@Ghasticzilla
I think that you, of all other educational channels I watch, is the best because the visualization is more engaging, like seeing the real proteins or quarks, or even how particles interacts with one another.
@yuriikovalov84
I love your complex animation, not just some NAD+ -> NADH, you actually animate it!!!
@martbarnav1787
I prefer literal explanations. My problem with most science communicators is that in their attempt to simplify the content they end up explaining something totally different and you're left trying to figure out how the analogy they explained accounts for the real thing. Edit: There's the classic example of gravity being explained as a curvature in a fabric. We've all seen that video. The problem is that doesn't explain WHY things move together, because in the analogy, they move together due to gravity which is the very thing the analogy tries to explain. It leaves you with more questions than answers.
@thekambIer
Everything you do is perfect. I like the more complex, the less — it all. You’re just a wonderful teacher.
@ethanhodge646
In depth, literal. This is your first video I’ve seen but I love encyclopedic videos. I also love that animation style and I’d love to see more.
@JohnCreley
I finished the survey, but I'd like to say that the @ButWhySci channel is a delicate balancing act of all viewers' preconceived notions of the world & physics. I think your format of starting off with abstract, fungible models & then progressing to the more accurate, academic models of different processes is a winning formula! I certainly wouldn't have understood electronegativity without the help of your rock concert analogy!
@aidenharris5751
I like when people use known definitions from last videos to clarify topics with easily digestible, but unique visuals. That also means you will have people going back and watching old videos (if you remind them you have covered it already) The fact you are reaching out to your base screams wonders for the attention to detail. Earned my sub
@play4orfail
Me personally prefer to have both, show both simple and complex visuals, and use metaphor for explaining literally later
@luksusmobiili8804
I really like your video style you explain things so well. I'm hoping for different topics tho
@fireworkstarter
Its a little bit of all. Sometimes you have to show a complicated pr9blem as several smaller ones. And sometimes you need to keep the scene intact. I think its important to focus on whats important to the problem and what is a side effect or something we dont need to worry about
@1300thiago
Post the link in the comment section to be easy for everyone o/ Now for my opinion, beautiful and complex is the style of your channel. Like, minutePhysics, they make things extra easy to draw not because it is easy to understand, but because it's easy to drawn. Both ways pass the message equally If it needs to change something, try your best to keep the channel identity, because it's important, but do changes that make it easy for you without too much decrease in quality And for the encyclopedia part, I think your approach always was the second option, right? It was always a very interesting one. But I don't have a favorite there
@joshuvs4684
I would say it depends on the subject and the person watching it
@ThatTimeTheThingHappened
Learning is something that happens in the learners head. It’s all mute unless you can insure the learners brain is actually doing work to form new ideas and connections.
@malikaikinn1153
Its soo cute
@steamer2k319
I suspect topics that involve at least three-way orthogonality (e.g., Maxwell's equations, higher rank tensors, etc.) receive a comparative benefit from being taught with high-fidelity rendering in three dimensions.
@uneventfullogs
I hope they're doing well
@canavar1435
Choose CO2 and warming as an example 😂.
@ButWhySci