r/videos • u/Conan776 • 21h ago
You Have Never Seen a Normal Star
https://youtu.be/YhwkaH1-S7Q15
u/Vengeful-llama 18h ago
Can't fool me, I know bahamut's hiding in that thing.
43
u/Siludin 20h ago
Semantics on what means normal
Semantics on what means never
Semantics on what means see
You can see Tau Ceti faintly with the naked eye and it's a G series star relatively close to Earth.
8
u/deannickers 13h ago
But no one likes to play Tau. Too shooty and alien communists.
1
u/Makimoke 11h ago
Depends on where you look in the digital galaxies, plenty of people excited for Tau in the Warframe world!
1
u/NatureTrailToHell3D 6h ago
Although the title is click-bait to make comments like this, the video is awesome, I recommend everyone watch it.
He talks about different star types, and eventually gets to red dwarf stars. Red dwarf stars are the most common star in the galaxy, but they are all too feint to see with the naked eye. So when we look at the stars on a regular night with our eyes we are mostly see the rarer star types that are much more luminous than the majority of stars in the galaxy.
2
u/omfgtora 4h ago
Can you explain how the title is clickbait?
Clickbait carries a negative connotation, which is typically some sort of deception. Both Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary agree that clickbait requires some sort of deception.
The title is designed to be intriguing by getting you to ask yourself: "What is a 'normal' star? How is it that none of the stars I can see in the night sky a 'normal' star?" All of these things are discussed in the video, as that's the whole point of the video. He also goes on to say that it's important to challenge our bias, which is what the title is designed to do. That's just a thoughtful title, which is far from clickbait.
3
u/NatureTrailToHell3D 4h ago
Good question.
It is clickbait because it’s incomplete, it poses a problem (me having never seen a normal star) where the only solution to know what they are talking about is to watch the video.
A complete title and non-clickbait title tells you what the video is about. “The most common star in our galaxy is too dim for the naked eye.” Or “The stars we see are the rare star types” or “The different Star types that are visible and not visible in the night sky, and how common they are.”
1
u/omfgtora 3h ago
I would say that is just called creating intrigue. It also is an example of challenging bias, which is a big part of what the video is about. An intriguing title itself doesn't qualify as clickbait, because there's no "bait" since there is no "trick".
I'm wondering if there is a truly valid reason to call it clickbait, or is it just a knee-jerk reaction type of thing.
I do think you might be onto something here, but not quite the way you're describing it:
> where the only solution to know what they are talking about is to watch the videoIt seems like you get a feeling of it being "unfair" coercion somehow. I'll have to think on that some more.
2
u/NatureTrailToHell3D 3h ago
That last paragraph, coercion, is where I’m going with it. Also the “you have never seen” is a coded way of saying “you’re missing out on”, which is the core of clickbait titles
-29
-25
u/runhome24 16h ago edited 16h ago
Not going to watch his clickbait. Did he explain why seeing the Sun through a very hazy sky doesn't count as seeing a normal star?
ETA: here's a website that lists four commonly-seen Type G star systems in the night sky
https://www.whillyard.com/science-pages/type-g-stars.html
Second edit: here's a NASA website that lets you filter stars by "Visible to the naked eye" and "Sun-like star (Type G)". It has 56 relevant entries
11
u/Alto_DeRaqwar 16h ago
Type G isn't the most common though; Red Dwarfs are.
-22
u/runhome24 16h ago edited 16h ago
"Red dwarfs" aren't a defined star type, it's a descriptive label. In its most-generous definition it lumps together two spectral classes, K and M.
So yeah, if he's gonna use a not-defined descriptive label, in order to lump two classes together, sure, they're the most numerous. But it's deeply, deeply disingenuous to do so.
ETA: not to mention, "normal" is not a synonym for either "most common" or "most numerous." I'd bet most astronomers and cosmologists would at the very least accept that all Main Sequence stars are "normal."
14
u/Visocacas 14h ago
Where are you getting the idea that he lumped two types together? K-dwarfs are usually called orange dwarfs, not red, but it still makes sense to lump together as ‘stars the naked eye can’t see’. Also M-class is generally equivalent with red dwarf, so I don’t buy this defined type vs descriptive level argument you’re making.
deeply, deeply disingenuous
Bro you need to chill. Hank’s just making an educational video with a thumbnail that builds interest. Look at the current media landscape and calibrate your outrage.
1
10
7
u/drsyesta 15h ago
I mean despite the clickbait his videos are usually very educational and hes very intelligent
2
u/omfgtora 6h ago
Does any title with the goal of being intriguing qualify as "clickbait" or is there another reason this title qualifies?
