Auf YouTube findest du die angesagtesten Videos und Tracks. Außerdem kannst du eigene Inhalte hochladen und mit Freunden oder gleich der ganzen Welt teilen.
It’s a YouTube channel that does high quality DIY projects, and explains the reasons behind the choices made.
Why would this be an article as opposed to, y’know, a video? His job is to make YouTube videos.
I don’t understand this obsession some on Lemmy have with shitting on hard-working creative types when they make something in video form rather than creating a blog and publishing articles.
What their job is has nothing to do with my statement. If the only media reporting about a new technology is a video then that thing is significantly more likely to be bullshit
It’s not news. It’s not a scientific paper. Wireless energy transfer isn’t “bullshit”, it’s been an understood aspect of physics for a long time.
Since you seem unable to grasp the concept, I’ll put it in bold and italics:
This is a video of a guy doing a DIY project where he wanted to make his setup as wireless as possible. In the video he also goes over his thoughts and design considerations, and explains how the tech works for people who don’t already know.
It is not new technology.
It is not pseudoscience.
It is a guy showing off his bespoke PC setup.
It does not need an article or a blog post. He can post about it in any form he wants.
Personally, I think showcasing this kind of thing in a video is much better than a wall of text. I want to see the process, the finished product, the tools used and how he used them.
What their job is has nothing to do with my statement. If the only media reporting about a new technology is a video then that thing is significantly more likely to be bullshit
It’s not reporting on a technology. DIYPerks is a channel about cool projects he does. He shows the build process and explains everything and usually provides plans to follow along
i.e. he is reporting about a technology. Again, if the only media reporting about a new technology is a video then that thing is significantly more likely to be bullshit
He is not reporting. What’s there not to get? It’s not a news outlet. He just says “I found this neat thing and will now build some insane project around it”. I’m sure if you actually went to look, you would find other sources that talk about the technology in detail and probably did so before he made his video
He goes into the downsides of the technology, which you would’ve known if you had watched it. He’s also a very well known, and reputable channel, so I don’t see any reason to not trust him.
If you want more than just a video about an emerging tech then why don’t you provide an article on it, instead of expecting it from OP, who probably just wanted to post a cool tech video.
Not the point. The point is that if this is an attempt at reporting cool new tech usable by the masses, then it should be posted as written coverage. YouTube videos can easily be perceived as content churn rather than reputable sources of information.
But if that wasn’t the point of the post by OP, we’re all good here.
I think we’re all on the same side, looking at it from all angles. 🤷♂️
What he goes into has nothing to do with anything. You don’t seem to understand my comment, it’s very possible that i worded it poorly, so I’ll reiterate:
If the only media reporting about a new technology is a video then that thing is significantly more likely to be bullshit
Don’t worry, you have at least one person who understands what you mean. I definitely agree. 👍 If there’s no written coverage, the significance seems low/only for clout.
Yes, because it’s a maker on YouTube showing off a project he did? It’s a clickbaity title sure, but this isn’t a research paper showcasing a new technology. He’s using a dev kit to make something he thinks is cool. Fail to see the issue.
Thanks, it’s weird how some people are reacting to this comment. Is this their first day on the Internet? I’m not saying this device IS bullshit, I’m saying from a long history of experience that if the only 3rd party media you can find about a device is a video then that device is significantly more likely to be bullshit. It’s simple and clearly true.
It’s an interesting video, you can see the sizes and form factor of the recievers this way much better. You can still skip the parts you are not interested in.
Wireless efficiency is around 70%-75% max with something like that; EMF and RMF issues abound in any configuration without shielding, which this one has none of. I am surprised anything works.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m not willing to pay a 30% higher electrical bill for something like this.
It wouldn’t be a 30% higher electrical bill overall. It would be 30% more for whatever power you’re using for this specific device, which, if it’s ordinarily 10W while in sleep and an average 100W while in use, and you use it 50 hours per week, or 215 hours per month, that’s a baseline power usage of 21500 watt hours in use and 5050 watt hours from idle/sleep/suspend. Or a total of 26550 watt hours, or 26.5 kWh. At 20 cents per kWh, you’re talking about $5.30 per month in electricity for the computer. A 30% increase would be an extra $1.60 per month.
Why is this a video and not an article? Makes me think it’s just bullshit
It’s a YouTube channel that does high quality DIY projects, and explains the reasons behind the choices made.
Why would this be an article as opposed to, y’know, a video? His job is to make YouTube videos.
I don’t understand this obsession some on Lemmy have with shitting on hard-working creative types when they make something in video form rather than creating a blog and publishing articles.
I will quote my other reply:
It’s not new technology you numpty.
It’s not news. It’s not a scientific paper. Wireless energy transfer isn’t “bullshit”, it’s been an understood aspect of physics for a long time.
