I used to get these kind of videos in my YouTube recommendations algorithm
Interesting video, but despite there being operator precedence rules, and despite that guy in the video possibly being right on a technicality (I'm not 100% sure; been ages since I studied maths, and maybe that fell under the 'Of' in BODMAS despite what Wikipedia says - no idea. From memory, I don't recall the 'Of' in BODMAS meaning what Wikipedia says it does, but I don't have a textbook at hand to know for sure), nevertheless, I think if anything he could only be right in an exam. I wouldn't trust him with an actual formula in real life, if he just assumed like that.
In real life, there's a very high chance he would be wrong if he relied on that, because just seeing that ought to have made him question the actual intent of the person who wrote it. He shouldn't just assume that whoever wrote it like that, actually meant for the result to come out to what he believes it does.
Ordinarily, just seeing something so intimate next to parenthesis makes one think if the author actually meant that portion to override, so it would be right to question it, or at least try out both ways, and see which one gives a value closer to what you estimate the result should be (i.e. rely on context and don't assume everyone will understand operator precedence rules or be perfect in their execution of them). There are plenty of mistakes in papers, one has to do a dry run with formulas with known input/output to see if it approximately agrees with reality, or if there's an error in the document.
If I try that on my Casio calculator (fx-CG50), when I press EXE, it actually inserts extra parenthesis for me, giving the opposite result to what that guy in the video mentions is correct. And, intuitively, if I had seen that written, mentally I too would have assumed that author intended for the right side to be multiplied first too, i.e. I would have come up with a result of 1. (But I would have been aware that
possibly the result may be 16, i.e. time to now look beyond that and see which result actually makes sense, e.g. by looking elsewhere).