and as much as hiring is "broken" the part of the process that works well is letting people out of it without ghosting them. Even dinosaurs like ADP software get that part right.
I think you need to look into your hiring portal. I have actually applied to this position (or a position with the exact same description) many months ago. Never heard anything. Which is strange since I have decades of video encoding, video player, c++, and cross platform development experience at both startups and FANG.
For what it's worth, I interviewed for a position similar to this at Disney+ a few years ago (unsure if it's the exact same one since it's been so long), and after being given a coding challenge that they agreed I could turn in after a week and an email from someone I was supposed to ask questions to, I didn't get any responses from them whatsoever until less than 24 hours before the supposed turn-in. (Among the questions I asked were clarifications of very basic things like "Am I supposed to be getting 404 errors when trying to query the links returned by the API the instructions say I should be rendering results from, or is there an issue with your backend?" After having spent essentially two full days over the weekend on it, I emailed the night before we had agreed I'd complete the challenge to say that I wasn't interested in continuing with the interview process, and the next day I finally received a response saying something along the lines of "oops, the engineer we said would answer your questions was on vacation, here's the email of a different one".
Obviously that's just one data point, but I wouldn't be shocked if their hiring portal worked fine and this is just how their recruiting works.
"If a small amount of my taxes goes to somebodies rent or healthcare, instead of paving roads for the Amazon trucks to drive on, or the FAA for the Amazon airplanes, them I might as well just be homeless myself!" What a strange argument.
As it currently stands ~40% of the profits from my labor is taken by my federal and state government and they are both running at a deficit. That's before accounting for state sales, property, and utilities taxes. It doesn't seem like a small amount currently, and the government's books are not even balanced at current entitlement levels. I have a really tough time coming to the conclusion that the governments would get better with more liabilities, especially when the largest UBI study showed less workforce participation, not more.
You are also conflating my position with that of one who thinks the current corporate protections are a good thing.
This mentality is exactly the problem. The idea that people with more money should get to decide how people with less money get to spend it. And if they don't sped it the way they want, Its waste.
This is a straw man. Nobody is talking about funding people to the point where they get everything they need for free. That's insane. We are talking about giving people bootstraps so they can pull them selves up with them. Reducing poverty reduces crime and health care costs as well.
> Nobody is talking about funding people to the point where they get everything they need for free. That's insane. We are talking about giving people bootstraps
If it isn’t funding subsistence it isn’t basic income. Whether we flourish that as welfare or bootstraps is rhetorical dressing.
"The idea that people with more money should get to decide how people with less money get to spend it."
If it's my tax money, I get to say how it's spent. This is yet another example of the incredibly sad and stupid, "whoever is weakest is rightest", "morality" that's becoming more and more prevalent in the west.
> If it's my tax money, I get to say how it's spent.
No? This has never been how it works.
We all get to decide how it’s spent by voting. You don’t get to individually decide because, obviously, you’re always just gonna choose yourself. In which case - why bother taxing you?
There’s really two camps here: people who think taxation goes towards freeloaders, and people who think taxation goes towards the community.
I’m in the second camp. I believe these things are mutually beneficial. I want to live in a country with less homelessness, less drugs, less violence, less crimes, more education. That costs money, and I’m happy to give it up because I think I DO benefit, just not directly.
You "get a say" when voting, but you do not "get to say" where your money goes exactly. Those phrases have very different meanings, maybe you got them confused
If you were being ironic/sarcastic in your initial comment, that didn't come through for me.
Given the degree of political friction on this (and other) sites, and the fact that for any "obviously" exaggerated point of view you are quite likely to find absolutely sincere adherents ... it would benefit your writing to be clear when you are or aren't being sarcastic.
And to reply in a positive rather than antagonistic tone, particularly if someone's supporting your own viewpoint.
(I'm not certain even this take of mine is valid. However your writing doesn't make your viewpoint clear as it can be read two ways. Which itself raises the temperature within the thread. Avoid that if possible.)
Codec standards are defined for decoder compatibility. So no matter what encoder produces a stream, a “standard” decoder can display it. But encoders are free to do whatever they want within those bounds. Each encoder may choose to make trade offs that are incompatible with each other. So stitching often requires using the same encoder. Getting everyone to agree on a common sequence header is just not going to happen. It would need to be built into the codec specification. And no modern codec has cross implementation stitching as a design goal. It would be possible to make an implementation that parsed an existing stream and created a stitchable output, but there is no financial incentive to create that encoder.
EDIT. Some decoders can be reinitialized by adding parameters in band. But this is technically illegal in some formats (like mp4) but it may "just work" in some playback environments
Viewers don't install anything. That would be the content creator here because the question is "as a content creator who wants to self host, what can I use?", but that could also be someone the content creator knows, or someone providing a PeerTube instance for content creators.
PeerTube is a piece of open source software meant to build a YouTube-like platform, with optional federation (and P2P to allow servers to offload some bandwidth to viewers, but I don't know how well this works in practice with the widespread asymmetrical or mobile internet connections). It is not for the viewer to install.
Flash "low latency" was just RTMP. CDNs used to offer RTMP solutions, but they were always priced significantly higher than their corresponding HTTP solutions.
When the iPhone came out, HTTP video was the ONLY way to stream video to it. It was clear Flash would never be supported on the iPhone. Flash was also a security nightmare.
So in that environment, The options were:
1) Don't support video on iOS
2) Build a system that can deliver video to iOS, but keep the old RTMP infrastructure running too.
3) Build a system that can deliver video to iOS, Deprecate the old RTMP infrastructure. This option also has a byproduct of reduced bandwidth bills.
For a company, Option 3 is clearly the best choice.
edit: And for the record, latency was discussed a lot during that transition (maybe not very publicly). But between needing iOS support, and reducing bandwidth costs, latency was a problem that was decided to be solved later.
Google puts quite a lot of effort into low latency broadcast for their Youtube Live product. They have noticed that they get substantially more user retention if there are a few seconds of latency vs a minute. When setting up a livestream, there are even choices for the user to trade quality for latency.
That's mostly because streamers want to interact with their audience, and lag there ruins the experience.
It's just packet switching with much larger packets, the streaming you're thinking of is essentially the same, just with 16-50 ms sample size rather than 2-10 seconds.
"Streaming" in the media industry just means you don't need to download the entire file before playing it back. The majority of streaming services use something like HLS or DASH that breaks up the video into a bunch of little 2 to 10 seconds files. The player will then download them as needed.
But even then, many CDNs CAN "stream" using chunked transfer encoding.
Having to download the whole file before playing it back is kind of the exception, isn't it ?
As the article says, HLS or DASH are specifically about not having to suffer through buffering by auto-dialing quality down, otherwise you can also start viewing during download with the browser <video> tag, over FTP with VLC, or even with peer to peer software like eMule or torrents !
I'm not sure what "real" streaming would even be ? (It probably wouldn't be over HTTP...)
EDIT: I’m sure you have a dozen great candidates in your resume pile you reject for a type-o or an unknown school, or something. Do a second pass.