Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Yt-dlp: External JavaScript runtime now required for full YouTube support

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 646 posts

Re: Yt-dlp: External JavaScript runtime now required for full YouTube support

#211

Post by demetris »

usrbinbash wrote: post #191
Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #51

I remember when QuickTime came out in 1991 and it was obvious to everyone that video should be copied, pasted and saved like any arbitrary data. It's absolutely insane to me how bad the user experience is with video nowadays, even video that's not encumbered by DRM or complex JavaScript clients.

> It's absolutely insane to me how bad the user experience is with video nowadays Has nothing to do with video per se. Normal embeddings, using the standard ` ` element and no unnecessary JS nonsense, still work the same way they did in the 90s: Right click the video and download it, it's a media element like any other. The reason why user experience is going to shite, is because turbocapitalism went to work on what…

The standard video element is really nice:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Reference/...

I have used it on a couple of client sites, and it works really well.

You can even add a thumbnail that shows before the video starts downloading/playing (the poster attribute). :-)

Re: Yt-dlp: External JavaScript runtime now required for full YouTube support

#212

Post by irthomasthomas »

psychoslave wrote: post #116
Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #51

I remember when QuickTime came out in 1991 and it was obvious to everyone that video should be copied, pasted and saved like any arbitrary data. It's absolutely insane to me how bad the user experience is with video nowadays, even video that's not encumbered by DRM or complex JavaScript clients.

Yes, I see Youtube going deep into enshitiffication. On my Macbook this morning with a FF-dev edition it just stopped to work this morning. Don't know if it's related to the fact I tried to install an extension to "force H264" on my Ubuntu box. On the latter fans started to go crazy as soon as I open a single youtube tab lately and a quick research led me there. Actually at this point the only thing that makes the go…

I've got a fresh install of endeavouros/arch and yt is horribly slow now. The upside is I've reduced my usage of the site.

Oh and it's not working at all on my desktop with the same setup, it's telling me to disable ad block. I'd rather give up yt.

Re: Yt-dlp: External JavaScript runtime now required for full YouTube support

#213

Post by morshu9001 »

Aurornis wrote: post #187
Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #51

I remember when QuickTime came out in 1991 and it was obvious to everyone that video should be copied, pasted and saved like any arbitrary data. It's absolutely insane to me how bad the user experience is with video nowadays, even video that's not encumbered by DRM or complex JavaScript clients.

> It's absolutely insane to me how bad the user experience is with video nowadays, even video that's not encumbered by DRM or complex JavaScript clients. The video experience for typical video files is great these days compared to the past. I think you may be viewing the past through rose colored glasses. For years it was a pain to deal with video because you had to navigate third party players (remember Real Player?…

That's if you weren't using a Mac

Re: Yt-dlp: External JavaScript runtime now required for full YouTube support

#214

Post by [deleted] »

Aurornis wrote: post #187
Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #51

I remember when QuickTime came out in 1991 and it was obvious to everyone that video should be copied, pasted and saved like any arbitrary data. It's absolutely insane to me how bad the user experience is with video nowadays, even video that's not encumbered by DRM or complex JavaScript clients.

> It's absolutely insane to me how bad the user experience is with video nowadays, even video that's not encumbered by DRM or complex JavaScript clients. The video experience for typical video files is great these days compared to the past. I think you may be viewing the past through rose colored glasses. For years it was a pain to deal with video because you had to navigate third party players (remember Real Player?…

[deleted]

Re: Yt-dlp: External JavaScript runtime now required for full YouTube support

#215

Post by scotty79 »

johnisgood wrote: post #185
cantor_S_drug wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are a digital hoarder. I have taken so many pics that I wouldn't even bother to look back that them (do we ever?) but Google memories is really a neat feature, it refreshes memories. I think you should run a similar service to refresh memory of your favourite videos like they are on speed dail.

Might sound stupid, but: differences between Google memories vs. Snapchat memories? Also my issue is that I would NEVER upload the photos I have on my hard drive due to privacy issues, but if I had a local model that could categorize photos and whatnot, that would be cool. I have over 10k screenshots / images. Many of them have text on it, so probably need OCR. > You are a digital hoarder. Is this meant to be negativ…

> Is this meant to be negative?

It didn't sound negative to me. I immediately associated it with people who obsessively recorded TV on VHS and their collections are now treasure troves of historic media not available from any other source. You do you.

