[1]: https://github.com/gsuberland/UMP_Format/blob/main/UMP_Forma...
Transcoded (ouch) or just remuxed to a mov container? Have to investigate.
That being said, that makes zero sense. Just linking to a library, doesn't precluded using a protocol over a socket to talk to a graphic/audio server. Access control like remote code isolation (webAPIs), CORS and DRM also don't change anything about decoding and mixing video streams.
Which seems a little short sighted to me. VLC or Jellyfin are obviously superior because they're accessible across multiple platforms.
the default is mov
That’s not true at all. QuickTime is far from the best video player, but it’s also not entirely worthless. It can play “modern” popular formats like H264 MP4, which is exactly what YouTube recommends.
yt-dlp --format 18 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWxh9lGOeqQ' --output 'FuckingGenius.mp4' && open -a 'QuickTime Player' 'FuckingGenius.mp4'
Thanks. I played around with your idea and got this. It’s still not 100% of videos. Only YouTube videos that have any H.264+AAC stream available (which is 99.9% of public YouTube today, even if the main/default version is VP9 or AV1).
But re encoding to solve this is not required. I stand corrected.
On top of that... seriously, of all the formats one could choose, MOV?! Might as well choose DivX or RealVideo.
But I gave you a cli param of --format
Default is mov but you can pass in mkv
How old are you?
(Note to self: Never wrestle with a pig ...)
https://github.com/tubearchivist/browser-extension
I really like the WebUI of Tubearchivist itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksHaSnEs4WM
In the 90s my friend's mom would video tape AMC movies. She had 300+ tapes. Maybe she had a few rare ones but now all those movies are available on demand either legally or illegally and in much better quality. Another friend kept all of his 1980s computer magazines (Byte, etc...) and moved these extremely heavy boxes through 30+ years of moves. I doubt he ever opened a single magazine since the moment he saved them. Then they all appeared on The Archive and he finally got rid of them.
To be clear, I have a few youtube videos saved on my local storage. I'm just thinking that saving every video I watch reminds me of the things I've personally over-saved.
Actually that reminds me. I met up with the magazine saving friend recently which is when I verified that he finally got rid of his stash. It made me think about things I'm still saving that if I reflect on I know I will never actually look at. For example I have box of about eight 3.5 inch floppy disks from my Amiga days. The odds that I'm going to get an Amiga or download an Amiga emu and get a drive to read those are close enough to zero that I should throw them away. Similarly I have a book of CD-ROMs of backed up data from the 90s. There's a close to 0% chance that I'm never going to bother look at their contents.
But a personal copy I'm not sure has much point yeah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marion_Stokes
I don’t think IA has all early issues of the Microsoft Systems Journal (later MSDN Magazine), among others. So this can be useful. (Also, what kind of person do you think put the magazines up on IA in the first place?..)
And there’s a number of YouTube videos o wish I could still access.
>There's a close to 0% chance that I'm never going to bother look at their contents.
More likely scenario, your children, grandchildren or other family members go through your shit after you pass away and discover stuff about you that perhaps you never wanted to share.
This is something I think about a lot because I don't have a "digital legacy plan."
I think that's not really likely. I'm pretty sure if you poll you'll find that few children care about their parent's "stuff". You can find plenty of people who've lost parents who found that they didn't have any interest in going through their parents stuff and then from that realized their children would be the same to them.
Most children aren't going to dig through anything more than a physical photo album, and when they do, the only pictures that are relevant to them are those with people they know. The rest only have meaning to the dead parent. They aren't going to dig through hard drives or CDs unless they are searching for financial documents so they can finish up their parent's financial affairs.
> discover stuff about you that perhaps you never wanted to share
I do worry about that. I just tell myself I'll be dead so it doesn't really matter.
Nobody in my family was waiting for one of my parents to die and it actually happened rather suddenly although he was retirement age. There was a very rapid effort to ensure we discovered as many passwords as possible, bought a family NAS, and backed up his entire computer starting with the Lightroom video and pictures. We later went through all of the family photos and folders he hadn't put in there.
To this day it's constantly running with an off site back up to my NAS. There are some photos of cousins we didn't really know, but he owned the best digital cameras of every era since their invention so it's a huge documentation of life. It would have been a family tragedy to lose that.
People care about the things which remind them of their loved ones: prized possessions, objects with strong memory attached too or things they used to love as kids, this kind of things.
