[theothermkn]

> ... given that he has doesn't have any kind of formal training in it.

As someone who does have some training in it, I can say that "best space content on YouTube" is akin to "best brain surgeon in a room full of circus clowns."

He gets a lot of stuff right, don't get me wrong. But the appearance of credibility is down to enthusiasm, specialty of focus, and editing and delivery. It's fine as far as it goes, but it's infotainment. It's more important that you be entertained and feel smart than sit down and struggle with the actual application of engineering principles and achieve any kind of reliable knowledge.

[mikenew]

You're conflating "doing brain surgery" and "learning about how the brain works". No one is claiming to be an aerospace engineer after watching one of his videos.

Taking an esoteric concept and making it understandable for the masses takes far more talent and dedication than you might think, and it's something that experts often fail at (or don't attempt). This guy makes no false claims about his credentials or the intended purpose of his videos, and your condescending gatekeeping shows a real lack of understanding for what this guy is actually doing and why it's so valuable.

[theothermkn]

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.

[thatswrong0]

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.

[travisporter]

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.

[ClumsyPilot]

> 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?

[david-gpu]

Well, just like every other edutainment channel out there like Veritasium or SmarterEveryDay. Nothing wrong with that, most of us are not trying to become aerospace engineers or physicists.

[bdamm]

I like my entertainment to also be reasonably accurate so I'll take it. He doesn't make me feel smart, but his content does fill a curiosity itch. Especially since I will not be considering a career in rocket engineering!

[exar0815]

If you like his content, Go with Scott Manley. He has at least some formal training as he is an astrophysicist by trade. Massive knowledge and in-depth bits of info.

[praxulus]

Scott Manley is a Software Engineer, currently at Apple.

[dmoy]

By education at least then, with a bs/ms in the area.

[TeMPOraL]

Formal education != employment != what you actually know.

(Scott Manley wins at all three, though.)

[hansthehorse]

And did a few years at Napster.

[comicjk]

> specialty of focus, and editing

These two are perfectly legitimate ways of using the medium of video to avoid making mistakes.