[HN Gopher] IMG_0001
___________________________________________________________________
IMG_0001
Author : walz
Score : 1517 points
Date : 2024-12-04 04:46 UTC (18 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (walzr.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (walzr.com)
| dang wrote:
| Recent and related:
|
| _IMG_0416_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42102506 - Nov
| 2024 (324 comments)
| password4321 wrote:
| Not recent (http only): http://astronaut.io
|
| _YouTube videos that have almost zero previous views_
|
| - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20432772 - Jul 2019 (239
| comments)
|
| - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13413225 - Jan 2017 (140
| comments)
| password4321 wrote:
| I'd like to learn more about crawling YouTube, I don't think they
| appreciate that.
| serf wrote:
| same here, id be more interested in the list gathering
| technique than the list itself..
| peterldowns wrote:
| This is wonderful. The effect of switching between videos from
| all over the world of people doing all sorts of things sounds
| like it could be dehumanizing -- I find it anything but. It
| reminds me a little of our admin view at Beme, where we had a
| live feed into videos people were sharing publicly all around the
| world in real time. Really cool to see the sunset and the sun
| rise at the same time.
|
| These videos are wonderful, great execution on the project.
| pmarreck wrote:
| I never heard of Beme before now, interesting concept, but it
| looks like it had a fiery beginning (a million uploads in the
| first week) and then... ?
| itsjustjordan wrote:
| Sold to CNN in 2016 for $US25M
| pearjuice wrote:
| Was a pump & dump by Casey Neistat. Lacked true popularity
| and network effects as it turned out people don't want to
| share unedited, raw footage. Social media is about looking
| good. So Casey just used his YouTube/influencer popularity at
| the time to pump metrics and then managed to sell it to CNN.
| No idea what CNN did with the tech or people but not much
| later they shut it down entirely.
| peterldowns wrote:
| That's an extremely unfair characterization. It was an
| honest attempt to make a product; the product didn't catch
| on; CNN acquihired the team.
| rd wrote:
| Are you still in touch with Casey? I've watched him for
| 10+ years now so always fascinating to hear about his
| work.
| dewey wrote:
| You are just describing a regular startup, that's not a
| pump & dump which makes it sound like a scam.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| The keming got me, I totally read that as Berne and wondered
| what you were admining in Berne with video streams. Nvm.
| xxr wrote:
| First pull was a surreptitiously recorded conversation that
| sounds like it was being held as blackmail.
| sim7c00 wrote:
| haha creepy. i was lucky and got a cute cat video =)
| __turbobrew__ wrote:
| I got one that seemed to involve child soldiers in Africa, zero
| views. This is wild.
| topherclay wrote:
| "Between 2009 and 2012" fits with the Kony 2012 documentary.
| superkuh wrote:
| A lot of babies, horses, dancing/singing, and sports but also
| plenty of fascinating stuff.
| dybber wrote:
| The first video I got was from some KKK ritual.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| Those people are probably elected officials now
| block_dagger wrote:
| I laughed. Thank you.
| babyent wrote:
| Love this :) How awesome
|
| A little off topic.. As I watch these, I have a overwhelming
| nostalgic feeling for those times. I almost never feel nostalgic
| for the past, but these videos evoke many personal memories from
| that time period.
| voidfunc wrote:
| This hits nostalgia for me too but really I just miss the
| period 5-10 years before YT too... the 90s computing world was
| special.
| tigerlily wrote:
| IMG_5049 is a monster truck.
|
| I enjoyed the views counter with the low numbers. It made me feel
| like me and four other people have shared this moment. When the
| view counter was zero, that felt very special.
| Aeolun wrote:
| I think it's special that we're collectively ensuring that all
| these videos are watched at least once :)
| lelandfe wrote:
| It's like TikTok sans algorithm. I got a protest in Vietnam, a
| rally for French politician Francois Hollande, a dad making his
| daughter laugh, hockey practice, a farmer driving a truck, a guy
| impressing his girlfriend with his new subwoofer.
|
| This is so raw and human, I love it.
| raverbashing wrote:
| I got a dude cutting a higher branch off a tree and it kinda
| bouncing off, some family stuff and some things that could have
| been on AFHV
| richardlblair wrote:
| I got a dude beating a horse with a stick!
| lelandfe wrote:
| Far Side caption: Terry was never any good with idioms
| someone7x wrote:
| Same reaction here, I just watched a bunch guys playing with
| crabs in the kitchen sink to the soundtrack of riotous
| laughter.
|
| 10/10 I saw something real online
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Nice and all, but aside: just reminds of the ridiculous/lame
| design choice from the great Apple to use that filename. How many
| shared photos sent in emails to me from iPhones with subject
| IMG_0001. Classic Apple removing any kind of useful functionality
| because the users wouldn't need to interact with files or know
| more about the system. A date in the filename would have killed
| them? IMG_20070629 or whatever..sigh.
| jannyfer wrote:
| It's from this:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_rule_for_Camera_File_sy...
| Twisell wrote:
| It's pretty standard practice for all cameras manufacturers to
| use a basic incremental filename. Many more useful data are
| embedded in jpeg exif metadata.
|
| On the contrary including a date in the filename could be
| perceived as user hostile because none of the multiple iso
| representations (or non iso) is universally used and understood
| by the general public.
|
| Eg : 20241112, 1112024, 1211024, 131208, 081213 and so on...
| bux93 wrote:
| I think the issue is more that the battery runs out and now
| it's 2007 again and you start overwriting img_20070101_01.jpg
| ; last-directory-entry++ is a bit more robust.
| Twisell wrote:
| One upside is that it hopefully prevented developer to ship
| half-baked software that rely on filename and can't handle
| duplicate name gracefully.
|
| You can't prevent collisions (multiples sources/counter
| reset/date reset, etc). So it's actually nice to have an
| unforgiving standard that will bite you if you make
| unfounded assumptions.
| ivolimmen wrote:
| First video felt like an awkward ad with two teachers. Second a
| high school party playing YMCA... I approve.
| mastazi wrote:
| Check out http://astronaut.io/ for a similar vibe but recent
| videos as opposed to old ones (also, it's not limited to iPhones
| which translates to more variety in terms of geography)
| sarpdag wrote:
| Authentic and nostalgic, I am enjoying watching.
