• themeatbridge@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        I dunno, I’ve been in a few meetings where people with deep pockets make critical infrastructure decisions based on extremely limited information. Trusting “them” to have a valid metric is a rookie mistake.

        • Mac@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          4 months ago

          The older you get you realize more and more that the people making the decisions are totally clueless.
          …Until you become one of the decision makers.

          • acetanilide@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            Yep.

            At my first job I was in charge of implementing new software (definitely not in my job description - I was basically a secretary). I was discussing security concerns with the head honchos and they interrupted me and dismissed my concerns because they “only hire honest people.”

            They gave everyone admin permissions.

    • brian@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Curious as to why that would be the case. Unless people are starting videos, letting them buffer, then reloading and doing it again.

      It should be the same amount of bandwidth, otherwise, right?

      • shottymcb@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s just people not finishing videos. Buffered but never played. In aggregate it adds up to a lot.

      • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        People opening 8 hour long music videos, then pausing them after half an hour and just keeping it open while they do something else.

        Then they come back after multiple hours and just close the browser.

    • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      You can also setup a script to automatically download a channels latest vid so you don’t need to check the website anymore.

      • (⬤ᴥ⬤)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        fun fact: according to sponsorblock, youtube is testing ads that are baked serverside into the video. so one day even downloading might not be ad free

        • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          They will never be able to block me just using the mouse to skip forward. If its already downloaded theres zero buffer lag.

          I will create another step that converts the format to an open one if they somehow block that too.

          Its an accessibility thing for me. Ads literally cause me harm. They cannot possibly win me over i’ll just end up doing something productive instead.

        • Agret@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          For now you can use vpns to certain countries that don’t have ads at all, I expect that will still work to avoid server side ads.

    • curbstickle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Beat me to it (by several hours).

      I’m not watching on YouTube. If I want to watch, I’ll download it first. yt-dlp on the desktop, seal (yt-dlp underneath) on android.

      Edit: Big finger problems

    • MrQuallzin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      It’s a pretty great tool. Downloaded the entirety of Murder Drones on Saturday to add to my Plex server. Strictly for preservation, going to re-watch on YouTube to support them

  • I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    Also clicking on some previous segment and NOT having the video load again. Idle for too long and the video unloads.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I miss the days when my much slower internet connection let me download entire videos faster than streaming to watch them with less buffering and fewer glitches. Now that I have a rock solid gigabit fiber connection with single digit latency, how is watching video such a bad experience?

      • RockaiE@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        The frustrating thing is that when I do see ads, the ad itself plays in higher resolution, and plays more smoothly than the video I’m trying to watch.

        • SSTF@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Years ago I had the free version of Hulu that came with ads (it used to have the free ad tier, and the paid-for-no-ads tier). Hulu did the dynamically scaling resolution to match your connection thing, which was mostly good for me since I didn’t have great internet and I’ll take smooth playing 720p over constant buffering. I don’t know if the ads scaled or were naturally at a reasonably low resolution, but I never had a problem with them playing through

          One day though, something changed. Suddenly ads were coming in only in the highest resolution supported by Hulu at the time. Thanks to my terribly slow internet, this meant horrible buffering. Combined with ads being louder than programs, a 30 second ad turned into a multi-minute experience of a few frames at a time screeching at me before buffering again.

          I didn’t keep Hulu long after that.

    • SLVRDRGN@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      I can’t believe someone put in pictures what I’ve been playing out in my mind all along.

  • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Just download the video then.

    Youtube stop doing this because people would pause a Multi-Hour long video (such as a music video) download the entire thing, only to then only watch 15 minutes of it because that’s the bit they wanted. Massive waste of bandwidth

    • Alexstarfire@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      The amount of times my video brings unplayable even though it has a few minutes buffered is too damn high. Almost all the times my video gets stuck, is that scenario. Not to say it happens all the time.

    • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      What do you mean “waste of bandwidth”? We’re paying for that through government subsidies and selling our personal data. Are you seriously defending a corporation that made $250 billion last year in ad revenue alone?

