- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion
- cross-posted to:
- nottheonion
You must log in or register to comment.
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.
Relevant comic:
https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-03-21Physics 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.
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…)
I know, buddy… I know.
Phychohistory is feasible, we just need to scale up!
That’s it, you’re banished.
Now I’m just really sad about my dead dog.
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”
Is that an actual movie cause that sounds wild
Yeah that’s dune
That’s the story of dune, and it was covered in the 1984 movie. Idk if the new one gets into it I haven’t seen it yet
It wouldn’t be Dune without being overenthusastic about the capabilities of psychedelics.
Oh yeah, and it gets weirder from there.
He’s a physicist, so he’s obviously going to comment on the physics. He might’ve commented on it if he was a geneticist, ob/gyn, or pharmacist.
Or he could have the insight that this story wasn’t going for scientific accuracy
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….
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ah yes, loved CinemaSins, ruined how I watch movies, then became too annoying to watch.
OH GOD THE BELLS
CinemaSins is far too often just them not understanding the damn point of a scene or movie.
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.”
I’ve only watched a few of their videos (from a few years ago) and they’re the definition of “nit-pick”
That one tweet about the stars in Titanic was the only good one of those.
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.
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.
I don’t he gets the movie really isn’t about “science”. It’s about philosophy, politics, religion, etc.
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.
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
I want Neil to give a scientific explanation for Leto II (2) turning himself into a sandworm.
Because of the square cube law, once he becomes the worm, would he be Leto^2 or Leto^4?
He’s Leto II the second.
I need that meme where he talks about kissing himself in the mirror
Tweets need to go away period. what a piece of shit content model and platform. Having a very short character limit was never the genius move people thought it was
Originally it was a technical necessity since Twitter had to work via SMS which has a limit of 160 characters. The enforced brevity was part of it’s original charm IMHO.
I know where the limit came from but no one forced them to use SMS or make an app, period.
I never understood how forcing people into so few characters was a good thing. All it did was make people post less thoughtfully and more often.
This whole thread is people pissed off that NDT posts things without thinking about how they come off so it kind of makes sense he would do that on Twitter.
I sorta get it. Limits allow for creativity. I find myself being the most creative when I work within limits, selfimposed or otherwise. That’s why I love dnd and pathfinder.
“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?
Actually it does work with regular sand dunes. The sequential baked layers creates a reasoning champer that amplifies sound at certain frequencies.
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.
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.
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.
I’m just here to appreciate that you’re explaining this to a user named ‘Cave’.
What’s the opposite of nominative determinism?
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.
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.
Yup. I think that’s why it’s called Science Fiction not Science Nonfiction.
Neil failed to remember that they are on Arrakis, not in the Mojave desert.
patrolling arrakis almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter
Spice might be like mycelium on Arrakis.
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!
Someone didn’t read the book far enough to get to the part about Drum sand
Personally it was the behemoth worms and psychic mind readers that made me think it wasn’t a documentary, but YMMV
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.
You seem to be missing that my comment was done in the same spirit :)
‘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.
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.
You shut your removed mouth fiction is not a thing that exists
That man’s pedantry is truly beyond parody.
Honestly I think it’s just his form of boomer humor. Like he slaps his brain knee. At least it’s weird and not like malicious.
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.
I wouldn’t call it offensive. It’s factual. It is insensitive. It’s not thinking of those that died and their families.
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.
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.
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.
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 removed about some science fiction movie not being 100% accurate
So, you’re saying he should…pound sand?
He should go and make a another season of Cosmos already.
Like a thumper!
Movie: “Y’all check out these space wizards who can pilot big space ships at FTL. Check out these giant worms that shit magic dust. Check out a Special Boy who can see the future.”
NDT: “None of this is scientifically accurate.”
I swear the only time he’s relevant is when he’s removed about some science fiction movie not being 100% accurate
Taking an ice-pick to “Contact” because it isn’t realistic, and posting it in Tyson’s DMs every day until he deletes his account.
Eh, I’m fine with a little pedantry here and there.
when it’s funny
Comedy is hard
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?
The specific thing he’s removed 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Professional “That guy” has “That guy” take. Shocking
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…
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.
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.
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.
When the planet’s massive sandworms move, they barrel forward in a straight line. But as Tyson points out, pretty much all legless, worm or snake-like creatures on Earth have to slither in S-shaped lines if they want to move forward.
“Have you ever seen a snake chase you as a straight snake? No!”
Has he ever seen an earthworm???
Sand worms have pulsating segments. Sure snakes slither but they can also move forward by pulsing. This isn’t some impossible thing.
