• jedibob5@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    117
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    You know, years ago, I used to really like Neil before he adopted this “Well, ackchually…” shtick over scientific inaccuracies in works of fiction. I find him absolutely insufferable now. It’s the same kind of brainworms as CinemaSins.

      • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        8 months ago

        Physics teaches you can model reality with math.

        If you get really good at anything, there’s a natural temptation to use that skill outside of its proper context.

        • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          8 months ago

          If you get really good at anything, there’s a natural temptation to use that skill outside of its proper context.

          Indeed! It explains a lot of the issues in many fields, today. A bunch of us computer programmers got really good at that, and now it’s still illegal to shoot us for it (for now). /s (mostly…)

    • the_crotch@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      This motherfucker watched a movie where a girl inherits all of the memories of her 4 most recent female ancestors because her mother used drugs while she was pregnant and he’s like “that isn’t how sound moves through sand”

    • dumpsterlid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      I think that Neil doesn’t understand something very vital about being a science educator which if there is one thing people know about them, it’s that they are smart as hell and whether that is actually true or not the science educator must adopt a self-deprecating, disarming character to be relatable to the audience within the context they are in because of it.

      You can’t play the character of a king and be relatable if people perceive you as actually being a king outside the context of the play….

      • jedibob5@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Well-put. Compare Bill Nye, who comes across as highly intelligent, yet still relatable and likable, in large part because his Science Guy character tends to be a bit of a goof, and, more importantly, because he never talks down to his audience.

        • dumpsterlid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Right, Bill Nye isn’t threatening or high status (in a theatrical sense) in his extreme advantage of knowledge over you and obvious superior intelligence that implies.

          Bill Nye (at least his old stuff I haven’t watched him in a long time) just feels like your goofy neighbor or science teacher and your walls don’t go up because of it, you are so much more willing to consider that a preconception you had might have been wrong because Bill Nye isn’t correcting you out of a place of superiority (which again the audience will by default unfairly project onto someone like Bill Nye given the context), it’s from a place of “the universe is weirder and more fun than you thought and I am hyped in a mad scientist way to be the person that gets to show you that!!”. Same thing with Myth Busters, they were most effective when they were visibly thrilled by the privilege of getting to show people how much weirder and cooler science was then they thought, not just because it’s morally good to spread science education but also because it’s fun as hell to get to be the goofy character doing it while seeing the eyes of adults around you light up like kids. You are a magician, except you are way funnier than a magician because the result of your magic tricks is to make people permanently feel how weird the universe really is.

          We hate being wrong except when an irreverent character shows us that we were wrong because we underestimated how cool, weird or goofy the universe actually is.

          I suppose this an obvious case of why just valuing STEM in school is a huge mistake, someone with theater training could easily point this dynamic out and make sure they played the character that made them the best science educator possible if they were in the position Tyson is in. It wouldn’t even take any more work than Tyson is already doing, it is simply a matter of genuinely understanding perspective (the theater part) and giving a shit.

    • Boozilla@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      8 months ago

      Similar story. I liked him a lot, read one of his books, and started listening to his podcast. But the more I listened, the less I liked him.

      • Dem Bosain@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 months ago

        I really, really liked his podcast when the co-hosts rotated, including Kristen Schall and Eugene Merman. Then it became Chuck Nice all the time, and I didn’t stick around to see if it ever changed back.

    • Splatterphace@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 months ago

      Ah yes, loved CinemaSins, ruined how I watch movies, then became too annoying to watch.

      OH GOD THE BELLS

        • felbane@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          8 months ago

          That’s a weird way to spell “intentionally misunderstanding the point because people arguing about it in the comments drives engagement and is therefore more profitable.”

      • Zahille7@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        8 months ago

        I’ve only watched a few of their videos (from a few years ago) and they’re the definition of “nit-pick”

    • Infinity187@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      I totally agree with this sentiment. This is the way I feel about Elon Musk. Although, I do have an exorbitant amount of disdain for the latter.

      • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        8 months ago

        quoth @rodhilton@mastodon.social

        He talked about electric cars. I don’t know anything about cars, so when people said he was a genius I figured he must be a genius.

        Then he talked about rockets. I don’t know anything about rockets, so when people said he was a genius I figured he must be a genius.

        Now he talks about software. I happen to know a lot about software & Elon Musk is saying the stupidest shit I’ve ever heard anyone say, so when people say he’s a genius I figure I should stay the hell away from his cars and rockets.

    • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      8 months ago

      I don’t he gets the movie really isn’t about “science”. It’s about philosophy, politics, religion, etc.

      • TranscendentalEmpire@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        8 months ago

        Seems to be a case of the ole " I can’t see the forest, all these trees are in the fucking way!".

        Which is kinda funny considering the books had a lot to do with ecology.

