Ask HN: Which Berkeley Courses Should I Archive?
154 comments
All of it has already been archived (EDIT: thanks to the hard work and quick response of ArchiveTeam and /r/DataHoarder).
[edit: link to Archive Team project-specific page removed to reduce excessive load; replaced with Archive.is link below]
https://archive.is/D1Ail
[edit: link to Archive Team project-specific page removed to reduce excessive load; replaced with Archive.is link below]
https://archive.is/D1Ail
Out of curiosity, if Berkeley requests that the Archive Team remove their videos, I assume they would comply? There must be a reason they want their videos taken down, and could presumably use the threat of legal action to have them removed from any archives? Why choose to take down videos being hosted at no cost on YouTube if you're willing to allow them to be "pirated" (aka preserved) elsewhere?
I don't speak for Archive Team or Archive.org. Archive.org has DMCA exemptions but will comply with robots.txt access restrictions post-archival.
I operate independently as a digital archivist, providing support when possible. I will keep my own copy in cold storage as long as I'm alive, outside of the US jurisdiction but accessible globally.
The reason they're being removed is ADA subtitle compliance and the cost/effort associated with that (cheaper to purge/remove access rather than comply). Is UC Berkeley going to pursue people attempting to preserve knowledge without their consent? That's up to them. They would, of course, be unsuccessful.
I operate independently as a digital archivist, providing support when possible. I will keep my own copy in cold storage as long as I'm alive, outside of the US jurisdiction but accessible globally.
The reason they're being removed is ADA subtitle compliance and the cost/effort associated with that (cheaper to purge/remove access rather than comply). Is UC Berkeley going to pursue people attempting to preserve knowledge without their consent? That's up to them. They would, of course, be unsuccessful.
For crying out loud. I understand the importance of accessibility, but when complying with mandatory accessibility regulations results in everyone losing access to educational information... well, everyone loses.
Since you can't beat regulation, the real course of action here should not be to archive the videos where nearly nobody will find them, but rather to elicit donations to produce the subtitles. Also, if the content is so extensive, it should probably find a home on a dedicated site other than YouTube which may one day also disappear. It is such a shame to have educational resources essentially become part of the deep web - your average user can find this content on YouTube, but has very little chance of ever discovering it in an archive.
If Berkeley has not already postponed to the maximum extent possible, I would happily donate to the cause. I fear it's likely too late due to a deadline to comply.
Since you can't beat regulation, the real course of action here should not be to archive the videos where nearly nobody will find them, but rather to elicit donations to produce the subtitles. Also, if the content is so extensive, it should probably find a home on a dedicated site other than YouTube which may one day also disappear. It is such a shame to have educational resources essentially become part of the deep web - your average user can find this content on YouTube, but has very little chance of ever discovering it in an archive.
If Berkeley has not already postponed to the maximum extent possible, I would happily donate to the cause. I fear it's likely too late due to a deadline to comply.
> but rather to elicit donations to produce the subtitles
I intend to engage someone at Youtube/Google to use their internal automated subtitling system and open source/release the captions along with the existing content [1]. (Why UC Berkley didn't use this, I'm unaware)
In the event the above is not possible, I'll roll my own when time permits (voice recognition with distributed human verification).
> I fear it's likely too late due to a deadline to comply.
Agreed. Hence, archival.
[1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6373554?hl=en
I intend to engage someone at Youtube/Google to use their internal automated subtitling system and open source/release the captions along with the existing content [1]. (Why UC Berkley didn't use this, I'm unaware)
In the event the above is not possible, I'll roll my own when time permits (voice recognition with distributed human verification).
> I fear it's likely too late due to a deadline to comply.
Agreed. Hence, archival.
[1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6373554?hl=en
Automated subtitles without human review of every spoken phrase likely doesn't comply with regulation. It would be very poor quality to have anything transcribed incorrectly.
[deleted]
They are being taken down because the Justice Department is threatening Berkeley using the ADA because the videos don't have subtitles. Once they are out of Berkeley's control, hopefully all parties will just move on, point being made.
If you looked at the "Downloaded" column on that link most of the CS courses haven't been downloaded. Also when I click on a link like I am redirected to youtube where the content is as of now still available. Am I missing something?
[edited out my comment to reduce the noise -- see comments below]
No, the latest statement is that they're still missing a lot of the youtube videos.
"""Most of the Youtube videos on the channel right now are NOT on archive.org. I have asked multiple times in the comments and even inboxed the guy who made the original thread about whether archive.org actually had everything and just hadn't uploaded it yet, and got no responses. If anyone knows that these have in fact been downloaded already, please let us know. But just look at archive.org, there's just a PORTION of what's available on Youtube right now. """
https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/5z2499/many_of...
"""Most of the Youtube videos on the channel right now are NOT on archive.org. I have asked multiple times in the comments and even inboxed the guy who made the original thread about whether archive.org actually had everything and just hadn't uploaded it yet, and got no responses. If anyone knows that these have in fact been downloaded already, please let us know. But just look at archive.org, there's just a PORTION of what's available on Youtube right now. """
https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/5z2499/many_of...
Check the top edit on that post; All is accounted for.
Could you link to it please? I'm not able to find it :(
From the top of the Reddit post you linked to in your comment:
"Edit: Everything has been accounted for and is in the process of downloading, thank you to everyone who helped, especially lawpetex who backed up the full amount of all the Youtube and iTunes content!"
"Edit: Everything has been accounted for and is in the process of downloading, thank you to everyone who helped, especially lawpetex who backed up the full amount of all the Youtube and iTunes content!"
Weird. That isn't showing for me :/
Thanks anyway
Thanks anyway
94 videos at this point - only a small fraction.
The current status seems to be:
>"Edit: Everything has been accounted for and is in the process of downloading, thank you to everyone who helped,"
I wish I had known about this issue earlier, I would have liked to have helped.
>"Edit: Everything has been accounted for and is in the process of downloading, thank you to everyone who helped,"
I wish I had known about this issue earlier, I would have liked to have helped.
Thank you, toomuchtodo. This did seem like the sort of thing that just had to have already been done.
Archive Team seems to be down (maybe from all the requests). If you really value these videos, I'd still download them onto your own computer instead of relying on a third-party hosting. As others have mentioned, youtube-dl is the way to do it and super easy, e.g.:
youtube-dl https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-XXv-cvA_iBDyz-ba4yDskqMDY6A1w_cArchive Team and Archive.org are not the same entity. Archive.org contains the entire UC Berkeley course corpus, provided by Archive Team and /r/DataHoarder/
You are free to help seed the torrents of course containing all of the content.
You are free to help seed the torrents of course containing all of the content.
Thanks for clarifying. Yes, seeding lectures would be the best way to contribute while still maintaining a personal copy.
https://archive.org/details/@schule04?and%5b%5d=subject%3A%2...
(If you go onto one of the course pages above, there's a download option to grab a torrent.)
https://archive.org/details/@schule04?and%5b%5d=subject%3A%2...
(If you go onto one of the course pages above, there's a download option to grab a torrent.)
Can you point to the exact page on Archive.org that has all of the courses?
This appears to be the Berkley page that links to all the available courses: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/series#c,s
I've checked the various Archive.org links posted so far, and only see a small portion of the content. For example only the 2008 and 2010 versions of CS61A & B appear to be archived.
This appears to be the Berkley page that links to all the available courses: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/series#c,s
I've checked the various Archive.org links posted so far, and only see a small portion of the content. For example only the 2008 and 2010 versions of CS61A & B appear to be archived.
Has anyone been able to use youtube-dl to archive the CS61B-2016-Spring? 'Computer Science 61B, 002 - Spring 2015'
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-XXv-cvA_iDD4nnsfVIq...
Unfortunately this content appears to be throwing HTTP 500 server errors while downloading according to the verbose output.
If anyone has that content I'd be interested to know what worked for you.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-XXv-cvA_iDD4nnsfVIq...
Unfortunately this content appears to be throwing HTTP 500 server errors while downloading according to the verbose output.
If anyone has that content I'd be interested to know what worked for you.
I have no clue why that error is happening but I was getting the same result. Skipping the first video got it to run for me:
youtube-dl --playlist-start 2 "https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-XXv-cvA_iDD4nnsfVIqPFORTgZi9xRp"For whatever reason the first video is downloading fine for me [edit: no it's not, see below]. Try again maybe?
If it still refuses to work for anyone else, I have like 80KB/s upload (ADSL2+ FTL) but I'm fine with uploading it.
EDIT - HERE YOU GO: The highest quality video (format code 136) is WORKING, but the highest quality (189k) audio (format code 251) is what's failing. So fall back to the next highest quality (132k; format code 140). So '-f 136+140'. I've __successfully__ downloaded with these settings.
If it still refuses to work for anyone else, I have like 80KB/s upload (ADSL2+ FTL) but I'm fine with uploading it.
EDIT - HERE YOU GO: The highest quality video (format code 136) is WORKING, but the highest quality (189k) audio (format code 251) is what's failing. So fall back to the next highest quality (132k; format code 140). So '-f 136+140'. I've __successfully__ downloaded with these settings.
Even I don't know what was causing it to be failed. What worked for me was downloading starting from the 3rd video and then downloading the 2nd with the help of a firefox plugin.
3.1 TB!
> Resource Limit Is Reached
Unfortunately the site seems to be overloaded.
Unfortunately the site seems to be overloaded.
I deeply apologize if this is off topic, but this request highlights an issue with the original debate, where posters were tripping over each others to express indignation about Berkeley releasing these videos without disability accommodations, reiterating the same arguments for the ADA, and asserting that those same considerations apply here.
If you thought the judgment against Berkeley was justified-- that they couldn't give away these videos for free without e.g. subtitles -- are you equally against this effort? Because it accomplishes the exact same thing: the availability of some useful education videos that are unusable by (some) people with disabilities.
If you're not, how do you reconcile that? Your position seems to be something bizarre like:
A) "Yeah, Berkeley should release free, deaf-unusable videos, but gosh darnit, they better well do it through back channels, because we need to respect the disabled."
B) "It's great to release the videos, as long as someone other than Berkeley endorses and/or hosts them, because we need to respect the disabled."
