151–160 of 185 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No device output in DP Yeah, if we exclude basically every half decent GPU and ~70% of laptop USB-C ports in existence.
I use an HDMI to HDMI cable to connect my MBP to my 38" monitor (3840 x 1600, @ 85Hz). Would I get any benefit from using a USB-C to DP cable instead (e.g. running at the monitors maximum refresh rate)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use an HDMI to HDMI cable to connect my MBP to my 38" monitor (3840 x 1600, @ 85Hz). Would I get any benefit from using a USB-C to DP cable instead (e.g. running at the monitors maximum refresh rate)?
Unanswerable without specifying what laptop you have.
The laptop's spec page doesn't say what refresh rates are supported for external displays (except saying at least 60Hz): https://support.apple.com/en-us/111901
I'll buy a new cable right now :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Of course not. It's just protectionism and rent-seeking. Don't know why you're being downvoted but it's true. Especially when you see that the HDMI standard was developed by the cartel of TV manufacturers and major movie studios[1] when DVI and Display Port already existed but those didn't generate royalties or have DRM. Despicable standard. There wasn't even a standards "war" like in VHS vs Betamax, or SD vs Memory…
To be fair, and note that I think of the hdmi foundation as the bad guys. hdmi was not an alternative to display port, display port did not exist yet. it was an alternative to dvi, really hdmi is dvi with a sound channel and drm. And as much as I dislike the hdmi foundation I can see the benefit here. as to hdmi vs display port... I have no idea why you don't see more display port, VESA has a proven track record as t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like what FireWire was to USB, but hopefully it has a better fate.
Wasn't FireWire also massively encumbered in patents and very expensive licenses? I may be misremembering...
IIRC it had full duplex unlike USB 1/2, it launched well before USB with a fast 400Mbps transfer speed and its hardware controller was sophisticated enough that it could work without much intervention from the OS.
But looking into the history, the patent situation was indeed grim. Likely that's what kept it in an Apple and DV niche until USB caught up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If only the free market was even more free, all our problems would be solved!
The invisible hand of the free market will come and fix all the things! /s If you talk to people who still subscribe to that notion, it quickly becomes clear that they value their miniscule chance to win the capitalist lottery more than the wellbeing of the many — the idea that markets balance everything to the advantage of everybody then seems to be just an excuse to be egoistic and without any care for others. Don'…
This line of thinking is often repeated in election cycles and mindless online discussions, with mantras like "We justify doing something heinous because it serves 'American Interests'" or "We'll coercively tax one group and redistribute funds to another because they'll do something dubiously for the 'greater good'".
However, Utilitarianism is not a foundational principle of libertarian ideology. In fact, libertarianism often refutes and rejects it as applied to governments. It doesn't prioritize egalitarianism or rely on public opinion when defining citizens' rights.
The argument for a free market unencumbered by protectionist policies isn't about the greater good; rather, it's an argument for an ethical government grounded in first principles.
The "greater good" argument tends to crumble under close examination and logical scrutiny. Its claims on reason collapse as soon as you scrutinize them more deeply.
Notably, Utilitarianism has been the basis for nearly all modern-day dictatorships, which rely on a monopoly of violence to enforce the "greater good".
It's possible to support free markets while still caring for others – this is called altruism. It's similar to utilitarianism but without coercion and fallacies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unanswerable without specifying what laptop you have.
Sorry, I should have Googled before asking the question. I just did, and see that my monitor (Dell AW3821DW) supports only 85Hz over HDMI, but up to 144Hz over DisplayPort. The laptop's spec page doesn't say what refresh rates are supported for external displays (except saying at least 60Hz): https://support.apple.com/en-us/111901 I'll buy a new cable right now :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wasn't FireWire also massively encumbered in patents and very expensive licenses? I may be misremembering...
If so it'd be different in that regard. I was thinking of it more as the better-engineered underdog that lost out to the more corporate-friendly option. IIRC it had full duplex unlike USB 1/2, it launched well before USB with a fast 400Mbps transfer speed and its hardware controller was sophisticated enough that it could work without much intervention from the OS. But looking into the history, the patent situation wa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Works exactly as a free market is designed to. The strong and coercive win. That's what market dynamics are really about. Monopolies form easily and naturally unless regulation stops them.
One could argue that at least this specific tactic would not be possible without the state granting a monopoly on "intellectual property". Without that, nothing would hinder AMD from just shipping their already existing implementation.
Microsoft ? RIAA ? MPAA ? Google (AI, books)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Between patents, trade secrets, and DMCA, the government is the source of the problem here. Arguably the FTC could step in here but I think they have bigger problems to tackle.
>Between patents, trade secrets, and DMCA, the government is the source of the problem here. The government created the playing field. The only entity that can fix the situation is the government: they created a bad playing field, and they need to fix it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ARC and CEC are only necessary because of this stupid situation where TVs are like displays with shitty media centres built in. ARC is only a tiny bit more convenient anyway; it's not that hard to run an audio cable back from the TV to an audio receiver and you'll be hiding the cable anyway so it matters not the slightest what it looks like. In 2002 there was XBMC (later renamed to Kodi). Microsoft even had Windows X…
> it's not that hard to run an audio cable back from the TV to an audio receiver and you'll be hiding the cable anyway so it matters not the slightest what it looks like. That's fine for regular ARC which is basically the same capability as spdif, ATSC audio and DVD audio. But there's no consumer audio cable that has the capacity for lossless surround except for HDMI, and then you really want eARC because otherwise y…