Some do, yeah. I have a friend who is real upset about the change, for instance. But I get you - I don't even have a device with 4k resolution, and I am perfectly content.
The on-device TV demos and Sony's 'core' 4k streaming service
>Nothing streaming at typical cable bitrates is worthy of being called "UHD," let alone "4K."
I agree! However, by that same token, 1080p streams aren't really 1080p. A not-actually-4k stream still looks dramatically better than a not-actually-1080p stream.
The Dolby Atmos/Vision standards also provide HDR, dynamic brightness, and surround sound. People spend thousands of dollars on home theater setups to meet those standards. Max has almost completely stopped producing cinematic content, so I can’t imagine the upsell making much sense.
If you are spending thousands of dollars on a home theater, surely streaming was a no go from the start? Blueray is the only available option which has a chance of delivering the optimal experience.
A lot of people, myself included, are fine with “less than optimal”. Sure, I’d prefer a blu-ray for my favorite epics, but a great home theater system also makes streaming content a satisfying and convenient experience. There’s also a lot of content one wants to watch that never makes it to blu-ray
Blu-ray is not raw, it is just HEVC with a higher bitrate. Most content encoded at a high profile level is not even going to hit the bitrate limit of a good streaming service + connection. Other than pausing during an action scene to take a still, I can’t perceive the difference.
I don't particularly care either. These streaming services will compress the video pretty horribly anyway. I saw lagging artifacts in a panning shot once and I started wondering why I pay these people.
I hope this is sarcasm. In the case that it is not: Musk's entire complaint was about Twitter acquiescing to government's content moderation requests. Since he took over, Twitter has complied with more government content moderation requests than before his arrival.
On top of that, he's very clearly just picking and choosing which accounts to treat with "FREE SPEECH!" (these tend to be far-right wing figures), and who to ban (these tend to be journalists who cover Musk)
Advertisers don't want to be on a platform that allows honest, open communication. A sterile non-controversial platform is much safer for them.
At some point as our rights and our freedoms in this country slowly erode, we're going to be grateful to have Twitter and to Elon Musk for being one of the last platforms to put our freedoms over sheer capitalism.
Nah, advertisers (and people as it turns out) don't want to be on a toxic platform where they're constantly harassed. Advertisers don't want to be seen as endorsing the cesspool. This isn't about free speech, it's about being free from constant harassment and people not wanting to swim in the sewer. Musk has turned xitter into 4chan: sure teenage boys like that kind of thing, but pretty much everyone else finds it unpleasant which is why they're leaving.
From the recent stuff, remember the lab leak theory where any mentions of which were getting removed from Twitter, Facebook and Youtube, including the scientific papers that looked into it?
Not being able to see replies without logging isn’t putting freedoms over capitalism. Twitter Blue replies pushed to the top of threads isn’t putting our freedoms over capitalism.
> At some point as our rights and our freedoms in this country slowly erode, we're going to be grateful to have Twitter and to Elon Musk for being one of the last platforms to put our freedoms over sheer capitalism.
What's being discussed here looks a lot like one of the three negative individualisation types: by striving to be better than peers in order to look down upon them, by imitating the greater ones for personal gain, and by the fear of the greater ones.
Curious what sort of level you are, if your company does that?
I have wondered whether the ageism thing is partially related to younger people being a lottery ticket in terms of talent+commitment level. The company might get lucky and hire someone who is way overpowered but currently under leveled because they have not yet had time to reach their terminal seniority level. This ends up being a great bargain for the company. Whereas with established people it’s a bit more you get what you pay for.
I think a bigger “legitimate” factor is craft culture.
Because of the industry’s recent rapid growth wave, the approach experienced older developers take to the craft is often very different than what’s trendy among younger developers and teams where they dominate, and there’s easily a clash where both think the others’ approach is totally bonkers and a red flag.
Somebody seeking a job may know or believe they can adapt, but the hiring team just sees an outsider and assumes the outsider doesn’t know how to do things “right”.
This applies to skilled young developers trying to break into “old school” teams in defense/enterprise/industrial/etc as much as to older developers trying to keep up with youth-dominated FAANG and imitators, but it’s tolerated in the former but can get labelled as ageism in the latter.
Where are you based and what industry? I have a feeling that this "all of the tech industry is ageist" thing is highly dependent on location and industry.
I work in the UK in the silicon industry and there are a ton of old people.
