On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 19:30:58 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
wrote:

On Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 9:09:43 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 10:11:07 -0400, Jack wrote:

On 8/7/2019 9:04 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 09:57:52 -0400, Jack wrote:

On 8/6/2019 4:31 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
DerbyDad03 writes:

Here's a decent rundown of the three main types of Forstner bits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeBFcCTXZkA

You must be retired to have enough time to waste watching youtube. I'd much
rather read a text description.

A picture is worth a 1000 words, a video is worth 10,000 words.

The problem is that youtube video producers insist that they just
_have_ to get in all 10,000 words. Borrring!

Yes, the video was about boring, but not all that "Borring"

I can read what he wanted to get across, far faster.

You do know that you can speed up youtube, in some cases up to twice
the normal speed, right?

I rarely watch any video at less than 1.5, often at 1.75.

There were only a few paragraphs worth of information in the whole video.

I wonder if you aren't just a little biased since you probably didn't learn
anything from that video. If a video has nothing to offer me that I don't
already know, I'd find it very boring also. My guess is that if you found an
article that relayed the same information that was in that video, you'd be
just as bored. If the article was "shorter", you'd simply be bored sooner.

In this case, no. I didn't really know what they were "teaching", at
least not in detail. I found the links to the text descriptions far
more efficient than the link to the video. There wasn't really that
much information. It's not like a technique for making mortises (for
example), where a picture really is worth 1000 words.