I just don't see a way to reconcile them, and yet I get the impression that some posters here do hold both views (the judgment was justified, and this effort should not be halted/is good).
Edit: Here are the discussions I am referring to, courtesy of BenElgar:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768856
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13815764
If you thought the judgment against Berkeley was justified-- that they couldn't give away these videos for free without e.g. subtitles -- are you equally against this effort? Because it accomplishes the exact same thing: the availability of some useful education videos that are unusable by (some) people with disabilities.
If you're not, how do you reconcile that? Your position seems to be something bizarre like:
A) "Yeah, Berkeley should release free, deaf-unusable videos, but gosh darnit, they better well do it through back channels, because we need to respect the disabled."
B) "It's great to release the videos, as long as someone other than Berkeley endorses and/or hosts them, because we need to respect the disabled."
I just don't see a way to reconcile them, and yet I get the impression that some posters here do hold both views (the judgment was justified, and this effort should not be halted/is good).
Edit: Here are the discussions I am referring to, courtesy of BenElgar:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768856
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13815764
I think the crux of the matter, and opinion of the majority of people in those threads, was that the decision against Berkeley was decidedly unjustified.
To me, so long as the university provides resources to its disable students, which I assume they do given they're not involved in an even bigger lawsuit, what they provide to the public is community service. Denying billions of people across the world access to quality information because of the needs of maybe a million deaf in the US is ridiculous and a loss for the world.
To me, so long as the university provides resources to its disable students, which I assume they do given they're not involved in an even bigger lawsuit, what they provide to the public is community service. Denying billions of people across the world access to quality information because of the needs of maybe a million deaf in the US is ridiculous and a loss for the world.
>Denying billions of people across the world access to quality information because of the needs of maybe a million deaf in the US is ridiculous and a loss for the world.
While I don't take sides on the issue, I will point out that this line of reasoning can be used to justify anything against any minority.
The whole point of having this law is to negate this argument. It is (almost by definition) counterproductive to invoke this. The law is saying a particular minority has a right, and as with most/all rights, it is irrelevant how inconvenient it is.
We could keep going back and forth about this, but this is essentially the utilitarianism vs individualism debate. It hasn't been settled for centuries.
While I don't take sides on the issue, I will point out that this line of reasoning can be used to justify anything against any minority.
The whole point of having this law is to negate this argument. It is (almost by definition) counterproductive to invoke this. The law is saying a particular minority has a right, and as with most/all rights, it is irrelevant how inconvenient it is.
We could keep going back and forth about this, but this is essentially the utilitarianism vs individualism debate. It hasn't been settled for centuries.
Laws are often written with good intentions but enforced rigidly and with little common sense. A balance is needed between individualism and utilitarianism. At what point do my civil rights, when enforced by the state, infringe on yours? Who gets to determine which rights are worth protecting? Who draws the cost/benefit line in the sand? Not all men are created equal, but in a liberal democracy we mold society into one that provides equality in spite of our innate disparities. In my opinion, this equalization should be done by raising up those less fortunate, not by punishing those with advantages.
I think the real issue here is the fact that Berkeley was giving away the videos for free. If they were charging for those videos, they could incorporate the cost of ACA compliance into the price of the video. As it stands though, the state has the right to force work without providing any compensation. ACA compliance then becomes a form of servitude. (being a public university, UC Berkeley does get some state revenue, but it is only 14-25% of the total [1][2] and much of it comes in the form of contracts & grants which can only be used for the specific project they are awarded for). To me that is the real issue here, a simple matter of being compensated for one's work. I think they shouldn't be held to the same standards as someone selling a product, but that doesn't seem to be the lay of the land. I guess this is why we can't have nice things (for free).
[1] http://ucop.edu/operating-budget/_files/rbudget/2016-17budge... (page 47) [2] http://cfo.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/2013-14%20UC%20B... (Page 1)
I think the real issue here is the fact that Berkeley was giving away the videos for free. If they were charging for those videos, they could incorporate the cost of ACA compliance into the price of the video. As it stands though, the state has the right to force work without providing any compensation. ACA compliance then becomes a form of servitude. (being a public university, UC Berkeley does get some state revenue, but it is only 14-25% of the total [1][2] and much of it comes in the form of contracts & grants which can only be used for the specific project they are awarded for). To me that is the real issue here, a simple matter of being compensated for one's work. I think they shouldn't be held to the same standards as someone selling a product, but that doesn't seem to be the lay of the land. I guess this is why we can't have nice things (for free).
[1] http://ucop.edu/operating-budget/_files/rbudget/2016-17budge... (page 47) [2] http://cfo.berkeley.edu/sites/default/files/2013-14%20UC%20B... (Page 1)
I completely agree. The issue is that these are 'free' 'as is'.
The correct solution should be an exemption for public access/domain materials, which OTHERS can provide additional materials for as they desire, from being compliant.
There is a difference in contributing to the common good, and discriminating against differently-abled CUSTOMERS.
This is a great example of where a different group, such as a charity or some group benefiting from it (maybe students who produce and release to P.D. transcripts for extra credit) could continue the effort of making the content a more vibrant part of the knowledge of our species.
The correct solution should be an exemption for public access/domain materials, which OTHERS can provide additional materials for as they desire, from being compliant.
There is a difference in contributing to the common good, and discriminating against differently-abled CUSTOMERS.
This is a great example of where a different group, such as a charity or some group benefiting from it (maybe students who produce and release to P.D. transcripts for extra credit) could continue the effort of making the content a more vibrant part of the knowledge of our species.
>Laws are often written with good intentions but enforced rigidly and with little common sense. A balance is needed between individualism and utilitarianism. At what point do my civil rights, when enforced by the state, infringe on yours? Who gets to determine which rights are worth protecting? Who draws the cost/benefit line in the sand? Not all men are created equal, but in a liberal democracy we mold society into one that provides equality in spite of our innate disparities.
Yes, as I said: The old individualism vs utilitarianism debate.
My point in highlighting that this is a centuries old debate is that:
1. There will be no clear obvious answer.
2. Hence a topic like this will usually garner a very lively discussion, with (mostly) no outcome.
Yes, as I said: The old individualism vs utilitarianism debate.
My point in highlighting that this is a centuries old debate is that:
1. There will be no clear obvious answer.
2. Hence a topic like this will usually garner a very lively discussion, with (mostly) no outcome.
What it comes down to is no action is being taken against a minority. The existence of videos not optimal for the deaf (because they can certainly watch them and benefit from google's increasingly effective auto captions) isn't discrimination. To compare that with with legitimate historical oppressions against minorities is short sighted. This isn't utilitarian "good of the many at the expense of the few" this is good of the many with slightly less good for some of the few; with the solution being "good for no one".
>What it comes down to is no action is being taken against a minority.
In your earlier comment, you phrased it as "Denying billions". Either it is an action, or it is not. You cannot make it an action for only one group.
>The existence of videos not optimal for the deaf (because they can certainly watch them and benefit from google's increasingly effective auto captions) isn't discrimination.
I truly appreciate you saying it, but do realize that this is your opinion. Ultimately, we will not know unless this goes to court (which I think UCB decided not to do).
>To compare that with with legitimate historical oppressions against minorities is short sighted.
Two problems with your statement:
1. "Legitimate" is used, when the very essence of the debate is whether it is legitimate or not.
2. "short sighted" is not an argument.
>This isn't utilitarian "good of the many at the expense of the few"
This is part of the debate. If public money is being used for this, then it is at the expense of everyone (including the few). The interpretation of the ADA rules is that for such uses, everyone should have fair access, for some definition of "fair". If UCB was private, and did not take public money, this would not be a debate.
In your earlier comment, you phrased it as "Denying billions". Either it is an action, or it is not. You cannot make it an action for only one group.
>The existence of videos not optimal for the deaf (because they can certainly watch them and benefit from google's increasingly effective auto captions) isn't discrimination.
I truly appreciate you saying it, but do realize that this is your opinion. Ultimately, we will not know unless this goes to court (which I think UCB decided not to do).
>To compare that with with legitimate historical oppressions against minorities is short sighted.
Two problems with your statement:
1. "Legitimate" is used, when the very essence of the debate is whether it is legitimate or not.
2. "short sighted" is not an argument.
>This isn't utilitarian "good of the many at the expense of the few"
This is part of the debate. If public money is being used for this, then it is at the expense of everyone (including the few). The interpretation of the ADA rules is that for such uses, everyone should have fair access, for some definition of "fair". If UCB was private, and did not take public money, this would not be a debate.
What if a particular classroom has no impacted users, so there isn't (for example) a sign language translator in the class. Now the instructor left the door opened, and doesn't mind if someone loitering in the hallway overhears the lecture. Should the school be required to always provide a sign language interpreter, just in case a deaf person walks through the hallway and wants to observer part of the class from the hall?
Posting the videos online is just a larger version of leaving the classroom door open.
Posting the videos online is just a larger version of leaving the classroom door open.
Disclaimer: I am not necessarily agreeing with UCB's decision.
Your argument can be made, but as I said elsewhere, we can only know if this is tested in court.
The counterargument to what you are saying is that leaving the door open is not done in order to benefit others in the hallway, whereas explicitly putting the videos on a web site is an active action. UCB would have trouble claiming that they're putting the videos up there, but not to benefit anyone.
Put another way, using your analogy, no one would complain if the professor decided to close the door. If people outside were listening, they have no say on the professor's decision.
Your argument can be made, but as I said elsewhere, we can only know if this is tested in court.
The counterargument to what you are saying is that leaving the door open is not done in order to benefit others in the hallway, whereas explicitly putting the videos on a web site is an active action. UCB would have trouble claiming that they're putting the videos up there, but not to benefit anyone.
Put another way, using your analogy, no one would complain if the professor decided to close the door. If people outside were listening, they have no say on the professor's decision.
Berkeley is shutting the virtual door by removing all the videos, and people ARE complaining.
The ADA already reconciles these viewpoints, by allowing for people who would otherwise be in violation to claim exemption because complying would cause an undue burden. So we shouldn't expect a random person on the internet to pay for captioning 20,000 videos, because that would be (presumably) ridiculously outside their means. On the other hand, it's reasonable to assume that a university that could recently afford a $400 million dollar renovation to their athletics stadium could afford to caption 20,000 videos.
