compsciphd

before I learned of shamir secret sharing, I wondered why one couldn't do the same exact thing with a par2 like system (albiet with smaller pieces than a par2 system would traditionally have). i.e. you have X bits of data, you create Y*X/N sized recovery blocks (where Y > N). You hand each recovery block to individual users. and any N users can get together to recover the key and decrypt the contents.

it is annoying that it can't remember it by series. Perhaps for a normal series I don't want captions but for a foreign language one I do. Perhaps for a foreign language that I'm good at I don't want it, but for others I do. Perhaps for a foreign language that I'm learning, I want it in that foreign language (ala english for english content) but dont want it for others.

Global "works", but remembering by series would be so much better.

as someone who bought a lifetime pass years ago when it was cheap, I'm more concerned about this indicating that they are in desparate straits and are heading towards going out of business.

I like plex, I've tried jellyfin and emby and plex has always come out ahead (handling the metadata and the general user experience) and if plex goes bellyup i guess I'll move, but I'll be sad. At least I feel I've gotten my value out of my lifetime plex pass.

I had a jellyfin server on the same machine as my plex. I really tried to use both, the jellyfin experience was so much worse overall.

It had one technical feature that I valued (the ability to tone/color map dolby vision content for non dolby vision devices), but that was such a minimal feature for me (very little of my content is in the proprietary dolby vision colorspace).

why could you not implement it as ptys.

Currently the terminal doesn't really process input itself, it just gives the program running the "raw" fd.

If instead the terminal gave the processes a pipe (for instance) and consumed all the pty input itself (and its end of the pipe being a buffer of that content), why wouldn't it be the same?

in the country I'm now in somewhere around 18% of my salary is basically put into my "pension" (basically equivalent to a 401k). around 6% from my salary, around 6% match from employer and around 6% for severance (that one gets when they leave said employer, but can stay in pension, and most reccomend it stay there unless you really need it to make ends meet as otherwise pulling out 1/3 of your pension contributions).

This is external to disability insurance that we and our employers also have to contribute to. So I'd agree to a large extent that the govt forcing employees and employers to contribute significant amounts to 401k like programs could be in the interest of everyone in the USA but one needs a disability insurance program on the side as well and that isn't particularly cheap.

it doesn't cover you getting disabled so you can't work anymore at the age of 30 after working 8 years.

1600% higher return is great when you work from yours 20s to your 50s/60s and can essentially self insure yourself at that point with it, but as the person you are responding to you is (I believe) trying to say, that's not everyone.

these policies hurt employees (at least US taxed ones, other countries only tax at liquidity events).

Large insiders (founders, investors et al), still get to unload their shares (i.e. to future investors), while employees who might have worked for the company for years and accumulated options (or sometimes unsellable RSUs) due to the company not being public get hit with large tax hits either at the same of vesting (for RSUs, but at least that's somewhat manageable) or at the time of leaving the company (due to the need to buy one's shares within 90 days or lose them and then be hit with a tax on the delta).

why do you assume we wouldn't have seen value in satellites if we didn't see value in going to the moon (or mars)?

There's clearly an extraordinary value in satellites from a military perspective, for instance to enable spying. Heck, Hubble directly benefited from the work that went into spy satellites and NASA was afterwards gifted 2 uneeded spy satellites to use for scientific exploration (1 is (was? as in finished) being converted to be used, the other AFAIK is still in storage).

GPS wasn't created to enable us to do anything in space, but to focus down here on earth. i.e. what was needed to fight wars better. One can argue if that was "necessary" but it was clearly earth focused.

this has been done for ages with a simple kernel module that just wraps the real kernel syscall, no binary changes needed.

example how we used it in early 2000s to implement pre linux namespace containerization.

https://www.usenix.org/legacy/publications/library/proceedin... (note the shepherd and where kubernetes arguably got the pod name from).

and security policies on top of it

https://www.usenix.org/legacy/event/lisa07/tech/full_papers/...

lots of cell phone services are no longer doing that either.

"In response to an NPR request, a Navy spokesman acknowledged that 1,500 sailors, their families and several hundred pets were relocated back to the U.S. from NSA Bahrain."

Because the US moves civilians out of an active war zone?

If one is going to store the originals anyways (i.e. the ISO images one backs up from disc), then I'd still stand by my statement, you're not saving anything by encoding it then, beyond perhaps limitations in how much storage one can keep online at a time (and in that context then, my initial statement of storage being cheap further applies, as one is saving the same content twice).

If one is just download encodes off of usenet so doesn't have the originals, and one is content with the limitations of encodes, great. But here we are talking about tools for people who are encoding their own media (and sadly, from personal experience, I consider backed up ISOs to have a longer shelf life than many of optical discs, I have media I backed up 20 years ago now that still works, while the optical discs have degraded. Hard Disks die as well, but there are effective means of mitigating that).

I haven't been at TR in 10+ years as well. AT TR, I mostly dealt with Eikon's pipeline for estimates, actuals and the like (IBES data) ingestion, querying and analytics. So can't say much, though some of my old colleagues still seem to be there.

I disagree. But to each their own, also depends how one watches it. a truehd atmos audio stream for a movie can be 3-4GB by itself. Of course, for many perhaps a TrueHD atmos audio stream is overkill, but for many its not.

it's all about the bas

as someone who worked at TR (now Refinitiv) and then Bloomberg, it's not even the data. it's IB. After IB it's the data. :)

1. easy enough to store it remuxed as an mkv (this tool first converts it to a remuxed mkv via makemkv) to get that convenience.

2. "easy enough" (this is a bit hyperbole, but i've done it) to take an iso and expose the playlists one wants as individual .m2ts files, and then everything recognizes it the same as mkv

did this using a fuse fs. drop all isos in a dir with a metadata file to list the playlists one wants exposed with how one wants them named, and the fuse fs turns each iso into a virtual directory populated by files named <name>.m2ts that corresponds to the playlist you wanted for it (work for seamless branching as well).

3. if saving space is so important to you, yes, none of this will apply, I still think the energy costs need to be factored in, to understand how much money one is saving / spending to accomplish that space savings. If one is going to be storing a digital iso backup of the discs they purchase (or borrow), what I listed in #2 is the best overall.

IMO, that just changes the calculation a bit. As I said, it depends on the quality one wants to store it at relative to size to determine how long it will take to encode / power consumed to encode.

IMO encoding is just not that worth it these days. Storage is relatively cheap. An 8TB HD can hold 200+ bluray discs as is (assuming we are talking 30-40TB each). Lets say encoding lets us store 400-600 movies in the same amount of storage (going to argue that this is stretch at quality).

Is the $100-$200 savings worth the extra time spent (also computing/gpu electrical costs.

There's a reasonable argument that the cost in electricity would be measurable, perhaps small, but still measurable, if it's 1c per movie, not such a big deal, if its 50c a movie, one didn't actually save any money in practice. if one wants to software encode to get the best results, cost is going to be more than if one is ok with gpu encoding and just ok results from fixed encoders. (I would hazzard software encode at reasonable quality is going to be in the 25-50c cost if paying 25c a kwh)

If one lives in an area where electricity is cheap but storage is more expensive, the calculation is different.

Now, I'd note that there is one thing that storage being cheap can't directly solve. The ability to keep them online at a time (i.e. many computers are limited to the number of connected devices). In that world, one can argue that reducing that complexity also has value.

they dont run in a VM well?

1) there are millions of honeybee hives in north america. Therefore thare a millions of queens associated with those hives

2) its very easy/straightforward to take a honeybee larve and raise it to be a queen (i.e. let it feed on royal jelly).

If you find animal research to be problematic, none of this changes anything. However, this did nothing to hurt honeybee colonies in north america.

i've said it before, but is anti-cheat mechanisms needed on consoles? If not, (presumambly due to their locked down nature), what's the problem with having a locked down mode (trusted secure boot path that doesn't allow other programs to run, ala "the xbox mode" that microsoft has started to implement), that is similar to a console.

This seems much more doable today than in the past as machines boot in moments. Switching from secure "xbox mode" to free form PC mode, would be barely a bump.

Now, I see one major difference, heterogenous vs homogenous hardware (and the associated drivers that come with that). In the xbox world, one is dealing with a very specific hardware platform and a single set of drivers. In the PC world (even in a trusted secure boot path), one is dealing with lots of different hardware and drivers that can all have their exploits. If users are more easily able to modify their PCs and set of drivers one, I'd imagine serious cheaters would gravitate to combinations they know they can exploit to break the secure/trusted boot boundary.

I wonder if there are other problems.

After alphabet demoted waze from being an independent company and turned it into part of google's overall maps organization, alphabet needed another israeli company to take over the W spot.

that's trying to move the goalposts. You are trying to make it a moral argument while the argument is a practical one.

It shouldn't matter if a country's territory is occupied or not if nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent.

Israel has been invaded multiple times while having nuclear weapons.

Ukraine has invaded Russia here and there during the war even though Russia has nuclear weapons.

The argument is weak, because in general the countries that have nuclear weapons wouldn't be invaded even if nuclear weapons did not exist.

As a simple example, read up on Bourdain's fixers/friends from his famous no reservations episode who were arrested by Iran as spies soon after the episode was filmed.

that doesn't seem to be the argument, see top comment (As of now) here

"The courts just take issue with him naming his AI system as the sole author and himself as the copyright owner."

you can't claim a non human as the "author" and claim the material is copyrightable.

the "author" (not the AI) was trying to make a legal point/hack and the courts shot him down.

because they are just translating code (that everyone agrees is copyrightable) in a deterministic manner into another medium.

I'm not saying AI art should or shouldn't be copyrightable. One can argue the inputs into the AI generator are copyrightable, but if the output isn't deterministic translation of the input, its a different argument.