[HN Gopher] IMG_0416
___________________________________________________________________
IMG_0416
Author : bewal416
Score : 2000 points
Date : 2024-11-10 20:45 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (ben-mini.github.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (ben-mini.github.io)
| renewiltord wrote:
| This is genuinely amazing. The complete lack of editing. And
| strangely some of the videos were allowed to have copyrighted
| content in the background (meaning ContentID wasn't live or
| hasn't been retroactively applied) really sells the scene. Like,
| the last one has Taio Cruz's Dynamite playing in the background.
| Amazing. The Ea-Nasir Tablet of our time.
| pavlov wrote:
| For me, the YouTube embed player wants a login:
|
| "Sign in to confirm you're not a bot."
|
| (iPhone Safari)
|
| The Ea-Nasir tablet is in a museum, but at least I can see
| pictures of it without giving my personal information to a
| multi-trillion dollar corporation.
| jervant wrote:
| Do you use iCloud Private Relay? YouTube gives that message
| and Google requires a CAPTCHA for web searches very often
| when iCloud Private Relay is enabled.
| pavlov wrote:
| No, I don't have that enabled.
| Tiberium wrote:
| >allowed to have copyrighted content in the background
|
| I might be wrong in your specific case, but generally YouTube
| doesn't just remove videos with copyrighted audio. Often
| copyright holders instead make it so that the video with their
| songs will have ads and they'll receive all the ad revenue.
|
| https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7002106?hl=en
|
| "Depending on the copyright owner's Content ID settings,
| Content ID claims can:
|
| - Block content from being viewed.
|
| - Monetize content by running ads on it and sometimes sharing
| revenue with the uploader.
|
| - Track the viewership statistics on the content.
|
| Any of these actions can be geography-specific. For example, a
| video can be monetized in one country/region and blocked or
| tracked in a different country/region."
| sailfast wrote:
| When this happens don't you typically also see the track
| registered at the bottom? ContentID took them a long time to
| develop if I'm remembering right.
| carlos-menezes wrote:
| > However, this two-click upload feature was short-lived when
| Apple severed ties Apple severed ties with YouTube by removing
| its homegrown app in 2012.
|
| "Apple severed ties" repeats.
| moffkalast wrote:
| Time Cook doesn't wear ties. Coincidence? I think not!
| bewal416 wrote:
| Thanks! Gonna fix this later tonight
| veidelis wrote:
| It worked, I guess - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y31wZNbbrUI
| Affric wrote:
| Beautiful.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| There were a time when you could had a 8" tablet on Win8 with
| People app having a feed from Instagram, Facebook, Linkedin and
| something else too (Twitter?)
|
| In a mere months it was gutted on every side and Windows tablets
| (rspecially 8" favour) gone the way of DoDo
| mardef wrote:
| That was the remnants of windows phone. The people app would
| automatically sync all of their social accounts for a person.
|
| As Microsoft moved more of those apps out of the inbox image
| and to the store, the functionality slowly stopped working.
|
| The sunset of windows phone ended the rest of those features.
| justsomehnguy wrote:
| Yes but my feel (at the time, by the sources slowly dropping
| and degrading the functionality) it wasn't MS who slowly
| strangled that functionality. Do you have any articles on
| that? I'm really interested on what ecactly happened that
| time and considering the whole Nokia debacle...
| toast0 wrote:
| Whatever Microsoft was doing, it's also the case that the
| social apps pulled back the APIs, as they wanted to own the
| feed views and push recommendations over chronological
| view. When Cambridge Analytica hit the news media, that was
| a nail in the coffin of open social APIs, but they were
| already dead.
| mastazi wrote:
| The website http://astronaut.io/ does a similar thing but for
| recent videos, and not just from iPhones. From the home page:
|
| > These videos come from YouTube. They were uploaded in the last
| week and have titles like DSC 1234 and IMG 4321. They have almost
| zero previous views. They are unnamed, unedited, and unseen (by
| anyone but you).
|
| At one point you might be at a school recital in Malaysia, and
| the next minute you are at a birthday in Ecuador. It's amazing!
| Elfener wrote:
| For those using firefox's autoplay blocker,
| http://astronaut.io/ doesn't work at all unless you whitelist
| it.
| folmar wrote:
| Works for me (current ESR on Linux).
| mastazi wrote:
| It works if you use the default autoplay blocker setting
| ("block audio"). Probably you are using the setting "block
| audio and video" as default (I use that too) and in our case
| we have to whitelist it.
| mikae1 wrote:
| There were a bunch of subreddits based on obscure videos with
| default filenames.
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/IMGXXXX/
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| There is / was also r/DeepIntoYoutube which was dedicated to
| good videos that only had a handful of views.
|
| It reminds me of this grandma that played Skyrim for ages but
| never had any views, but thanks to one of these discover
| pages, she got a following of tens of thousands.
| qznc wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirley_Curry
|
| Seems like she retired recently.
| ljoshua wrote:
| I love astronaut.io! Open it in an incognito window so that
| your YouTube watch history doesn't get too crazy.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| Or maybe its a good way to reset it
| hanspeter wrote:
| If I visit Youtube without being logged in, all I see is
| junk.
|
| Why would a regular user of YouTube ever want to reset
| their watch history?
| prmoustache wrote:
| why would you stay logged on all the time?
| ruthmarx wrote:
| > At one point you might be at a school recital in Malaysia,
| and the next minute you are at a birthday in Ecuador. It's
| amazing!
|
| The same as if you just used a website or extension to play
| random youtube videos?
| mastazi wrote:
| > play random youtube videos?
|
| I feel like that would result in a lot more "hey guys don't
| forget to like and subscribe" type of videos.
| kube-system wrote:
| Probably not unless they're weighted by popularity. There's
| a very long tail of content on YouTube. Most videos are
| viewed by nobody.
| AI_beffr wrote:
| if anyone know the person who maintains that site or if that
| person reads this: this site would be massively improved if the
| speed of the ISS footage playing in the background were simply
| slowed down a little. right now it gives this feeling of
| rocketing forward which is a very different vibe from the
| premise of the site. the user should float slowly to emphasize
| the thoughtful nature of the activity and enjoy the sensation
| of watching the world go by.
| albert_e wrote:
| I just opened it in incognito in Chrome on Android
|
| noticed that the YouTube videos continue playing without
| interruption even when I switch to another tab or minimize
| chrome altogether and switch to another app.
|
| how can we harness this power to play our favorite audio tracks
| in background (without any ads to boot ... shhh don't tell
| Google)
|
| I also notice that the website triggers a browser warning when
| loading that it is not secure.
| jraph wrote:
| There are browsers extensions for this. I can't recommend one
| because I don't use this anymore. On Android this would mean
| using Firefox or another browser allowing extensions. Or you
| can give a YouTube address to MPV with the --no-video
| parameter. Or use NewPipe or one of its forks and open the
| YouTube kink with it in audio only mode. Or use invidious,
| but this last option is harder and harder to use. Or yt-dlp
| -x to download the audio of course.
| shawnz wrote:
| Background playback just works with Firefox on Android with
| no extensions required.
| miki123211 wrote:
| There was an iOS app that used to let you do this; it would
| play music via Youtube embeds in a hidden web view, exposing
| its own UI for all the functionality you'd expect from a
| music streaming app.
|
| Whether this was legal is... a gray area, it was a somewhat
| legitimate company that won some kind of Canadian startup
| contest on TV, but the music industry was, very predictably,
| furious at their business model.
|
| Eventually, Apple got scared enough of being sued along with
| them that they caved in and removed the app, but that took
| far longer than I thought it would.
|
| There's a good article at https://torrentfreak.com/apple-
| removes-parasitic-streaming-a...
| wongarsu wrote:
| On Android you can use NewPipe for a similar experience.
| For obvious reasons it's not on Google's Play Store, but
| you can get it from F-Droid or Github.
| mxmilkiib wrote:
| The Tubular fork of NewPipe is worth noting,
| https://github.com/polymorphicshade/Tubular n a Revanced
| patched YT app would also work.
| l3x4ur1n wrote:
| I use Brave android. No ads and I can close phone or do
| anything on it and the video will be playing with no problem
| bionoid wrote:
| I use Video Background Play Fix [1] (along with uBlock of
| course). "Firefox for Android can continue playing video even
| if you switch to another tab or app. However, sites can
| detect these user actions with the Page Visibility API and
| the Fullscreen API. This add-on is designed to block events
| and properties exposed by the APIs."