It's fun to assume things!
Anecdotal evidence I hear from UC Berkeley employees is that there just is no money to be had. The real solution is spend the money to make the videos ADA compliant. I don't know how much that would be but UC Berkeley isn't interested in spending the amount it would take, whatever it is.
The multi hundred dollar stadium renovation is now, with laser like 20/20 hindsight, considered a disaster. The football team's management has a new scandal every few months. The team's record is abysmal. The theory was that spending money to develop the football team results in greater alumni donations.
In UC Berkeley's defense, the state of California and the legislature is profoundly uninterested in funding the UC system at the levels it used to. The university has to get money from somewhere. Renovating Memorial Stadium was a part of that.
Anecdotal evidence I hear from UC Berkeley employees is that there just is no money to be had. The real solution is spend the money to make the videos ADA compliant. I don't know how much that would be but UC Berkeley isn't interested in spending the amount it would take, whatever it is.
The multi hundred dollar stadium renovation is now, with laser like 20/20 hindsight, considered a disaster. The football team's management has a new scandal every few months. The team's record is abysmal. The theory was that spending money to develop the football team results in greater alumni donations.
In UC Berkeley's defense, the state of California and the legislature is profoundly uninterested in funding the UC system at the levels it used to. The university has to get money from somewhere. Renovating Memorial Stadium was a part of that.
> The multi hundred [million] dollar stadium renovation is now, with laser like 20/20 hindsight, considered a disaster
Is it though? The Pac-12 distribution per school is over $25m/yr, and despite lagging the Big-10 and SEC, it's only expected to go up. Given the efforts of the conference to launch the new network and compete with those other conferences, it's likely that there's a certain facility level expected of their member schools. If there was any chance that Cal would be dropped from the conference without the renovations, they start to seem a lot more reasonable...a 5-7% APY isn't really that bad.
Also, while fielding a competitive team might have been a nice benefit, there's at least one other significant benefit I see to retrofitting a stadium that sits directly on top of an earthquake fault line. See if you can guess what it is :)
But to your point, it does seem disingenuous to talk about money spent on a revenue-generating portion of the school when trying to justify the need to spend in ways that are revenue negative. Even considering the abysmal record and scandals, the football team brings in money to the University. If I were an AD at a University, I'd be very worried about football-related liability when former players start to experience the effects of CTE, but until those lawsuits start happening, it's natural that Universities will keep spending large amounts of money on Football.
Is it though? The Pac-12 distribution per school is over $25m/yr, and despite lagging the Big-10 and SEC, it's only expected to go up. Given the efforts of the conference to launch the new network and compete with those other conferences, it's likely that there's a certain facility level expected of their member schools. If there was any chance that Cal would be dropped from the conference without the renovations, they start to seem a lot more reasonable...a 5-7% APY isn't really that bad.
Also, while fielding a competitive team might have been a nice benefit, there's at least one other significant benefit I see to retrofitting a stadium that sits directly on top of an earthquake fault line. See if you can guess what it is :)
But to your point, it does seem disingenuous to talk about money spent on a revenue-generating portion of the school when trying to justify the need to spend in ways that are revenue negative. Even considering the abysmal record and scandals, the football team brings in money to the University. If I were an AD at a University, I'd be very worried about football-related liability when former players start to experience the effects of CTE, but until those lawsuits start happening, it's natural that Universities will keep spending large amounts of money on Football.
> Anecdotal evidence I hear from UC Berkeley employees is that there just is no money to be had.
I think this is missing a trailing "... due to the budget being allocated elsewhere."
I think this is missing a trailing "... due to the budget being allocated elsewhere."
>On the other hand, it's reasonable to assume that a university that could recently afford a $400 million dollar renovation to their athletics stadium could afford to caption 20,000 videos.
The blanket assumption that the benefit of captioning those videos is greater than the benefit of everything else that is done with those funds is not reasonable without some really good evidence.
The blanket assumption that the benefit of captioning those videos is greater than the benefit of everything else that is done with those funds is not reasonable without some really good evidence.
And yet, it does nothing to a university that simply takes down the free materials rather than pay that much more to host them. That doesn't seem like it's reconciling anything, beyond "yep, we're okay with the absurd implications".
I think this would be a good project for crowdsourcing, because as you point out, it's something many people do care a lot about, so it ought to be possible to recruit some enthusiastic volunteers.
For all the talk about these types of issues, it seems to be very rare for tech conference videos to be captioned (presumably due to cost).
You can see here, something like 800 out of 18,000 videos from tech conferences are captioned:
https://www.findlectures.com/?p=1&type1=Conference&talk_type...
For all the talk about these types of issues, it seems to be very rare for tech conference videos to be captioned (presumably due to cost).
You can see here, something like 800 out of 18,000 videos from tech conferences are captioned:
https://www.findlectures.com/?p=1&type1=Conference&talk_type...
I'm not involved in the previous discussion at all, but given my limited knowledge of the facts, I'd propose a solution like: "Berkeley should keep these videos up, and work to add subtitles and accessibility features to them in a reasonable timeframe, consistent with funding and personnel availability."
>I'm not involved in the previous discussion at all, but given my limited knowledge of the facts, I'd propose a solution like: "Berkeley should keep these videos up, and work to add subtitles and accessibility features to them in a reasonable timeframe, consistent with funding and personnel availability."
The issue is that this is not an option. Any institution that gets federal money is required to comply with ADA rules. They either need to make it more accessible or take it down.
The issue is that this is not an option. Any institution that gets federal money is required to comply with ADA rules. They either need to make it more accessible or take it down.
Not sure why I'm getting downvoted for this. I am not saying I agree with the rule. I am pointing out the reason UCB has to take this action. The option proposed by the commenter is not one that UCB can legally take.
If my interpretation of the ruling/law is wrong, please correct me.
If my interpretation of the ruling/law is wrong, please correct me.
I'm downvoting you because you're not engaging with the arguments of those who disagree with you, and therefore not adding to the discussion. It's clear that one can both agree with "you can't always be 100% utilitarian", and that accommodation is good, and still think this particular application of it is not an optimal resolution.
Simply repeating back that "we need to accommodate the disabled" is not responding to anyone, and does not account for the points raised by the other side on those discussions.
Note that you have yet to answer even the challenge I presented in this thread: are you opposed to the private hosting of these videos? If not,then you're saying, "allow Berkeley to post them, as long as they back channel it".
Simply repeating back that "we need to accommodate the disabled" is not responding to anyone, and does not account for the points raised by the other side on those discussions.
Note that you have yet to answer even the challenge I presented in this thread: are you opposed to the private hosting of these videos? If not,then you're saying, "allow Berkeley to post them, as long as they back channel it".
>I'm downvoting you because you're not engaging with the arguments of those who disagree with you, and therefore not adding to the discussion.
I am in two separate threads. My question was in this thread, where I was downvoted with no response. I cannot engage with arguments that are not put forth.
>It's clear that one can both agree with "you can't always be 100% utilitarian", and that accommodation is good, and still think this particular application of it is not an optimal resolution.
Something I have not disputed.
I've said it before, but I think I need to put an "I neither agree nor disagree with UCB's decision" in every comment I make in this thread. I am not defending their decision. I am, however, pointing out flaws in the criticisms of the decision. It is OK to say you do not agree with the decision. But when you give a reason that is problematic, I can highlight that.
>Simply repeating back that "we need to accommodate the disabled" is not responding to anyone,
I agree, but this is not what I said. I am pointing out what I think the law says, and how I am guessing UCB is interpreting it (it is definitely how the DOJ is interpreting it).
>Note that you have yet to answer even the challenge I presented in this thread: are you opposed to the private hosting of these videos?
Can you supply me with a reason to answer that, when I do not have an opinion on UCB's decision? Your demand from me is part of the problem you are complaining about. Making an issue binary without accepting the nuances.
I am in two separate threads. My question was in this thread, where I was downvoted with no response. I cannot engage with arguments that are not put forth.
>It's clear that one can both agree with "you can't always be 100% utilitarian", and that accommodation is good, and still think this particular application of it is not an optimal resolution.
Something I have not disputed.
I've said it before, but I think I need to put an "I neither agree nor disagree with UCB's decision" in every comment I make in this thread. I am not defending their decision. I am, however, pointing out flaws in the criticisms of the decision. It is OK to say you do not agree with the decision. But when you give a reason that is problematic, I can highlight that.
>Simply repeating back that "we need to accommodate the disabled" is not responding to anyone,
I agree, but this is not what I said. I am pointing out what I think the law says, and how I am guessing UCB is interpreting it (it is definitely how the DOJ is interpreting it).
>Note that you have yet to answer even the challenge I presented in this thread: are you opposed to the private hosting of these videos?
Can you supply me with a reason to answer that, when I do not have an opinion on UCB's decision? Your demand from me is part of the problem you are complaining about. Making an issue binary without accepting the nuances.
Okay, to clarify, you are making two different arguments in two differently places; I am saying that neither adds to the discussion, and I only focused on the more interesting one. The arguments were
1) "The law says ... ." Okay, this thread (as well as the previous discussions) wasn't speaking to the issue of whether it's a technically correct application of the law, but whether it's stupid for the law to require something like this. Hence, not adding to the discussion, at least where you added it.
2) "We should accommodate the disabled even when it fails a simple cost/benefit test." The others side already agrees with you! Hence why it's frustrating to hear you keep claiming that "golly, it just comes down to utililitarianism vs caring about the disabled; some of us have a little sympathy" -- no, those ones who disagree with you do support accommodations for the disabled, even at the cost of the greater good, just not this one, when it's impact is to make the materials less available, as it puts UCB in a "no good deed goes unpunished" situation.
I have yet to see you attempt to address that argument beyond "yep, some of us want to help the disabled". That adds nothing.
>>Note that you have yet to answer even the challenge I presented in this thread: are you opposed to the private hosting of these videos?
>Can you supply me with a reason to answer that, when I do not have an opinion on UCB's decision?
