Live data from Hacker News

HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

tomshardware.com

171–180 of 185 posts

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#171
post #33

There was a post here on HN some time ago ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36681814 ), basically explaining that HDMI is terrible and DisplayPort is a much better technical solution. So, perhaps people should favour DP instead of HDMI and gradually switch?

How do I switch? My TVs only have HDMI, should I spend another 5K+ to buy DP TVs?

Well, the TV is the consumer of the signal, and the problem here is on the side of the producer (say, your laptop). Another comment elsewhere pointed out that buying the right kind of DP-to-HDMI adapter works just fine:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41391015

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it's not that hard to run an audio cable back from the TV to an audio receiver Wait until you find out that many consumer sound bars (Sonos comes to mind) only support the latest and greatest digital audio formats over eARC.

OK but audio technology of the 80s sounds better than the "latest and greatest formats" on a shitty soundbar so who cares?

Speak for yourself but I'd rather have LPCM surround audio than deal with proprietary formats like Dolby Digital and DTS which are the only way to get surround without using eARC over HDMI.

This has literally nothing to do with any kind of sound bar, toast0's reply to your original comment explains the situation in detail.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#173
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're conflating several schools of thought. Utilitarianism, which appears to be your basis for defining ethical behavior, underlies this reasoning behind compulsory government action. 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 redistrib…

I studied philosophy and ethics so you can safely assume I know my definitions. But that does not matter, as you apparently failed to read what I wrote. Could you please paraphrase my "greater good argument" that crumbles under close examination? A examination you somehow failed to provide? Maybe you hoped people are too impressed by you use of words to recognize that you even failed to provide an argument against an…

My original post was intended to clarify why I believe Libertarian ideology is distinct from and incompatible with Utilitarianism, particularly since in your response, you conflated the concept of the greater good as a core principle of Libertarian ideology. This is quite surprising given your claim to have "studied philosophy and ethics".

To address this misunderstanding, let me break down the logical fallacies I alluded to earlier:

- The "tyranny of the majority" problem: Since happiness is determined by the number of individuals, a simple majority can impose its will on the minority, potentially denying them their rights or freedoms.

- The "moral arithmetic" fallacy: This assumes that individual well-being can be measured and added up like numbers in an equation, ignoring the complexities of human experience and the difficulties of making such calculations.

- The "majority rules" fallacy: This implies that whatever the majority wants is automatically just or right, without considering the potential for mob rule, manipulation, or coercion.

- The "ignore individual rights" fallacy: By prioritizing the greater good over individual interests, Utilitarianism may lead to the trampling of human rights and dignity.

No offense, but it's worth noting that a more nuanced understanding of philosophy and ethics might be beneficial for more accurate representations of complex concepts.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#174
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does eARC support AAC audio for surround sound or is it only DTS or AC3?

I'd guess AAC is technically possible, but not actually supported. A list of formats from a random current receiver is: 2-channel Linear PCM: 2-channel, 32 kHz – 192 kHz, 16/20/24 bit Multi-channel Linear PCM : 7.1-channel, 32 kHz – 192 kHz, 16/20/24 bit Bitstream: Dolby Digital / DTS / Dolby Atmos / Dolby TrueHD / Dolby Digital Plus / DTS:X / DTS-HD Master Audio / DTS-HD High Resolution Audio / DTS Express I'd imagi…

In my experience multi-channel AAC gets sent as multi-channel LPCM over HDMI, whether that be eARC or not. That's fine though, I don't really care what part of the chain does the AAC decoding because it has to be turned into LPCM _somewhere_.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#176
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I studied philosophy and ethics so you can safely assume I know my definitions. But that does not matter, as you apparently failed to read what I wrote. Could you please paraphrase my "greater good argument" that crumbles under close examination? A examination you somehow failed to provide? Maybe you hoped people are too impressed by you use of words to recognize that you even failed to provide an argument against an…

My original post was intended to clarify why I believe Libertarian ideology is distinct from and incompatible with Utilitarianism, particularly since in your response, you conflated the concept of the greater good as a core principle of Libertarian ideology. This is quite surprising given your claim to have "studied philosophy and ethics". To address this misunderstanding, let me break down the logical fallacies I al…

Again: explain which argument about the greater good I supposedly made.

Ideally before you go off on a totally unrelated tangent again. Not trying to be mean here, but if you want others to understand why I am wrong a good start is to explain what my argument was.

