I see. You can remove 'Overwatch' from my original comment and the point still stands, but I do appreciate the fact check. I know Blizzard from HearthStone and Diablo....not great experiences with gacha there haha (Diablo Immortal, atleast), but those are far from the most popular Eastern games
Would be good to know if this is actually true. From a comment in the thread:
> Assuming that you tested that this happening only during commercials. When you google the issue, it seems like a lot of other people are saying that it unmutes in general after 5 seconds, which matches what happened to you from the video.
It wouldn't, but could do as a result of a bug that has nothing to do with trying to force you to listen to adverts. My Apple TV box, AVR and TV between them sometimes seem to get into a state where the sound is muted and whenever I unmute it, it unmutes and immediately mutes again. I have to reboot the Apple TV box to get the sound to stay on again. So this sort of thing does happen.
I may be dating myself, but there was a time when you could buy a TV and not have to worry that something as basic as volume control might have a software bug.
So you're right - it may not be a nefarious thing related to ads, but for people like me, that's an irrelevant detail. I don't even want to think about buying a TV that can't get volume control right.
I get your frustration with bugs but, what TVs (or any other consumer electronic product) aren’t reliant upon software for basic system control nowadays? Hardware isn’t inherently bug-free and the “quality” of old hardware is usually due to its narrow scope of functionality; the ability to (theoretically trivially) modify software means that hardware can/does become better/more capable. I see so many folks complain that software makes everything worse but I also see so many products that become more capable due to regular software updates. It seems like we can either build things that are “reliable” yet limited in functionality, or we can build things that are “buggy” but capable of evolving with expanded functionality.
> what TVs (or any other consumer electronic product) aren’t reliant upon software for basic system control nowadays?
How many of them can't get basic volume control to work?
Yes, the fact that modern TVs are so filled with SW is one of the reasons I haven't upgraded my TV in 15 years. More importantly, can anyone explain to me the benefit of these TVs (other than display) compared to the old ones? What smartness in modern TVs can I get that's important to me that I can't get via a Roku or similar device?
> Hardware isn’t inherently bug-free and the “quality” of old hardware is usually due to its narrow scope of functionality;
Same question as above: Why not have narrow scope? What expanded scope in new TVs is actually something I would care for?
And I've never come across a "HW" TV that failed at the very basics. I've never had to return one for a recall. One of the things that makes adding SW to any device really crappy is the "ship now, fix later" mentality. And a lot of things often never get fixed (e.g. my old, ATI video card had features that were broken in Linux, and they never got around to fixing it - never bought ATI/AMD cards since).
> the ability to (theoretically trivially) modify software means that hardware can/does become better/more capable.
Until the manufacturer stops supporting it. I recall when I bought my (dumb) TV, smart TVs were just coming out, and most of my friends opted for smart ones ("it already has Netflix"). Fast forward less than 3 years, and they all switched to Roku or something similar because the TV apps either sucked or stopped working.
Owning a TV is something one should be able to do for over 10 years. Can you guarantee that most of the nice features on your TV will work more than 10 years from now?
Likewise, I should be able to buy a 10+ year old used TV and have basic stuff just work without having to register, etc. If it doesn't, then these manufacturers are simply adding much more waste to the ecosystem than the dumb ones did.
(As you can guess, I have often bought old, used TVs and never had trouble with them).
> What expanded scope in new TVs is actually something I would care for?
I think this is the crux of our confusion; you may not desire the expanded functionality but others certainly do. You can suggest that manufacturers force unwanted functionality onto consumers but I have trouble accepting that premise unless admit our own complicity; maybe I’m part of that problem though.
> Owning a TV is something one should be able to do for over 10 years.
Again, that’s your preference and the choice you’ve already made; I choose to not set arbitrary time limits but instead make decisions on purchasing new TVs (and other non-essential products) depending on the available technologies and toys—and, of course, the girth (if any) of my wallet . We have different preferences, we make decisions based on those preferences, yet—as far as I can tell—we are both satisfied with our choices; why complain about a system capable of implementing a bug that doesn’t affect us?
> Can you guarantee that most of the nice features on your TV will work more than 10 years from now?
Almost certainly I can. There are both massive and minuscule communities, aftermarket solutions, and DIY makers/hackers/activists that focus on all kinds of technologies and products dating back over a hundred years. The original iPod is 25 years old and yet there are still folks making firmware updates for it. The Commodore 64 has a multitude of projects, products, communities, and marketplaces to keep the product alive — nearly fifty years after it was released! There are literally thousands of examples. Interestingly, and calling back to my original point, these kinds of secondary markets are only possible because of those products’ use of a combination of quality underlying hardware and user-updatable/modifiable software—well, and that nerds like us dig breaking things.
>What smartness in modern TVs can I get that's important to me that I can't get via a Roku or similar device?
Only you know what is important to you, but I like automatic volume levels, for example. I stayed at AirBnB a couple years ago, which had some commodity TV (Vizio?) w/o automatic volume and learned they still do loud commercials. My home TV keeps volume at the same audible level during commercials.
Same with auto-brightness, I get nice image all through the day and night illumination levels in the living room.
Voice control is handy when you don't live alone so other people may have a remote at the moment or it could take some time to find.
Apps on my 6 y.o. TV still work just fine, I don't need to attach devices to a TV, which neatly hangs on a wall without things hanging from it. The TV is running Android so it will keep updating from the Google's app store as long as the app vendor keeps maintaining it.
Something claiming to be X doesn't mean it's X at all least good at being X. This option on tube TVs that I had never worked for commercials, works so well that I don't notice it on a "smart" TV.
