Techquickie and Misinformation

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

At the end of the day my point was never that their argument was 100% technically correct, but that it is "correct enough" to tell an end-user basically all they need to know about it, because for an end-user the only place it's going to come up where you need to recognize the term is basic networking (like setting an IP reservation on your router), which as far as it matters to that same end-user is the same thing as NAT.

Reserving an IP in a DHCP server is not at all related to NAT though, and if you're setting up a static NAT you won't be using MAC addresses (because NAT is based on IP addresses and ports, not MAC addresses).

 

5 hours ago, Sniperfox47 said:

When you're talking about physics to someone who knows nothing about physics do you talk about special relativity because that's technically more "correct" or do you talk very generally in broad terms about Newtonian physics and maaaaaaaaybe some mass and velocity? Do you maybe say things like "Velocity is how fast something's going" because that's more understandable for a user without the background than "Velocity is a vector value representing both the speed and direction of an object"?

This is not dumbing down things to make them easier to understand though. This is the writer mixing in completely unrelated things because of a lack of understanding. At best I can describe this as the blind leading the blind... off a cliff.

This is bringing up gender studies while talking about Newtonian physics and then someone defends it by saying gender studies can be linked to any other subject and therefore it is relevant to bring up.

 

I get where you are coming from and I am really not trying to be pedantic here. Saying that a 64 bit computer has 64bits of memory addresses when it actually has 48 (or however many it is)? Fine, that's a bit nitpickish and an easy mistake to make. While I would like the information in the video to be accurate, it doesn't make much of a difference here since the viewers understand the concept. More bits = possible to address more memory. Then there are some other details that gets skipped like PAE, and that's fine.

 

Mixing in completely separate and unrelated concepts and technologies and flat out making stuff up like how VPN tunnels avoid compromised paths is not acceptable in my eyes though.

Does people need to know how NAT works? Probably not, but if they don't need to know it then why not just not mention it? It is better to not mention it than to spread misinformation about it.

But at the end of the day, nobody using that video for information will get an understanding of what the technologies are used for, how they work or how they can be relevant for them.

[-TesseracT-]

12 minutes ago, Bouzoo said:

As someone who has experience with educational mathematics, as well whose soon to be wife is a math teacher, I can tell you you're in for a surprise.

in 2th grade, our textbook would say something along the lines of "7 + 7 = 12"

[TopHatProductions115]

I think that TechQuicky should just make less videos, and spend more time researching the videos they do release. That would allow them to adequately cover the wide breadth of topics they already do, with much better quality. I (for one) am okay with less uploads. Quality over quantity is something I'm willing to accept (as a viewer).

[Blademaster91]

I wouldn't have a problem with less videos, I hardly keep up with how many videos get uploaded. Although I can't complain too much about the techquickie videos, since they just quickly cover a topic, getting every single fact right or going into fine detail would be more time than LTT wants to spend on a video or be too long and boring for most viewers. IMO i think if a person is interested in the topic enough they should go do more research to learn more than a 3-4min video provides anyway.

[LAwLz]

Here is an example of a proper "techquickie", made by a well informed person.

This <6 minute video not only explains the information accurately, but it also goes over both IP addresses as well as MAC addresses, and explains why both are needed. Hell, it also goes over DNS slightly. It does this with simple examples and explanations which I think most if not all viewers in this thread can understand.

 

This is the quality I expect from someone with millions of subscribers and a team of like 20 people working for him. Not some "let's read Wikipedia for 5 minutes and make shit up to fill in the blanks" video that currently gets posted on TechQuickie.

 

 

 

(In before TechQuickie starts repackaging CBT nuggets)

[mr moose]

5 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Man, I failed trig because of how cringe-worthy our book was.  A case of the head of the department wanted to save money by showing us what she knew.  The result was various unfinished examples in the book to unsolvable equations.  However, it was our fault.

