTW!) [Arg, Patreon saves the message on hitting ENTER!] I watch channels like Veritasium and Smarter Every Day when YouTube recommends them. I'm a sucker for visual math stuff like tilings and geometry, but also real-world builds like the propeller car. I've seen the PBS channel but haven't watched much. Since discovering your channel I avoid the other science channels; why waste my time when I know I'll get the real scoop from yours! I watch your videos and find them quite educational while being very entertaining, too. Your enthusiasm is so infectious, I just want to take your videos and shoot them right into my veins!

I've literally binged all of your videos in the last 72 hours. I'm not a patron of anyone else, not even ContraPoints, a channel I've been subbed to and watched every video of for 3+ years. I'm not even into science. I've literally been on YouTube for easily 7+ hours today and not a single moment of that has been on anyone else's channel because your videos are so easy for me to just listen to while I play games on my MacBook

You're awesome. Thank you for the fun videos.

Really interested to hear you talk about Three Body Problem books in a later video - I loved them, but I've been curious if it's one of those pieces of media that falls apart when taken in by someone who isn't a layman at the topic.

Great explanation (as usual!) of dark matter stars! I'm going to react to your comments about PBS Space Time - I don't typically watch that style of video because they do tend to stay shallow... That said, this particular example appeared to at least fairly cover the same material as you did, albeit with not enough context around central puzzle (i.e. how we get big black holes but no medium ones). It seems like you're concerned about non-viewers (who see the title/thumbnail but don't watch) more than actual viewers of the PBS kind of content. I'm not sure if that's... worth worrying about? Consider also - if 10% of the people who watch those don't get the point, but 10x more people watch, it's still increasing the reach of science communication. More net people are getting an education, potentially getting interested, and also skewing the their viewing algo in favor of deeper dives like your stuff! Maybe you and PBS can be complimentary and coexist? At very least, it provides a very handy framework for reacting to and correcting errors/omissions. FWIW, the two of your videos you called out as "shameful" really aren't - you have to set people up to watch before you throw them off the deep end with an hour of material. It's OK (IMHO) if the title/thumbnail bury the lede or don't provide a complete thesis/summary. That's just the format.

Dark Matter stars are fascinating to think about, thank you for the explanation. I missed Dr. O'Dowd's explanation, now I have to go back and watch that one, I suppose. Long ago, I was a professional musician. One thing I learned early on is that making music is only a part of that, a very large part of it was being an entertainer. I think science communication suffers from the same problem, also capitalism isn't helping, as you said.

Awesome, I can see the headlines now, "Youtuber beats up big bird, makes children cry! 48 point times new roman!" ;-).

"... but my political views overlap very heavily with the channel." Which is also true for your channel. Your videos are more like a 5-course menu compared to Adam Something's videos, though.

"Legal Eagle" I am from Europe and the channel gave me better understanding on the differences of how law works where I am from and in the anglosphere. "Technology Connections" This is mostly about nostalgia for me. Most videos I don't watch. The dishing washer video was interesting because I did NOT know that the pre-watching cycle is heated and just plain water. It DID improve how I work with my dish washer. Outside of this I like seeing old lightbulbs. They are pretty. "Adam Something" This is an urban socialist channel. I am an urban socialist. I don't watch all videos or agree with all of them, but my political views overlap very heavily with the channel. So it's kinda like a bag of chips for me.