| shenbomo wrote:
| https://ytch.xyz/
| password4321 wrote:
| A bit more context:
|
| _Show HN: If YouTube had actual channels_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41247023 - Sep 2024 (532
| comments)
| paxys wrote:
| The craziest thing to me is how...clean these results are. No
| nudity. No porn. No gore. Nothing overly sensitive. There is no
| doubt that so much of that stuff would have been initially
| uploaded but blocked by YouTube's filters. There are a million
| hours of video uploaded to the service every day, and they have
| built the infrastructure to analyze every single frame. When
| people ask why there are no viable competitors to YouTube - this
| is your answer.
| beernet wrote:
| Automated filtering surely is not across the main competitive
| advantages of youtube.
| ffsm8 wrote:
| Doubtful, it's likely just a game of numbers.
|
| There is endless amounts of coomer content on YouTube like
| * Nude yoga * Body painting * Nude massages
| * Transparent x haul / try on
|
| You're just a million times more likely to get non-coomer
| content when it's been uploaded via iPhones upload to YouTube
| button during 2009-2014.
|
| Heck, that was a time before onlyfans etc, so the primary
| coomer stuff on Reddit etc was produced by exhibitionists vs
| people just milking simps
| rblatz wrote:
| For those like me who had no idea what coomer means, it's a
| weird meme about men that failed no nut November. It seems
| popular in alt-right circles.
| ffsm8 wrote:
| Not sure where you're getting that alt-right circle from,
| it's just regular Internet lingo. Unless you consider
| people like Hasan alt-right too? Would be mind-blowing for
| sure, but hey, to reach their own.
|
| Got popular during the pandemic, though it predates it
|
| https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Coomer
| bertylicious wrote:
| The idea itself is so regressive and shaming, I don't
| find it surprising at all that the political right is
| drawn to it.
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| The idea of being a horny guy online and content existing
| for horny guys online is regressive and shaming?
| kelnos wrote:
| I think GP meant that stigmatizing the idea of a coomer
| is regressive and shaming, in that it's sex-negative --
| if someone wants to masturbate excessively, there's
| nothing wrong with that, as long as it's not negatively
| impacting other aspects of their life. Not sure I agree
| with that take, but I think that's what they were talking
| about.
| kridsdale1 wrote:
| Many people still believe that 4chan et al are Alt Right.
|
| They're just what 14-28 year old boys are up to, sans
| filter algorithms. It's the whole spectrum.
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| It's so strange because that must be what people who don't
| know about the term think, but those who do all know it's
| not really an alt-right meme at all even if it's technical
| origins are as such.
|
| It's like if someone moved to America and said "Oh
| Thanksgiving? Never heard of it but I looked into it now,
| and it's a weird holiday based on whitewashing the murder
| of Native Americans". Technically it's true but you aren't
| a supporter of that or blind to that fact when you
| celebrate it with your family, and the insinuations about
| you from that are likely incorrect.
| femto wrote:
| I just got what looked like an accident scene from a South East
| Asian country. A body with a head injury lying on a road with
| police standing around and a crowd of onlookers behind tape.
| pelorat wrote:
| My second video was from a strip club
| semperdark wrote:
| Not sure it's quite so clean. My first was a a girl in
| underwear standing in front of a wall and turning while
| introducing herself "My name is __ and I am 19 years old..."
| stefanpie wrote:
| While watching, I started playing a fun game where I try to guess
| the location of the video, GeoGuessr style. Very interesting when
| it comes to the odd handheld angles and low quality of some of
| the video clips. Would recommend.
| mparnisari wrote:
| I did the same thing! Haha
| boredtofears wrote:
| Absolutely mesmerized by this, thank you.
| password4321 wrote:
| PSA: This will fubar your YouTube watch history /
| recommendations, you might want to incognito.
| debo_ wrote:
| I'll take this as a benefit; an algorithm palate cleanser
| 0_____0 wrote:
| If you turn off watch history YouTube refuses to show you
| anything at all on its landing page. Not even the stuff it
| would show to someone not logged in.
|
| I think they consider it punishment for not letting them hold
| your data, but I find it nice to have to search to get
| anything.
| rajamaka wrote:
| I was wondering why YouTube suddenly thought I only wanted to
| watch sub 1000 view videos
| masto wrote:
| Videos embedded in other pages don't show up in my
| https://www.youtube.com/feed/history
| macintux wrote:
| I hit the jackpot: someone recorded Ralph Stanley performing _O
| Death_ in concert.
|
| I caught him several years ago (on my second attempt: he was
| supposed to perform at the Grand Ol' Opry, and I drove 5 hours to
| see him, but he canceled) but he was clearly running on fumes.
| Definitely something I wish I'd understood when I was younger:
| find musical giants and see them live before they're gone.
| schoen wrote:
| Here's a video of him performing it live that I found with a
| YouTube search:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xmRWj7gJEU
|
| But it's presumably not the same one that you saw, since it
| doesn't show any signs of being an amateur or mobile device
| recording, and wouldn't have been crawled for the IMG_0001
| site.
|
| Speaking of the theme of that song, and since we were just
| talking about Borges here in in another thread, compare his
| story "The Secret Miracle"!
|
| http://secondarylaresources.weebly.com/uploads/1/0/4/7/10473...
| MrMcCall wrote:
| Thanks for sharing that riveting performance. And, Borges is
| always intersting.
| kannonboy wrote:
| I love that the view count is included in the minimalist UI. I
| came across one with zero views, and there's something so
| intimate and exciting about being the first person to watch an
| ancient home video (even if it's shaky handycam footage of a
| horse, narrated in Russian).
|
| As an aside, hats off to Google to being able to serve an 11 year
| old video with no noticeable delay from what must be the coldest
| of caches.
| hoseja wrote:
| I'm really anxious Google will also kill this aspect of Youtube
| one day.
| supermatt wrote:
| As soon as it gets split off from google and they no longer
| have the money machine to fund them and have to fight on a
| level regulatory-monitored ground for ad revenue you can bet
| your ass it will.
| Mashimo wrote:
| AFAIK youtube is profitable now. It was not for years, but
| is now.
| eru wrote:
| Yes, but it could perhaps be more profitable, if they cut
| spending on this aspect?
| whereismyacc wrote:
| For every year that passes, storage becomes cheaper, but
| the total size of youtube's video repository grows. I
| wonder what the net effect of all that is in the end.