Re: Yt-dlp: External JavaScript runtime now required for full YouTube support

#216

Post by morshu9001 »

Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #51

I remember when QuickTime came out in 1991 and it was obvious to everyone that video should be copied, pasted and saved like any arbitrary data. It's absolutely insane to me how bad the user experience is with video nowadays, even video that's not encumbered by DRM or complex JavaScript clients.

Around 2012?, I had some extension that forced YouTube videos to play with Quicktime in-browser, which was leaner. Original file, no conversion.

Re: Yt-dlp: External JavaScript runtime now required for full YouTube support

#217

Post by Tabular-Iceberg »

littlestymaar wrote: post #184
throwaway94275 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1991 was the vibrant, exciting, crazy "adolescence" of the PC age and well into the period where it was cool to have a desktop PC and really learn about it. Phones are dominant now and have passed the PC generation by - in number, not capability. The concept of copy/paste/save for arbitrary data lives on for the non-tech masses only in the form of screenshots and screen recording features.

long press -> save image/video is perfectly supported on a phone, it's just content diffusion platform that arbitrarily restrict it.

No, it's also iOS that's arbitrarily restricting it. I opened a bare .webm directly in Safari and got nothing on long press and nothing in any of the control widgets to save it.

Re: Yt-dlp: External JavaScript runtime now required for full YouTube support

#218

Post by Wowfunhappy »

embedding-shape wrote: post #95

Seems its already in Arch's repositories, and seems to work, just add another flag to the invocation: yt-dlp --cookies-from-browser firefox --remote-components ejs:github -f "bestvideo[ext=mp4]+bestaudio[ext=m4a]/best[ext=mp4]/best" 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXX' It is downloading a solver at runtime, took maybe half a second in total, downloads are starting way faster than before it seems to me. [youtube] [js…

What environment are you using that: - Has access to Youtube - Can run Python code - Can’t run JS code

If the concern is security, it sounds like the team went to great lengths to ensure the JS was sandboxed (as long as you’re using Deno).

If you’re using some sort of weird OS or architecture that Deno/Node doesn’t support, you might consider QuickJS, which is written in pure C and should work on anything. (Although it will be a lot slower, I’m not clear just how slow.) Admittedly, you then loose the sandboxing, although IMO it seems like it should safe to trust code being served by Google on the official Youtube domain. (You don’t have to trust Google in general to trust that they won’t serve you actual malware.)

Re: Yt-dlp: External JavaScript runtime now required for full YouTube support

#219

Post by Forgeties79 »

crazygringo wrote: post #131
Forgeties79 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>within any reasonably predictable future timeframe I think given the pace of technological advancement and given how every generation we see at least one major piece of electronics completely wipe out generations of predictions, this statement doesn’t serve a productive purpose other than to make “I don’t agree” sound like some variation of “it’s an objective fact that what you said is impossible.” You’re just spiki…

> It’s not that far fetched. That's what I'm disagreeing with. Your scenario is far-fetched. This isn't between two comparably plausible scenarios. You can look at current objective trends of desktop/laptop sales and see they're not moving such that they're going to meaningfully disappear to the extent where a popular site like YouTube would remove support. It's absolutely far-fetched. I'm not "spiking" any conversat…

I’m not too proud to admit that I am way out on a limb and probably wrong. I’m just kind of musing and thinking out loud about a broader question. I don’t mind you disagreeing, I don’t mind being wrong, but I don’t know man…maybe try and ease off the gas a bit?

Re: Yt-dlp: External JavaScript runtime now required for full YouTube support

#220

Post by johnisgood »

scotty79 wrote: post #215
johnisgood wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might sound stupid, but: differences between Google memories vs. Snapchat memories? Also my issue is that I would NEVER upload the photos I have on my hard drive due to privacy issues, but if I had a local model that could categorize photos and whatnot, that would be cool. I have over 10k screenshots / images. Many of them have text on it, so probably need OCR. > You are a digital hoarder. Is this meant to be negativ…

> Is this meant to be negative? It didn't sound negative to me. I immediately associated it with people who obsessively recorded TV on VHS and their collections are now treasure troves of historic media not available from any other source. You do you.

Yeah, I still have a VHS collection of cartoons I used to watch as a kid.

It did not sound particularly negative to me either, but if it was, I wonder why.

Post reply on HN