this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2024
359 points (93.5% liked)
memes
10336 readers
1242 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
My problem with him is that he lacks rigor and his methodology is poor.
Also, from the amount of money he throws around buying equipment, I suspect he has wealthy parents bankrolling him.
Applied Science is a far more interesting youtube channel.
My opinion of course but he's not going for methodology or hard science. He's doing fun chemistry stuff in a way that lets me watch and understand with zero understanding of chemistry.
Sometimes things can be for fun and he doesn't need to get published for turning lunar dust back into swiss cheese.
Depends what you're into. People down voting others for expressing their opinion is just stupid. You're entitled to liking it, we're entitled to not like it. (I'm not saying you're the one who was down voting, of course.)
He's always been transparent about the fact that his parents helped him get started, and he's been financially operating on his own for years. Many of his videos are every bit as rigorous as Applied Science.
Re: transparency about bankrolling, i believe you since you say so. I’ve seen many of his videos and never heard him say so. I guess I just missed the ones where he did, or perhaps he said so on social media.
As for rigor, I can’t count the number of times he uses an unspecified amount of a chemical in a reaction, referring only to “throwing a bunch in.” But again, perhaps I’ve just watched the wrong videos.
His approach seems to me to be very “by guess and by gosh.” Part of that stems from trying to follow poorly written instructions in an academic paper; applied sciences grapples with that too. And some of it may be less slapdash that it appears, with Nilered using a deliberately casual tone in his scripts so that they’re more relatable, knowing that people aren’t likely to use his videos to attempt to reproduce his results. Even taking that into account though, given the number of attempts it often takes him to get the desired result, I doubt his rigor. Props to him for showing the failures and partial successes, though. And whatever else I say about him, I do generally find him entertaining.
You're watching the wrong videos. A lot of his material manufacturing videos tend to have a lot more trial and error. In the more pure chemical extraction or synthesis videos, he's hyper precise about amounts, timing, temperatures, and safety. In others he's definitely in "making a funny video fucking around mode."
No, look back at his older videos when he was working out of the garage. Not rich. Decently off but most of the equipment is donated or paid for with channel income.
It's ok to enjoy many different sources of chemistry content.
If you like rigor and methodology you should check out Explosions and Fire / Extractions and Ire.
Not gonna lie that's the channel I head to when I've run out of Nilered content. Been following his Cubane synthesis for a while now and it's been a crazy ride.