Your education systems is failing you hard.  I am sorry.    I though ours was bad, but it just has oversites and the usual SJW BS, but that's just fucked and wouldn't fly here.

[Mutoh]

Good way to try to get a job

[wasab]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Here is an example of a proper "techquickie", made by a well informed person.

This <6 minute video not only explains the information accurately, but it also goes over both IP addresses as well as MAC addresses, and explains why both are needed. Hell, it also goes over DNS slightly. It does this with simple examples and explanations which I think most if not all viewers in this thread can understand.

 

This is the quality I expect from someone with millions of subscribers and a team of like 20 people working for him. Not some "let's read Wikipedia for 5 minutes and make shit up to fill in the blanks" video that currently gets posted on TechQuickie.

 

 

 

(In before TechQuickie starts repackaging CBT nuggets)

he knows what he is talking about. His videos are actually talking about the stuff by doing the stuff. imagine linus talking about how cpus works by designing a microprocessor schematic on verilog. lololololololololl

 

[wasab]

11 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Man, I failed trig because of how cringe-worthy our book was.  A case of the head of the department wanted to save money by showing us what she knew.  The result was various unfinished examples in the book to unsolvable equations.  However, it was our fault.

teaching my little sister trig at the moment. she is learning soh cah toa fabulously  

[Bouzoo]

3 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

is it like anything divided by zero is infinity, or the orders of operations thing? o_o

Many definitions are not correct, or better to say can be understood in more than one way since the sub uni level of knowledge is not sufficient for many proper definitions, and you could understand them in way that is not correct by any math logic or leaves many questions unanswered. And of course there is the zero thing. 

[e14]

Wow, I thought it was just me...

 

I get that tech-journalism (or journalism in general) is hard, and you can't expect journalists to know everything, because if they did have that kind of insight, they would work significantly different jobs.

 

But the constant attempt to appear knowledgeable while they actually have no clue is a problem.

 

The problem is the half-truths and (incorrect) deductions based on other journalists and other non-peer-reviewed material, instead of reading the actual sources.

 

[LienusLateTips]

at least you haven't seen linus talking about PSUs

 

me: "FSP as regarded in the industry is better than SeaSonic"

linus:"no"  (actually his reply)

 

random person: "sEaSonIc iS bEtTeR bEcAuSe tHeY mAkE lEsS tIeR 7 pSuS

linus:"yes" (actually his reply)

[wasab]

On 3/27/2018 at 8:28 AM, Bouzoo said:

Many definitions are not correct, or better to say can be understood in more than one way since the sub uni level of knowledge is not sufficient for many proper definitions, and you could understand them in way that is not correct by any math logic or leaves many questions unanswered. And of course there is the zero thing. 

Ask Siri what anything divides by zero is lol.

 

Dividing by zero won’t necessarily be infinity. Sometimes the function can be asymptotic meaning the function can approach a certain value even if the function itself is not define. The whole notion of calculus is based off that such value exists. 

 

While we cant define the function at the place where it is not define, we can calculate the values of points close to it, like ininiftly close to it. We can then just ignore the whole fact that the point is undefined and use the values that is infinitely close, call limit, because what is the difference between a function that is approaching infinitely close to a value but not define by that value and a function that is define? It is like 0.99999.. repeated. It is so close to 1, just treat it as the integer 1.

[Mira Yurizaki]

On 3/29/2018 at 4:38 AM, e14 said:

Wow, I thought it was just me...

 

I get that tech-journalism (or journalism in general) is hard, and you can't expect journalists to know everything, because if they did have that kind of insight, they would work significantly different jobs.

 

But the constant attempt to appear knowledgeable while they actually have no clue is a problem.

 

The problem is the half-truths and (incorrect) deductions based on other journalists and other non-peer-reviewed material, instead of reading the actual sources.

