6 ms·

"But it's in 240p! Nobody likes watching 240p videos. So I transcribed it." I've watched and shared this video several times. The video is just fine in 240p. Y

"But it's in 240p! Nobody likes watching 240p videos. So I transcribed it." I've watched and shared this video several times. The video is just fine in 240p. You miss out on Feynman's delivery and style when it you just read it as text. I think it's from a BBC documentary; the other parts are on YouTube as well. The discussion about how humans model or understand really big/really small numbers is especially interesting.

jerrya 15y ago
I read it in Richard Feynman's voice. :)
burgerbrain 15y ago
The resolution complain is particularly strange when you figure that if a transcript is allegedly good enough, then surely you can just listen to the video instead.
- ugh 15y ago
  On YouTube audio quality degrades with resolution. I avoid watching 240p videos whenever I can first and foremost because of their horrible audio.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    In this case I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. This isn't classical music after all, it's a guy talking.
    - hammock 15y ago
      Yeah, AM radio is still used for even the largest talk shows, and it's far from perfect quality (which is why AM is rarely used for music, but it's fine for speech). Likewise landline phones especially long distance calling was never all that great sound quality but it never stopped you from picking up the phone when someone called.
    - ugh 15y ago
      I can’t stand it. Judging from the transcript, at least whoever did that seems to feel the same. (Since humans are not terribly dissimilar I would be willing to guess that actually many other people feel the same.) That’s all I’m saying.
- gwern 15y ago
  Maybe you can 'just listen'. I'm hard of hearing, please don't presume to speak for me.
biot 15y ago
Exactly. A transcript is 0p which is decidedly worse.
- iso8859-1 15y ago
  If p stands for "lines", how can you claim the text is written using 0 lines?
  - SquareWheel 15y ago
    Zero lines of video?
  - biot 15y ago
    Surely you know that 'p' in relation to video is an abbreviation for pixels. And 1080p video isn't the equivalent of specifying "font-size: 1080px" in your transcript's CSS.
    - iso8859-1 15y ago
      I don't think it stands for "pixels". It stands for "progressive", as in "progressive scan". As opposed to "interlaced scan", which is what 1080i refers to. Why do you think I said it was equal to specifying the font-size? As I said, it practically refers to the number of lines. Font-size has nothing to do with that, directly. You can't specify the number of lines in CSS, AFAIK. CSS is for styling. Lines are content. Anyway, I was just trying to point out how nonsensical it is to compare the "resolution" of a text with a resolution of a video. And if you do, I think it's interesting to think about that the number actually is dynamic, as is, it depends on the container and so on. Which is actually quite an appropriate analogy, since it is often easier (IMHO) to think profoundly about something you're reading (where you control the tempo), in comparison to a video, where you constantly have to follow their tempo. Yes, you can rewind, but if you do that, I think you'd agree with me that it'd be easier with a transcript.
      - biot 15y ago
        My 0p comment is silly math (take 240p, remove 240p worth of video, the remainder is 0p) to make a point that 240p is actually good enough to watch since what the author presented cannot be watched at all. Yes there are many benefits to having a transcript, but those arguments apply just as much to 1080p as to 240p.
josscrowcroft 15y ago
Totally agree. I was perfectly happy to watch this in 240p, Feynmann was such a legend. When you think about it, and maybe I feel like this because I just watched Feynmann, but it's totally insane that we can watch videos on the Internet at all! Even in 240p, which apparently, nobody likes.
skybrian 15y ago
I'm sure it's a fine video, but I prefer transcripts since it doesn't require me to get out my headphones. So I'm glad he did it.
Grognor 15y ago
I'd just like to point out that "But it's in 240p!" wasn't entirely serious. I transcribed it because I thought it was a really good answer to the question and more people would see it that way, and I'd gain some karma a Less Wrong to boot.
- pferde 15y ago
  I, for one, appreciate it. Thanks for not wasting my time.

jerrya 15y ago

I read it in Richard Feynman's voice. :)

burgerbrain 15y ago

The resolution complain is particularly strange when you figure that if a transcript is allegedly good enough, then surely you can just listen to the video instead.

ugh 15y ago
On YouTube audio quality degrades with resolution. I avoid watching 240p videos whenever I can first and foremost because of their horrible audio.
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  In this case I see absolutely nothing wrong with it. This isn't classical music after all, it's a guy talking.
  - hammock 15y ago
    Yeah, AM radio is still used for even the largest talk shows, and it's far from perfect quality (which is why AM is rarely used for music, but it's fine for speech). Likewise landline phones especially long distance calling was never all that great sound quality but it never stopped you from picking up the phone when someone called.
  - ugh 15y ago
    I can’t stand it. Judging from the transcript, at least whoever did that seems to feel the same. (Since humans are not terribly dissimilar I would be willing to guess that actually many other people feel the same.) That’s all I’m saying.
gwern 15y ago
Maybe you can 'just listen'. I'm hard of hearing, please don't presume to speak for me.

biot 15y ago

Exactly. A transcript is 0p which is decidedly worse.

iso8859-1 15y ago
If p stands for "lines", how can you claim the text is written using 0 lines?
- SquareWheel 15y ago
  Zero lines of video?
- biot 15y ago
  Surely you know that 'p' in relation to video is an abbreviation for pixels. And 1080p video isn't the equivalent of specifying "font-size: 1080px" in your transcript's CSS.
  - iso8859-1 15y ago
    I don't think it stands for "pixels". It stands for "progressive", as in "progressive scan". As opposed to "interlaced scan", which is what 1080i refers to. Why do you think I said it was equal to specifying the font-size? As I said, it practically refers to the number of lines. Font-size has nothing to do with that, directly. You can't specify the number of lines in CSS, AFAIK. CSS is for styling. Lines are content. Anyway, I was just trying to point out how nonsensical it is to compare the "resolution" of a text with a resolution of a video. And if you do, I think it's interesting to think about that the number actually is dynamic, as is, it depends on the container and so on. Which is actually quite an appropriate analogy, since it is often easier (IMHO) to think profoundly about something you're reading (where you control the tempo), in comparison to a video, where you constantly have to follow their tempo. Yes, you can rewind, but if you do that, I think you'd agree with me that it'd be easier with a transcript.
    - biot 15y ago
      My 0p comment is silly math (take 240p, remove 240p worth of video, the remainder is 0p) to make a point that 240p is actually good enough to watch since what the author presented cannot be watched at all. Yes there are many benefits to having a transcript, but those arguments apply just as much to 1080p as to 240p.

josscrowcroft 15y ago

Totally agree. I was perfectly happy to watch this in 240p, Feynmann was such a legend. When you think about it, and maybe I feel like this because I just watched Feynmann, but it's totally insane that we can watch videos on the Internet at all! Even in 240p, which apparently, nobody likes.

skybrian 15y ago

I'm sure it's a fine video, but I prefer transcripts since it doesn't require me to get out my headphones. So I'm glad he did it.

Grognor 15y ago

I'd just like to point out that "But it's in 240p!" wasn't entirely serious. I transcribed it because I thought it was a really good answer to the question and more people would see it that way, and I'd gain some karma a Less Wrong to boot.

pferde 15y ago
I, for one, appreciate it. Thanks for not wasting my time.