Please compare the topics of her papers with the topics of her videos, especially with those that stir the controversy. There are papers on these topics, but from what I see, at least 5 years old. But my point was not that the she doesn't write papers -- she is doing more, which is the problem, and the "more" is not only outreach (which is a good thing), but feels to me like polemic arguments against people in the field who are not of her opinion.
In this thread, I did at no point compare her to any other blogger. Please do not read this an endorsement of these others. I singled her out only in the sense that she was the topic of the thread. There are certainly worse people in the world.
> compare the topics of her papers with the topics of her videos
I did that but did not say so explicitly:
>> opinions on matters in which they have little or no expertise
especially when the opinions are delivered with excessive confidence and/or without nuance.
I take your point that some apparent
> stir the controversy
videos particularly in the last year <https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwgQsqtH9H5c4IXKj82g-...> at least support the notion that some of the point of her YouTube enterprise is to focus on in-the-news topics far from her own academic publication record. For those videos, I think "explain" is a poor choice of verb.
To me, polemic arguments against people in the field (and importantly doing physics sufficiently close to her own research area) who are not of her opinion on directly relevant matters is less annoying than commentary critical of physicists (let alone scientists in other fields) who I think are less adjacent to her expertise than she appears to believe they are, considering differences in choice of journals or even where in the arxiv category taxonomy authors' preprints are placed (underlining this, c.f. §§4.1 & 5.2 of her own 2018 preprint in physics.soc-ph <https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.04647>; her own research in qg phenomenology is interdisciplinary (as are many of her forays away from that area) but not so broad as to include putting or even obviously considering preprints on bioRxiv, which was almost 5 years old at the time of that paper).
> I singled her out only in the sense she was the topic of the thread
Ok, I think that's fair.
However I don't think the implication that she no longer "write[s] papers (even pre-prints), [or] cite[s her] sources" is justified.
In this thread, I did at no point compare her to any other blogger. Please do not read this an endorsement of these others. I singled her out only in the sense that she was the topic of the thread. There are certainly worse people in the world.