141–150 of 163 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is amazing.
Would've been, once. These days I assume bentcorner asked their favourite LLM to generate a poem parodying Ozymandias about once-popular youtube videos.
I may have gotten incredibly neurotic about online text since 2022.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would've been, once. These days I assume bentcorner asked their favourite LLM to generate a poem parodying Ozymandias about once-popular youtube videos.
or you could get over it and still enjoy it anyway. Like how Coke Zero tastes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course videos disappear for copyright, ToS violations, or when the uploaders remove them. They do not disappear just because nobody watched them.
There’s a whole activity around discovering random 15 year old videos with almost no views. It’s usually some random home video
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would've been, once. These days I assume bentcorner asked their favourite LLM to generate a poem parodying Ozymandias about once-popular youtube videos.
or you could get over it and still enjoy it anyway. Like how Coke Zero tastes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a channel with 2 million videos: https://www.youtube.com/@RoelVandePaar/videos One with 4 million videos: https://www.youtube.com/@NameLook
NameLook puts a whole new meaning to "low effort videos"
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/mrOXqgShzI0
This shit is the reason I can't afford a new HDD.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That great commons that are the multi trillion dollar corporations that could buy multiple countries? They sure worry about the commons when launching another datacenter to optimize ads.
no the "commons" in this case is the fundamental free-ness of YT - if abused then any corporations will have to shut it down... OTOH I'm 100.0% sure that google has a plan, been expecting this for years and in particular, has prior experience from free Gmail accounts being used for storage.
Looking at the Wikipedia page for "Commons" [0] the first meaning of commons "accessible to all members of a society" is not really true, unless "on the whim of the YT platform". The second meaning of "natural resources that groups of people (communities, user groups) manage for individual and collective benefit" is also not really true. There is no understanding that google will take any other than their own benefit into account. The third meaning of commons on that page is closest I guess to what is needed:
> Commons can also be defined as a social practice of governing a resource not by state or market but by a community of users that self-governs the resource through institutions that it creates.
And that is certainly not what Youtube can be considered to be. Youtube videos are not in the commons, but kept on a proprietary platform where the proprietor is the sole decider what happens to its availability there.
YouTube is not a place you expect your data will persist. It can disappear, unavailable for any period of time. But if you don’t care if your data is available, why bother with this thing? This is one of those seemingly “smart” but actually dumb idea.
Your comment seems very sad to me. If you want your data to be safe, you could use physical storage though, and save the data there, on redundant physical hard disks in distributed locations, in various encodings.
You could also try to add even more redundancy by using an audio track with the bit sequences as spoken words combined with a video track that is resilient to low-bandwidth encoding, for example a news show where every segment takes place in front of an info graphic representing one or two bytes per segment. Could be a giant pie chart for variable-precision floating point numbers or a giant still frame of an alphabumeric character to represent raw bytes.
Add some enganging current events to the coverage to make sure the videos stay relevant.
Use large fonts to keep them resilient to video compression.
Combine YouTube, Twitch, Vimeo and at least two disk storage arrays to get five-nines enterprise-grade reliability.
The overhead for encoding and decoding is easily outweighed by the cost-neutral added redundancy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That may be, but I assume for videos that had some viewership base, there may be a consideration. E. g. if a video was viewed 20 million times, it may be worth more than one that was viewed only 5 times.
I've stumbled upon very valuable content with very low view numbers - the algorithms spiral around spectacularity and provocation, not quality or insight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The framing here is really weird. The volume of videos increasing isn't 'growth.' Videos are inventory for Youtube. They're only good when people (without adblocks!) actually watch them.
Yes. a video no one watches is a waste of storage.