|
| [1] https://github.com/mozilla/video-bg-play
| aryonoco wrote:
| Many ways to do that on Android. NewPipe or its fork Tubular,
| Clipious, LibreTube, or host a local instance of Invidious or
| ViewTube and access them using the browser.
|
| F-Droid and the ability to still run software outside of
| Google's walled garden is the last remaining reason
| preventing me from switching to iPhone. I've tried Yattee on
| iOS and it's okay on Apple TV but seriously doesn't come
| close to the power of Tubular on Android.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| There's something magical when one location becomes the default
| for something. A site like this would be impossible if YouTube
| wasn't _the_ place for videos.
|
| It's why I'm sad that we no longer have one obvious default for
| microblogging. It was such a rich source of thoughts. That's
| all gone now.
| paledot wrote:
| And the former default is no longer developer friendly. (Or
| friendly to anyone else, really.)
| a1o wrote:
| I can't tell if this trail of talk is about Tumblr,
| Blogger, or something else - idnk, does anyone else
| remembers Astroatlas?
| Wingy wrote:
| I'm pretty sure they're referring to Twitter.
| briandear wrote:
| Twitter still exists. Renamed. Same exact thing. You can
| create an account and post whatever random things you
| want. Some people might follow you. Some might not. If
| you see something that makes you sad, you can block the
| person who posted the sad thing.
| staplers wrote:
| It's a walled garden. Unless you are logged into an
| account it's basically a private network.
| lenkite wrote:
| All social media have to be walled gardens or be free-
| prey for ravenous AI bots. Evolution at work.
| danieldk wrote:
| _or be free-prey for ravenous AI bots_
|
| Have you recently been on X?
| latexr wrote:
| I think your parent comment is talking about AI bots
| _consuming_ the content, while you seem to be making a
| point about AI bots _posting_ content.
| darkwater wrote:
| There are thousands of bluecheck AI bots that just copy-
| paste/regurgitate or just make up stupid content and post
| it continuously to get engagement views and money.
|
| It is really worse than before.
| mavhc wrote:
| Why are you following them?
| Uehreka wrote:
| You don't need to follow someone to see their content.
| When you open the app the default timeline is the "For
| You" one. Sometimes you don't even notice that the app
| has switched back to "For You", X definitely doesn't
| really want you staying on the "Following" tab.
| 5040 wrote:
| The regurgitated content is often in the form of comments
| in popular threads.
| drusepth wrote:
| "Popular" tweets (of which these bot accounts often fall
| into, because they're propped up by bot responses and
| engagement farming) are pushed into your feed even if
| you're not following (or engaging) with them.
| hmry wrote:
| "no longer developer friendly" referring to them re-
| pricing their API to make aggregating data for fun
| monetarily infeasible.
| danieldk wrote:
| Not just aggregating data for fun. It made third-party
| clients like Tweetbot impossible. Similar to non-
| old.reddit.com, the web interface has been crappy for a
| pretty long time, but was easily worked around by using
| better clients.
|
| No more.
| latexr wrote:
| > Same exact thing.
|
| It very much is not. No third-party clients; can't see
| threads without an account; owner inserting himself and
| his ideology at the centre; fewer and less diverse
| participating people; diminished trust in the platform;
| more spam; different verification rules... _Even the
| character limit is different._
| walthamstow wrote:
| Even blocking has changed!
| eru wrote:
| Probably Twitter? Tumblr and Blogger were for regular
| blogging, not micro-blogging.
| johtso wrote:
| Youtube certainly isn't developer friendly.. their APIs
| have very strict limits that often force people to go down
| the scraping route
| hoseja wrote:
| Oh you'll be back.
| adr1an wrote:
| We don't need centralization for this. Federated protocols
| like mastodon have friendlier APIs than some of the most
| popular walled gardens of today...
| xattt wrote:
| Discovery sucks, though.
| fsflover wrote:
| Just like in the Internet?
| culi wrote:
| it's getting better
| JasserInicide wrote:
| Mastodon is a walled garden
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| I don't see why a site like this couldn't search one or more
| of the top video sites if there was healthy competition.
| 0134340 wrote:
| Found Footage Festival on Youtube does the same thing. They
| have fans of the show "mine" for img's and submit
| interesting/weird/funny ones. It's part of their bi-weekly
| shows where they review weird and interesting VHS tapes and old
| public access shows.
| albert_e wrote:
| It would be very interesting to get a view of the source code
| for such a site. There are other interesting ideas that could
| be done by mixing videos selected using other filters etc.
|
| By any chance is this or similar on github :)
| cypherpunks01 wrote:
| https://github.com/wonga00/astronaut
|
| I remember looking through the code awhile ago, it's nice and
| simple!
|
| Uses socket.io w node.js + express, a crawler script searches
| YT periodically to keep the videos fresh. The server iterates
| randomly through the video list, telling all clients through
| socket.io which video is next, and when to switch.
| sharpshadow wrote:
| I can imagine that it gets boring really quickly to skim
| through random untitled YouTube uploads. Maybe back then when
| YT did have a weak filter and initially waved through the
| videos there could have been something worth finding.
|
| Would be cool to see some statistics on how many videos over
| the years get removed with each new protection and censorship
| update. For example the latest medical disinformation campaign
| not only forces creators to avoid certain words completely, but
| also flagged and deleted pre-existing videos.
|
| It's sad and dangerous that any topic could get forbidden and
| erased not allowed to keep a history. The Internet Archive is
| unfortunately a target now and efforts are being taken to
| undermine it partly. It's already a thing to have records
| deleted from the archive which should be the most worse thing
| when your whole concept is to archive.
|
| I strongly suggest IA mirrors around the world in various
| countries with different legislations so that the censorship of
| each country is not reflected in the IA mirror of the other.
| MarioMan wrote:
| >It's already a thing to have records deleted from the
| archive which should be the most worse thing when your whole
| concept is to archive.
|
| IA doesn't delete archives, they merely make them
| inaccessible. Perhaps that's a distinction without a
| difference in the near-term, but it means things like
| copyrighted content will be republished after copyright
| expires.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Feels like an Adam Curtis documentary.
| rwmj wrote:
| http://www.insecam.org/ is another fun one. Random unsecured
| security cameras from around the world.
| yapyap wrote:
| Insecam is truly a pearl among websites, when you're in your
| feels at 3 am on a random (work)day and then you can look at
| somewhere at the opposite side of the world that's already
| going through the day, maybe it's already noon there or
| something.
|
| The vibes hit different
| casenmgreen wrote:
| This site has the cookie permissions dialog which has "reject
| all", but I think this rejects only the "opt-in" cookies.
|
| The "legitimate interest" cookies, which are equally
| comprehensive but are on a different tab, are not rejected by
| this, and to reject them you have to turn each one of them
| off by hand, scrolling down a massive list.
|
| If you select "reject all", the dialog instantly closes, I
| think with the legitimate interest cookies all in use - but I
| can't check, because I know of no way to get the dialog back
| up again, which is why I'm saying "I think".
|
| When sites pop this one up, I leave - and notably, The
| Register, the UK news site, started using it a year or so
| ago.
| newaccount74 wrote:
| Do you think that websites really don't track you if you
| switch all the toggles?
| NavinF wrote:
| I enabled the uBlock Origin Annoyances filter to block most
| of those cookie popups. It's not enabled by default.
| Clicking "reject all" has no practical effect on my
| privacy. If I wanted to keep something secret, I'd use e2e
| encryption instead of making websites do a pinkie promise
| AlfredBarnes wrote:
| What a lovely idea!
