I've always understood this part, what doesn't make sense is the resolution jumps are inconsistent and they don't make an option to set which "HD" or "SD" version I want. Most videos seem to start at 360 and jump to 480 once I go full screen. This is fine, though I would rather it start at 480 when available. Then sometimes it jumps to 720, which is less fine on my crappy DSL, but on occasion it hums along so it is nice to watch it there when it is streaming okay. It would be nice if instead of an "always play in SD" option, but to set which resolution we want as a default for both normal and full screen viewing, then let me manually change it if I decide I have the bandwidth to go more.... that and some videos go back to playing a commercial when when you drop out of full screen which is aggravating and I think it relates to the resolution changes...

Usual internet message reading with more fire than is actually there ( a your problem not a my problem). I think the video is shit and a waste of bandwidth, that is for certain. But fixing your own thumbs is easy.

YA LAZY BUM !
In reply to this comment by legacy0100:
>> ^BoneRemake:

Just change it yourself ya lazy bum.>> ^Fletch:
>> ^siftbot:
A different thumbnail image for this video could not be found for findthumb request by Fletch.

[sigh] Has this ever worked for anybody?

I would put a relevant picture such as a piece of dog shit for the pic.


What's with the hostility?

Although most of them play OK for me, the way they work has changed. Before the change I used to turn off my wifi after, lets say, 1-2 minutes had loaded to avoid using up my bandwidth quota while it loaded the whole darned thing in the background... then I would watch the 1-2 minutes and decide whether to load the rest. If I try that now, as soon as I turn off wifi the whole thing just breaks, no matter how much it thinks it had loaded.

If your connection is the tiniest bit flakey, or under unusual load, this could break things for you that would not have broken with the old loading scheme.

You could consider putting in a bug report, perhaps they'll make the old scheme optional in settings, or just fix the new one?

Reloading the page, then moving the slider to where you were up to, will generally get it going again if it does break. The old trick of clicking the slider just past where it's up to doesn't work as often as it used to.
>> ^notarobot:

Youtube embeds play slow for me too. They chunk along while loading. It's been like that for most videos for me since youtube updated the way that they stream their data a few months back.

This is very pretty, but why would you release a promotional video about graphics and not offer 1080p? And am I now a bandwidth snob?

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I suppose it depends. If you have fat pipes and the experience is near instant - then it's no big deal. For slower connections, (I'm often on mobile) it's a drag - the quality from 360 to 480 is negligible, but it often means an extra 30 seconds of buffering, when I was watching it just fine before I fullscreened. >> ^lucky760:

@notarobot- I think that's just you.
@dag- Funny, that's a feature I love. It's very helpful for me that when I go into fullscreen mode it automatically switches without me having to fumble around to pause the video, find the (now weird looking) resolution button, and finally (hopefully) get it switched to the highest available resolution before starting it back up. The manual method is especially annoying because clicking the resolution from that pop-up menu sometimes doesn't work or causes a freeze for a few seconds.
Another new feature I love is the thumbnail preview when hovering over any part of the playback/timeline bar. Very helpful.

Latency's a bitch ain't she?

It's interesting, people always get all worked up over bandwidth. 99 times out of 100 it's long latencies you're noticing.

>> ^MonkeySpank:

This is why we have on-processor cache (L2, L3) in the first place. Even at the speed of light, the distance traveled between the processor and motherboard memory, when done a few billion times a second, starts to become a limiting factor on processing speed.

Cheers. Can't wait for Season 2... I started re-watching Season 1 tonight, thanks to your postings.

In reply to this comment by Lilithia:
I used YouTube embeds for the later parts. I changed the older parts to YouTube, too, so they all should work now.
>> ^therealblankman:

These HBO embeds suck ass. Take forever to even show up on the screen, use huge bandwidth, won't buffer properly. Finding Youtube embeds would work better.

I used YouTube embeds for the later parts. I changed the older parts to YouTube, too, so they all should work now.
>> ^therealblankman:

These HBO embeds suck ass. Take forever to even show up on the screen, use huge bandwidth, won't buffer properly. Finding Youtube embeds would work better.

These HBO embeds suck ass. Take forever to even show up on the screen, use huge bandwidth, won't buffer properly. Finding Youtube embeds would work better.

It didn't take a trillion frames in one second. It has an effective terafps framerate, but the photos were taken of different photon pulses over several minutes. It looks like a single photon pulse travelling slowly, but isn't, just like if you've ever seen the experiment with steadily dripping water and a strobe light where the water drops can be made to appear to slow down, hover in the air, and even travel back up.>> ^MonkeySpank:

I am guessing even parallel GDDR5 memory is not enough to handle the bandwidth of 1,000,000,000,000 frames. I am curious mostly about how this is information stored.

@Deano, you'd think so wouldn't you? Why there can't be a site that people can pay a certain amount purely for the price of the bandwidth to distribute their music/videos (or probably have free options while they're getting popular, payment only kicking in once they have over X downloads in Y days sort of thing). You have your own subsite there, where you sell your wears, money goes straight to you however you want, the site doesn't get involved in that at all... it just provides a place for your band/comedy/short film/feature length film/ whatever to spruik itself and be downloaded/streamed from.

How is that hard? Does this not already exist, and we just not know about it? Sounds like an awesome business model.

For people with content seems obvious.

For the hosting site you'd get money by having ads on the sites of those that are free, and then direct payment from those that have large volume or just don't want ads on their sites.

Damnit internet, get your shit together.

I am guessing even parallel GDDR5 memory is not enough to handle the bandwidth of 1,000,000,000,000 frames. I am curious mostly about how this is information stored.

Read this as "Buffering is part of life."

Down with buffering! 1% of people control 99% of the USAs bandwidth!!

Rabble rabble

Seriously, though, I hate buffering.

Hey, Just wanted to give a note about the idea I just had.

Not to sure how much bandwidth it would eat up or how hard it would be to do.

.GIF

Wouldn't it be neat to have animated crown/diamond/ruby/gold badges.

I was just looking at the ruby picture and it has a glimmer spark on it, I had just thought it neat if it would "sparkle" with two or three points shimmering, which could be done by a .gif

JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE !

You bring your OWN bandwidth maaaaaannnn.

In reply to this comment by dag:
That would be awesome. I wonder how they get bandwidth out there.>> ^sme4r:

Sift up next year at burning man!