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?

You may not be drunk, but you have drunk, I suppose.

The comment about weight was unnecessary, even though I broadly agree with the message.

It’s going to be significantly more than the year 33000 before we run out of 64-bit epoch timestamps.

The max value for signed 64-but epoch values is more than 292 billion years away, or 20 times the age of the universe itself.

So yeah, we’re basically solid forever with 64-bit

Might want to give notebooks like Jupyter a try - they make for a pretty good time when it comes to working with data.

Honestly spreadsheets are kind of great for some things. I’m sure most of their bad rep comes from being applied to the wrong problems - see businesses using it for basically everything.

Vibes-based QA only

I’m so embarrassed. I wish everybody else was dead.

Feel free to put money into it if you believe in it. Given nuclear’s track record with regards to actually making money is not particularly strong though, so I wouldn’t advise doing this if you actually want to make a return on your investment.

It’s also cheaper than solar in many cases. While the upfront investment in reactors is large, the cost per energy produced and ongoing costs are quite low. Lower in many cases than fossil fuels like gas. Plus reactors last longer than solar panels and wind turbines.

Solar + storage is currently at less than half the cost of nuclear, while wind + storage is at a third of the cost: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1475611/global-levelized-cost-of-energy-components-by-technology/

I’m going to work on the assumption that you’re working off old data, because the claims you made are very far from where we’re actually at.

What happened to the idea that renewables didn’t need public funding anymore? If it’s really so cheap as you say that wouldn’t be necessary.

In many cases, public funding is no longer necessary for renewables. That’s why Texas of all places is becoming a wind powerhouse. Energy storage technologies are less mature and still warrant public investment.

Both renewables and storage technologies have something very important in common - they are absolutely plummeting in costs year-over-year, meaning that while nuclear is not competitive on price today, it’s just going to get worse from here on out.

I like to look at Sweden as an example, where the current government is pushing investment in nuclear. Their proposed plan is to:

• Have the public guarantee loans for nuclear construction
• Have the public guarantee a minimum kWh-price for these facilities

Aside from being incredibly expensive for the public, displacing other potential investment whether they be in energy production, other climate initiatives or just investment into the welfare of the population, it also makes private investment into renewables less lucrative and as such less likely to happen. On top of that, it’s being used as an excuse to not grant permits for construction of renewables by aforementioned government.

That’s a lie.

Not really, no.

Renewables produce more CO2 than Nuclear reactors per unit energy produces.

From what I gather, wind is on par with nuclear. Other renewables have slightly more than either wind or nuclear, but compared to the other nonrenewable alternatives either option is far better.

They can also be significantly more dangerous (higher number of deaths per unit energy) in the case of hydro power or biomass.

You left out that solar and wind are largely on par or safer than nuclear per unit of energy. All of these options are again far safer than other nonrenewables.

Solar and batteries require various rare materials and produce significant pollution when manufactured and must be replaced every 20 or 30 years.

As opposed to the ever so clean extraction and storage of nuclear fuel? Come on.

And all of this leaves out the most important aspect - nuclear is incredibly expensive compared to renewables, and is trending more expensive each year, while renewables are trending in the opposite direction. This means that for the same amount of resources, we will be able to displace more nonrenewables, leading to a net reduction in deaths/emissions pursuing this route as opposed to nuclear.

Of course, I have nothing against fully privately funded nuclear. If private actors can make the economics work under safe conditions, then nuclear construction is an obvious net positive. When they displace public investment in renewables, however, then they are a net negative.

It’s getting more expensive year over year, while renewables are plummeting in price.

It was a bad call to stop, but now it’s an equally or worse call to start again.

Renewables win on essentially every measure and get better every day while nuclear gets worse every day.

Damn, you beat me to it.

In Sweden, it’s forbidden by law to be a criminal.

Nah, they happen. Just at way, way lower rates than in the U.S.

Drive-by e-scooter shootings have been a thing here in Sweden, which I firmly place in the same cyberpunk bucket.

Dude had his claim to keep on living denied

I’m not a cook, no. I work in tech

If you’re looking for Latin American, I would suggest:

• Santa Salsa, arepas
• La Neta, tacos
• Maestra Vida, ceviche
• Volca, argentinian café
• Salta Pizza, argentinian pizza

Finally, one I haven’t been to but heard good things about: Checa, peruvian