Popular Science
The Tech That Changed Democracy Forever
One of the most consequential leaps in science and technology etched itself in the annals of military history before changing politics and elections forever. The ‘Walkie-Talkie-Lookie’ combined the power of radio waves with film. The result? Real-time audio-visuals beamed to home televisions, and doing it all with portability – in a way that helped people…
Popular Science
World’s Rarest Lobster?! (Cotton Candy)
A lobster found off the coast of New Hampshire has a “cotton candy” coloring so rare that it’s estimated to exist at a rate of just 1 in 100 million. “One in 100 million cotton candy lobster caught in New Hampshire,” Popular Science: #science #sciencefacts #weird #lobster #amazing
Popular Science
Dorito Dye Makes Mice TRANSPARENT?!
Tartrazine, commonly called Yellow 5, is a dye that was discovered in the 1880s. It’s been used for food and cosmetics for generations… but it turns out that it can change the refractive index of water to allow us to see through mice and to expose their internal organs. “The dye in Doritos can make…
Popular Science
The VR Backpack Gamers HATED (Interactor)
The 1980s cemented the role of the home video game console. By the early 1990s, gamers wanted to take their experience to the next level by harnessing physics and haptic feedback into a wearable gaming vest called the Aura Interactor… or did they?! The lure of cymatics and the excitement of 90s tech experimentation generated…
The Ocean Cleanup Reveals Plan to Clean the Great Pacific Garbage Patch
Are Smartphones Ruining Childhood? | Jonathan Haidt | TED
What You Should Know About Apple’s Sleep Apnea Feature
-
Science & Technology4 years agoNitya Subramanian: Products and Protocol
-
CNET4 years agoWays you can help Black Lives Matter movement (links, orgs, and more) 👈🏽
-
Wired5 years agoHow This Guy Became a World Champion Boomerang Thrower | WIRED
-
People & Blogs3 years agoSleep Expert Answers Questions From Twitter 💤 | Tech Support | WIRED
-
Wired5 years agoNeuroscientist Explains ASMR’s Effects on the Brain & The Body | WIRED
-
Wired5 years agoWhy It’s Almost Impossible to Solve a Rubik’s Cube in Under 3 Seconds | WIRED
-
Wired5 years agoFormer FBI Agent Explains How to Read Body Language | Tradecraft | WIRED
-
CNET5 years agoSurface Pro 7 review: Hello, old friend 🧙
@YouTube.Is.Run.By.Terrorists
August 13, 2024 at 12:56 pm
Your votes mean nothing as long as the wealthy get to draw and redraw the voting districts to suit their personal agendas.
@cybergothiche2
August 13, 2024 at 12:59 pm
Who is the narrator for this video?
@tylerphuoc2653
August 13, 2024 at 1:05 pm
Vsauce2’s main writer, Matt Tabor
@cybergothiche2
August 13, 2024 at 1:21 pm
@@tylerphuoc2653 cool, cool, cool, thankyou. Thought it might be Keven not on a sugar rush for a hot minute.
@tylerphuoc2653
August 13, 2024 at 1:26 pm
@@cybergothiche2 Matt and Kevin both host the podcast _Create Unknown_ with each other, so I’m fairly familiar with their voices by now
@PhaseControlDNB
August 15, 2024 at 2:24 am
@@cybergothiche2 Actually it sounds like Kevin. Are you sure it isn’t him? 😀
@mycosys
August 13, 2024 at 1:03 pm
How is this a science channel?
@Conrad500
August 13, 2024 at 1:13 pm
How is it not?
@mycosys
August 13, 2024 at 1:20 pm
@@Conrad500 did you finish high school?
@eveningblues8132
August 14, 2024 at 1:06 am
“Popular Science” is a long running magazine that features articles on different fronts of science and technology, future and past. It’s presented in a casual format for entertainment purposes, just as these videos are.
