I share his videos here but nobody seems to see them and/or care enough to vote; all I get is crickets. It's baffling to me. Examples:
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48802162
I share his videos here but nobody seems to see them and/or care enough to vote; all I get is crickets. It's baffling to me. Examples:
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48802162
HN audience prefers text to video; videos rarely do well here compared to other sites.
This. I never watch video posts. I can skim-read a text site in seconds to see if it's worth a real read. I can't do that with video, and there's always some ads in it, whether the author put them there or not. I hate ads.
And it's not just HN either, video is a very poor substitute for a well written article. Video can augment a well-written article, but it can't replace it.
If you have YouTube Premium, you can use their Gemini AI to summarize videos. I've "consumed" tons more videos since I discovered it, since I can get a good idea from the summary if it's worth actually watching the video.
My overall minutes of YT have gone down, but I probably interacts with 2-3x more videos. Just like skimming on HN!
Put podcasts in this category.
Posting here for anyone who might not know this: you can click and hold on most YouTube videos and they will play at 2x. I find that to be a good test at whether the host is communicating effectively. If I can understand them perfectly clear at 2X they are talking too slowly.
Then you get things like the ATP (I can't bring myself to say ATP podcast because La Brea Tar Pits and all that) where two hosts are fine at 1.5x and the third becomes a chipmunk.
Maybe they can make Overcast have dynamic speed based on speaker.
Who of the three do you feel speaks much faster naturally?
Here's where I admit that I can't identify them - but offhand I think it was Siracusa. I know because I tried speeding up a recent episode and he started talking and I had to slow it back down.
Definitely Siracusa.
I watch everything other than songs or something cinematic at 2x anyways.
I ignore video posts. Why would I spend 20 minutes watching something when I can read the same in one or two minutes?
I read inhumanely fast.
I didn’t realise you were committing literary war crimes! Please read more humanely! Books have rights too!
No, if he reads humanely he reads slowly.
I'm not sure if you got it, that inhumanely != inhumanly. Where inhumanely is without consideration for the human race, whereas the other is non-human-like.
> I'm not sure if you got it, that inhumanely != inhumanly. Where inhumanely is without consideration for the human race, whereas the other is non-human-like.
Note they're also synonyms, so the confusion is understandable:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/inhum...
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/inhum...
The person presenting is also important. I may be interested in the topic but if I don't like the presenter or their delivery then I'm still not going to watch it. Text doesn't have this issue.
^This. I find it frustrating with how so many things seem to be moving to video, even simple instructions.
Monetization. It's incredibly hard to monetize text content, particularly these days where Google's search AI has all but killed clickthrough rates. Youtube however, that will reliably give you revenue share.
That may be so, but are you skimming, or actually retaining the the things you care about? Video can have a lot more impact and staying power when it comes to things that matter in this context.
For me personally, I retain much less information from video vs reading it.
For text, I change my reading speed based on comprehension, going faster for things I know, and slower or rereading for things that are new or complicated. For video, you're expected to consume the info at the rate provided in the video, losing attention when they spend too long on info you're already finished with, and then blowing by other info that I want to spend more time considering.
There are options like adjusting video playback speed and rewinding, but that's not how video is typically consumed and is much less convenient than just altering your reading speed.
I ignore video posts because my video watching time is after-hours.
I browse HN at work in-between GH Actions runs, compiling and Claude thinking, so no time for videos.
But do you comprehend it?
These says I just ask YouTube's AI for a summary of the video. Then I can decide whether the presenter is worth another 20 minutes of my time.
I do that too, and meditate if YouTube wounded themselves by adding that feature.
View rates must have dipped for a percentage we don't know of, but definitely made a dent.
I read at talking speed so not as much to gain with text.
Agree. I almost never watch them when posted in comments. Sometimes if it’s a main article I might.
But still, there are many many HNers who binge watch YT videos all the time, and share it here, or suggest YT videos as "dive deeper" links on many topics.
Too much "Hey guys".
Video content, particularly on youtube, gets very little traction here generally.
I watch his videos, but not from links here and that is probably what you are seeing: those of us who might follow your link have already seen the video (likely via grayjay rather than youtube) and will skip over it to the next interesting new thing. People who don't already watch him will see “[video] (youtube.com), 1 point, discuss” and think “oh, another video that could be a few paragraphs of text which would be much faster to read than watch, that so far no one else has seen as worth interacting with, preceded by two unskippable adverts”.
A link to youtube is only going to get much attention if it is lucky to have a title that jumps out to a few people so it gains the first few votes and/or comments that get the ball rolling. Even then Louis' videos aren't going to get a hot debate going: most people either entirely agree so don't see the point commenting further, or they aren't the sort of people who are reading HN at all or are but don't follow video links.
Oh that guy, I like him.
He puts his money where his mouth is too. Weighing in and challenging people to sue. Good guy, intense but good.
I think it is a shame youtube is forcing creators into longer videos
I watch long form videos on topics I care about. If I care about the topic, I likely have already seen the videos. But I'm not going to watch a 20 minute video posted to HN to discuss it. If it's not something I can skim over in 3 minutes, it's too long. Take the post we're on right now. You can read through the entire contents of the article in 1 minute.
Unless the video is about an extraordinary natural phenomenon that can be seen, video (and audio) is strictly inferior to text for communicating information.
that seems pretty easily falsifiable. Sometimes you want want to consume content while doing something else that precludes reading. Sometimes you want to relax your eyeballs after staring at a screen all day. Theres plenty of reasons to consume audio or video.
I clicked on one, he was rambling about wearing sunglasses because of studio lights, seems like pointless drivel, so I stopped watching.
Have you tried SponsorBlock? https://github.com/ajayyy/SponsorBlock
Voting on hackernews is a bit weird compared to reddit. The whole UI is strange to me.
Having said that, I noticed that there is in general too much content to consistently e. g. vote or do similar actions. I was watching Rossman's video almost daily in the past; stopped doing so a while ago simply because of lack of time on my part. I need to choose more carefully where I invest my time. (Also, for some reason, when Rossman was in New York, his videos had a better punch; not sure if I am the only one noticing this but he seemed to have a better focus when he was still in New York, even though I understand he relocated, to stop getting milked by politicians in New York.)
Not needing to be at the top of his game anymore makes anyone lose that sharpness. As you just said, he doesn't need to fight New York politicians anymore.
I stopped coding for the past year or so and I'm considering going back because I definitely feel my own sharpness lost.