<story><title>PBS SpaceTime</title><url>https://www.pbsspacetime.com</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>wing-_-nuts</author><text>&amp;gt;making it consumable for the population that&amp;#x27;s interested in science and physics, but doesn&amp;#x27;t pursue it on a daily basis.&lt;p&gt;While I love the channel, it seems like they&amp;#x27;re more targeted to someone with a &lt;i&gt;lot&lt;/i&gt; of physics education, more so than lay people.  This is the only channel I&amp;#x27;ve ever watched and genuinely felt dumb on a regular basis.</text></item><item><author>shrikrishna</author><text>A channel worth subscribing. Matt (and team?) manages successfully to walk the fine line between managing the complexity of the topics they discuss (which are sometimes extremely dense), making it consumable for the population that&amp;#x27;s interested in science and physics, but doesn&amp;#x27;t pursue it on a daily basis. At the same time, they don&amp;#x27;t fall for the trap of dumbing it down to the point where the audience develops misconceptions and starts believing in pseudo scientific claims.&lt;p&gt;There are some series they sometimes do, which are entertaining to follow. I also enjoy things like Journal club, where they pick a paper and deep dive into it. The audience also participates, in a way, where they pick the questions&amp;#x2F;comments from the previous video and answer them.&lt;p&gt;However, it&amp;#x27;s not all academic either. There are some running jokes etc, which keep the content entertaining, while being informative, a format that I see common in some of the best Youtube channels.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>ravi-delia</author><text>I think that&amp;#x27;s the key. Without a &lt;i&gt;somewhat&lt;/i&gt; rigorous treatment, most interesting physics just doesn&amp;#x27;t work. The magic is that a well made resource is still consumable without quite understanding the complicated stuff. Then, if you come across something else later, maybe the commonalities make something click.</text></comment>
<story><title>PBS SpaceTime</title><url>https://www.pbsspacetime.com</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>wing-_-nuts</author><text>&amp;gt;making it consumable for the population that&amp;#x27;s interested in science and physics, but doesn&amp;#x27;t pursue it on a daily basis.&lt;p&gt;While I love the channel, it seems like they&amp;#x27;re more targeted to someone with a &lt;i&gt;lot&lt;/i&gt; of physics education, more so than lay people.  This is the only channel I&amp;#x27;ve ever watched and genuinely felt dumb on a regular basis.</text></item><item><author>shrikrishna</author><text>A channel worth subscribing. Matt (and team?) manages successfully to walk the fine line between managing the complexity of the topics they discuss (which are sometimes extremely dense), making it consumable for the population that&amp;#x27;s interested in science and physics, but doesn&amp;#x27;t pursue it on a daily basis. At the same time, they don&amp;#x27;t fall for the trap of dumbing it down to the point where the audience develops misconceptions and starts believing in pseudo scientific claims.&lt;p&gt;There are some series they sometimes do, which are entertaining to follow. I also enjoy things like Journal club, where they pick a paper and deep dive into it. The audience also participates, in a way, where they pick the questions&amp;#x2F;comments from the previous video and answer them.&lt;p&gt;However, it&amp;#x27;s not all academic either. There are some running jokes etc, which keep the content entertaining, while being informative, a format that I see common in some of the best Youtube channels.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>snapetom</author><text>Hah. I agree, but I&amp;#x27;ll add that his style is more like it&amp;#x27;s easy to follow for a while, then suddenly the car drives off a cliff and you need upper division college physics to understand.&lt;p&gt;I really love Anton.  He has a way to ELI5 that&amp;#x27;s really effective and really genuine.</text></comment>