AernaLingus [any]

Link to the report

Thanks liberal justices, very cool!

Apparently so

According to a site admin from that forum post (which is from April 2021–who knows where things stand now):

If you use the OpenSubtitles website manually, you will have advertisements on the web site, NOT inside the subtitles.

If you use some API-software to download subtitles (Plex, Kodi, BSPlayer or whatever), you are not using the web site, so you do NOT have these web advertisements. To compensate this, ads are being added on-the-fly to the subtitles itself.

Also, from a different admin

add few words from my side - it is good you are talking about ads. They not generating a lot of revenue, but on other side we have more VIP subscriptions because of it :) We have in ads something like “Become VIP member and Remove all ads…”

Also, the ads in subtitles are always inserted on “empty” space. It is never in middle of movie. What Roozel wrote - “I think placing those ads at the beginning and end is somewhat OK but not in the middle or at random points in the film” - should not happen, if yes, send me the subtitle.

If the subtitle is from tv series, there are dialogues from beginning usually. System is finding “quiet” place where ads would fit, and yes, this can be after 3 minutes of dialogue…

This is important to know, I hope now it is more clear about subtitle ads - why we are doing this, there is possibility to remove them and how system works.

so a scenario like in the screenshot isn’t supposed to happen. I guess if you really wanted to see if it happens you could grab all the English subs via the API and just do a quick grep or what-have-you

“Owning a car = freedom”

“You need a big truck/SUV to haul things” (it’s just a coincidence that people drove much smaller cars before a multibillion dollar deluge of advertising)

“It’s consumers’ responsibility to reduce plastic pollution by recycling, and recycling is effective” (whoever came up with this one belongs in the PR scumfuck hall of fame)

Original Phoronix article which has all the individual benchmarks—weird that they didn’t link to it

showing a maverick side

Supporting the status quo = maverick

Totally beside the point, but is it just me or is that article written really strangely? Overall it has a kinda high school newspaper vibe, but in particular the attempts at humor are both awkward and numerous.

The information itself is good, though, so thank you for sharing!

There’s a variable that contains the number of cores (called cpus) which is hardcoded to max out at 8, but it doesn’t mean that cores aren’t utilized beyond 8 cores–it just means that the scheduling scaling factor will not change in either the linear or logarithmic case once you go above that number:

/*
 * Increase the granularity value when there are more CPUs,
 * because with more CPUs the 'effective latency' as visible
 * to users decreases. But the relationship is not linear,
 * so pick a second-best guess by going with the log2 of the
 * number of CPUs.
 *
 * This idea comes from the SD scheduler of Con Kolivas:
 */
static unsigned int get_update_sysctl_factor(void)
{
	unsigned int cpus = min_t(unsigned int, num_online_cpus(), 8);
	unsigned int factor;

	switch (sysctl_sched_tunable_scaling) {
	case SCHED_TUNABLESCALING_NONE:
		factor = 1;
		break;
	case SCHED_TUNABLESCALING_LINEAR:
		factor = cpus;
		break;
	case SCHED_TUNABLESCALING_LOG:
	default:
		factor = 1 + ilog2(cpus);
		break;
	}

	return factor;
}

The core claim is this:

It’s problematic that the kernel was hardcoded to a maximum of 8 cores (scaling factor of 4). It can’t be good to reschedule hundreds of tasks every few milliseconds, maybe on a different core, maybe on a different die. It can’t be good for performance and cache locality.

On this point, I have no idea (hope someone more knowledgeable will weigh in). But I’d say the headline is misleading at best.

Real babies in incubators

Imaginary babies in incubators