Maxy

Yeah I figured you meant the linguistic rather than the mathematical sense of the !, but I chose to intentionally misinterpret that for comedic effect.

Would you mind explaining the excel joke? I’ve spent very little time using that program (I’ll leave it up to you to decide how fortunate I’ve been), so I don’t really get it

(un)expected factorial? 1,30767e12 wipes seems like a lot. I guess you never specified currency, but at an average cost of 3,0581e-11 per wipe, I’ll assume that that’s a pretty decent deal.

I feel like you’re missing the point. My point wasn’t about your income, I wasn’t trying to attack you personally in any way. I was just pointing out that it is unfair to say “their 3.7% is not enough,”: they’re clearly doing way more than required by NATO norms. In fact, they’re second to just Poland in terms of relative spending. Don’t attack Estonia, attack Spain, Slovenia, Luxembourg, Belgium, Canada, Italy, Portugal and Croatia, all of which are below the 2% norm (in order from lowest to highest). Or better yet, if you live in a NATO country: vote on politicians that take our defence seriously (unless you’re American of course, cause that probably won’t help anyone for the foreseeable future).

TLDR: sure, 3.7% might not be enough, but 1.3% is even worse (Spain). No offence intended.

I agree that, theoretically speaking, YouTube might be protecting some end users from this type of attack. However, the main reason YouTube re-encodes video is to reduce (their) bandwidth usage. I think it’s very kind towards YouTube to view this as a free service to the general public, when it’s mostly a cost-cutting measure.

Good point, though I believe you have to explicitly enable AV1 in Firefox for it to advertise AV1 support. YouTube on Firefox should fall back to VP9 by default (which is supported by a lot more accelerators), so not being able to decode AV1 shouldn’t be a problem for most Firefox-users (and by extension most lemmy users, I assume).

About the “much higher CPU usage”: I’d recommend checking that hardware decoding is working correctly on your device, as that should ensure that even 4K content barely hits your CPU.

About the “less sharper image”: this depends on your downscaler, but a proper downscaler shouldn’t make higher-resolution content any more blurry than the lower-resolution version. I do believe integer scaling (eg. 4K -> 1080p) is a lot less dependant on having a proper downscaler, so consider bumping the resolution up even further if the video, your internet, and your client allow it.

I believe YouTube always re-encodes the video, so the video will contain (extra) compression artefacts even if you’re watching at the original resolution. However, I also believe YouTube’s exact compression parameters aren’t public, so I don’t believe anyone outside of YouTube itself knows for sure which videos are compressed in which ways.

What I do know is that different content also compresses in different ways, simply because the video can be easier/harder to compress. IIRC, shows like last week tonight (mostly static camera looking at a host) are way easier to compress than higher paced content, which (depending on previously mentioned unknown parameters) could have a large impact on the amount of artefacts. This makes it more difficult to compare different video’s uploaded at their different resolutions.

The Linux mint installer has an option built-in to create a dualboot. Just follow their guide and be sure to select “install alongside windows 10” at step 5.

Unless your initial recordings were lossless (they probably weren’t), recompressing the files with a lossless flag will only increase the size by a lot. Lossless video is HUGE, which is why almost no one actually records/saves it. What you’re probably looking for is visually lossless transcoding, where you do lose some data, but the difference is too small for most people to notice.

My recommendations:

1. Go to your recording software and change the setting to better compress your videos the first time around. Compressing once generally gives a better quality to size ratio than compressing twice. It’s therefore best if your recording software get it right first time, without you having to keep on recompressing your videos.
2. When tinkering with encoding setting, trying to find what works best for you, it might be useful to install Identity to help you compare the original files and one or more transcoded version(s).
3. Don’t try to recompress the audio; you’ll save very little space, and the losses in quality become perceptible much faster than video. When using ffmpeg, the “-c:a copy” flag should simply copy the original audio to the new file, without any change in quality or size
4. I’d recommend taking some time to read through the ffmpeg encoding guides. H265 and AV1 are good for personal archiving, with AV1 providing better compression ratios at the cost of much slower encoding. You could also choose VP9, which is similar in compression ratio and encoding speed to h265.
5. You’ll have to choose between hardware and software encoding. Hardware encoding can (depending on your specific hardware and settings) be 10-100x faster than software, but software generally gives better compression ratios at similar qualities. You should test this difference for yourself and see if the extra time is worth it for the extra quality. Do keep in mind that AV1 hardware encoding is only supported by some of the most recent GPU’s (rx7000 and rtx4000 from the top of my head). If you don’t have one of those GPU’s, you’ll either have to choose software encoding or pick a different codec.

Source: Gapminder, cited as source by the above graph as well

Funny how much the graph changes when you have more than 1 data point per decade every decade. Almost makes me wonder whether the creator of the above graph was trying to paint a certain picture instead of presenting raw data in a way that makes it easier to grasp, without bias.

Notice the inflection point where Mao implements the "great leap forward". Also notice other countries' similar rates of increasing life expectancy in the graph below, just without the same ravine around 1960.

I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with (what I think to be) your implicit claim that Mao somehow single-handedly raised China's life expectancy through the power of communism or whatever. Please do correct me if this wasn't your implicit claim, and if you we're either 1) yourself mislead by the graph you shared, or 2) you have some other claim entirely that is somehow supported by said graph.

You mean deeper than Lviv, which they have been striking from day 1 of the invasion? How much deeper can Russia still strike?