111–120 of 316 posts
There are even Word files I've found that have complete file path notation to ZIP files.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a tangent. I must have been maybe 15-16 at the time, so somewhere around 20 years ago: One of the first pieces of software I remember building was a POP3 server that served files, that you could download using an email client where they would show up as attachments. Incredibly bizarre idea. I'm not sure who I thought would benefit from this. I guess I got swept up in RFC1939 and needed to build... something.
apparently e-mail is not much reliable for storing/keeping files. there have been cases where an old email with an attachment would not load correctly because the servers just erased the attachment file.
Actually caused some problems for email clients, as they usually assumed emails were small. I got a few of them to crash with 200 Mb "attachments" (although this was in the early 00s, 200Mb was bigger than it is today).
How much data can you store if you embedded a picture-in-picture file over a 10 minute video? I could totally see content creators who do tutorials embedding project files in this way.
Yeah seems way easier than adding a link in the description
Could youtube-dlp and YouTube Vanced now be hosted on.. YouTube? I wonder how long it'd take for Google to crack down on the system abuse. Is it really abuse if the videos are viewable / playable? Presumably the ToS either already forbids covert channel encoding or soon will.
Probably breaks TOS under video spam
How will you prevent youtube from re-encoding the video and data getting thrashed?
How much data can you store if you embedded a picture-in-picture file over a 10 minute video? I could totally see content creators who do tutorials embedding project files in this way.
4096 x 2160 x 24 x 60 is your theoretical max in bits/second, 127 billion.
Assume that to counter YouTube's compression we need 16x16 blocks of no more than 256 colors and 15 keyframes/second; that reduces it to
256 * 135 * 8 * 15 = 4.1 million bits/sec.
That's not too awful. Ten minutes of this would get you about 300MB of data, which itself might be compressed.
Would be neater (and much more efficient) to encode the data such that it's exactly untouched by the compression algorithm, e.g. by encoding the data in wavelets and possibly motion vectors that the algorithm is known to keep[1].
Of course that would also be a lot of work, and likely fall apart once the video is re-encoded.
[1] If that's what video encoding still does, I really have no idea, but you get the point.
Does YouTube store and stream all videos losslessly? How does this work otherwise?
No, YouTube is not lossless. The video that is created in the example in the README is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fmm1AeYmbNU We can see that data is encoded as "pixels" that are quite large, being made up of many actual pixels in the video file. I see quite bad compression artifacts, yet I can clearly make out the pixels that would need to be clear to read the data. It looks like the video was uploaded at 720p…
Turns out any site that allows users to submit and retrieve data can be abused in the same way: - FacebookDrive: "Store files as base64 facebook posts" - TwitterDrive: "Store files as base64 tweets" - SoundCloudDrive: "Store files as mp3 audio" - WikipediaDrive: "Store files in wikipedia article histories"
I wonder if access permissions would be easier to maintain using Facebook...