How odd. This video of my lecture on extrachromosomal inheritance is blowing up on YouTube — I guess The Algorithm hiccupped and is serving it to random people. That in itself isn’t very interesting, but I am amused by all the comments. It’s very existential, with people wondering “why am I here?” and just generally baffled at how this particularly video ended up in their recommendations. I wonder at this question too.
Of course, the answer to the question is easy: because a program told you to be here.
This is a blip that will quickly fade, especially since today’s topic will be maternal inheritance.
Well , don’t complain you deserve extra views!
Dude, everybody’s gotta be somewhere. Here’s as good a place as any.
chigau (違う) says
Wherever you go, there you are.
A seriously more deepity question would be “Why am I now?”
“AI” is not very intelligent.
“….and how did 42 play into where I ended up?”.
I just want to know why I used to get bombarded with ads for harem pants. (Oops, now they’ll probably come back.)
My YouTube recommendations are basically just an endless chain of “Is this ASMR? Ok, how bout this?”
(I feel like my early watch & like on PZ’s video is probably at least a little responsible for the onslaught of the science-lecture ASMRmy here, but I’m probably overestimating my influence).
Easy!! The ALGORITHM obviously thought it was about X chromosomes, and after all the kerfluffle in the Senate last week about “what is a woman”, you trended lol !!
it is a good thing the videos are being recomended outside of usual audience. Do people good to be exposed to the true details of genes and heredity instead of relying on regular news articles and HollyWood.
I really do not like the question why very much either, the answer always seems to boil down to because. There is so much that is taken as understood by “why am I here” that any simple answer is meaningless, who or what am “I”, what or where is “here” and “am” implies or stands for to be which is also not defined or explained in any detail, in all of it as was said above takes for granted that what is now is understood. Time is experienced true but is it really understood?
John Morales says
unclefrogy, on the other hand, that exposure is tantamount to viewing a tertiary-education level lecture a good way into the course. Somehow, I think that without the prerequisite background knowledge, it would not be that informative.
John Morales says
Worse than that, Jim. It’s teleological thinking. An aspect of most religious thinking.
(Just asking the question implies that the questioner believes there is an answer)
just the exposure to way more information might be enough to clue someone in on the fact that they may not have enough information to actually understand the whole DNA thing and that many of the common sources are just as ignorant as well.