I don't know what fraction of the nearly 3 hour long video we're supposed to watch before commenting. What's the point behind trying to diminish his legacy? Why spend so much time doing this? He's absolutely known for his science communication and character. But I would think long and hard before criticizing his technical achievements, even if I were in this lady's shoes. We're talking about a 30-40 year career. It's funny because she speaks as if we're misguided about his expertise, but spends the first ten minutes rambling about his pop science book and "fenyman bros". What the fuck?
Is there any real criticism of his achievements as a scientist? The video isn't bookmarked in such a way to make it easy to find.
Is there any real criticism of his achievements as a scientist? The video isn't bookmarked in such a way to make it easy to find.
reply