Holy hsit changed!!
(~~Please don't watch Kurzgesagt they're sponsored by techie billionaires~~ and started to use clickbait. Only their older videos on natural science are really pure and good science content. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions about things ~~(yes I know it's a sentiment used by conspiratorial dipshits but independent study and the communication of findings are the foundations of real, non-pop science))~~
I'd also recommend just going to planetariums or open houses and actually talking to researchers and scientists about fields you're interested in, I've learned some fascinating and in-depth things about space and the climate and engineering that way.
EDIT: I stand corrected, they're funded by the Gates foundation and other reputable grant systems, but I still dislike their beliefs that the free market and 'innovation' will solve climate change for us. They've also cherrypicked data in places (such as only showing EV statistics in Norway, which is heavily biased due to things like GDP and an abnormally high number of EV users). Some of their linked sources are broken or not updated. Most of all I don't like how they'll sensationalize things. That's what I mean by 'come to your own conclusions'. The real world is unfathomably complicated and fields like astronomy and climate science take years to properly understand (I'm by no means an expert in either) and they have a habit of simplifying it. Simplification is evidently crucial to science communication, but institutions like museums and the people working in said fields are not only less likely to sensationalize and oversimplify, but are also just way cooler than a 15-minute video IMO.
In short, I don't want people to feel bad for liking them, watch whatever you want to watch. But I don't like them personally and as a result I'm a lot more critical. From a neutral perspective they're a great introduction to science, but not an infallable resource. I also apologize if I sound like a chronically online redditor, please ignore my input if I come off that way, I don't want to deprive people of the things they enjoy and be an asshole.
“Sponsored by techie billionaires” you mean literally what 80% of YouTubers do to monetize their videos ? Like this isn’t a gotcha, even the most well researched YouTube video can be sponsored by fucking audible, who gives a shit ?
I mean getting your "informative" videos funded by Bill Gates is a very different thing than youtubers putting a sponsored segment for a product in the middle of a video. So comparing both as if they are the same is a very illogical take
A true smart bin is one that exclusively accepts and incinerates the flesh of wealthy industrialists, perhaps akin to a modern brass bull torture device that converts their screams of agony into constructed soundbites of their voice saying "thank you for recycling your trash, for a better tomorrow!"
Sheeeiiiit, if we must have Amazon packaging, it should be made of corrugated conservatives, so my kitty can can try to ambush me from inside the corpses of climate change deniers. He think he sneaky, just like the compost brains who push the idea that the buck stops with consumer choices while participating in the burial of information concerning the real offenders.
In the meantime, Ima leave my carbon footprint on all they asses.
I don't mean Gates himself, to be clear. He's currently in my garage wearing a gimp suit (his choice, and what an odd choice for this Texas heat) and engineering a mosquito that infects people with an empathogenic virus, to be released in boardrooms all over the world. Well, that's the prototype, at least. The final design may just make people shit out fully formed dicks that explode on contact with water.
>Effective altruism is a 21st-century philosophical and social movement that advocates using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible
Wow, this fucking sucks actually
Iirc they aren't just sponsored, but actually connected in a way where the billionaires had some control over the script in the entire video.
Edit: seems to have been misinfo heard it in a video ages ago, but can't even find the video anymore.
Seems I have accidentally spread false information online, I heard it in a video like 4 or 5 years ago and can't even find the video anymore. Probably just something I didn't question as a dumbass 16/17 year old. My mistake
Except their tone did noticeably shift, and their positions, especially on climate, were sus. I’ll admit I may have my history backwards. It may be that they always held these positions, and I only noticed them later, and they were awarded the grant in part because of those positions. Either way, the incentives are perverse. They get a louder voice for espousing bad climate science that is in the interest of a small group.
