1. 10bpp color depth is not supported on RGB monitors, which are the majority of LCD displays on the market. Concretely, ARGB2101010 and XRGB2101010 modes are not supported by current nVidia Linux drivers - the drivers only offer ABGR2101010 and XBGR2101010 (See: https://github.com/NVIDIA/open-gpu-kernel-modules/blob/main/...).

2. Common browsers like Chrome and Firefox has no real support for HDR video playback on nVidia Linux drivers. The "HDR" option appears on YouTube, but no HDR color can be displayed with an nVidia GPU.

Also, video backgrounds in Google Meet on Chrome are broken with nVidia GPUs and Wayland. Ironically it works on Firefox. This has been broken for a few years and no fix is in sight.

The "HDR" toggle you get on Plasma or Mutter is hiding a ton of problems behind the scenes. If you only have 8bpp, even if you can find an app that somehow displays HDR colors on nVidia/Wayland - you'll see artifacts on color gradients.

  Resolution: 4K60

  HDR: HDR10

  Color Space: YCbCr 4:4:4/BT.2020

  Pixel Depth: 12bits

  FRL Rate: ---

Here are their specs:

  https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09Q5L245X 

  https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08131MVGT

When HDR is off for LCD and desktop I do still see a difference between Youtube's HDR and SDR videos. For example, at the 19s mark I cannot see most of the debris scattering between the viewer and the planet in the SDR video. That should be the case for you too.

*Edit: Strange... one of the monitors states 10bit colors in the link even though the AVR claimed a signal of 12bits. Not sure what to make of that!

  PC has Manjaro Linux with RTX 3060 12GB

  Graphic card driver: Nvidia 580.119.02

  KDE Plasma Version 6.5.4

  KDE Frameworks Version: 6.21.0

  Qt Version: 6.10.1

  Kernel Version 6.12.63-1-MANJARO

  Graphics Platform: Wayland

  High Dynamic Range: Enable HDR is checked

  There is a button for brightness calibration that I used for adjustment.

  Color accuracy: Prefer color accuracy

  sRGB color intensity: This seems to do nothing (even after apply). I've set it to 0%.
  Brightness: 100%

AVR is reporting...

  Resolution: 4KA VRR

  HDR: HDR10

  Color Space RGB /BT.2020

  Pixel Depth: 10bits

  FRL Rate 24Gbps

For Firefox 146.0.1 by default there is no HDR option on Youtube. 4K video clearly doesn't have HDR. I enabled HDR in firefox by going to about:config and setting the following to true: gfx.wayland.hdr, gfx.wayland.hdr.force-enabled, gfx.webrender.compositor.force-enabled. Color look completely washed out.

For Chromium 143.0.7499.169 HDR enabled by default. This looks like HDR.

I downloaded the HDR video from Youtube and played it using MPV v0.40.0-dirty with settings --vo=gpu-next --gpu-api=vulkan --gpu-context=waylandvk. Without these settings the video seems a little too bright like the Chromium playback. This was the best playback of the three on Linux.

On the Blu-ray the HDR is Dolby Vision according to both the TV and the AVR. The AVR is reporting...

  Resolution: 4k24

  HDR: Dolby Vision

  Color Space: RGB

  Pixel Depth 8bits

  FRL Rate: no info

I would say the colors over all look better on the Blu-ray.

I might be able to calibrate it better if the sRGB color setting worked in the display configuration. Also I think my brightness setting is too high compared to the Blu-ray. I'll play around with it more once the sRGB color setting is fixed.

*Edit: Sorry Hacker News has completely changed the format of my text.

  Resolution: 4K24

  HDR: HDR10

  Color Space: YCbCr 4:4:4/BT.2020

  Pixel Depth: 12bits

  FRL Rate: ---

Also, go to YouTube and play this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onVhbeY7nLM

Do it once on "HDR" on Linux, and then on Windows. The "HDR" in nVidia/Linux is fake.

The brightness you see on Plasma or Mutter is indeed related to the HDR support in the driver. But - it's not really useful for the most common HDR tasks at the moment.

  Your Display Configuration

  Both monitors are outputting 10-bit color using the ABGR2101010 pixel format.

  | Monitor                | Connector | Format      | Color Depth | HDR          | Colorspace |
  |------------------------|-----------|-------------|-------------|--------------|------------|
  | Dell U2725QE (XXXXXXX) | HDMI-A-1  | ABGR2101010 | 10-bit      | Enabled (PQ) | BT2020_RGB |
  | Dell U2725QE (XXXXXXX) | HDMI-A-2  | ABGR2101010 | 10-bit      | Disabled     | Default    |

I am on Wayland and outputting via HDMI 2.1 if that helps.

EDIT: Claude explained how it determined this with drm_info, and manually verified it:

> Planes 0 and 3 are the primary planes (type=1) for CRTCs 62 and 81 respectively - these are what actually display your desktop content. The Format: field shows the pixel format of the currently attached framebuffer.

EDIT: Also note that I am slowbanned on this site, so may not be able to respond for a bit.

EDIT: You should try connecting with HDMI 2.1 (you will need a 8k HDMI cable or it will fall back to older standards instead of FRL).

EDIT: HDR on youtube appears to work for me. Youtube correctly indentifies HDR on only 1 of my monitors and I can see a big difference in the flames between them on this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjJWvAhNq34

Here's what I'm getting on both monitors, with HDR enabled on Gnome 49: https://imgur.com/a/SCyyZWt

Maybe you're lucky with the Dell. But as I understand, HDR playback on Chrome is still broken.

I'm actually surprised that YouTube HDR works on your side - perhaps it's tied to the ABGR2101010 output mode being available.

That's still pretty crappy. Monitors do not say whether they support BGR input signals or not as opposed to RGB.

The GPU and monitor combination has full 10-bit HDR in Windows. But in Linux it's stuck at 8bpp due to nVidia driver not having 10-bit RGB output.

EDIT: See my sibling comment.

Here's what I'm getting on an RTX 4090 / InnoCN 27M2V and Cooler Master Tempest GP27U.

https://imgur.com/a/SCyyZWt

If you're a mosquito OTOH... even enslavement is not worth it. It's eradication.

Like, for instance, that 56% of SVB’s assets were long term fixed interest rate vehicles, compared to, IDK, 28% of Wells Fargo’s? [0]

0. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-03-10/startu...

Let's say you're the person who's speaking for Wells Fargo at that moment - you absolutely don't want to give the public any reason to test whether 28% is safe or not. 3 months later, when people are no longer panicking, and cooler heads want to start discussing what're the safety measures to put onto banks - maybe. But seriously not right now. Let's say you quote the 28% number to say your bank is maybe safer than SVB - but the moment the reporter asks whether 28% is safe enough or not, or how about another bank that have more or less, you'd probably realize you shouldn't have said too much already.

So, at this moment... if you're a spokesperson for a bank or a bank regulator - "We're safe. SVB is a special case" is pretty much the only appropriate response right now.

SVB's problem is that it can't hold them to maturity, it has to sell them today at firesale prices, because they already sold everything they have that's not marked held-to-maturity.

“The same exact thing could happen to grandma!”

Yes, it could, but it’s not especially meaningful to say that the same thing that happened to X could happen to Y if Y were tbe same as X.

Seriously, read Matt Levine’s stuff about SVB. It was a different bank with different customers, different Fed regulations, different depositors, and a unique asset portfolio problem.

35 year old dies BASE jumping. 34 year old BASE jumper says, “yeah he was taking on too much risk — that’s way too old to be BASE jumping.”

56% of assets in long term fixed rate loans is fatal. 26% is also fatal. The latter is not in a position to criticize the former’s excessive risk taking. A 5.6% hole in your balance sheet (20% loss on 28%) is still very bad for an institution that needs to satisfy demand deposits.

But different investment strategies present different risks. For a bank with a high correlation between deposits and low interest rates, having more investments with strong alpha to low interest rates presents more risk.

So, 28% is less risky than 56%, and Wells Fargo’s depositors have very different profiles than SVB, and WF is subject to the Fed’s liquidity rules that SVB was not.

So, while there is no such thing as risk-free anything, they are such totally different animals that the only reason to act like WF is lying / making PR noises not based in reality is the underwhelming observation that they both have “bank” in their name.

It’s a very low quality, knee-jerk, low-effort comment. That’s all.

(I really dislike WF so if the new HN ethos is to make wild unfounded claims just because we don’t like a company, I guess I could get on the bandwagon.)

[1] Yes, my comment wasn’t explicit, but if you put in some effort and read the context or a sibling comment, you’ll see the justification.

If you’re not speaking to that criticism but just giving vague generalities about how banks need to manage risk right, then you don’t need to make a comment at all.

Edit: Hit my comment rate limit so...

Sorry, I don't see the answer -- again, you were just speaking in vague generalities about how "banks need to manage risk right". Doesn't get to the argument you need, which is "this why WF can suffer a 5.6% loss on its loan portfolio but still satisfy demand deposits, and why it's a difference in kind, not degree, from an 11.2% loss happening to SVB".

The point was never that the percentage doesn't ever matter at all, but that both WF and SVB hold way too much in fixed rate long-term loans.

So if we're really going to go there, I think the substantive points went over your own head. When you're ready to say something more informative than "it's a bank's job to manage risk", I'll be ready to learn from it and appreciate the insight you're bringing.

Replace Wells Fargo with SI or SVB and you have your answer (which is, it isn't how much they know about the economy, but what they're really cooking with it).

You generally only get good at interview problems when you're entering the door. After that, interview questions generally have nothing to do with your job.

Also, as you move beyond entry level positions, political skills, communications skills and connections becomes more and more important. Unless you happen to be at some massive growth teams at the right times, it's basically impossible to move beyond ICT4 or L5 unless both you and your boss have very good grasp of politics.

"Making high performance CPUs that are also highly power efficient should make a ton of money. Why isn't everyone doing it?"

Well, turns out that isn't exactly something that a small group of engineers can whip up in a garage anymore. Same goes for highly efficient market making systems.

HFTs came into their own over the past decade or so -- during a time of falling interest rates, unprecedented growth, and notable lack of regulation in financial markets.

One of these things is not like the other. I'd be entirely unsurprised to see most HFTs turn out like Lehman Brothers, Enron, or AIG. They all lasted more than a decade or so. But their gains were fraudulent and they failed spectacularly.

Occam's razor is all I'm saying: What's the simplest answer to the question, why aren't large HFTs with high overheads being eaten alive as technology decentralizes access to trading? Wouldn't we expect types like Burry -- self-driven, confident financial geniuses -- to be equally decentralized? Wouldn't we expect returns to become equally decentralized?

Fraud is the simplest answer. Maybe that comes in the form of market coercion, regulatory capture, negligence, or any other plain old market manipulation. Look back at Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. It's all much too similar for my tastes. Time will tell.

This is absurd reasoning. It's like saying Apple has such large profit margins on their iPhones that they must be either cooking their books or in cahoots with someone somewhere. It's just a phone! How hard is it for a competitor to make a comparable phone?! They've had 15 years to copy them!

> I honestly can't name any investment firm with double digit returns YoY for more than a decade or two that doesn't have bodies in the closet.

It's clear you have literally zero idea what HFT actually does, yet you don't hesitate to call them frauds. HFT firms do not "invest" like traditional investment firms or hedge funds. They provide liquidity and sometimes take liquidity but only tend to hold those positions for seconds or minutes. At the end of every day, most HFT firms have zero position (some might hold some spreads or hedged positions overnight but those are generally less risky).

> why aren't large HFTs with high overheads being eaten alive as technology decentralizes access to trading?

HFT firms don't compete against each other on pure "technology", but more so on mathematical models or what you could call intelligence. Intelligence is not simply arbitraged away over time, although it does happen to some extent. My comment earlier discusses some of this [0]. Technology has little to do with their success. By the same reasoning, why hasn't Apple's margins been eaten over time?

> Fraud is the simplest answer.

The ancient Greeks thought that Zeus was the simplest answer for lightning, but clearly we know that not to be the case.

> Time will tell.

We do not need time. We already know. That you personally don't know doesn't change the fact that nothing illegal or wrong is going on.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32315419

> They provide liquidity and sometimes take liquidity but only tend to hold those positions for seconds or minutes.

Do HFTs issue or purchase billions of dollars of debt with the express goal of market liquidity? No? So why do you use the term "providing liquidity?" You know "providing liquidity" isn't the same thing as "frenetically purchasing and selling derivatives," right? If these funds didn't exist, I've seen no compelling evidence markets would so much as hiccup. I've seen plenty of compelling evidence that much of financial services in this country are a net drain on its productive capacity.

> We do not need time. We already know.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think far too much activity happens in financial services, that they aren't nearly boring enough. I harken back to the 70s/80s back before massive deregulation in financial markets, when financiers had to get two jobs just to tread water. I suggest we might revisit such a time. Time will tell!

Your entire argument is "I don't know what they do, and they make money in finance, so they must be doing it illegally." The burden is on you to provide evidence to back up your claim. That's how things work. I could claim that HN user rgifford is the Zodiac Killer, and my evidence is "I don't know him but if you rearrange some subset of the letters of words he's typed in the past, they spell out 'I am the Zodiac Killer'". Whether you realize it or not, your reasoning is that specious at best.

> The market for consumer electronics hasn't fundamentally threatened the stability of the US government every decade for the past 5 decades.

Nothing HFT has ever done has come within even 0.000001% to threatening the stability of the US government. Period.

> Renaissance Technologies Medallion fund may as well be an insider trading scheme for all the public can tell.

Again, claims require evidence. You need to provide that evidence. But more importantly, the fact that you compare RenTech's Medallion Fund to HFT again demonstrates your complete ignorance on the topic. The Medallion Fund isn't powered by high frequency trading. It started decades before HFT ever existed.

> Do HFTs issue or purchase billions of dollars of debt with the express goal of market liquidity? No? So why do you use the term "providing liquidity?" You know "providing liquidity" isn't the same thing as "frenetically purchasing and selling derivatives," right?

You don't know what providing liquidity means. When you place an order to buy or sell 100 shares of MSFT in the market, who is taking the other side of your order? The vast majority of the time, it's an HFT firm.

> If these funds didn't exist, I've seen no compelling evidence markets would so much as hiccup.

I'm sure if you took all of the grease out of your car engine, it would continue to operate without a hiccup.

> I've seen plenty of compelling evidence that much of financial services in this country are a net drain on its productive capacity.

Another false comparison. HFT is not a standard "financial service" that is provided to consumers.

> We'll have to agree to disagree [...] Time will tell!

Flat earthers also ignore reality and disagree, but that doesn't make their perspective equally as valid as those who look at pictures of the earth and conclude it's spherical. Time has already told us, but whether or not you want to look at facts or educate yourself on even the basics of what you think you're talking about is a different question.

Almost every sentence you said in your post contained some flat out false or wrong statements. Your unfounded arrogance is matched only by your ignorance on this topic. You have not made a single concrete or factual point about how HFT might be fraudulent, yet you seem to hold this worldview with the same conviction that the sun rises in the east.

Literally anyone. Literally any other market participant with interest in longterm ownership.

> Your entire argument is "I don't know what they do, and they make money in finance, so they must be doing it illegally." The burden is on you to provide evidence to back up your claim.

That's not my argument. Snakes bite. Highly profitable, speculative, and complicated US financial firms have consistently grown to threaten the stability of US financial systems before collapsing. Precedent matters. When an assertion violates a precedent, it's what must be proven. Your assertion has the burden of proof, and it's an incredibly high one at that.

> ...the fact that you compare RenTech's Medallion Fund to HFT again demonstrates your complete ignorance on the topic

Medallion is one of the most well regarded and profitable hedge funds in modern American history. It's a grandfather to modern HFTs. Even its sterling record is highly suspect.

I sincerely hope the American public doubles short term capital gains taxes and regulates financial markets back to the stone age. Smart people need to spend their time on engineering, medicine, and research. The amount of human capital wasted on silly little financial machinations these days sickens me. I go back and read about financiers jumping from building back in the 20s and I understand completely. Our best and brightest, so confident of what they had to gain, traded their potential in pursuit of Alchemy only to be left with nothing. And who can blame them? Newton fell for the same.

You don't know what you're talking about. If there were no market makers, your orders probably wouldn't execute within any reasonable time frame.

> That's not my argument. Snakes bite. Highly profitable, speculative, and complicated US financial firms have consistently grown to threaten the stability of US financial systems before collapsing. Precedent matters. When an assertion violates a precedent, it's what must be proven. Your assertion has the burden of proof, and it's an incredibly high one at that.

That is your argument. Snakes bite? So, therefore, what? Financial companies commit fraud as their primary form of operation? What kind of argument is that? It's ludicrous.

> complicated US financial firms have consistently grown to threaten the stability of US financial systems before collapsing

I cannot emphasize this enough. You literally have zero idea what HFT firms actually do day-to-day. Many people use the word literally when they mean figuratively. I actually mean literally in this case. Comparing HFT firms to banks selling mortgage-backed securities is like comparing your local florist to a drug cartel. In fact, it's probably more like comparing a piece of wood to drug cartel. They're entirely different things. HFT firms don't even sell anything.

> Precedent matters. When an assertion violates a precedent, it's what must be proven.

The precedent you name is totally irrelevant. It's like saying since drug cartels do illegal things (they do), then this piece of wood lying on the ground in the forest is also breaking the law by existing. That's how disconnected the two things you're comparing are, but, again, since you literally have no clue what HFT firms do, you don't even understand that.

> Your assertion has the burden of proof, and it's an incredibly high one at that.

Wrong. You can claim that, but like all of your other claims, it's entirely false.

> Medallion is one of the most well regarded and profitable hedge funds in modern American history. It's a grandfather to modern HFTs. Even its sterling record is highly suspect.

I truly don't think you're even reading what I'm writing, or if you do, you keep moving the goalposts (not that it helps your case--you're still 100% wrong regardless of how much further you try to move it). HFT firms are not hedge funds. Stop comparing them to hedge funds, unless you think comparing a piece of a wood to a drug cartel is a useful comparison, in which case there's no point in talking anymore.

Also, "The Medallion fund [...] is a grandfather to modern HFTs" is such a vague and meaningless statement. Sure they have some algorithms, but lots of investment firms do. So what?

But if we follow this absurd line of reasoning, if your grandfather committed a crime (which even in this analogy, they didn't), does that mean that their grandchildren do also? Of course not.

> Smart people need to spend their time on engineering, medicine, and research. The amount of human capital wasted on silly little financial machinations these days sickens me. I go back and read about financiers jumping from building back in the 20s and I understand it completely.

This is a totally reasonable opinion, but entirely divorced from the question of whether or not HFT commits fraud. Again you have provided literally (not figuratively, but literally) zero evidence to back up your claim.

Your entire argument seems to be:

- Some financial firms have done bad stuff in the past

- HFTs are financial firms (sort of, but whatever)

- Therefore HFTs must be committing fraud

That's literally your argument as far as I can parse it. If you read that, that's just so patently absurd that I don't think I can do anything more to highlight how absurd it is. Its absurdity stands on its own. Maybe something like:

- Some people have committed crimes in the past

- You're a person

- Therefore you're a criminal

This is what psychics call a "cold reading" - a statement that is bound to be true eventually! At some point in the future HFTs will "find" (?) something approximating fraud. That almost can't not be true. But I don't see how it relates to your statement that Jane Street's reported profits are fraudulent.

Highly profitable, speculative, and complicated US financial firms have consistently grown to threaten the stability of US financial systems before collapsing. As such, these types of firms have a high burden of proof for legitimacy. If that hasn't been met, betting on fraudulence is pretty safe given historical context.

   {x} came into their own over the past decade or so, during a time of falling interest rates, unprecedented growth, and notable lack of regulation in {x's field}.

Point me to three funds that have maintained greater than 20% YoY profits for more than 20 years. I would be floored if you could do it. Apple, arguably the best and most profitable business in the world, manages between 20-30% YoY profit. They're the largest contributor to world financial markets rather than operating only on derivatives. I can not imagine a world in which the largest trading firms can outperform that without fraud of some kind. In my mind, it's like gravity. Little rocks rotate around bigger rocks.

Humans are inherently fragile beings with almost no redundant parts. If I fry your brain with long hours and politically hostile work environment and drive you to depression; vs. I fry your brain with long hours in physically exhausting environments. The results are the same - your brain is fried. One type of hostile work environment is not necessarily better or worse than another type of hostile work environment.

I suspect that there are many definitions of the term "burnout" being used by different people, making communication difficult.

the same time, if you have a good support group and work hard strenuous hours (like rig workers) the physical isn't that bad because you have the bouyant comfort of comraderie. but if you are in an office stuck next to someone whose values you cannot stand and clash with yours, and whose boss demands and harasses you all the time but you are stuck working paycheck to paycheck because of medical bills or something.....that's a reason to want a factory job for some.

Having worked for a couple of years as a commercial electrician, I would choose that in a heartbeat over “knowledge work”… if they paid the same.

I got my funds back within that period.

Now of course, it's questionable whether it's right to just lock up peoples' money after a self imposed time limit without their consent - even though it's for regulatory reasons. But that's not the same as them arbitrarily locking up your money.

```

$ conda create -n {new_environment_name} python

$ conda activate {new environment name}

$ conda install jupyterlab

```

({new_environment_name}) ...$ python -m ipykernel install --user --name {new_environment_name} --display-name "Python ({new environment display name})"

The env won't be accessible in jupyter (lab or notebook) until you do this step.

[0] https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39604271/conda-environme...

https://www.anaconda.com/blog/anaconda-commercial-edition-fa...

https://docs.conda.io/en/latest/miniconda.html

    conda install -c conda-forge jupyterlab=3