←back to thread

Yt-dlp: External JavaScript runtime now required for full YouTube support

(github.com)
798 points bertman | 8 comments | 12 Nov 25 10:12 UTC | HN request time: 0.447s | source | bottom
Show context
bdz ◴[12 Nov 25 13:17 UTC] No.45899768[source]▶
I use yt-dlp (and back then youtube-dl) all the time to archive my liked videos. Started back in around 2010, now I have tens of thousands of videos saved. Storage is cheap and a huge percent of them are not available anymore on the site.

I also save temporary videos removed after a time for example NHK honbasho sumo highlights which are only available for a month or so then they permanently remove them.

replies(12): >>45899869 #>>45899943 #>>45900007 #>>45900140 #>>45900275 #>>45900581 #>>45900630 #>>45901958 #>>45902752 #>>45902786 #>>45903073 #>>45905245 #
cantor_S_drug ◴[12 Nov 25 14:00 UTC] No.45900275[source]▶
You are a digital hoarder. I have taken so many pics that I wouldn't even bother to look back that them (do we ever?) but Google memories is really a neat feature, it refreshes memories. I think you should run a similar service to refresh memory of your favourite videos like they are on speed dail.
replies(9): >>45900302 #>>45900484 #>>45900633 #>>45900749 #>>45900768 #>>45900801 #>>45901045 #>>45901478 #>>45902052 #
1. ge96 ◴[12 Nov 25 14:03 UTC] No.45900302[source]▶
I compulsively take pictures of the sky, same never to be looked at
replies(3): >>45900456 #>>45900463 #>>45900904 #
2. bluGill ◴[12 Nov 25 14:15 UTC] No.45900456[source]▶
Taking pictures is important to getting better. Be glad that each one doesn't cost $.30 in film like it would have in 1980 - not inflation adjusted (prices from memory so perhaps off a bit). That is just the cost of the film you used, if you want to look at the negative you have development costs, and even more costs to get a print. Today you don't have to worry about costs of a photo and so can take a lot of them without worry will it be good, if it is bad just learn from the mistake and throw it away.
replies(1): >>45900796 #
3. apples_oranges ◴[12 Nov 25 14:15 UTC] No.45900463[source]▶
We can’t ever document all of life on earth but we can try
replies(1): >>45900927 #
4. fragmede ◴[12 Nov 25 14:40 UTC] No.45900796[source]▶
BLS says $0.30 is $1.25 today. Each roll was like 30 pictures too (24, but I like round numbers), so like her $30 a roll?

https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl?cost1=.30&year1=1980...

replies(1): >>45901158 #
5. a012 ◴[12 Nov 25 14:48 UTC] No.45900904[source]▶
I take pictures of the sky, not to post it somewhere immediately but it’s like documentary captures for later years looking back
replies(1): >>45901199 #
6. ◴[12 Nov 25 14:49 UTC] No.45900927[source]▶
7. bluGill ◴[12 Nov 25 15:09 UTC] No.45901158{3}[source]▶
I'm going from memory, but I recall that both 25 and 36 picture rolls were common and there were some 12 picture rolls. (maybe 15?) And of course there were a number of different sizes - 110, 120, 35mm, disc, each with different sizes and costs. (more film sizes at the professional level as well, but your local drug store had all of the above)
8. ◴[12 Nov 25 15:12 UTC] No.45901199[source]▶