You are trying to rationalize with people who hold irrational beliefs. It won't work because their objections aren't based on reason.
It's ok for people to just hate things. I hate spinach for example. Listing all the reasons that my distaste for spinach is irrational won't change that.
Similarly, explaining to the new amish that AI with TDD writess better code than most of the devs I know isn't going to get you anywhere. They don't really care about code quality at all. It's a religious or political belief.
Someone saying they vibe coded a thing is like them saying they were hammered when they wrote it. Maybe they did a great job, but probably not; it's definitely cause for concern.
Right. I'm under the impression that it's a licensing thing. It also can't do TrueHD Atmos in general. Just lossy Dolby DD+ for audio. It also doesn't do Dolby Vision properly, only supporting the profiles meant for streaming that use less data.
Similarly, It CAN do Atmos for E-AC3 audio, but E-AC3 is meant for streaming, so it's really rare to have that in a file you're playing back locally.
Basically, it just falls back to whatever the next best thing it can support is at the hardware level.
This is one area where Android wins. The Nvidia Shield, despite being ancient, is your best bet for local playback. It's still limited on the supported Dolby Vision profiles, but can just pass the audio through to your receiver without mucking with it. So you get all the bells and whistles.
Other than the shield your only alternatives are weird dedicated devices that are literally built for playing back UHD blu-ray rips (Dune HD, etc).
In TFA they specify that it was also blu ray. This person was using DVD as an (incorrect) term meaning "some kind of plastic disc."
Though they don't say 4k/UHD blu-ray which would be a big miss if not. UHD blu-ray is superior to any other format in terms of quality. Perhaps excepting a few very niches streaming services that are tied to expensive hardware.
I use store-3d-blurayrental.com. They do more than 3d. It's expensive, compared to streaming, but the quality of 4k bluray can't be beat. I have a 120" screen. You notice the difference between 1080p or even high and low bitrates at that size. I think physical media might make a bit of a comeback as screen sizes increase unless streaming services up their bitrates.
You would think so, but the prices keep going up and the bitrate keeps going down. Some of that is up to codec and encoding improvements, but I think a lot of it is just that they know they can get away with it.
If you'd have asked me 20 years to bet on whether streaming or shiny disks would be producing better quality audio/video in 20 years my money would NOT have been on disks but here we are. Ye Olden Plastic Disk's are still kicking streaming's butt even though I have 2.5Gbps fiber now.
Prices keep going up and bitrates down because most streaming services (except for Netflix and YouTube) have been basically break-even or money losing for years now, and the appetite for that is cooling.
Also, display resolution is not scaling like it used to. The move up from 4k to 8k is far more expensive and less worthwhile than the previous jumps.
So, I think your assumptions about the business side of streaming and the way the hardware is scaling are wrong and we will, in fact, not see physical media make a comeback.
You're probably right, sadly. The best case we could reasonably expect would be better quality streams, but I don't seriously believe that will happen either.
There are some niche services like the one that you can only get on Sony TV's that stream at like 50% of UHD bluray's bitrate - and that might be as good as it gets for the foreseeable future unless these services are forced to compete on quality or people decide to care about 8k or something.
From TFA: "I have encountered some challenges but the most serious one is that Microsoft terminated the account I have used for years to sign Windows drivers and the bootloader."
Yeah, and the first comment beneath that mentions that the most recent version is signed with the "2011 CA" that the article I link to discusses being deprecated.
My guess was that he got caught up in some house-cleaning. My theory being that he's still signing his code the way malware authors also do and got flagged by some automated review that's meant to force him to go get WHCP certified or whatever the new route is.
Your right to swing a fist ends where the other fella's nose begins. That doesn't mean you aren't free, it just means you recognize that the right not to suffer grievous bodily harm trumps the right to swing your fist willy-nilly.
As a fist-swinger you may not always agree, and you may even get hurt one day because you couldn't swing your fist whenever you wanted, but that's just the cost of living in a world filled with other human beings.
I appreciate why you might feel that way. It's reasonable for reasonable people to disagree, but in this case the experts we trust to decide these things decided that you were the one who presented a danger to society. I seriously doubt that you have the sort of medical credentials that would be required to get any serious person to take your word over those of the world class epidemiologists, virologists, etc who said the opposite.
Regardless of correctness though, even if they'd been wrong it's just part of life that sometimes you have to go along to get along. There are a lot of things I disagree with society about, but I depend on society to live. It would childish to try not to participate.
I suspect that people are labeling you an "anti vaxxer" not because of your decision to not receive the vaccine after already having had covid, but because of your rhetoric. "the jab", general and vague criticisms of medical industry, etc.