I just gave it in the original thread. If you support forcing the accommodation requirements on materials given for free, which results in Berkeley taking the materials down, then you're saying that "it's okay to release these materials as long as you back-channel it". That does not sound like it logically follows from a coherent policy to support the disabled.
That is why I don't think your comments built onto the existing discussion.
1) "The law says ... ." Okay, this thread (as well as the previous discussions) wasn't speaking to the issue of whether it's a technically correct application of the law, but whether it's stupid for the law to require something like this. Hence, not adding to the discussion, at least where you added it.
2) "We should accommodate the disabled even when it fails a simple cost/benefit test." The others side already agrees with you! Hence why it's frustrating to hear you keep claiming that "golly, it just comes down to utililitarianism vs caring about the disabled; some of us have a little sympathy" -- no, those ones who disagree with you do support accommodations for the disabled, even at the cost of the greater good, just not this one, when it's impact is to make the materials less available, as it puts UCB in a "no good deed goes unpunished" situation.
I have yet to see you attempt to address that argument beyond "yep, some of us want to help the disabled". That adds nothing.
>>Note that you have yet to answer even the challenge I presented in this thread: are you opposed to the private hosting of these videos?
>Can you supply me with a reason to answer that, when I do not have an opinion on UCB's decision?
I just gave it in the original thread. If you support forcing the accommodation requirements on materials given for free, which results in Berkeley taking the materials down, then you're saying that "it's okay to release these materials as long as you back-channel it". That does not sound like it logically follows from a coherent policy to support the disabled.
That is why I don't think your comments built onto the existing discussion.
Your interpretation of the law is incorrect, and there was no ruling, as this never went to trial. Berkeley removed the content instead of negotiating for a reasonable timeframe to update it.
>Your interpretation of the law is incorrect, and there was no ruling, as this never went to trial. Berkeley removed the content instead of negotiating for a reasonable timeframe to update it.
Yes, I realize now that this did not go to court. However, you have not shown how my interpretation is incorrect.
Yes, I realize now that this did not go to court. However, you have not shown how my interpretation is incorrect.
Here's the letter the DoJ sent to Berkeley. Note the lack of hard deadlines or requirements the content be removed. Also note the date.
https://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08...
https://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08...
Thanks for the link! It's interesting to me that captioning the videos wouldn't have been enough to solve all the accessibility issues. In some cases, the preference to just record the lecture again is obvious, as in "the lecturer pointed to and talked about parts of a drawing without describing the drawing first, making it inaccessible to vision-impaired people".
You also have c) they had already released the videos, so now they need to follow the law and make them accessible.
My personal feeling on this -- if the videos were created as part of their primary mission, then they would be required to add accessibility. But it seems that these videos were a side effect of their primary mission, which is providing education to enrolled people. In that case, appropriate accommodations were most likely made in those specific classes, where needed.
My personal feeling on this -- if the videos were created as part of their primary mission, then they would be required to add accessibility. But it seems that these videos were a side effect of their primary mission, which is providing education to enrolled people. In that case, appropriate accommodations were most likely made in those specific classes, where needed.
> if the videos were created as part of their primary mission, then they would be required to add accessibility
Even Berkeley said that all videos created must be accessible. They required people to sign off on that accessibility.
https://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08...
> Prior to July 1, 2015, UC Berkeley also allowed faculty and instructors to design, develop and publish courses through a self-service model, which did not include support from BRCOE. Beginning July 1, 2015, UC Berkeley advised the Department that all faculty using the selfservice model will be asked to sign off on a list of accessibility resource reviews prior to publishing the course. The sign-off statements include:
There's a list of statements saying things like "I have reviewed and implemented edX’s “Guidelines for Creating Accessible Content.”2"
Even Berkeley said that all videos created must be accessible. They required people to sign off on that accessibility.
https://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08...
> Prior to July 1, 2015, UC Berkeley also allowed faculty and instructors to design, develop and publish courses through a self-service model, which did not include support from BRCOE. Beginning July 1, 2015, UC Berkeley advised the Department that all faculty using the selfservice model will be asked to sign off on a list of accessibility resource reviews prior to publishing the course. The sign-off statements include:
There's a list of statements saying things like "I have reviewed and implemented edX’s “Guidelines for Creating Accessible Content.”2"
I hold both views.
The subtitle requirement doesn't apply to members of the general public. It applies to large institutions which know better, and have the resources to comply.
If Berkeley is embarrassed, some other university takes the time to subtitle its video content in the future to avoid a similar mess, and the public gets to keep the Berkeley videos, that's the best possible outcome short of Berkeley captioning its videos and continuing to host them.
The point isn't "if people with disabilities can't have it, no one can." That's just an unfortunate cost of enforcement. The point is to apply some mild coercion to make more of the world accessible to people with disabilities, and if this debacle has that effect, it's working as intended.
The subtitle requirement doesn't apply to members of the general public. It applies to large institutions which know better, and have the resources to comply.
If Berkeley is embarrassed, some other university takes the time to subtitle its video content in the future to avoid a similar mess, and the public gets to keep the Berkeley videos, that's the best possible outcome short of Berkeley captioning its videos and continuing to host them.
The point isn't "if people with disabilities can't have it, no one can." That's just an unfortunate cost of enforcement. The point is to apply some mild coercion to make more of the world accessible to people with disabilities, and if this debacle has that effect, it's working as intended.
> The point isn't "if people with disabilities can't have it, no one can." That's just an unfortunate cost of enforcement.
That adds substantial costs, and the end result, without additional funding, is no one gets it.
Thanks for nothing.
That adds substantial costs, and the end result, without additional funding, is no one gets it.
Thanks for nothing.
>That adds substantial costs, and the end result, without additional funding, is no one gets it.
What do you mean "without additional funding"?
All federal grants to universities are by definition "additional funding".
And they only have to comply because they are getting this "additional funding". The university is deciding not to allocate this "additional funding" for this purpose, which is being construed as a violation.
What do you mean "without additional funding"?
All federal grants to universities are by definition "additional funding".
And they only have to comply because they are getting this "additional funding". The university is deciding not to allocate this "additional funding" for this purpose, which is being construed as a violation.
There are a couple of things that are interesting to me about this.
1) If you don't have any vision-impaired people in your course, would you continue to 'downgrade' the curriculum to a vision-impaired level?
2) The funding that they get applies to curriculum, but I do sort of wonder whether this isn't an addition to that.
To point 1: The nuance here is that if I have to describe drawings that I present, even where the audience is fully sighted, it seems like it brings down the quality of education for those in the room. Of course non-sighted persons should be accommodated when they are present, though that adds the additional wrinkle of students perhaps trying to game the system so that they're not in an accommodating classroom, as they'd have more time for lecture, questions, etc.
If we accept that you can hold a class appropriate to sighted persons, but not acceptable to sighted persons when there are only sighted persons in attendance, then what is the meaningful distinction between publishing a recording of that class on your website versus just publishing it on YouTube as "Professor X talks about such and such @UCB"? The latter seems like it would be clearly allowed, while the former seems like it is clearly forbidden, which just reminds us that rules are complicated.
To point 2: This seems akin to saying that "Everything on the menu has to have nutritional information". Okay, everything on the menu does have nutritional information, but in addition to the menu items, I'm also offering you this amuse-bouche free of charge. It's not on the menu, and because we change it daily from ingredients that were delivered to us accidentally, we do not have the ability to generate nutritional information. Can I serve the amuse without nutritional info? It is not part of the menu, for which I receive funds, and it is extra, so the rules should suggest that I am allowed to offer it, but you're either living up to the spirit of or violating the spirit of the rule depending on how charitably you interpret the requirements.
1) If you don't have any vision-impaired people in your course, would you continue to 'downgrade' the curriculum to a vision-impaired level?
2) The funding that they get applies to curriculum, but I do sort of wonder whether this isn't an addition to that.
To point 1: The nuance here is that if I have to describe drawings that I present, even where the audience is fully sighted, it seems like it brings down the quality of education for those in the room. Of course non-sighted persons should be accommodated when they are present, though that adds the additional wrinkle of students perhaps trying to game the system so that they're not in an accommodating classroom, as they'd have more time for lecture, questions, etc.
If we accept that you can hold a class appropriate to sighted persons, but not acceptable to sighted persons when there are only sighted persons in attendance, then what is the meaningful distinction between publishing a recording of that class on your website versus just publishing it on YouTube as "Professor X talks about such and such @UCB"? The latter seems like it would be clearly allowed, while the former seems like it is clearly forbidden, which just reminds us that rules are complicated.
To point 2: This seems akin to saying that "Everything on the menu has to have nutritional information". Okay, everything on the menu does have nutritional information, but in addition to the menu items, I'm also offering you this amuse-bouche free of charge. It's not on the menu, and because we change it daily from ingredients that were delivered to us accidentally, we do not have the ability to generate nutritional information. Can I serve the amuse without nutritional info? It is not part of the menu, for which I receive funds, and it is extra, so the rules should suggest that I am allowed to offer it, but you're either living up to the spirit of or violating the spirit of the rule depending on how charitably you interpret the requirements.
>This seems akin to saying that "Everything on the menu has to have nutritional information".
We're playing a semantics game. I can easily change it to:
"Every thing you serve has to have nutritional information" and remove all ambiguity.
We're playing a semantics game. I can easily change it to:
"Every thing you serve has to have nutritional information" and remove all ambiguity.
Sure, and then I could (probably a better analogy here really) just put it on a table and say "Take One", bypassing the definition of 'serving', depending on how it's been defined.
Whether we like it or not, law is largely just semantic arguments. The point (and reviewing my previous comment) is that it was something extra, for which your previous "funds have already been allocated to curriculum" comment does not apply -- I've taken the federal grants, applied them to curriculum, and then graciously tried to do something extra, but because the extra bit doesn't meet the requirements attached to the funds, I can't.
I'm not opining on whether that's wrong or right, but it is indeed curious. If we view the rules narrowly, as lawyers are taught to do, then the extra bit wouldn't be applicable. If we view them broadly, then logos and mascots might not be allowed unless accompanied by audio and braille descriptions wherever they are used.
My curiosity here derives from wondering where, since the law is being interpreted more broadly than it must be, the line is, and how this might impact future decisions by universities (or other entities that receive strings-attached funding).
