this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2025
698 points (96.0% liked)
Technology
76813 readers
1809 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I love when YT amateurs act as if they are able to produce proper studies that are relevant in any fucking way
If you have a problem with it, tell us why.
I personally prefer a proper peer reviewed study over amateur YT slop
I have no skin in the game but I have worked professionally as both an academic scientist and a data scientist in the private sector and I can tell you that peer review is great but a lot of legitimate research is done outside the bounds of academic journals. It is entirely possible for amateurs to do real science.
If the effect size is large enough, you dont actually need to be that rigorous about it. No one needed to do a study on whether there was a direct correlation between adverse medical outcomes and gunshot wounds to the head.
I personally know don't trust the little (probably superficial) insights I have into the topic enough to be able to gauge this; neither do I have the energy to put into discerning slop creators doing it for clickbait with some backyard engineering or genuinely correct amateurs.
I like to outsource that to proper channels, I understand that it's probably not 100% fair every single time, but as I said, I have neither time nor energy to judge it properly myself
Person: offers you an apple
You: "Personally, I prefer organic, homemade apple pie! Not APPLE SLOP!"
Sorry, but it's more like a crab apple.
It looks like an apple, it's presented like an apple, it's advertised like an apple because that is what makes the YouTuber money. But scientific methods and standards exist for a reason. It's very easy to produce bad data and especially easy to extract bad conclusions from data if you have an incentive to do so (such as a fan base who might engage with the video less if the conclusions were against their expectations)
There's a chance that this guy's conclusions reflect what a proper study might have found, but it's just too hard to tell if it's a crab apple or not it's essentially probably a little better than chance.
Exactly, when it comes to highly complex chemical and electrical engineering and physics (as is the case with Smartphones and their lithium-ion batteries), I will take it as an inditcator if it comes from well-established testers with professional equipment like GN (Gamers Nexus) or other established technical journals when talking outside of the video world, but will not accept it as a general and genuine technical (!) insight until it has gone through the due process of scientific publishing and peer review...
Even then I prefer meta-studies, since they reduce biases and general inaccuracies.