If you don't want auto-brigntness you don't have to enable it. I have a hunch that a TV sets it better (just for the reason that you are unlikely to adjust every time you turn lights on and off) but tastes do differ indeed.
While that is stupid and I would return such a defective product, there's a difference between "my TV's mute is broken" and "my TV specifically unmutes itself during ads".
> But if I press the mute button real hard, it mutes. Same with unmute: if I press it real hard it unmutes. If I press the button normally, it mutes for 2-3 seconds and then unmutes on its own.
> Same behavior. None of my FireTVs will stay muted when hooked to a soundbar via HDMI/earc. This is software related to a FireTV update in the last year as it is happening on all firetvs despite the soundbar bar and did not have this behavior when initially set up.
To the end user, there is very little difference. It's not doing what the user expects, regardless of intent or lack of intent on the part of the manufacturer.
For people like me, that's an irrelevant detail. I don't even want to think about buying a TV that can't get volume control right. It's a basic feature that should never break - and one shouldn't have to wait for a firmware update.
Awesome content, but if you read pay attention closely, you can basically write the story without reading, because you know what the answers will be.
The paper NYT and WSJ are a great way to go. You get clear editorial contrasts and lots of content. Science Times and other feature sections are always a treat.
That's generally my experience, but I appreciate how most articles in the Economist have 1) an attempt to genuinely outline both sides of the argument, and 2) an attempt to clearly -- "clearly" is relative at times -- take a side in the discussion.
Most of the time that side is going to be the free market technocratic solution, hence the parent comment about being able to predict where the article will go, but even then I feel like I have an idea what the argument is and where the sides are.
The Economist is basically the flag-bearer of pro-capitalist policy, so yes their views would largely be supported by the entire US political establishment.
>would largely be supported by the entire US political establishment
Well that's just the thing! We observe Trump attacked from all sides of the establishment - the left, (some of) the right, and the entire government bureaucracy ("the deep state").
There is a rift somewhere in the system, and we're not discussing it...
It's stated to have a liberal slant, so especially on social issues it would disagree with Trump. It's also explicitly said bad things about Trump's demeanor or attitudes.
However, it does praise some actions that Trump and the Republicans have done with regards to covid19. I overall find that it greatly tones down the extreme takes / perspectives I see on Reddit, and finds lots of nuance
The Economist is definitely not liberal. It's intended to be nonpolitical but its conscious opinions lean conservative. Disagreeing with Trump or talking about Trump in a negative manner does not make one liberal, no matter what US political pundit will tell you.
Nonpartisan, yes. Nonpolitical? Absolutely not. The reason for its foundation was (specifically) to campaign against a policy held dear by the government of the day, and (generally) to promote a specific politico-economic worldview, that of free market capitalism with a strong emphasis on cross-border trade. Sometimes this can make their positions appear a little more left-leaning than a classic US libertarian could stomach, such as supporting the existence of the EU, if not every one of its actions; and tending to prefer at least a light touch of regulation on the markets, so long as it keeps the wheels of international commerce turning smoothly. Also, they are at pains to separate their news reporting (usually impeccably balanced and impartial) from their opinion pieces. As an answer to OP's question, I would actually second the recommendation of The Economist as an excellent way to keep abreast of world events while cunningly sidestepping the hysteria and sensationalism of nearly all other media (yes, including most "serious newspapers" these days).
The Economist leans "liberal" in the sense of liberal economics, or UK's Liberal Democrat Party. In the US, this is perhaps better translated as "libertarian."
I remember when Rex Tillerson was appointed to State, and how they wrote a glowing article about how fucking great he was and how he'll improve foreign relations and make international capital work again and bla bla bla.
Four years later he's gone, even allegedly called Trump a "fucking moron" on the way out.
I've taken a more recent version of this course and it seems that concepts were explained pretty well - particularly, the graphics in the slides were good at explaining the various algorithms step by step.
I hadn't heard of OnLive until there were comparisons to Stadia. On the other hand, Google is able to do some great first party advertising on YouTube.
OnLive was kind of a big deal when it was announced. A lot of poeple used it and tried it. They "gave" some games for you to play for free and test it out. Also, Sony did a few things similar on Playstation but was never a huge success because of the technical implications.
I remember playing an OnLive demo of a (then recent) Mass Effect title. I was picky about both image quality and lag, and I was not in a top-tier city. I was very impressed! Unfortunately, the problems with the business model remained.
> it costs money, the service costs a monthly fee, and on top of it you have to buy the games
While this is true now, you'll later be able to play games by only paying a monthly fee or only buying the game for the normal <=$60 price. The subscription isn't necessary to play games at all.
The problem you have with the service potentially going away also applies to Steam, to a lesser degree. I acknowledge that they have a proven track record now and also require much less to continue serving games though.
If Steam says "We're shutting down" , I would be able to download the games to my computer and manage my own backups.
If Stadia shuts down, the games I've bought will vanish. In that case, I hope Google would make a deal with a company like Steam to transfer already purchased games.
Actually, If I buy a game, I'd like to be able to download it just in case if I wanna play with low settings on my laptop while I'm on holiday with crappy internet connection. PS Now gives you option to download and/or stream PS4 games.
I know that 20-30ms is jarring because I've experimented in doing everything possible to reduce input latency while playing competitive shooters over the years, as has any serious FPS competitor. 20-30ms is highly jarring to many. Even playing SSB Ultimate over wifi on my Switch is super annoying for me to deal with.
You can simulate ~instantaneous input with this kind of approach, but not if the input has to travel to the server and back before it's registered locally.
Most people won't care about this, but it will certainly put a ceiling on serious people (e.g. streamers) trying to play popular, competitive games on Stadia.
