Recommend .local/bin instead of /usr/local/bin

[dalto8]

Recommending running sudo yt-dlp -U is somewhat questionable advice from a security perspective.

To avoid this, we can modify the instructions to install to ~/.local/bin instead where sudo is not needed.

[bashonly]

Agreed that sudo is not ideal here.
But the user might not have a ~/.local/bin directory and/or it may not be in their PATH

[dalto8]

Instructions could be provided to check that or it could be changed to write to a directory inside of ~ and run from there.

There is also no guarantee that /usr/local/bin is in your path or that sudo is installed.

[bashonly]

Instructions could be provided to check that or it could be changed to write to a directory inside of ~ and run from there.

Sure, let's do that in this PR

[dalto8]

Sure, let's do that in this PR

I can do that. Which one? Ensuring that ~/.local/bin exists and is in the path or putting it in a different directory?

[bashonly]

I think ~/.local/bin is a systemd convention, but it doesn't necessarily apply to all distros that use systemd (e.g. Arch doesn't create this directory or add it to PATH). Otherwise the conventional user binary dir is ~/bin. I guess it doesn't matter which one is used, as long as it will work for all Unix-like OSes

If you can come up with simple instructions for ensuring the directory exists and is in the PATH, that would be good. They do need to be applicable to MacOS, Linux and BSD though, so it may be tricky to come up with a simple & universal explanation for how to add a directory to the PATH (taking into account different shells, .profile vs .bash_profile, etc)

[pukkandan]

This is just overcomplicating the install instructions. Instead, we can keep the old one and simply add a line If "~/bin" is in your PATH, you can use it instead of "/usr/local/bin". But then again, the people who know if it's in the path don't need this instruction anyway...

[dalto8]

How about this version?