 

On one hand, some of the post made me side with "they're just trying to get just enough information out to stir some interest", then reading this made me think "oh yeah, I remember there were a few topics they showed that made me wonder if they actually say anything meaningful in a 'quick video'"

 

But I haven't really watched Tech Quickie in forever. It just shows up on my YouTube feed once in a while.

2 hours ago, wasab said:

It is like 0.99999.. repeated. It is so close to 1, just treat it as the integer 1.

You can mathematically prove in at least a few ways ranging from grade school math to using calculus that 0.999... is equivalent to 1. It's not "so close it's the same," they're both the same.

[wasab]

32 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

On one hand, some of the post made me side with "they're just trying to get just enough information out to stir some interest", then reading this made me think "oh yeah, I remember there were a few topics they showed that made me wonder if they actually say anything meaningful in a 'quick video'"

 

But I haven't really watched Tech Quickie in forever. It just shows up on my YouTube feed once in a while.

You can mathematically prove in at least a few ways ranging from grade school math to using calculus that 0.999... is equivalent to 1. It's not "so close it's the same," they're both the same.

Well, not really by definition...... you still need to add an infintismally tiny quantity to 0.999 repeated to make it fully equal 1. We should acknowledge that it exists even if we pretty much just ignore it in calculations because otherwise... it becomes pseudo math and not very scientific. One mathematician had ridicule newton precisely because of this 

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11488149

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Analyst#Content

[Mira Yurizaki]

4 minutes ago, wasab said:

Well, not really by definition...... you still need to add an infintismally tiny quantity to 0.999 repeated to make it fully equal 1. We should acknowledge that it exists even if we pretty much just ignore it in calculations because otherwise... it becomes pseudo math and not very scientific. One mathematician had ridicule newton precisely because of this 

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11488149

Where's the mathematical proof for that? Because here's a calculus level proof that 0.999... is 1:

 

EDIT: If it doesn't show up the link is https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/d347e41728f9ffe843f957bf66ca574eff8857ca

[wasab]

4 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Where's the mathematical proof for that? Because here's a calculus level proof that 0.999... is 1:

 

EDIT: If it doesn't show up the link is https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/d347e41728f9ffe843f957bf66ca574eff8857ca

Geometric formula predicates on the fact that a series converges to a value, not equals that value bud. If a number starts out as 1/2 and it is added infinitely by half of the previous term, will it ever truly equals to a number? However Infinitely nth term later as lim n->infinity (1/2)^n = 0 which is why that prove works but rigorous definition is that it converges to that value not equaling it.

[Mira Yurizaki]

6 minutes ago, wasab said:

Geometric formula predicates on the fact that a series converges to a value, not equals that value bud. If a number starts out as 1/2 and it is added infinitely by half of the previous term, will it ever truly equals to a number? Infinitely nth term later however lim n->infinitely (1/2)^n = 0 which is why that proves work but rigorous enough definition is that it converges to that value not equaling it.

Well, there are other ways that show that 0.999... = 1. Like 1/3 *3. Does it equal 1 or does it equal 0.999...?

 

But then again I have a problem with the assertion that f(x) = y when the square root function has two answers.

 

So you know, do whatever you want as long as it logically makes sense. If you want to claim 0.999... is just infinitesimally smaller than 1 and therefore not the same, you have a case for that. But there are plenty of cases that show 0.999... is 1.

[wasab]

3 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Well, there are other ways that show that 0.999... = 1. Like 1/3 *3. Does it equal 1 or does it equal 0.999...?

 

But then again I have a problem with the assertion that f(x) = y when the square root function has two answers.

 

So you know, do whatever you want as long as it logically makes sense. If you want to claim 0.999... is just infinitesimally smaller than 1 and therefore not the same, you have a case for that. But there are plenty of cases that show 0.999... is 1.

What I meant is that for all intents and purposes, yes, it can be treated as 1 but we just can’t call it as 1 because by definition it is not. 

