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.

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.

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.

^^ updated version

You could use something called "a browser that is not chrome" since chrome is not well known for optimisation and lightness.
 
Also its a celeron so you can't expect awesome performance... celerons are Intel's very budget oriented chips, not designed for heavy lifting.

i5-4460, 380, XFX TS

Well balanced.
I'd get a XFX, Seasonic or EVGA G2 or GS instead of the Corsair RM.

Laptop grade components are really quite weaksauce compared to desktop counterparts with similar names.
I would pick the i5 + 960M combo but be aware it will get no where near the performance of a desktop i5 + 960... you will have to turn down settings even for 1080p.

Thanks for this dcoument

So I guess they would work in a pinch but not optimal.  Don't they ship static pressure fans with their NH-D15 tower coolers?

So blu ray disks are encrypted in a rather more substantial way than DVDs and the only way I know how to do it without ripping is with licensed software, PowerDVD and the like.  Otherwise check out MakeMKV (free while still in beta, with no signs of leaving beta but still quite regular updates).  Untested by me for blu rays but it's a great DVD ripper that also supposedly works for blu ray disks.

That i3 will not perform so great in terms of video rendering and editing work.
 
Also it's a little suspicious that you plan to use a piece of software which costs more than your entire PC...

Well in a budget constrained environment my linked build would hold up excellently.
But I agree it is not what you are looking for.
http://uk.pcpartpicker.com/p/cNWBK8 is rather better suited.  Pick an ATX case that you like the look of as well.  The one you have chosen will work fine

Well, for a super low end budget build the only thing a PSU needs to do is provide some sort of power.  A system of this level will use 50 watts max. maybe so if you go with a 500 watt super shitty PSU you will not have any problems.

Put together a list of parts on PCPartPicker and specify your location.
It will tell you the cheapest place for each.
Or else just get everything from Amazon.  That's what I did and spent maybe £30 extra for the privilege.  Good value if that's the sort of thing you want to do.

will  be 4 times as much
 
equation for air resistance uses v^2, so v1^2/v2^2 gives the multiplier

If you aren't planning to overclock even the stock intel cooler will do you quite well.
 
But if you would like to overclock down the line a little maybe pick up a Hyper 212 Evo which would help you then.

If you care about noise, the Hyper 212 will give you better temps at less noise. It's cheap, too. You can even get a little OC with it. 
 
If you don't care about noise or OC, then keep the stock. 

If you aren't planning to overclock even the stock intel cooler will do you quite well.
 
But if you would like to overclock down the line a little maybe pick up a Hyper 212 Evo which would help you then.

http://pcpartpicker.com/part/xfx-power-supply-xfxts550w

Why?  The XFX XTR units are brilliant value for money when you consider their very high build quality.  Tier 1 and all.

XFX units are built by Seasonic.  At least, the ones I would actually recommend are, they have quite a few.  XFX XTR = Super awesome and great, XFX TS = A little less awesome but still pretty great.  But I would say, they are better than the Seasonic branded versions, as they have some nice bells and whistles at not really an increased price.
 
Never trust (or distrust in this case) a brand.

Well the CX 750 is a little better than the rest of the CX series I believe, but don't buy it anyway please because it would make you look like an idiot to have it in your signature.
 
Point your eyes towards the XFX XTR (better) or XFX TS (cheaper) units.  They're both great quality, commonly ranked as tier 1 and 2 respectively.

Well the CX 750 is a little better than the rest of the CX series I believe, but don't buy it anyway please because it would make you look like an idiot to have it in your signature.
 
Point your eyes towards the XFX XTR (better) or XFX TS (cheaper) units.  They're both great quality, commonly ranked as tier 1 and 2 respectively.

Hey hey I never said it would be noticeable now
But you are getting twice the bandwidth, which matters for SOME tasks but not really gaming.