4 ms·

I'm surprised nobody noticed that the names of the videos are from mktemp(3). >>> tempfile.mktemp() '/tmp/tmplOcKyZ' >>> tempfile.mktemp() '/tm

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.

33W 13y ago
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
- corin_ 13y ago
  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
  - alandarev 13y ago
    Because people perceive video not to be 1 frame/second.
    - sesqu 13y ago
      If so, those videos had perhaps 240 frames each, not 10.
  - 33W 13y ago
    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.