      • mildlyusedbrain@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        This is a weird point. Like yes, Google is a government subsidized monopoly. But to keep this feature is a massive waste of resources.

        Like from a tech perspective, this should not be done. Like fuck Google can be a thing and will have no impact on that

        • JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          People hate corporations so much that they forget some times they do make smart choices. That bandwidth doesn’t just exist from nothing, it’s electricity being moved around. The environmental impact, even as infinitesimal as it may be, isn’t worth the convenience imo

      • AlotOfReading@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        Even if it was 3 cents in bandwidth (it’s not), that’s 1.3 billion dollars in additional costs. You want more ads to pay for that?

        • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          And thats probably a rounding error in googles costs.

          For a much more usable, enjoyable experience.

          That you’re arguing against, because wont someone think of poor googles downtrodden finances.

          • AlotOfReading@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Billion dollar costs aren’t rounding errors even at YouTube/Google’s scale. They’re a measurable percentage of total revenue. I agree that it slightly improves the user experience, it’s hard to imagine a worse cost/benefit tradeoff from an engineering perspective even at more realistic costs. It’s especially hard to justify when there’s an easy alternative for users in the form of downloading videos.

  • FrederikNJS@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    In case of YouTube you can actually dump the link into VLC, and it will happily buffer the whole video while paused. This probably works with other sites, but I have only tested YouTube.

    Alternatively you can of course just download the video with yt-dlp, and then play it locally

  • texasspacejoey@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    I used to be able to load up a bunch of videos in different tabs. Close the laptop and drive into the bush to watch shit and smoke a joint.

  • edric@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I remember when we were still on dial-up and I found a youtube video I wanted to show my brother, I’d let it buffer and load and have to keep the pc on the entire day until he got home from work.

  • eronth@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I used to queue videos up the night before, then be able to watch them on the ride to school. Then one day you couldn’t do that anymore.

  • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    Modern ABRs are actually quite sophisticated, and in most cases you’re unlikely to notice the forward buffer limit. Unstable connection scenarios are going to be the exception where it breaks down.

    For best user experience it’s of course good practice to offer media offlining alongside on demand, but some platforms consider it a money-making opportunity to gate this behind a subscription fee.

    • shottymcb@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      If that were true then users wouldn’t hate and complain about it. This post existing is proof that it’s shit because clearly it’s not as seamless as you’re making it out to be.

      • GissaMittJobb@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        The thing is that you can’t notice when it’s working on account of how seamless it is. Yes, sometimes it breaks down, but these are the exceptional cases.

  • kamen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    It’s logical if you’re the user.

    Imagine how for every one user doing this deliberately there are nine who pause a video and forget it in the background, wasting bandwidth in the process.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Is bandwith that expensive nowadays? I feel the argument is valid but was implemented when bandwidth was way more expensive.

      I mean, if I upgrade my home internet box to the 40€ tier I’ll have 10Gb symmetrical.

      Edit: there are a lot of google fanbois here lol

      • sigezayaq@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s not about your bandwidth, it’s about YouTube’s bandwidth. You probably don’t care, but for them it adds up to a lot

        • Valmond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I just showed how inexpensive it has become.

          Do you think I think I’m youtube??

  • EmperorHenry@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    I wanna go back to the wild west days of the internet where no one ever got banned for trolling or shitposting.

    The censorship gestapo has started to ban shitposters from shitposting subs here on lemmy. That’s how oversensitive everyone is now

    • radicalautonomy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Sounds like someone wants to openly use bigoted language without repercussions on privately-owned social media platforms.

    • OsrsNeedsF2P@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      The problem is culture changed. How far people were willing to push it 10xed, then 100xed. I’ve been on free speech forums like Voat, then Ruqqus. But people are just too nasty to behave, and then not enough “normies” come to drown them out. You’re left with a hate fueled, self censoring circlejerk.

      (Same applies to allowing full shitpost ability on larger sites, just in smaller corners)