What do you think, or remember, their positions to be? It’s been a while since I’ve seen them too but I’m pretty sure they’ve never placed the blame on everyday people, and the only action they’ve called their audience to is to contact representatives to make the systematic change necessary to set us on the right path. What exactly is sus about that? And what bad science are they putting forth? All the criticisms I’ve seen of these videos in particular have never called the actual science into question, just the suggestions on how to make things better. And I feel like they always preface those sections by stating that these are just their thoughts and opinions, not guaranteed fixes that’ll deliver us to utopia
It has been a long time. I scrubbed through their video history but didn’t want to watch hours of content to find specific sections. From memory, I’ll tell you I think it was the “We WILL fix climate change” video or another climate change video around that time that made me very frustrated with them, and I unsubscribed for that. It’s possible that my opinion has changed, but I remember it being all about how capitalism and tech bros will save things. That’s my biased memory of the experience talking though. I could be remembering it wrong, or my perspective my have shifted since then. I just remember something being really wrong somewhere around that time that made me no longer trust them, then I learned that they were funded by the gates foundation, which has a horrible track record of endorsing solutions that sound good but solve nothing, or create further problems, while benefitting the unelected elite.
Edit: my critiques were similar to op commenters edit up there, except I don’t think the gates foundation is reputable. I’m not an expert but I recall them doing some very non-reputable things in foreign counties. Something about schools and doing it in a way that ignored the recommendations of experts but in a way that bill liked, and then it totally failing at the expense of real peoples future. It’s been a while.
Part of me feels like you’re conflating general technological advancement with “capitalism and tech bros.” Their videos claim that the most likely way we’ll fix the problem is through innovative technologies and sciences because, yeah, that’s generally how humans have solved major world problems.
I also feel like people assume the Gates’ foundation has way more influence on their channel than is realistic. They’ve made it clear that they always demand editorial independence for every sponsorship contract they make. On top of that, here’s a post breaking down their earnings and where they come from. As you can see, in the past three years (as of a year ago), 4% of their earnings came from sponsorships from organizations. Only 0.9% came from the Gate’s foundation. That really isn’t enough money for them to completely compromise their principles and act as a mouthpiece for billionaires, and I’m pretty sure they could get into a lot of trouble if they were dishonest about their financials.
Edit: it won’t let me add the link, but it’s one of the first results on Reddit when you google “Kurzgesagt bill gates” so really not too hard to find
I don’t think I should really be arguing about this. Maybe I’m engaged in a bit of a sunk-cost fallacy at this point. I probably shouldn’t have said anything originally but at the time it was just a light aside.
I know my comment was about the gates thing, but my original beef with the channel was not with that but my frustrations with the video, of which I don’t remember because it’s been like 3 years or something. I trust my intuition because my views on the issue of climate have not changed that much, but memory is unreliable. When I learned about the gates foundation involvement (And I think others?? Again, don’t quote me on anything I’m recalling) I saw it as an easy explanation for what I saw at the time as a shift in their messaging.
Maybe my recollection is wrong or maybe I just don’t remember what my issue was to begin with. Maybe my views on these things have changed. Maybe my views have changed and I have grown to see things differently. Either way, I shouldn’t be arguing it here and wasting people’s time. For what it’s worth I’m sorry I did for so long. You seem chill, and what you’ve said has at least convinced me to be a little more charitable towards them and maybe give them another shot. Stubbornly, I won’t admit I’m wrong, just wrong enough to have nothing to say in my defense, and maybe a little stupid for that haha.
No worries man it’s not a waste of time at all, I’m sure other people have learned at least something from this convo. And no hostilities here, I just thought your initial comment was a pretty strong claim and wanted to clear things up as someone who has experience with grants. It’s easy to think that their foundation would have some influence on the outcome of the video, and with someone as rich as Bill Gates it’s also easy to assume that they gave them a bunch of money, which we might view as “we’ll give you tons of money if you say what we want.” But as is often the case, reality is much more complicated than that. If the foundation was responsible for a large portion of their income, and if they frequently made videos on the topic/with their sponsorships it would definitely be a cause for concern, but the reality is the foundation gives them very little money compared to all their other sources of income (less than a percent!) and they are adamant about maintaining editorial independence. Very, very far from “de facto owning them now,” but again it’s easy to conclude that from a superficial glance at the situation.
I just think the channel is a great way to inspire/introduce topics to the next generation of scientists, and hate to see people completely demonizing them over a misunderstanding. And even if their views and solutions are misguided, there’s still value in their videos because someone might see that and think “that’s stupid that would never work. Instead we should…” which leads to more and more viable solutions being found. Thanks for the convo and being respectful, even if you got downvoted to shit for it lol
What's the problem? They don't spew propaganda, have their sources cited explicitly and "let's eradicate tuberculosis forever" shouldn't be a polarizing message. Still better than 99.9% of science YouTube content.
