explainer · HACKER NEWS RECOMMENDATION
Was YOUR vote counted? (feat. homomorphic encryption) - Numberphile
Numberphile · 5 HN recommenders · 5 recommendation months
Recommended by 5 Hacker News commenters across 5 months (2016–2024).
SignalTube analysis
Among 22 other explainer videos tagged Cryptography, the mean is 3.8 distinct HN recommenders. This video has 5 distinct HN recommenders, about 1.3× that mean. Recommendations span 5 distinct months; the peer average is 3.5 months. This is a data-derived comparison, not a human review or quality rating.
60% of its 10 labeled comments are marked as recommendations or strong recommendations. HN mention years are 2016–2024; those years describe discussion history, not upload date. Its verified runtime is 8 minutes 34 seconds. YouTube lists its publication date as 2016-11-07.
- Channel / speaker
- Numberphile
- Verified runtime
- 8m 34s
- YouTube upload date
- 2016-11-07
- Hacker News mention years
- 2016–2024
SAME TOPIC AND FORMAT
Compare with related videos
The comparison cohort uses other explainer videos in Cryptography. “Shared recommenders” counts HN users who recommended both videos in the source graph.
| Video | HN recommenders | Recommendation months | Positive label share | Shared recommenders | Runtime | Upload date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Was YOUR vote counted? (feat. homomorphic encryption) - NumberphileCurrent video | 5 | 5 | 60% | — | 8m 34s | 2016-11-07 |
| But how does bitcoin actually work?explainer · 3Blue1Brown | 15 | 11 | 89% | No recorded overlap | 25m 16s | 2017-07-07 |
| Why Electronic Voting Is Still A Bad Ideaexplainer · Tom Scott | 11 | 11 | 55% | No recorded overlap | 12m 1s | 2019-12-09 |
| Diffie-Hellman Key Exchangeexplainer · Art of the Problem | 9 | 8 | 82% | No recorded overlap | 8m 38s | 2012-07-31 |
THREE SOURCE-BASED CONTEXT POINTS
Why Hacker News recommends it
Each note combines the dataset’s stance label and short rationale; comment bodies are not reproduced. Open the HN source for the original discussion.
The archive classifies this as a contextual reference in “Colorado scrambles to change voting-system passwords after accidental leak”. Its short rationale: the source snapshot has no short rationale for this mention.
The archive classifies this as a recommendation in “Colorado scrambles to change voting-system passwords after accidental leak”. Its short rationale: Verify your vote counted without proving it to others.
The archive classifies this as a recommendation in “A Peer to Peer Voting Algorithm [pdf]”. Its short rationale: Good explanation of basic concepts behind verifiable voting.