Live data from Hacker News

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

tomshardware.com

181–185 of 185 posts

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

#181
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…

I will defend utilitarianism, since I like it a lot and all your arguments against it are bad.

- The "tyranny of the majority" problem is a problem of direct democracy, not utilitarianism. Happiness in utilitarianism is determined not by a number of individuals, but by all individuals and perfect utility function must take into account both majorities and minorities and create consensus. This will only fail if majority and minority have directly opposed interests, but in this case overall good is still better this way (you don't want to deny majority people their rights too in favor for minorities).

- The "majority rules" fallacy is a problem of democracy overall. Every democracy system is vulnerable to this, not only utilitarianism. But then again, perfect utility function should take into account people's desire to not be fooled, so there's that.

- The "ignore individual rights" fallacy is the same as "tyranny of the majority". Utility function takes into account interests of all individuals and tries to create the best possible consensus.

- The "moral arithmetic" fallacy is the best one here, since it's actually close to the truth. You can't really create a perfect utility function, but you don't need to. You can create imperfect one and improve it later with feedback and democracy mechanisms. With time imperfect utility function will get closer and closer to perfect one. Profit maximizing utility function can't be calculated too, but corporations handle it just fine. But if you're not blind, you can see that profit maximizing utility function leads to a lot of real people suffering (climate change, wars, hunger, poverty and many many more) while leading to profit maximization (alignment problem).

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

#182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is another way: decode it in your media centre and send it analogue to your amplifier. Remember when media centres were actually capable? It has to be decoded to analogue somewhere. Dolby digital and DTS are not the only way to get surround (also good stereo is better than shit surround, but let's assume you mean good surround).

The whole thing about HDMI is a circular argument. You can only use HDMI because you can only use HDMI. There's nothing technical stopping another cable supporting this stuff. That was my original point. We're in this situation for silly reasons, not technical reasons.

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

#184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's quite that simple. DP is still missing HDMI features like ARC and CEC, which are important for TVs. Even on my personal computer setup, I use the HDMI 2.1 ports on my monitor/GPU over the DP 1.4 ports because the DP port just doesn't have the bandwidth for 2560x1440 @ 240hz with 10-bit colour. That requires ~30 Gbit/s, more than DP1.4's ~26 Gbit/s. Neither my monitor nor my GPU support DP2.0 which…

That's assuming you're trying to avoid DSC. With DSC you can easily get 1440@240Hz even on DP1.4. Most monitors don't ship with DP2.0, because it's just not necessary. All modern GPUs support DSC, so monitor OEMs take that free 3x bandwidth reduction. Nonetheless, Nvidia shipping RTX 4000 without DP2.0 is baffling.

Yes, I'm avoiding DSC because Nvidia GPUs have an issue with DSC when switching to full screen games that cause a black screen for several seconds.

DP 1.4 also does have enough bandwidth for 1440p@240hz without HDR, so I only have this issue with HDR on.

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

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 :)

Yes that macbook pro supports outputting even 4K @ 144hz over displayport so it should work easily.

With the new cable, MacOS is showing the refresh rate is variable 1Hz to 144Hz.
Post reply on HN