Live data from Hacker News

Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times

slate.me

81–90 of 147 posts

Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times

#81
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are clear reasons why not everyone is an artist, patience and endurance is are a huge part of it.

Don't mistake patience and endurance for skill.

I'd say they're highly correlated. How else do you obtain skill?

Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times

#82
post #50
post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

re-encoding an mp3 doesn't do much Sure it does, typically. It’s no different from video in this way: ideally, all of the image features that would get thrown out were thrown out the first time, but the codec isn’t that smart. Most implementations of lossy compression algorithms don’t have stability under re-encoding as a goal. (A few do – some image editors are smart about passing through unchanged JPEG blocks, for…

Why hypothesize? Create a directory. Copy your favorite MP3 into it as both "source.mp3" and "orig.mp3". (orig.mp3 is just for convenient comparison later.) Then: for i in {1..100}; do lame source.mp3 dest.mp3; mv -f dest.mp3 source.mp3; done Then listen to the resulting "source.mp3" at the end. Send whatever params to lame you want in that command line, though the defaults strike me as pretty good for this test. BTW…

So I tried it. The biggest problem is that it gets quieter each pass. Not sure why. I tried adding --noreplaygain but it didn't help.

The quality seemed to preserve OK, but as the signal get quieter and quieter the noise started becoming more obvious.

Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times

#83
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

while I dont particularly understand the parent comment about people looking down on modern artists for being inefficient, they certainly didnt say they did so themselves, and even if they did it would in no way excuse this vitriolic hate filled reply. Since your account is brand new for this comment, you more than likely are aware this is the type of comment that gets an account banned, and hope that something is in…

Let me try again: Only a supremely self-involved, judgmental, narcissistic asshole would think it's appropriate to look down on others for having different ideas about how they want to spend the short time we get on this planet. Truly, it's hard to imagine how badly one's parents would have to fuck up to raise a child that thought that such sentiments were appropriate. Those who might look down upon others for engagi…

I think some people are rather contemptuous of individuals who brought art down to the standard of "simply a bunch of paints splattered on a canvas". So much so that it become indistinguishable from a mess.

I could even imagine a bunch of every-day normal freelance laborers cleaning an art gallery and accidentally throwing thousand of dollars worth of art piece simply because it is indistinguishable from a mess.

Art may be subjective, but people can perceive skills in the painting of a nude human figure. They cannot however, see anything in an art piece that are simply lines, colors, texture, with no forms whatsoever.

People like me and others will never be able to understand the extreme abstractionism that exists in art today and ages past. Art to me are nude painting, landscape, cartoons, and comics, not the silly cubism, the colors and the texture, or just a bunch of splattered paints.

Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times

#84
I wasn't familiar with the audio piece that inspired this so I downloaded the mp3 from http://www.ubu.com/sound/lucier.html . It turned out to be a nice background soundtrack for programming today.

Music with words usually distracts me when I'm working, but this didn't.

Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times

#85
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is pathetic, since it's possible to do a lossless (I mean not incrementally lossy) rotation of JPG's.

MS Windows (XP IIRC) used to warn you if you used the built in image rotation function for JPEGs that it was lossy. I've a feeling it was fixed in SP2 but I've not used MS Win for years so am not really sure.

Win Vista & 7 don't have this problem (just checked).

Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times

#86
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps, in addition to the artistic aspect of it, he wanted to educate people about what actually happens to video when it is sent to youtube. This is much more relatable than saying, "I wrote this shell script..." Also, having the log of all 1000 versions on youtube is interesting as well. The other thing about art is that time is usually not a large motivating factor...

He proved that point at #100, I guess. And you really think this as an art?

Not "an art", but certainly "art".

Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times

#87
Next time the topic of bandwidth caps comes up remember this guy. I don't want to knock his project but I think it illustrates a point that unlimited bandwidth and access to services tends to make people less concerned about using bandwidth efficiently.

Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times

#88

What's the difference between an artist and a Perl programmer? 364 days and 23 hours.

And the Perl programmer has disposable income and a girlfriend.

Well, let's not go overboard here...

Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times

#89
post #52
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i think products targeted at low income demographics are very much sold with a story. a kind of utilitarian "sensibleness" which facilitates contempt for more expensive products. why would advertisers neglect to exploit human psychology at all socioeconomic levels?

No, I'm pretty tomatoes are just sold as tomatoes. Produce is produce until you're trying to justify charging a multiplier of the base price.

Not "just sold as tomatoes", but "sold as just tomatoes". See the Sainsbury's Basics http://www.google.co.uk/images?q=sainsburys+basics brand - the story is that this is as basic as it can be, no cruft, implying better value, lower price.
Post reply on HN