| Ever increasing costs? Or maybe it kinda evens out.
| eru wrote:
| Interestingly, if storage cost decreases geometrically
| over time, then the total storage cost of storing a video
| for all eternity is finite.
|
| Though what I was commenting on here wasn't so much the
| cost of storing a video at all, but storing it in 'warm'
| enough storage that you can load it really quickly.
| iamgopal wrote:
| What could be cost of total storage of YouTube ? Edit :
| About billion USD per year.
| b3lvedere wrote:
| Since when did that stop shareholders to make even more
| money?
| dnissley wrote:
| Can you post your source? Last time I checked (and
| quickly checking around now) I didn't see any
| announcement from Google about Youtube being profitable.
| joelkoen wrote:
| Anyone aware of public archives of videos like this? These
| are so cool and I imagine that in the future this would be an
| incredibly valuable peek into history given how raw it is.
| thesuitonym wrote:
| https://archive.org/details/movies?tab=collection
| kristopolous wrote:
| Google: if you like it, it's going away.
| supportengineer wrote:
| Once you live to a certain age, you realize this is true
| about everything in your life.
| kristopolous wrote:
| I'm increasingly thinking of customer product relations
| in terms of giving treats to your users.
|
| The moat and stickiness concepts are ok, but "candy
| store" is more fruitful.
|
| Of course what constitutes candy is different for every
| product and you need to understand your customers to know
| what "flavors" they want
| seanw265 wrote:
| I got charged by Squarespace the other day, and it
| immediately raised red flags--I've never done business with
| them before.
|
| Then it clicked: this was for an old domain I'd purchased
| through Google Domains. I knew Google had sold its domain
| business to Squarespace, but in the moment, I'd completely
| forgotten about it.
|
| Oh well.
| ThrowawayTestr wrote:
| You should get YouTube Premium so they can pay for all those
| servers.
| pohuing wrote:
| They've already announced deleting videos from unused
| channels. So it's only a matter of time
| lelandfe wrote:
| https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/18/youtube-will-no-longer-
| be-...
|
| > _Google updated the post to read, "We do not have plans
| to delete accounts with YouTube videos at this time."_
| pohuing wrote:
| Thanks, finally some good news from them for once
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| It was already partially killed when in 2017 YouTube switched
| all unlisted videos to private.
|
| Which I now just realize why they did that : a lot of people
| didn't understand the difference.
|
| Sadly, a lot of other people _did_ understand the difference,
| and did _not_ expect this kind of switcheroo, and now there
| 's a bunch of effectively dead links covering more than a
| decade of videos.
| gear54rus wrote:
| View count is nice but I'd like to be able to share a video
| that I got with someone else, I think that would be a great
| function.
| rkagerer wrote:
| Clicking the date opens it in YouTube.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| That's a shame, I like the ephemeral nature of these.
| rkagerer wrote:
| I just hope viewers who stumble upon any that seem as
| though they were not intended to be uploaded respect the
| privacy of the subjects and use discretion in what they
| share.
| mattlondon wrote:
| I felt slightly uneasy myself - the first thing I saw was a mum
| laying on her bed doing a selfie-video with two small kids
| (probably between 2 and 4 years old) singing a song to daddy.
|
| That felt like a total invasion of their private lives.
|
| I've had the same videos from my own kids, and while there is
| nothing embarrassing or shameful about it, it's not something
| I'd want broadcasted. Maybe it hit a nerve for me as it is so
| very very similar to my own life right now. Sure yeah they
| uploaded it to YouTube and it's public but it still felt wrong
| to watch that.
|
| Kinda ruined my day a bit - feel kinda bad for viewing it.
| arethuza wrote:
| Thanks - that's exactly how I felt after watching a view
| videos - I came away feeling a bit disturbed - largely
| because the things I watched were very wholesome but also
| very private.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| > very private
|
| very explicitly uploaded with the intent that others would
| see it
| latexr wrote:
| We don't know that. As per the webpage, this could've
| been uploaded directly from the Photos app on an iPhone,
| by people who didn't really understand the consequences.
| Maybe they uploaded it and thought they'd get a private
| link to share with one specific person. Most people are
| not tech savvy and don't fully understand the possible
| ramifications of their sharing.
| dan353hehe wrote:
| Yeah I just got a video of an infant taking a bath. I
| have small kids my self so nothing new, but not something
| I would want on the internet for everyone to see. And I
| doubt that the mom, and now the teenager who was the kid,
| would want broadcast everywhere.
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| I can imagine people thinking "YouTube" was a video
| service for You, indicating that you'd be uploading
| something private for You to share as desired.
|
| It sounds crazy now, but having worked with people a lot
| to make software that makes sense to them, this... Is not
| far fetched in the slightest.
| dimator wrote:
| The fact that many of these have exactly 0 views makes it
| totally plausible that the uploaders had no idea that
| this video existed.
| supplied_demand wrote:
| The world was a lot different 15 years ago, both YouTube
| and iPhones were new and not full understood by the
| average person. Anyone who has designed a UI knows that
| not all actions are explicit.
| efdee wrote:
| More likely: uploaded with the intent that a very limited
| audience would see it, thinking it would drown in the
| pool of videos uploaded to YouTube or maybe not even
| aware that other people could stumble upon it.
| ivanjermakov wrote:
| I wonder what percentage of iPhone users in 2009 knew
| what "upload to YouTube" means. I doubt that there was a
| huge alert disclosing that this makes video publicly
| available.
| wholinator2 wrote:
| In addition to the other replies, I've seen a few videos
| that we obviously created by very young children playing
| with a relatives phone. I can't easily imagine an
| informed adult choosing to send these nonsense random
| videos to YouTube but i can easily imagine a 5 year old
| poking around and just following the prompts. Some had 0
| views as well so likely no one knows these were uploaded
| at all
| kelnos wrote:
| The entire point of this webpage (and the article that
| inspired it) was to wonder and suggest that many of the
| people posting these things may not have realized they
| were posting it publicly, thinking that "Post to YouTube"
| meant that they were putting it somewhere online where it
| would be easier to -- privately -- share with specific
| people they wanted to share it with.
|
| Given the time frame and the newness of the iPhone and
| that entire model of interacting with media and the
| internet, I think it's pretty likely that many of those
| videos were published without the understanding that
| anyone would be able to view them.
