600,000: Like 300 only 2000 times better

[@dorlirahmeti7576]

Thank you so much for doing yet another of puzzle of mine and cograts again on 600,000 and many more. And this probably is a bit more special to me considering I am the moment on the UK and I am enjoying it so far!

[@chrisbaeyens4513]

Thank you for your puzzle! So which version of the rule did you intend?

[@davidrattner9]

Fabulous from you as always!!! Loved it!!

[@longwaytotipperary]

Thank you Dorlir!!

[@suburbanplankton]

Simon made things harder than they should have been. When he read the rules, he said "the snake can't pass through the cells that are separated by a white dot"...which, in my opinion at least, is unambiguous...but then interpreted that to mean (going by the text in the video) "the snake cannot pass through a white dot", which is a much less strict rule. If he had stuck to the original rules as he read them, it was clear; there are two pairs of cells that are separated by white dots, and the snake can't pass through any of them.

[@RichSmith77]

​@@suburbanplanktonIt becomes a more interesting puzzle, and still not too difficult, with the less strict interpretation that Simon used. I don't know Dorlir's original intention, but in my view it only improves the puzzle with Simon's interpretation.

[@Zephyrhash2]

I see Simon finally decided to show us his true chiseled abs in the thumbnail

[@olivier2553]

It is only fair that Simon's six pack introduces a 6x6 sudoku.

[@GuardOfGaia]

But is it from all the wineglass lifting on the 19th hole?

[@stephenmccarthy1795]

If Simon was right about the alternative interpretation, it would have said that the snake cannot pass through a white dot, but it says cells separated by a white dot which includes both cells on either side of a white dot.

[@D4N1CU5]

Yeah "cells separated by a white dot" seems pretty unambiguous to me and Simon said that twice. It's confusing because the writing on-screen says "cannot pass through a white dot" which seems to be pretty clear also but is NOT the same as what he said.

[@livmas10]

He altered the instructions for us after he finished the puzzle. The instructions we see are not the ones he had

[@VijayaGopala]

39:44 the center mark in r3c4 is inherited from a non-standard note and prematurely excludes 1.

[@ProfMonkeys]

I was about to come comment on this and I am happy to see someone else spotted it before me.

[@aliciamessina2923]

How unlucky for Simon, that the puzzle worked out even with that mistake

[@mummabear7537]

If you enter the digits into the grid that he has at that point, it still works out that way even allowing for r3c4 to be a 1. The 4 in r3c6 forces a 2 in r2c6, which forces r2c4 to be a 4. This makes r5c4 a 3, causing r1c4 to be a 1 ... and therefore r3c4 is a 5. Yes it was a leftover mental note from the start, but it still has to end up that way in the long run.

[@buffgbob]

@@mummabear7537 Clearly it had to be that way, since it wasn't contradicted by the unique solution. However, it wasn't deduced, which is why it is considered a mistake.

[@emilywilliams3237]

I sat back and watched this one even though I suspect I might be able to solve the puzzle myself. Thanks, Simon, for bringing sudoku to us every day (and to Mark, too)!

[@Meeseeran]

That thumbnail goes hard

[@chocolateboy300]

I finished in 52 minutes. I really enjoy these small grids that have factoring as its solving. I needed a calculator to do it, but it was very fun seeing the minimums and ruling out 6 immediately. In my opinion, the rule states that only the white dot is the limitation, rather than the cells it touches. It works out both ways, either way. I enjoyed this one. Great Puzzle!

[@PassionPopsicle]

Whoever did the thumbnail has my eternal love. Cracking the cryptic has now peaked.

[@Kinada]

The way I read that rule is that it can't access either of the cells separated by a white dot at all. Thankfully the puzzle is solvable without that because I went off the of wording in the text and not what he was reading in the video unfortunately. It clearly states that it can't pass through either of the cells.

[@craftyraf]

34:50 I came to the conclusion of this 1-2 pair after 2 minutes (assuming the snake can't pass through any of the cells with a white dot): In box 3 you need a 3 AND a 5, so the only digits that are left AND consecutive are 1 and 2...

[@jasonb111222]

Love seeing a puzzle where I can beat the time from CtC, though CtC is of course explaining their work the entire time.

[@amoswittenbergsmusings]

I can say from own experience that CtC has a tangible mental health benefit. These guys are saving the healthcare system $$$ every day. Having said that, when in doubt *do* seek help and do *not* self-medicate, even with CtC viewings. Again, I speak from experience. God bless Simon and Mark for their services to humanity.