You can at least draw a somewhat tortured connection between "anti vaccine" and opting out of receiving a specific vaccine (for logical reasons, with your doctors approval, though are they even a real doctor if they approved such a thing?).
But using the word "jab" or criticising the medical industry making you anti vaccine is the kind of thing I was talking about when I mentioned literacy.
The vibe you're getting is that I'm blaspheming. I'm saying things that probably hundreds of millions, possibly even billions of marketing dollars were spent to discourage being said.
All you have to do to make it really clear that you're not an antivaxxer is say that the COVID vaccine is largely safe, most people should get it barring medical exceptions, etc.
Everything else is kind of irrelevant. It just feels like you're dancing around this and talking about how slighted you are for not getting it. It's a really easy "solve".
Don't be pissy when you use the same exact phrasing and talking points as antivaxxers and then people assume you are one. It's trivial to demonstrate that you are not.
No, all I have to do to make it clear is say "I'm not opposed to vaccines as some kind of principle, ideological or otherwise", and then you can either believe me or not.
That's what anti vaccine means, despite all the efforts to redefine it. It doesn't mean "won't recite the marketing materials for a specific pharmaceutical product when prompted".
Generally safe is meaningless in this context. That's not a reasonable way to talk about entire classes of drugs. All that matters is for a given person with a given medical history and context, does the specific drug have a net benefit.
Here's a good test case: have you had the rabies vaccine? If not, does that make you an antivaxxer? How about vaccines that have been pulled off the market? Are those no longer vaccines?
Something reasonable to say would be there are vaccines that have a net benefit, and you should take those if that applies to your situation.
This whole "say the slogan or you're an antivaxxer" is like giving kids the nontoxic glue because you know some of them are going to eat it. The adults in the room don't need this shit.
I don't care what "slogan" you say, I'm just trying to see if you hold the opinions of an antivaxxer and for some reason you refuse to make any claim that would help avail me of that position.
That was a bad acquisition and their parent company is now in a bind, but I don't see a world where they can't sell it somewhere. Hopefully it doesn't end up in private equity hell because the 600/650 line is legendary and the HDB 630 is a true leap forward.
> Hopefully it doesn't end up in private equity hell
By this time next year we'd be seeing some Chinese owned company producing "Sennheiser HD9000000000+ Pro" headphones that are leftover Shrek themed earbuds that smoke when you turn the volume up too high.
I think that's unfair - if HiFiMAN, Moondrop, or even KZ bought up the Sennheiser assets there would be very little difference. (HiFiMAN had QC concerns 7-8 years back but as far as I've heard they have been much better over the last 5 years.
Senheiser's CONSUMER side of the buisness is basically dead. Senheiser still makes headphones and such with the focus more on business/production products
Crucially, at enterprise sales, those who make putchase decisions are not the actual users (except maybe for Outlook and Excel). They sometimes play golf together with vendors though. This is how stuff like MS Teams of Oracle Forms gets sold: it checks all the compliance boxes, has support, an SLA, "is industry strength", etc.
The end state of genAI could as well be a few billionaires being their enterprise and everybody else being unemployed or working at the factory. Robots are not there yet (far from it) and someone needs to build and maintain the thing as well as food for everyone. High unemployment could drive salaries down and make lots of thing unavailable to the common people while making humans cheaper than automation for boring manual work.
That's an extreme scenario but today's politicians are not very keen into redistribution of wealth or prevention of excessive accumulation of economic power leading to exceeding the power of the state itself. I see nothing preventing that scenario from happening.
> High unemployment could drive salaries down and make lots of thing unavailable to the common people while making humans cheaper than automation for boring manual work.
‘I wanted a machine to do the dishes for me so I could concentrate on my art, and what I got was a machine to do the art so now I’m the one doing the dishes’
But you already have a machine that can do the dishes. Like doing the laundry, people forget the machines they already have doing 90% of the work. Soon enough artists will forget that computers can do 90% of their work too.
People mention it to remind the world that the goal posts have been repeatedly moved by critics, and always will be.
A certain percentage of humans will never acknowledge that machines can be intelligent. Those people should be disqualified from the conversation for the same reason we disqualify biblical literalists from conversations about radio carbon dating.
> A certain percentage of humans will never acknowledge that machines can be intelligent.
Doesn't this assume there IS an objective, quantifiable definition of an "intelligent machine" that is agreed upon by most people? That instead sounds rather subjective to my ears.
Ignoring the irrational isn't the silencing of dissent, it's ignoring time-wasters who refuse (or are unable) to argue in good faith.
I only get so many hours on earth, I'd rather not spend them debating what the definition of "is" is with someone who would rather litigate tautological nonsense than accept *any* level of evidence as sufficient.
reply