|
| Regardless of my guess on this, you can't assume to know
| what anyone's intent is, especially someone you don't
| know who posted something on the internet over a decade
| ago.
| jnovek wrote:
| I think it's also a reminder that the internet felt so much
| safer in 2010.
|
| My sister (who is apparently wiser than most of us) has
| always refused to sharing pictures and videos of her kids on
| the internet and in 2010 that felt very old-fashioned. Now,
| because the internet feels so much more dangerous, it's
| become a completely normal take.
| vel0city wrote:
| My wife and I have been pretty mindful about what we share
| on even quasi-public social networks when it relates to our
| kids. Luckily there's a decent number of platforms/apps out
| there which make it easy to share with family without
| making stuff public.
|
| Sadly that doesn't stop family from reposting from those
| more private platforms to public social media...
| manmal wrote:
| I think, back then, many people didn't realize their videos
| are going to be available to the whole world. They might have
| uploaded them just to send a link to relatives, and fumbled
| or missed the privacy toggle. Lots of very private videos on
| there.
| johnisgood wrote:
| I have seen recently uploaded videos (or reels, or
| "tiktoks") which were intentional... Shit's wild. People
| now know, yet... They sometimes do the most disgusting shit
| ever for the attention (likes, views).
| mdanger007 wrote:
| Ruined your day? Although it is undoubtedly tech voyeurism
| the fact that these observations occur in every day life and
| don't violate people's privacy I would just like to invite
| you to get out more.
| lukan wrote:
| "don't violate people's privacy"
|
| Did you asked the kids in the videos (who are grownups or
| teenagers now) if they are ok with random strangers
| watching their kids life?
|
| Also I would doubt, that most people were aware, that they
| were uploading the video to the general public.
|
| So there are surely worse things going on, but I also felt
| uneasy after watching such private videos.
| fluoridation wrote:
| >Did you asked the kids in the videos (who are grownups
| or teenagers now) if they are ok with random strangers
| watching their kids life?
|
| >Also I would doubt, that most people were aware, that
| they were uploading the video to the general public.
|
| Those sentences are working against each other. You don't
| need to ask for permission to observe something in
| public. That's what makes the public sphere public; that
| there are restrictions and expectations in the private
| sphere that don't exist in the public sphere. If someone
| mistakenly believes they're in private when they're not,
| that's unfortunate for them. It's _their_ responsibility
| to know where they are, not your responsibility to act
| according to their expectation. You 're not obligated to
| avert your gaze if someone walks out in public not
| wearing pants by mistake. Is it polite to do it? Sure. Is
| it wrong not to do it? No.
| lukan wrote:
| "Those sentences are working against each other. "
|
| Not when the topic is privacy. This is not someone
| walking in public, those are videos out of private homes.
| Just because someone uploaded something, does not mean he
| had
|
| a) the rights to do so (I saw a clip where a women asked
| a bit angry, are you making a movie?)
|
| B) was aware what he is doing
|
| (Google and co do have a incentive to mislead people
| about who will be able to access data)
|
| So it might be technical legal. It if is moral, is up to
| yourself to decide.
| fluoridation wrote:
| >This is not someone walking in public, those are videos
| out of private homes.
|
| Yes, it's like someone watching a private video on their
| phone while on the train. You don't have a right to not
| have someone looking over your shoulder if you do that.
| While out in public you have implicit permission to look
| over someone else's shoulder _because that 's what
| "public" means_. Public means the absence of privacy.
|
| >a) the rights to do so (I saw a clip where a women asked
| a bit angry, are you making a movie?)
|
| >B) was aware what he is doing
|
| Both are the problem of whoever took the video and/or
| uploaded it, not of the person watching it later.
| lukan wrote:
| Erm, it depends. If you have to go out of your way, to
| look into my screen, than no, not ok.
|
| But if I have my screen careless in the open, that is on
| me.
| mdanger007 wrote:
| If your issue is the unwitting use of people's images for
| corporate profit I think we can agree that especially
| irksome when it's children. But does it ruin your day or
| seeing especially exploitative to see a child at a
| petting zoo or celebrating their birthday like maybe one
| in a dozen clip show or is there room for nuance?
| mattlondon wrote:
| I don't think it is invading their privacy-with-a-big-P
| (after all I have no idea who these people are or where the
| lived etc), it is more just socially it felt inappropriate.
|
| I think if a young family was sat on a park bench doing
| this and you went and sat on the bench between the mother
| and the father it would be considered at the least
| incredibly rude and inappropriate. Even if they are in a
| public place and you are not technically violating any
| laws, you'd still be acting in a way that most people would
| disagree with.
|
| This is what it felt like to me.
| hoten wrote:
| If I can tweak the metaphor, it's more like sitting on a
| vantage point within the park and peering at them with
| binoculars, far enough away that they can't see. It's
| still ick but definitely intrudes on them far less.
| fluoridation wrote:
| No, it's more like someone took a photo of themselves to
| show to their family, and after they were done with it
| they left it on a bench in a park (perhaps not realizing
| that the photo wouldn't magically go away on its own),
| and a long long time afterwards someone happened to
| stumble upon it and look at it.
| mdanger007 wrote:
| Yes! This is the nuance I'm looking for. There are issues
| with corporations exploiting our private lives and data
| but if one were to find someone's family photo album left
| sitting around it doesn't seem horrible to me to take a
| look.
| supplied_demand wrote:
| ==occur in every day life and don't violate people's
| privacy==
|
| Plenty of things happen in every day life, but are private
| (sex, break-ups, proposals, Dr. visits, etc.). I also
| noticed lots of these videos have people in the background.
| I doubt they were they notified that a video was being
| taken and uploaded publicly.
|
| ==I would just like to invite you to get out more.==
|
| Maybe an alternative is to invite yourself to ask questions
| about why there are multiple comments with the same
| sentiment rather than reflexively telling them how to
| feel/act?