[@MattOGormanSmith]

Swings and roundabouts. Some of these puzzles can drive you crazy, although I guess watching a competent solve will always provide a remedy.

[@rentalcustard]

This would have taken me twice as long without the easier rules, I think! Very clever stuff and I'm very proud to have solved it in under 20 minutes.

[@travisgoettl7929]

I am soo excited!!! This is probably the first time I have beaten your time in completing a puzzle. I probably wouldn't have if you didn't spend so much time explaining your thought process but normally I still don't beat your time! 🤣

[@toshlaforest9472]

I don't see how Dorlir's wording of the rules leaves room for interpretation. They were written pretty clear in my opinion, and were not meant to be as Simon interpreted them. Still mindblowing to see how Simon found the solution nonetheless.

[@studgerbil9081]

could've been more clearly stated as "cannot pass through either of the cells separated by a white dot."

[@reaperskill]

21 minutes here. Once I got the prime factorisation of the digits that were being skipped, things went quite fast. Honestly, proving that it didn't pass through the spaces with the white dots (rather than just not passing through the dots themselves) was trivial once I knew which boxes it had to visit.

[@A_CC_K]

Having a rough day, but it has been made so much better now there is another cracking the cryptic video to watch.

[@FunIsGoingOn]

@@A_CC_K Logical, if logical cryptics are a sorted way for you contrary to real world things. I feel you.

[@n8style]

Congrats on the 600K!

[@Kradlum]

@39:52 Simon pencil marks the 1s in box 4. Why can't R3C4 also be a 1?

[@Tahgtahv]

You can rule it out with Sudoku, but ya, he forgot that he just had a 45 there from the start and it wasn't a real pencil mark.

[@musaburakerdihan5148]

It can be 1, but Simon was lucky it doesn't change solution, he just forgot 45 means snake needs to collect 4 and 5, not regular pencil marking

[@shardj5151]

I had to make a page full of notes to solve this in 90 minutes, and Simon's over here doing it off the top of his head in less than half that! I think I spent too much time figuring out possible prime number combos and snake lengths vs the number of 4s and 1s in the snake rather than just doing sudoku really, a lot of the stuff I figured out by eliminating possible prime combos Simon just did by sudoku.

[@In_42_Space]

Already happy with this one and have only read the video title!

[@In_42_Space]

Very happy with the video as well. Great logic and the joy that Simon finds in discovering it just brings a smile to my day.

[@darthrainbows]

Nice! I crushed Simon's solve time on this one; finished in 26:07.

[@AwareOCE]

31:00 Me: "Oh wow thats really cool" 2 seconds later, Simon: "Which is really cool!" 😂

[@fatercoelho7476]

new title sugestion: "a severe case of over complicating something simple"

[@inspiringsand123]