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| Lots of digital cameras use an incrementing number in the
| filename. If you ignore the prefix part, I wonder what is the
| most commonly uploaded filename number for photos and videos?
| dylan604 wrote:
| IMG_XXXX is actually a standard for digital cameras
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_rule_for_Camera_File_sy...
|
| TFA, "Apple uses the 'IMG_XXXX' naming convention for all
| images and videos captured on iOS devices, where XXXX is a
| unique sequence number." isn't very accurate, as the numbers
| are not unique. They're just sequential. if you take 1001
| images, the file system will actually create a new folder and
| roll the digits back to 0000 to avoid overwriting
| bewal416 wrote:
| Thanks for fact-checking me on this. When writing this, I
| didn't consider what would happen on the 10,000th image. I
| will add an asterisk on this line!
| kalleboo wrote:
| Although as that link says, the prefix depends on the
| manufacturer. My Sony Mavica cameras have MVC_, newer Sony
| cameras are DSC0, my Fujifilm cameras have DSCF, I think IMG_
| is pretty unique to Apple
| dylan604 wrote:
| >I think IMG_ is pretty unique to Apple
|
| You'd be thinking wrong. Canon cameras also use the IMG_
| format. It's been a while since I've dealt with GoPros, but
| I'm pretty sure they are IMG_ as well.
|
| While it's nice to hold onto what you know from experience,
| extrapolating that to end-all-be-all knowledge is just not
| a good stance. Especially in the light of information from
| people with wider breadth of information.
| jsemrau wrote:
| Ah, this is where this comes from. There has been rumours flying
| around in Stable Diffusion / Flux circles that you would get much
| more realistic pictures when you include a photo id like
| IMG_0416.
| Sharlin wrote:
| I don't think it comes from these Youtube videos - Flickr and
| other photo upload services are a more likely source of
| training images with default file names.
| jsemrau wrote:
| Maybe its a combination of both.
| Sharlin wrote:
| It seems exceedingly unlikely to me that frames from random
| YouTube videos would have been used to train image
| generation models. First off, they're difficult to extract
| and second, the quality of individual video frames is very
| low, _especially_ if we 're talking about 15 year old phone
| videos at what, 480p at the very best!
| jsemrau wrote:
| You are probably right. I approached it from a high-value
| dataset perspective but would agree that fuzzy frames
| probably don't help much.
| aydyn wrote:
| Its not a rumor, you really do and you can try it out yourself.
| Unfortunately its very finnicky and you cant really leverage it
| to produce a realistic image of what you want since any further
| prompting seems to override it.
|
| Its like a ghost in the machine prompt.
| jsemrau wrote:
| Makes you wonder if its possible with the right seed,
| scheduler, and prompt to complete recreate the original.
| bewal416 wrote:
| Hey, OP here! This is my first ever HN post- I appreciate the
| warm reception.
|
| A couple hours after posting this on my site, I found this
| incredible vid of a woman telling her partner she's pregnant.
| Incredibly heartfelt, and only 16 views
| https://youtu.be/refKFdcojlE?si=l-PssLVYmmOPjjjA
|
| It was posted over 10 years ago. I wonder if the family even
| knows that this video still exists.
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| > Mar 14, 2014
|
| That kid will be 10 soon.
| pavlov wrote:
| Eleven in four months?
| meowster wrote:
| Presumably there are still about 9 months to go in that
| pregnancy before the child is born.
| lukan wrote:
| I always thought, that would make way more sense. But a
| bit harder to find exact dates probably ..
| kelnos wrote:
| Assuming it takes someone roughly 4-6 weeks to realize they
| are pregnant, the child was probably born in or around
| November 2014, and will be turning 10 in the next couple
| weeks.
|
| I suppose the woman filming the video could have taken much
| longer to realize (unlikely, but possible), or chose to
| wait to tell the father until several months later (also
| unlikely, but possible), but either way, the kid is turning
| 10 now-ish, not 11.
|
| It's also possible that this video was posted well after it
| was taken, in which case we can't say much about the age of
| the kid, except that it likely happened before this "Share
| to YouTube" functionality was removed from iOS.
| theandrewbailey wrote:
| Only if your culture measures age from conception instead
| of birth.
| dylan604 wrote:
| this is you why can't reuse calendars
| meowster wrote:
| I don't understand your comment.
|
| (By the way, presumably there are still about 9 months to
| go in that pregnancy before the child is born.)
| urbandw311er wrote:
| Why does he walk off at the end? Did he still not believe her
| do you think?
| adriand wrote:
| He also said, "My heart just dropped". That's a curious thing
| to say.
| averageRoyalty wrote:
| I guess as in 'dropped a beat'. The news was so surprising
| his heart stopped momentarily.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| It's the opposite, usually. "My heart dropped" is a sense
| of doom, foreboding, a realisation of oncoming cataclysm.
| Like 'as I saw the second plane come into view my heart
| dropped'.
|
| Of course, people don't use language in a consistent way,
| and people will use terms thinking they mean e.g. their
| antonym.
|
| It's probably a common initial reaction to learning of
| impending parenthood. Life will never be the same.
| Initially one might only see the looming challenge of the
| mountain to climb.
| JawsOfALion wrote:
| I was going to explain the way i saw it, but i erased it and
| decided it's probably best not to give my thoughts in case he
| or someone in his life came across the comments out of
| respect.
| aricooperdavis wrote:
| The first one I clicked on was similarly heartwarming - it's
| just a video of an ultrasound, zooming in on the heartbeat:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_N4rAauRvU
| smusamashah wrote:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/DeepIntoYouTube is a reddit sub to
| bring up videos like these.
| flpm wrote:
| This makes me hopeful, the internet can still be interesting when
| we manage to break away from the attention trap of infinite feed
| and the prepared content designed to optimize likes. Feels like
| the raw homepages of a long time ago.
| divbzero wrote:
| I love the potash game! That's hilarious.
| mikae1 wrote:
| There were a bunch of subreddits based on obscure videos with
| default filenames.
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/IMGXXXX/
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| A little bit tangent, and I'm definitely looking at it from rose
| colored glasses... but been playing with it for the 30 minutes,
| and most of the videos look so real? Like when you go on TikTok /
| Instagram nowadays, there are obviously unlimited amount of
| content. But there's this sense of everything being edited
| multiple times, people trying to create their own "brand",
| nothing looking real. It's a shame how we over-financialized
| everything and sucked out the fun. Or maybe I just got old.
|
| Side note, I'll also recommend people to look up "X city in 1990s
| / 2000s" on YouTube. San Francisco, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Toronto,
| London and etc. have cool slice of life content from people who
| were very into camcorders.
| andai wrote:
| I see parallels with this and RuneScape. Now it's all about
| efficiently grinding stats or flipping stuff on the exchange.
| Back in the day it was all about trimming armor and buying gf.
| durumu wrote:
| I think that has more to do with being a kid vs being an
| adult. Kids are probably still buying gfs on Roblox and
| Minecraft today (disclaimer: I have no idea what kids play
| these days lol)
| epcoa wrote:
| > I'm definitely looking at it from rose colored glasses
|
| It's not rose tinted glasses, it's just a poor comparison.
|
| The absolute vast majority of these videos have double digit if
| not _any_ views. You 're seeking them out, using a little quirk
| of naming and the poster's DGAFism. There is no pretense of
| promotion to a large audience or virality. Anything spoonfed
| you on a Tiktok or Instagram feed could not be more different.
| The default Youtube experience is the same as mass Tiktok.
| Moreover you can find plenty of similar material like this on
| Instagram and Tiktok if you go looking for it, that is after
| all what most people are using it for, bumming around with
| their friends. The algorithm isn't going to spoonfeed this to
| you, and obviously Youtube never did either.
| durumu wrote:
| I believe Reddit in particular actually has gotten much more
| optimized in the past 15 years. I don't think this is rose
| colored glasses, the content really is much more engaging and
| addictive, with more short form videos and content that can
| be understood immediately at a glance.
| epcoa wrote:
| This may be so, but I don't know how it counters the fact
| that there is more essentially unwatched and obscure
| content produced on these platforms than ever.
|
| And it's not like this particular content was once popular
| in the "good old days", the view counts are literally 0 in
| some cases.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| 2:30am at a 7-11 near Disney World - 1987
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYbe-35_BaA
| thedrexster wrote:
| The smoking is the most shocking part to me!
| beowulfey wrote:
| was about to post this myself. such a great example of this
| kawsper wrote:
| There's a 2014 update to that video made by the same people:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8n11y2lxrE
| mprast wrote:
| I was on tiktok in 2019/2020 and for a brief period it was just
| ordinary users messing around and posting whatever they felt
| like. No tiktok shop, very few ads or thinkpieces, nobody was
| trying to build an audience. A lot weirder and a lot more fun
| abixb wrote:
| Commercialization and infiltration of advertising-dollars-
| seeking "influencers" ruins social media sites.
