171–180 of 209 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In 1998, the idea seemed so ridiculous, TheOnion mocked it: https://theonion.com/new-5-000-multimedia-computer-system-do...
I wonder if the 6000 series from nvidia will finally be able to deliver on the prognostication of being able to make toast with a PC?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's all great and noble, but at the end of the day it's about who has the resources. If you can get the necessary resources yourself and have complete control over their allocation, congratulations you won the jackpot of life. Plenty of people, some of whom are smarter and better than you, tried to do the same and failed due to reasons beyond their control. Try to remain a good person and not waste the opportunity…
Why are you arguing so hard against someone that simply stated “I was interested in pursuing this topic as a career when I was in college but then I learned more about the field and decided to pursue something else”?
Regardless, why are you white-knighting for him? He made a moral argument about career choice, and I responded to said argument as someone who took the other side. This is a discussion board, we discuss things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In 1998, the idea seemed so ridiculous, TheOnion mocked it: https://theonion.com/new-5-000-multimedia-computer-system-do...
At the time, the mocking was well deserved. I remember downloading trailers for moves over my dial-up connection. Took the entire night for 3 minutes of video. Can’t imagine paying $5k for that privilege. Today though, the mocking doesn’t make sense and is confusing. I haven’t ever owned a TV.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In 1998, the idea seemed so ridiculous, TheOnion mocked it: https://theonion.com/new-5-000-multimedia-computer-system-do...
At the time, the mocking was well deserved. I remember downloading trailers for moves over my dial-up connection. Took the entire night for 3 minutes of video. Can’t imagine paying $5k for that privilege. Today though, the mocking doesn’t make sense and is confusing. I haven’t ever owned a TV.
(and it really was v.92; I still have the double-bong towards the end of the handshake emblazoned in my memory)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Codecs not harder than compilers? Sounds like an unsubstantiated claim! Modern video codecs are harder than compilers. You have to have good ASIC development expertise to do them right, for example, which you don't need for compilers. It's totally feasible for a single company to develop a leading edge compiler whereas you don't see that in video codecs, historically they've been collaborations.
With all due respect, to say that codecs are more difficult to get right than optimizing compilers is absurd. The only reason I can think of why you would say this is that nowadays we have good compiler infrastructure that works with many hardware architectures and it has become easy to create or modify compilers. But that's only due to the fact that it was so insanely complicated that it had to be redone from scratc…
Not only can they do it but some companies have done it several times. Look at Oracle: there's HotSpot's C2 compiler, and the Graal compiler. Both state of the art, both developed by one company.
Not unique. Microsoft and Apple have built many compilers alone over their lifespan.
This whole thing is insanely subjective, but that's why I'm making fun of the "unsubstantiated claim" bit. How exactly are you meant to objectively compare this?
As someone who hasn't had any exposure to the human stories behind mpeg before, it feels to me like it's been a force for evil since long before 2020. Patents on h264, h265, and even mp3 have been holding the industry back for decades. Imagine what we might have if their iron grip on codecs was broken.
THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (I) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC STANDARD ("AVC VIDEO") AND/OR (II) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C. SEE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM
It's unclear whether this license covers videoconferencing for work purposes (where you are paid, but not specifically to be on that call). It seems to rule out remote tutoring.
MPEG LA probably did not have much choice here because this language requirement (or language close to it) for outgoing patent licenses is likely part of their incoming patent license agreements. It's probably impossible at this point to renegotiate and align the terms with how people actually use video codecs commercially today.
But it means that you can't get a pool license from MPEG LA that covers commercial videoconferencing, you'd have to negotiate separately with the individual patent holders.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...it's hardly a robust strategy. I disagree. Video is such a large percentage of internet traffic and licensing fees are so high that it becomes possible for any number of companies to subsidize the development cost of a new codec on their own and still net a profit. Google certainly spends the most money, but they were hardly the only ones involved in AV1. At Mozilla we developed Daala from scratch and had reache…
Mozilla is just Google from a financial perspective, it's not an independent org, so the financing point stands. H.264 was something like >90% of all video a few years ago and wasn't it free for streaming if the end user wasn't paying? IIRC someone also paid the fees for an open source version. There were pretty good licensing terms available and all the big players have used it extensively. Anyway, my point was only…
Not that the licencing of h.264 wasn't a mess too. You suggest it was free for web use but they originally only promised not to charge for free streaming up until 2015 and reserved the right to do so once it was embedded in the web. Pressure from Google/Xiph/etc's WebM project forced them to promise not to enforce it after that point either.
https://www.wired.com/2010/08/mpeg-la-extends-web-video-lice...
Cisco paid for a binary version of a decoder that could be downloaded by Firefox as a plugin. They could only do so because of a loophole around a cap in fees that they were already hitting so it wouldn't cost them more to supply to every Firefox user.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Without IP protections that allow copyleft to exist arguably there would be no FOSS. When anything you publish can be leveraged and expropriated by Microsoft et al. without them being obligated to contribute back or even credit you, you are just an unpaid ghost engineer for big tech.
I thought your argument was that Microsoft wouldn't be able to exist in that world. Which is it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In 1998, the idea seemed so ridiculous, TheOnion mocked it: https://theonion.com/new-5-000-multimedia-computer-system-do...
Picking 300MB as a ridiculous amount of data to download dates that nicely without needing to look at the article header. Though using the codecs and hardware of that time I doubt the quality at even that size would be great. Compare an old 349MB (sized to fit two on a CD-R/-RW, likely 480p though smaller wasn't uncommon) cap of a Stargate episode picked up in the early/mid 20XXs to a similarly sized file compressed…