The rest is well stuff.
I think this was an insidious decision of YouTube. It's like they want to pretend that videos deleted for ToS violations never existed, because by default the playlist does not even display the "holes" that it now has, either.
My general rule is - if I didn't use it for a year, I don't need it. There are obviously some exceptions like a fire extinguisher (which I hope to never use) and digitized photos, which only go through a careful selection.
I think the thing I kept the longest was a Libranet Linux 3.0 CD set because I worked for Libra Computer Systems for a while and this was the release that I helped building. A few years ago I threw it away, I think after I saw someone uploaded it to archive.org. When I'm 60 and want to install it again for good old time's sake I can.
tl;de: if you don't use something for a year, you probably don't need it.
Almost everything that has become indispensable in my life took years to integrate into my life to any significant degree.
"Need" is a weasel word. You don't need anything.
As it stands, I have a workshop and electronics bench with many tools that will go unused for years but are critical when I need them and too expensive to buy and throw away.
In reality the mindset they should be having is that the buyer and the seller are doing a group buy separated in time, which means that both paying half the price of new is fair and should be expected.
That is quite the frustrating state of affairs when you try to reduce your consumerism and buy second-hand. It’s not that uncommon to see people selling used items at the same price or even more expensive than new with warranty.
That feels uncharitable to your parent commenter. By that logic we’d never use “need”, and your use of “significant” would also be a weasel word (I don’t believe it is, merely making a point).
While the words used are important, we should strive to understand the idea being transmitted and steelman the argument. “Need” is relational. Some things you need to survive (even if technically you don’t need to live, and here we’re getting too philosophical), other things you need to feel comfortable, or you may need a chair to reach a high place. In this case your parent commenter is clearly referring to a subjective level of need which differs for each individual and trying to make you reflect on the balance between the things you keep and how their existence in your day-to-day affects your life.
Examples always tell the story! Can you give two or three?
2. I might get a new [thing], but not make it to the [place where I can safely use [thing]] for a while
3. Videogames, or games in general
4. Idk sometimes I get depressed
These expire, so make sure you check yours is still good!
Otherwise I agree with and do basically the same thing. I also make exceptions for most tools and emotional connection items.
Maybe something a bit more selective than this though!
Hoarding is bad when it's costly, due to space, time, or money.
Digital media hoarding is thus not bad at all!
So there is a cost to digital media hording.
I wanted to save the videos I'd captured from my car's cameras but there's ~250gb every 3-4 months or so which is a more money needed. Plus, if I wanted them actually available to access I'd need a way to plug in more drives live into my server so more $$$$ and I'd need to back them up for when the drives fail so more $$$$.
So yea, there is a cost to digital media hording.
https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-make-a-physical-donat...
Tools to make this easy exist if you already have digital versions.
https://github.com/jjjake/internetarchive
And don’t forget to send a few dollars if and when you can.
(no affiliation, I just like the public good)
Sometimes you're the person who is uploading them to public archives. Because everybody else threw them all away, and you saved them until the technology made archiving practical enough.
I've been replacing all of my physical media for years, but the reason I can do that now is because other people scan/rip and archive/share the stuff. You also have unique stuff that you may not even know is unique. When you find something in your house that you can't find online, scan it and you're paying everybody back for all of the scanning they did for you.
With the CD-ROMs, you should just glide through them one by one and check if you can find the stuff online. If you can, throw them in the trash. If you can't, copy their contents to a folder, and throw them in the trash. Go through the folder over the next hour or next 20 years (however long it takes to get around to it) and take the things you can't find online that you think somebody might want, and get those things to that somebody (uploading to archive.org is always a good place to start.)
edit: I know for a fact that for a lot of people, uploading somewhere on the internet is their standard pre-deletion ritual.
However, in your examples, the fact those things eventually became available in other forms is not necessarily a counterpoint to your acquaintances having kept them. The specific counterpoint being Marion Stokes.
I think of it like this:
Automatically save everything and spend time deleting the things I don't want to keep. vs Manually saving everything.
"Don't want to keep" depends on disk space and cluttering up the list as it grows. Disk space is not really a thing. I use to have a friend who spend many hours every week cleaning up his 512 GB drive. He was quite obviously deleting things he wanted to keep but "had to" make choices. I just have enough drives to keep 1 to 3 copies of everything. (The single drive will also fail inevitably)
The clutter still seems to happen even if I make the effort to get rid of things. Organizing it a bit, say at least by date is inevitable.