|
| I miss the early days of the internet (and especially
| YouTube) so fucking much. I'm 28 now, and I've been online
| since 2009. I think 2009-2014 was the GOLDEN AGE of the
| internet for me, especially on YouTube.
| mprast wrote:
| yeah agreed. I don't think Cory Doctorow is right about
| everything but I think he was dead on with enshittification
| antod wrote:
| I'm old enough to have seen multiple golden ages / phases
| of the internet and was thinking about pointing out every
| era has one based on your age.
|
| But then again, I kinda suspect there's some deeper truth
| going on where your mentioned golden age might be one of
| the last though?
| abixb wrote:
| Yeah, the ubiquity of smartphones and the rise of
| Facebook and Instagram (post-acquisition) as an open
| platform for advertisers versus mostly for early
| adopters/enthusiasts really killed the "fun" of the
| internet.
|
| Also, I remember how many different frameworks and "rich
| internet application" technologies existed back then
| (Adobe Flash, Microsoft Silverlight, Apple QuickTime,
| etc.). In many ways, the internet was a much more diverse
| and a much more 'unpredictable' place back then.
| eCa wrote:
| > really killed the "fun" of the internet.
|
| The original eternal September[1] predates my entry to
| the internet by a couple of years, but the cycle repeats
| eternally.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_September
| antod wrote:
| Yeah, I'm of the same vintage. Never really felt eternal
| september impacted the newsgroups I frequented as they
| didn't appeal to AOLers, and felt it was exaggerated. But
| it feels real now with engagement metric following
| content creators and influencers, and the way platforms
| enable it now.
| 101008 wrote:
| For me it was 2003 to 2010. I said this multiple times, and
| it is that I'm working on a essay about qhy Internet was
| more enjoyable back then.
|
| But sometimes I think the only reason (or the main reason)
| is that I was a teenager. It isn't about internet, it is
| about the user and how they saw the worldwide at that
| time...
| tokioyoyo wrote:
| I'm a couple of years older, and I generally agree with
| you. But even up until 2016 it was generally tolerable.
| There was a point in time when every single social media
| changed from "you and your friends" to "you and the world".
| Which opened the hellscape of influencer and branding
| world. I'm not sure what exactly accelerated it -
| Facebook/IG going algo-view first, TikTok starting to get
| traction even when it was just a dancing app, or the entire
| A/B science. Oh well...
| Eisenstein wrote:
| What happened right around 2016 was a combination of the
| internet being weaponized in the political space and the
| destruction of of revenue for legacy media because of
| Facebook and Google and other walled systems which
| ingested their IP and served it to their users. This
| effectively made people paranoid of data that didn't
| immediately fit into their world view because the concept
| of any shared truth was shattered and at the same time it
| felt like everything and everyone on the internet was
| targeted to misinform you.
|
| The 'mainstream media' was never taken seriously by
| people savvy in the early tech spaces, so the loss of it
| didn't really hit us as particularly impactful. But that
| loss made it so that the 'mainstream' no longer had any
| 'ground truth' they could all fall back on that would be
| the arbiter of correct and incorrect information, and so
| truth became whatever felt most right to a person at the
| time.
|
| This of course has more to do with the people and culture
| you most identify with, rather than any kind of objective
| comparison of data, so groups looked more inwards and
| became ossified in dogma and refused to look at any other
| perspective in good faith. And here we are.
| com2kid wrote:
| I've been on the Internet since 1995.
|
| I remember the first banner ad!
|
| Wikipedia didn't exist. It was possible to run out of
| websites to visit. People were, in general, super friendly,
| aside from the trolls on AIM trying to crash other people's
| clients. (IRC was a separate place though, I mostly spent
| time on websites.)
|
| Forums had horrible UIs, the latency was awful. Compared to
| dial up BBSs that came before the user experience was much
| worse.
|
| Everything was authentic. People just doing stuff, posting
| about what they loved. Uploading art they made and photos
| they took. The barrier to entry was high (you needed to own
| a scanner and be able to figure out how to set it up!), but
| not so high that determined non-technical users couldn't
| muddle through and still make great things.
| usefulcat wrote:
| Same. For me, usenet was "social media", long before
| social media was a thing. I remember in college hanging
| out in a newsgroup for people looking for a pen pal, and
| later exchanging letters with someone on the other side
| of the country whom I never met in person.
|
| Pretty crude by today's standards, but also a lot more
| genuine and less risky. At that time there were a lot of
| people on the internet like me, college kids discovering
| it for the first time.
| qingcharles wrote:
| I got on in late '93. I definitely feel like I visited
| every web site. I seem to remember most of them being
| HTML tutorials :D
| susam wrote:
| I've been on the Internet since 1999, and I feel a strong
| sense of nostalgia for those early years. For me, the
| period from 1999 to 2010 was the "golden age" of the
| Internet. It was a time of exploration, creativity, and
| genuine connection. I imagine that people who joined even
| earlier might feel a similar nostalgia for their own era on
| the web.
|
| I also wrote about my experiences and why I consider this
| time the golden age in a blog post here:
| <https://susam.net/web-golden.html>.
| 0xDEAFBEAD wrote:
| IMO we need to move past the follower/following model on
| social media.
|
| _Having_ followers is the best way to _get_ followers,
| which creates a fame snowball.
|
| The result is that a few uploads get a bunch of attention,
| and most uploads get very little attention. The typical
| user feels lonely, isolated, neglected. Jealously means the
| attention-rich users, the ones with lots of followers,
| become targets for bullies -- and that leaves them
| miserable too. No one is happy.
|
| Platforms with a more equal distribution of attention, such
| as IRC, didn't have these problems.
|
| Virality was a mistake.
| racefan76 wrote:
| You might like this website: https://www.cameronsworld.net/
|
| It's a Geocities archive containing websites hosted on the
| platform from the 90s/00s. I really like the creativity and
| authenticity in the archived sites, it's like looking at a
| mirror into the past.
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| The absolute freak show that is the TikTok top daily videos
| isn't weird enough for you?
| lolc wrote:
| People doing a weird thing for clicks is not the shtick for
| me. People sharing their weird life, maybe.
| wkirby wrote:
| TikTok's vine era. Sadly gone.
| cdchn wrote:
| I think a big part of it is that this search doesn't involve
| "the algorithm" at all. There is no recommendation engine here,
| what you search for by pure ID is nothing but the unfiltered
| schism of what people record with their phones and
| unpretentiously/accidentally click "Upload" with no hope of
| clout chasing or really even a bare inkling that anybody might
| actually WATCH what they recorded.
| dlisboa wrote:
| There's definitely a lack of authenticity these days.
|
| I was on the park the other day and there were these two dudes
| and one was filming the other walking and talking to the
| camera. They'd look at the shot and then he'd walk back and do
| it again and again. Multiple times.
|
| I've also seen people talking regularly to their friends and
| then suddenly go into "influencer mode" and yell "tell us what
| you think in the comments! :kissy_face:" then go back to
| regular talk like nothing happened.
|
| The word "cringey" is overused but it feels like such an
| inhuman behaviour and so weird to see live. Like the person
| just suddenly got possessed by some entity other than
| themselves.
| pg_bot wrote:
| "Turn roll Nate roll some little" might be burned into my brain
| now.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOSWZduStYs
| meindnoch wrote:
| I want to play the potash game.
| mrtksn wrote:
| Digital version of "I just bought some films from a yard sale".
| The good old days before enshitification.
| AI_beffr wrote:
| this is valid of course but it makes me think about how totally
| different this is to that. the world has changed even more in
| this case i think.
| petercooper wrote:
| /r/DeepIntoYouTube addict here. There are a lot of patterns like
| this you can use to find bizarre YouTube videos with next to no
| views, based upon the default numbering scheme of various
| cameras. Just one example:
| https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=MVI_7812.MOV .. and
| yes, you can rattle through thousands of numbers for just that
| one.
| joezydeco wrote:
| If you want to look for GoPro videos, start at GX010001.MP4 and
| increment from there.
| 8n4vidtmkvmk wrote:
| Mine start with GH, like GH011634.MP4
| abixb wrote:
| Here's another ADORABLE one I found of a little kid _almost_
| getting the soccer ball into the net (MVI_1012.MOV) --
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6eYAxaXijc
| blululu wrote:
| This is cool. In a similar vein with a more continuous display,
| check out astronaut.io
| butnougat43 wrote:
| Worked great for me!
