I don't like Sabine Hossenfelder's videos because they're too short. When I want to relax after work by playing a game while listening to someone drone on on youtube on a deep and esoteric subject, her videos end way too soon, and with an advertisement for her sponsor.

I just want to hear some rambling boffin expound for an hour in the background on some matter that can't possibly raise more than a few hundred views. I decided I don't like popular science videos any more. Boo.

"sensational style" is one part but another is that it is hard to extract truth from Sabine's videos, at least for me, not without doing some serious research as someone with a PhD in physics.

Example starting at ~1:00 "Carlo Rovelli is fine with the theory being untestable for practical purposes. So now the situation is that either the theory is falsified or its not falsifiable..."

Is Carlo Rovelli fine with it not being testable, in that he is fine with research continuing even though it can not be tested with up coming experimental set ups? That is reasonable lots of research goes on for long periods of time with out experimental verification. From a funding point of view it makes sense to allocate more money to things that have a tighter feedback loop though. If Sabine was going to expose howe much money was going to these topics and where it could be better spent that would be worth watching.

Or is Carlo Rovelli ok with the theory being unfalsifiable in the sense that that he is ok with the research not being science? This is the straight forward meaning of Sabine's words, but are a negative attack, and one that would come off as a personal attack to many scientists I have known, one that she does not back up with anything immediately and then goes on to make more negative comments like "and Carlo complains to me because he thinks I do not understand his genius".

Ok if Sabine was going to expose Carlo Rovelli as someone who was not really practice science but was getting paid to be a scientist that would be awesome to watch and learn about. That does not happen.

"everyone who works on this just repeats arguments that they all know to be wrong to keep the money coming" - accusation of scientific fraud and defrauding the government.

Ok what percentage and total amount of founding is going to this? Is there anyone who has come forward? It would be awesome to watch something that exposed something like this. That does not happen either.

~3:19 - Arguments saying loop quantum gravity require space to be quantized, but they can not be lorentz invariant without having the quantization go to zero volume, according to Sabine, and no one has done that and extracted back out loop quantum gravity.

I am experimentalist and this is not my area. I would want to see a link to a paper/book etc. The analogy to the angular momentum operator comes off as a good place to start investigation/research but is treated dismissively, anologies like this often do not apply in the end but can still be useful.

3:53 ~ "length contraction should make that minimal area smaller than minimal proof by contradiction"

Ok that does not seem like the gottcha that it is laid out to be. Interesting stuff happens where their are apparent contradictions in physics. If experimental/observational evidence about A produces theory TA and experimental/observational evidence about B produces theory TB and they contradict each other in conditions C that is an interesting point to study look in to etc. This may not be interesting for other reasons, but the apparent contradiction does not make it obviously non interesting.

~4:27 ~ "this can't work because these deviations would inevitably so large we'd have seen them already" -

Why did Sabine talk about it being a mathematical contradiction if you can make the theory work, but it leads to physical phenomenon that we do not observe?

I can not make those two arguments jive in to a cohesive whole. Not that it can not happen, but I can not from this video and that is the conclusion, or similar, I normally reach when watching Sabine's videos and why I do not watch or recommend them generally.

I do not see any of the interesting things I mentioned above being discussed or dug into in comments so far or other new interesting takes. The issue for Sabine's videos, at least for me, is not the "sensational style".

When I read the submission title here I immediately wondered if it was Sabine again and, well, there she was.

she said some outlandish stuff in one video - I don't remember which. I refuse to watch any more of her videos.

She was ripping on the valuations and economics of quantum computing companies the other week, and her critiques were such that they could be levelled against capitalism itself and basically any company in the market. Was an obvious and clear step way out of her area of expertise.