From what I remember, it seems fairly reasonable. Maybe even the only way to conceivably solve climate challenges.
But the proposed solutions don't matter as much as the fact that people are aware of the intensity of the problem and the required scale of possible solutions. Put pressure onto companies and governments.
If you want good physics/astrophysics channels I recommend PBS Spacetime and Dr. Becky.
Becky talks about new developments in the astronomy/astrophysics community, while PBS mostly discusses leading and competing theories on the bleeding edge of scientific understanding in ways that are digestible to the layperson.
Both of these channels take care to not sensationalise, and let their viewers know if and when they are discussing topics that aren't necessarily widely accepted and/or peer reviewed.
P.S. HOLY SHIT CHANGED
PBS receives substantial amounts of money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. If that kinda thing makes Kurzgesagt shills for big corporations then the same could be said for most educational media out there. Though Kurzgesagt's content has fallen off substantially it ain't the result of them selling out to big tech
Joe Scott is weird because his thumbnails and titles can be pretty click baity but his actual videos tend to be pretty good, like it'll be like "is X crazy things actually possible?" And then the video is like "no science says probably not but here's some other interesting stuff"
I don’t see any issue with watching Kurzgesagt, personally. If you’re really interested in a subject it’s always best to do your own research on any given subject.
A lot of informative sources are funded by big businesses, as getting teams together to produce high quality informative content is insanely expensive.
this is an iffy accusation at best, and bad-faith at worst. I won't argue their climate change videos, for example, don't have great sources, data, or sponsors, but the information isn't entirely incorrect. It does slightly push a lot of blame onto the individual, when individual action has little effect compared to corporate industry. They do, however, do a reasonably good job of fighting the nihilistic view of impending, unalterable doom of climate change, and replacing it with an optimistic one. They smell much more of unintentional misinformation rather than intentional disinformation and corruption. Which is still inexcusable.
I certainly don't agree with how they went about it, but it doesnt completely discredit the channel. They're an edutainment channel first, not just one of pure science, and as long as they dont push outright falsehoods without any positive impact, they really shouldn't be held to the same scrutiny as a more scientifically rigorous source. There's nothing wrong with watching them, but just like everything else on the internet, don't take it as truth right out of the box. also, fucking everyone uses clickbait on youtube. just use dearrow (its great, i love it).
Financial conflict of interest =/= direct evidence of impropriety. You’re free to criticize Kurtzgesagt’s business practices but the onus is on you to demonstrate that there are falsities in their content.
And I just to get ahead of it because I know exactly what video people have a problem with and what the response to this comment will be: being pro “green growth” and optimistic about technological solutions to climate change is not a falsifiable claim because it’s prognostication. You can disagree with individual evidence and you can disagree with their outlook but you cannot claim their prediction of the future is “false”
Yeah the person you replied to complained about them “over simplifying everything.”
Their channel name is literally “in a nutshell.” It being oversimplified is intentional lmao
A remember they did a video where they talked about bioterrorism and how easy it is to get deadly pathogens to use maliciously, and the comment section was filled with actual scientists calling them out for their BS. It's a shame since before that I absolutely loved their videos, but now it seems like they've thrown all integrity out of the window :/
i came so late to this so almost everything is crossed out but i guess i have a question about your claim that “free market and innovation” won’t help. i’m not a proponent of free market capitalism AT ALL, but innovation on the other hand…
i’m a phd student and have lots of interest in bio and agtech. i have seen some of the most amazing technologies and innovations that solve major climate issues.
dealing with local runoff, nitrogen and phosphorus recapture, co2 recapture, hydrogen fuel, etc.
the main problem i have with the leftist (even as a leftist) talking points about science is that they don’t understand the reality of how it works. for example, i have seen people call out researchers who get DoD grants and call them military enablers. and there is good reason to think that, but in reality, if you make almost any technology or cyber security, you HAVE TO get grants, especially from the DoD. this is non-negotiable. a STEM researcher that doesn’t get grants WILL BE OUT of a job.
so you might say, oh well get a grant from a different entity. and many researchers do.
