Where’s the option for whatever I’m wearing during the day?

They were $500 20 years ago. So it’s a great value at $250.

I used a Viewcast Osprey to get decent captures a few years ago. 25 years ago I was all about the BT 878 capture chips.

The problem with the DV he recommends is that while it’s better than the trash USB converters, DV introduces its own lossiness because it’s like a form of Mjpeg. You also want an svhs player with svideo out even though the tapes aren’t svhs to keep luminance and chroma separate during capture. Otherwise you get dot crawl and other crosstalk artifacts.

His dish washing detergent video went to great lengths to create experimental comparisons to show his brand of detergent is better than pods. He has done experiments with other products too like dehumidifiers.

You have been arguing by trying to have it both ways.

You claim the author gave a suggestion of what is inside black holes. I asserted that the suggestion doesn’t meet the criteria of a suggestion for a scientific article and therefore isn’t a suggestion.

You then respond with the equivalent of, “I’m not the author and not defending the content.”

This is Space, not Astrology. The criteria for article content is higher.

You don’t have an argument so you deflect and insult.

The author said, “maybe it’s different inside”. My restating the author is not an accusation that you wrote the article.

“So you are back to pretending I wrote the article.”

Nothing I wrote implied that.

The part where you try to cover up your reading comprehension

That’s not your claim. You said I went back to saying you are the author.

Show it or apologize.

He is promoting a product. That product possibly has what many perceive as a severe defect (flicker). He could say it doesn’t personally bother him but still compare it to other lights in the same way he compared colors in detail. Is the flicker large or small?

I love his channel and watch every video. But that doesn’t mean I have to ignore when he misses a detail.

So you’re back to pretending I’ve written the article. I haven’t.

Read my post and quote where it implies you wrote the article.

Reading comprehension, indeed.

The author’s suggestion wasn’t valid and therefore wasn’t a suggestion at all.

Careful reviewers cover all factors independent of their personal bias.

Saying “it might be different inside” without absolutely any support isn’t a valid suggestion. That’s why I compared it to suggesting chocolate pudding. Because it isn’t valid, it isn’t a suggestion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

I’m directing anger at you for a personal attack. Claiming I have reading a comprehension problem is a personal attack. It is especially egregious because you refuse to defend the article to explain where I am wrong in my interpretation.

I have given multiple explanations as to why the article is bad without calling you an idiot. In fact I didn’t even say the article was bad but that it is mistitled into click bait.

I meant ignore in the context that he said it doesn’t personally bother him.

You claimed I had a reading comprehension problem. That’s a personal attack.

They didn’t provide ANY support for their claim that MAYBE (their word) the inside of a black hole is uniquely different.

It’s fucking unknown. That’s the definition. It is juvenile to conclude an essay with an imaginary idea of what’s inside an unknown object.

It is no different if I titled an article “Black Holes are filled with chocolate pudding.” Then after several pages of background on Black Holes, I conclude with “No one knows so maybe it’s chocolate pudding.”

Are you the author that you are so defensive about a click bait article?

His obsession over color quality while ignoring the flicker is very annoying.

But that doesn’t imply that each could be uniquely fucked up in terms of what’s beyond the event horizon. THAT’S the point they’re making.

It’s beyond the event horizon. It’s unknown by definition. They restated the definition.

Many objects we think of as black holes may, in fact, be imposters: identical on the outside but harbouring entirely different physics within.

And maybe a black hole is filled with pudding. Again this is restating the definition: Maybe there’s something unknown inside an object that’s defined to be something that is unknown.

Using two paragraphs to say there’s unknown inside of an object defined as being unknown inside is ridiculous.

Again if this was an essay titled, “A beginners guide to Black Holes.”, it would have been perfectly fine.

It’s already known by the definition of a Black Hole that physics has no explanation for the laws governing the singularity.

So restating the definition of a word as a conclusion of a long essay is silly.

If the title of the essay was “An introduction to Black Holes”, it would be acceptable. But the title was click bait which poisons the reading when no payoff (new research or information) occurs.

They own a lot of their own content now so that’s “free”. They pay residuals based on streams which is part of licensing. The more streams, the more licensing costs.