        • Neuromancer@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          If you ever never seen the dunes of Florence, Oregon. It’s pretty cool. That’s where the dune idea came from. I’ve heard there are some ties to Salem since he lived there but I have not figured those out

      • drislands@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        8 months ago

        Ehhhh sometimes it goes too far. I remember one time he commented after a mass shooting that, uhm ackshually the flu kills more people than mass shootings so why are you all upset? It was pretty offensive.

        • GladiusB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          I wouldn’t call it offensive. It’s factual. It is insensitive. It’s not thinking of those that died and their families.

          • Passerby6497@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            I would consider it offensive to belittle the murder of children/adults just because diseases kill more people. That’s such a smooth brain take, and is honestly something I’d expect to come out of a Republican politician.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    8 months ago

    “Somebody didn’t do the research on that,” Tyson told the talk show host, making the case that if you pound your fist into a sand dune, it wouldn’t actually produce a thumping sound the way it does in the film. “You can’t thump sand.”

    Oh, this is easy. Neil, the thumping isn’t for the sand its for the spice in the sand which is a near-magical substance that is tied biologically to the sandworms and when consumed by humans in large quantities lets you see into the future. Are you going to try and tell me a substance which clearly grants its user the ability to see through space-time can’t be excited mechanically with thumping it on the ground?

    • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      39
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Actually it does work with regular sand dunes. The sequential baked layers creates a reasoning champer that amplifies sound at certain frequencies.

      https://youtu.be/v29ou094luc

      Which means Neil is actually upset with how much scientific world building Frank Herbert did, since it confuses people like him who haven’t studied sand dunes for decades.

      • Cave@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        8 months ago

        This doesn’t mention anything about it working with any kind of large impact, though. It’s all about higher frequency vibrations from layers of sand moving around. It’s an interesting phenomenon, but jot what is being talked about.

        • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          8 months ago

          The resonance depends on the size of the cavity. It’s conceivable that with different sand structure you could get different size resonating chambers. Plus even though a piano is tuned for higher frequency vibrations, it’ll still ring when you thump on it. I’d imagine that’d be the same with these chambers.

    • SzethFriendOfNimi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      8 months ago

      Besides the sand worms can pick up on the vibrations. It doesn’t need to be loud. Just be a consistent pattern.

      So having the thump sound is there for artistic purposes. For the art. In a medium used for art.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Well, it’s more than that. I think this is even mentioned in the new movies, but there’s a phenomenon in Dune called “drum sand” that is a section of sand that somehow amplifies vibrations. Obviously it doesn’t matter how any of this works. It’s a story where, if you get high enough, you can predict possible futures. No shit it isn’t realistic. No one cares.

      • Codex@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        8 months ago

        With what Spice does to people, and the general weirdness of the spice/worm/maker life cycle, suggesting that the worms are partially fungal in nature actually makes a lot of sense!

  • Slotos@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    The original book finds itself in a science fiction genre only because anything with spaceships and technology is placed there. For all practical purposes though, it’s a space fantasy.

    In other words, complaining about science of Dune is like complaining about poetic meter of a tax report - something you do only with the closest of friends.

    • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      8 months ago

      There’s also a lot in there about how a planet’s ecology influences culture. Also the long term effects of banning computers. Also about how in the far future people will forget about Earth but some cultural artifacts will remain even when people have forgotten why they do things. Also about how over enough time, people may change so much they may not even be recognizable as human. Also how with the existence of FTL travel it may become impossible to escape the killer robots people will inevitably build unless someone turns themself into a worm.

  • BURN@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    8 months ago

    NdGT is a pretentious twat who needs to just shut up and sit down.

    I swear the only time he’s relevant is when he’s bitching about some science fiction movie not being 100% accurate

  • N_Crow@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    42
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Science fiction not science facts. When was the book written again? And why is an Astrophysicist giving opinions on worm biology? Not his area of expertise?

    • Revan343@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      The specific thing he’s bitching about is sand physics, that is that sand doesn’t really ‘thump’.

      This is something that is actually specifically addressed in the book, I’m not sure about the movie; short version is that the sand and weather on Arrakis are weird, and the sand forms more solid areas than elsewhere.

      So not only is he complaining about a minor (from a realism perspective, it’s important in-universe) detail, he’s also showing that he did not read the book

      • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        8 months ago

        In the movie, the first time Paul uses a thumper he has to dig in a few spots before he finds one that the thumper will work on.

      • dustyData@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Which is funny because on Earth sand actually does create resonant chambers in the desert dunes that do, under specific circumstances, drive sound hundreds of miles. It’s the phenomenon of singing deserts, that goes from anywhere between low rumbles up to flute like warble, it’s been documented since the times of Marco Polo. We even have squeaking sand beaches. So, as usual, the pedantic twat is actually technically incorrect.