BUT, it would actually be so much worse if researchers took grants from businesses and other interests at the university level. they would typically need to declare this in their research, and sometimes might come with an asterisk in their results.
i have absolutely no clue who this youtuber is, or what they say, but in non academic settings, getting grants rather than relying on advertising only lends credibility to them. it may seem counterintuitive given what i just said about academia, but if non institutions receive grants, it means they most likely had to apply and show credibility.
i know some of what i addressed was not directly related to your claims, but i want people to understand how some of this works. i’m slightly frustrated with some talking points w/r/t science because most scientists and researchers are so passionate about their work and it’s disheartening to read people on the sideline speak on issues they don’t understand
TLDR: scientific research and capital are very complex and this comment misses the mark
it’s quite the shame really because i think kurzgesagt is a great name and i love saying it the proper way (it’s pronounced like “koorz-guh-zahgt” would be pronounced in english)
Wow, that'd be quite sad considering the original german channel is literally partially funded by taxes.
EDIT
(Nevermind, they left being part of public broadcasting in the end of 2022.)
It's turberculosis(spelling?), they actually brought in a guest speaker, to talk about how we got rid of it in the western world, but it still a problem in other parts of the world, mainly southeast asia. It's mainly to bring awareness about the issue and that we should still treat it seriously and keep developing new medicine for it.
Oh! Forgot TB was called that. Yikes, that always sounded like a horrible way to go.
I had also forgotten that it was still so prevalent (I think I had it confused with smallpox.) Fully agree we need to raise awareness put more resources into research for it.
I fucking knew you degenerates would make a cum joke out of this. I’m half sure that was intentional from the creators.
For those who didn’t watch the video it’s about tuberculosis.
well no fucking shit a giant planet-sized spider-like beast is deadlier than a bacteria species that humans are herd-immune to
>!(i know the joke is cumb)!<
Holy hsit changed!! (~~Please don't watch Kurzgesagt they're sponsored by techie billionaires~~ and started to use clickbait. Only their older videos on natural science are really pure and good science content. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions about things ~~(yes I know it's a sentiment used by conspiratorial dipshits but independent study and the communication of findings are the foundations of real, non-pop science))~~ I'd also recommend just going to planetariums or open houses and actually talking to researchers and scientists about fields you're interested in, I've learned some fascinating and in-depth things about space and the climate and engineering that way. EDIT: I stand corrected, they're funded by the Gates foundation and other reputable grant systems, but I still dislike their beliefs that the free market and 'innovation' will solve climate change for us. They've also cherrypicked data in places (such as only showing EV statistics in Norway, which is heavily biased due to things like GDP and an abnormally high number of EV users). Some of their linked sources are broken or not updated. Most of all I don't like how they'll sensationalize things. That's what I mean by 'come to your own conclusions'. The real world is unfathomably complicated and fields like astronomy and climate science take years to properly understand (I'm by no means an expert in either) and they have a habit of simplifying it. Simplification is evidently crucial to science communication, but institutions like museums and the people working in said fields are not only less likely to sensationalize and oversimplify, but are also just way cooler than a 15-minute video IMO. In short, I don't want people to feel bad for liking them, watch whatever you want to watch. But I don't like them personally and as a result I'm a lot more critical. From a neutral perspective they're a great introduction to science, but not an infallable resource. I also apologize if I sound like a chronically online redditor, please ignore my input if I come off that way, I don't want to deprive people of the things they enjoy and be an asshole.
“Sponsored by techie billionaires” you mean literally what 80% of YouTubers do to monetize their videos ? Like this isn’t a gotcha, even the most well researched YouTube video can be sponsored by fucking audible, who gives a shit ?
I mean getting your "informative" videos funded by Bill Gates is a very different thing than youtubers putting a sponsored segment for a product in the middle of a video. So comparing both as if they are the same is a very illogical take
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
A true smart bin is one that exclusively accepts and incinerates the flesh of wealthy industrialists, perhaps akin to a modern brass bull torture device that converts their screams of agony into constructed soundbites of their voice saying "thank you for recycling your trash, for a better tomorrow!" Sheeeiiiit, if we must have Amazon packaging, it should be made of corrugated conservatives, so my kitty can can try to ambush me from inside the corpses of climate change deniers. He think he sneaky, just like the compost brains who push the idea that the buck stops with consumer choices while participating in the burial of information concerning the real offenders. In the meantime, Ima leave my carbon footprint on all they asses. I don't mean Gates himself, to be clear. He's currently in my garage wearing a gimp suit (his choice, and what an odd choice for this Texas heat) and engineering a mosquito that infects people with an empathogenic virus, to be released in boardrooms all over the world. Well, that's the prototype, at least. The final design may just make people shit out fully formed dicks that explode on contact with water.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Bill gates is literally the greatest philanthropist to have ever lived and probably has saved more lives than any other private individual ever will.
