Comment by ramesh31
3 hours ago
technically correct is the best kind. who cares if it's obnoxious? take the opinions and agree or disagree with them.
3 hours ago
technically correct is the best kind. who cares if it's obnoxious? take the opinions and agree or disagree with them.
How do you know it is technically correct without explanation. It's not much different from someone getting blown off for being annoying because they constantly question simple answers when seeking better understanding. I was fortunate to work with a group of engineers when I was very young that accepted my constant use of "why?" not as disrespectful questioning but realized I was actually learning so they naturally just provided more details leading to less "why?" being asked. This eventually got to the point where I would ask a question, and the answer would be to read a specific book on the shelf. This was way before the internet. I received a better education on the job than I ever was going to get in school.
So no, I'm not just going to take an opinion without more information. I don't change my mind just on say so.
Why? Is the most simple test of a valid explanation. If you don't need to ask why any more, you've answered the question. Sometimes it takes 3 or 5 white in a row!
When we switched from x264 to hardware based encoders it saved something like 90% on our customers' power and cooling bills.
So while this essay might be "technically correct" in some very narrow sense the author is speaking with far more authority than they have the experience to justify, which is what makes it obnoxious in the first place.
The author is directing this at complete noobs who are subbing their first anime and you are complaining that it is not applicable to running a datacenter?
This is already mentioned in the article. Software vs. hardware is a tradeoff. x264 produces higher quality (perceptual or compression efficiency) video, at the expense of latency.
the author never talked about power savings or cooling bills, they talked about quality so they are still correct.
It works if you know the person and have a baseline for how much confidence you give their opinions. If it's just a random person on the internet, they need to support their argument.
I mean—they can. They don’t need to give more than they’re already giving we anonymous strangers for free. For all we know, this person wrote this for people they encounter personally or professionally, and we’re just incidentally benefitting.
We as readers should gauge their credibility for ourselves, whether by reputation or by checking the claims. I don’t know who wrote it but it seems basically correct, consistent, and concisely argued to me.