Whether we like it or not, law is largely just semantic arguments. The point (and reviewing my previous comment) is that it was something extra, for which your previous "funds have already been allocated to curriculum" comment does not apply -- I've taken the federal grants, applied them to curriculum, and then graciously tried to do something extra, but because the extra bit doesn't meet the requirements attached to the funds, I can't.
I'm not opining on whether that's wrong or right, but it is indeed curious. If we view the rules narrowly, as lawyers are taught to do, then the extra bit wouldn't be applicable. If we view them broadly, then logos and mascots might not be allowed unless accompanied by audio and braille descriptions wherever they are used.
My curiosity here derives from wondering where, since the law is being interpreted more broadly than it must be, the line is, and how this might impact future decisions by universities (or other entities that receive strings-attached funding).
> The university is deciding not to allocate this "additional funding" for this purpose
These grants were not made for the purpose of subtitling videos.
These grants were not made for the purpose of subtitling videos.
>These grants were not made for the purpose of subtitling videos.
When my advisor gets a half a million dollars to do research on quantum computers, do you think he gets to use half a million dollars for it?
If you do, you clearly have not been exposed to how grants are processed at universities.
The university takes a cut - I've often heard numbers in the ballpark of 50% - to fund infrastructure. See:
https://www.quora.com/What-percentages-of-research-grant-mon...
This is not a scheme - this is how universities have always dealt with grants.
It's entirely up to the university to decide where to spend this money.
So from the Federal government's perspective, they are funding them for it, and instead the university is choosing not to spend money on this.
When my advisor gets a half a million dollars to do research on quantum computers, do you think he gets to use half a million dollars for it?
If you do, you clearly have not been exposed to how grants are processed at universities.
The university takes a cut - I've often heard numbers in the ballpark of 50% - to fund infrastructure. See:
https://www.quora.com/What-percentages-of-research-grant-mon...
This is not a scheme - this is how universities have always dealt with grants.
It's entirely up to the university to decide where to spend this money.
So from the Federal government's perspective, they are funding them for it, and instead the university is choosing not to spend money on this.
Is it? Places will just not publish rather than deal with the hassle, no?
It's "working as intended" that the material is out there, just a little harder to find and just as disability-incompliant?
The purpose is not to remove material. The purpose is to maximize the set of content accessible to people with disabilities, by encouraging producers to make their content accessible in a way that asking nicely won't.
This has been enough of an ordeal that captioning is likely to be taken more seriously in the future. The law has successfully separated Berkeley from its self-interest in the videos (prestige, etc.) It doesn't really matter that the public gets to keep them.
This has been enough of an ordeal that captioning is likely to be taken more seriously in the future. The law has successfully separated Berkeley from its self-interest in the videos (prestige, etc.) It doesn't really matter that the public gets to keep them.
Outlawing inaccessible material does not necessarily lead to maximizing accessible material. I think a strong argument could be made to the contrary, in fact. Material could become incrementally more accessible over time with motivated volunteers; outlawed material has no chance to become so.
> deaf-unusable videos
Not just deaf people. The video was inaccessible to a wide range of people.
If private citizens want to take the content and torrent it that's fine.
If Berkeley want to release video they should obey the nearly 30 year old law --and their own policies-- and make the content accessible, especially when they're taking both fees from students and government grants.
Not just deaf people. The video was inaccessible to a wide range of people.
If private citizens want to take the content and torrent it that's fine.
If Berkeley want to release video they should obey the nearly 30 year old law --and their own policies-- and make the content accessible, especially when they're taking both fees from students and government grants.
As a former UC Berkeley student, I just want to add that besides the public lecture videos, there are also many private, unlisted course videos on YouTube from the last couple years (after it became an issue). The Archive Team has missed these videos as they're only accessible via UC Berkeley's student portal if you're a student in the class. The Archive Team and current/former students need to work together here to retrieve the private YouTube playlists and download the videos.
Be careful? The copyright and licensing status of those videos is probably less clear-cut than stuff that was explicitly released under a permissive license.
It was mentioned on reddit as well that there are videos on iTunes that are not on YouTube and that the iTunes videos will be removed as well.
He mentioned private videos on YouTube, not the iTunes.
Yes, and the person you are replying to is pointing out there are videos on iTunes that aren't on YouTube. So if someone wants to fully archive the content, then the iTunes videos also need to be archived.
Yes, but did you read The Archive Team initiative? They are aware of the iTunes courses, but they aren't of the private YouTube videos.
No one (including my parent comment) equated the private YouTube videos with the iTunes videos.
Can you or someone with access get access to Jason Scott? https://twitter.com/textfiles
Now that you've mentioned his name, I'd expect him here in 3.. 2..
This should definitely be mentioned on /r/DataHoarder
Not CS related, but I've found these courses to be of great value:
- Sociology 150A (Robb Willer) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edfKMAePWfE
- Geography C110 (Richard Walker) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYR5PdPZ_w0&list=PL4rxxS6x1H...
- Physics 10: Physics for Future Presidents (Richard Muller) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ysbZ_j2xi0
There's also an audio course on Buddhist Psychology by Eleanor Rosch, if you're interested. Now seems to be available only on iTunes.
https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodca...
- Sociology 150A (Robb Willer) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edfKMAePWfE
- Geography C110 (Richard Walker) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYR5PdPZ_w0&list=PL4rxxS6x1H...
- Physics 10: Physics for Future Presidents (Richard Muller) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ysbZ_j2xi0
There's also an audio course on Buddhist Psychology by Eleanor Rosch, if you're interested. Now seems to be available only on iTunes.
https://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewPodca...
Is there a chance that you or somebody you know have a copy of the Buddhist Psychology by Eleanor Rosch you mentioned? It seems like the archival efforts missed this one. Thank you.
I'm not sure which of the following are actually available on Youtube, but here are the courses I enjoyed the most and I think are the most valuable as a CS major:
- CS161 Security (Wagner preferably)
- CS189 Machine Learning (Shewchuk)
- CS170 Efficient Algorithms and Intractable Problems
Not a comprehensive list, just my favorites.
- CS161 Security (Wagner preferably)
- CS189 Machine Learning (Shewchuk)
- CS170 Efficient Algorithms and Intractable Problems
Not a comprehensive list, just my favorites.
That is a great list to have so far! On top of that, I have to highly recommend CS168: Internet Architecture (preferably with Scott Shenker), CS 161: Computer Security (with either Wagner, or Weaver), and CS169: Software Engineering (with Armando Fox, also available on EdX). These are the 3 courses that were most influential on my Undergrad experience (on top of the 61 series and 162)
Archive CS294-112 Deep Reinforcement Learning Sp17 https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkFD6_40KJIwTmSbCv9OV...
It's not on the main UC Berkeley YouTube account so I don't think it will be deleted but better safe than sorry
It's not on the main UC Berkeley YouTube account so I don't think it will be deleted but better safe than sorry
CS188 Intro to AI
http://ai.berkeley.edu/lecture_slides.html
Seconded. It's one of the few good 'classic' AI courses with videos available to the public, though personally I prefer Patrick Winston's 6.034.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP63gFHB6xb-k...
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLUl4u3cNGP63gFHB6xb-k...
> I'm in the process of archiving some of the most important Computer Science courses, mainly for my own benefit, but I intend to make them publically available. (This is a throwaway account b/c I don't want to run afoul of any legal issues.)
Um, hate to break it to you, but you're not going to run into legal issues for saying that you're going to grab archives and make them publicly available. You're going to run into trouble for actually making them publicly available (if the license doesn't permit that). The only thing you change by using a throwaway account is that the legal trouble isn't associated with your main HN account.
Um, hate to break it to you, but you're not going to run into legal issues for saying that you're going to grab archives and make them publicly available. You're going to run into trouble for actually making them publicly available (if the license doesn't permit that). The only thing you change by using a throwaway account is that the legal trouble isn't associated with your main HN account.
The archive files can be accessed here:
https://archive.org/details/@schule04?and%5b%5d=subject%3A%2...
Should contain the full backup.
https://archive.org/details/@schule04?and%5b%5d=subject%3A%2...
Should contain the full backup.
I want to archive these two:
http://rll.berkeley.edu/deeprlcourse/
https://bcourses.berkeley.edu/courses/1453965/pages/cs294-12...
http://rll.berkeley.edu/deeprlcourse/
https://bcourses.berkeley.edu/courses/1453965/pages/cs294-12...
as far as I understand, they're only taking down pre-2015 stuff
OH really! That's good news!
Instructors with course recordings on YouTube recorded fall 2015 or later
will experience no change.
of course, it can't hurt to run youtube-dl on it...
Dunno if CS 161, Computer Security, is available but it's a great course. Wagner or Weaver both have their points.
CS 70 should make the list but the lecture notes are enough.
Strongly prefer Kubi for OS or pretty much anything.
CS 70 should make the list but the lecture notes are enough.
Strongly prefer Kubi for OS or pretty much anything.
I've been looking for CS 161 but it doesn't look like it's available unfortunately.
Again, the course notes (Wagner's for the most part) are really excellent.
http://www-inst.cs.berkeley.edu/~cs161/sp16/
The slides are really excellent. You will miss the opportunity of Weaver frothing at the mouth and using expletives willy nilly. Popa is clearly smart but needs to turn her mic up.
This is a great course. Unless Kubi is teaching 162, anyone should sub 161 for 162. And suffer. Berkeley has a murderers row of good security people. Song, Weaver, Wagner, Popa, .... If Song teaches 261 again, I'm gonna sit in.
http://www-inst.cs.berkeley.edu/~cs161/sp16/
The slides are really excellent. You will miss the opportunity of Weaver frothing at the mouth and using expletives willy nilly. Popa is clearly smart but needs to turn her mic up.
This is a great course. Unless Kubi is teaching 162, anyone should sub 161 for 162. And suffer. Berkeley has a murderers row of good security people. Song, Weaver, Wagner, Popa, .... If Song teaches 261 again, I'm gonna sit in.
You didn't even mention Paxson and Shenker, who are big in ICSI as well. However, 161 is substantially easier than 162 doing the substitution you recommend should reduce suffering.