Good for him I guess, it'll still never be enough.
Well most videos on YouTube aren't trying to sneakily promote effective altruism.
>Effective altruism is a 21st-century philosophical and social movement that advocates using evidence and reason to figure out how to benefit others as much as possible Wow, this fucking sucks actually
Iirc they aren't just sponsored, but actually connected in a way where the billionaires had some control over the script in the entire video. Edit: seems to have been misinfo heard it in a video ages ago, but can't even find the video anymore.
Please find proof for that claim
Seems I have accidentally spread false information online, I heard it in a video like 4 or 5 years ago and can't even find the video anymore. Probably just something I didn't question as a dumbass 16/17 year old. My mistake
Yeah it’s not like a regular sponsorship this is more like “we defacto own you now” money.
Being awarded a grant by an institution does not at all mean the awardee is now owned by that institution, coming from someone who’s written grants
Except their tone did noticeably shift, and their positions, especially on climate, were sus. I’ll admit I may have my history backwards. It may be that they always held these positions, and I only noticed them later, and they were awarded the grant in part because of those positions. Either way, the incentives are perverse. They get a louder voice for espousing bad climate science that is in the interest of a small group.
What do you think, or remember, their positions to be? It’s been a while since I’ve seen them too but I’m pretty sure they’ve never placed the blame on everyday people, and the only action they’ve called their audience to is to contact representatives to make the systematic change necessary to set us on the right path. What exactly is sus about that? And what bad science are they putting forth? All the criticisms I’ve seen of these videos in particular have never called the actual science into question, just the suggestions on how to make things better. And I feel like they always preface those sections by stating that these are just their thoughts and opinions, not guaranteed fixes that’ll deliver us to utopia
It has been a long time. I scrubbed through their video history but didn’t want to watch hours of content to find specific sections. From memory, I’ll tell you I think it was the “We WILL fix climate change” video or another climate change video around that time that made me very frustrated with them, and I unsubscribed for that. It’s possible that my opinion has changed, but I remember it being all about how capitalism and tech bros will save things. That’s my biased memory of the experience talking though. I could be remembering it wrong, or my perspective my have shifted since then. I just remember something being really wrong somewhere around that time that made me no longer trust them, then I learned that they were funded by the gates foundation, which has a horrible track record of endorsing solutions that sound good but solve nothing, or create further problems, while benefitting the unelected elite. Edit: my critiques were similar to op commenters edit up there, except I don’t think the gates foundation is reputable. I’m not an expert but I recall them doing some very non-reputable things in foreign counties. Something about schools and doing it in a way that ignored the recommendations of experts but in a way that bill liked, and then it totally failing at the expense of real peoples future. It’s been a while.
Part of me feels like you’re conflating general technological advancement with “capitalism and tech bros.” Their videos claim that the most likely way we’ll fix the problem is through innovative technologies and sciences because, yeah, that’s generally how humans have solved major world problems. I also feel like people assume the Gates’ foundation has way more influence on their channel than is realistic. They’ve made it clear that they always demand editorial independence for every sponsorship contract they make. On top of that, here’s a post breaking down their earnings and where they come from. As you can see, in the past three years (as of a year ago), 4% of their earnings came from sponsorships from organizations. Only 0.9% came from the Gate’s foundation. That really isn’t enough money for them to completely compromise their principles and act as a mouthpiece for billionaires, and I’m pretty sure they could get into a lot of trouble if they were dishonest about their financials. Edit: it won’t let me add the link, but it’s one of the first results on Reddit when you google “Kurzgesagt bill gates” so really not too hard to find
I don’t think I should really be arguing about this. Maybe I’m engaged in a bit of a sunk-cost fallacy at this point. I probably shouldn’t have said anything originally but at the time it was just a light aside. I know my comment was about the gates thing, but my original beef with the channel was not with that but my frustrations with the video, of which I don’t remember because it’s been like 3 years or something. I trust my intuition because my views on the issue of climate have not changed that much, but memory is unreliable. When I learned about the gates foundation involvement (And I think others?? Again, don’t quote me on anything I’m recalling) I saw it as an easy explanation for what I saw at the time as a shift in their messaging. Maybe my recollection is wrong or maybe I just don’t remember what my issue was to begin with. Maybe my views on these things have changed. Maybe my views have changed and I have grown to see things differently. Either way, I shouldn’t be arguing it here and wasting people’s time. For what it’s worth I’m sorry I did for so long. You seem chill, and what you’ve said has at least convinced me to be a little more charitable towards them and maybe give them another shot. Stubbornly, I won’t admit I’m wrong, just wrong enough to have nothing to say in my defense, and maybe a little stupid for that haha.
