The thing that put me off veritasium was the electricity video which was immediately controversial.
Looking at just the video he left the feeling that all electricity being taught is completely wrong while actually he was talking about some edge case and failed to put it into the proper context. He did not mention at all that the proportion of what he was talking about was essentially irrelevant unless you are an electronics board designer.
EE details relevant to electronics board designers are kinda important and interesting, and I have a lot of sympathy for "technically correct". But that veritasium video was a trick question, and a misleading video. It subtly shifted between ideal model to real-world effects to smugly show how most skilled EEs are wrong about electricity, but Derek knows the truth.
In a simplified circuit model it would work like a circuit, in a as-real-world-as-possible model it would always be dominated by interference. In a carefully-segregated-semi-real model, it would be less than 1% on after 1/c seconds, would you really call that on? If it was, then 100% on would be way too much current!
So many minutes spent without explaining that the real world is very complicated and EEs apply different models to different situations as appropriate, and it's silly to say that only the field matters not the electrons because of course the electrons cause the field while the field moves the electrons, and the original question is a trick because it's an idealized thought experiment which tries to trick you into applying the wrong model but that's silly because it's an idealized thought experiment which wouldn't work in the real world so it's only purpose is to exercise a simplified model ...
Great fodder for a series of viral-y videos from multiple youtubers though. (electroboom's response was pretty good IMHO)
Yeah I really liked the AlphaPheonix video[0] where he actually built the thing in a field and explained the entire effect properly.
I'm not entirely sure if Derek didn't really understand what he was presenting in that video or deliberately based it on a really misleading bullshit gotcha to troll people and stir debate for clicks, and neither reflects very well on him.
The one that I really couldn't stand was the "How to slow aging" one, in which he interviews a man, who in my opinion clearly had some sort of cosmetic surgery done on himself to appear younger. He talks about how to reverse aging in mice, and then randomly claims he actually reversed aging _in himself_.[0]
For anyone following science in mice, this seems like an extremely huge red flag. That together with the cosmetic surgery and a clear financial incentive for the him to lie here, seeing as he is selling a book about it, was triggering just about every bullshit detecting neuron in my brain.
Veritasium however seems perfectly fine with it, and still posted the video.
I haven't ever seen anyone else bring this up, so if anyone wants to share their own hot take on this, I'd be interested to know :)
I would add I felt the wind powered car video was similar. I started watching him years ago as he had an amazing video looking at a silicon sphere being made to use as a new mass standard. In recent years though his videos seem to increasingly confuse subjects (for me) instead of clarify them.
> He did not mention at all that the proportion of what he was talking about was essentially irrelevant unless you are an electronics board designer.
If you want to get that detailed most people would freak at conventional vs electron flow. The + wire is actually where the negative electrons are emitted. But as electricity was developed people didn't know that but it all works out so it was left as is. For physics or any other scientific experiments electron flow is used.
Even the term "negative" is a can of worms it could have been called green or red or yellow not "negative". It comes from Ben Franklin and accounting terms.
In response to all the controversy he made a follow up video [0]. In the video he recreated the experiment, explaining the effect in a more technically correct manner and also apologised for not doing so on the original.
He also made it clear that the light globe in the original video did not receive enough current to light up.. it was hooked up to an alternative power source and an oscilloscope and upon receiving any signal above baseline would switch on the globe.
When i watched that follow up video and he didn't apologize he only said that he wasn't clear enough. In most responses like the other above linked criticism he doesn't apologize either and just gives out a long list of reasons why he's right. In the electricity follow up video it really seemed like he was saying more along the lines of "I was always right, you just weren't smart enough to understand what i was really saying because i was unclear". So I wouldn't say that he apologized, just doubled down and accepted fault with the lack of clarity but without saying sorry in any way.
It really put me off his channel for a long time. I still watch his channel to be fair and get a lot out of it, but his videos hit different after seeing him double down on criticisms and contorting controversy instead of just saying sorry.
Looking at just the video he left the feeling that all electricity being taught is completely wrong while actually he was talking about some edge case and failed to put it into the proper context. He did not mention at all that the proportion of what he was talking about was essentially irrelevant unless you are an electronics board designer.