| thelastparadise wrote:
| Likewise. Got an error at first, then it was working fine.
| butnougat43 wrote:
| Ah, yeah I did get a couple errors at first, but kept trying
| then it worked great.
| redpandadolphin wrote:
| I did this and the 2nd video I found was of a recording of "Disco
| 2000" by the Pulp at a festival:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DCFCQ9GYUY
|
| By coincidence this is one of my favourite songs by one of my
| favourite bands.
| nocoiner wrote:
| Nice find. Also one of my favorite bands and one of my favorite
| songs of theirs.
|
| Edit: I found the set list for that show:
|
| https://www.setlist.fm/setlist/pulp/2011/hyde-park-london-en...
| AI_beffr wrote:
| this is what youtube and reddit was like during 2011. it was
| calm, serene, accepting, warm, human. it was just this perfect
| mixture of user friendliness, people knowing how to type and use
| computers and just before the internet was taken seriously by
| anyone and corrupted by money. before social media became a
| serious political consideration. i remember very clearly that
| even at the time it felt too good to be true. these videos
| capture that feeling pretty well. it was all unfiltered and it
| made you feel like you were connected to the world. like you had
| your finger on the pulse of the world. or like the entire world
| was inside your computer. really warm fuzzy vibes. i still miss
| that. but now i am too busy to spend so much time on the computer
| anyway.
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| You're speaking of a world that doesn't exist. Even back then
| people were trying to make money out of YouTube.
| ziddoap wrote:
| > _Even back then people were trying to make money out of
| YouTube_
|
| It's a matter of degree. Early YouTube was much closer to
| what the parent poster describes than the YouTube of today.
|
| When I first discovered YouTube and uploaded videos, the
| thought of making money (let alone making a living) was
| nowhere in my mind.
| 5040 wrote:
| I miss those days too, but my recollection of Youtube is a
| little different. Lots of piracy for example.
| brap wrote:
| I understand that these videos were made public, but still this
| kinda feels like violating people's privacy. They most likely
| never intended for us all to watch their personal videos a decade
| later.
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| It's no different of inadvertently watching your neighbor naked
| through her window because you happened to look at the wrong
| time.
|
| You know it's wrong but you won't look elsewhere...
| brap wrote:
| True but I would probably not share her naked video on HN
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| It's more like you're continually checking hundreds of
| windows, just in case it happens...
| 93po wrote:
| i mean i personally look elsewhere, bc getting caught looking
| would feel really shitty for them probably.
| ronsor wrote:
| I think that is neither a normal situation to be in nor a
| normal thing to do.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| It's from a time before the internet became full of people
| trying to hurt you.
| dirtyhippiefree wrote:
| FTFY - It's from a time when those people weren't as brazen
| about it.
| rkagerer wrote:
| I'm surprised yours is the only comment from this perspective.
| I get the draw and innocence of such videos, but I agree
| spreading them knowing they were most likely uploaded
| accidentally seems a violation of these people's privacy.
| fortyseven wrote:
| Why on earth would you assume that most of these are an
| accident?
| necovek wrote:
| Even the OP has this to say:
|
| > In fact, many were likely uploaded by accident or with a
| misunderstanding that complete strangers could see it.
|
| Throughout the article, there are reasons why one would
| think that (like most having zero views, no descriptions,
| no engagement etc).
| ronsor wrote:
| If you upload a video and set it to public, you're responsible
| for that. End of story.
|
| It is not the responsibility of others to guess your
| intentions.
| kube-system wrote:
| > and set it to public
|
| That's the issue. These people likely didn't affirmatively do
| that.
| switch007 wrote:
| Do you know for sure they agreed explicitly to it being
| public?
| renewiltord wrote:
| This is what I don't get about historians reading old people's
| letters to each other. Most of Alexander the Great's letters
| that are read are fake, but for the ones that are real, did
| anyone ask for his consent first? What makes anyone think that
| we should be privy to their inmost thoughts put to stone? Even
| if he did, is it informed consent if he did so not knowing that
| billions could one day consume this idly? People really need to
| learn consent.
| eCa wrote:
| I think a case could be made that it's fair that a person of
| his influence on the world loses a bit of his privacy a
| couple of thousand years after his death.
| necovek wrote:
| This is even true for "celebrities" today: there are
| different rules about where they still get to keep their
| privacy, and even then the society's thirst for the most
| intimate details is unrelenting. I am not saying this is
| "fair", but that it's recognized that "celebrity" has quite
| some downsides too.
|
| OTOH, people featured in these videos are not going to hold a
| press conference when they start a new job (eg movie filming,
| sport team changes, winning elections), or even about a
| terminal illness they might be facing, where all of those are
| quite common with celebrities.
| Sakos wrote:
| People need to learn consent for people who've been dead for
| hundreds or thousands of years? Why? In the end, everything
| we leave behind belongs to our species' history and culture.
| There's no moral obligation for privacy under these
| circumstances the same way there is for somebody who's alive
| now. It just makes it unnecessarily difficult for future
| historians to put arbitrary restrictions on what they're
| allowed to read and share.
| danielbln wrote:
| To future historians: once I'm dead for 2+ generations, feel
| free to consider any information of mine as public domain.
| necovek wrote:
| Indeed: I would feel bad looking over them even if I know that
| most are innocous enough.
|
| It's the usual, the fact that we can does not mean that we
| should.
| switch007 wrote:
| I feel exactly the same
| siva7 wrote:
| You're all acting like these videos are from ancient times.
| efilife wrote:
| In tech, ~12 years is a lot. Judging by how fast our devices
| evolve, they are ancient
| wussboy wrote:
| But judging by any other criteria, they're just yesterday.
| corobo wrote:
| I'd love a tech write up from the YouTube folks starting from
| when someone was wondering "Why is all this data waking up from
| the lukewarm storage layer today lmao" _opens HN_ "ah ok"
| spuds wrote:
| I love the rawness of this. I've noticed I tend towards a feeling
| of everyone else in the world being so alien, living some totally
| different incomprehensible life from mine. (Or more than I'm the
| alien, and everyone else is living a normal, enviable life.)
| Seeing little snapshots like these, most of them seemingly just
| for memory's sake, makes me feel a little more human. Hard to get
| on any social media, where there's also some curation going on.
| anileated wrote:
| > I've noticed I tend towards a feeling of everyone else in the
| world being so alien, living some totally different
| incomprehensible life from mine. (Or more than I'm the alien,
| and everyone else is living a normal, enviable life.)
|
| Same.
|
| > Seeing little snapshots like these, most of them seemingly
| just for memory's sake, makes me feel a little more human.
|
| For me these videos only highlight the previously mentioned
| state of affairs.
| slmjkdbtl wrote:
| Wow, I hope there's a similar video platform now, filled with
| casual everyday videos of normal people, it'll be precious
| documentation for human kind.
| DidYaWipe wrote:
| Is what?
| theyknowitsxmas wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xF-wxS1_ZE
| cedws wrote:
| Watching these videos made me sad. It's a stark reminder that the
| old internet I grew up with is over. And I'm not even that old. I
| miss the candid content, from when people just uploaded whatever
| they felt like without incentive. YouTube is an industrial
| clickbait farm now. Social media is driving people apart and
| turning them into narcissists.
| fiatpandas wrote:
| Used to have a raspberry pi + small hdmi screen on a shelf, and
| it would randomly play these raw uploads 24/7, new video every 2
| minutes. It was fun to encounter random home movies all day. Very
| hard to maintain due to use of YouTube-dl, plus legacy search API
| that I was eventually kicked off of after unsuccessfully arguing
| for my continued use as an art project. My version searched for
| 4-5 different camera prefixes including IMG_. Would be fun to
| remake the backend with a headless browser framework + YouTube-
| dl.
| akersten wrote:
| > I was eventually kicked off
|
| Woah, can you expand on that? Did you get IP banned from
| YouTube?
| fiatpandas wrote:
| No, to my memory they were phasing out the API except for
| case-by-case allowed usage. I think I opened a support ticket
| to justify continued access, with a description of my
| project, but they denied my use case. I can't remember now if
| access was cut off, or if limits were dropped so low it was
| unusable, but the project became infeasible.
