IMG_0001 | Hacker News Reader

IMG_0001

walzr.com

1,861 pointswalz290 comments

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.

I'm really anxious Google will also kill this aspect of Youtube one day.

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.

AFAIK youtube is profitable now. It was not for years, but is now.

Yes, but it could perhaps be more profitable, if they cut spending on this aspect?

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.

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.

What could be cost of total storage of YouTube ? Edit : About billion USD per year.

Since when did that stop shareholders to make even more money?

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.

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.

https://archive.org/details/movies?tab=collection

Google: if you like it, it's going away.

Once you live to a certain age, you realize this is true about everything in your life.

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

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.

You should get YouTube Premium so they can pay for all those servers.

They've already announced deleting videos from unused channels. So it's only a matter of time

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.”

Thanks, finally some good news from them for once

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.

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.

Clicking the date opens it in YouTube.

That's a shame, I like the ephemeral nature of these.

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.

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.

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.

> very private

very explicitly uploaded with the intent that others would see it

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.

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.

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.

The fact that many of these have exactly 0 views makes it totally plausible that the uploaders had no idea that this video existed.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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...

    > Luckily there's a decent number of platforms/apps out there which make it easy to share with family without making stuff public.

Can you share some examples?

The one we ended up settling on was Family Album. It's been a pretty good platform and a lot of our family didn't have a problem getting on it. We've been using it for several years now. Prints purchased through the platform have generally been top notch as well.

https://family-album.com/

I forget the other competitors in this space as its been a few years since we last looked into it.

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.

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).

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.

"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.

>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.

"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.

>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.

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.

>If you have to go out of your way, to look into my screen, than no, not ok.

Well, I didn't talk about what is OK or not OK. What I said is you don't have a right to not have someone looking over your shoulder. Unless that person is touching you or following you to do it, there's nothing you can do to stop someone who's snooping at your screen in public if they don't want to stop.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

>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.

context is everything in public settings. Was it a tired old man on a cane that clearly needed to sit down? clearly it's rude for the couple to at least not scoot over. is the bench super long? there's probably no real beef as long as you're not directly sitting in their personal space.

In this case, these are clips uploaded over a decade ago for one reason or another. Realistically it's the same case-by-case. In general I don't really feel any guilt per se.

==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?

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

Are we watching the same YouTube clips?

I think by definition, we are not watching the same Youtube clips. Isn't that how the app works?

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.

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.

This comment thread feels like a variation of the Telephone Game.

There is a plague in here where people examine every statement in attempt to find the strongest evidence that can be used to refute the previous claim. If you don't make your sentences airtight, they will pull out semantic arguments for any type of counterexample. Among the set of replies, there is very little sympathetic comprehension of the essence of what was said. At times it can be maddening.

It's not just here, it's any place where technical people congregate. It's something wrong with technical people, I think. It probably has something to do with why terrorists are frequently engineers.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/07/11/theres-a-good-reason-wh...

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!

> That felt like a total invasion of their private lives.

Except they literally explicitly uploaded it to YT.

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.

Is there a more convenient way now? Not being sarcastic, but it's still pretty damn convenient.

These days you can unlist the video.

YOu think people know how to do that? Or even remember their content is there for all to see?

I don't think most people care to be honest. Dive into enough small accounts on instagram sharing their entire life story and you start to have a different perception on the ethical quandries.

The quandry is that people feel insignifigant and don't care if a dozen strangers see their posts.

That was possible then too, but took an extra step. Defaults are important.

I use Google Photos. Apple Photos would work too. Or any of the messaging apps like WhatsApp, Telegram, etc.

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.

> They may have done so without understanding the implications.

this may have even been pre-Google, so yes. You would have needed to create a youtube account, sign its TOS, and then press the corresponding options to upload a video to the internet. I don't think even back then people just auto-uploaded everything on heir phone; YT had pretty strict limits at that time anyway.

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

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

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?

Hmmm, YouTube is clearly part of the new web though... and this seems to be very similar to TikTok ?

> 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.

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

Link? :P

Because the truth is it’s likely that most of these were never meant to be public. People will say that it’s the fault of the user and thus there is no guilt attributable to the viewer, but I sincerely doubt most of these users knew they were making it public and may not have if they knew.

While I don’t think intentionally surfacing these videos is wrong in any legal sense of course, I think it’s wrong ethically.

Exploiting someone’s mistake in this manner is not noble.

It’s the same reason we (good folk) look away when someone’s clothing accidentally reveals more than they intended, though it would be within our right to look.

I choose not to view these because I don’t believe it was intended that I should, and without the consent of the creator I chose to err on the side of decency.

Well said. Although cool in a technical sense, I can't get myself to open the site because of ethical reasons. However, in my younger more ego driven coding days I would have looked at it like a really fun challenge and a chance to show everyone my skills. The ethics of it would have been an afterthought.

I think that comparing children to private parts or intimacy is a symptom of the current hysteria about pedophilia. We are so conditioned to wanting to protect children and being terrified of being accused of being a pedo yourself. It's probably how the Salem witch hysteria was. What if it's possible to see children simply as smaller people, and not jump to hysterics upon seeing people in their family? If there was a naked kid in the bathtub or something you could report it (they have AI that can detect this anyway).

I think that’s a long distance record for leaps in reasoning.

a lot of these unethical arguments veer on this idea that creating an account and publishing online content in this early smartphone era was some foreign concept. I don't subscribe that even in 2006 that people were that internet illiterate.

people didn't change, our perception of the internet changed (for better and worse). I still see enough people posting intimate stuff way past my boundaries that I think this is simply how some people are wired. I'd definitely wager that 90% of the people who I'd notify of this in some sort of census would not bother to delete/unlist these videos.

Funny you say that because flipping through a few videos on the site just now, I came across one of a young child (say 2yo) playing nude in the pool. I reported it, of course.

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.

yt-dlp https://github.com/yt-dlp/yt-dlp lets you list and download different formats offered by YoTube for videos.

You could try downloading different audio formats and see if any of the available ones contain non-garbled audio.

For example:

  yt-dlp -F "https://youtube.com/watch?v=a28_aXgrgXE"

Output:

  [youtube] Extracting URL: https://youtube.com/watch?v=a28_aXgrgXE
  [youtube] a28_aXgrgXE: Downloading webpage
  [youtube] a28_aXgrgXE: Downloading ios player API JSON
  [youtube] a28_aXgrgXE: Downloading player 62ccfae7
  WARNING: [youtube] a28_aXgrgXE: nsig extraction failed: Some formats may be missing
           n = l9bNLKrDBBdCJtknGqU ; player = https://www.youtube.com/s/player/62ccfae7/player_ias.vflset/en_US/base.js
  WARNING: [youtube] a28_aXgrgXE: nsig extraction failed: Some formats may be missing
           n = Z-MlQqu4ClRjI62sqw_ ; player = https://www.youtube.com/s/player/62ccfae7/player_ias.vflset/en_US/base.js
  [youtube] a28_aXgrgXE: Downloading m3u8 information
  [youtube] a28_aXgrgXE: Downloading MPD manifest
  [info] Available formats for a28_aXgrgXE:
  ID       EXT   RESOLUTION FPS CH │   FILESIZE   TBR PROTO │ VCODEC        VBR ACODEC     ABR ASR MORE INFO
  ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
  sb2      mhtml 48x27        1    │                  mhtml │ images                               storyboard
  sb1      mhtml 33x45        1    │                  mhtml │ images                               storyboard
  sb0      mhtml 67x90        1    │                  mhtml │ images                               storyboard
  233      mp4   audio only        │                  m3u8  │ audio only        unknown            Default
  234      mp4   audio only        │                  m3u8  │ audio only        unknown            Default
  139-dash m4a   audio only        │  427.60KiB   48k dash  │ audio only        mp4a.40.5  48k 22k DASH audio, m4a_dash
  139      m4a   audio only      1 │  427.60KiB   48k https │ audio only        mp4a.40.5  48k 22k low, m4a_dash
  140-dash m4a   audio only        │  853.17KiB   96k dash  │ audio only        mp4a.40.2  96k 44k DASH audio, m4a_dash
  251      webm  audio only        │  851.41KiB   99k dash  │ audio only        opus       99k 48k DASH audio, webm_dash
  140      m4a   audio only      1 │  853.17KiB   95k https │ audio only        mp4a.40.2  95k 44k medium, m4a_dash
  160      mp4   108x144     30    │ ~962.40KiB  108k dash  │ avc1.4d400b  108k video only         DASH video, mp4_dash
  269      mp4   108x144     30    │ ~  1.43MiB  164k m3u8  │ avc1.4D400B  164k video only
  278      webm  108x144     30    │ ~846.56KiB   95k dash  │ vp9           95k video only         DASH video, webm_dash
  133      mp4   180x240     30    │ ~  2.11MiB  242k dash  │ avc1.4d400c  242k video only         DASH video, mp4_dash
  229      mp4   180x240     30    │ ~  2.65MiB  305k m3u8  │ avc1.4D400C  305k video only
  242      webm  180x240     30    │ ~  1.92MiB  220k dash  │ vp9          220k video only         DASH video, webm_dash
  134-dash mp4   270x360     30    │    3.32MiB  459k dash  │ avc1.4d4014  459k video only         DASH video, mp4_dash
  230      mp4   270x360     30    │ ~  5.07MiB  583k m3u8  │ avc1.4D4014  583k video only
  134      mp4   270x360     30    │    3.32MiB  380k https │ avc1.4D4014  380k video only         240p, mp4_dash
  243      webm  270x360     30    │ ~  3.53MiB  406k dash  │ vp9          406k video only         DASH video, webm_dash
  135      mp4   360x480     30    │ ~ 10.05MiB 1155k dash  │ avc1.4d400b 1155k video only         DASH video, mp4_dash
  231      mp4   360x480     30    │ ~ 11.43MiB 1313k m3u8  │ avc1.4D400B 1313k video only
  244      webm  360x480     30    │ ~  6.55MiB  753k dash  │ vp9          753k video only         DASH video, webm_dash