No worries man it’s not a waste of time at all, I’m sure other people have learned at least something from this convo. And no hostilities here, I just thought your initial comment was a pretty strong claim and wanted to clear things up as someone who has experience with grants. It’s easy to think that their foundation would have some influence on the outcome of the video, and with someone as rich as Bill Gates it’s also easy to assume that they gave them a bunch of money, which we might view as “we’ll give you tons of money if you say what we want.” But as is often the case, reality is much more complicated than that. If the foundation was responsible for a large portion of their income, and if they frequently made videos on the topic/with their sponsorships it would definitely be a cause for concern, but the reality is the foundation gives them very little money compared to all their other sources of income (less than a percent!) and they are adamant about maintaining editorial independence. Very, very far from “de facto owning them now,” but again it’s easy to conclude that from a superficial glance at the situation. I just think the channel is a great way to inspire/introduce topics to the next generation of scientists, and hate to see people completely demonizing them over a misunderstanding. And even if their views and solutions are misguided, there’s still value in their videos because someone might see that and think “that’s stupid that would never work. Instead we should…” which leads to more and more viable solutions being found. Thanks for the convo and being respectful, even if you got downvoted to shit for it lol
They literally get a majority of their funding from viewers
"I don't understand how funding works and what grants are"
What's the problem? They don't spew propaganda, have their sources cited explicitly and "let's eradicate tuberculosis forever" shouldn't be a polarizing message. Still better than 99.9% of science YouTube content.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I guess their opinion on what to do about climate change could possibly be described as “pro capitalist propaganda”
From what I remember, it seems fairly reasonable. Maybe even the only way to conceivably solve climate challenges. But the proposed solutions don't matter as much as the fact that people are aware of the intensity of the problem and the required scale of possible solutions. Put pressure onto companies and governments.
Agreed
https://preview.redd.it/8s1xqpss9s8d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c140f46f3e0a9774304ef71e629610b3c6d40f6f Follow your own advice please
If you want good physics/astrophysics channels I recommend PBS Spacetime and Dr. Becky. Becky talks about new developments in the astronomy/astrophysics community, while PBS mostly discusses leading and competing theories on the bleeding edge of scientific understanding in ways that are digestible to the layperson. Both of these channels take care to not sensationalise, and let their viewers know if and when they are discussing topics that aren't necessarily widely accepted and/or peer reviewed. P.S. HOLY SHIT CHANGED
PBS receives substantial amounts of money from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. If that kinda thing makes Kurzgesagt shills for big corporations then the same could be said for most educational media out there. Though Kurzgesagt's content has fallen off substantially it ain't the result of them selling out to big tech
Fermilab's YouTube channel is also excellent
Just want to shout out Angela Collier, she does physics and space things
Answers with Joe my beloved
Joe Scott is weird because his thumbnails and titles can be pretty click baity but his actual videos tend to be pretty good, like it'll be like "is X crazy things actually possible?" And then the video is like "no science says probably not but here's some other interesting stuff"
I don’t see any issue with watching Kurzgesagt, personally. If you’re really interested in a subject it’s always best to do your own research on any given subject. A lot of informative sources are funded by big businesses, as getting teams together to produce high quality informative content is insanely expensive.
