Another consideration is that we learn things from it because we want to learn it. We are engaged with the topic the instant we hit play because we want to watch it.
Compare that with a high school or college setting where the majority of the class is taking it because they have to - not because they want to. This means that there's no initial engagement and a professor can't call out the student in the 3rd row from the back that is starting to fall asleep.
This can work really well for the people who want to learn it. However, it potentially adds to people who don't want to become competent in the material falling further behind.
This is true if Grant is the only person doing the work, however having a well educated and scientifically engaged populace seems important enough that we (the human race) should devote a few more resources to creating high quality (and freely available) courseware for all curricula/year levels.
I didn’t become interested in science and math until later in my life and I spent much of my childhood in classes where I didn’t care.
Although I’m from a natural-math-guy group, in a sense that I usually have no issues with understanding the material, in contrast to these “so interesting, but I understand nothing” comments below it. I always wonder why they watch it, cause it must be just a set of vector animations then.
Ultimately it would be impossible to come up with these greatly simplified explanations without the complexities and notation taught in the pedagogy you are dismissing.
Granted though, as students, the gifted ones often already have this picture in their mind, so the intuition is obvious. So to bring those less gifted or familiar with a topic up to speed, things like this make a ton of sense.