Not just jokes and scenarios - it's full of many actors that for years (and decades) played very serious "leading man" type roles. Seeing all these all-american heroes just being utter idiots helped make it so impactful.
Cory Doctorow waxed lyrical for many years about the ability to 3d-print clothes and other Maslow-hierarchy needs. Even the most experimental of designs haven't approached that yet... and I think we'd now be scared of increased PFAS levels even if we could.
3d printed shoes are… almost a thing(1). Clothes, not so much… some experimental high fashion fabrics, but nothing you’d wear under normal circumstances.
But to your point about PFAS, afaik no common 3d printing materials contain PFAS - at least not filament ones, i don’t know much about the resin printing world.
The only place PFAS is used in an FDM printer is the filament guide some printers have. That's a Teflon tube that the filament travels in towards the hotend.
Bowden style printers tend to have a long tube, direct drive printers sometimes have a short tube fully contained in the hotend assembly.
I don't see how PFAS can be used as a filament in FDM printer. It's not a thermoplastic, that's one of its advantages as a material.
That's definitely a thing that happened, but it's minimising so much other important work that it's misrepresenting the whole thing.
Do you know how much bandwidth six channels of uncompressed audio needs? Home theaters would be a HUGE hassle without a single cable doing all that work for you.
ADAT Lightpipe supports up to 8 audio channels at 48 kHz and 24 bits - all using standard off-the-shelf Toslink cables and transceivers. MADI can do significantly more.
Let's not pretend surround sound is a nearly-impossible problem only HDMI could possibly solve.
I... think you might be proving my point for me? The ability to have a single cable that can do video AND a bunch of audio channels at once is amazing for the average joe.
Don't get me wrong, I use optical in my setup at home & I'd love to have more studio & scientific gear just for the hell of it, but I'm the minority.
I'm not trying to defend the HDMI forum or the greedy arsehole giants behind them. The DRM inbuilt to HDMI and the prohibitive licensing of the filters (like atmos) is a dick move and means everything is way more expensive than it needs to be. Was just pointing out that parent's comment was reductive.
Correct! Now put that USB cable _inside_ a DVI cable, magically solve all the buffering problems that plagued the industry for several decades, slap on some DRM over the top, and you'll have HDMI 1.0 :-D
You just replied to someone who explained it was about the DRM, with 'nuh-uh."
Pivot much?
The rest of the capabilities were all being done for over a decade before HDMI came out, and quite well by some companies.
Sure, firewire was typically used for video plus two channels of audio, but it's a single twisted pair, and HDMI uses 4 high-speed twisted pair to transmit clock and data, plus another few pins for out-of-band signalling information.
Technically, HDMI is actually a huge failure. It wasn't until 2.1 that they started supporting compressed video.
Take a system, figure out where it has the highest possible bandwidth need, and then insert the communication cable at that point. Yeah, that's the ticket!
Before HDMI, some equipment did AV sync really well, and even after HDMI came out, some TVs still didn't do the A/V sync very well. The correct buffering for that has nothing to do with the cable, although it might seem like it because when the audio comes out of the TV, the circuits in there sure ought to be able to do delay matching.
The adoption of HDMI was, in fact, completely driven by HDCP.
I replied to someone who claimed HDMI's only purpose was DRM, which is wrong.
I haven't pivoted since the start of the thread. There simply was not a digital solution that could negotiate then stream video and AND 2+ channels of audio, all in one cable, that was supported by more than a small fraction of consumer and industry devices at once. Firewire (which you seem fixated on), for all it's many technical superiorities, had almost zero market with Windows users, or consumers in general. Set-top boxes used it in the US, but was uncommon outside of the US. Camcorders used it, but in 2002 when HDMI came out most people were still using film camcorders IIRC; digital only really became commonplace well after HDMI gained footholds.
I'm not saying the cable itself controlled clocks and handshakes, I'm conflating terms over the last couple of comments. I'm referring to HDMI, the cable, the protocol, and the connectors. And yes - HDCP had a huge part in how HDMI was pushed, which is both bad (introducing proprietary bullshit's never great) and good (larger adoption of standards that work well in the field).
Was HDMI perfect? FAR from it. But all these "there was this tech that did THIS facet better" is missing the point that I've stated a few times. It was a good solution to a number of small problems.
But to be fair, there is a standard that could have been used for digital video, SDI/HD-SDI, but the transceivers were expensive and it doesn't support any form of bi-directional handshake. There was already prosumer kit, mostly in the US, which had SD-SDI connections as an alternative to component. It didn't get popular in Europe mostly because of SCART.
I was once talking with someone who was very much involved in the process of standardising TV connectivity, a senior engineer at Gennum, and he said it wouldn't have been practical and SDI couldn't have been competitive with HDMI.
Oh, for sure. That and ADAT are great examples of tech that worked and worked well - and maybe even instrumental in HDMI's later adoption of optical tech in their cables.
Independently-owned farms aren't slave factories. Sometimes you'll be doing consecutive months of 13hrs/day labour, sometimes you'll have 75% of the day free, every day, for a few weeks. Guess what those with a low budget and an engineer's mind tend to get up to in their free time.
"Independently-owned farms" are the exception, these days, not the people. Every single one I've ever seen has at least one guy on there that performs miracles with PVC pipe, a TIG welder and spare bits of iron.
> Sometimes you'll be doing consecutive months of 13hrs/day labour, sometimes you'll have 75% of the day free, every day, for a few weeks.
That depends greatly on the farm in question. I grew up on a dairy farm, and there was no such thing as a break from work unless we hired someone to take care of the cows for us. They are fairly constant in the amount of work you have to put in (I imagine other livestock are similar but that's outside my experience).
My anecdata for that is that they're all universally a bit rubbish. They're good for maintaining situational awareness but bad at musical quality or for communication in high ambient noise (like a loud room or restaurant).
Sad fact is that nobody outside tiny niche-cases in engineering really gives a shit about XR. The current round of meta-branded glasses don't have features worth the price.
When it's light & small enough to be a pair of glasses and more than just the expensive but limited gimmick that the form is currently, then it'll be world-changing. It's close, but it's not there yet.
The thing is, Google Glass was announced in 2013, 13 years ago. Yes, hardware and software advancements have been huge in the meantime but the form factor is so restrictive that we're probably still 10 years away from the "iPhone moment" of XR/AR. Especially since hardware is in a weird place where all the cutting edge stuff is more or less made by a single company.
I'm usually a fan of Norm's videos, but this might be the first time I've seen a Tested video that felt more like paid-promotion than an actual unbiased review. I don't keep up with it though.
reply