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > multiple comments with the same sentiment
|
| Multiple comments saying it felt creepy or multiple
| comments saying it ruined their day to any extent? Those
| aren't the same thing.
| supplied_demand wrote:
| There is literally a comment thanking the person who made
| the original comment because they felt the exact same
| way.
|
| ==Thanks - that's exactly how I felt after watching a
| view videos==
|
| The original comment was a long explanation that ended
| with: ==Kinda ruined my day a bit==
|
| Seems like pretty tame language to get worked up about, I
| see two qualifiers in merely 6 words.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Without more clarification, I am unsure about whether
| feeling the same applies to the day ruining or just the
| direct reaction.
|
| > Seems like pretty tame language to get worked up about,
| I see two qualifiers in merely 6 words.
|
| I don't think anyone here is worked up.
| kelnos wrote:
| I suppose the person upthread could have been
| exaggerating or using hyperbole for effect, but it seems
| a bit much for something like this to "ruin your day".
|
| Having said that, it also seems like a bit much for that
| other commenter to find it worth policing their feelings
| like that.
| mdanger007 wrote:
| Are we watching the same YouTube clips?
| supplied_demand wrote:
| I think by definition, we are not watching the same
| Youtube clips. Isn't that how the app works?
| mdanger007 wrote:
| I don't know if you intentionally take my point out of
| context, but the man was arguing that it ruined his day
| because there were such things as sex in these random
| clips.
| supplied_demand wrote:
| It's possible you got lost in the comment thread. I said
| one of those things and the original commentor said the
| other.
|
| --The original commentor said that it "kinda ruined their
| day a bit" and felt a little intrusive.
|
| --Then someone responded by saying that is was just
| things that occur in every day life and doesn't violate
| anyone's privacy.
|
| --Then I responded to clarify that things which occur in
| every day life can still be intrusive to privacy i.e.
| sex, breakups, drug use, etc.
|
| I did not say that people were having sex in these clips,
| nor did the original commentor.
| theodric wrote:
| First video I got was some happy people (families, by the
| sound of it) popping off a few rounds at the range with
| AR-15s. My day has been improved!
| stronglikedan wrote:
| > That felt like a total invasion of their private lives.
|
| Except they literally explicitly uploaded it to YT.
| rescripting wrote:
| At the time this was probably the one of the most
| convenient ways to share videos with loved ones. It
| wouldn't cross your mind that these videos were "public"
| because no one had the link but you.
|
| I'm sure it never crossed their mind that 15 years later an
| aggregator would be resurfacing them.
| recursive wrote:
| Is there a more convenient way now? Not being sarcastic,
| but it's still pretty damn convenient.
| 85392_school wrote:
| These days you can unlist the video.
| throwawayq3423 wrote:
| YOu think people know how to do that? Or even remember
| their content is there for all to see?
| jonny_eh wrote:
| That was possible then too, but took an extra step.
| Defaults are important.
| jonny_eh wrote:
| I use Google Photos. Apple Photos would work too. Or any
| of the messaging apps like WhatsApp, Telegram, etc.
| kelnos wrote:
| Who says it was explicit? They may have done so without
| understanding the implications.
|
| Your insistence that people did this intentionally, fully
| understanding what they were doing, is pretty weird. You
| have no idea why people uploaded these, what their level of
| technical proficiency was when they did so, or what they
| understood about the availability of the videos they
| posted.
|
| Maybe don't claim to read people's minds, and be open to
| the idea that people do things for a variety of reasons,
| and often don't consider (or even know that they should
| consider) the implications of everything they do.
| kevinsync wrote:
| That slight unease used to permeate the entire internet (and
| made it exciting and genuinely thrilling!), and now that
| you've articulated it out loud it makes me think it's a
| critical missing part to all those "nostalgia for the old
| web" thinkpieces people love to write these days. Granted, I
| was a teenager in the 90's literally growing up into the
| world as the web grew up around me, so there was slight
| unease in all aspects of life, but that feeling of the
| unknown, of not totally being sure what you're going to
| discover (good or bad) when you surf from link to link, maybe
| that's really what's missing in the sanitized, commodified
| 2024 internet.
|
| Or maybe I'm just overthinking it lol
| wholinator2 wrote:
| Nah, i agree. I'm a little younger but i distinctly
| remember adults around me heavily warning about using the
| internet and especially putting anything about yourself
| into it. There was a great distrust between people and the
| internet in the early 2000's, but then kids got ipods that
| could text and call, and network effects meant that you
| _had_ to be on Facebook, and slowly over time Facebook and
| MySpace started to not feel like the danger zone, like it
| was separate from all those warnings cause it was just you
| and your friends chatting at 2:00a.m., nobody was gonna
| bother to look at you. Then the social media empires grew
| and expanded and it kinda became the entire internet (that
| people use) started to feel like not the danger zone. You
| could do anything there, and huge company's would create
| walled gardens that would hide the worst aspects and let
| you pretend it was a safe and open place, to their benefit
| of course. Adults stopped warning, kids became adults, and
| now to hear a warning about the internet is incredibly
| rare. We also just think that there's so much shit there,
| nobody would take the time to notice us, and everyone else
| is posting their entire lives anyways so why not? Strange
| times
| johnisgood wrote:
| I wonder if the no warning part is a consequence of too
| much moderation, so people think everything or most thing
| is so moderated it no longer warrants a warning?
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| Hmmm, YouTube is clearly part of the new web though... and
| this seems to be very similar to TikTok ?
| fsflover wrote:
| > but that feeling of the unknown, of not totally being
| sure what you're going to discover (good or bad) when you
| surf from link to link, maybe that's really what's missing
| in the sanitized, commodified 2024 internet.
|
| https://wiby.me search engine brings that feelings back.
| mannycalavera42 wrote:
| this.
|
| this site felt like browsing the small web - just in video
| mode for someone like me that got derailed by into all the
| walled garden hubs of the modern enterprise-web felt
| refreshing and, yeh, 90' nostalgic
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Link? :P
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| I know a video from roughly 11+ years ago where the audio got
| messed up, not sure how to even begin to report that. Was some
| niche "inside joke" type of meme. I have to wonder how many
| videos got re-encoded by YouTube that got screwed up
| inadvertently.
| dheera wrote:
| I don't think they are being served _from_ Youtube (?)
| kahirsch wrote:
| There's an iframe with a link to the youtube api. When I
| watched a video, it was being streamed from a server named
| rr4---sn-p5qlsny6.googlevideo.com
| Sateeshm wrote:
| The first video I got was of a really cute baby making baby
| noises. Made me very happy. It had 0 views.
| nomilk wrote:
| Lots of baby videos. Wonder if that's because 15 years ago phone
| storage was at a premium so only relatively important stuff got
| videoed. I'd image baby videos would be diluted amongst less
| important stuff in a 2024 sample.
