The U.S-part of it turned to shit incredibly quickly, but at least the rest of the Alliance is still mostly sane. Given that no one in the alliance can rely on the U.S any more, we’ll all just have to up our defenses collectively, and that way, NATO still sort of works out.
Aha! Sounds like a combination of a cliff (but not quite if the grant is just not given until 1 year) and continuous refreshers.
If I understand correctly, that’s what’s called a cliff - during the first period of your grant, you have no ongoing vesting, until a set date in the future where all of that period vests at once.
For example, first 12 months: 0%, then 12/48 at once, and finally 1/48 every month for the remainder of the grant.
Correct me if I misunderstood.
Evenly weighted vesting schedule: Your grant vests the same amount every month for every year of the duration of the grant. For example, 1/48th of the grant vests over 4 years.
Back-weighted grant: Your grant vests less or not at all for the early period of the grant, and then a majority in the later part of the grant. For example: Year 1 10%, Year 2 20%, Year 3 30%, Year 4 40%.
Why it’s fucked up: The company is incentivized to abuse your labour early in your employment and then push you out before the majority of your compensation package kicks in.
Equity is already enough of a pair of golden handcuffs as it is, there’s no need to make them worse from this perspective.
Back-weighted vesting schedule is some truly fucked up shit. Reddest of red flags
That’s true, yeah. Returns are basically not a thing for me either being in Sweden.
Still, on balance I believe I’ve made it out ahead.
And the cheap stuff you can find for half the price on AliExpress. That’s where they source their shit anyway
I think resolution comes with an advantage over posting bitrates - in any scenario where you’re rendering a lower resolution video on a higher resolution surface, there will be scaling with all of its negative consequences on perceived quality. I imagine there’s also an intuitive sense of larger resolution = higher bitrate (necessarily, to capture the additional information).
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?
Same goes for where I grew up/live - kids that live far away enough to not be able to walk/bike get free passes for public transit and take that to school.
Hell, I’m kind of leaning towards Sweden needing a nuclear program at this point.