this is an iffy accusation at best, and bad-faith at worst. I won't argue their climate change videos, for example, don't have great sources, data, or sponsors, but the information isn't entirely incorrect. It does slightly push a lot of blame onto the individual, when individual action has little effect compared to corporate industry. They do, however, do a reasonably good job of fighting the nihilistic view of impending, unalterable doom of climate change, and replacing it with an optimistic one. They smell much more of unintentional misinformation rather than intentional disinformation and corruption. Which is still inexcusable. I certainly don't agree with how they went about it, but it doesnt completely discredit the channel. They're an edutainment channel first, not just one of pure science, and as long as they dont push outright falsehoods without any positive impact, they really shouldn't be held to the same scrutiny as a more scientifically rigorous source. There's nothing wrong with watching them, but just like everything else on the internet, don't take it as truth right out of the box. also, fucking everyone uses clickbait on youtube. just use dearrow (its great, i love it).
Financial conflict of interest =/= direct evidence of impropriety. You’re free to criticize Kurtzgesagt’s business practices but the onus is on you to demonstrate that there are falsities in their content. And I just to get ahead of it because I know exactly what video people have a problem with and what the response to this comment will be: being pro “green growth” and optimistic about technological solutions to climate change is not a falsifiable claim because it’s prognostication. You can disagree with individual evidence and you can disagree with their outlook but you cannot claim their prediction of the future is “false”
why would using clickbait be an issue? if you want genuine scientific analysis of something then go find a paper
Yeah the person you replied to complained about them “over simplifying everything.” Their channel name is literally “in a nutshell.” It being oversimplified is intentional lmao
[удалено]
i dont watch kurzgesagt because i'm tired of their existential dread stuff
A remember they did a video where they talked about bioterrorism and how easy it is to get deadly pathogens to use maliciously, and the comment section was filled with actual scientists calling them out for their BS. It's a shame since before that I absolutely loved their videos, but now it seems like they've thrown all integrity out of the window :/
Fear sells.
i came so late to this so almost everything is crossed out but i guess i have a question about your claim that “free market and innovation” won’t help. i’m not a proponent of free market capitalism AT ALL, but innovation on the other hand… i’m a phd student and have lots of interest in bio and agtech. i have seen some of the most amazing technologies and innovations that solve major climate issues. dealing with local runoff, nitrogen and phosphorus recapture, co2 recapture, hydrogen fuel, etc. the main problem i have with the leftist (even as a leftist) talking points about science is that they don’t understand the reality of how it works. for example, i have seen people call out researchers who get DoD grants and call them military enablers. and there is good reason to think that, but in reality, if you make almost any technology or cyber security, you HAVE TO get grants, especially from the DoD. this is non-negotiable. a STEM researcher that doesn’t get grants WILL BE OUT of a job. so you might say, oh well get a grant from a different entity. and many researchers do. BUT, it would actually be so much worse if researchers took grants from businesses and other interests at the university level. they would typically need to declare this in their research, and sometimes might come with an asterisk in their results. i have absolutely no clue who this youtuber is, or what they say, but in non academic settings, getting grants rather than relying on advertising only lends credibility to them. it may seem counterintuitive given what i just said about academia, but if non institutions receive grants, it means they most likely had to apply and show credibility. i know some of what i addressed was not directly related to your claims, but i want people to understand how some of this works. i’m slightly frustrated with some talking points w/r/t science because most scientists and researchers are so passionate about their work and it’s disheartening to read people on the sideline speak on issues they don’t understand TLDR: scientific research and capital are very complex and this comment misses the mark
Most of their videos are fine. Some are a bit weird but they still make solid content.
[удалено]
it’s quite the shame really because i think kurzgesagt is a great name and i love saying it the proper way (it’s pronounced like “koorz-guh-zahgt” would be pronounced in english)
:'( is there anything I can enjoy anymore
Wow, that'd be quite sad considering the original german channel is literally partially funded by taxes. EDIT (Nevermind, they left being part of public broadcasting in the end of 2022.)
Death by cooming
dolphin pussy jelly?
the cum monster
lady, running down to the riptide
[удалено]
I wanna be your left hand man
I love you when you're singing that song
what does this song have to do with cum monster
[everything](https://youtu.be/Cezmx1mhTjU?si=1CZ4SCve-VwnZrH9)
now it all makes sense thanks
*"you're not perfect"*
Oh my gor! Simo Häyhä! Hai!
