I’m really meaning the lack of option not to consume fast-moving consumer goods, rather than the option to pay a premium for them elsewhere. When their market position is similar to like an outlet for government rations except for private profit, their net is essentially what was skimmed off the top of free enterprise. 2.66% is just the current maximum amount that is justifiably worth without doing societal harm
That’s an expected tradeoff of operating an essential service is the point. It’s not as though their margin is that slim by mistake, or out of goodwill, or bad business sense. It’s meant to lead to the situation where we shop at Walmart not by choice, but in lieu of other options.
I use Shotcut for more or less any video operations that require re-encoding. It’s great for basic editing but also simple transcoding jobs too
It’s a slightly different use case, I default to Losslesscut and switch to Shotcut when I need a vfilter or if I’m just generally willing to concede to making a lossy cut.
Shotcut is way more flexible but I can make a quick clip in Losslesscut with probably 1/3 the number of user effort/inputs. Let alone trying to remember every ffmpeg parameter under the sun just to get consistent usable output
That’s what I’ve always assumed it does since back when quicktime player barely even ran on my PC yet for timeline operations it was significantly more responsive than WMP/MPC.
For Losslesscut I just get around this by encoding my input from source using keyint=n:scenecut=0 in ffmpeg where n is a manually set keyframe interval.
So e.g. if my expected cut occurs on a frame that occurs at t+10 seconds of footage, n can be the same as the fps and then there’ll always be a keyframe exactly at timestamp 00:00:01, 00:00:02 and so on. I can then open it in losslesscut and easily snap to the frame I want and make the cut losslessly.
Yeah the first encode generally means a lossy transcode by the time I get to my final video but being realistic that’d be a part of my workflow either way and this way it’s less
It was the wrong question and I just guided you on how it was wrong. For it to be the correct question you should have qualified what you meant by using that phrase. I’m sorry you didn’t understand that.
The post headline is “each Bitcoin transaction uses 4,200 gallons of water”. This generalisation is based on one Bitcoin mining operation which upon cursory inspection is actually a LNG electric company. I’m speculating but likely the reason they mine Bitcoin is to make it worth keeping the gas fire on during off-peak.
If you’re going to use a single operation to generalise about the whole network, why use this small weird outlier and not the bigger companies like Riot, Bitfarms, Genesis? I could turn around and say “each bitcoin transaction is fully renewable” based on the operations of any of those companies, and the claim would be even more substantiated than that headline is by that report. But it would still be wrong. Neither example is representative of the energy required by Bitcoin.
Now, I’m not coming to the party trying to push Bitcoin as a transactional currency, like you seemed to have a notion of it trying to compete as. I don’t think it’s much good for that. But I’m not about to go believing some made up shit about how a computer solving some cryptographic puzzles has a comparable environmental impact to filling an entire swimming pool. Gimme a break dude.
You’d need to qualify what you mean by ‘exchanging any value of money’. If it’s handing a note of currency to your friend, the energy cost of circulating the bill is associated. If you mean someone not in the same room, then you need to accept the associated caveats of running the traditional finance system e.g. ATM costs, financed emissions, and other essential components of the fractional reserve bank concept. Totally aside from the server requirements to physically run the network. Without all of those things, you can’t exchange any value of money.
Traditional finance almost certainly consumes as much water as Bitcoin on a per-capita basis, and on an absolute basis traditional finance uses way, way more. The difference is the global network of banking operations is opaque. For Greenidge Generation, their 2.5EH/s hashrate is a part of their product, advertising it is a sales tactic. Just makes it a bit less abstract to pick apart and then make broad generalisations about the sum hashrate of the network based on this LNG-powered site the report is based on. For what it’s worth, that’s not really a feasible way to mine Bitcoin. It suggests energy generation is their real product.
The real answer is a rhetorical question: what is the impetus for the traditional finance system to operate sustainably, either now or in future? Because for Bitcoin miners it’s clear. The monetary policy essentially dictates it over time. Reward yield decreases for the same amount of work. You don’t need to get into whether it’s environmentally sustainable, because it’s not economically sustainable unless you’re generating a fully renewable energy source.
To draw a comparison between bitcoin energy consumption and water use is plainly seeking to remove context from the conditional justification for Bitcoin’s energy use, which has nothing to do with water. It’s deliberately sensationalistic. Anything that consumes energy can be described as consuming or wasting an equivalent amount of water. As a statement on whether that consumption is justified, it’s meaningless.
Whether the energy consumption of an action is justified depends on the efficiency of the energy use, the practical aim of the action, whether it would replace any more or less efficient actions, and the energy source.
Simply stating it has no purpose and that the energy use of Bitcoin is somehow analogous to mass water wastage, does not seek to investigate whether Bitcoin’s energy use is justified. It’s disingenuous and reactionary.
Sure, but this is largely because currently each client doesn’t need to aggregate the whole fediverse. In a decentralised network, you can’t split the sum total of processing required to run the fediverse equally amongst peers. Each peer would need to do more or less the same aggregation job, so the total processing required would be exponentially more than with the current setup. You could still argue it’s a negligible processing cost per client, but it’s certainly way less efficient overall even if we assume perfect i/o etc in the p2p system and even if the client only needs to federate the user selected content
Also just practically deploying a client app that can federate/aggregate constantly in the background (kinda required for full participation) and scale with the growth of fedi without becoming a resource hog I imagine would be pretty tough, like maybe possible yeah but I feel like it makes sense why it isn’t like that also
The instance is the aggregator, if it’s P2P then the aggregation is done by the client. In a torrent swarm you contribute bandwidth, not processing power
There’s caveats to that these days. Official streaming, in practice, sure. But with a debrid/similar service and sufficient bandwidth, you can pirate stream files with equivalent quality to uncompressed Blurays