The proposed revision suffers from its terseness, losing both nuance and completeness.
The subtext of "Academic content is usually in text, not video" is "I don't trust this because it's in video, not text". Now if you say that is not clear, sure, but the subtext of your comment is "I opened a thesaurus and tried to seem smart", which is why this conversation derailed here. You can't ignore the subtext to craft a mathematically perfect sentence..
> The subtext of "Academic content is usually in text, not video" is "I don't trust this because it's in video, not text". Now if you say that is not clear, sure
Indeed, relying on the implicit when the explicit is sufficient [0] does a disservice to one's readers, in whose ability and charity to comprehend my surface text, without presuming confounding subtextual meaning, I have every confidence.
[0] It is not always; some things can only be gestured at, not grasped.
This assertion is in error. Communication is about transmitting information. What happens to that information after the transmissions is beyond scope of communication.
Don't get me wrong -- we have communication companies and classes named "business communication" and fields of inquiry titled "communication." Yet, the common trend to each of these is wrapping the transmission of information up in additional services. Analogous to how OpenAI and Mistral wrap up LLMs that you and I and anyone can run on our own into well-defined managed services. We use the term for these companies "Generative AI" or "LLMs" when in reality they too are wrappers around a much simpler concept.
It seems like you might possibly be leaving out the other 50% of communication (hint: it starts with an "r" and ends with "eceiving")
Even if you're correct you've just taken my words at their absolute meaning without trying to understand what I'm saying. If all you care when communicating is transmitting information you will not find much happiness in communication.
I do think there is a middle ground. Look at Bukowski as a good example of effective terseness.
On one hand, you can indeed rely on the precision of a large and unequivocal vocabulary, removing all doubt as to your intentions.
On the other hand, you can also rely on context and find beauty in conveying advanced meaning within a simpler interface. As Antoine de Saint-Exupéry says, "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away".
There is a creative art to compressing meaning. As evidenced by the response to your first post, things can actually get lost in translation once you stray from the common vernacular in an attempt at precision. The more you can say with less, the more effective each word becomes.
With practice, you can communicate quite profound thoughts in a form that even the most uneducated among us can understand. Know Your Audience. We may be on Hacker News, but we are also on the Web. People encounter and digest a massive amount of text every day. Making them work a little less in order to understand you can be beneficial for everyone.
"Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick"