Interesting. I always assumed that the "download" functionality on Instagram is "given", but it seems as if creators can deactivate it. Sometimes, when pressing the "Share" menu, you will have the option to download a reel to your local videos.
> but she has taken a hard turn into audience capture and speaking over-confidently far out of her area of expertise.
Sounds like she is doing Youtube to earn some bucks off it, then? Usually, you'll stir up a controversy or make bold claims to create engagement, which in turn pleases "the algorithm".
Kind of, but there's a difference between trying to stir up controversy by "just asking questions" as opposed to attacking the actual experts while overconfidently pushing competing theories, for example.
Lately she's been dabbling with soft support for well known grifters like Eric Weinstein, though last I heard she stopped short of actually endorsing his theories. I think there's just too many views to be had by courting that audience, so it becomes irresistible to engage with. The best thing a good physics communicator could do would be to completely ignore the well known physics grifters and focus on the quality content, but instead she has been leaning toward defensing Weinstein and others.
I mean, don't take my description for it, just scroll through her videos, watch some about things you understand, etc.
I am critical of her, but I would not put her on the level of Alex Jones or other really awful people. However, her blurb on the back of that "War on science" book is pretty gross.
Sabine absolutely is still capable of producing and understanding science. She chooses to make the content she does. She also clearly treats her youtube career as just business, making pretty good money from taking random science papers from random journals and using them as a reason to lambast all of science. Plenty of youtubers who do science, including people who post here like the guy from Applied Science, are pretty far from monetizing their content, sometimes to a fault, generally because they aren't looking to make crazy money, just cool stuff.
I actually hope she publishes more. This paper looks..... not good, but every good scientist has put out papers that are more like afternoon fun than rigorous work. That's fine by me. I would love for Sabine to produce real science, it's vastly more beneficial for humanity than her "Here's how science LIES TO YOU" slop. I tried to watch her in the beginning, but even then it was clear the kind of audience she was trying to cultivate. It feels gross.
I don't know if she truly believes what she says. Her complaints about being mistreated for being a woman seemed sincere, and not as trumped up as most of her videos, and there's plenty of sexism in science Academia, just like most places.
It's hard to criticize Youtubers for their thumbnails and titles, as the soulless youtube machine forces them, but there's definitely a pattern.
Basically, it's hard to look at people like NileRed, Explosions&Fire, Applied Science, Thought Emporium, etc who are literally running science labs through patreon funding and then Sabine says she's being silenced for her unorthodox views with over a million subscribers.
I'm tired of people claiming they are silenced while parrot literal mainstream talking points to an audience of millions.
Complaints about "The hubble tension shows we might not have everything right in our astrophysics models" is fine, dandy, I literally agree (I'm not a physicist), but complaining about string theory, which remember she's a physicist so she KNOWS nobody in physics actually spends any time, breath, or effort on string theory, and her claims that "Physics hasn't done anything in 50 years" is blatantly false and she is well equipped to KNOW this.
For context: if I did the napkin math correctly based on the Angel Collier video on this topic, it appeared to be easily over $2M/year. The grift pays very well.
She isnt against science she is anti BS and calls out physics in general for well all of the BS. She is the one pointing out the problems of publish or perish and why it has resulted in a bunch of BS in academia and a bunch of scientists doing BS science just for the sake of writing papers. No new advancements, no new testable theories just a bunch of people making claims that can't be tested and screaming we need a larger collider.
The problem with influencers like this is the way their fans get a giant blind spot for “BS” that comes from their chosen anti-BS person.
Sabine fans will always cite problems with academia pushing BS papers, but Sabine has herself been embroiled in a lot of arguably “BS” content for the sake of YouTube views and advertising dollars.
You have to acknowledge the irony of thinking that an ad-supported YouTuber pushing clickbait headlines is the lone person saving you from the scientists and their misaligned incentives.
Looking at the political situation around the world, I think learning should not stop at a certain age. I'm pretty sure even the "older" generation can learn from this. People that grew up with SimCity are now in their forties and fifties, and some never quit gaming at all.
I'd assume that there is simply no "ok, this individual got released from prison and can proof everything" policy in place, and that might be the real issue here. Big organizations begin to tumble once you request something where there are no policies in place.
I'd erase that part entirely, as it is not true, from my point of view. My day, as has every other person's day, has exactly 24 hours. As an employee, part of that time is dedicated to my employer. In return, I receive financial compensation. It's up to them to decide how they want to spend the resources they acquired. So yes, each and every company could, in theory, contribute back to Open Source.
But as there is no price tag attached to Open Source, there is also no incentive. In a highly capitalized world, where share holder value is more worth than anything else, there are only a few companies that do the right call and act responsible.
> In a highly capitalized world, where share holder value is more worth than anything else, there are only a few companies that do the right call and act responsible.
It is not just that. In a well functioning theoretical free market, no one is going to have time either. The margins are supposed to end up being tight and the competition is supposed to weed out economic inefficiency. Voluntary pro-social behavior is a competitive disadvantage and an economic inefficiency. So, by design, the companies end up not "having time for that".
You need a world that allows for inefficiency and rewards pro-social behavior. That is not the world where we are living in currently.
Working an honest job is pro-social behavior, and it is rewarded. So is quitting your job to work on a side project that ends up being valuable enough for others to pay for. It's just that giving code away for free operates outside that reward structure.
Regardless of why you do it, working an honest job does help others. Money is the reward you get for that behavior.
My point is if you explicitly choose to work for free you're opting out of that reward structure. It seems odd to do that and then turn around and complain that "the world where we are living in" isn't rewarding you for your work.
If your finite time at work is filled with business work, then there is no time left to do the open-source work. Seems true to me from an IC and delivery perspective. Company staffing and resource allocation could create the time to do it, but they don't.