| jacinda wrote:
| YouTube was also one of the easiest ways to share family videos
| back then (the files were too large to be emailed, Google
| Photos didn't exist yet, pretty sure Facebook could share
| videos but the quality wasn't as good, etc).
| jacinda wrote:
| Warning - some of these can be reasonably graphic. I came across
| this which is live footage of a hammerhead shark being caught and
| killed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isHEsOPIr28
|
| Also got some cute things like a dad giving a piggyback ride,
| some weightlifting, an amazing dance rehearsal - so very human.
| system2 wrote:
| Damn, it was brutal.
| arookery wrote:
| THANK YOU! Random snapshots of life from a completely different
| internet era--no filters, no algorithms, just raw, unedited
| moments. This feels like opening a digital time capsule.
| mparnisari wrote:
| I got tons of babies/kids, and pets.
| system2 wrote:
| This is cool as hell. I spent 30 minutes browsing random videos I
| will likely never watch again.
| NooneAtAll3 wrote:
| I get only static, even if I refresh
|
| did it break?
| primozk wrote:
| Use the remote.
| yohannesk wrote:
| How? Which ever button I press, I only get static. Am I
| region blocked? I have tried all the keys on my keyboard as
| well
|
| Edit: It works on Firefox for some reason. Maybe extensions?
| I am not sure
| apexalpha wrote:
| The hell, the first one I got was two people dissecting a cat.
|
| I guess it did say random
| michaelsshaw wrote:
| Here's my favorite one so far:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jggYnez6gQ0
| paulluuk wrote:
| The first vide I see is two neo-nazi guys naked in the shower and
| singing a punk song..
|
| I can't help but feel like watching these videos is some kind of
| breach of privacy, I don't think all these videos were supposed
| to go to youtube. But then again, someone did press "upload to
| youtube" on these videos, so I'm torn.
| zigman1 wrote:
| Yes same, my first video was a dad recording his two young sons
| on sofa just playing around. Very up-close to their faces, I
| felt very uneasy having a feeling of breaching someone's
| privacy of their own home
| drooopy wrote:
| I hope this gets archived in case YT decides to purge videos like
| these in the future.
| tpoacher wrote:
| Note to the author: the website is broken and seems to rely on
| some "works best on chrome" shenanigans to work. On my phone,
| youtube thumbnail gets pressed but nothing happens (duckduckgo
| browser).
| shrx wrote:
| Doesn't work in waterfox either.
| encom wrote:
| Broken on Vivaldi as well.
| dwroberts wrote:
| It works fine in Firefox on a desktop
| probably_wrong wrote:
| Firefox on mobile works too.
| wongarsu wrote:
| Edge on desktop works too
| dudefeliciano wrote:
| Noooo! I was working on the exact same web app inspired by the
| same article seen here, you just beat me to the punch (Issue: I
| ended up overengineering the UI, trying to make a css-only
| simpsons-style TV around the iframe, the rest is basically the
| same as this app). Good Job :)
| supermatt wrote:
| Theres nothing wrong with more choice. Please post a link!
| rob wrote:
| As the great Nas has rapped: No idea's
| original, there's nothing new under the sun It's never
| what you do, but how it's done
| echelon_musk wrote:
| Here's to hoping we get the Premier album for Christmas!
| stcg wrote:
| Ecclesiastes 1:9 What has been will be
| again, what has been done will be done again;
| there is nothing new under the sun.
| quesera wrote:
| Pretty sure Nas was first though. I can't even find
| Ecclesiastes on Tidal.
| wrkta wrote:
| Whoever said it first was lying.
| phatfish wrote:
| Score:5, Funny
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| the joke lands a lot better in the original Cylon.
| jerrre wrote:
| there's room on the internet for multiple sites, finishing it
| is nice
| chamomeal wrote:
| Finish and post it please, I still want the Simpsons style TV!!
| venusenvy47 wrote:
| In case you need inspiration, I've had this site bookmarked for
| many years. I don't know anything about the Web design, but it
| has the appearance you describe. https://www.myretrotvs.com/
| 63936473 wrote:
| To be fair it's all just astronaut.io with a different scope
| johtso wrote:
| We should be collaborating, open sourcing the scraping code,
| and sharing the scraped datasets IMO.
|
| I was working on a similar idea a couple of years ago but got
| hung up on the scraping step after realising google api
| restrictions were too onerous.
|
| I was trying to come up with a way that would have the videos
| scraped by the user and then randomised, entirely client side.
| einpoklum wrote:
| I liked the one with the toddler trying to convince a cat to come
| down the stairs :-)
|
| But honestly - another contender for the "Least informative title
| on HN" :-\
| kshitij_libra wrote:
| IMG_0163 - Gold
| n0vella wrote:
| Simple but crazy good idea. There is something in those simple
| non pretencious videos that makes it better than TikTok thought
| XD.
| VanTodi wrote:
| The very first video was of a toddler doing their first steps. I
| don't know any of them and had no clue where they are from.
| Someone just wanted to share their magic moment and after 15
| years, I was involved.
|
| The internet truly can be a marvelous place.
| mimsee wrote:
| Mine was a horse f*cking another horse. Reminder to not browse
| HN while at work. Closed the site pretty fast after that.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| Nature channel stuff is sfw
| recursive wrote:
| > another horse
|
| Thank goodness
| CM30 wrote:
| You know, whenever I see stuff like this or the Deep Into YouTube
| subreddits, it always makes me wonder what it must be like for
| the person that posted the original video. There they are with a
| video they randomly threw online without any intention of it
| becoming popular, only to see their mostly abandoned channel blow
| up overnight as their random clips get thousands of views.
|
| Depending on the user, it must be either the coolest thing ever
| or the creepiest thing ever, with little in between. Kudos to
| anyone that takes the opportunity and uses it as a reason to
| kickstart a YouTube career or something.
|
| Regardless, it's always interesting to see, since:
|
| 1. It shows you just how big YouTube is, and how few of the
| videos posted there get any attention at all. The fact there's a
| huge percentage of the platform viewed by no one is just mind
| boggling to me.
|
| 2. It illustrates how little marketing skill correlates to video
| editing skill, since there are interesting videos going ignored
| due to their creator's inability to add a good title or thumbnail
| or metadata, or which were uploaded on a whim without any of that
| stuff being taken into account.
| preciousoo wrote:
| It feels too intimate, I had to close it. Cool concept though
| miunau wrote:
| A substantial amount (20% already back in 2014, I would imagine
| more now) of songs available on streaming never get streamed
| either. Kind of why that market has steered towards flat-fee
| upload distributors. 29 bucks a year is better than 10% of 0
| bucks.
| XorNot wrote:
| Seems to bizarre to me that the "zero streams" playlist isn't
| a feature actually.
| wholinator2 wrote:
| Yeah, it seems like it could be a great feature for helping
| level the playing field a bit and discover some hidden gems
| that no one would have ever heard. But I imagine that at
| some point 'no streams' would have to turn into 'low
| streams' but that's fine.