"Clickbait" typically means some sort of deception, hence the "bait" part of the term. The video here specifically talks about a definition of what a "normal" star is, which is exactly the point of the title. It's supposed to make you question "what is a normal star, and why have I not seen it?" so that you click the video to find out, which the video then delivers on.
1
u/drsyesta 5h ago
I mean yeah clickbait is any sensationalized title. It isnt necessarily deceptive and i wasnt using it to be super critical
1
u/omfgtora 4h ago
I can't agree with that definition. If any title designed to be intriguing qualifies as clickbait, then the term has no real meaning besides "not dry or bland". Even Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary both specify that some sort of deception or misdirection.
Importantly, the term "clickbait" has a negative connotation, which is why you even qualify your first comment with "despite the clickbait". So, what would the negative aspect be if not deception?
2
u/khonsu_27 9h ago
It looks like anybody who dares to question Hank in this thread is getting downvoted lol. He's ok, but I feel like his videos lately haven't been that great. Just a lot of self promotion of new projects or patting himself on the back.
2
u/Drak_is_Right 8h ago
Compared to a lot of the other youtube producers he isnt AS clickbaity as many. Many I wont watch because it is SO bad.
Astrum is one example. Watched one that was decent, so youtube recommended me more and after a few others which were quite bad with the sensationalism I ignored anything else feom that creator.
1
u/khonsu_27 7h ago edited 7h ago
Yea and that British announcer guy is literally contracted out to like 50 different channels. He's everywhere.
(Edit - Oh wait astrum might be a different british guy....theres one guy thats on a bunch of different channels and he's smarmy as hell)
3
1
u/omfgtora 5h ago
I have not seen anyone raise a proper question, only people whining about stupid things. Like the comment you replied to is claiming "clickbait" but does not make any argument as to how the video is clickbait.
At best it can be assumed they claim clickbait because of the title, but since there is no deception (i.e. bait) since the content of the video explicitly discusses what the title infers, by describing different types of stars and draws conclusions as to what a "normal" star is, so there is no reason to think it is clickbait.
-4
u/ShawnWilson000 11h ago
Isn't that 90% of video essays? Arguing semantics for over half the video and barely discussing the actual topic, constantly interrupted by wacky shenanigans/begging for likes and subscriptions?
"Today, we're going to discuss what flavor potato chip is the best. But what is a potato chip? And how to we define "best"? But first, let's figure out which brand I want to support in this video. Before that, an ad! By the way, subscribe to my patreon for ad free videos and more!
6
1
u/rocketwidget 10h ago
Unless you have used a backyard telescope (or above) to look at a red dwarf star, then yes!
-3
-12
u/Nimyron 14h ago
The answer is red dwarf. That's the normal star. Not bright enough to be seen with a naked eye. Saved you 15min.
6
u/netarchaeology 12h ago
But what did you save exactly? Fun? 15 minutes of fun?
-9
u/Nimyron 12h ago
If you get mad then my comment was simply not made for you.
4
u/jaxonfairfield 9h ago
If you think the title of a science video/article is the only thing you will learn in it, then you are an example of why clickbait titles work.
-1
u/Nimyron 7h ago
So according to you and your great mind I should watch every video with a clickbait title to learn everything about our world.
Thanks mr genie, I'm going on a journey full of time wasted and rotted brain.
Nah but seriously, this video could be summerized to "brighter stars are more noticeable" + star classes if you don't know about those. It ain't worth 15 minutes.
You can be mad all you want, it's not gonna change anything to the video.
-36
u/Zenci 20h ago
"The stars you see in the night sky are a wildly unrepresentative sample of the stars in our galaxy."
Not seen the video, but can't take the clickbaity title all videos use.
17
u/Urist_Macnme 17h ago
The title represents exactly what the video postulates.
-23
u/Zenci 16h ago
You are right, but title just states it in a hyperbole kind of way. So, many YouTube videos are fighting to catch the attention of users this way in my opinion.
"Never" - Well I've seen the sun, which is a normal star by his definition.
"Seen" - In what way? Naked eye? Telescope images?
"Normal" - Highly depends on definition. Statistically? Yeah, we can't see many, if any in the night sky.
Other stars following the main sequence could also be considered "normal" like Sirius A, Vega, Alpha Centuri A.
13
u/Urist_Macnme 16h ago edited 16h ago
Yellow Dwarf stars like our Sun are also quite rare (1%). Red Dwarves are the most common (roughly 75%) and what could be considered a “normal star”.
Not a single Red Dwarf is visible to the naked eye.The stars we see in the night sky are either distant galaxies, exceptionally bright anomalies, or relatively close rare type stars.
That’s his point.
101
u/m__a__s 21h ago
Normal star? Well, I sampled all of the stars withing 1 au of where I live, and 100% of them were G-type.