p2e

As someone new to git, I was dissapointed to see that:

    git add "*.txt"

added all of the .txt files from the current directory AND all of the .txt files contained within a subdirectory. I would have expected the same files to get added as those that would have shown up using:

    ls *.txt

For other new users: I've been told that this is an error in the tutorial. The tutorial forced the use of quotes but apparently they are not required and git would have added only the files that show up with the ls command as indicated above.

EDIT: I'm wrong. Using quotation marks DOES make git fetch .txt files within subdirectories. As pointed out by cellularmitosis, git seems to do it's own "interesting" glob expansion.

I agree. I kept trying to "ls" and observe what was going on between each command or examine the directory structure of /.git and so on. Only later did I realize that there was a filesystem explorer-like window below.

Also, having them automatically adding files to the directory was kind of confusing. Sometimes I would type a command and something new would appear in the file system as a result of that command. Other times, I would type a command and something new would appear in the filesystem that I suppose was expected to be used for a subsequent step. It would have been nice if these things would have happened in isolation from each other. That way I could run the command, see what happened, and then perhaps click "next" to move onto a different scenario with a new set of files I could add to the repository.

My guess is that he doesn't edit videos after publishing because he likes the youtube stats?

Maybe youtube isn't the best medium for his videos and he should instead find an option that allows and easily facilitates future edits.

Why not just re-record the video, or design the videos such that they can be stitched together from small manageable sub-videos that can be easily and quickly re-recorded. There are plenty of times when he "clears the screen" and these would be perfect opportunities to edit together "good" sub-videos in the lesson.

I don't see why you would want to leave the mistakes in there. Someone might not grasp the correction!

I think that this is a serious issue. Khan usually just hits record once, publishes, and never revisits his videos again. By his own admission, he takes some initial feedback (first few video comments) from his videos but only applies it to his subsequent lessons not bothering to fix the prior lessons. This allows him to produce a lot of content, but it can end up doing more harm than good by keeping a lot of bad lessons out there.

I've seen quite a few of his videos that have had serious problems in them, 20-second long stretches of silence when he's erasing or fixing mistakes, and places where he talks himself (and the listener) into a circle. I just don't see why Khan doesn't take the time to fix obvious mistakes/issues in his videos -- or have someone else do it! Sure, it means more video development time but it's for the purpose of producing superior lessons and not spreading misinformation.

Traditional educators revisit topics/lessons and learn from their previous attempts and from student feedback. This allows future lessons on the same topic to be more refined and better serve the student. Who honestly believes they get something right the first time, or doesn't try to improve something when they, or someone else, identifies an obvious problem?

Khan has an excellent framework in place, but he needs to revisit his content. Or let someone else do it -- do these videos have less value if someone other than Khan comes in to fix things up? I'm sure there would be plenty of volunteers. Obviously the guys in this video had some good insight that could have helped Khan's video.

"My conclusion is that college lectures really aren't an efficient way to disseminate education, and they are even less so when they are recorded on video."

I'm curious about how you came to the conclusion that lectures are less efficient when they are recorded on video. It seems to me that (for the student which doesn't speak up and engage the instructor in class -- most students?), that a recorded lecture would provide a near identical experience. I would expect that recorded recorded lectures would also allow students to slow down, decompose, repeat, and revisit portions of the lecture in order to better grasp the information at their own pace.

Is it the issue of not being physically surrounded by students or faced by an instructor that you're not keen on? Perhaps a lack of physical accountability to keep students attentive and on-point?

It seemed to me that he did read the entire post and simply provided his own commentary/experience on the impact of adding such notes to one's file at Google.

Edit: I just noticed the comment you replied to has a more recent edit-time than your comment... Apologies if I missed something here.