Please don't be mean about people submitting a video like that. Your comment is a mean sandwich: the filling is great information but the slices at the ends are not in keeping with the spirit of this site. That's actually more important, because it relates to the long-term survival of the community.
Do you go off on this same rant on every HN post? That's the way HN works... A title that links off to some other content, and an associated discussion thread.
Personally I (not the OP) found the video interesting, and at a good level for someone without a lot of context.
They may be a bit on the ranty side but I, for one, greatly appreciate the ability to read an abstract in 15 seconds rather than however long it takes to ingest a video and separate the content from the fluff.
This is also how HN works: 99% of the time, there’s enough summary and context in the comments that I always just click through to the comments first to find out whether the article/video/whatever is worth the time.
Absolutely, but the commentor could have just done that, rather than lamenting that we should be discussing it... in a discussion thread that only exists because someone posted the video here in the first place.
>This is also how HN works: 99% of the time, there’s enough summary and context in the comments that I always just click through to the comments first to find out whether the article/video/whatever is worth the time.
Isn't that also a folly of HN? People not reading the articles and rushing to the comments to make some proclamation or put in their two cents.
Except you can fully understand this topic in a lot less than thirty minutes - I agree that people making half-reasoned arguments is a problem but at the same time you can comprehend the contents of this conjecture and the disproving of it via a few simple statements about graphs or relational algebra.
Pull the subtitles with youtube-dl, then either read it (should be much faster than watching it) or throw some typical auto-summary software at it first.
