It's definitely pitched weirdly. Like it thinks maybe a decision maker is viewing these courses to decide if their team should use Rust or learn from these videos, rather than anybody who'd actually need an introductory video.
The seventh (of 35) video is about variables. It spends some time justifying the existence of variables. But wait, this series claims that it is intended for existing programmers, and it's a stretch to imagine any of that intended audience get value from being told what variables are.
This video introduces mutability, tells viewers Rust's variables are immutable by default, but then it lurches off to talk about constants which, it notes, are also immutable.
Why? To do this the video also needs to introduce boilerplate it doesn't have time to explain, because Rust's constants need an explicit type and neither types nor the type inference used already are explained in this video of course.
It also makes a false claim - which may even have been true when some of the presenters learned Rust, that Rust's constants can't be defined in terms of a function. In fact today they can be defined using const functions, such as String::new() and function execution happens at compile time (even if you've got a foreign target so it needs to behave differently than local native code).
But having introduced constants, and immutability, we don't really learn anything about why Rust has these separately.
And that's it, the whole video. I don't know what value somebody gets from this very brief format.
Many years ago I helped teach Java to CM1xx undergraduates, and although a double (two hours) is probably too much to digest, an hour is at the short end of what I thought was useful to actually get material out of my head and into the students' heads.
I never took that class, it was introduced after I graduated, I learned Standard ML instead, and IMNSHO that was a better choice to learn programming (but industry wanted Java not ML, and industry hires graduates) but even with the much reduced boilerplate in ML, I can't see how I'd have learned anything in five minute chunks. And Rust is not a smaller or easier language than SML.
Take currying. Possible but awkward and rarely important in Rust, yet crucial to ML. I can see a one hour class with either experienced programmers who've never seen first class functions before or newbies who hadn't seen any function at all until last week, both getting to a place where the students see that currying is useful. But in five minutes all you can do is rush through some trivial demo that doesn't reveal even to an attentive audience how powerful this idea actually is.
Are twelve, five minute segments worth an hour? I think emphatically not.
That said, I would like to see someone's attempt at a serious CM1xx style course teaching Programming with Rust as first language. I don't know if that's a good idea, but if anybody tries it I would like to see it anyway.