Since you seem unable to grasp the concept, I’ll put it in bold and italics:
This is a video of a guy doing a DIY project where he wanted to make his setup as wireless as possible. In the video he also goes over his thoughts and design considerations, and explains how the tech works for people who don’t already know.
It is not new technology.
It is not pseudoscience.
It is a guy showing off his bespoke PC setup.
It does not need an article or a blog post. He can post about it in any form he wants.
Personally, I think showcasing this kind of thing in a video is much better than a wall of text. I want to see the process, the finished product, the tools used and how he used them.
Why would a YouTube channel make an article instead of, you know, making a video, which is their job?
What their job is has nothing to do with my statement. If the only media reporting about a new technology is a video then that thing is significantly more likely to be bullshit
It’s not reporting on a technology. DIYPerks is a channel about cool projects he does. He shows the build process and explains everything and usually provides plans to follow along
i.e. he is reporting about a technology. Again, if the only media reporting about a new technology is a video then that thing is significantly more likely to be bullshit
I hoped people on Lemmy would be less obtuse than Reddit but oh well
Yes, you’re really the one here contributing to the topical discussion 🙄
He is not reporting. What’s there not to get? It’s not a news outlet. He just says “I found this neat thing and will now build some insane project around it”. I’m sure if you actually went to look, you would find other sources that talk about the technology in detail and probably did so before he made his video
That’s literally what reporting means. You don’t have to be a news outlet to do a report.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reporting
Be as pedantic as you want, but “reporting” is coloquially used to describe news. This is more akin to a blog
I’m not being pedantic, you just don’t know what the word means.
He goes into the downsides of the technology, which you would’ve known if you had watched it. He’s also a very well known, and reputable channel, so I don’t see any reason to not trust him.
If you want more than just a video about an emerging tech then why don’t you provide an article on it, instead of expecting it from OP, who probably just wanted to post a cool tech video.
Not the point. The point is that if this is an attempt at reporting cool new tech usable by the masses, then it should be posted as written coverage. YouTube videos can easily be perceived as content churn rather than reputable sources of information.
But if that wasn’t the point of the post by OP, we’re all good here.
I think we’re all on the same side, looking at it from all angles. 🤷♂️
it’s not a news video.
Yeah, not the point, like the other person said.
Nobody said it was, and is irrelevant. I will quote my other reply to explain the intended point:
What he goes into has nothing to do with anything. You don’t seem to understand my comment, it’s very possible that i worded it poorly, so I’ll reiterate:
Don’t worry, you have at least one person who understands what you mean. I definitely agree. 👍 If there’s no written coverage, the significance seems low/only for clout.
Yes, because it’s a maker on YouTube showing off a project he did? It’s a clickbaity title sure, but this isn’t a research paper showcasing a new technology. He’s using a dev kit to make something he thinks is cool. Fail to see the issue.
No.
We’re not getting through properly—there is no issue. It’s all in the hypothetical purpose of the post by OP.
If this was a way to announce a widely available thing, it would be more credible as an article than a YouTube video. That’s all.
But this is fine as it is. I don’t think that was the purpose of the video or post. I think it was just a fun video. 👍
Thanks, it’s weird how some people are reacting to this comment. Is this their first day on the Internet? I’m not saying this device IS bullshit, I’m saying from a long history of experience that if the only 3rd party media you can find about a device is a video then that device is significantly more likely to be bullshit. It’s simple and clearly true.
Yes. People are still down voting us. I think it’s hard to explain this concept or something. We’re not getting through. Oh well.
It’s an interesting video, you can see the sizes and form factor of the recievers this way much better. You can still skip the parts you are not interested in.
The quick start guide from the link in the description if you just want to read numbers: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/669856991b982007b8a6a788/t/67af70bd5fc318472e2f9f1a/1739550910959/Evaluation+Kit+-+Quick+Start+Guide.pdf
Did you even watch the video? It’s a well-produced piece of content from a pretty well-known individual
Because it is bullshit lol.
Wireless efficiency is around 70%-75% max with something like that; EMF and RMF issues abound in any configuration without shielding, which this one has none of. I am surprised anything works.
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m not willing to pay a 30% higher electrical bill for something like this.
It wouldn’t be a 30% higher electrical bill overall. It would be 30% more for whatever power you’re using for this specific device, which, if it’s ordinarily 10W while in sleep and an average 100W while in use, and you use it 50 hours per week, or 215 hours per month, that’s a baseline power usage of 21500 watt hours in use and 5050 watt hours from idle/sleep/suspend. Or a total of 26550 watt hours, or 26.5 kWh. At 20 cents per kWh, you’re talking about $5.30 per month in electricity for the computer. A 30% increase would be an extra $1.60 per month.
I’d only consider it if I had the first world problem of overly efficient solar panels.