720x480 4:2:0 YCbCr doesn't look great on modern screens

Good point, buy an old CRT in addition to the DVD player!

Or if you can find one, an RGB CRT projector, which unlike LED projectors can actually provide true black (or close to it).

My BluRay player automatically upsamples DVDs. It's far from perfect but it looks pretty good most of the time.

Not sure if that's common to BluRay players or not.

Any idea if PS5 does this too?

In TFA they specify that it was also blu ray. This person was using DVD as an (incorrect) term meaning "some kind of plastic disc."

Though they don't say 4k/UHD blu-ray which would be a big miss if not. UHD blu-ray is superior to any other format in terms of quality. Perhaps excepting a few very niches streaming services that are tied to expensive hardware.

I'd happily sacrifice some pixels to avoid the aggressive DNR and hack 16:9 crop treatments typical of streaming re-releases.

It's often better than a 5 Mbps 1080p

Since DVDs are ~5mbps mpeg2, no, no it isn't. 5 mbps h264 is dramatically better.

Now, when compared to blu-ray... That's different. Very, very different.

Most feature DVDs are 8 Mbps.

It's certainly blurrier than Netflix, but dark scenes, grain and textures are usually much more detailed on a DVD nonetheless.

h264 is (generously) about 2x as efficient as MPEG-2, granted, but you're smearing those 5mbps across 6x as many pixels.

I would take crisp 480p over a gooey, artifact-softened 1080p for most content.

I've found cartoons look fine if the format matches your display.

every company with this culture invariably fucks their employees over, it’s inevitable if you think about it

Enron was lauded for its intense work culture and competitiveness.

ultimately we could get 4K remasters of old movies/shows where it's currently not worth redoing the FX

yegge has a cool solution for this in gastown: the current agent is able to hold a seance with the previous one

normalizing toxic as standard industry practice is sort of like condoning it, imo

It's like saying "Today's big companies follow lots of dark patterns such as forcing customers to call them to close their accounts, which became a standard practice in banks, SaaS and other businesses." It's an observation, nothing more than that.

You posed it as an observation only known to insiders of the industry. This book was targeted to the general public. By saying 'its no big deal' to anyone who thinks it is, you are are saying that those in the industry are normalized to it, and that the normalization should be the status quo. Like working in a factory farm slaughterhouse and saying everyone should be normalized to the suffering that goes on in there, instead of trying to change it.

That's a strange outlook. How often do you still get shocked that a politician lied? Do you cultivate the surprise effect by fear of feeling complicit if your reaction instead is "what else is new?"

when people do disgusting things, it's okay to be disgusted - saying "what else is new?" is nearly "this does not disgust me" which is essentially condoning it.

not being shocked because it reinforces a negative stereotype you'd already assumed is not the same as dismissing it as uninteresting/expected behavior

> saying "what else is new?" is nearly "this does not disgust me" which is essentially condoning it.

That's an amazing stretch.

I believe this and it makes a web 3.0 solution seem viable if only we could escape the collective action trap

I filter everything that does NOT include “+asdf” in the to:

that would make for a cute short story where a robot nurses a pet biological that suddenly displays hints of true intelligence after no less than 32 years of parrot-like behavior

it’s like the difference between management and leadership though the latter doesn’t come exclusively from the former

A lot of professions have terms of art that can be interpreted incorrectly or be viewed as odd by laymen. "Individual contributor" is no different.

Maybe it sounds weird to you, but it's a well-understood term in the management profession.

ICs are given tasks for one person. Managers are given tasks to distribute to entire teams. By definition managers do not contribute individually because their output (from an org chart perspective) includes the output of everyone reporting to them.

see how the language lead directly to you considering all contributions to belong to the manager? yea newspeak is bad for the brain!

Your manager is on the hook for things you do. I can’t explain it more plainly

regardless of who is on the hook for what, ones contributions are their own. a manager makes contributions by performing actions just like anybody else. this label for implying that a managers contributions includes that of their reports is bogus - if a manager does absolutely nothing at all we should consider the contributions of their reports? actual technical jargon adds precision to language "IC" takes it away, it's nothing more than corporate newspeak ala 1984