Tommy59375

This part of it: Therefore each user would have the option, if they wanted, to be presented with the classic resolution-based quality options like on Youtube and Floatplane currently. To be clear, I think perhaps labelling the options simply Low/Medium/High/Ultra might be better than specifically SD/HD, etc. I think that's the point. They want Floatplane to stream each resolution with a higher bitrate than Youtube and other competing sites do.

Linus said in the WAN Show that he feels it's not possible to explain what "bitrate" means, and how it's linked to resolution, to every Floatplane user. With regards forcing a particular quality setting, yes you would be able to do that with my suggestion. That's the whole point of giving each user the choice of whether they want to choose a specific resolution setting instead of a Low/Medium/High band. It's not 'dumbing down', it's giving the user a more concise set of options to avoid confusion and clutter. But for those that are sufficiently clued up on bitrate and streaming quality, such as yourself, the option would be there to have the more traditional resolution-based quality settings. Well clearly some don't, else Linus wouldn't have brought it up as an issue. I think it's important to take a step back and consider people outside the tech enthusiast bubble sometimes. Also consider that Floatplane will not be an LTT-exclusive; other creators will be able to start using the platform. Clearly they're not. Not everyone in the world has fibre optic broadband. Some people still have monthly data caps, even in the US. You don't have a use for a lower quality stream, that's great for you. But the option is far from useless.

They want their 4k to be better than their current 1080p. My suggestion is effectively equivalent to having Low/Medium/High/Ultra options (and these may well be more suitable names than what I've suggested) but, since I can envisage that some of the more tech-savvy users of Floatplane might not like their sense of control and granularity being taken away, I thought it best to also add the option of choosing a specific resolution.

Linus' reason for asking us our opinions (they ran a straw poll during the live WAN Show, although I can never feasibly watch live) was that he thought some Floatplane users might (and already do, by the sounds of it) get confused or annoyed in some way that their connection speed can't handle a 1080p Floatplane stream when it can for Youtube, because Floatplane streams at higher bitrates. I can only imagine that this problem would increase as they roll out 4k to the platform. That being said, I wasn't necessarily making the argument that users would get confused but merely suggesting what I thought one possible solution might be if it turns out to be a problem. I'll add a timestamp to the original post so people can reference the stream archive for context. I think Linus said they wanted whatever their "4k" quality ends up being to be better than their "1080p" quality. Linus also said that improved streaming quality is one of the distinguishing features of Floatplane and one of the reasons people should want to use it rather than watching on Youtube.

During the latest WAN Show, Linus mentioned that the Floatplane team were in a bit of a debacle with regards to the best way of rolling out 4k streaming, mainly because Floatplane streams at a higher bitrate than other sites and users might get confused when they can't successfully stream 4k from Floatplane when they can from Youtube or Netflix. In my opinion, the streaming bitrates should not be reduced. A higher video quality stream is one of the key advantages of Floatplane. Here's a link to the WAN Show episode in question. Skip to 16:00 to listen to a wider discussion about a "competing" (not really a competitor) platform to Floatplane, or go to 17:48 to get right into it. Linus sums up the issue quite nicely, and I'd recommend listening to what he says here before replying if you haven't already. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIZ2E6gd_v0 I already posted a Youtube comment underneath that WAN Show video, but I thought I'd post here too as it might have a better chance of being noticed. Apologies if this therefore comes across as a spam post, that's not my intention at all. You don’t need to give the user an option for every possible resolution -- it's not even particularly user-friendly to present so many options. Instead, you could just have the options of sub-SD, SD, HD, and ‘Best’ Low, Medium, High and 'Best'. Then within those options, use the connection speed to decide which precise stream to deliver. For example, 720p or 1080p for “High”, or 360p or 480p for “Medium”. This avoids the need to produce multiple bitrate files for each resolution, whilst still being able to balance quality and bandwidth to give viewers the best experience. The vast majority of people don’t need the granularity afforded by having 8 different resolution choices (like Youtube gives for 4k videos). But for those that would like it, you could have some sort of “Advanced options” page, where people can decide (among other things) whether they want to be given the specific resolution choices on videos instead of the simplified options. On this page, you could provide a brief explanation that “Floatplane’s lower resolution streams are of a higher quality than many other streaming sites and thus require faster connection speeds”. I think that anyone that takes the initiative to set this option themselves will be able to understand such a message. I don’t know how feasible this is from a technical/implementation standpoint, but as a user it would be my preference. I think it strikes a happy balance between simplifying the user experience (a-la Netflix) and giving the user options (a-la Youtube), whilst also allowing you to stream at higher bitrates without people running into too many problems. You could even have slight overlapping within the different quality options, for example streaming 480p (but no lower) when "High" is selected if you detect that the connection speed wouldn't be able to handle at least a 720p stream at Floatplane's higher bitrate. Obviously I would expect the stream to rigidly adhere to whatever resolution I choose if I've enabled that "Advanced option". * If a creator uploads, for example, in 1080p then there’s no need to display the option for ‘Best’, etc.

I'm going to use this controller, which comes with an external 12V 2A AC adapter: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Anker-Converter-Adapter-Cable-included/dp/B006J2L0ZM/ What do you specifically mean when you refer to "the case". You mean the metal construction of the optical drive itself?

Just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly... how would the use of rubber feet under the optical drive prevent this risk?

This doesn't make sense to me. Intuitively to me, rubber feet on a (wooden) desk should be the same as just putting the drive the desk itself? I hadn't even considered damage being caused to other components of my computer from using the optical drive in this way, because I was under the assumption that they're all grounded by the power supply. But I could be wrong. I've never really understood the situation with ESD.

I will use four self-adhesive rubber feet to reduce noise and vibration. It's also worth mentioning that I will use a powered USB SATA controller cable with reviews specifically stating it works when people attempt to play blu-ray movies (my use case). But there will be no protection from static electricity. Why is it that we care so much about static shocks when building a PC but it doesn't seem to matter here? Is it just that optical drives are more hardy than other components like graphics cards?

MESSAGE TO THE MODS: Please move this topic if it is in the wrong place. The forum does not seem to have a location for optical drive posts. Hi everyone. I have a simple PC question which I hope we can have an informed discussion about. I want to use an internal SATA optical drive outside my PC. It is designed to be mounted inside a computer case but I want to use it bare on the desk. Could using it in this way put the drive at risk of damage, for example from electrostatic shocks or electromagnetic interference? I am NOT concerned about physical damage such as knocks and scratches. Alternatively, I could purchase (at a significant cost of about £50) an external enclosure for the drive. Does the external enclosure provide any meaningful protection against these two potential sources of damage to the drive? Again, I am NOT concerned about physical damage. Please do not ask me to explain why I want to use the drive in this way, as that doesn't help answer the question. I fully understand the disadvantages of using a USB to SATA controller but they do not apply in my case as I don't require high transfer speeds.

Just to confirm... is it only Windows OSs being affected by this ransomware / worm?

That means the problem is between the TV and your computer. Try unplugging the 3.5mm cable and having the PS4 sound come through the TV's speakers. Does the problem still persist?

Nope nothing changed. The SSD is still not recognised but the other drives are.

Test things out. Try unplugging the PS4 from the TV. Do you still hear the static? Then plug that back in and unplug your TV -> Linein cable. etc and report back with the results. Then we can determine where the source of the problem is.

It's set to to UEFI mode only. Would that affect things? The other option is "UEFI + Legacy". I didn't change it and it was working yesterday son may it have changed itself?