[ryanmercer]

>Nothing you've listed here precludes fakery.

You think he can get a decent engineering job, especially for a government agency, in the future with a viral public hoax on his record?

Yeah, probably not and YouTube isn't going to rake in money forever, not that he uploads often enough to be anywhere near a top earner anyway.

[root_axis]

> You think he can get a decent engineering job, especially for a government agency, in the future with a viral public hoax on his record?

Who cares? Those are arbitrary rationalizations that didn't necessarily factor into the creator's reasoning; you're simply projecting post facto reasoning that supports your preconceived conclusions. People who fall for scams and fakes use this same flawed reasoning all the time: "would he really lie about this? It can't possibly be worth it, I have considered all possibilities and have perfect information, there is no way that someone would do something that is obviously a bad choice from my perspective"...

[ryanmercer]

> you're simply projecting post facto

He literally says it's not a prank video, that he doesn't do that. He has a solid reputation both as an engineer and as a YouTuber for being scientific and factual, 4 videos ago he showed a fake video from another YouTube user and explained how to help yourself determine when a video is fake...

His videos already get millions of views - his top 5 are nearly 1/4 of a billion views at 99 million, 46 million, 32 million, 31 million, 28 million, even his less popular ones easily clear multiple millions.

[cosmotron]

> 4 videos ago he showed a fake video from another YouTube user and explained how to help yourself determine when a video is fake...

Devil's advocate: sounds like someone knowledgeable enough to make a video that's can't be easily dismissed as a prank. :-)