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| Most things with low popularity are rated appropriately.
| There are definitely some hidden gems, but most media that
| is created is simply bad.
| miunau wrote:
| This is a lazy take. The reason is that there is money
| involved in picking who is at the top of the playlists.
| It's no big secret the big record labels own large parts
| of the music streaming industry. They are simply getting
| their investment back. There is no incentive giving money
| to any small third parties in terms of promotion. Spotify
| doesn't even pay out for songs that get under 1000
| streams per year anymore.
|
| This is not even getting into the investment companies
| that buy artist catalogues wholesale, and therefore have
| a major interest in keeping old songs in constant
| rotation for the decades to come.
|
| Saying any of it is a meritocracy is pure ignorance.
| lelandbatey wrote:
| I don't think they're saying it's a meritocracy, I think
| they're uncontroversialy saying that a playlist of songs
| with up-till-now zero plays would be a huge amount of
| garbage, e.g. poorly made FL Studio/Garage Band
| experiments, not even interesting music just kinda bad
| music.
| smitelli wrote:
| I would imagine a sizable portion of these old (15+ years ago)
| accounts are abandoned. Forgotten password, email address tied
| to an ISP that only serves a region where the person no longer
| lives, that kind of thing.
|
| YouTube wasn't always tied so strongly to a Google account, and
| overall fewer people had Google accounts in the first place.
| climb_stealth wrote:
| I wonder if that is actually tru. Because interestingly
| enough my youtube account is the only remaining link I have
| to the internet of the past. Created in 2006 and I'm still
| using it.
|
| I'm not aware of anything else that has persisted since then.
| Old email accounts, forums, games - everything is gone now
| and inaccessible for me.
| dmezzetti wrote:
| It's like a time capsule of ordinary life. All the little moments
| when not many are watching and ironically now people are
| watching. Very fascinating!
| Netcob wrote:
| How many of these people didn't understand that anyone could see
| their videos?
|
| It might be a bit difficult for the highly technical HN crowd to
| grasp how little many people understand technology. Not changing
| the title is already a big clue. Since it was a feature built-in
| to a native app, people might have thought their videos would not
| be public or only shared with friends, and lots of them might not
| even have understood what they were doing at all.
| dwayne_dibley wrote:
| especially given the low view counts. I've just watched two
| videos with 1 view. One would assume if they were being
| uploaded to be shared they'd have more views.
| xnorswap wrote:
| This is my take too. This is more like finding an unsecured s3
| bucket and delving through it.
|
| It might have been "published" to YouTube, but was it really
| done so with informed consent?
|
| This is unlikely to be a popular opinion here, but mass
| downloading of IMG_0001 videos is essentially trawling for
| private data by looking for an identifier of accidentally
| unsecured private data, akin to searching for "{ apiKey: " in
| github.
| lblume wrote:
| The apiKey thing is actually scary though, so many firebase
| keys...
|
| With that said, I don't really find this metaphor to be
| applicable though. If these videos don't have sensitive
| content -- and some may of course do -- this is something
| deeply human, the ability to share experiences with others,
| which has been lacking in the last years with attention-
| grabbing social media.
| amelius wrote:
| Why is there vignetting at the edges of the videos?
|
| Is that a known iPhone defect?
| thinkingemote wrote:
| CSS over the player box
|
| boxshadow: 0 0 200px rgba(0,0,0,0.9) inset
| riow wrote:
| Very cool
| csmpltn wrote:
| Many of these videos aren't even 10 years old (was just watching
| a clip from 2015), but they look like they were shot in the 80s.
| What's up with that?
| logicallee wrote:
| The video player on the site adds a vignetting effect
| (darkening the edges of the screen) to make the videos feel
| older, I think. If you click the date on a video you see the
| original on YouTube, without this effect.
| graeber_28927 wrote:
| I was thinking there will probably be nothing from my home
| country (HU) since it's a small country, and iPhones aren't as
| popular anyway. People are comparatively price sensitive.
|
| And then in the 5th video that got recommended to me, the
| language seemed familiar, and sure enough, it's hungarian. IMG
| 0397, with 18 views.
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| Please beware, some very strange films can be encountered
| there... Including naked
| buro9 wrote:
| TIL: Americans really like firing guns, and videoing their
| friends firing guns.
| coreyhn wrote:
| This reminded me of the scene in Amelie where she makes a video
| montage for the glass man. Really interesting and random topics.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| It's beautiful. Reminds me of a post Armageddon montage.
| kalli wrote:
| Got to give a shout out to https://youhole.tv on a similar note.
|
| Gives you similarly obscure videos, but without any context or
| links which makes it feel more ephemeral and random in my view.
| Have spent many hours down that rabbit hole, makes me feel like
| I'm watching the interdimensional cable from Rick and Morty
| GNOMES wrote:
| Seems that views through this site don't seem to reflect?
|
| Found a video that had zero views, watched to completion, then
| hit back on next video to return to it. Video still had 0 views.
| danhau wrote:
| YouTube view counts are known to be tricky. There are in depth
| videos on that topic.
| JanneVee wrote:
| Watching this only a few videos and it made me profoundly sad. It
| is a loss of authenticity, everything online now feels fake
| compared to this.
| ryandrake wrote:
| Yea, the Internet has slowly lost something as every online
| video has slowly evolved to start with the same obnoxious
| "WHATS UP GUYS! Check out my sponsors who have some great stuff
| to show you. I've got some great content for you so watch it to
| the end and remember to hit like and subscribe with the bell!"
| in that fake "90s Radio DJ" voice.
