It has always been his style, you can check for yourself by watching some of his early videos. Over the years, he has refined it and fully committed to it.

I usually don't like too much sensationalism, but he gets a pass. That's just his style and I think he does it well without compromising on the information content. He acknowledges that the technique is slow by the way, but that's late in the video.

But I agree that the title is poorly chosen in this case and I think it would be more appropriate for the previous video about a similar paper [1] where the simulation is less accurate, but runs in real-time. It is as if the titles were swapped.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NF3CdXkm68

Edit: And of course, it is entertainment, what did you expect of a YouTube channel covering state-of-the-art research in less than 10 minutes! If you want to get serious, read the actual paper. Short(ish) YouTube videos is simply not the right format for serious work, sensationalism or not.

> Was Two Minute Papers always so sensationalistic or is that a recent change?

Before his channel exploded in popularity, it was similar but much more genuine and less formulaic and extreme. At some point he started to just sound like the LLM output conditioned on his earlier videos with fake excitement forced into every single sentence and I unsubscribed.

It's a shame because the papers he covers are fascinating but I can't stand his fakeness and pretend-excitement anymore. I also miss when he included more explanations of the algorithms and less throwbacks to previous videos.

I used to watch his videos early on, but it's been like this for a few years at least.

He has been like that for couple of years at least. I guess it wins clicks in the youtube slot-machine. But I can't stand him either, despite being exact target audience for his videos.

His catchphrase is literally "What a time to be alive!"

hey, what a time to be alive

I think you may be in the vast minority here. People born after 1990 grew up using emoji and most keyboards show your top ~25 most used emojis, floated to the top, and keyboards offer search function, this was a largely solved problem by 2014, over a decade ago.

What's wrong with that statement? FEM is a good way to handle deformables, but it isn't the only way, so it a fine statement.

It is good to point it out it is for offline simulations. There is some related recent work, Offset Geometric Contact that is suitable for interactive use: https://ankachan.github.io/Projects/OGC/index.html

Also assumed by default we were talking about real-time, but then I saw Python/juPyter and a rendered videos, got a bit confused, then came across "46.4s/frame" for one of the examples and finally registered it wasn't about real-time.

I agree it doesn't have to be real-time to be valid, I think my mindset just goes to physics in video games which are usually real-time when I see contact solvers or most other things related to simulations.