>the 3 year comment is the thing you're locking on?

What do you mean by locking on?

>You can only mention the period of time something was developed if NOTHING else occurs at the same time?

I think "I worked on a coat hanger for 3 years would be more clear." "I spent 3 years" literaly means that three years were used (spent) on it. Also it being the title of the video implies that. Basically, in terms of the title of the video, which is supposed to tell you the main idea, from the fact that the title isn't "I developed a new coat hanger" but "I spent 3 years working on a new coathanger," one might think that the three years were literaly spent on the coathanger. Putting numbers in a video title genrally improves clickrate. Also the fact that it took 3 years is more of a shocking claim so that in itself improves the click rate, which is somewhat dimminished if she took a 1.5 year break in between or something. I havn't watched the video by the way so my thoughts are based only on what I think the title implies, which is anyway what the discussion at hand is. All this said I do think it is possible three year were spent (or spent to the maximum extent possible). Lead times can be long in manufacuring and it is possible to spend a year just on verification and testing. The past few years has also seen a lot of supply chain issues.

The pedantry is just passive-aggressive hostility. There is a high jealousy avoidance factor in such responses - finding such an 'obvious' or 'easy' fault devalues the subject, so the jealousy fades away. "I have no need to respect/honor/be envious of this persons achievements because _insertSlightHere_ .."

Seriously, think about this next time the criticality levels hit too damn high. Folks can't deal with inequity easily these days, it seems .. its harder and harder to maintain an interest in others when so much depends on our own ability to be interesting ...