| capital_guy wrote:
| I completely agree. There's something really jarring about
| watching videos from this time, where things were just more
| candid in a way that's hard to describe. I only clicked through
| a few videos and I was smiling from ear to ear. People dancing
| in a club, a guy riding a homemade little dirtbike in the
| countryside, babies playing and kids riding bikes. They feel
| like home videos. It's beautiful.
| pimlottc wrote:
| One suggestion, add controls for rotating the video. Cameras in
| this era didn't always have the ability to rotate a video after
| it was shot, so some of these are in the wrong orientation.
|
| Now, it's just a simple CSS transform:
|
| document.querySelector("#player").style.webkitTransform =
| "rotate(90deg)"
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| If only the arrow keys allowed you to skip a video....
| tr3ntg wrote:
| Well I clicked one too many times. Came across a funeral
| procession with 0 views. Couldn't see any faces or identifying
| information, thankfully. But sad nonetheless.
| ezfe wrote:
| > Sign in to confirm you're not a bot
| bloomingeek wrote:
| One of the vids I looked at was some guys warming up for a league
| basketball game, pretty cool. Another was of a small child riding
| a scooter, I can think of a lot of ways that might be uncool.
|
| My take away is this: I took a video of my grandson's birthday
| party recently using my cellphone. I haven't uploaded or sent it
| to anyone yet. Has my cell carrier already captured the video
| without my knowing it? In the corporate world the only privacy
| that matters to them is their own, not ours.
|
| I've read that digi-cams were making somewhat of a comeback,
| maybe that's good.
| m0n01d wrote:
| reposts. every day a new one.
| shriracha wrote:
| Weirdly poignant and beautiful, but also feels a bit wrong to
| watch.
| cryptozeus wrote:
| Content world before ai , pure and organic !
| quartz wrote:
| This is the web2 internet I remember and love. People sharing
| their lives.
|
| I watched a blurry video of a family at the zoo, a father
| tickling his toddler (who is having an absolute blast), a middle
| school play rehearsal, some guy's high school class presentation
| in south africa (I think?), a random indie country band at a bar,
| lots of terrible dancing... all joyful, no agendas.
|
| There was a thread yesterday about Facebook's little red book and
| a lot of nostalgia from folks who were there at the time about
| the optimism across builders then. This was the kind of content
| that drove that feeling.
| duckkg5 wrote:
| Simple, effective and enjoyable UX. Nicely done.
| albertojacini wrote:
| Watching a cat failing to open a jar, I noticed that my brain
| expects cats to succeed at all they do.
| yuters wrote:
| When the original post about this was on HN, I searched
| IMG_[XXXX] on YouTube and the videos I found... let's say most of
| them were really boring.
|
| The ones I see here are the complete opposite, they are so
| interesting, this might be a total coincidence or maybe the
| simpler interface changes my perception. You didn't curate them?
| BobAliceInATree wrote:
| Same! I watched a few on youtube and got bored quickly, but I
| find a bunch of these a least somewhat interesting. Though
| having it just automatically go to the next one, and a skip
| button, are a big help. Maybe youtube search is just bad.
| nickdothutton wrote:
| I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Lasagne on fire on
| the top of an oven. I've watched a family BBQ from 2009. All
| those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to
| close the browser.
| soulclap wrote:
| Nice project.
|
| Would be cool if there was an easy way to obtain the link to the
| actual video and maybe show the original title, description and
| username.
| 85392_school wrote:
| Click on one of the green numbers to get the link.
| lbrito wrote:
| After a few clicks I got a guy heating the tip of a screwdriver-
| like thing on a gas range and apparently attempting to de-solder
| some component off a PCB. Genius!
| nrvn wrote:
| What I find weird is searching IMG_XXXX directly on youtube
| returns you a number of videos with such title and half of the
| results are 10+ year old youtube SHORTS. There was no such thing
| back then. Just bloody videos! Does Youtube auto-convert short
| old videos to vertical shorts on users' behalf?
| drvladb wrote:
| I believe Youtube just serves the video with a Shorts UI,
| nothing special besides the formatting of the page.
| CM30 wrote:
| Unfortunately the answer is yes. If a video has a vertical
| resolution and is under 3 minutes (previously 1 minute),
| YouTube will automatically treat it as a short now. This
| basically means every video related to a DS or 3DS game, or
| recorded on a phone in general, is now treated like a short by
| their system.
|
| This has likely screwed up all manner of videos, since a
| vertical resolution doesn't equate to it being designed for a
| TikTok or Instagram style feed...
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Early YouTube limited videos to a few minutes. Also early
| phones didn't have a lot of memory to make long videos.
| robotmachine wrote:
| Many moons ago an acquaintance did a somewhat similar project
| finding default title "mic in track.mp3" files on music sharing
| services that were created using MusicMatch Jukebox.
|
| > https://www.stark-effect.com/mit.html
| MortyWaves wrote:
| Every video says "sign in to make sure you're not a bot" but
| there's no sign in button. Amazing product design from YouTube.
| diimdeep wrote:
| if you let users watch two videos and pick which one is more
| interesting, this will go very bad in no time as it did with
| early Zuckerberg site Hot-or-Not
| Aeroi wrote:
| Damn, I got Gangnam styled on video #3.
| upmind wrote:
| How did you crawl so many videos on YouTube?
| nwatson wrote:
| I watched a few, but if the wrong video pops up and hasn't been
| filtered / redacted by YouTube then I might accidentally have
| legally compromising material on my phone through no fault of my
| own, other than curiosity. At least with the YouTube UI I can go
| to my "History" tab and see/prove the video came through YouTube
| UI action. But random videos from unknown sites are too risky.
| aprilthird2021 wrote:
| I'm not really sure what the worry is here.
|
| Legally compromising material? From watching a YouTube video?
| Also wouldn't you have this site in your browser history to
| prove it came from there? And the video has the same title
| which matches the format of all the videos on this site?
|
| Hard to think of a scenario where this site can get you in
| trouble tbh
| 24Todd54 wrote:
| I love stories like this where no one is really aware of what is
| happening at the time and only later you can see that many puzzle
| pieces came together to create some funny effect
| nefrix wrote:
| It is amazing what you have created; and the fact that you can
| not share the video, and you are the only one who can see it it
| is even more valuable; such a simple and smart idea; bravo
| yup_sto wrote:
| Baader-Meinhof strikes again - checked this out in the morning
| and just caught your Citibike tweet. You're on a roll today!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-12-04 23:00 UTC)