I found this article pretty interesting because ultimately it didn't cover a lot of ground, but instead examined the ground with a microscope. From the title, I was expecting it to be some really complex system youtube was using—and an even more complex attempt to r/e—but really it was mostly intuitive solutions. YET with that being said it was a really enjoyable read because of how in depth everything was covered. I think this article presents a very strong teaching tool, as the best lessons are taught with a strong motivating example to ground in. Kudos to the author. Reminds me a bit of Josh Comeau though arguably better in some regards.

▲

thrdbndndn 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not sure whether such "criticism" is welcome here, since it is ultimately subjective, but I will just be blunt and say: I disagree.

I like this style of writing as well, but I think this article overdoes it, to the point that it became somewhat irritating to read.

The part where I particularly feel this way is when the author spends two whole paragraphs discussing why YouTube (or its developers) chose to sample by "100" segments, to the extent that the author even asks, "If you work at YouTube and know the answer, please let me know. I am genuinely curious." Which, for lack of better words, I found ridiculous.

	▲	internetter 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Not sure whether such "criticism" is welcome here, since it is ultimately subjective, but I will just be blunt and say: I disagree. If this was my post I'd certainly appreciate criticism. > but I think this article overdoes it Perhaps its overdone in places, to your credit the question about if 100 was an arbitrary number was a bit much. But, as a counterpoint, I found the related pondering of "might it make sense to have variable time duration windows" to be interesting. The interpolation YouTube ultimately selected is deceiving and variable density could be a way to mitigate that. There's definitely a healthy balance and perhaps the author teeters on the verbose end, but I mostly just wanted to voice that I was surprised about the type of article it was, but not in an unpleasant way.
	▲	prvt an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Criticism is definitely welcome! You are likely right that I over-rotated on the "storytelling" aspect there. My curiosity about the "100 segments" stemmed from wondering if there was a deeper statistical reason for that specific granularity (e.g., optimal binning relative to average video length) versus it just being a "nice round number." That said, I can see how dedicating two paragraphs to it felt like over-dramatizing a constant. I will try to tighten the pacing on the next one. Thanks for reading despite the irritation!

▲

prvt 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Thank you for reading and for the kind words!

It’s often surprising how "intuitive" or elegant solutions can seem once you peel back the layers, isn't it? That simplicity is part of the beauty of good engineering!

I actually wasn't familiar with Josh Comeau’s work before this, but I just looked him up and... wow. To be mentioned in the same breath (let alone "arguably better") is a massive compliment. I’ll definitely be diving into his archives now.

▲

internetter 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I mean Josh's site is undeniably more visually polished as a merit to him. His site is definitely more SEO optimized, by covering a technical topic generally instead of multiple topics surrounding a single problem. But the aforementioned SEO strategy is to the detriment of the enjoyability, at least for me. If I was seeking documentation, I'd be happy to see Josh's work, but for entertainment I wouldn't read that but I would read this.

	▲	prvt 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I really appreciate that you found it entertaining; that was the main goal! Same here, I'll take "fun to read" over "SEO optimized" any day of the week.