I like what I see!! The clickbaity headline "too much structure" is answered in the affirmative, but I think it's for defensible reasons. They needed to get a solid product to market, and so they overengineered it without spending 90% of effort on the last 10% of results.
More material and more assembly complexity than necessary, but a solid design and good predicted crash performance. So yes, compared to optimal it's a bit heavier, it is more costly with regards to materials and parts, and it's more complex to assemble; which can all be optimized with time.
I also liked the point that, being a 'startup', they don't have legacy constraints. Which might also explain the surprising "hybrid" architecture of body-on-frame / unibody ... and other design choices.
Overall, great video, very thoughtful and insightful.