Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

What I'm saying is that the video contains numerous misconceptions, errors, and dubious bits of hand-waving. I'm not saying that people think they're engineers after watching. I'm saying that he is not trained as one, and that it shows in his work. I'm also saying that "what this guy is doing" and "why it's so valuable" are both undermined by his lack of training.

Long ago, some cranky academic wrote on his very well-sourced and specialized website, back when there was still that sort of thing, something like, "Everybody said that the internet was going to let anybody say anything at all. It turns out they were right."

I'm fine with the backlash from what you call my "gatekeeping." (I imagine that some gates need to be kept, but I suppose that's another story.) My point is that "the best on YouTube" is not as grand a qualification as one might suspect, and is certainly not a guarantee of accuracy.



I’d be curious about the errors and inaccuracies - I’m not trained in the field, and to me it didn’t seem like he got into any real detail about how the aerospike actually worked from a physics perspective other than that it did indeed work. Seemed magical.


Expound on "some gates need to be kept." This forum comments on medical topics, finance, economics, and software. I'd argue that for the majority of people only the last one is something they are experts in.

You could've compared this to a brain surgeon among medical students, or even software engineers, something technical/noncreative.


> the video contains numerous misconceptions, errors, and dubious bits of hand-waving.

Would you care to give a few examples so that I can appreciate their significance? Are they major errors or are you nitpicking?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: