• 0 Posts
  • 27 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 30th, 2023

help-circle




  • Ah I completely forgot streaming away from home. My travels tend to have limited internet access, and so my practice is to download things we might watch through Findroid.

    Given your friends have access to your library, what do you think would be required (ideally) for streaming to work without transcoding? As simple as a beefy internet connection, a 4k screen and them having a Shield or equivalent?

    I only ask because I know a number of my circle use Shields already and I think the ones in my neighbourhood are all on gigabit connections. Might be worth looking into so long as I’m not in for upgrading the machine. I’m more of a set and forget person myself.


  • Stepping aside from this particular thread for a moment. Could you share why you need hardware transcoding?

    Admittedly, I don’t quite understand what components would build a better machine as far as a media server goes, but I turned off hardware transcoding when I first set Jellyfin up on a NUC. The only issues I have are the startup speed of the app, and every now and then it crashes when loading the library and I just relaunch it and it’s fine.

    I’ve assumed it’s the Nvidia Shield doing the heavy lifting as far as playback goes, because I’ve never had a recurring problem with playing any particular file. I’m starting to think I don’t really appreciate the benefits of hardware transcoding.


  • Echoing @Bronzie@sh.itjust.works, I downloaded the first party app right from the Play Store on my Samsung. Though I prefer the third party, Findroid, the first party app is good for the dashboard management.

    When we launch Jellyfin, we are shown icons for what user, we select the user, and it opens the associated library. Similar to Netflix.

    I started using Jellyfin about two years ago now, and have only encountered a codec issue here and there, but I’ve found it can be worked around by setting playback to another player, like VLC.









  • I believe your point was that non profits are superior. My counter was simply that, yes, they are superior to a public company, however they are not infallible to fact that people run them, and people are corruptable.

    Forgive me but I’m not sure what to say about the second bit there. Nebula being created and owned by people that needed something like it in the first place is not ideal? Or not because of the people specifically, but because of its closed sourced design and profit sharing ratio? Maybe I’m misunderstanding you.

    At the end of the day, I would prefer each creator host their own content on their own site, with it being sort of subscribable through an RSS feed or similar so people can use whatever front end they want. Like how podcasts work. Have a feed for sponsorships available for free, and a paid feed with no sponsorships and maybe bonus content.

    I’d not heard of Ko-fi, but it looks interesting. On the face of it, it’s pretty close to what I described above without the creatives themselves having to fuss about with the technical details of hosting all their content. I’ll look into it more another day, thanks.



  • I understand it’s expensive to facilitate streaming, though between the 15 billion from Premium subscribers to the 30 billion in ad revenue, it’s not hard to imagine they make a few billion after costs. I’m not trying to say it’s half of Alphabet’s income or anything.

    Unfortunately, it’s not something anyone outside of the executive suite can say with a single degree of certainty since Alphabet doesn’t make it known one way or the other.


  • Ultimately, people do have to be trusted. Even the best non profit in the land can find itself a board of directors that decide to convert the organisation to a for profit model, then in turn go public.

    As far as supporting individual creators, Nebula was created by a group of YouTube creators. They got it off the ground by keeping the opportunity cost as low as they could, and by enticing people with the 50:50 split profit from the subscriptions.

    What’s more than this though, is that everyone making content on Nebula has an ownership stake. This is discussed in this video at 11:00, but the highlight is this: if the platform is ever sold, the creators get half the money from the sale.

    Non profit is one thing, but the platform being employee owned I think provides greater motivation to grow.


  • I just wrote a rather long comment to that person and now I’ve realized they are being purposefully obtuse.

    You playing the content on YouTube is entirely justified. Lots of people put the news on a television instead of a radio while doing things around the house, because occasionally something visual is referenced or something is said that seems interesting enough to look over at the screen.

    Besides, it’s not like the person that went through the effort of putting together a ten hour long essay is going to publish just the audio as a podcast or something.

    That person’s an egg head, you enjoy your essays.


  • I did read your comment a few times, looking for a different tone, to see a meaning perhaps I misunderstood, but I can’t find it.

    For what it’s worth, Harry Potter isn’t relevant to any of this besides being used as the example. They could have said Star Wars, pottery, landscaping, or astrology. Their point was moreso, ‘I watch long form content that isn’t found anywhere but on YouTube, and Harry Potter is an example of this content.’

    You go on to mention the content in every line of your initial comment, and mentioned the platform only once. They enjoy a thing, you don’t understand how they can enjoy that thing.

    Whether intentional or not, I can’t see what you’ve written as anything but a critique.

    For posterity, your comment:

    OK…but why would you do that!? Your life surely would be no worse without that. I get being a fan and all that, I grew up with HP,. I’ve read the books several times and seen the movies several times. HP was a huge part of my upbringing and I bought the books at release. But I just don’t get watching a 10h video essay on it, much less while supporting YT.

    My interpretation, if you care to see it:

    Your first line comes off as yelling at the person for their choice of content.

    The second line, by my reading, is saying their entertainment adds no value to their life.

    The next two attempt to couch the first two by conflating your patronage of the same source material to an in depth analysis of it.

    Then the first half of your conclusion line specifically states you don’t understand how they reap enjoyment of watching their chosen content, only to be reinforced by your use of “much less”, which means the first bit of the sentence is what you are primarily focused on.