8 ms·

A dumbed down version is great to introduce people to the subject Chances are that good written explanations already exist, just a Google search away, for thos

A dumbed down version is great to introduce people to the subject Chances are that good written explanations already exist, just a Google search away, for those who want to learn more. Tom’s video and this blog post are perfect combo that complement each other.

Groxx 4y ago
Dumbed down without being inaccurate is also often sufficient for anyone with some base knowledge in an area. You can figure a lot out simply by being told the core concept, no need to go into extreme detail. Extreme detail is great for those that want or need it, but it's far from the only reasonable option for learning things. --- Re the general flood of these kinds of videos: oh yeah, I think it's excessive. I suspect YouTube is pushing that category lately (which is FAR from the worst to push, so I'm largely okay with that). It feels like all the popular, algorithmically pushed ones are making sure to cross the magic 10 minute mark, and try to look like TV/movie editing, regardless of what those do to the content. Bonus points for obtuse video titles that tell you nothing about what topic is covered. Which is part of why I like his. They almost never hit 10 minutes, or even close. There's little fluff, little drama, little algorithmic gaming - videos today look very similar to several years ago.
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  IIRC the reason they aim for the 10 minute mark is because they can put in mid roll ads, not because the algorithm wants it.
- ralusek 4y ago
  It's actually often impossible to dumb something down without inaccuracies. I'm always drawn to the metaphor of resolution in an image. If I want to simplify an image by reducing its resolution, I'll have 4 pixels at a time that I need to decide how to represent with 1. Whatever solution I do will ultimately result in an image that is technically a less correct version that the original image. If I start a class by saying "computer code will run line by line on your processor, one instruction set at a time" this might be a useful way to get someone familiar with writing code. If someone raises their hand and says "well don't CPUs perform optimizations to try to do branch predictions other optimizations so that it doesn't execute exactly as written, and isn't some code able to run on GPUs, and can't cosmic rays cause bit flips in memory so that your code doesn't execute exactly as written, and..." Sure, but I'm teaching you a wrong thing because it's functionally right at this resolution.

Groxx 4y ago

Dumbed down without being inaccurate is also often sufficient for anyone with some base knowledge in an area. You can figure a lot out simply by being told the core concept, no need to go into extreme detail. Extreme detail is great for those that want or need it, but it's far from the only reasonable option for learning things. --- Re the general flood of these kinds of videos: oh yeah, I think it's excessive. I suspect YouTube is pushing that category lately (which is FAR from the worst to push, so I'm largely okay with that). It feels like all the popular, algorithmically pushed ones are making sure to cross the magic 10 minute mark, and try to look like TV/movie editing, regardless of what those do to the content. Bonus points for obtuse video titles that tell you nothing about what topic is covered. Which is part of why I like his. They almost never hit 10 minutes, or even close. There's little fluff, little drama, little algorithmic gaming - videos today look very similar to several years ago.

sebzim4500 4y ago
IIRC the reason they aim for the 10 minute mark is because they can put in mid roll ads, not because the algorithm wants it.
ralusek 4y ago
It's actually often impossible to dumb something down without inaccuracies. I'm always drawn to the metaphor of resolution in an image. If I want to simplify an image by reducing its resolution, I'll have 4 pixels at a time that I need to decide how to represent with 1. Whatever solution I do will ultimately result in an image that is technically a less correct version that the original image. If I start a class by saying "computer code will run line by line on your processor, one instruction set at a time" this might be a useful way to get someone familiar with writing code. If someone raises their hand and says "well don't CPUs perform optimizations to try to do branch predictions other optimizations so that it doesn't execute exactly as written, and isn't some code able to run on GPUs, and can't cosmic rays cause bit flips in memory so that your code doesn't execute exactly as written, and..." Sure, but I'm teaching you a wrong thing because it's functionally right at this resolution.