| General > General Technical Chat |
| Are we becoming old, cranky scrooges in these forums. |
| << < (20/21) > >> |
| GlennSprigg:
--- Quote from: SerieZ on May 27, 2020, 03:13:48 pm --- --- Quote from: blueskull on May 27, 2020, 02:53:27 pm --- --- Quote from: GlennSprigg on May 27, 2020, 02:33:50 pm ---Pity you are '100%' wrong, after hitting 'Enter' before seeing my response. --- End quote --- Oh, I should have chosen another time to post far away from your posts to prevent accidentally triggering someone and the gang. My sincere apology. --- End quote --- Maybe it is a cultural difference but this Thread so far is the furthest from a heated debate until you joined in with that nonsense. However having had the honor reading previous posts of yours on life and how to live it before I fear it is more due to your bitter personality. :-// :-+ Or Maybe I underestimate how much to a CCP Drone any disagreement between adults must seem like a heated Debate. --- End quote --- ?????? What the hell happened since my obviously trouble instigating but loving mantra, about... Love & Sharing knowledge ??? There seems to be a big 'gap' with a bunch of responses???? :palm: Oh, yes.. I think I remember now!! I'm only online here every 3 or 4 days, so I seem to miss a lot, but it doesn't take Einstein to read between the proverbial lines!! :D 'BlueSkull' & 'eti' don;t LOVE me!!!!!! Oh... Boo hoo... >:D |
| rsjsouza:
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 26, 2020, 08:19:07 pm --- --- Quote from: rsjsouza on May 26, 2020, 06:21:59 pm ---Sure, it may not be the best and most efficient way to deliver specific content --- End quote --- You cannot teach somebody complex technical subjects by feeding them video and audio only; it just does not work. Every human learns in a slightly different way, and have a slightly different knowledge base, and need to dynamically adjust their focus to their personal needs. --- End quote --- You said it yourself; every human learns in a slightly different way. However, by carefully editing my post you left out the part where I highlight my biggest concern: the generalization of your argument. --- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 26, 2020, 08:19:07 pm ---This is why video and audio alone are not suitable for tutorials. (...) Experiments, tips and tricks, showing details and "traps for young players" that often is gained only via real world experience, and so on, are not tutorials. --- End quote --- Generalizations. Tutorials cater to audiences with varying degrees of depth - not everyone cares or needs to cover the fundamentals of something but instead need to solve a very specific and narrow problem. --- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 26, 2020, 08:19:07 pm ---It is sheer idiocy to believe videos and/or podcasts alone could suffice. (...) You can glorify quick-and-easy media as much as you like, --- End quote --- Don't put words in my mouth. --- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 26, 2020, 08:19:07 pm ---Yet, while those videos and anecdotal text snippets and stories can be critical for learning results, they aren't the whole matter, only the highlights. --- End quote --- And yet you make the case they have their place and are not useless. The goalposts are quite mobile in your argument. --- Quote from: EEVblog on May 29, 2020, 05:20:23 am --- --- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 29, 2020, 12:40:18 am --- --- Quote from: EEVblog on May 28, 2020, 05:19:59 am ---I have no idea who Keith Appleton is, but AvE is hardly an example of good concise information. --- End quote --- My entire point is that trying to convey too much information via a video is futile! The bulk should be in some random-access medium, and the few key points, insights, experiences, or other stuff that maybe gets lost in the sea in the random-access medium, highlighted in a video. Putting all the necessary points into a video makes for a bad video. Good videos are stories, logs, key insights, et cetera. --- End quote --- You can't just make an absolute claim that a "good" educational video is blah blah. People learn in different ways. --- End quote --- Exactly. The generalization is the problem. |
| Nominal Animal:
--- Quote from: EEVblog on May 29, 2020, 05:20:23 am --- --- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 29, 2020, 12:40:18 am --- --- Quote from: EEVblog on May 28, 2020, 05:19:59 am ---I have no idea who Keith Appleton is, but AvE is hardly an example of good concise information. --- End quote --- My entire point is that trying to convey too much information via a video is futile! The bulk should be in some random-access medium, and the few key points, insights, experiences, or other stuff that maybe gets lost in the sea in the random-access medium, highlighted in a video. Putting all the necessary points into a video makes for a bad video. Good videos are stories, logs, key insights, et cetera. --- End quote --- You can't just make an absolute claim that a "good" educational video is blah blah. --- End quote --- I didn't! A good video can be better than a lecture on the subject. At best, they can be as good as talking one-on-one with an expert on the subject. Your opamp video is one of these (among the best examples). I have a written post about the very basics of perspective projection that would work much better as a video, and would only be a minute or two, tops. So I'm definitely not saying that educational videos are blah blah, I'm just saying that videos alone do not suffice for us humans to truly learn. If one relies on videos (or in-person lectures, just as equally), worst case, we get the impression that we do, while we don't. Let's say that your claim is that videos suffice for learning stuff. If you were right, schools and colleges and universities would be wasting untold amounts of money in books and exercise sessions. I disagree. I believe the vids could replace the parts where the teachers read from their own notes in front of people, definitely! but not the background information nor the practical exercises. (The best lectures I've sat in, have been where the lecturer makes sure the key concepts are correctly understood, and people have a working intuitive grasp of the matter, and even point out a few typical misunderstandings people can have – and get asked and answers good questions about the topic. So very much like your opamp video, and many other good Youtube lessons.) For Youtube videos, I think we can safely assume people will do the practical stuff on their own. It is the importance of background information and reliable references that I absolutely hate to see being ignored, because it leads to the false sense of "I know this stuff" when you really don't. If you look at that text of mine about perspective