This is a pretty assinine take
- you're not rebutting this.
- does this program work or not? You're making an ad hominem attack rather providing any insight into whether this detector is or is not effective or why
- op is offering supporting evidence for their position. Is this evidence valid or not? What the fuck does "let the video speak for itself" mean? If you don't agree with evidence argument with your own
- occam's razor states that the simpelst explanation is usually the correct one. It is a broadly applicable maxim to help one think critically. If this is or is not a cross dissolve then show fucking evidence. Make arguments.
Jfc