| Ginger-Pickles wrote:
| Same thing reported by author of: https://default-filename-
| tv.neocities.org/
| 1una wrote:
| > Very hard to maintain due to use of YouTube-dl, plus legacy
| search API
|
| With yt-dlp you can do this: yt-dlp
| ytsearch5:IMG_0416
|
| which searches for IMG_0416 and downloads the first 5 of them.
| There is no need to use YouTube API.
| fiatpandas wrote:
| Great tip! Would love to not have to maintain a headless
| script. Just set YouTube-dl to update on a cronjob.
| kayyyy wrote:
| Surprised that nobody is talking about the other obscure file
| name "Webcam video from" that was attached to untitled videos
| made in the webcam recorder that used to be built into the site.
| tolerance wrote:
| This comes across to me like a sort of "voyeur porn"...in the
| sense like how "food porn" excites the stomach...and sports
| excites competitive spirit.
|
| What I'm gathering from the comments here is that these videos
| excite faculties of man that are less carnal than the other
| examples.
|
| Be that as it may.
| totetsu wrote:
| Once upon a time you could do this directly on google with things
| like "index of" and find candid things from people's shared
| folders
| cambronnes wrote:
| This is so wholesome.
| wkjagt wrote:
| Tangent, but I miss that iPhone era. I remember holding an iPhone
| for the first time. Someone showed me a map app (maybe Google
| Maps) and it took me a second to realize I was looking at a map
| of where I was, and remember thinking "how does it know?", and
| just being so mesmerized by it.
|
| And Angry Birds.
| yeldarb wrote:
| It's sad that only Google can (and honestly a bit surprising that
| Google hasn't) use multimodal video models to index the semantic
| contents & transcripts of these videos for search. Huge long tail
| of unique content.
| DriverDaily wrote:
| It is! I've often wanted to search for something that happens
| in a video instead of just the title, description, and
| keywords.
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| it would be a totally game changer and super helpful for
| months then people start abusing it to gain views anyway like
| the current web
| pppoe wrote:
| This reminds me the trick to make recent text-to-image model
| generate highly realistic (but amateur) photos by adding
| "IMG_XXXX" into the prompt. Although these videos have nearly
| zero views on YouTube, they may be part of the training data
| behind these models.
| sen wrote:
| It's also the default naming for every digital SLR, phone
| camera, etc... lots of which upload with file name as title to
| Flickr and many other photo sharing services, most of which
| have also been used in training data.
|
| DSC _, IMG_ , etc etc.
| wingworks wrote:
| omg, where is this from? (some kinda app that overlayed 3d
| animations?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOSWZduStYs
| all2 wrote:
| That looks like a 2D image with an alpha channel based on the
| background color of the image. Watch the shadow of the bot as
| it crosses the edge if the desk.
| blahgeek wrote:
| Reading half way through the post, I thought what the author
| going to do was to analyze the distribution of numbers in the
| filename, and, I don't know, maybe give an estimation about how
| often people take photos or videos, based on the time, country,
| etc. That would be an interesting study.
| BandButcher wrote:
| ironically, im glad this post wasn't about that. that would've
| been too typical of HN imo. why talk about metadata when you
| can just enjoy the data itself??
| dools wrote:
| In about 2007 or so my brother and I used to find super obscure
| blogs with no comments, read them and then write detailed
| responses to the author and share it with our friends. We always
| kept it positive, and said encouraging things. Most of the time
| the posts had been written in the 90s or early 2000s. We just did
| it knowing that probably one or two people would get notified of
| a new comment and maybe feel happy that someone read their post.
| ddingus wrote:
| Cool! I have done that myself a time or two.
|
| Ever get a good response back?
|
| I have been surprised a time or two ending up in a conversation
| with someone who took the time same as I did. Just because we
| could.
| necovek wrote:
| I think "blogs" as in "web logs" with features like comments
| (trackbacks and linkbacks came later) only appeared around 2000
| or 2001.
|
| But still, plenty of blog posts from early 2000s to comment on
| in 2007, especially on the likes of LiveJournal or Blogger.
| mr90210 wrote:
| I think I am going to start doing that =D.
|
| I wonder what keywords or tricks I might use to find such blogs
| in the current days.
| pradn wrote:
| Twitter used to have an app, Periscope. You could start a
| livestream any time, anywhere. And viewers could fine live
| streams on a world map.
|
| For a few months, it was possible to feel the incredible
| simultaneity and richness of human lives. Someone biking, another
| person cooking. Day in one place, night in another place.
|
| It was ahead of its time. And too expensive for Twitter to keep
| running for too long. But it was a precursor to today's
| Snapschat's map view and Instagram live streams.
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| they should bring it back
| ttul wrote:
| I'm struggling to imagine Elon Musk doing that.
| gpmcadam wrote:
| Isn't that exactly what he did when live-streaming on X
| last year?
|
| https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1653608284606312448
|
| "This is 2015 Periscope code. Yeah, seems like we just need
| to improve it a bit."
| cylemons wrote:
| I think Twitter is losing enough money already, doubt they
| could afford to do that
| rasapetter wrote:
| And before that, there was Bambuser which was very similar to
| Periscope but launched some 8 years earlier. It never gained
| the popularity of Periscope, likely at least partly due to its
| Nordic rather than Bay Area roots - but, oh boy, was it fun!
|
| At any time of the day you could go to the website and watch
| normal people around the globe doing random stuff. And chat
| with them!There weren't any real influencers at the time (at
| least not on the platform) and monetization wasn't possible, so
| people's motivations for live streaming stuff was not to make
| money but rather the joy of sharing a moment or just
| experiencing new cool technology. It got a bit less joyful when
| the Arabic Spring started and the platform got used by many in
| very dire situations but it remained incredibly interesting to
| follow.
|
| The company still exists, though they stopped offering free-to-
| use consumer services long ago.
| cdchn wrote:
| GPS spoofing ruined any potential for local-first content.
| azhenley wrote:
| I wish I would _just_ create and share, instead of getting stuck
| in analysis paralysis trying to perfect it.
| FactKnower69 wrote:
| >YouTube automatically removes harmful or violent content
|
| What a bizarre and obviously false claim to make for no reason in
| the middle of the article
| Lammy wrote:
| > Apple uses the 'IMG_XXXX' naming convention for all images and
| videos captured on iOS devices, where XXXX is a unique sequence
| number.
|
| For what it's worth, Apple are just conforming to the JEITA/CIPA
| DCF standard:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_rule_for_Camera_File_sy...
|
| "DCF file names" specification sez...
| http://www.kronometric.org/phot/std/DC-009-2010_E.pdf#page=2...
|
| "File names conforming to the following rules are called DCF file
| names.
|
| * The file name is 8 characters (not including the file
| extension).
|
| * The first four characters consist only of the upper-case
| alphanumeric characters shown in Table 1
|
| * These are referred to as the DCF file name Free characters.
| They shall not contain two-byte characters or special codes.
|
| * The four characters that follow are a number between "0001" and
| "9999". "0000" shall not be used. These four digits are referred
| to as File number.
|
| * Files with the same file number stored in the same DCF
| directory are considered to be object component files as defined
| in 4.3.2."
| rob74 wrote:
| ...and collisions between filenames that would happen because
| of the "wraparound" after 9999 images/videos are avoided by
| storing them in different directories.
| agilob wrote:
| It's really cool that such standard exists, the worst thing
| about Pixel phones is stupid filenames of pictures and videos,
| not only it's not following this standard, but contains WRONG
| timestamp. For example, picture with name
| `PLX_20241101_115855.jpg` was taken at 12:58:55, not 11 as the
| name suggests, but also picture with name
| `PLX_20240913_191525.jpg` was taken at 19:15:25. A video on the
| other hand would have a timestamp offset -1, the offset changes
| depending on time of the year and it's different for pictures
| and videos. It's annoying af, because pictures and videos in
| the same folder will not be sorted chronologically by filename.
| nasretdinov wrote:
| Potentially daylight savings related? E.g. file names are in
| UTC, whereas local time obviously isn't
| agilob wrote:
| Yes, it's DST related. Now explain why DST offset is
| different for pictures and videos ;)
| nasretdinov wrote:
| Well they need to be different in _some_ way, right :)?