 

Calculus works similarly. By fundamental theorem of calculus, the derivative of f(x) is

lim h -> 0 f’(x)  = (f(x+h)-f(x))/h

 

with a given function and by algebra, we can cancel out the like term in the denminator which leaves the function undefined and hence get the derivative function which we can say for all intents and purposes we can treat f(x) as h=0 as that derivative, however we just can’t say it equals the derivative because the function is undefined there.

[Princess Twilight Sparkle]

They are more than close enough.

[MegaTechPC]

So anytime somebody is incorrect about anything they are "spreading misinformation"?

 

I get the feeling OP is one of those "Ackshually..." types that spends all of his time finding little factual errors in everything because "I can't just let somebody be wrong on the internet!!"  Whatever floats your boat man, I'm just watching for the entertainment.  Its not like lives are at stake here...

[Syntaxvgm]

On 3/25/2018 at 3:11 PM, JoostinOnline said:

So my A+ Certification textbook at school.

back when I took A+ (never renewed, didn't care to) it wasn't so much the incorrect stuff, it was that the comptia endorsed guides were more modern info and the actual test was 75% POTS questions for some reason, which I was one of the only ones in my class to know since I didn't study the books and I was a magnet for useless information. 

 

[Syntaxvgm]

46 minutes ago, MegaTechPC said:

So anytime somebody is incorrect about anything they are "spreading misinformation"?

 

I get the feeling OP is one of those "Ackshually..." types that spends all of his time finding little factual errors in everything because "I can't just let somebody be wrong on the internet!!"  Whatever floats your boat man, I'm just watching for the entertainment.  Its not like lives are at stake here...

Linus is wrong all the time but the only time I've ever been really upset about it was the venom clevo rebrands since they were a clear scam as far as price difference goes over other rebrands and saying shit like they had special paint of the chassis that cools better. I felt he should have taken that opportunity to take about what clevos are and how to find the right rebrand for you, still never has as far as I'm aware

People can be wrong, especially when rushing things which is really my only problem with LTT. Try being Linus looking after all those children and then coming home and taking care of his kids. 

[mr moose]

35 minutes ago, MegaTechPC said:

So anytime somebody is incorrect about anything they are "spreading misinformation"?

 

 

Technically yes, but I think that is beside the point and largely not relevant.

 

I think the qualifier is that it's not just "somebody" but specifically people who are recognized as being knowledgeable/professional.  Because there is a difference between you or I or any internet pleb repeating what we've heard and someone who makes money professionally from educational videos. 

[LAwLz]

7 hours ago, Princess Twilight Sparkle said:

They are more than close enough.

Maybe sometimes, but the videos I linked are not even close.

They are fundamentally wrong about the entire concepts and technologies the videos are suppose to be about. It's not "small changes that makes it easier to explain and get", which I can be OK with. It's "this has absolutely nothing to do with a VPN because VPNs can not do this nor does a VPN detect or know this can be done".

They are just making shit up.

 

 

7 hours ago, MegaTechPC said:

So anytime somebody is incorrect about anything they are "spreading misinformation"?

Yes, but like mr moose said, TechQuickie is a channel that gets 7.5 million views a month and presents itself as an educational channel.

If you post something wrong on this forum maybe 100 people will read and go "it's just a post on the Internet, I don't trust it".

When Linus says something wrong on his channel it is viewed by 300-400 thousand people which mostly go "ohh so that is how it is. Linus sure knows a lot.".

 

Also, why are you throwing around personal attacks? I think I gave fair criticism, gave examples and then gave them several suggestions on how they can improve.

I even addressed the "I watch for entertainment" argument in the first paragraph of the post. I get that argument on the main LTT channel, although I would like to see them stop making so many factual errors on that channel too. People watch that for fun. But according to Linus himself, the purpose of TechQuickie is to provide the viewers with quick explanations of things, aka to be educational. It is not a comedy channel, it's an educational channel with comedic elements. That is the purpose at least, and it is failing that very hard in lots of videos.