And then download each of the "audio only" entries from the table. In the case of the table for the video I chose:

  yt-dlp -f 233      -o "%(id)s.%(format_id)s.%(ext)s" "https://youtube.com/watch?v=a28_aXgrgXE"
  yt-dlp -f 234      -o "%(id)s.%(format_id)s.%(ext)s" "https://youtube.com/watch?v=a28_aXgrgXE"
  yt-dlp -f 139-dash -o "%(id)s.%(format_id)s.%(ext)s" "https://youtube.com/watch?v=a28_aXgrgXE"
  yt-dlp -f 139      -o "%(id)s.%(format_id)s.%(ext)s" "https://youtube.com/watch?v=a28_aXgrgXE"
  yt-dlp -f 140-dash -o "%(id)s.%(format_id)s.%(ext)s" "https://youtube.com/watch?v=a28_aXgrgXE"
  yt-dlp -f 251      -o "%(id)s.%(format_id)s.%(ext)s" "https://youtube.com/watch?v=a28_aXgrgXE"
  yt-dlp -f 140      -o "%(id)s.%(format_id)s.%(ext)s" "https://youtube.com/watch?v=a28_aXgrgXE"

Here I used the '-f' option to choose each of the 'audio only' formats available for the example video, and then I used the '-o' flag to specify a custom format string for the output files so that the file names include the format id making them unique from each other and corresponding to the entries in the original table.

This gives me files containing each of the audio formats that were available from YouTube.

  -rw-r--r--  1 user user 437246 Oct  9  2013 a28_aXgrgXE.139-dash.m4a
  -rw-r--r--  1 user user 437246 Oct  9  2013 a28_aXgrgXE.139.m4a
  -rw-r--r--  1 user user 713133 Oct  9  2013 a28_aXgrgXE.140-dash.m4a
  -rw-r--r--  1 user user 872935 Oct  9  2013 a28_aXgrgXE.140.m4a
  -rw-r--r--  1 user user 441481 Oct  9  2013 a28_aXgrgXE.233.mp4
  -rw-r--r--  1 user user 881428 Oct  9  2013 a28_aXgrgXE.234.mp4
  -rw-r--r--  1 user user 711273 Jul 22  2019 a28_aXgrgXE.251.webm

The timestamps of the files are set by yt-dlp to correspond to timestamps it got from YouTube.

It might be worth to be careful about downloading alternate format versions of too many videos. I could imagine that downloading alternate formats of too many videos from YouTube could trigger something on their side to make them think you are a bot or something. Of course that's just speculation and I don't know if YouTube actually does that. Hopefully doing it for a single video won't get your IP banned by YouTube.

I don't think they are being served from Youtube (?)

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

The first video I got was of a really cute baby making baby noises. Made me very happy. It had 0 views.

> 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.

And remember that depending if you visited with an iphone, or an android, or a smart TV, or a Chromecast, they'd be needing to serve the video with different encoding settings/codecs/MPEG profiles. So for the hardly ever watched videos, they either need to keep transcoded copies in 10+ formats, all ready to serve with no latency for years, or be ready to live transcode.

It really amazes me that they don't simply say that any video that doesn't get at least 1000 views will count towards your google drive storage quota.

Keeping all that private and never watched video ready-to-serve must cost so much, with zero revenue.

I think they will/are using it for AI/ML training. After all, it is data created by a human, so useful in the newly polluted sea of AI generated content.

Doubt data uploaded 10+ years ago has the necessary agreements in place, at least in countries like Europe/UK requiring user consent for processing of private data.

Collecting data for one purpose (video sharing site), but then using it for another (training AI) is very much verboten.

They can probably use the public stuff tho.

But it's under an account, an account that can receive notices about ToS and such. Wouldn't that cover this?

It's like TikTok sans algorithm. I got a protest in Vietnam, a rally for French politician François 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.

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

I got a dude beating a horse with a stick!

Far Side caption: Terry was never any good with idioms

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

Really triggers Sonder in a way curated content never can.

The back to back viewing of things going on everywhere around the world, seeing what is important to people moment by moment really makes you appreciate how big the world really is, a reminder that my perspective is quite narrow.

Recent and related:

IMG_0416 - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42102506 - Nov 2024 (324 comments)

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)

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.

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.

It feels too intimate, I had to close it. Cool concept though

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.

Seems to bizarre to me that the "zero streams" playlist isn't a feature actually.

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.

Most things with low popularity are rated appropriately. There are definitely some hidden gems, but most media that is created is simply bad.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> YouTube wasn’t always tied so strongly to a Google account

They still have a page to recover a pre-Google account. It used to be a clearly outdated page with old graphics, now they made it a bit "better".

It's here: https://www.youtube.com/gaia_link

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.

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... ?

Sold to CNN in 2016 for $US25M

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.

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.

Are you still in touch with Casey? I’ve watched him for 10+ years now so always fascinating to hear about his work.

No, but he was fantastic to work for and it was one of the best jobs I’ve ever had. Hope he’s doing well.

You are just describing a regular startup, that’s not a pump & dump which makes it sound like a scam.

The keming got me, I totally read that as Berne and wondered what you were admining in Berne with video streams. Nvm.

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.

The lasagna that burns twice as bright, burns half as long. And that lasagna has burned so very, very brightly.

Is this an empathy test?

These are all silly allusions to rutger hauer in blade runner.

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 :)

Theres nothing wrong with more choice. Please post a link!

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

Here's to hoping we get the Premier album for Christmas!

Ecclesiastes 1:9

    What has been will be again,
    what has been done will be done again;
    there is nothing new under the sun.

Pretty sure Nas was first though. I can't even find Ecclesiastes on Tidal.

Whoever said it first was lying.

Score:5, Funny

the joke lands a lot better in the original Cylon.

there's room on the internet for multiple sites, finishing it is nice

Finish and post it please, I still want the Simpsons style TV!!

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/

To be fair it's all just astronaut.io with a different scope

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.

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.

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...

Thanks for sharing that riveting performance. And, Borges is always intersting.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Share to Youtube" should at least make the video Unlisted by default which is probably what most people expect: They get to share the url with their friends/family, but you can't find their videos in search. And the security model makes sense: anyone with the url can view it.

Public by default is just so bad.

Youtube playlists used to default to public and it's ridiculous to realize some personal playlist you've been accumulating is right there on your profile. I think they finally fixed it.

Facebook also bungled massively in this space where just commenting on some embarrassing Facebook group ended up broadcasting it to all of your friends' walls. And you had no way of knowing that until one of your friends told you that your question on "Foreskin restoration support group" showed up on their wall.

You're probably in the top 1% of product/UX designers if you spend just 10 seconds pondering the level of privacy the average user expects as they do things in an app.

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.

Automated filtering surely is not across the main competitive advantages of youtube.

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

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.

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

The idea itself is so regressive and shaming, I don't find it surprising at all that the political right is drawn to it.

The idea of being a horny guy online and content existing for horny guys online is regressive and shaming?

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.

But there is something wrong with that. The excessive part. Thanks for clarifying

Do we have regressive and shaming names for excessive water drinkers? Excessive breathers? Excessive readers?

No, no, and yes.

There are few, if any, shuttering themselves away from regular social interactions due to an addiction to water or air.

The appearence of doing so because of a porn or more general book compulsion is more commonn.

So what's the regressive and shaming name for excessive readers?

Aside from four eyed bookworm et al you mean?

Those aren't common things to be. We have regressive and shaming names for the excessively wealthy, the excessively macho, the excessively progressive, etc.

All things in moderation.

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.

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.

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.

My second video was from a strip club

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..."

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)

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.

Mine was a horse f*cking another horse. Reminder to not browse HN while at work. Closed the site pretty fast after that.

Nature channel stuff is sfw

> another horse

Thank goodness

PSA: This will fubar your YouTube watch history / recommendations, you might want to incognito.

I'll take this as a benefit; an algorithm palate cleanser

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.

I was wondering why YouTube suddenly thought I only wanted to watch sub 1000 view videos

I'm happy with videos that have few views. I'll always be sure to leave a comment and a like. Sometimes there's really good videos in there

The same happened to me. Now I get it...

Videos embedded in other pages don't show up in my https://www.youtube.com/feed/history

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.

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.

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.

First pull was a surreptitiously recorded conversation that sounds like it was being held as blackmail.

haha creepy. i was lucky and got a cute cat video =)

I got one that seemed to involve child soldiers in Africa, zero views. This is wild.

"Between 2009 and 2012" fits with the Kony 2012 documentary.

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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!

https://ytch.xyz/

A bit more context:

Show HN: If YouTube had actual channels - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41247023 - Sep 2024 (532 comments)

I'd like to learn more about crawling YouTube, I don't think they appreciate that.

same here, id be more interested in the list gathering technique than the list itself..

Check out NewPipe and yt-dlp

This reminded me of the scene in Amelie where she makes a video montage for the glass man. Really interesting and random topics.

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.

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.

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).

Doesn't work in waterfox either.

Broken on Vivaldi as well.

It works fine in Firefox on a desktop

Firefox on mobile works too.

Edge on desktop works too

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.

I think it’s special that we’re collectively ensuring that all these videos are watched at least once :)

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.

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.

Damn, it was brutal.

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

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.

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?

I believe Youtube just serves the video with a Shorts UI, nothing special besides the formatting of the page.

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...

Early YouTube limited videos to a few minutes. Also early phones didn't have a lot of memory to make long videos.

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.

I did the same thing! Haha

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.

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

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!

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.

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)"

This is cool as hell. I spent 30 minutes browsing random videos I will likely never watch again.

A lot of babies, horses, dancing/singing, and sports but also plenty of fascinating stuff.

The first video I got was from some KKK ritual.

Those people are probably elected officials now

I laughed. Thank you.

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.

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).

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

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

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.

YouTube view counts are known to be tricky. There are in depth videos on that topic.

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.

Here's my favorite one so far:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jggYnez6gQ0

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?

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.

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" :-\

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.

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.

Click on one of the green numbers to get the link.

Baader-Meinhof strikes again - checked this out in the morning and just caught your Citibike tweet. You're on a roll today!

Simple but crazy good idea. There is something in those simple non pretencious videos that makes it better than TikTok thought XD.

Absolutely mesmerized by this, thank you.

First video felt like an awkward ad with two teachers. Second a high school party playing YMCA... I approve.

Watching a cat failing to open a jar, I noticed that my brain expects cats to succeed at all they do.

I hope this gets archived in case YT decides to purge videos like these in the future.

Please beware, some very strange films can be encountered there... Including naked

TIL: Americans really like firing guns, and videoing their friends firing guns.

This reminds me of that Webcam video controversy a few years back

Weirdly poignant and beautiful, but also feels a bit wrong to watch.

The hell, the first one I got was two people dissecting a cat.

I guess it did say random

Why is there vignetting at the edges of the videos?

Is that a known iPhone defect?

CSS over the player box

boxshadow: 0 0 200px rgba(0,0,0,0.9) inset

I love archaeology, digital or otherwise. Great project!

It’s beautiful. Reminds me of a post Armageddon montage.

If only the arrow keys allowed you to skip a video....

I wonder, could this be a time-shifted TikTok?

Simple, effective and enjoyable UX. Nicely done.

Authentic and nostalgic, I am enjoying watching.

How did you crawl so many videos on YouTube?

Content world before ai , pure and organic !

> Sign in to confirm you’re not a bot

I got tons of babies/kids, and pets.

Damn, I got Gangnam styled on video #3.

I get only static, even if I refresh

did it break?

Use the remote.

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

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.

It's from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_rule_for_Camera_File_sy...

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...

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.

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.

This is amazing.

IMG_0163 - Gold

reposts. every day a new one.

Very cool

Meh. It tells me to sign in. I'm not doing that.

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com