Hosting the code is probably non-material as far as costs go for Mozilla, and I doubt they would ever recoup the costs of migrating the code off their current solution in terms of engineering costs.
If I had to guess, this is them meeting other Open Source contributors where they usually are, which in large part is GitHub these days.
Jellyfin is better anyway
I wish this were true, but as a multi-year Plex-to-Jellyfin migrant, I have to point out that Plex was the better software.
I still choose to run Jellyfin for other reasons (don’t like the commercial path Plex is taking, among others), but I still do miss the better reliability and larger feature set in the Plex software stack.
Pixels can be configured to limit charging to 80% these days.
I’ve started using it and the difference between using 80% and 100% on a daily basis is negligible, I rarely if ever let my device go below about 35% anyway. So this change is basically free battery life for the device
Cellulose is generally recyclable but as I understand it degrades through each cycle, until it’s basically unfit for recycling and is more efficient to burn for energy.
By the power of podcasts, I have become equipped to handle the Sisyphean daily tasks. I used to dread them, now I don’t mind them at all.
3.2 is like less than 10 minutes on a bike, which can easily carry more than a week’s worth of groceries with the right type of equipment.
They are most likely running an A/B test on exactly those metrics.
We’ll know if it’s successful if they roll it out in the end.
Aha! Sounds like a combination of a cliff (but not quite if the grant is just not given until 1 year) and continuous refreshers.
If I understand correctly, that’s what’s called a cliff - during the first period of your grant, you have no ongoing vesting, until a set date in the future where all of that period vests at once.
For example, first 12 months: 0%, then 12/48 at once, and finally 1/48 every month for the remainder of the grant.
Correct me if I misunderstood.
Evenly weighted vesting schedule: Your grant vests the same amount every month for every year of the duration of the grant. For example, 1/48th of the grant vests over 4 years.
Back-weighted grant: Your grant vests less or not at all for the early period of the grant, and then a majority in the later part of the grant. For example: Year 1 10%, Year 2 20%, Year 3 30%, Year 4 40%.
Why it’s fucked up: The company is incentivized to abuse your labour early in your employment and then push you out before the majority of your compensation package kicks in.
Equity is already enough of a pair of golden handcuffs as it is, there’s no need to make them worse from this perspective.
Back-weighted vesting schedule is some truly fucked up shit. Reddest of red flags
That’s true, yeah. Returns are basically not a thing for me either being in Sweden.
Still, on balance I believe I’ve made it out ahead.
And the cheap stuff you can find for half the price on AliExpress. That’s where they source their shit anyway
Not as far as I know, and I’m not even sure the person who posted that was even serious about that being the response Grok provided.
Elon is deranged enough as it is without us having to make stuff up, let’s stay on track.
I think resolution comes with an advantage over posting bitrates - in any scenario where you’re rendering a lower resolution video on a higher resolution surface, there will be scaling with all of its negative consequences on perceived quality. I imagine there’s also an intuitive sense of larger resolution = higher bitrate (necessarily, to capture the additional information).
So the reason no one posts the bitrates is because it’s not exactly interesting information for the the general population.
I’m highly skeptical of the claim that streaming services would have intentionally dropped their bitrates at the expense of perceived quality. There’s definitely research going on to deliver the same amount of perceived quality at lower average bitrates through variable bitrate encodings and so on, but this is sophisticated research where perceived quality is carefully controlled for.
It probably saves them a ton of money, and 90% of their customers won’t notice because they’re on their phone while watching in the background.
So this is fundamentally not how video streaming works, and I think this is important for the average person to learn - if you stream a video in the background or with your screen turned off, video data will stop loading. There’s literally no point in continuing to fetch the video track if it’s not being rendered. It would be like downloading the audio track for French when the user is watching with the English track turned on, i.e. nonsensical.
This subsequently removes this as a possible reason for any video streamer intentionally reducing their bitrate, as the savings would not be materialized for background playback.
To make it weirder, I’m confident they boost the bitrates on their new releases to get the approval of the enthusiastic viewers, then drop it after the reviews are in.
Depending on the usage patterns for the platform in question, this probably doesn’t make sense either.
Is this a vibes-based position, or did you actually check the bitrate of the segments?
May she have used it as toilet paper