I didn't think I'd enjoy the Climate Hackers piece. As a climate/health researcher, I'm fairly sceptical of geoengineering, but I felt like this was a pretty balanced take on it—if slightly optimistic for my taste.
In particular, I'm glad the video noted at the end that most geoengineering methods aren't substitutes for CO2 mitigation, but I would've liked to see this expanded on a bit more. Since aerosols are generally super sort-lived in the atmosphere, you can't just set-and-forget their deployment: once you start putting them up there, you have to keep doing it until the underlying problem (excess CO2). A scenario where we start geoengineering and then avoid mitigating would (a) still mean we get a lot of climate change impacts, even if we keep the thermostat in check, and (b) ramp the cost of continuing geoengineering up as CO2 gets worse in the background.
On the other hand, the video was really tight, and I get that it's difficult to go into this sort of detail under editing restraints. Since I love technology and love climate, I'm happy to see The Verge tackling this stuff, and I hope it gets explored in more detail over time :)