I find this really odd, it's not wrong, but it doesn't invalidate O(1). It's mashing two-things together that are unneccessary and can cause misunderstanding.

I find this really odd, it's not wrong, but it doesn't invalidate O(1). It's mashing two-things together that are unneccessary and can cause misunderstanding. Big-O provides a decent tool for generic analysis and an understanding of access times of memory hierarchies. Since memory hierarchies can vary, they shouldn't be considered while doing generic analysis, much anyways. Both are important to understand. The key thing is setting your Big-O access expectations to the slowest level of your heirarchy. In that way, your expectation remains generic and still proximally accurate across the average cases. When you consider them together, think of the heirarchy as a series of piecewise functions that modify the value of the constant time based on the speed of the bounds that fit your data. This square of N notation falls apart in other cases. 128GB's of RAM would have roughly the same access speed as the 8GB's he had available, if he had that much in his system. But having 128GB of RAM would completely destroy the squaring by flattening an entire magnitude from his hypothesis. But it is a nice display of memory heirarchies, IMO.