I thought 162 was easy but then I knew a shit ton going in. My GSIs did not like me. No, they didn't.
I sat in on 161 since I live in the area. Some of it is a repeat of 70 material. I just think it's a great course.
I'd been a reader for 61C (another great course) and I'd suggested adding a stack smashing lab. This was before Wagner created 161 and they were ummm hesitant to teach undergrads the dark arts.
I sat in on 161 since I live in the area. Some of it is a repeat of 70 material. I just think it's a great course.
I'd been a reader for 61C (another great course) and I'd suggested adding a stack smashing lab. This was before Wagner created 161 and they were ummm hesitant to teach undergrads the dark arts.
Would it not have been better for Berkley to reach out to the community to ask them to help improve captioning if money was an issue ? Is this not a legal way to solve this problem instead of taking it down for lack of funds ?
Berkeley's response was actually that they'll rather use the funds to create content that's both accessible and not old. So they do have the funds, and are using them in a smarter way.
CS189 - I've been going through this course and I like the presentation and content. Specially, all the plots that are brought in to explain and also the notes.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLP941GogrXs32AiRNeQKT...
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLP941GogrXs32AiRNeQKT...
The proximate cause of this removal is Gallaudet University [1] [2].
What possible motivation could have moved those employees to file on behalf of their university? Malicious intent (they didn't want the free material competing with their courses)? Lack of gratitude (the material is free, but that's not enough)? Zealotry (everything, even free content, must meet their ADA compliance standards)? Simple lack of thinking through potential consequences? Lack of Net citizenship/spirit? Anyone have any insight into the real story behind their protest? I don't want to excoriate them without knowing the whole story, it could have been just someone's doh! moment turned into a really bad outcome.
I know there are closed-captioning format standards. Perhaps someone can create a site that runs closed captioning underneath YouTube videos, with the closed captioning supplied by volunteers (kind of like how closed captioning was done by anime fans)? Hook it up to a GitHub backend so closed caption data can be refined by anyone, with appropriate sidebar discussions. Hook it up to Google Translate to generate Braille and foreign translations of the hand-curated closed captioning, and let users refine the auto-generated translations. Then prevail upon the DOJ and Gallaudet University to give this time to develop instead of hammering on UC Berkeley, and let Creative Commons-licensed closed captioning fill in the content everywhere for all access-challenged students, for all content? Google might be interested to use this as a corpus for Deepmind.
Gallaudet University could have pioneered a solution and become the world leader in automated accessible content generation working in partnership with Google Deepmind, for example. That would have brought in way, way more funding through licensing than this short-sighted approach they are taking now. If Gallaudet University established a CS focus upon this, it would draw in top global talent for a variety of specialties. HAL-like accurate automated lip-reading coming out of this, with even more accuracy when using mic arrays? Yes, please; you get something like that even 90% accurate and you just gave a mindgasm to every meeting-organizer in the world who wants meeting notes taken. And as much as you all hate meetings, if you had a near-irrefutable better-than-stenographer CYA from meeting notes just once, I guarantee you would love that mechanism, increased meetings frequency or no.
This is a darkening of the Net and education in general, and it should not stand. Unless the reporting on this development is simply not including their side of the story, that Gallaudet University is not front and center of this issue trying to get ahead of the outcome by seeking win-win solutions should be making them a pariah on the Net and in the education world. Gallaudet University pursuing a perfect-is-enemy-of-good tactic likely has not considered that they just pulled free education for hundreds of millions of young minds in the developing nations who cannot afford anything close to a world-class education, but have family and friends willing to translate for them. That's unnecessary.
[1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-california-...
[2] http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/09/government-over-regu...
UPDATE: I glanced at the YouTube API, and it seems the IFrame Player API supports returning playback status and elapsed seconds [3], so closed captions running underneath an iframe'd video and dynamically responding to the state of the video appears feasible. Only a 5-minute glance, though, so I might have missed other bits for analyzing for feasibility.
[3] https://developers.google.com/youtube/iframe_api_reference#P...
What possible motivation could have moved those employees to file on behalf of their university? Malicious intent (they didn't want the free material competing with their courses)? Lack of gratitude (the material is free, but that's not enough)? Zealotry (everything, even free content, must meet their ADA compliance standards)? Simple lack of thinking through potential consequences? Lack of Net citizenship/spirit? Anyone have any insight into the real story behind their protest? I don't want to excoriate them without knowing the whole story, it could have been just someone's doh! moment turned into a really bad outcome.
I know there are closed-captioning format standards. Perhaps someone can create a site that runs closed captioning underneath YouTube videos, with the closed captioning supplied by volunteers (kind of like how closed captioning was done by anime fans)? Hook it up to a GitHub backend so closed caption data can be refined by anyone, with appropriate sidebar discussions. Hook it up to Google Translate to generate Braille and foreign translations of the hand-curated closed captioning, and let users refine the auto-generated translations. Then prevail upon the DOJ and Gallaudet University to give this time to develop instead of hammering on UC Berkeley, and let Creative Commons-licensed closed captioning fill in the content everywhere for all access-challenged students, for all content? Google might be interested to use this as a corpus for Deepmind.
Gallaudet University could have pioneered a solution and become the world leader in automated accessible content generation working in partnership with Google Deepmind, for example. That would have brought in way, way more funding through licensing than this short-sighted approach they are taking now. If Gallaudet University established a CS focus upon this, it would draw in top global talent for a variety of specialties. HAL-like accurate automated lip-reading coming out of this, with even more accuracy when using mic arrays? Yes, please; you get something like that even 90% accurate and you just gave a mindgasm to every meeting-organizer in the world who wants meeting notes taken. And as much as you all hate meetings, if you had a near-irrefutable better-than-stenographer CYA from meeting notes just once, I guarantee you would love that mechanism, increased meetings frequency or no.
This is a darkening of the Net and education in general, and it should not stand. Unless the reporting on this development is simply not including their side of the story, that Gallaudet University is not front and center of this issue trying to get ahead of the outcome by seeking win-win solutions should be making them a pariah on the Net and in the education world. Gallaudet University pursuing a perfect-is-enemy-of-good tactic likely has not considered that they just pulled free education for hundreds of millions of young minds in the developing nations who cannot afford anything close to a world-class education, but have family and friends willing to translate for them. That's unnecessary.
[1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/03/06/u-california-...
[2] http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/09/government-over-regu...
UPDATE: I glanced at the YouTube API, and it seems the IFrame Player API supports returning playback status and elapsed seconds [3], so closed captions running underneath an iframe'd video and dynamically responding to the state of the video appears feasible. Only a 5-minute glance, though, so I might have missed other bits for analyzing for feasibility.
[3] https://developers.google.com/youtube/iframe_api_reference#P...
> What possible motivation could have moved those employees to file on behalf of their university? Malicious intent (they didn't want the free material competing with their courses)? Lack of gratitude (the material is free, but that's not enough)? Zealotry (everything, even free content, must meet their ADA compliance standards)? Simple lack of thinking through potential consequences? Lack of Net citizenship/spirit? Anyone have any insight into the real story behind their protest?
It's all in the DoJ letter. https://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08...
It's a bit worrying that you have such strong opinions when you haven't read the DoJ letter yet.
> Stacy Nowak, a member of NAD, is a professor and PhD student at Gallaudet University and she is deaf. Ms. Nowak would like to avail herself of what she believes is the increasingly frequent use of video and audio-based scholarship. Ms. Nowak teaches communication courses at Galludet, including Introduction to Communication and Nonverbal Communication. She would like to use numerous online resources related to communication in her classes, including the UC BerkeleyX course, “Journalism for Social Change,” but cannot because they are inaccessible. If UC Berkeley’s online content were accessible, she would take courses and utilize the online content in her lectures.
Berkeley is a public institution, offering educational services, under the ADA.
Berkeley has a legal duty to make accessible this content, unless it would be unduly financially burdensome, or unless it would change the nature of what they do.
Berkeley has some policies around accessibility. They were not following those policies.
Berkeley were not just discriminating against people with hearing impairment, but also people with visual impairment and people with manual disability.
Berkeley chose to remove all the video rather than i) make it accessible during creation or ii) pay to make it accessible after creation.
Don't forget the law is 27 years old. Most of these videos are 10 - 5 years old.
It's all in the DoJ letter. https://news.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/2016-08...
It's a bit worrying that you have such strong opinions when you haven't read the DoJ letter yet.
> Stacy Nowak, a member of NAD, is a professor and PhD student at Gallaudet University and she is deaf. Ms. Nowak would like to avail herself of what she believes is the increasingly frequent use of video and audio-based scholarship. Ms. Nowak teaches communication courses at Galludet, including Introduction to Communication and Nonverbal Communication. She would like to use numerous online resources related to communication in her classes, including the UC BerkeleyX course, “Journalism for Social Change,” but cannot because they are inaccessible. If UC Berkeley’s online content were accessible, she would take courses and utilize the online content in her lectures.
Berkeley is a public institution, offering educational services, under the ADA.
Berkeley has a legal duty to make accessible this content, unless it would be unduly financially burdensome, or unless it would change the nature of what they do.
Berkeley has some policies around accessibility. They were not following those policies.
Berkeley were not just discriminating against people with hearing impairment, but also people with visual impairment and people with manual disability.
Berkeley chose to remove all the video rather than i) make it accessible during creation or ii) pay to make it accessible after creation.
Don't forget the law is 27 years old. Most of these videos are 10 - 5 years old.
The going rate to manually close caption transcribe those 20K videos seems to be missing. Apparently the DOJ did, but did not share that number in the letter, yet charges ahead that doing so would not be "unduly financially burdensome".
Back of the envelope: assume an average 60 minutes per video, 20,000 videos. Googling around, I see manual, high-accuracy transcription and captioning goes for about $5-6 per minute, and up from there. The DOJ nailed UC Berkeley on the existing automated captioning being not accurate enough, so we're no longer in low-ball territory. Say it is $5 per minute. 5 * 60 * 20K = 6M. I don't know what rarefied circles you run in, but $6M to comply is not chump change to my sensibility to just take care of the backlog, not to speak of run rates and now periodic attorney reviews to ensure they don't fall afoul of inaccuracy charges again.