@IndexInvestingWithCole
August 13, 2024 at 1:09 pm
I thought from the thumbnail this was a movie review of Peeping Tom lol
@Conrad500
August 13, 2024 at 1:20 pm
So, are cellphones walkie talkies then? Walkie texties?
@bloopbloop9687
August 21, 2024 at 10:32 am
Talkie talkie lookie texties
@bagel29
August 13, 2024 at 1:26 pm
Great stuff, Tabor
@brothermine2292
August 13, 2024 at 1:45 pm
To fix the *real* problem with democracy, we need to switch to a voting method that counts all of the head-to-head majorities, instead of counting only one majority (or one plurality) as traditional voting methods do.
The most widely used, most frequently used voting method in the world is the Robert’s Rules procedure for voting on motions. What makes Robert’s Rules so effective at defeating minority-preferred policies is that it counts multiple head-to-head majorities. (To eliminate N-1 of the N alternatives, it counts N-1 head-to-head majorities. It works like a single-elimination sports tournament, such as the NFL playoffs or the NCAA March Madness tournament, in which N-1 matches are played to eliminate N-1 of the N contestants.)
Voting methods that count only one majority (or plurality) are highly prone to spoiling. Also, the one majority (or plurality) that’s counted can often be a coalition of minorities on different issues. That undermines politicians’ incentive to support majority-preferred policies, prevents government policies from being stable, allows a small change of votes to cause huge changes of policies, and empowers extremists because their supporters’ votes are needed by the rest of their coalition.
All of the head-to-head majorities can be counted using a single round of voting — no primary elections or runoffs would be needed — in which each voter is allowed to express his/her order of preference. The order of finish should be constructed by processing the head-to-head majorities one at a time, from largest to smallest, placing each majority’s more-preferred candidate ahead of their less-preferred candidate in the order of finish. The candidate who leads the completed order of finish would be elected.
@dragoniv
August 13, 2024 at 6:45 pm
In a nutshell, Ranked Choice Voting is what is needed.
@brothermine2292
August 13, 2024 at 7:55 pm
>dragoniv : No, the tallying algorithm in Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) counts only one majority. It’s highly prone to spoiling, as in the following example:
Suppose there are 3 candidates named X, Y and Z, and suppose the voters’ rankings are:
35% X Y Z
13% Y X Z
12% Y Z X
40% Z Y X
RCV begins by counting 35% for X, 25% for Y, and 40% for Z. It eliminates Y because 25% is the smallest count. Then it recounts the votes that were initially counted for Y for their second choices, so X’s total reaches 48% (35%+13%) and Z’s total reaches 52% (40%+12%). Now Z has a majority and is elected.
You can see that X is a spoiler (with RCV). If X didn’t run, the 35% who voted “X Y Z” would have voted “Y Z.” Then Y would have a 60% majority (35%+13%+12%) and Y would win. By running, X causes the defeat of X’s supporters’ second choice Y and elects their “greater evil” Z.
Suppose instead that all of the head-to-head majorities are counted. There are three:
65% rank Y over X. (13%+12%+40%)
60% rank Y over Z. (13%+12%+35%)
52% rank Z over X. (40%+12%)
To construct the order of finish, process the head-to-head majorities one at a time, from largest to smallest:
The largest majority is the 65% who rank Y over X, so place Y ahead of X in the order of finish:
Y X
The second largest majority is the 60% who rank Y over Z, so place Y ahead of Z in the order of finish:
Y X
Y Z
The third largest majority is the 52% who rank Z over X, so place Z ahead of X in the order of finish:
Y Z X
Y leads the completed order of finish, so Y is elected.
Advocates of the RCV algorithm promise that it frees voters to rank their favorite candidate on top, because — according to them — when a voter’s favorite isn’t elected, his/her vote will be counted for his/her second choice. The example above shows that promise is a lie. X isn’t elected, but Ranked Choice Voting ignores the second choice preference for Y of the 35% who favor X.