Therefore there is nothing to be gained by wasting time saving things. It is more time efficient to waste time by deleting only enormous folders that you clearly don't need to keep around.
Hoarding is only an appropriate term if you don't have the space for it. If you have an empty airplane hangar a few boxes of foo isn't hoarding.
I prefer to preserve the original artistic works of the producers, directors and screen writers. It could be I am alone in this endeavor and perhaps I am just a hoarder in that regard. I like to watch movies or listen to songs in the way the artists originally intended rather than the current ways that society has determined I should. The exception of course is when a movie is re-mastered and they improve lighting, sound, resolution, etc...
I hesitate to even imagine how AI will sloppify these great works in the future or how they will re-imagine podcasts. The original art will be lost to time and many people will never experience the original results of the blood sweat and tears that went into making them.
I found self hosted solution like this but I was very dissatisfied with how that worked
on other hand I wanted to check out loco.rs framework, so I decided to implement my own solution.
basically you are able to add channels/playlists on many many platforms that yt-dlp supports, you can select what should be cut out using sponsor block and you choice how many days you want it (videos older that that are automatically deleted)
if you are interested, you can check it out: https://github.com/Szpadel/LocalTube
Added benefit: every video would have to be archived only once.
Next, you try to centralize all the private copies so only one person has to keep theirs. Solution is end copyright for things over x years in age. Instead in the us we keep pushing back the date.
Youtube is an archive like a grocery store is a food archive. [1]
If it was worth watching in the first place, it's worth saving. Reducing the friction of doing so is going to help a lot of people.
(1: I'm getting this quote wrong, what's the actual and attribution??)
https://apps.apple.com/ca/app/heap-website-full-page-image/i...
What I'd really like is a kind of universal web caching backend. So everything I access goes through a cache and I have the option of viewing from cache if something goes offline or changes. I could also mark things as "favourite" so they don't ever expire from the cache. Does such a thing exist?
I go even further and schedule TV "channels" that rotate through the local videos using ErsatzTV.
What I'll say is you're either the kind of person who gets fucked once then does something about it, or you just keep getting screwed and complain pathetically when it keeps happening.
So you can make some money on free disk space.
Literally a few moments ago I was playing a video from a Nitter instance (Twitter proxy), and wanted to save it with Firefox but nope. Firefox already has the video there, I can see in the developer tools that it's playing from a blob. Even if the blob is then modified on-the-fly, why can't I right-click it and save that blob that you already have? If it's a stream, why can't I dump it? You are already playing it, you already have the bytes, you can "cache" the whole playback into a local file and then let me Right Click -> Save that "cache" file. Had to use `yt-dlp`.
Similar with bookmarks. When I bookmark something, it would be nice if the current state of the page were saved as a fallback (or at least have a checkbox for this behavior). You already have the rendered page right there. I can literally do `Ctrl+S` and save this page as it is right now, even with this half-typed comment. The code for saving the current state of a page is already there. And you can already link binary data to a bookmark (favicon), and text data (description, tags, etc). I wouldn't even mind if I have to give up the description field in exchange for a base64-encoded version of the bookmarked page, I'd be willing to accept that additional storage requirement.[1]
Sites like YouTube that actively work to prevent easy downloads and archiving might still need extensions like the one linked in the submission, but browsers don't make it easy to save some data that they already have, and it's difficult enough to contribute to (or patch for yourself) those massive codebases unless you are already familiar with them.
I'm willing to patch things for myself and repackage them for myself, but unfortunately for these things it's easier and more reliable long-term to just do workarounds.
(Disclaimer: I'm using Firefox.)
[1] EDIT: Having history enabled doesn't seem to do save an offline version, either.
fcpguru•6mo ago
total 3207312
-rw-r--r-- 1 aa staff 525M Aug 2 09:11 2PMzaym-StM.mov
-rw-r--r-- 1 aa staff 362M Aug 2 09:10 CHbawkGc_os.mov
-rw-r--r-- 1 aa staff 658M Aug 2 09:11 lqR7VV8ftys.mov
~/os/starchive (main)[56daf7] $ ./starachive
Server starting on port 3009...
JSON received: map[videoId:CHbawkGc_os]
Added video CHbawkGc_os to queue. Queue length: 1
Processing video CHbawkGc_os. Remaining in queue: 0