[database_lost]

I see your point, but the title and first paragraphs try to paint the picture of a "funky science" youtuber betting a UCLA physicist $10k and winning (which for me is very different to the truth: UCLA physicist bets another physicist $10k and loses)

[ehsankia]

He did study Physics but his main field is science education, I think it's fair to assume a physics professor would know a bit more. I also think it's a bit of your own preconceived notion at play here assuming that calling someone a "Youtuber" is meant as a negative. This is equivalent to saying "Science communicator vs physics professor", which is a fair portrayal.

[database_lost]

I really don't think being called a Youtuber is meant as negative. I take issue with how the writer chose to present this story. If this was about the intricacies of ad revenue on YouTube for example, great, no need to specify he also has a physics degree. But I'm disappointed to see them paint him as just a guy who "likes to break down funky science" (and made 10k off a physicist) when he is more than that, with relevance to the actual story. For someone who doesn't know his work, he might as well be one of the guys burning snow with lighters a few months ago to prove its fake snow...