Because it certainly wasn't: "conflating the concept of the greater good as a core principle of Libertarian ideology". But maybe to the reader your amount of projection onto my very simple statement is in itself telling.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#177
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My original post was intended to clarify why I believe Libertarian ideology is distinct from and incompatible with Utilitarianism, particularly since in your response, you conflated the concept of the greater good as a core principle of Libertarian ideology. This is quite surprising given your claim to have "studied philosophy and ethics". To address this misunderstanding, let me break down the logical fallacies I al…

Again : explain which argument about the greater good I supposedly made. Ideally before you go off on a totally unrelated tangent again . Not trying to be mean here, but if you want others to understand why I am wrong a good start is to explain what my argument was. Because it certainly wasn't: "conflating the concept of the greater good as a core principle of Libertarian ideology". But maybe to the reader your amoun…

"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."

There are two problems here: 1. You misstate and mischaracterize free-market ideology as having the pretense of being to the "advantage of everybody". It's potentially a byproduct but definitely not a first principle. 2. You cast a judgment of value on egotism and selfishness as being the true motivators behind free market proponents. Selfishness and egotism are human characteristics expressed across all ideological spectrums.

"Don't get me wrong, nobody has to care for others and I am not going to be the person to force you, but if you don't care about others please stop pretending you are doing it for the greater good." - Here is where you conflate utilitarian with libertarian ideology, especially as you label those who disagree with your view as pretenders and posers for the greater good, again misstating the position of your ideological opponent and then proceeding to cast a judgment of value on the positions they don't actually hold.

Not trying to be mean here, but have you thought about getting some reading comprehension lessons? It could really help you understand the things that you read as well as give you a more well rounded view things.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#178
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again : explain which argument about the greater good I supposedly made. Ideally before you go off on a totally unrelated tangent again . Not trying to be mean here, but if you want others to understand why I am wrong a good start is to explain what my argument was. Because it certainly wasn't: "conflating the concept of the greater good as a core principle of Libertarian ideology". But maybe to the reader your amoun…

"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." There are two problems here: 1. You misstate and mischaracterize free-market ideology as having the pretense of being to the "advantage of everybody". It's potentially a byproduct but definitely not a first principle. 2. You cast a judgment of value on egotism and se…

Haha. By the nonexistent gods.

Have you ever considered I was talking about specific individuals that muttered those things towards me instead of reading everything I did as a paragraph from a political reader? I have no close relationship with Libertarianslism, as where I come from it is not very wide spread as a political ideology and more of a curiosity that gets mentioned at the fringes.

So what I criticized here are the things people told me in online discussions as a defense for why the system we have is okay. I did not ask them which ideology they subscribe to, but I am pretty sure that was not some pure text book form of Libertarian ideology. So I am still curious how my criticism of an observed phenomenon made you jump directly in defense of Libertarian ideology, that I neither thought about nor mentioned.

Additionally: I can start to understand what you're talking about once you start at the beginning instead of diving straight into some sort of convoluted US-internal political debate. Rephrasing what you thought the other person said and why precisely it is wrong is a good habit to keep before writing hundreds of lines attacking them on what you think they said.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#179
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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." There are two problems here: 1. You misstate and mischaracterize free-market ideology as having the pretense of being to the "advantage of everybody". It's potentially a byproduct but definitely not a first principle. 2. You cast a judgment of value on egotism and se…

Haha. By the nonexistent gods. Have you ever considered I was talking about specific individuals that muttered those things towards me instead of reading everything I did as a paragraph from a political reader? I have no close relationship with Libertarianslism, as where I come from it is not very wide spread as a political ideology and more of a curiosity that gets mentioned at the fringes. So what I criticized here…

Ok. This is even worse. You shouldn't use your misunderstandings from previous discussions with other people and make generalizations with everybody else you meet on new discussions, especially if you are using an incendiary tone.

Re: HDMI Forum rejects AMD's HDMI 2.1 open-source driver

#180
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you also need ARC because of video post-processing that adds frames of latency? The TV needs to send audio back to the receiver otherwise video and audio will not be in sync anymore. Receivers/amplifiers can process audio with practically no latency so it makes sense for them to be at the end of the chain.

Ugh, DisplayPort already has the audio channel. As far as sync, neither protocol provides for effective reclocking or supplies the audio clocks, and you need VRR to provide sort of display clocks.

DisplayPort has the audio channel but AFAIK has no _return_ channel. Which is not needed in the typical computer setup but quite useful in a TV + soundbar or AVR setup.
Post reply on HN