projection, you'll see that most of it is actually references to related key information; I wouldn't include those in the same video. One could make a nice video lecture about unit quaternions (also known as versors), and how they can be used instead of Euler angles or Tait-Bryan angles; and another how you can use them in e.g. space simulation – each thruster would correspond 1:1 to a versor. Interesting stuff! But what about the basic linear algebra needed – matrix-matrix multiplication, matrix-vector multiplication, vector dot product, and vector cross product? Hamilton product? Correspondences between versors and rotation matrices? I guess you could make a series of video lectures from those, too. But, how would you tie them all together? Would you make a video that tells you what other videos to watch, or leave it for people to discover for themselves? Or would you have playlists for suggested viewing for each topic? You'd soon have more playlists than videos. Please do not confuse me with those who don't think the videos have educational value; I say they have, just as much as in-person lecturers or poster sessions or similar. And that's definitely not blah-blah. In the first thread we discussed this, I objected to "go find tutorials about this on Youtube". That doesn't work for two reasons: one is that a newbie cannot tell good videos from the bad – view count or popularity isn't a reliable measure, because most people are stupid and wrong. My main point in that thread was that because people have different knowledge levels, you cannot fully describe the basics of an entire subject – even something as simple as how to 3D print "right", avoiding typical problems – in videos; you need some random-access background or reference information to go base the video on. (As a counterexample, Myfordboy has a couple of good videos about fixing issues with e.g. Creality Ender 3. But that's not a tutorial, that's a lesson or session or whatchamacallit on fixing issues with the Creality Ender 3 3D printer. The difference may feel like nitpicking, but think of yourself as the newbie on the receiving end: the difference is huge.) You asked me to do a better video. I can't, because there is nothing wrong in your videos; they're very good, some absolutely excellent. That's never been in question with me. (And as to the topic of this thread, I mentioned AvE and KeithAppleton as "old, cranky scrooges" who make good, useful videos one can learn from – but not something I'd call "tutorials".) What would work even better, or suffice for tutorials and deeper learning, would be if something like The Art of Electronics was published on-line, with relevant chapters and sections linking to your videos, and your videos linking back to the text. So, not me making new videos, but you teaming up with Paul and Winfield, or something like that. See? The weakest point in my argument, I think, is that people should be expected to find that background and reference information on their own. My defense to that is that I see them fail to do that in real life, either from Dunning-Kruger (they not realizing they need to), laziness, or not being able to tell reliable information from hogwash. I've seen first hand at StackOverflow and StackExchange that even in narrow fields, popularity or view count is no measure of reliability or correctness. I do realize this entire argument is mostly due to my failure to properly express the problem I see occurring. Some may feel it is irrelevant, but I am seeing it creep in in real life. The key "sign" I've noticed is odd use of technical jargon; in electronics, the equivalent would be if somebody says "voltage flows ...". And I know I write too much, but I don't know how to do better. Sorry. Also, I could be wrong. If you or anybody else know I'm wrong, I would really appreciate if you'll tell me exactly how. |
| EEVblog:
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 29, 2020, 05:09:41 pm --- --- Quote from: EEVblog on May 29, 2020, 05:20:23 am --- --- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 29, 2020, 12:40:18 am --- --- Quote from: EEVblog on May 28, 2020, 05:19:59 am ---I have no idea who Keith Appleton is, but AvE is hardly an example of good concise information. --- End quote --- My entire point is that trying to convey too much information via a video is futile! The bulk should be in some random-access medium, and the few key points, insights, experiences, or other stuff that maybe gets lost in the sea in the random-access medium, highlighted in a video. Putting all the necessary points into a video makes for a bad video. Good videos are stories, logs, key insights, et cetera. --- End quote --- You can't just make an absolute claim that a "good" educational video is blah blah. --- End quote --- I didn't! Let's say that your claim is that videos suffice for learning stuff. If you were right, schools and colleges and universities would be wasting untold amounts of money in books and exercise sessions. I disagree. --- End quote --- No one is arguing that. |
| EEVblog:
--- Quote from: Nominal Animal on May 29, 2020, 05:09:41 pm ---Please do not confuse me with those who don't think the videos have educational value; I say they have, just as much as in-person lecturers or poster sessions or similar. And that's definitely not blah-blah. --- End quote --- You said, and I quote: --- Quote ---Hey, if that was intended for me, my point was that in my experience (learning, teaching, and tutoring), written text works much better as an information source (especially if interspersed with demo/example/experiment/worklog videos) than any tutorial videos I've ever seen. --- End quote --- You are demonstrably wrong. --- Quote ---In the first thread we discussed this, I objected to "go find tutorials about this on Youtube". That doesn't work for two reasons: one is that a newbie cannot tell good videos from the bad --- End quote --- The exact same thing can be said for text books or text blogs. Just because say Floyd, or Art of Electronics are popular does NOT automatically make then the right text for you. Same for my opamp videos, many will no doubt find it crap and much prefer say Great Scott's opamp video, or they might prefer the MIT lecture, or one of countless of others. What is "good" for one person, may not work for another person, and vice-versa, and this also spreads across media types just as much as different styles within one media type. --- Quote ---The weakest point in my argument, I think, is that people should be expected to find that background and reference information on their own. --- End quote --- No, your weakest point is trying to argue a point no one else is talking about. No one is saying videos are the be-all-end-all replacement for anything else. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |