Hacker News Reader

Comment by jsmthrowaway | Hacker News Reader

I'm surprised nobody noticed that the names of the videos are from mktemp(3).

    >>> tempfile.mktemp()
    '/tmp/tmplOcKyZ'
    >>> tempfile.mktemp()
    '/tmp/tmpW0dJUR'

    tmpwxm2CP
    3 weeks ago - 31,842 views

    tmpElnFwp
    3 weeks ago - 112 views

Betting aqua.flv is the source file, the name of the video is the temporary output file (probably from a transcoder), and the article's conclusion about testing is accurate.

View on HN

aqua.flv would probably match the Aqua Teen Hunger Force clip behind the paywall?

To do some math (that may be helpful or not): 77000 YouTube videos * 10 frames per YouTube video / 24 frames per second / 3600 seconds per hour = 8.91 hours of video

Why did you convert from time to frames to frames to time when you could just have kept it in time? Also, your maths is off:

  77,000 videos * 10 seconds = 770,000 seconds
  770,000 seconds / 60 / 60 = 213.89 hours

Because people perceive video not to be 1 frame/second.

If so, those videos had perhaps 240 frames each, not 10.

Because each video posted was 10 seconds with one frame per second. If this came from a source video, it would have been at a higher framerate.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com