"Is there something they (PBS Space Time) do, that I don't do, or that you really like?" No. I do occasionally watch PBS videos, but to form (not get) new ideas. Usually they do not cover things I am interested at any given moment. The dark matter star jumped out because of your coverage of dark matter and your post-doc work. "Tom Scott" For the record, I do watch Tom Scott, but purely for entertainment and to fill my list with interesting places in Europe when I am on holiday in the vicinity. I don't think he made a single informative video for me since the coverage of heartbleed (which I knew what it is and how it worked before I watched his video about it). "Veritasium" Derek was (and still is) different, though. Like you, he reflects a lot more. You can see that in the videos about the "Energy doesn't flow in wires" video and all the followup videos on his and other channels that were sparked through that. The videos about the propeller car were also great. Derek's videos are often structured to make you think instead of telling you something. After all, his graduate work is/was about that. Some of his videos, like his newest one, are more soft. But usually they hit where I think he wants them to land. Which is not drilling something in your skull, but making you read more about something he also found interesting. "John/Hank Green" and "Smarter Every Day" Vlogbrothers I don't watch any more (I hope Hank is alright :/) and Destin I watch for the spectacle. A supersonic potato gun captured in super slow motion is just not something I can look away from. I don't think they do sci communication. Hank with Sci-Show does, but I don't like their videos. They are even more short and terse than PBS Space Time.

Thanks for your perspective as always

Also, did I understand you right to say that silicon fusion to iron is endothermic? I always thought that since iron has the maximum binding energy per nucleon, silicon -> iron is still exothermic, but fusion of iron to heavier elements is endothermic.

Nice video :) I liked that you made us wonder about the semantics of what a star is, ended up having to look it up so today I learned something new, soo thanks! I feel like your point about video titles is super valid, but that at the end of the day those channels need play the algorithm as their income depends on it, even if then their science content is nice and given with enough context (As in Dr. Becky's or Anton's case imo) One thing PBS does that I find super nice is that at the end of a video, they answer some of the common questions in the comments of the previous one if they have good ones Also, wow, hello to everyone else that felt extremelly identified with your analytics of who your viewers watch

People link these PBS videos to me sometimes, and I agree with your take on it. The videos themselves are mostly fine, and I don't even think the topic selection is much of a problem, but the thumbnails range from overly hysterical to downright irresponsible. I think "Betteridge's Law" about newspaper headlines applies to YouTube thumbnails too: "Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered with the word 'no'." I'm also amused by the way so many people seem to think that scientists consider it a "crisis" when evidence disagreeing with a theory is found. I mean, if anything, it's the opposite! We all want to find new physics!

I always learn something I didn't know watching your channel, and I think a big part of it is that you speak plainly to the camera. I can't tell you how many science vids I've watched with Hollywood action music, wall to wall graphics, animated characters, some British guy looking serious in front of a greenscreen, etc that are, like movie trailers, entirely forgettable. Please don't change a thing! -R

I've wondered what the average profile of a PBS Spacetime viewer really is. I've enjoyed the channel for years now, although I've found it fairly technical and probably not for the average person.  I got a BS in physics (before stupidly going to law school...ugh) so I feel like I'm at least able to tread water in understanding most of what they are presenting and I don't feel like I get caught up in the hype of the click bait. But where am I among all of Spacetime's audience?  I can definitely believe that folks with a deeper physics background spot plenty of faults or at least things they'd say differently.  But those folks aren't getting caught up in the clickbait, right?  But for viewers with less of a physics background (and therefore fewer tools to avoid getting taken in by the clickbait), I feel like Spacetime is probably beyond their enjoyable understanding.   By contrast, I think the clickbait concern would be much more relevant for more general interest science channels like Veritasium that are far, far less technical (since the audience would both be larger and have less technical knowledge). And, I think you rightly identified the problem here - capitalism. It creates perverse incentives and the substance always suffers.Take Dr Becky - I've started watching her channel recently, and she's clearly working hard to make YouTube a go of it (and all the best to her in doing so).  But it's night and day compared to the tone of Sixty Symbols (where I first saw her, which were much more straightforward, stick-a-cameria-in-front-of-some-academics-and-have-them-talk-about-interesting-stuff kinds of videos), and I do feel like something gets lost when the economics have to get off the ground... Anway - please keep making videos forever; this is my new favourite channel.

