<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: pxoe</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=pxoe</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2026 13:22:20 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=pxoe" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by pxoe in "YouTube Format IDs"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>There's this thing called video compression, and it's gonna work pretty well for something that's mostly a still image with just a mouth moving. If anything, it'll compress that kind of thing the best compared to other kinds of content, like sports or games. Like, gameplay recordings are probably the worst type of content in that regard, needing the most bitrate and bandwidth to reach any kind of fidelity, and always looking bitrate starved with h264 (and likely even with newer codecs if it's at lower streaming bitrates). And due to how video compression works, lowering fps is not actually gonna yield any substantial space savings for talking head type of videos, if all that's gonna do is just cutting off inter frames that are already gonna be pretty small. It's quite literally the case with the least amount of any possible benefit from doing that.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 22:51:24 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49457001</link><dc:creator>pxoe</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49457001</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49457001</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by pxoe in "YouTube Format IDs"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>12/15 fps is actually insane, thankfully nobody saying that is gonna be in a position to make those kinds of decisions. (and there are some things that do stream in 15 fps, like 1seg ... which broadcasts tv on a mobile phone screen, and not a smartphone, a tinier flip phone, like 3-4 inches. and it's really more of a technical limitation for a technology and phones from 20 years ago. and youtube can serve 12 fps ...at 144p.) Even for literally just watching someone sit and move lips, 24/30 is gonna look much more natural and believable, and not be jarring unlike going down to that low fps. Like, have you actually watched any 12/15 fps footage of people talking recently? Cause it's not gonna be giving what you think it's giving. It's not gonna look "fine" even at crystal clear 1080, making it feel like a shitty zoom call that might as well be in 240p. Unfortunately there is a reason why it's not a cool and totally useable life hack to just crank it down to 12, because it just looks bad. Some people in these comments really seem to be just saying things before they even try and see them with their own eyes.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 22:49:47 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49456984</link><dc:creator>pxoe</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49456984</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49456984</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by pxoe in "YouTube Format IDs"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>40 fps could be a much more workable minimum, it looks quite smooth, wish it was more commonplace of a target instead of 30.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 21:45:52 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49456353</link><dc:creator>pxoe</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49456353</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49456353</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by pxoe in "YouTube Format IDs"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Oftentimes it's not that big of a difference in size, especially with modern video encoding like av1. There are many cases where higher frame rate improves viewing experience, like smooth motion (smooth movements of something, like people or things, panning, etc), heavy motion (when it's just more intense), giving the eye a little bit more to hang onto.<p>One particular great use case is dance choreography, so that's music, music videos, dancing videos, quite a chunk of videos and viewership. Most of music videos are gonna be released in 24 fps (a few 30 fps here and there), but there's a lot of "extra content" (tv shows, performances, live recordings, etc.) released in 60 fps, and there's some demand for higher frame rate like 60 fps (seeing from uploads of interpolated videos). 30 fps can be enough to have some smoothness to it, but at 24 fps it can become more jarring if not just noticeably choppy, sometimes 24 fps video is just not particularly great to look at in terms of literally just seeing and discerning what's going on. Sometimes things can end up looking choppy (like in daylight, at faster shutter speed, etc), or have more pronounced motion blur (which is good and better for motion continuity, but at 24 fps it can be a bit much). Motion continuity is quite important, and sometimes even made up frames from interpolation can improve viewing experience, even at a cost of some interpolation artifacts, when the end result of smoother motion is more pleasant to look at.<p>Of course, it can be a case of experiencing something better and then seeing things as choppy looking back (and 24 fps can really look choppy in immediate comparison), and it may not make that much of a difference if you've just been mostly seeing 24 fps video and not thinking much of it, or seeing 30 fps which is smooth enough. But in my opinion, even starting at 40-48 fps, that's already gonna feel much easier for the eyes compared to 24 fps. Sometimes there's just a bit much going on in the frame and 24 fps is not enough. Our eyes don't see in 24 fps after all. (also, higher frame rate doesn't preclude from using cinematic techniques, including motion blur and all)</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 21:43:52 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49456334</link><dc:creator>pxoe</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49456334</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49456334</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by pxoe in "MS Paint and Photos inivisibly watermark even locally generated output with GUID"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Words used to have meaning, now everything is "breaking" even if it's literally working and it's just "I don't like it"</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 26 Aug 2026 03:21:47 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49443853</link><dc:creator>pxoe</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49443853</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49443853</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by pxoe in "Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Now