Or maybe this snake doesn’t exist?
That’s not mysterious. It’s one of the methods snakes use to move forward across terrain that doesn’t have things to push sideways off of when they slither. Everyone knows this. Neil knows this. He’s just too busy being an ass to remember that he knows it.
It clearly ingests and expels sand for rocket-like propulsion, but Neil can’t even get cool with it.
Neil DeAss Wipeson
Why does the Internet dog pile onto NDT over every tweet, but seems to try it’s best to ignore Alex Jones et al?
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
I’ve never understood why people get so upset when he does this. I like it when someone points out the actual physics behind something that you see in films and what was done right and wrong.
Learning that something in a movie isn’t scientifically accurate doesn’t ruin the movie for me. I already figured it wouldn’t be entirely correct and it doesn’t have to be correct (unless it’s supposed to be educational).
He’s comparing things like known sand on earth, to make-believe drum sand on make-believe planet called Arrakis. He thinks he’s being smart, but he’s really just being obtuse.
To be fair, if you define “sand” as being silicate particles of a given size, you would expect it to behave similarly in similar conditions.
Sure, I’m nothing to let it get in the way of my enjoyment… but to be honest, part of my enjoyment of Star Trek is ragging on terrible science and engineering. (Sorry, but for example most federation ships do not appear to have their CoGravity line with the CoThrust. How much fuel do you think they wasted keeping the enterprise flying straight?)
Do we know how the addition of melange affects the properties of silicate particles?
That could be a fun debate and would be in the spirit of the Colbert interview.
Yes. Melange is the handwavium of Dune, so however Herbert wanted it to.
Well, there ya go!
I thought it was funny when he argued that the BB-8 droid from Star Wars broke the laws of physics because a rolling mechanical ball can’t roll uphill on sand.
He didn’t know that the BB-8 shown in the movie rolling up dunes was a physical robot, not CGI.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but I’m pretty sure the BB-8 you see on film is mostly CGI. A working BB-8 prop does exist but it’s more of a reference that gets covered in CGI. It’s a common film technique that gets used these days and often those articles praising “no CGI” are often PR bullshit that stretches the truth because “practical effects” has become a buzzword.
I can prove a few shots of BB8 are CGI.
Shot4 - Notes in bottom left confirm
I obviously can’t prove it but I would assume every BB8 shot is either entirely CGI or uses the practical robot as a reference pass. Relying on a practical robot would introduce a point of failure that could delay shots and force more takes, adding cost and time to the production. The only reason the filmmakers have to use a practical effect is to give the actors a reference, all other shots it’s faster and cheaper to use CGI.
TL;DR: BB8 is mostly if not entirely CG and film companies are almost always lying when emphasizing the practical effects used in their film.
Yes much of bb-8 is cgi, but there was a video of a physical bb-8 prop rolling in sand.
When Degrasse tweeted that it was impossible, Star Wars prop artist responded with a video of the physical robot rolling on sand. I’m not going post a link to Twitter on Lemmy but you can Google it.
Yeah fair enough, I just wanted to rant about CGI. hehe
It could have been the stick puppet version, though, for which the sticks were digitally removed after filming. I don’t know more about that, but it sounds like you do.
Yes many were stick puppets. Some were trikes.
So did the mechanical ball roll itself uphill?
I was wrong. Despite the official StarWars Twitter claim they had the robot bb-8 on the dunes for filming, a documentary says the full robot version wasn’t done until the red carpet. However I have found videos of a large bb-8 rolling on sand. The small toy ones cannot roll on sand. (Which isn’t surprising because most toy cars can’t run on sand despite full size being able to.)
It is how he does it, not that he does it.
It’s just navel gazing at it’s worst.
Explaining that getting to the ISS from Hubble’s orbit would take way more fuel than shown in the movie Gravity is useful. It can lead to explanations of Delta-V and how far apart things are in space. That’s good.
Artificially locking in the definition of the parameters to be the same as on Earth for a fictional planet just so he can say “it’s wrong” is just a waste of time. It’s like arguing over whether the Enterprise could fight the Death Star. It’s all made up, so the answer is whatever you want it to be.
So it’s not that’s it’s he’s criticizing things for being incorrect. It’s that he’s making assumptions about fictional things just to say it’s incorrect. It’s intellectually dishonest, and there’s no real point to it. Nobody is learning anything about anything real if we talk about the relationship between sand worms and how sand trout could be alerted by a nearby sound which then alerts a massive sand worm that comes around to protect it’s babies.