Does this set a precedent that any public organization that produces any educational content for free have to do this as well? A homeless shelter publishing self-help videos for runaway teens? A domestic violence center publishing videos on how to navigate the court system? A food bank? It is unclear to me reading Title II and III of the ADA as a layperson if any of these kinds of organization accepting local/state/federal financial support are exempt; it doesn't seem like it but I'm not an attorney.
Is there a cutoff below which an organization won't have to comply, and if so, what is that cutoff metric? Near as I can tell without Lexis-Nexis handy to look up the cross-references in the DOJ letter, there is no such cutoff other than the whims of enforcement.
And once this is done in English, can UC Berkeley rest assured Gallaudet University and the DOJ won't come back after them for Spanish/other languages? Braille? Note that those are 2-300% more per minute. Just add Spanish and suddenly you're looking at an $18M tab, minimum. Add Braille on top and you're talking $30M.
I don't see bright lines being drawn here, and the lack of discretion around freely-available content with highly valuable social benefits may very well have a chilling effect upon the spread of free educational content on the Net.
I see far more promise in working on automated transcription that learns from manually-curated crowdsourced edits so the access-challenged gain greater freedom from relying upon other people to perform the transcription for them in the future. As the population age bulge floats upwards, there is constantly-increasing pressure to solve this problem, and the access-challenged today will find their numbers swelling with the elderly tomorrow.
Why is it acceptable to your post's position for this law to be used as a bludgeon to force everyone who wants to share free educational content to now use cognitive bandwidth to decide if they want to risk an enforcement action? Is your position that it is better for the world to have far fewer, and far more expensive educational content that complies (because extremely few people and organizations are going to spend this kind of money unless the access-challenged community ponies up the business case in some form or fashion), than wider distribution of knowledge for free?
Once this content is gone from public access, even the access-challenged community will not easily gain it back. That means the community has zero chance of accessing it, whereas in its current flawed form the community has some chance at some point in the future, or a guaranteed chance if members of the community decide to pay for transcription now for specific content they want for actionable results.
Media Studies 104A seems to have around 26 lectures. Call it 30, two per week in a 15-week semester. About an hour each, so $9K. The BerkeleyX course Journalism for Social Change likely has the same (can't get at the videos, course is closed now). So, for the sake of say $20K in transcription costs, they are effectively shutting down billions of dollars worth of education around the world over the next decade, once you take the chilling effects of this enforcement action on other content into account? This is akin to "if I can't have it, nobody can", applied to free educational material, is it not?
Could this all potentially just boil down to a couple of professors who didn't have the budget to transcribe what they wanted from free videos thinking if they shook down UC Berkeley with the DOJ they would get it done by UC Berkeley for them, but the scheme went very awry?
Taking away these resources via this enforcement action, as flawed as they are in their current format for the access-challenged, is like burning books. The ideology is different, but the effect of destroying access to knowledge is exactly the same. How does this restricting access to knowledge in any form benefit the access-challenged community? For all we know, there is a kid in sub-Saharan Africa/Shanghai/Nepal/etc. today that could consume this material because they can't afford traditional college and in their time deliver sight to the blind, regrown bodies to the maimed, or sound to the deaf tomorrow.
Perhaps this is a culture clash, and I simply do not understand the access-challenged POV since I'm not immersed in that community. If so, then please educate where my reasoning is going off the rails from that perspective. Thanks in advance.
Back of the envelope: assume an average 60 minutes per video, 20,000 videos. Googling around, I see manual, high-accuracy transcription and captioning goes for about $5-6 per minute, and up from there. The DOJ nailed UC Berkeley on the existing automated captioning being not accurate enough, so we're no longer in low-ball territory. Say it is $5 per minute. 5 * 60 * 20K = 6M. I don't know what rarefied circles you run in, but $6M to comply is not chump change to my sensibility to just take care of the backlog, not to speak of run rates and now periodic attorney reviews to ensure they don't fall afoul of inaccuracy charges again.
Does this set a precedent that any public organization that produces any educational content for free have to do this as well? A homeless shelter publishing self-help videos for runaway teens? A domestic violence center publishing videos on how to navigate the court system? A food bank? It is unclear to me reading Title II and III of the ADA as a layperson if any of these kinds of organization accepting local/state/federal financial support are exempt; it doesn't seem like it but I'm not an attorney.
Is there a cutoff below which an organization won't have to comply, and if so, what is that cutoff metric? Near as I can tell without Lexis-Nexis handy to look up the cross-references in the DOJ letter, there is no such cutoff other than the whims of enforcement.
And once this is done in English, can UC Berkeley rest assured Gallaudet University and the DOJ won't come back after them for Spanish/other languages? Braille? Note that those are 2-300% more per minute. Just add Spanish and suddenly you're looking at an $18M tab, minimum. Add Braille on top and you're talking $30M.
I don't see bright lines being drawn here, and the lack of discretion around freely-available content with highly valuable social benefits may very well have a chilling effect upon the spread of free educational content on the Net.
I see far more promise in working on automated transcription that learns from manually-curated crowdsourced edits so the access-challenged gain greater freedom from relying upon other people to perform the transcription for them in the future. As the population age bulge floats upwards, there is constantly-increasing pressure to solve this problem, and the access-challenged today will find their numbers swelling with the elderly tomorrow.
Why is it acceptable to your post's position for this law to be used as a bludgeon to force everyone who wants to share free educational content to now use cognitive bandwidth to decide if they want to risk an enforcement action? Is your position that it is better for the world to have far fewer, and far more expensive educational content that complies (because extremely few people and organizations are going to spend this kind of money unless the access-challenged community ponies up the business case in some form or fashion), than wider distribution of knowledge for free?
Once this content is gone from public access, even the access-challenged community will not easily gain it back. That means the community has zero chance of accessing it, whereas in its current flawed form the community has some chance at some point in the future, or a guaranteed chance if members of the community decide to pay for transcription now for specific content they want for actionable results.
Media Studies 104A seems to have around 26 lectures. Call it 30, two per week in a 15-week semester. About an hour each, so $9K. The BerkeleyX course Journalism for Social Change likely has the same (can't get at the videos, course is closed now). So, for the sake of say $20K in transcription costs, they are effectively shutting down billions of dollars worth of education around the world over the next decade, once you take the chilling effects of this enforcement action on other content into account? This is akin to "if I can't have it, nobody can", applied to free educational material, is it not?
Could this all potentially just boil down to a couple of professors who didn't have the budget to transcribe what they wanted from free videos thinking if they shook down UC Berkeley with the DOJ they would get it done by UC Berkeley for them, but the scheme went very awry?
Taking away these resources via this enforcement action, as flawed as they are in their current format for the access-challenged, is like burning books. The ideology is different, but the effect of destroying access to knowledge is exactly the same. How does this restricting access to knowledge in any form benefit the access-challenged community? For all we know, there is a kid in sub-Saharan Africa/Shanghai/Nepal/etc. today that could consume this material because they can't afford traditional college and in their time deliver sight to the blind, regrown bodies to the maimed, or sound to the deaf tomorrow.
Perhaps this is a culture clash, and I simply do not understand the access-challenged POV since I'm not immersed in that community. If so, then please educate where my reasoning is going off the rails from that perspective. Thanks in advance.
From the disability community's perspective, the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 are key safeguards to protect them from discrimination. Not enforcing these laws because the lectures benefit able-bodied people is ableism and discriminatory against the disabled community.
UCB was found to be in non-compliance. UCB could have chosen to fix the accessibility issues, but it did not. It wasn't the deaf community that took down the videos, but UCB's choice.
UCB was found to be in non-compliance. UCB could have chosen to fix the accessibility issues, but it did not. It wasn't the deaf community that took down the videos, but UCB's choice.
I appreciate the disability community's "hand up, not hand out" attitude. But Bloomberg TV's and CNBC's closed captioning for example, are nearly incomprehensible much of the time. Far, far more of the disability community's members are impacted by timely, accurate financial news than the ones who wanted to take UCB's free video courses.
So why single out UCB? Why single out free educational content instead of for-profit content with a wider, more actionable impact?
I understand UCB pulled the videos. From my layman's perspective, that doesn't actually address the DOJ's enforcement action. The Title II compliance demand still stands even after taking down the videos from public access. I am concerned that UCB will simply ban all the videos from even student access, and only allow them back into use as they are vetted, one by one, slowly, by their Web Accessibility Services team, and now with expensive attorney time on top, and only when an actual disabled student attends a specific course.
The disability-compliant transcription processing cost is about 2.5X more expensive than stenography transcription. An all-day deposition will cost in the range of about $1K, and 8 hours of closed caption transcription will run around $2.4K. Yet court stenographers are not mandated absolutely everywhere on the off-chance a court-accepted record might be needed, only in a court where their output is required to make a decision. So why is the criteria for ADA compliance set so much broader?
Would Gallaudet University have pressed the case if the fewer than a handful of courses that were desired were re-done and transcribed to meet their accuracy requirements? If not, what is the rationale for a blanket injunction to transcribe all courses regardless of demonstrated need? The services to meet compliance are very expensive, is advocating for indiscriminate enforcement as a blanket policy economically realistic at this point of automated transcription development?
I want to see us reach the point where all media is seamlessly, automatically and practically for free transcribed for the disabled in a variety of formats. But we're still in a world ruled by scarcity for quite a while longer, and I am currently unable to reconcile the enormous costs placed upon society at large and content creators in particular. Please share your perspective, thanks in advance.
So why single out UCB? Why single out free educational content instead of for-profit content with a wider, more actionable impact?
I understand UCB pulled the videos. From my layman's perspective, that doesn't actually address the DOJ's enforcement action. The Title II compliance demand still stands even after taking down the videos from public access. I am concerned that UCB will simply ban all the videos from even student access, and only allow them back into use as they are vetted, one by one, slowly, by their Web Accessibility Services team, and now with expensive attorney time on top, and only when an actual disabled student attends a specific course.
