I feel like half or more of the food based cleaning tips I've ever come across might work, but don't necessarily work better than something else cheaper, easier and cleaner. A lot of the time it seems like some things work well because you just need something slightly acidic or something with a bit of alcohol in it. In those cases you can just use plain vinegar or grain alcohol, and not worry about leaving behind residues of sugar, tannins, and other gratuitous components. Sometimes even just water works as well.

It is not that such things don't work, it is just that no one does much comparison to other simpler options. Seems like a fertile ground for science fair projects for young students who could learn why control cases are useful.

I've heard it for years from brewing circles about how difficult it is to make light beers, especial rice based ones. It is also difficult to make things consistent. But most of the time people don't drink something based on its difficulty alone. You can see the same thing in foods (or just about any art), where technique alone doesn't get you far if it doesn't taste good. Although there is the other extreme, using strong flavors to hide technique shortcomings, which some craft IPAs seem to fall victim to...

There are several variations of this used as a science demonstration and that have also been used as part of a scam to demonstrate witchdoctor ability. It is usually based on the Leidenfrost effect, with the sources of moisture depending on the setup, but sometimes just what is on the hand. Often it is done with molten lead, which is a little hotter than fry oil.

It is one of those types of demonstrations that can be done wrong and get a person badly hurt. Someone who knows what they are doing can show novices how to do it, although there is some argument over how risky it still is.

Most of the pictures look about the same to me as if someone removed books or cameras from people's hands. But maybe that isn't what was intended, as people think very differently of a book and a smart phone. A family reading together would also be disconnected, but people would probably pick more positive descriptions for such an image.

Funny, he starts by mentioning how complex things don't always fit neatly within our brain, but then goes on to try to make clear-cut boundaries between the terms. Unfortunately science isn't that easy to pigeonhole, and scientists as a result don't use the terminology that neatly. You can occasionally find cases where something is called both a law or theory depending on the author. The boundary between hypothesis and theory is not as simple when the hypothesis is built upon well tested regimes of previous theories, so the new idea effectively matches past tests of the theory it extended. Observations often depend on other theories and assumptions.

Anyway, I think trying to ascribe specific definitions to those words often misses the important points. Inductive logic never results in absolute truths, as you never test every possibility. Statements in science, like most things, just come in a giant spectrum of confidence. That confidence shifts with each new observation, prediction and competing idea, but it rarely jumps discretely from one category/label to another.

Unfortunately, having some sense of where a theory falls on the confidence spectrum usually involves learning some of its history, what observations it is based on, and what alternatives are being pursued. That takes a lot more effort than just looking at its name.

Anyway, I don't mean to be negative about the video, as it is still roughly how those words are used. But it reminds me of oversimplifications that were in primary school textbooks, which do a good job of teaching the gist of a topic, but sometimes can be counterproductive when the person stumbles over a more complex case.

Some of the questions aren't really even science. History of science can sometimes serve a pedagogical purpose, the end goal of science education is rarely to make you memorize people's names. Other questions, like defining a light-year, is by far not the most useful or relevant science topic as far as helping people.

How to read a graph on the other hand, is quite useful and important. I've seen some very well taught low level science courses that aren't really trying to get students to memorize facts, even if they are discussed, but instead trying to teach how to read science material and visuals.

Is it just me, or is this some kind of weird conceptual idea or disingenuous mock up? It looks like one side was printed with an overview map, and the other with a zoom in of a random place, and not actually zoomed in a lot by squeezing.

One of the many things I learned in grad school instead of doing proper work, was that if you want a huge Chipotle burrito, go to a Chipotle staffed by college students (although to be fair, the managers probably contributed too). The two near campus had employees that just didn't care about the proportions, and would put so much on you would sometimes need a second tortilla, and 2-3 wrappers to wrap it up. It was actually unusual for me the first time I went to one somewhere else, and they got it all to fit in a single wrapper.