  • Stern@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Professional “That guy” has “That guy” take. Shocking

  • wahming@monyet.cc
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    Personally it was the behemoth worms and psychic mind readers that made me think it wasn’t a documentary, but YMMV

    • AmidFuror@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Did you watch the segment? Even the article (which links to another article whose author apparently watched the segment) makes it clear this was done in fun.

      Tyson complains about the ornithopters needing wings to fly when they should just use the anti-gravity mechanics of the gigantic spaceships. Colbert points out that the ornithopters aren’t large enough to house the anti-gravity devices.

      • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        ‘Ornithopter’ also isn’t a term Herbert invented. It’s an actual word for an aircraft that flaps its wings to fly, like an animal. So he’s really complaining about the presence of 'thopters. Different propulsion techs for different situations makes a lot of sense, though; it’s not like VTOL jets made helicopters obsolete even though they’re superficially a superior option.

        • AmidFuror@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          So he’s really complaining about the presence of 'thopters.

          Did you watch the segment? He thinks the ornithopters are cool. I guess I have to spell out that the anti-gravity complaint was a joke.

  • IamLazersword@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    So I guess transcribing a YouTube video and providing a weak opinion on what was said is considered journalism these days? This is such a low effort article.

    I watched the interview and it seems like more of a comedy bit than Neil’s actual opinion of the movie overall. Some people just want something to get upset over I guess…

    • reversedposterior@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      I’m kind of surprised at the reactions honestly. He’s even said this in interviews before, it’s a fun bit he does to comedically over-analyse any time a new sci-fi film comes out. I think he stopped or considered stopping for a while precisely because people took out the pitchforks and he didn’t want to ruin people’s fun, but I think the fact that many people enjoyed it swayed him to keep going.

      • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 months ago

        The problem is that these kinds of news outlets know that if you take it out of context in an article headline and make it sound like it’s a genuine critique of the movie, you’ll get a lot of engagement from people who are ticked off about it.

      • zarkanian@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Yeah, it doesn’t ruin anything for me. If you demand that your science fiction be 100% accurate, there’s going to be very little science fiction that you enjoy.

        Dune is really more like science fantasy, like Star Wars, anyway.

  • edric@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    To be fair, he did this in Colbert’s show, which was kinda done in jest/humor. Having said that, the guy does like to “ackchually” stuff a lot, even for fictitious things. And he definitely was his usual smug self even though it was a comedy bit.

    • MudMan@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      This is all a bit of harmless fun beginning to end, but this is such a model of misinformation it loops around to being actually fascinating.

      Harmless event>fair but misleadingly titled article>social media responding to the headline. There’s some worm life cycle for you. Simultaneously elegant and horrifying.

  • callouscomic@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Person who’s only job is science and who is an expert on science comments about the science of things and people find a way to complain about it.

    Let the man die on his silly hills. It’s funny and harmless. Pull the damn stick out. Perhaps go pound sand.

    • 5in1k@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      8 months ago

      My bitch with him is he’ll say the most stoner ass thing in the most smug way possible like it’s some insight from god.

    • RvTV95XBeo@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      Immediately after any sci-fi movie comes out:

      Internet: hey sciencey person, how accurate was the science?

      Sciencey person: not.

      Internet: surprisedPikachuface.jpg

  • VulKendov@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    8 months ago

    I feel like people take these way too seriously, like some of these comments sound like it’s personal. Its just a movie/book series if some one wants to poke some fun then just let em.

    • lorkano@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      It’s a scifi series, If in their universe sands can pass vibrations for a long range, they are welcome to do whatever they want.

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        yeah, I don’t care if a fantasy universe is inconsistent with our standards and physics.

        I only care if its blatantly inconsistent within its own rules.

        I like NDT, but the dude just loves to shitpost constantly like this and its tiresome.

  • Donjuanme@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    8 months ago

    Why does the Internet dog pile onto NDT over every tweet, but seems to try it’s best to ignore Alex Jones et al?

    • bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Everyone knows Alex Jones is a piece of shit. We expect more from NDT, and nitpicking everything doesn’t help inspire more people into STEM.

    • grayman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      AJ knows what he is and flaunts it. NDT thinks he’s god’s gift to humanity and makes that point painfully obvious while simultaneously assuming you require convincing of that “fact”. He’s also a stunning example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

    • johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      I think there’s a feeling that NDT is representing himself as some sort of ambassador for “science” when quite a few pro-science people find him a bit pompous. Or maybe there’s more vitriol because a lot of people used to like him and have now changed their minds.

      With Alex Jones, he’s just someone that no one with half a brain could take seriously. Of course he’s an ass, but also that’s just kind of a given.

    • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      That’s a great question. I really don’t understand why almost this entire thread is so pissed at him for making some stupid tweets. Who gives a fuck about tweets? Even years ago.