I'd only wish browsers could come up with more convenient ways to get around when some websites and upload fields don't support jxl or some other image format, and would either do something about it automatically or offer some option to get around it (convert to jpeg or png and upload, or 'paste as an image' which would pretty much be the same as png conversion, or something)</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 21:22:19 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49440837</link><dc:creator>pxoe</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49440837</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49440837</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by pxoe in "Firefox 157 will include JPEG XL by default on all platforms"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>JPEG to JXL transcoding and JXL to JPEG reconstruction are different from converting an image in either direction, it's gonna be a specific option (in something like xl-converter), so maybe it wasn't what was used and it was just a "reencode" into jxl and then into jpeg.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 21:16:50 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49440759</link><dc:creator>pxoe</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49440759</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49440759</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by pxoe in "MS Paint and Photos inivisibly watermark even locally generated output with GUID"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Again, even a "pure" paint app with very limited functionality can have it be implemented badly, and it has nothing to do with how "fancy" or complex or advanced of a feature set it has.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 11:23:41 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49432053</link><dc:creator>pxoe</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49432053</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49432053</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by pxoe in "MS Paint and Photos inivisibly watermark even locally generated output with GUID"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>There's a bunch of smaller editors that don't have such problems, like paint.net for example. It's an arbitrary "limit" (accidental even) stemming purely from bad quality implementation of basic features, not from how basic that feature set is.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2026 23:34:42 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427280</link><dc:creator>pxoe</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427280</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427280</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by pxoe in "MS Paint and Photos inivisibly watermark even locally generated output with GUID"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>That's a really fair point, but i'm not sure if that's what they meant by "breaking changes" if that was followed with "autocorrect, rich text, and Copilot"</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2026 23:17:17 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427131</link><dc:creator>pxoe</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427131</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427131</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by pxoe in "MS Paint and Photos inivisibly watermark even locally generated output with GUID"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Key point, saves a bunch of time. Copy, paste, click button, done in three seconds. The app is also just there, preinstalled. It's great precisely because it doesn't require "looking into" anything. Yes, there's a bunch of other apps and services, but that's all besides that point. It also works pretty much on any pc made in past decade and half without crazy gpu/vram requirements for a relatively miniscule task.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2026 23:11:05 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427082</link><dc:creator>pxoe</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427082</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427082</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by pxoe in "MS Paint and Photos inivisibly watermark even locally generated output with GUID"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>It's been a "bug" for several decades now. Not everything was of shitty jagged quality in either 90s or 00s. Particularly when using some more capable image editors.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2026 23:04:21 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427028</link><dc:creator>pxoe</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427028</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427028</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by pxoe in "MS Paint and Photos inivisibly watermark even locally generated output with GUID"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Background removal is really useful though, saves a bunch of time.<p>Unfortunately, some of the regular paint tools like eraser don't erase in a smooth antialiased way and just end up looking jagged (also only a square shape for eraser...no eraser brush mode unfortunately), so it ends up being a better looking option (well, when it works properly, which it does often enough to be useful). For whatever reason a bunch of tools and transforms (scaling, rotating), just produce such garbage jagged looking results, it's not serviceable even for those basics.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2026 22:12:37 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49426551</link><dc:creator>pxoe</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49426551</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49426551</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by pxoe in "MS Paint and Photos inivisibly watermark even locally generated output with GUID"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I wanted dark mode, tabs, and autosave, and now I don't have to use a different app to get those, so that works out great for me. Not sure what "breaking changes" even means for that though. Did it suddenly stop being able to open text files? No, it still just works.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 24 Aug 2026 22:05:24 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49426461</link><dc:creator>pxoe</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49426461</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49426461</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by pxoe in "AI companies destroy physical books – let's scan rare books before it's too late"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>This ephemeral concept of "rare books" with no actual book titles to back it up that lets everyone project whatever they think onto it is so insane and yet it spread like wildfire, combined with bizarre attitudes people have towards books when they're just objects and are a copy in itself already.