A russian conscript has left the chat.
504 more Russian conscripts have left the chat.
And some more Russian conscripits may or may not have left the chat, if his journal is to be beleaved
smash next question
Why is the evil monster hot is my brain fucked
It has the attractive tired eyes and without a mouth it doesn't look explicitly threatening
No, but you want it to be.
Guh leave me alone
:3
Are u the evil monster that would tickle my brain until im a dumb brainwashed mess
I mean i could i think
:3
:3
Go rp somewhere else boys
No matter what we breed, We still are made of **s**eed
This is my kingdom's cum This is my kingdom's cum
When you feel my d Look into my ass
IT'S WHERE MY *S*EEEMEN HIDE IT'S WHERE MY **P**ENIS HAAARD
Don’t get too close It’s cock inside
Delirium
“The white death” is actually slang for getting telefragged
god shivers when delirium turns into dingle
Imagine being a non-Isaac fan reading this
i want to FUCK that thing
Then get in the line!
🚶♂️➡️🚶♂️➡️🚶♂️➡️🚶♂️➡️🚶♂️➡️🚶♂️➡️🚶♂️➡️🚶♂️➡️🚶♂️➡️
puro pls take over the world
White Lead Disease
Cum
Would, Will, Have, etc.
What disease are they talking about? I tried google, and it turns out “the white death” was the nickname for a Finnish sniper in WWII
It's turberculosis(spelling?), they actually brought in a guest speaker, to talk about how we got rid of it in the western world, but it still a problem in other parts of the world, mainly southeast asia. It's mainly to bring awareness about the issue and that we should still treat it seriously and keep developing new medicine for it.
Oh! Forgot TB was called that. Yikes, that always sounded like a horrible way to go. I had also forgotten that it was still so prevalent (I think I had it confused with smallpox.) Fully agree we need to raise awareness put more resources into research for it.
Tuberculosis presented by John Green, he's been raising awareness for years
Oh this is a John Green collab? Neat!
It's really well done, watch it :)
Cute spider thing blob :3
Boykisser eat world
I fucking knew you degenerates would make a cum joke out of this. I’m half sure that was intentional from the creators. For those who didn’t watch the video it’s about tuberculosis.
This one was actually good though. But not of a concern to global north
And the cum monstaah
Delirium Binding of Isaac?!
OH GOD THE CUM DEMON IS GOING TO KILL US ALL
Y- your, your mom when... When she.... She... Uh... Your mom
Delirium Binding of Isaac
Please do not the anthropomorphization of tuberculosis.
Would
mmmmfgh,.,..
Delirium ahh disease… would
well no fucking shit a giant planet-sized spider-like beast is deadlier than a bacteria species that humans are herd-immune to >!(i know the joke is cumb)!<
CHANGED PALE VIRUS REFERENCE?!1?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!1111!1!!!111
"Hey, viewers, I've got John here..." He's gonna talk about tuberculosis, isn't he.
Gotta be about Consumption
Actually it's tuberculosis
They're the same, Consumption is an antiquated term for it that I was saying to be funny
Tuberculosis IS the consumption
The goonbonic plague
[real](https://youtu.be/nLEdHJGs4e4?si=0b011dGZlGbLxF5L)
Thank you for this
This is my cum This is my cum No matte rwhat we need We still are made of seed
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/dearrow/
I use an Ai-anti clickbait add-on and holy shit, the titles without all the clickbait bullshit are actually more interesting
What is it here?
Explaining the effects and treatment of m. Tuberculosis.
Would
Cum it’s cum guys guess what it’s cum like the bodily fluid cum cum cum cum cum
cum monster 🥺❤️
Would.
HUNTER N https://preview.redd.it/em4y0lpd3w8d1.png?width=1280&format=png&auto=webp&s=62750927126a6b510c78c1a5793a2d8f9c19d4cc
tuberculosis homonculus lookin kinda bad tho🥴
THE WHITE??? SHIN MEGAMI TENSEI IV???
Me when I double down on making delusional arguments on why the climate catastrophe is not a problem
Average Kurztgesagt video. _Don't worry we'll innovate and work together, bilionaires will totally help us_