Rules: 02:10 Let's Get Cracking: 06:49 Simon's time: 35m29s Puzzle Solved: 42:18 What about this video's Top Tier Simarkisms?! Three In the Corner: 1x (38:19) ​Scooby-Doo: 1x (26:51) And how about this video's Simarkisms?! Snake: 150x (02:34, 02:40, 02:55, 03:04, 03:10, 03:24, 03:41, 03:51, 04:01, 04:29, 04:41, 04:44, 04:51, 05:04, 05:26, 05:42, 05:42, 05:45, 06:20, 06:36, 07:09, 09:30, 09:41, 10:06, 10:14, 10:19, 10:32, 10:38, 10:55, 11:06, 11:10, 12:26, 12:26, 12:42, 12:48, 13:51, 14:08, 14:15, 14:54, 14:59, 15:04, 15:06, 15:21, 15:41, 16:00, 16:03, 16:27, 16:30, 16:51, 17:08, 17:11, 18:14, 18:54, 18:56, 19:12, 19:21, 19:28, 19:58, 20:02, 20:10, 20:16, 20:16, 20:53, 21:02, 21:10, 21:16, 21:20, 21:43, 21:47, 21:53, 21:53, 22:08, 22:10, 22:29, 22:33, 22:35, 22:35, 22:37, 22:37, 22:42, 22:44, 22:46, 22:59, 23:13, 23:26, 23:31, 23:36, 23:53, 24:46, 25:07, 25:13, 25:54, 26:03, 26:09, 26:16, 27:11, 27:15, 27:23, 27:49, 27:55, 28:01, 28:03, 28:06, 28:11, 28:13, 28:21, 28:24, 28:32, 28:42, 28:49, 28:51, 28:51, 28:54, 29:56, 30:17, 30:26, 30:27, 30:43, 30:56, 31:16, 31:16, 31:19, 31:26, 31:32, 31:56, 32:04, 32:06, 32:11, 32:13, 32:14, 32:49, 32:53, 34:17, 34:50, 35:01, 35:41, 35:45, 36:22, 36:27, 37:16, 37:33, 37:38, 37:58, 38:02, 38:12, 38:50, 39:12, 40:20, 41:44, 42:01) Touch Itself: 12x (02:45, 19:12, 21:55, 22:08, 22:35, 22:46, 22:48, 23:34, 23:36, 30:45, 32:13, 36:27) Ah: 8x (16:00, 24:13, 24:22, 24:29, 29:19, 30:04, 30:51, 34:45) Clever: 6x (29:23, 29:26, 32:49, 32:53, 34:58, 39:36) Brilliant: 5x (06:41, 39:39, 42:22, 42:27, 42:27) Sorry: 4x (18:23, 19:38, 19:47, 24:29) Obviously: 4x (08:21, 25:50, 28:21, 33:09) Wow: 4x (36:18, 37:47, 41:06, 41:06) By Sudoku: 3x (32:28, 34:23, 34:30) In Fact: 3x (04:04, 07:24, 08:25) Weird: 3x (09:56, 18:33, 33:53) What a Puzzle: 2x (42:22, 42:24) What Does This Mean?: 2x (02:49, 09:23) Good Grief: 1x (34:58) What on Earth: 1x (09:48) Nonsense: 1x (31:21) Naughty: 1x (22:10) I Have no Clue: 1x (36:32) Stuck: 1x (07:06) Lovely: 1x (11:09) Extraordinary: 1x (00:35) Discombobulating: 1x (06:52) Approachable: 1x (01:37) Hang On: 1x (19:34) Full stop: 1x (42:27) Box Thingy: 1x (23:01) Pencil Mark/mark: 1x (40:34) Most popular number(>9), digit and colour this video: Ten (8 mentions) Two (99 mentions) White (10 mentions) Antithesis Battles: Even (3) - Odd (1) White (10) - Black (0) Row (2) - Column (2) FAQ: Q1: You missed something! A1: That could very well be the case! Human speech can be hard to understand for computers like me! Point out the ones that I missed and maybe I'll learn! Q2: Can you do this for another channel? A2: I've been thinking about that and wrote some code to make that possible. Let me know which channel you think would be a good fit!

[@MarinaArtDesign]

What is this?

[@smylesg]

34:57 This is sick. Did you retire this entry?

[@smylesg]

​@@MarinaArtDesignYears ago, Inspiring Sand created a bot to catalogue common words and phrases Simon and Mark use. It's grown quite a following. We look forward to it every video. I challenge myself to identify phrases I know have appeared, but aren't yet catalogued.

[@chipsounder4633]

Wow ❤. I would like to give credit for the absolute masterpiece and for the factorisation methods.. Learning more and more everyday in this beautiful logical journey. Keep up the great abs 😎

[@brettduffin8412]

Grey shading or large red crosses Simon? Twin concepts in one puzzle churn my brain.

[@jonathanwest6266]

I believe Simon erroneously leaves the X in box 3 cell 3 at about 22:48 - he placed it there by observing it would be off limits if the snake went into cell 6 - when he observed the snake could not go in cell 6 he should have removed the X in cell 3 and found another way of excluding that cell.

[@jonathanwest6266]

Ok he spots it later!!!

[@rmjarvis]

Finished in 8:40, but it felt slightly unsatisfying, since I didn't feel like I had completely proved my snake path was the only possible one. Now I'll watch the video and see how Simon proved it, since I'm sure he did.

[@hannahgoldberg1064]

8:37 but read the rules as intended and the ‘no 3 or 6 except in box 3’ feature really narrowed things down for me. Very fun puzzle, thanks!

[@petrie911]

We should see more product conditions. The way it forces you to take certain digits and avoid others due to factors is neat.