The disability-compliant transcription processing cost is about 2.5X more expensive than stenography transcription. An all-day deposition will cost in the range of about $1K, and 8 hours of closed caption transcription will run around $2.4K. Yet court stenographers are not mandated absolutely everywhere on the off-chance a court-accepted record might be needed, only in a court where their output is required to make a decision. So why is the criteria for ADA compliance set so much broader?
Would Gallaudet University have pressed the case if the fewer than a handful of courses that were desired were re-done and transcribed to meet their accuracy requirements? If not, what is the rationale for a blanket injunction to transcribe all courses regardless of demonstrated need? The services to meet compliance are very expensive, is advocating for indiscriminate enforcement as a blanket policy economically realistic at this point of automated transcription development?
I want to see us reach the point where all media is seamlessly, automatically and practically for free transcribed for the disabled in a variety of formats. But we're still in a world ruled by scarcity for quite a while longer, and I am currently unable to reconcile the enormous costs placed upon society at large and content creators in particular. Please share your perspective, thanks in advance.
Making those 20,000 videos accessible now would be expensive.
But since the law had been in place at least 15 years before these videos were created Berkeley should have just complied with the law, and stopped their employees from lying about complying with the law, when the content was created.
All the videos created before 2015 were "self certified" - someone had to sign a bit of paper to say "I've read the Berkeley stuff on accessibility, and this content is accessible".
> I see far more promise in working on automated transcription
That only fixes the subtitling issue. While in this case the complainant were people with hearing impairment the DoJ letter is clear that the content is not accessible to people with hearing impairment, or visual impairment, or manual disability.
> Could this all potentially just boil down to a couple of professors who didn't have the budget to transcribe what they wanted from free videos thinking if they shook down UC Berkeley with the DOJ they would get it done by UC Berkeley for them, but the scheme went very awry?
Interesting that you use the term "shook down", when it's Berkeley that was not complying with either the law or its own policies.
The problem here was all the people signing Berkeley documents saying they had complied with Berkeley polices and the law when they were ignoring the law.
But since the law had been in place at least 15 years before these videos were created Berkeley should have just complied with the law, and stopped their employees from lying about complying with the law, when the content was created.
All the videos created before 2015 were "self certified" - someone had to sign a bit of paper to say "I've read the Berkeley stuff on accessibility, and this content is accessible".
> I see far more promise in working on automated transcription
That only fixes the subtitling issue. While in this case the complainant were people with hearing impairment the DoJ letter is clear that the content is not accessible to people with hearing impairment, or visual impairment, or manual disability.
> Could this all potentially just boil down to a couple of professors who didn't have the budget to transcribe what they wanted from free videos thinking if they shook down UC Berkeley with the DOJ they would get it done by UC Berkeley for them, but the scheme went very awry?
Interesting that you use the term "shook down", when it's Berkeley that was not complying with either the law or its own policies.
The problem here was all the people signing Berkeley documents saying they had complied with Berkeley polices and the law when they were ignoring the law.
I really hate to say this, but I think that the "darkening of the net" is the intent. There are far too many people there who subscribe to the "Deaf Persons as a separate race" idea, and look at sticking a thumb in the eye of the non-deaf to be a Good Thing.
I really hope I'm wrong.
I really hope I'm wrong.
It is bizarre though, the Deaf Community outpaces even mexican -flag waving La Raza types in their desire to make other Americans pay for a separate piece of the US for themselves.
Anyone looking to create a personal archive for any YouTube content should look into these scripts:
https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/
They're very easy to use and well documented.
They're very easy to use and well documented.
How/where are you planning on making them publicly available? I suppose UC Berkeley might actually turn a blind eye if one where to simply repost them on YouTube - because UC meant for them to be public in the first place. Alternatively, maybe repost on Vimeo?
I would be curious to read the background discussion at HN you refer to?
From a quick search:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768856
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13815764
TLDR: The videos were removed because of a lawsuit relating to the lack of captions, making them inaccessible to the deaf.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13768856
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13815764
TLDR: The videos were removed because of a lawsuit relating to the lack of captions, making them inaccessible to the deaf.
> The videos were removed because of a lawsuit relating to the lack of captions, making them inaccessible to the deaf.
It wasn't a lawsuit. It wasn't just people with hearing impairment (although they were the complainants) - the content was inaccessible to people with visual impairment and manual disability too.
It wasn't a lawsuit. It wasn't just people with hearing impairment (although they were the complainants) - the content was inaccessible to people with visual impairment and manual disability too.
Don't know why you appear to be being downvoted. You're right, I'm wrong. :)
Could someone make a torrent with all of the videos? I would but I've never done it before and don't have the time to learn. :(
Don't know if you've seen the other posts, but Archive.org already has torrents (click on a course and check out the Download Options on the right):
https://archive.org/details/@schule04?and%5b%5d=subject%3A%2...
https://archive.org/details/@schule04?and%5b%5d=subject%3A%2...
Oh, awesome! Thanks for pointing that out. :)
Torrents for some of the non-CS courses are available at
http://academictorrents.com/collection/video-lectures
Hope more courses are added before they are taken down from YouTube and iTunes.
http://academictorrents.com/collection/video-lectures
Hope more courses are added before they are taken down from YouTube and iTunes.
It's super easy to download a video off of Youtube with jdownloader 2.0 . Works in Linux and MacOSX (probably windows too, I have no experience with it)
You select the youtube url, copy it, download, done.
http://jdownloader.org/jdownloader2
You select the youtube url, copy it, download, done.
http://jdownloader.org/jdownloader2
Youtube-dl is another option:
https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/
https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/
[deleted]
[deleted]
Physics C10 (aka L&S C70V)
Anything with Hubert Dreyfus
So what would happen if someone created a youtube account called "NotUCBerkeley" and reuploaded all these videos with their playlists intact? Asking for a friend of course!
As far as I know this course has been archive in archive.org, you can find it there with berkeley as a keyword.
Could you get CS170 with Papadimitrou, EE 16A/B, and multiple semesters of 61A with Harvey? Thanks!
Ahh Harvey. He was really one of the best teachers I had at Berkeley.
Unfortunately, I only ever got to know him through the self-paced CS9 series.
I truly wish I had gotten to take 61A with him - and before it switched away from Scheme. I don't think the current incarnation is a worthy successor of the SICP based one.
I truly wish I had gotten to take 61A with him - and before it switched away from Scheme. I don't think the current incarnation is a worthy successor of the SICP based one.
Berkeley CS 61A
Berkeley CS 61C
Berkeley CS 162
Berkeley CS 186
Anyone want to chime in with a way to simply grab them all?
If there's a YouTube playlist for the course, you can easily grab them all with youtube-dl.
[0]: https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/
[0]: https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/
There's many of the CS videos in a torrent (with magnet link) here, over 400GB: https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/5xqnc6/uc_berk...
As others have said, youtube-dl. I'm using the following command to get them in the best possible quality and merge them into an mkv:
You can get playlists here: https://www.youtube.com/user/UCBerkeley/playlists
youtube-dl -f bestvideo+bestaudio --merge-output-format mkv -ci [play list url]
brew install youtube-dl
brew install ffmpeg
You can get playlists here: https://www.youtube.com/user/UCBerkeley/playlists
youtube-dl can download all videos from given channel
youtube-dl
you and the above poster are heros.
$ youtube-dl
The program 'youtube-dl' is currently not installed.
You can install it by typing:
sudo apt install youtube-dl
$ sudo apt install youtube-dl
Just a note, in the FAQ[1] it states "distribution packages are often outdated". There are (very simple) cURL/wget instructions in the repo's README[2]. Then you can update with:
[1] https://github.com/rg3/youtube-dl/blob/master/README.md#how-...
[2] https://github.com/rg3/youtube-dl/blob/master/README.md#inst...
sudo youtube-dl -U
[1] https://github.com/rg3/youtube-dl/blob/master/README.md#how-...
[2] https://github.com/rg3/youtube-dl/blob/master/README.md#inst...
youtube-dl is an amazing project in terms of the number of contributors and their passion for keeping it up to date and supporting a huge range of sites.
https://github.com/rg3/youtube-dl/
Previous long HN discussions of the project:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8647943 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11452765
https://github.com/rg3/youtube-dl/
Previous long HN discussions of the project:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8647943 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11452765
FYI to Mac users: brew install youtube-dl works just as well.
Could you write a script that captures all of them?
I think there is an option in youtube-dl to download the complete channel.
[deleted]
Following
3.1 TB torrent
https://mega.nz/#!EMF3lAZZ!sD2AK2lMFPNDZuoI-q8RMTZeXkAHTmvtg...
https://expirebox.com/download/4e808067f3610c1e366c49e048fe9...
https://archive.is/D1Ail
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13869086
"And lastly I finished downloading all of the UC Berkeley. Videos, any transcriptions/captions and all other video info. I made a torrent as they are the most efficient at sharing. All 3.1TB of it, it's not hosted on the fastest server, but with a few seeds it should go quick enough. If you want to keep this great learning resource alive, feel free to seed or partial seed, I will seed it for as long as I can. [4] For video listings please look at this list [5]."
https://mega.nz/#!EMF3lAZZ!sD2AK2lMFPNDZuoI-q8RMTZeXkAHTmvtg...
https://expirebox.com/download/4e808067f3610c1e366c49e048fe9...
https://archive.is/D1Ail
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13869086
"And lastly I finished downloading all of the UC Berkeley. Videos, any transcriptions/captions and all other video info. I made a torrent as they are the most efficient at sharing. All 3.1TB of it, it's not hosted on the fastest server, but with a few seeds it should go quick enough. If you want to keep this great learning resource alive, feel free to seed or partial seed, I will seed it for as long as I can. [4] For video listings please look at this list [5]."
Funny I downloaded exactly the same courses.
None. If you are interested in some subject then you would have taken. And if you got interested in future there must be some course.
So don't waste your hard disk space.
I'm in the process of archiving some of the most important Computer Science courses, mainly for my own benefit, but I intend to make them publically available. (This is a throwaway account b/c I don't want to run afoul of any legal issues.)
What I have so far:
- CS61 Series (61A, 61B, and 61C)
- CS162 Operating Systems (Kubiatowicz)
- CS164 Programming Languages & Compilers (Hillfinger)
- CS186 Intro to Database Systems (Hellerstein)