11–20 of 184 posts
The frequently updating title thing is cute, it'll be interesting to see what dies first - YouTube pulling the "title update API" or Tom's script running wherever he's put it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This would be noteworthy if the counter was included in the video Pretty sure that would be impossible, unless I am missing something.
Yeah unfortunately Youtube doesn't let you edit videos, which sucks for creators who want to fix minor mistakes after a video has gone viral. You can, however, add and edit "cards" on top of the video. On another note, it would be noteworthy if the title on Hacker News also included the counter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah unfortunately Youtube doesn't let you edit videos, which sucks for creators who want to fix minor mistakes after a video has gone viral. You can, however, add and edit "cards" on top of the video. On another note, it would be noteworthy if the title on Hacker News also included the counter.
Uh, why the downvote? Can HN institute a policy that a reply is required if you downvote?
I was telling a friend recently about how there was this "golden age" when you could access all sorts of free APIs, and how I still long for this time. I remember the public Netflix API, Twitter APIs and Flickr API with particular fondness. My personal site was a big mashup of all of my data. I also abused the hell out of Yahoo Pipes - I would run RSS feeds through like 15 different languages with Babelfish before ba…
If it's actually spot on, it's a miracle. I got the counter and the title both showing 3,690,744 when I first opened the link - so how unlikely is this actually? Probably not really too unlikely. Or I got really lucky. EDIT: Thinking about it, as YouTube probably updates the view count only every couple of seconds or minutes it might actually be spot on most of the time if the title gets updated at about the same fre…
Same here. However I think that the way he is communicating information in this video is meant to capture your attention not just now, but when this video is visited months or years from now. It will be very cool for viewers to stumble across this video when it doesn't work, effectively proving his point.
Not that it matters, but I think Tom may have gotten this wrong. If his code is invoked many times faster than google updates it's video count then the odds of seeing an exact match in the total is proportional to that difference.
Which, ironically, means it's using even more cycles than necessary to do his intentionally silly trick, further proving his point.
Despite that the video starts with "The title of this video won't be exactly right. [..] If it's actually a 100% spot on it's a miracle" the title was exactly right when I saw it the first time. I even screenshotted it. I also wondered if it would work on HN. Is there a limit on the number of times you can edit a title on HN? Obviously there isn't on Youtube, which I find quite surprising.
I really liked this video, it highlights that a lot of software we write is ephemeral and will one day either be retired or stop working. The frequently updating title thing is cute, it'll be interesting to see what dies first - YouTube pulling the "title update API" or Tom's script running wherever he's put it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same here. However I think that the way he is communicating information in this video is meant to capture your attention not just now, but when this video is visited months or years from now. It will be very cool for viewers to stumble across this video when it doesn't work, effectively proving his point.
My guess is it's more likely some YouTube employees hacked around this as a show of "support" for YouTubers?