[@adnagapot]

I thought it was relatively simple because I worked out the absolute minimum path for the snake to take (there's not very many options) then working out that there aren't enough 1s to extend the path at all

[@MrGuibig]

That thumbnail had me click on the video! This is golden :D

[@BetrayedCow]

If anybody in the comments wants to feel better about themselves working on this, I just spent over 8 hours actively working the puzzle as if white dots were instead conventionally black dots and meant the digits were in a 1:2 ratio of each other rather than that they were consecutive digits. A lot of the prime factorization and snake logic I did during those HOURS still helped out when I finally decided to read the rules again after the 5th restart and I realized my mistake. So it was a nice quick puzzle after like 10 hours of working and reworking it over the last 3 days. Note to self, everybody makes mistakes, but also actually read the rules and remember the difference between black and white dots if I’m going to just go in assuming I know the rules. It was a very fun and well-constructed puzzle, especially once I realized my mistake, I enjoyed it greatly!

[@Crios54]

Haven't started the puzzle nor the video yet but this thumbnail is incredible! X)

[@brianshilling]

@6:08 for me. Knowing you have to hit 5 columns for the 5s, and also no cage can have more than 3 squares, because two must have 3 snake squares makes the snake fairly easy to draw with 0 digits on the board

[@pascalhaering]

Can you explain this a bit more? I can't see how you deduct that no cage can have more than 3 (snake) squares.

[@VijayaGopala]

Surprise! Simon has difficulty reading the rules 2 times.

[@NaHBrO733]

22:51 for me (first interpretation). I think the first interpretation is the intended one. The second interpretation is much easier, It immediately fixed the shape of the snake for you.

[@MaierFlorian]

I would say this puzzle is 2* only if you take the 4 white dotted cells out of the path by ruling and not by proving. Otherwise it's more a 3*

[@CatzHoek]

I've never paid attention on the thumbnails but lol ... i certainly noticed that one

[@istvanmagi473]

Colour coding for lesser people: one colour of snake, another for non-snake. Colour coding for Simon: black for box 6, green for all other boxes. Giant ugly X-es for non-snake.

[@JeffRaze]

I wasn't sure which version of the rules I was going to use for my solve, but wound up not really needing to choose. Figuring out which boxes the snake entered wound up blocking off all the affected cells anyways.

[@mikew6644]

Went from feeling impossible to a 15 minute solve once I went and got the prime factors from 600,000

[@frankjiang1857]

Finished in 88:17. For some reason, I swapped boxes 3 and 4 in my mind and came to a solution with a deadly pair and multiple snake possibilities. Finally, re-evaluating my solution, I realized my problem after about an hour and finished the puzzle in less than 30 minutes :(..... Fun puzzle if you don't mess up your box numbering :(.

[@srwapo]

44:44 with my last digit being a 4.😊I broke box 2 really badly, for some reason deducing that it had to have four cells on the snake and blowing my total value out of the water. I think I "deduced" that I had to have a 1 on it somewhere, which meant the snake had to go into row 1 to also get a 1 in box 1. And then I didn't know how to disambiguate at the end, forgetting that I had to have a 1 on the snake in box 1. 😅

[@michaelmatter1222]

"The snake is forced to go through that little passageway." 🤨 No jokes please.

[@B1GB1RDB4G3L]

Looking good Simon

[@manudude02]

18:37 to complete here, would have been much quicker, but made a mistake drawing the snake and was having a headache keeping the product low enough before realising the snake can turn in box 4 row 3 instead of box 4 row 4.

[@AleksandrYgA]

10:14 for me which is strange considering the video length. I'm gonna watch the video to see if I made some lucky guess or there was any other flows in my logic.

[@Marronii]

I could imagine a "disambiguated en passent check mate" is even rarer than a "double disambiguated bishop/knight check mate"

[@sjm6280]

He omitted the digit 1 in his pencilmark of r3c4 and did use that pencilmark

[@janerobson2297]

Got hopelessly confused because I kept on thinking the white dots were black dots!

[@lexyeevee]

huh, i also solved it using the weaker rules (in roughly the same time) and didn't realize there were stronger ones. feels like i would've skipped half the puzzle with the stronger constraint in fact!

[@MattOGormanSmith]

You left your 45 aide memoire as a pencilmark, and then you used it to get a 1 when blitzing the end (I had to reind to be sure). Dare I say it?

[@MattYDdraig]

9:27 Very elegant solve, admittedly it might have been harder to tell which of box 3/6 was omitted with the less complete rule.