| Why not use timestamp offset for this
| berkes wrote:
| While this comment is a joke, it's tragicomically true as
| well.
|
| Way too often have I encountered, or hacked in myself,
| such "business rules".
|
| "Except for these seven transactions from before [random
| date/time] all transactions made between 01:00 and 01:15,
| with a round amount, are recurring payments to X. Can we
| not just use that instead of this data-migration that
| you've budgetted?" (not literal request, but close
| enough).
|
| The danger -off course- lies in that this over time
| becomes actual business logic and that meaning is
| assigned to (meta)data that was never intended to carry
| such meaning.
|
| The solution -I've found- starts with what DDD calls
| "ubiquitous language", where everyone (within a domain!)
| assigns the same meaning to the same things1. And model
| the software around that, never the other way.
|
| 1 So maybe there's a 150 year old rule that states that
| recurring transactions are those that happen between
| ...etc. etc. That this is actually a settled and used
| meaning within the domain experts/users/stakeholders. In
| that case - IMO - it's far better to lean into it rather
| than assign some is_recurring_for_x boolean or such that
| has _no_ meaning in the domain.
| catsma21 wrote:
| because the extensions are already different. jpg and mp4
| nasretdinov wrote:
| Ok, fair point... I guess it's just that different teams
| were doing photo and video then
| InDubioProRubio wrote:
| Programming employment-creation measure - to prevent them
| doing damage elsewhere by adding abstraction madhouses.
| walthamstow wrote:
| British? Sounds like it's recording UTC time in the file
| name, which is only correct during winter.
| agilob wrote:
| > British?
|
| Nope, but it's a Pixel thing
| sampo wrote:
| 2024-11-01 is in winter, 2024-09-13 is in summer. So the
| effect seems to be the opposite of what you say.
| jval43 wrote:
| FWIW that is not a Pixel-specific issue. I encountered this
| on other cameras (IIRC Olympus and GoPro) as well. It's
| maddening.
|
| The issue stems from the fact that images are written with
| proper EXIF time and timezone metadata while videos from the
| same camera might only store a timestamp field. Whether
| that's local time, UTC, or something else depends on the
| camera and how you configured it.
| rob74 wrote:
| A lot of the DCF standard is designed around the limitations
| of FAT file systems, e.g. filenames limited to 8+3
| characters, directories limited to 9999 "items" (which I
| assume is to make sure that there won't be more than 65,536
| files in a directory). As Pixel phones don't use FAT, Google
| probably doesn't feel bound by this standard. Their naming
| convention allows the phones to store all photos/videos in a
| single directory.
| UberFly wrote:
| So many touching snapshots into the actually important things in
| life. Very cool.
| ttul wrote:
| https://youtu.be/9oAP2A98qLc?si=MaRGwcJlIyV0-Iff
|
| "THE CULT- SHE SELLS SANCTUARY- LIVE DETROIT 2010"
|
| Pretty great.
| adamredwoods wrote:
| Very heartwarming. I have an "android named" video uploaded to
| YouTube a few years ago, and because there is copyrighted
| background music going on (which I didn't realize at the time)
| YouTube is threatening to delete it. I don't know if they will or
| not, not sure when they put the "will delete" tag on it.
|
| My late wife is in it. She died recently. I didn't know that
| video was still up there until I read your post. And now my heart
| breaks.
| mtwshngtn wrote:
| If you remember the account details to log in to the account
| which uploaded that video, you can go to
| https://studio.youtube.com, click "Content", and under the
| 3-dot menu for each video you can click "Download" to get
| Youtube's copy of your video.
|
| Hoping that helps. Otherwise, you might try something like
| https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp.
| walthamstow wrote:
| If you can send me the link I will happily rip it from YouTube
| for you and send it to you via any method you prefer. Sorry for
| your loss.
| benreesman wrote:
| Oh man this is so great: I've been having a shitty day and I've
| been smiling from ear to ear since about the second paragraph of
| this post. When no one is trying to actively distort the Internet
| for monetization it's every bit as magical as it was in September
| of 1994 and I remember why I took this up as a trade.
|
| Good job on putting this #1 HN.
| energy123 wrote:
| Scrape and preserve these videos, someone
| ddingus wrote:
| I found a band I really like by searching on the ampersand, "&"
|
| https://youtu.be/pLJ85XExZtQ?si=75ZykQeUjgItcpDM
|
| Not sure what triggered it, but I began odd searches a while ago
| and want to echo many of the "feels like the good old days" type
| comments.
|
| Video made without any real production intent is compelling. It
| is pure, raw, just human and many of us hunger for that because
| the big media players dominate hard for fear of losing to their
| peers it seems.
|
| And that behavior is expensive to us.
| binary_slinger wrote:
| This reminds me of something I've been thinking a lot about.
| which i think is big techs greatest failure: interoperability
|
| I first thought of this when seeing someone take a picture of
| their computer screen. There is just so much friction in moving
| data.
|
| I should be able to take anything off any screen and move the
| source material to any other screen on any device or cloud with a
| simple 1-click process. Including the devices of a friend or
| family member.
|
| Microsoft forced OEM's to replace the right ctrl key with a
| copilot key. really it should have been an 'interoperability'
| key.
| itsgabriel wrote:
| It's not a failure, it's big techs greatest feature. Try to
| imagine the likes of Windows, Office, Apple, AWS, Social Media
| etc. without lock-in, network effect or all the other names for
| missing interoperability.
| eproxus wrote:
| I usually joke that the hardest problem in computer science
| that is not yet solved is sending a file between two devices.
| siriushacker wrote:
| Email baby!
| layer8 wrote:
| Only up to 18 MB or so. ;)
| Sohcahtoa82 wrote:
| Tech giants consider interoperability as a bug, not a feature.
| They want you locked into their ecosystems.
| layer8 wrote:
| It's the tragedy of product lock-in and closed systems.
| londons_explore wrote:
| I have uploaded a bunch of similar stuff...
|
| Videos are so big and cloud storage for it pretty expensive.
| since nothing I film is nuclear launch codes, I just upload it
| all to youtube as a way to store it for free.
|
| Also gives me a handy sharing link for sending to friends too.
| agilob wrote:
| >Between 2009 and 2012, Apple iPhones and iPod Touches included a
| feature called "Send to YouTube" that allowed users to upload
| videos directly to YouTube from the Photos app.
|
| A feature Nokia with Android One used to have too, but Android
| itself doesn't have.
| redbell wrote:
| Excellent read, OP! I really enjoyed this, especially being your
| very first post here. I hope to see more posts from you in the
| future.
|
| I didn't know this feature existed back in the days, and you just
| cannot ignore the _haptic feedback_ feeling when you watch
| _original_ , unedited content from random people who were filming
| not for the sake of publishing to the mass but just for
| themselves and friends/family to keep these records as memories.
| This reminds me of the pre-smartphone era where people used to
| own handheld, personal cameras to capture special moments of
| their lives as _souvenirs_.
|
| Also, regarding these "IMG_XXX" videos, one notable pattern is
| that they all have very low number views, for an obvious reason.
| The odd one to this pattern is this _pregnancy_ video, which had
| the number of views jumped from 16 in ten years to to 1,650 in 10
| hours. Also, checking the comments ' section, they are all new,
| with the first (oldest) one being posted 9 hours ago.
| mrs6969 wrote:
| Just entered my birthday too, and found one of the cutest baby
| video ever
|
| Thanks for the article
| guardian5x wrote:
| I wonder if we will soon have Data Archeologists, who will try to
| find these hidden long forgotten gems on the Internet.
| hacker_88 wrote:
| It's like one day on earth project, but for every day
| CMay wrote:
| From my notes. Maybe it's useful to someone. Not comprehensive as
| there are other brands and other iterations I'm sure. Many
| dpreview.com sample galleries show original filenames. Some
| forums list filenames, youtube descriptions can list model names,
| pdf manuals and manufacturer websites sometimes list the names.
| There isn't really a good list of these that I know of.
