Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Displayport: A Better Video Interface

hackaday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 426 posts

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#401

Post by Someone »

wang_li wrote: post #381
loup-vaillant wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds nice, but computer based voting systems, no matter how secure, clean or simple, are fundamentally opaque to the average citizen. That alone undermines the very democracy it tries to support. Paper based voting systems may be bloody tedious but they’re simple, and anyone can participate. As a programmer myself, I have to say no to electronic voting systems. We need to keep it low tech.

When you vote from home I can show up and put a gun to your kid's head and tell you to vote for Pedro. When you vote with some sort of association with your name I can look up how you voted after the fact and if you didn't vote for Pedro I can blow up your house. The fact is that the secret, anonymous ballot is the only valid way of voting.

> When you vote from home I can show up and put a gun to your kid's head and tell you to vote for Pedro

If you could do that at a scale large enough to affect the result, I would think you could also do that at each ballot box and make the vote counters report the results you want them to report.

Also, if you could do that at scale, why would you bother with elections at all?

IMO, the main problem with digital voting is that it makes it possible to change the vote count without needing lots of people to do so.

With thousands of ballot boxes, open counting of votes for each ballot box and the publication of election results per ballot box that’s basically impossible.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#402

Post by bleepblop »

aidenn0 wrote: post #400
bleepblop wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might I suggest reading up on how both DTS and Dolby encode audio then.

DTS and Dolby are unrelated to uncompressed LPCM. HDMI 1.0 supports up to 8-channels, up to 192kHz, and up to 24-bits of depth. In practice, my laptop to my receiver can definitely do 24-bit 48kHz PCM at 8 channels, and that's certainly "full fidelity" for most setups.

If you're sending audio and audio only then sure. Wouldn't be my solution from my professional opinion though.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#403

Post by ShadowBanThis01 »

xxpor wrote: post #388
ShadowBanThis01 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not entirely true. My house was built with an A/V closet that's not in the living room. To put analog equipment (like a turntable) in the living room where it's used, I convert the analog signals into digital with a $100 A/D converter that sends them over CAT-6 under the house to a decoder that connects to the receiver with Toslink. It works great, and I bought this in the last three years.

Sure, for PCM stereo content it still works perfectly fine. Which is a lot of stuff! But it'd be a poor choice for 5.1 or better today.

I was curious about that; because I couldn't be bothered to do the math myself, I looked up the max bitrate of multichannel PCM. Found this at https://www.videohelp.com/hd :

"Linear PCM up to 9 channels (Max 27.648 Mbit/s)"

Cat5 or higher (especially only 20 feet) would easily handle that.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#404

Post by wang_li »

Someone wrote: post #401
wang_li wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you vote from home I can show up and put a gun to your kid's head and tell you to vote for Pedro. When you vote with some sort of association with your name I can look up how you voted after the fact and if you didn't vote for Pedro I can blow up your house. The fact is that the secret, anonymous ballot is the only valid way of voting.

> When you vote from home I can show up and put a gun to your kid's head and tell you to vote for Pedro If you could do that at a scale large enough to affect the result, I would think you could also do that at each ballot box and make the vote counters report the results you want them to report. Also, if you could do that at scale, why would you bother with elections at all? IMO, the main problem with digital voting…

In the 2020 election one of the seats for the House of Representatives had an initial margin of victory of six votes. After recounting it was something like twenty. And another had a final margin of victory around one hundred.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#405

Post by aidenn0 »

bleepblop wrote: post #402
aidenn0 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DTS and Dolby are unrelated to uncompressed LPCM. HDMI 1.0 supports up to 8-channels, up to 192kHz, and up to 24-bits of depth. In practice, my laptop to my receiver can definitely do 24-bit 48kHz PCM at 8 channels, and that's certainly "full fidelity" for most setups.

If you're sending audio and audio only then sure. Wouldn't be my solution from my professional opinion though.

Uncompressed multichannel LPCM works along-side video just fine. The only thing you have said in this thread that is true has been about eARC/ARC, yet you've doubled-down on your statements even when I made it clear that I'm not using ARC.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#406

Post by bleepblop »

aidenn0 wrote: post #405
bleepblop wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're sending audio and audio only then sure. Wouldn't be my solution from my professional opinion though.

Uncompressed multichannel LPCM works along-side video just fine. The only thing you have said in this thread that is true has been about eARC/ARC, yet you've doubled-down on your statements even when I made it clear that I'm not using ARC.

My mistake was speaking with an audio consumer and not an engineer.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#407

Post by ComputerGuru »

NavinF wrote: post #273
ComputerGuru wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a problem when the x16 slot is the bottom-most and the orientation is such that the clicky thing you must depress is on the bottom side of the DP connector when plugged in, and your case has a ledge after the PCI slots so you cannot realistically depress the latch. Of course, no one would realistically encounter a case/GPU/cable combo like that. Right?

Your GPU should be in the x16 slot closest to the CPU because it has the most bandwidth. tbh this sounds like a self-inflicted SFF build problem

> tbh this sounds like a self-inflicted SFF build problem

No, the error is in automatically assuming that the GPU should be the one to get the x16 port. This is a tower server; the x16 and x8 ports are for the SAS cards, network cards, and NVMe drives. The GPU takes whatever is left.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#408

Post by gsich »

kaashif wrote: post #371
loup-vaillant wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds nice, but computer based voting systems, no matter how secure, clean or simple, are fundamentally opaque to the average citizen. That alone undermines the very democracy it tries to support. Paper based voting systems may be bloody tedious but they’re simple, and anyone can participate. As a programmer myself, I have to say no to electronic voting systems. We need to keep it low tech.

Also, they may be opaque even to software engineers, it's not like we have magic powers to look at a physical computer and know what code is running. Even if the code is released: (1) Who can read and understand tens or hundreds of thousands of lines of probably not very comprehensible code? Not many people can and even fewer will. (2) Is the code running on the machines the same as the published code? I don't even k…

The process needs to be understandable to non-programmers. Right now, even those who program it don't know every instruction/interaction/oddity from the processor running the code.

I can explain a voting process with pen and paper to a child.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#409

Post by JuanPosadas »

qwertox wrote: post #240

This is a really well written article. If you haven't bothered reading about DisplayPort because you knew VGA, somewhat knew DVI and thought that HDMI is the culmination of it all, where then DisplayPort is just some further kind of evolution, this article does a really good job at explaining how DP is very different and something new, something worth knowing about. The core sentence which made me actually read the a…

> how DP is very different and something new

To be fair, if you think you know your video cables but don't know what display port is, you've been out of the loop for over a decade.

Re: Displayport: A Better Video Interface

#410

Post by Our_Benefactors »

Our_Benefactors wrote: post #256
xboxnolifes wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alternatively, you may have been thinking about ConnectPro. I ordered a kvm from them around the same timeframe and it was delayed quite a bit from backorder. (Though, they also did a major UI change, so might not be able to tell either).

Two thumbs down for connect pro. I ordered their top of the line 4 computer, 2 monitor DisplayPort KVM and it took months to arrive. I could not cycle between inputs using the buttons. They were more like a suggestion to use that signal path; I would constantly need to power cycle the kvm, monitors, or both. I ended up ditching it on eBay at a significant loss for a $30 usb switch and just switch monitor inputs manua…

I should also add that their customer support was totally worthless. They promised me a firmware update, and stopped responding after I confirmed my firmware version - the process to get that value was already quite arcane, so ultimately I felt like they never really had any intention of helping and were simply stalling me out.
Post reply on HN