[@beseg7]

At the end, I think that the rule that forbids the snake from white dots is redundant entirely, even in the permissive interpertation. Am i missing something?

[@martysears]

The Master of Minimalism does it again. Outstanding stuff. Am I right in thinking that in the end Simon solved this without using any form of the rule about the line passing through white dots? Seems like the dots were only necessary for kropki consecutiveness purposes only? In any case, I was very impressed at Simon's ability to solve it whilst not being 100% sure of the rules! great video and great puzzle

[@MirjamSolberg]

@@martysears not quite. In ruling out R4C3 from the snake, he uses the rule to say that if R4C3 was on the snake, the snake couldn't go up through the white dot to R3C3, but would instead go into box 4.

[@sjm6280]

Why did he use Xs instead of gray shades similarly to box 6?

[@RichSmith77]

I know. He usually uses purple (pink) for the snake and green for cells where the snake cannot go. I did it using these colours just because I'm used to seeing Simon use them. It leads to a far less cluttered grid than having circles and X's proliferate. You can just shade box 6 in green once you know the snake doesn't go there, and gradually shade other cells purple and green (or the colours of your choice) as you progress.

[@przemekmajewski1]

nice 20 mins puzzle :D good job Dorlir n Simon

[@AllentheFarmBoy]

Four- year viewer, first time poster (love the channel!). What’s the distinction between what Simon does around 34 minutes, which I would compare to thinking ahead in chess, and bifurcation? Is it a matter of degree? Thx

[@RichSmith77]

I'd say yes, it's a matter of degrees. What's considered bifurcation Vs reasonable amount of look ahead is shades of grey rather than black and white. Both Mark and Simon tend to view anything they can see without putting actual digits in the grid as not bifurcating, although Mark seems to be prepared to follow longer chains than Simon will usually allow himself. Simon will sometimes say something's beginning to "feel a bit bifurcatory" if he finds himself pursuing a particularly long chain of logic, and will look for something else instead. A certain amount of look ahead is often required, though. It's just that the more you can avoid long chains of look-ahead logic, the more elegant the solve (usually). It's probably more likely to be closer to the path the setter hoped you would find. (In my case, the amount of bifurcating I'm personally prepared to do depends on how long I've been stuck. 😂)

[@piarittersporn]

Brilliant puzzle.

[@six_5000]

34:18 brushing off my abysmal factorization skills

[@Orenotter]

Upon myself I imposed laws. I swore today I'd not hit pause. I would rush and I'd race To keep up with your pace. But slowness remains in my flaws. I promised Jason I'd not pause the video because he doesn't get to work until CTC time is done, but I had to near the end. You just go too fast for me. And since I am a were-reindeer, that's saying something.

[@praematura]

A bit of thinking on the factorization, then a bit of trial and error on checking out possible paths, and was able to complete in 23:04 (conflict checker off). Brilliant puzzle by Dorlir, many thanks to them!

[@SirBradiator]

No Birthday's? Must be a prerecord, is Simon Still on Holiday?

[@LednacekZ]

14:44 for me. 13 minutes thinking about the line and the other minute was for filling the grid.

[@HirrumiHassan]

dobrej blázen :DD

[@Gonzalo_Garcia_]

12:09 for me. Nice puzzle!

[@Bearcrapsinwoods]

can I get an eli5 on how the prime factors of 600,000 dictate what digits make up the snake. I'm a little bit confused? -Thanks

[@davidgould9431]

A basic theorem of maths is that every integer can be expressed *uniquely* as a product of primes (ignoring any ones: it's defined not to be prime). That means that, once you have the prime factorisation, there can be no other *prime* factors. The only option left is to get different factors by multiplying some of the primes you've found. Hence, we have 6 and 4 as options as well as 2, 3, 5 and 1. Hope this helps.

[@Bearcrapsinwoods]

@@davidgould9431 I think I understand it now, thanks for the explanation

[@Bearcrapsinwoods]

@@davidgould9431 WOW!! this is so simple now that I understand it. I was finally able to finish some of the 600k pack puzzles using prime factorization🔥

[@christinemenard1412]

First time beating Simon's time! I finished it in just over 17 minutes.

[@MagoLP]

Solved it in 6:59. I guess I got lucky but there weren't that many ways to draw the snake anyway.

[@fruit3193]

Fun puzzle

[@林老師-i5d]

25:47 for me nice puzzle

[@Dodo-kz7uk]

12:49 on this one. Once you do a list of all the factors of 600.000 it becomes rather easy. Fun one!

