infinull

I mean... it's not a network technically. it's a broadcast station (though the stations themselves are networks)

This uses ffmpeg under the hood and muxes the file into a .m4a file without transcoding. Basically keeping whatever compression youtube used for the audio (which is some sort of mpeg4 compatible audio, probably depends a little bit)

This still recompressed, but it's the best you can do using youtube as the source.

• uploader (almost certainly, but theoretically you could skip this step if you encoded your video well) compresses audio
• uploader uploads to youtube
• youtube re-compresses the audio again (almost certainly transcoding into a different codec)

Seriously, you could yeet it at least 300m that way, maybe more since they're less than 90kg.

Sorry if this sounds combative, but I just don't think I'm understanding what's going on, I can't figure out how this could possibly work.

How does that even work though? Like... the exported doc is just a web page, it doesn't have any google watermarks (except the now invisible ones) marking it as a google web page.

If it's hosted on an external domain... it doesn't have the google domain in the URL bar either...

Like how is the scam victim fooled vs a normal web page with the same information... How is a google docs HTML export visually different from a LibreOffice or Microsoft Office HTML export in a way that tricks the scam victim into thinking it's legitimately from Google and therefore laundering the scammers reputation through Google. Like I know scam victims are generally distracted or otherwise not thinking clearly (or just dumb), but how does this work?

Besides the default font basically any Word Processor HTML export looks the same to a layman, it's plain black text on a white background with 1in margins. If scam victims trust plain white backgrounds and simple formatting there's a ton of ways to achieve that effect that bypass Google.

Those aren't HTML exports though? Those are direct links to google docs.

Churning through senseless trends is a time honoured tradition. Just like beef stroganoff.

I'm 99% certain that's exactly what it is.

I haven't used Chrome's reading list feature, since I don't use chrome, but they are competing "read it later" product, so should function vaguely similarly.

Unfortunately I think your impression of Pocket is basically correct, it hasn't received any meaningful updates since Mozilla bought it, and is very underwhelming product, it's still baffling for example that Pocket (at least as a browser plugin) uses a different (and generally worse) reading view from the Firefox "reading mode."

That being said I haven't found any "read it later" products I've actually liked using... (I switched to Wallabag after I quit using Pocket, but have used readability, instapaper, and the reading list feature of "The Old Reader"), so I just quit using the product category entirely, my replacement is "send to device" feature of Firefox so I can find articles on one device and send them to another to either view on a bigger screen, or a mobile screen. (I have a desktop, laptop, tablet and a phone... so this is very useful)

I mean people said this about SponsorBlock, but it turns out you can crowd source the timestamps... If you built an easy enough UI.

Howdy

Right, I generally use these to determine how far you can jump without a roll, and then require an athletics check to jump further/higher than that.