<p>Took them long enough to come up with any semblance of "initiative" like this. Hopefully it succeeds and shows how embarrassingly low is the number of actual rare books with no available copy of any sort anywhere, compared to the proportion of performative outrage about it</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 23 Aug 2026 13:03:50 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49408535</link><dc:creator>pxoe</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49408535</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49408535</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by pxoe in "Using an old Android phone as a music player"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>It is a bit, yeah, but mostly towards this perfectly fine personal blog post being posted here like it's something, with quite a general title too that'd almost suggest there's something more to it that'd be worth reading, when it's not so much actually. Most of that post is just photos of phone and app screens. The "lightbulb moment" is pretty much wholly encapsulated in that short title. "Yeah, you could use an old phone as a music player". That's pretty much it right there in entirety. Even whatever you might imagine an article about that topic to be, after reading that title and having that "moment", might be more worthwhile imagining and thinking about than actually clicking and reading.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 22 Aug 2026 15:18:29 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49400654</link><dc:creator>pxoe</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49400654</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49400654</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by pxoe in "Using an old Android phone as a music player"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Kinda bizarre to see much ado over what's ultimately just installing a music app. The concept of an edge to edge screen with a notch being an "old android phone" is also very bizarre. (that's before even getting into specs and the fact that this was a flagship phone so this is not "slumming it up" by any means, cause it's not a situation dealing with a truly old or weak phone either. like, there's genuinely no hardship there to overcome, besides shitty rom situation)<p>It's like a preview of some future generations idea of "old tech" and "accomplishing something". Ooh installing some apks. Using two phones, groundbreaking. (with such revelations as, using another phone with a 3500 mAh battery would save battery on some other phone likely with its own 4-5k mAh battery. great stuff.) And there could be a neat and useful writeup about using any and all kinds of phones as 'just a music player' or some other kind of focused device (some older phones may still have pretty good cameras), but this is just barely even instructive at all</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Fri, 21 Aug 2026 22:56:45 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49394732</link><dc:creator>pxoe</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49394732</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49394732</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by pxoe in "AliExpress runs silent WebAudio fingerprinting that breaks Bluetooth multipoint"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>They don't "just hand over access". If anything, browsers pioneered permissions for mic and camera on desktops, having them several years earlier before windows even got around to having these things restricted under permissions.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 20 Aug 2026 22:24:03 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49381106</link><dc:creator>pxoe</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49381106</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49381106</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by pxoe in "Apple's App Tracking Transparency treated its own apps better than rivals"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>It's not basic at all though. Photos comes with iCloud sync and storage upsell. Preferential treatment, promoting their own paid services and subscriptions. (it also has some ai features from apple, with which they could be literally just a step away from upselling an ai subscription)<p>Music as well, it's not just an audio player for local tracks, it's upselling a music streaming service.<p>It kinda seems stupid to have no choice there, or predatory rather, given how the lack of choice is never just coincidental with apple, and it's very much an intentional lock-in first, and then whatever marketing spin second or third. "Privacy, that's iphone ... that's why you should give us access to all of your data, cause you trust us, right? choose yes or yes." Getting suckered into "trusting" something is kind of a pathetic argument regardless of wherever it comes from.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 18 Aug 2026 09:51:26 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49343449</link><dc:creator>pxoe</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49343449</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49343449</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by pxoe in "The Kimi K3 Moment"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>It's not an allegation <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/01/27/anthropic-ai-scan-destroy-books/" rel="nofollow">https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2026/01/27/anthrop...</a> (if you're talking about the "rare or unique" part, yeah that might be bs)<p>But in my opinion, treating mass produced books like they're this sacred untouchable object is ridiculous. They're not "source" material, they're just a copy as well, and they're not "priceless" by any means. They're very reasonably priced, perhaps even so cheaply priced that books can be bought in bulk in these amounts. Buying used books and doing whatever you want with them is just legal. Used books, that would probably be just laying in some warehouse, or recycled anyway.<p>If there's anything to have gripes with, it's the copyright system that makes it easier to take this legal route.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 19 Jul 2026 10:01:40 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48966551</link><dc:creator>pxoe</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48966551</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48966551</guid></item></channel></rss>