[@transrightsbaybee]

nahhh not the thumbnail 😭😭😭

[@jeffreyturvey5881]

5×2×5×3×1×5×4×5×1×4 ×2×5=600,000

[@MasterPredator93]

39:55 why cannot 1 go into r3c4?

[@olivier2553]

That was a lucky mistake.

[@RichSmith77]

It could. He mistook the 45 centre pencilmark as telling him the candidates for the cell were already reduced to 4 or 5, but the pencilmarks were from the start, when they just indicated that 4 and 5 had to appear on the snake in that box. It's only right at the end (41:02) that it would change his solution path, but it could be solved trivially from this point anyway. He should have resolved the 3,4 pairs in box 6 first; then the 1,3 pair in box 2; and then he could have resolved 5,1 in box 4.

[@caspianmaclean8122]

@@RichSmith77thanks, I was wondering

[@JoaoVitorDalcinKoch]

Heyyy, can you say hi to Brazil? I'm really obcessed with sudoku and I love your videos

[@denisdodelin-m1e]

Hi to Brazil ! ^⁠_⁠^

[@awilliams1701]

what about r3/c3? you didn't prove that. It was only X'd by your example.

[@awilliams1701]

oh never mind you caught it.

[@Timlagor]

12:40 I hadn't realised we were allowed to just make up rules! I think you'd have found it a lot easier if you hadn't ever questioned the possibility of going through those squares

[@TheRedReid]

15:52 for me. Definitely a fluke lol

[@RecreationallyCynical]

Solved it in 12:11

[@TheMeanderingduck6]

I don't know how the hell my brain managed 8:16 on this one... I realized it had to have 5 5's in 5 boxes, and then once I saw that there had to be only 3 and 5 in box 3 or else the white dot was broken, it just... fell in.

[@TurquoizeGoldscraper]

21:37 for me.

[@yashmehta9299]

12:20 😎

[@janwnp]

The statement that the snake is a one-cell-wide path, disambiguates the rule controversy, i suppose. Since the snake is as wide as the whole square, it cannot pass a square with a white dot, without going through the white dot.

[@theredstoneengineer6934]

32:24 for me

[@TheKtuno]

"The product of the digits along the snake is equal to 600,000" That's gonna be a hard no for me dawg. Way too many maths for my smooth brain, but I'll happily enjoy watching Simon climb this insane mountain of factors.

[@PassionPopsicle]

"Insane Mountain of Factors" is my new band name

[@TheKtuno]

@@PassionPopsicle you have my permission I will follow your climb to stardom with great interest

[@caiotmz]

I really don't see any ambiguity in the rules. It says that the snake 'cannos pass through a white dot', so it if passes through only one of the cells that touch a white dot it won't 'pass through' the dot.

[@David_K_Booth]

He rewrote Dorlir's original rules to clarify them.

[@roevhaal578]

listen to how he reads the rules, he changed the wording

[@rentalcustard]

​@@David_K_Booththe point is that the original rules don't need to be clarified, isn't it? If the original rules are as shown in the video, they say "the snake cannot pass through a white dot." That rule doesn't strike me as ambiguous. You can't pass through the cell borders where a white dot appears. When Simon reads them out, he reads "the snake cannot pass through cells separated by a white dot." That rule would also not be ambiguous: you can't enter any cell that has a white dot on any of its borders. It seems to me that the need for clarification only arises because of the difference between what's written and what Simon reads out. What am I missing?

[@David_K_Booth]

@@rentalcustard That the OP is commenting that the *revised* rules are perfectly clear, but that those weren't what Simon was working from.

[@rentalcustard]

@@David_K_Booth I think both the revised and the original rules are perfectly clear.

[@averygaron994]

Quite frankly, it seems like a pretty bad faith interpretation of the rules to read "the snake can't pass through a white dot" and assume it means "the snake can't pass through cells that are touching a white dot." You've just made up four extra words for no reason

[@istvanmagi473]

You are wrong. The wording of the rules was different in the version that Simon had. "The snake can't pass through the cells that are separated by a white dot." Simon read it in the video two times.

[@UnaturalShadows]

The text of the rules is made after the puzzle is solved to clarify the rules for the viewer, but they kind of did a bad job of that this time

[@davidrattner9]

Absolutely attention grabbing thumbnail Simon!!!