For a well-documented real-world example of spoiling with RCV, google the 2009 election of the mayor of Burlington Vermont. At that time, RCV was known as Instant Runoff, but after that fiasco its advocates changed its name to Ranked Choice Voting, presumably to try to cover up its propensity for spoiling, and possibly to try to confuse people into believing the RCV algorithm is the only algorithm that can be used to tally voters’ orders of preference.
For a more recent example of spoiling by RCV, look at the 2022 Alaska special election won by Mary Peltola with a 52% majority over Sarah Palin. It’s a safe bet that Nick Begich was ranked over Peltola by a majority and also over Palin by a majority. Palin was a spoiler who, by running, prevented the counting of the majority who ranked Begich over Peltola. Google the 11/01/2022 Washington Post article about that election written by Edward Foley and Eric Maskin.
The 2021 New York City mayoral primary election may have been another example of spoiling by RCV. After RCV eliminated Maya Wiley in the next-to-last round of vote counting, it recounted Wiley’s votes for Amy Garcia or Eric Adams (the two not-yet-eliminated candidates) and Adams reached a majority. But Garcia may have been a spoiler who, by running, prevented the counting of a majority who ranked Wiley over Adams. New York City didn’t publish the voters’ rankings, so we don’t know how many of Garcia’s supporters also ranked Wiley over Adams, nor how many of Adams’ supporters also ranked Wiley over Garcia. By not publishing the voters’ rankings, spoiling is covered up.
Note that the Robert’s Rules procedure for voting on motions would elect Y in the example. It would count 3-1=2 of the head-to-head majorities to eliminate 3-1=2 of the 3 alternatives, and since Y is the winner in both of the head-to-head pairings that involve Y (the “Y versus X” pairing and the “Y versus Z” pairing), Y won’t be eliminated.
RCV is a scam. The real way to implement majority rule is to count all of the head-to-head majorities. That’s the way to create a strong incentive for politicians to support majority-preferred policies.
@48pluto
August 13, 2024 at 2:08 pm
No excuses on da bowl:
@JohnJones-oy3md
August 13, 2024 at 3:12 pm
1:36 – “Grandpa, what did you do in the war? I was a phone booth, son.”
@c.jishnu378
August 15, 2024 at 5:18 am
That’s a really rich grandpa(post war benefits for basically reversing the tides of the war).
@SlyPearTree
August 13, 2024 at 3:18 pm
The flying bits of dusts effect was a bit distracting.
@clericlumi
August 13, 2024 at 3:31 pm
That was an enjoyable look into history
@memeslich
August 13, 2024 at 5:41 pm
your not always going to have a walkie talkie lookie in your pocket
@JP_Fan563
August 14, 2024 at 6:04 am
Amazing!
@__-pl3jg
August 14, 2024 at 6:26 am
I just realized the play on words for the term “Motorola”. Get it?….Motor Hola…..Motor Hello. And now I know why it was called a “Walkie Talkie”….Because the original version was the Handie Talkie. 🙉🙉🙉
@gamingforfun8662
August 14, 2024 at 7:42 am
Banger video
@klausstock8020
August 14, 2024 at 4:29 pm
Quoting Popular Science…who are still providing updates on the newest flying car improvements… although they apparently fell out of fashion if the 1970s…
…is almost as crazy as saying the the US has replaced electors with modern Norse code spark gap transmitters.
@comasmusica7548
August 18, 2024 at 5:43 am
In about 15 years we’ll have a walkie-talkie-lookie-smellie. Mark my words.
@cannibalbananas
August 19, 2024 at 12:26 pm
I’m curious what year(s) having tvs in the bedroom peaked. I’m assuming numbers are declining as we all have cellphones now.
I haven’t had a tv in my bedroom in more than a decade. Same with my daughter.
@GabeHandle
August 24, 2024 at 10:02 pm
byahhhhhh!!!!!
@brandonford1981
August 25, 2024 at 1:31 pm
The predecessor to the SINCGARS! Had the pleasure of carrying those, and even the updated version’s weight was due to batteries, but the size was literally cut in half between the RT-1523C and RT-1523E models