| * Apple - IMG_0001 * BlackMagic Design -
| A001 * C001 * Canon - 100-0001 -
| 101-0001 - 10x-0001 - IMG_0001 -
| MVI_0001.MOV * Casio - CIMG001 -
| CIMG0001 * Fuji - DSCF0001 * GoPro
| - GX010001.MP4 - GH010001.MP4 * HP -
| HPIM0001 * Jenoptik - JD0001 * JVC
| - MOV_0001.mpg * Kodak - P0000001.KDC -
| DCP_0001 - 102_0001 * Konica Minolta -
| PICT0001 * Kyocera - KIF 0001 *
| Nikon - DSCN0001 - DSC_0001 * Nokia
| - DCM001 - DCM0001 * Olympus - Pmdd0001
| * Panasonic - Pmdd 0001 - P1000001 - P0001
| * Pentax - IMGP0001 * Polaroid -
| DSCI0001 * Ricoh - R0010001 - R0020001
| * Samsung - P1000001 - SAM 0001 - SH100001
| - SV100001 - S7000001 * Sanyo - SANY0001
| * Sigma - IMG0001 * Sony - DSC0001
| - DSC00001 - DSC_0001 - MAH00001 * Misc
| - Mmddyy-hhmmss - Yymmdd-hhmm-ss - yyyymmdd_hhmmss
| - VID_yyyymmdd - mmddyy 3g2 - mmddyy 3gp -
| PXL_yyyymmdd_hhmmssms.mp4
|
| Though in writing this and looking something up, I just came
| across this github that could be useful:
| https://github.com/thorsted/digicam_corpus
| eftpotrm wrote:
| Nikon defaulted to DSC_0001 for some time now, may still do but
| I don't have any Z series gear to check.
| CMay wrote:
| In my notes the Sony section was listed Sony / Nikon, but
| there was non-Nikon pattern in there and I removed the Nikon
| label to reduce inconsistency. Then I didn't update the Nikon
| section to include the other pattern. :) Should be fixed now.
| If you notice anything else, let me know!
| smusamashah wrote:
| Somewhat related, this list of names is useful to generate
| these casual real looking images using images generation
| models.
|
| It was discovered recently with Flux that using just
| IMG_1234.jpg as a prompt gives you a very casual photo like
| images.
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1fxkt3p/co...
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/StableDiffusion/comments/1fxdm1n/i_...
| CarVac wrote:
| Pro-level (1D) Canons let you set the three prefix letters.
| colanderman wrote:
| Fujifilm also uses _DSF0001 for Adobe RGB images.
| matsemann wrote:
| > GoPro GX010001.mp4
|
| What annoys me is that when a video is split into multiple
| files (because of sd card limitations etc), it increases the
| first number, giving you files that sort really weird. So I
| film GX010001.mp4, then after 8 minutes it starts a new file
| GX020001.mp4, GX030001.mp4 etc., and then later that day when I
| make a new clip, it has GX010002.mp4. This breaks sorting by
| filename. Can sort by creationdate, but for the chaptered
| videos they often share the same original datetime as well,
| making it quite confusing when dealing with loads of gopro
| videos. (I just published some tooling I've written for
| creating street view content from gopros, so felt all the
| quirks lately https://github.com/Matsemann/matsemanns-
| streetview-tools/ the gopro max starts with GS btw)
| sourcepluck wrote:
| > YouTube automatically removes harmful or violent content, so
| what remains exists in a unique, almost paradoxical state:
| forbidden, yet harmless.
|
| What exactly is forbidden, by who? I don't get the use of that
| word there.
|
| Also, anyone who doesn't know the "before" and "after" search
| operators is missing out on some excellent nostalgia-trawling
| similar to what is described here. "cat
| before:2007" -> 2005 to 2007, the OG cat videos "skateboard
| before:2010" -> yes "assange interview before:2016" -> then
| filter for longer videos "parkour after:2009 before:2015"
| -> parkour videos from 2009 to 2015
| bewal416 wrote:
| Hey! My intention with this sentence is to say that although
| the content is publicly available, the viewer may feel like
| they're still "not allowed" to be watching it.
|
| Others in the comments articulated this better than me: > I
| understand that these videos were made public, but still this
| kinda feels like violating people's privacy. They most likely
| never intended for us all to watch their personal videos a
| decade later.
|
| I tried to distill it in a couple words in the blog, bc I
| didn't want to harp on it. In retrospect, I could've explained
| it better.
| elboru wrote:
| Thanks for this, a few months ago I was trying to find an old
| video but it was impossible to find with regular queries,
| there's just too much SEO garbage recently added to YouTube.
| kentosi-dw wrote:
| Thank you so much for this! I love & miss all the videos from
| the old days.
| plingbang wrote:
| Some time ago there was a website that showed you a random
| YouTube video. Like truly random. The biggest discovery to me was
| that a typical video has 0-1 views, nearly always <10. I bet most
| people don't realize this is how YouTube actually looks like. And
| I guess it's also a good small reminder to all people trying to
| become famous on social media.
|
| I believe the website tried to find videos with least bias
| possible by doing some clever searches using YouTube API (so not
| just videos titled IMGXXXX). Maybe it was trying to do partial
| matches on video ID.
| danhau wrote:
| > The biggest discovery to me was that a typical video has 0-1
| views, nearly always <10. I bet most people don't realize this
| is how YouTube actually looks like.
|
| This is also interesting when thinking about how to optimize a
| video platform. You can see how the vast majority of videos
| could be evicted to cold / slow storage.
| shark1 wrote:
| All of these ordinary footages should be preserved.
| brandonpelfrey wrote:
| I personally don't have a problem with this, but this really made
| me feel like I don't understand the community of this forum
| sometimes. HN every day has multiple posts which drive so many
| comments about how privacy is lost and everything needs full
| E2EE, trust no one, etc. Then there is this post which is also a
| breach of privacy (much more than some things complain about),
| and yet the reaction is "wow, this is so pure and amazing to view
| into these candid moments". It feels like some cognitive
| dissonance. Still, personally I thought this was a cool post.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| This website isn't a breach of privacy. The original upload
| process wasn't privacy preserving.
|
| The videos are already public on YouTube.
| virgil_disgr4ce wrote:
| How is this a breach of privacy?
| dewey wrote:
| If it's that easy to upload a video from your camera roll to
| YouTube (Two clicks) it's not that hard to imagine that this
| can happen by mistake or by someone who doesn't know that it
| uploads as "public" by default.
|
| Maybe they just wanted to send this video to a friend and
| didn't have the technical understanding that this will then
| be visible for everyone searching for it on YouTube.
| kartoffelsaft wrote:
| There are a few things that come to mind that make this
| different:
|
| 1. This isn't really privacy breaching. For someone who taps
| the "share to youtube" button without knowing what it means,
| sure, but even that is pretty explicit that you're sharing it.
| Not sure why the article itself says people didn't know what
| the button would do before tapping it, so I'd like some further
| explanation of this point.
|
| 2. It's opt in, not opt out. Spending time with most "normal"
| people has shown me that very few people give a crap about
| going into settings menus to configure exactly how ther data is
| used or collected, or otherwise switching to a service that
| gives them that control. When HN complains about privacy being
| dead, they are complaining about this apathy end how it gets
| exploited. This feature does not exploit that apathy.
|
| 3. This gives us something that we actually want. When most
| services invade your privacy, it's usually for things like
| advertising, targeting content, and data brokering. Things that
| I know I personally have a lot of issues with, and I feel I'm
| not alone. This button doesn't do those things, it just gives
| us interesting videos. So much so that most of the fascination
| with these videos is that you can _feel_ the absence of those
| issues.
| skp1995 wrote:
| I am missing the link to the thread, but diffusion models also
| give a very consistent output when prompted with `IMG_{number}`
| part of the reason could be the training data distribution
| nullsmack wrote:
| Other/older digital cameras used similar sequences of letters and
| numbers like DSC_0001 and a few more I can't remember atm. It
| might be fun to search for those too.
| aalchek wrote:
| Very cool- always good to appreciate how tech has evolved and
| some of the culture and technical branches that have stemmed from
| that
| omiid wrote:
| I can't believe how many random memories YouTube may contain!
| It's amazing!
| BillTthree wrote:
| Gunshots at 1:00
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MR3mv5SbAi4&t=17s Maybe a
| slamming door, why so many slams? Obvious barking dog, then the
| wicked desperate woman's scream
| facialwipe wrote:
| The article is mildly infuriating.
|
| _Between 2009 and 2012, Apple iPhones and iPod Touches included
| a feature called "Send to YouTube"_
|
| Proceeds to feature two videos from 2015.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-11 23:01 UTC)