Dave Jones can be a little dramatic during videos like this. I wish he spent more time talking about ways you could actually achieve the claims of the product and less time just cutting down the designers. It's easy to point out all the things you see wrong with something, but it's much harder to try to answer the question, "how could we make it work anyway?".
> talking about ways you could actually achieve the claims of the product
The thing is, you fundamentally cannot achieve the claims of the product, or rather: you can only fulfill the claim for an area of application which consists of badly designed circuits to begin with.
Would you (rightly...) call bullshit on me if I claim that I developed a patch to gcc that makes all software 800% faster? You probably would start explaining to me that typical software is limited by memory bandwidth, or might wait for disk I/O... and that one might achieve 800% speedup only at some hot-spots in exceptionally rare cases of particularly badly coded programs.
Maybe the issue is drawing the line at "we can make it work, but at such cost & effort as not be worthwhile" in a way that makes drawing the line itself worth the time & effort in doing so. Squeezing the last bit of energy out of an alkaline battery ultimately costs more than that energy is worth, as is trying to explain to the gullible/uninterested why that is so.
