jqubed

I’ve been enjoying that as a game show. Probably a pretty cost-effective production for the network, too.

That’s Windows 7; I suppose maybe even Vista. Probably the embedded versions.

It’s not exactly showing correctly for me in Mlem

I felt even more like I was getting a raw deal when I realized the Germans and French were largely taking the entire month of August off.

On its relocation in 1876, the New River Company changed the supplies to mains water.

It doesn’t pump at all nowadays

“I know you got other speakers, so I’m not gonna take a lot of time.”

Proceeds to take up nearly ten minutes of the show just fumbling around

According to the write-up the house was built in 1859 but the Egyptian suite was painted by Mike Lewis, who appears to be an artist based in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. Looking him up I found this story from CBC when it was on the market in 2020 and it seems it was commissioned by the then-owner, a historian and filmmaker.

Good question. That's for the therapist to decide. With that said it's never just one thing. It could have been a whole series of factors that let to the diagnosis. If I meet that psychologist again I'll ask him.

I was really more just curious what lead you to see a psychologist in the first place. My understanding is that’s rare for people with the condition. With the diagnosis helping you, it’s almost like you had a lucky break to be seeing a professional that most people with NPD don’t get.

If you don’t mind me asking why was he in court?

I probably can’t go too much into specifics, but that last time was primarily because he’d stopped paying child support. He was also trying to change the visitation agreement to be larger chunks but less frequent. He hadn’t been making use of the time he already had, though, so that wasn’t going to happen, and the judge actually reduced it while requiring all visitation to be in a public place or using the court’s supervised visitation program.

If he does have NPD, there might be other factors in play as well. Odds are we’ll never really know what’s going on there. We just have to try to make sure whatever happens, things stay as healthy as possible for the kiddo.

Didn’t Netflix try a live event earlier this year that also couldn’t handle the number of viewers?

Broadcasting and the Internet work in fundamentally different ways. With Broadcasting a transmitter sends radio waves out into the world (and beyond). It does not care how many receivers there are; there could be millions or there could be none—literally broadcasting into the void. There is a bit of a disconnect between the transmitter and the receiver. The transmitter doesn’t need to know anything about the receiver; its transmission is ultimately independent of the receiver. The receiver can tune in or not, much like a boat raising its sails to catch a passing wind. One receiver generally will not impact another, just as many boats can sail on the same wind.

This is a really efficient way to get a lot of identical data to many people at once. Especially when we switched to digital television this became easily apparent. ATSC 1.0, the standard the US switched to about 15 years ago, was able to carry about 19.3 mbps of data over a normal TV channel. Because the system was designed in the 1990s this is MPEG-2 video (the same as used on DVDs), but it still works pretty well for 1080i or 720p. In fact as encoders improved we could usually fit two HD streams in there at 6-8 mbps that looked pretty decent and still have room for one or two more SD streams.

At the same time we were able to pretty significantly reduce the power of the transmitters. I think the last station I worked at was something like 125 kilowatts out of the transmitter in the analog days but with the switch to digital we were at 28 or 40 kilowatts (it’s been about a decade since I left television engineering). In the analog days a huge percentage of the power usage was to keep an adequate picture at the very fringes of our broadcast license, which effectively meant an increasingly crummy picture was pushed well beyond our license area (this was factored into how the system was designed). With digital, you either get enough of a signal to produce the picture or you don’t; there’s not really an in-between (other than a picture that keeps freezing up). This means a weaker signal far away from the transmitter that would produce a marginal signal in the analog days can produce a picture that looks just as good as it does much closer to the transmitter with a stronger signal.

All of this means that with just 19.3 mbps of data coming from the transmitter, potentially millions of people can see the same video in real-time. Satellite is basically the same thing except instead of an antenna on top of a tower that’s 3,000 feet tall and can cover an area maybe 150-200 miles in diameter, the antenna is placed 22,000 miles high and can cover an entire continent. Cable works pretty similar except instead of transmitting through the air, the coaxial cable carries the entire spectrum protected from outside interference. It pushes all the signals out of its “transmitter” (called the head end) down a cable and then splits that cable and amplifies the signal (and then splits and amplifies again and again and again) as needed until it reaches all the customers. There can be some complications with digital cable, but that’s the basic concept.

In contrast, the Internet very much designed for one-to-one communication. This works fine for everyday communication, but if you have something where a lot of people want to see the same thing, each of those people have to make their own connection to the server. Even if the video stream is only 5 mbps, if 100 different people want that same stream at the same time, you now need 500 mbps of bandwidth to handle all those connections. You also need a computer that can handle all those connections simultaneously. If you have thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of people trying to stream the same video at once you can see how much of a problem this becomes. It’s one thing if the video is already recorded, like a movie, you can just distribute it to many servers in advance. But if it’s a live event that’s ultimately coming from one source you have to set up multiple servers to connect to the source and then forward that, perhaps to other servers that will forward to other servers that forward to other servers until you have enough servers and bandwidth for the end customers to connect to. If you have a million people trying to watch your 5 mbps video one might think you need 5 million mbps of bandwidth, but actually you need even more to connect all your servers back to the source, plus many servers. This is a hugely intensive usage of resources. Streaming companies will try to setup in advance for the number of viewers they expect, but if they guess too low they’ll have to scramble to increase capacity. I suspect this is more challenging for companies like Netflix that rarely do live video as opposed to companies that do it every day like YouTube or Twitch.

This isn’t even getting into complexities like TCP vs UDP for the protocol. At the end of the day, the way the Internet is designed each client needs to be sent their own personal stream of data. It just can’t compete with the efficiency of everybody sharing the same stream of data that comes from broadcasting. In that sense, for big, shared experiences, it’s kind of a shame that broadcasting is dwindling away. How many people do you know who still can get a TV signal from an antenna or cable/satellite?

You call that a pressed ham? Walt, hit the retaliate button!

They look very unhappy about it!