I am really interested in the matter bouncing off of the black hole in a supernova. I am guessing that the matter falling into the black hole during the supernova becomes so hot that the matter behind it gets pushed out, but still the idea that a black hole could have matter bounce off of it is a bit strange intuitively. Sometime if you could go into that with more detail, I would be fascinated.

I do subscribe to Joe Scott, because he comes up with unusual science news that I never heard about but want to -- such as his video on Gobleki Tepe -- and has a humorous style that's easy to listen to when I should be doing something else. In many cases, the ones I click on serve as the springboard for doing a bit more looking into the phenomenon, other times it's just for fun. I don't view PBS SpaceTime for the same reason I never subscribed to Scientific American: content is at the wrong level of rigor and too infrequently in an area I care about. Timothy Nguyen has a really good physics channel, but the videos are very long and so I can only dip into them periodically. But that's a good one.

Also, I haven't quite finished your video yet but you said you're ashamed of the title/thumbnail of your "string theory lied to us" video and I absolutely get where you're coming from but that's the video youtube first showed me of yours so maybe this is a hot take but I'm kinda glad you have some higher-engagement more clickbaity videos? Because it means I found you!

PBS Space Time was actually my gateway into being recommended physics videos on YouTube, which is eventually the reason I found your channel in the first place! I'm probably not the average viewer of the channel, so I don't think I can speak to what the average viewer takes away from their videos, because I ended up, er, watching all of them. But I can say they do make followup videos and corrections. And one of the reasons I watched all of their videos is because a lot of them are not... self-contained, they assume you've watched video A, and that assumes you've watched video B. That can get kinda messy but it also lets them talk a bit deeper, too, which I like. The last few months they've had a lot more videos engaging in more speculative topics, like "here, I'll tell you about an idea not very many people actually buy into". I think part of it is they've been going once a week for years and I think a lot of the low-hanging fruit for concrete teachable stuff is starting to dry up. But idk, physics is big, so maybe I'm wrong about that. But yeah, I'm... probably not an average viewer. Either way, I really love your channel too and I'm definitely gonna keep watching all your videos! (Also... we can at least partially blame YouTube for pushing these sorts of titles and thumbnails, right?)

So many thoughts! I'm a big Star Trek nerd and analogies are so much of a trope in the series that the writers are starting to make fun of it. I quite enjoy you using similar analogies. Also, love your take on big stupid trucks :) I follow Not Just Bikes and what you said about trucks in Boston could have come verbatim out of one of his videos. I'm slowly working through a physics degree (online with the Open University in the UK, though I myself am in the US for now) and two courses I'll be taking as part of that are an astronomy course and astrophysics of stars and exoplanets :D Can't wait to learn about all these complicated stellar processes in more detail! Space is cool. It is comforting to know that I'm not the only one who has trouble with understanding experimental processes! Even in high school science and the undergrad I'm doing now, I much prefer theory. Probably part of this is due to my background: I work as a programmer, and am *very much* not a hardware person :D Your "hot take" on other YouTube channels seems pretty reasonable, for what it's worth. I subscribe to a few of the channels you've listed and your perspective has shown that I need to view their content more critically. And yes, you're right, it does all come down to capitalism. I came for the science but subscribed (ironically) for the leftist views, please keep them coming!

Time to get the popcorn!

I share your opinions on most of these channels - I was suggested a Dr Becky video after watching one of yours ( I guess due to the audience overlap you mentioned) and the thumbnail and title made me really uncomfortable. It just feels like it feeds into/ feeds on this whole Joe Rogan-esque way of looking at science. Great video as always! Ps: Little Joel fans represent

Amazing!! I didn't know I wanted this video, but it was so cool. I didn't know medium sized black holes didn't exist. (maybe I missed it or forgot in a previous video). As to your question, I don't ever see these science tube channels on my page. I'm sorry for this nothing answer, just want to say it's really cool to get interesting cosmology science here! Don't really get it from anywhere else.

You’re the bee’s knees. Thanks for the rad content.