Films rely on 24 fps or, rather, low motion resolution to help suspend disbelief. There are things that the viewer are not meant to see or at least see clearly. Yes, part of that specific framerate is nostalgia and what the audience expects a movie to look like, but it holds a purpose.

Higher frame rates are superior for shooting reality. But for something that is fictional it helps the audience suspend their disbelief.

Does the suspension break in games, which are not reality? Is there any evidence lower quality is better?

I think that whole complaint is just "people getting used to how it is". Games are just worse in lower framerate because they are interactive and because we never had 24 fps era, the games had lower framerate only if studio couldn't get it to run better on a given hardware

With one caveat, some games that use animation-inspired aesthetics, the animation itself is not smoothed out but basically ran on the slower framerate (see guilty gear games) while everything else (camera movement, some effects) is silky smooth and you still get quick reaction time to your inputs.

Games are supposed to be fun, input latency is not fun.

I'm not sure I buy that it helps the audience suspend their disbelief.

If it did horror films would be filmed at higher frame rates for extra scares.

Humans have a long history of suspending belief in both oral and written lore. I think that 'fps' may be as functionally equivalent as the santa clause stories, fun for kids but the adults need to pick up the bill.

Suspend disbelief in that you can't see that the punch never actually landed, or that the monster that ran across screen was actually a man in a rubber suit. When something happen fast at 24 fps it naturally blurs. It is why shaky cam, low resolution footage can be scary. Direct to VHS horror movies could be scary because you could only barely see what was happening allowing your brain to fill in the gaps. At full resolution captured with a high speed camera everything looks a bit silly / fake.

Heavily compressed.

If you check it will say the resolution is AMAZING.

Despite being a subscriber I pirate their shows to get some pixels.

I have some *arrs on my server. Anything that comes from Netflix is bitstarved to death. If the same show is available on virtually any other streaming service, it will be at the very least twice the size.

No other service does this.

And for some reason, if HDR versions of their 1080p content are even more bitstarved than SDR.

Things can be both high resolution and still low quality due to being overcompressed.

I really wish they had to advertise streams at bitrate and not resolution.

Bitrate still won’t tell you how bad the encoding is. There can be dramatic differences at the same or inverse bitrate.

This is true for amateurs encoding video files to be pirated, but for the mega corps, sending more bits costs more money.

Many years ago, I had a couple drinks with a guy from Netflix who worked on their video compression processes, and he fully convinced me they're squeezing every last drop out of every bit they send down the pipes. The quality is not great compared to some other streaming services, but it's actually kind of amazing how they're able to get away with serving such tiny files.

Anyway, I think we can expect these companies to mostly max out the resultant video quality of their bitstreams, and showing the average bitrate of their pricing tiers would be a great yardstick for consumers.

Netflix's main audience is general public who still cannot differentiate between mbps and MBps.

for us nerds there is hidden stats for nerds option.

https://blog.sayan.page/netflix-debug-mode/

millibits per second is awfully slow.

While this is true, looking at it sometimes has quality so bad that I think the displayed resolution is just a complete lie.

YouTube does this. When I open a video the quality is set to Auto by default. It'll also show the "actual" quality next to it, like "Auto 1080p". Complete lie. I see this and see the video looks like 480p, manually change to 1080p and it's instantly much better. The auto quality thing is a flat out lie.

Where do pirates get the shows from? Not from the very platform you're trying to avoid?

Which is even worse since darker gradients seem to leave more visible compression artifacts.

I haven’t experienced issues understanding dialogue in Stranger Things, for what it’s worth.

It helps that they're mostly shouting explanations at each other.

Haha, this is very true. They really narrate what they are doing.

I do think Musk correctly identified excess staff and irresponsible spending, but where he screwed up was being his toxic self which drove away even more of the audience and almost every big advertiser.

And Twitter is running fine without all the excess staff

I mean, I don’t think it makes money and it is a cesspool of misinformation, hate, porn, and bots, but technically, it is fine.

Once content begins being served by algorithm social networks start taking a nose dive in terms of quality and user experience and they slowly spiral into lowest common denominator smut. It juices engagement and therefore advertising dollars for a time, but slowly half of users start to recognize the vapidness of it all and disengage for good.

It was staffed with walking examples of the Dunning-Kruger effect. People who knew very little about the departments or the work that they were cutting but enough to assume they knew more than people who had spent their life working there. That requires a special level of arrogance. They went in with the idea that all of these people at this organization are lazy and stupid and so everything they didn’t understand must be a result of one of those things or the other.

Beyond Apple, I think the state of laptop quality is absolutely abysmal. I haven’t tried Framework, but it is disappointing to hear their products suffer many of the same issues as other PC builders. I guess there just isn’t a market.

It has always been curious to me that Apple hasn’t put more effort into gaming. The AppleTV could easily be positioned as a game console if they put more effort into supporting developers and providing more dedicated infrastructure for games.

I think it is trendy to hate on Firefox because of how cool Firefox felt in 2002 and how dominant they became in the mid 2000s before Chrome and so everything feels like a fall from grace from that.

I do think there have been missteps. I think Firefox is good and is my browser of choice but most of their new features feel superfluous.

I think it was just one of those throwaway lines. I raised an eyebrow when I read it. It seems like something written to appease some idiot on the board or something. If I thought there was a strong vision there it would be fine, but no one seems to have any vision for AI beyond some controlled tech demos that never quite work as advertised—at least not enough for you to use it in the way advertised.

Nah, if you read into the strategy doc, then compared to the relatively measured press release, it’s entirely gungho on AI