It is not our responsibility to do that. You should explain how your method differs from well-established methods such as arithmetic coding (see papers by Rissanen). While doing that, you should quickly realize that you’ve got nothing at all.
A basic data compression course would have sufficed too, but as you say, you don’t have any knowledge of the basics of information theory or data compression. You sound like an over-eager yet ignorant grad student who insists he has found flaws in the professor’s lecture material.
What about sexual fantasies? Can people with aphantasia imagine the other person in any manner? In the article, the writer claims she can’t even imagine her ex-boyfriend.
I can imagine anyone, anywhere, without even closing my eyes. In many situations, I know I shouldn’t do it, but I’ve had this ability since early childhood. It has not made me a sex-craving maniac, though; I’m quite stable.
I cannot. It's easier to imagine the sensations of being with the person than it is to visualize the person themselves.
I can't visualize the faces of any of my exes but I can vividly "feel" the memory how we felt being next to each other, sometimes if I focus this starts to include smells and sounds as well but no visuals.
With the current level of investment in video codecs, it takes about 6-8 years to achieve a 40-50% BD-rate improvement between codec generations. That amounts to thousands of inventions over the course of those years. Without patents, I bet the level of progress would be abysmal.
What vested interest are you referring to? What incentive is there for companies like InterDigital, Ericsson, Nokia, or even Qualcomm to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on each generation of codecs?
It takes a lot of money to sustain research and development in video codecs. A decent researcher makes between 100-300k USD a year. Each generation of H.26x requires hundreds of researchers. JVET meetings have an attendance of about 350 people, four times a year.
And don’t get me started on the computational side. A single research team needs thousands of CPUs running 24/7 to sustain the research. Video codecs are seriously slow during development. They get fast once dedicated hardware is built.
As a video coding scientist, it baffles me how people assume that our work should be free. We work enormously hard for years so that YouTube and Netflix can stream higher quality video for everyone to watch. Now, why should that be free? Why do you call our work shit?
> What incentive is there for companies like InterDigital, Ericsson, Nokia, or even Qualcomm to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on each generation of codecs?
If there's no incentive then they are the wrong companies to do the work.
Google, Netflix, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Meta, etc. all derive clear and direct benefits from video codec improvements. They have strong incentives to reduce the bandwidth usage and increase the image quality of internet video. That's why they've all contributed to and use AV1:
A basic data compression course would have sufficed too, but as you say, you don’t have any knowledge of the basics of information theory or data compression. You sound like an over-eager yet ignorant grad student who insists he has found flaws in the professor’s lecture material.