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

Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

javoriuski.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 436 posts

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#311

Post by autoexec »

c-hendricks wrote: post #173
t-3 wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want pop ups, ads, cookies, gdpr nagging, tracking pixels, autoplaying videos or malicious exploits. If those are the requirements of the world to read a basic article, then fuck the world!

I hear you, but only 2 of those things require JavaScript.

none of them require JS, but that's how they're most commonly deployed. Getting rid of most of the worst things a website will typically force on you is a massive benefit when all it takes is a couple of clicks to whitelist the good websites.

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#312

Post by autoexec »

c-hendricks wrote: post #97
zahlman wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With JavaScript disabled I had to inspect page source and remove "hidden" attributes from divs for content to show up. There's no placeholder text, no attempt to justify the need for JS at all, no consideration of the possibility that someone might be using a JS whitelisting tool (such as NoScript) on the modern Web despite its clear utility. For a blog post. Aside from that: > Descriptive title, immediately comes to…

I really feel like this genre of comment should fall under this "don't" from the HN guidelines: > Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting. You're willingly disabling a part of web atandards.

> You're willingly disabling a part of web atandards.

HN seems like the perfect place to talk about shitty web standards, shitty uses/implementations of them, and the negative impacts they're having on users in the wild. Solutions and workarounds should be welcome too.

There are lots of shitty things that are more common than they should be in this world, but those are the things we should be talking about and calling out when we see them. What good would it ever do anyone to just shut up about them?

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#313

Post by thi2 »

NamTaf wrote: post #149
Mg6yDfjp5U wrote: post #10

I recently left Google having worked on a number of projects with various YouTube teams. I think I can explain why it's being handled this way by YouTube. This is a fairly nuanced/involved issue, so the task of classifying the bug likely made it's way to one of the engineers responsible for the implementation of this feature. That engineer has already launched this project, and filed it away under their GRAD (perform…

[flagged]

> This is a prime example of why programmers are not seriously considered engineers.

Jumping to a pretty general conclusion there. Incentive packages like the parent described are not the norm.

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#314

Post by abustamam »

chucksmash wrote: post #307
nwallin wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honestly it’s hard to refute the fact that we need roads and houses more than we need cat videos. If the software made by my company ceased to exist, every government in the US, federal, state, and municipal, every construction company, plus most governments worldwide would be unable to build roads or houses until they were able to cobble together a replacement. The entire world runs on software. Software controls…

Your company's software enhances the process somehow, making it easier or faster or cheaper. Your company's software did not unlock the technology of road building. There were roads built before your company's software and I'm sure if your company disappeared that ultimately roads would get built with or without their software. It would be interesting to look at all the technological advances of the last 60 years and…

It's fun to do it forwards too (ie all recent technological advances that could be category a where society cannot live without it or category b where society is like meh or even category c where soecity utterly collapses because of it).

The internet as a whole can arguably be all three at the same time.

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#315

Post by Sophira »

zahlman wrote: post #105
c-hendricks wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really feel like this genre of comment should fall under this "don't" from the HN guidelines: > Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—e.g. article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting. You're willingly disabling a part of web atandards.

The web really doesn't, and shouldn't, depend on these things. I use a JavaScript whitelisting tool, so that I can allow JavaScript on pages where it's merited, when the trust for that functionality has been earned. Nowadays it's used for things that have been possible in plain HTML for decades. In this case, text has been added to HTML that causes otherwise visible text not to display, presumably so that it can fade…

I get around this by pairing JavaScript allowlisting with custom CSS and userscripts. I shouldn't have to, though.

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#316

Post by abustamam »

ruined wrote: post #254
vintagedave wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An example of prejudice? What an extraordinary statement. It’s an example of ethical, competent, responsible professionalism. The ‘incentive structure’ is non-financial and based on the ethics of valuing other humans. This is a professional duty. To even call it a ‘incentive structure’ feels like it’s missing the point.

consequences like delicensing, and civil or criminal liability, are all significantly financial. the ethical objectives are supported by disincentives, offsetting the financial incentives to misbehave. and none of that exists in software engineering (yet).

While I do think there needs to be regulation of some sort for SWEs, I can't fathom how it'd be enforced. Non-coders can use replit to build whatever they want and sell it to whomever they want. That kind of scale doesn't exist in the physical world.

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#317

Post by mardifoufs »

NamTaf wrote: post #149
Mg6yDfjp5U wrote: post #10

I recently left Google having worked on a number of projects with various YouTube teams. I think I can explain why it's being handled this way by YouTube. This is a fairly nuanced/involved issue, so the task of classifying the bug likely made it's way to one of the engineers responsible for the implementation of this feature. That engineer has already launched this project, and filed it away under their GRAD (perform…

[flagged]

The issue is a bit more nuanced. Where I live, software engineering is regulated in the same way civil engineering is. The main difference is that you don't usually need an engineer to sign off for software projects, but I dont see a big difference between PE certified projects and those that are more "agile". And we aren't some sort of SWE quality haven either.

Generally speaking i agree that we need better control over titles and competence but youtube is still an incredibly massive engineering achievement as a platform, has been extremely reliable all things considered, and it's been mostly built by people without those certifications or regulations.

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#318

Post by hiyfsch »

john01dav wrote: post #260
hiyfsch wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[dead]

> Honestly it’s hard to refute the fact that we need roads and houses more than we need cat videos. Software does more than cat videos. Examples that may be relevant: - CAD and simulation tools that physical world engineers use - telecommunications (not just programmers, but programmers are vital for the current ultra-cheap generation) - CT and MRI data processing - alphafold - scheduling systems for universities and…

I do realize this and the cat video mention was really me being facetious.

And honestly software engineers don’t need roads anyway working a tough four-day work week with long commute into the basement.

Jokes aside, innovation comes at a price. Every great thing will be turned into a weapon so just wait until the alpha-fold mutants start crawling out of a nearby sewage treatment plant.

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#319

Post by thi2 »

carl_dr wrote: post #99
dfxm12 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's ultimately Google's responsibility to ship bug free products. I don't care who implements a fix, but Google management should make sure someone fixes it.

No, it’s really not, it’s none of our jobs to do that. It’s our job to make our employer (even if you are your own employer) money. It’s incredibly rare you have the luxury of even trying to deliver bug free code, let alone achieve it.

> It’s incredibly rare you have the luxury of even trying to deliver bug free code, let alone achieve it.

What? Every company I worked for wished for bug free code. Mistakes happen but there was no acceptance for yolo-ship features.

Re: Leaking YouTube creators' private videos

#320

Post by abustamam »

rvba wrote: post #222
fathermarz wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a fine line. YouTube is not critical software and no one’s life depends on the safety (putting mental health aside) of the code running. Some software engineers do however write code that is critical, but to your point, I don’t think they are ever considered liable. I went through an acquisition as a Canadian software developer getting acquired by an American company. They wanted us to be called engi…

I disagree. People's lives depend on money earned from youtube.

People's lives depend on money earned from lots of things, criminal and otherwise.
Post reply on HN