I only noticed after more than an hour with the page left open in a tab. Is it really streaming and re-streaming the same videos? There's too much to cache so it keeps re-transferring them indefinitely?
I hope nobody leaves that page open on a metered or capped network connection.
I'm surprised github hasn't suspended the page.
Are AI researchers so used to burning through compute and network resources that they don't stop to think about a webpage that will autoplay and loop multiple HD videos?
They don't even notice it happening, it is not a conscious thought not to fix it.
Empathizing about problems you don't face is a hard product/ux and management skill. Facebook famously simulated 2G on Tuesdays 10 years ago[1] for example to get their employees to see the problems their users have.[2]
People don't to put effort in noticing(solving comes next) problems they don't face. It is why things like a11y and i18n need regulation like ADA etc.
It's really something. It was using ~400Mbps of my mostly-idle 500Mbps connection (slow for some folks, but pretty speedy in my particular ghetto).
It appears that there are 62 videos on the page. They're generally 16fps and 60s long. All are h.264, 1280x704. The median bitrate is 4.962 Mbps.
I don't know enough about JS to try to understand WTF it is doing, but there's only 1.3 GB of video on that page. At a transfer speed of 400Mbps, the whole mess of them should be downloadable in around 30 seconds.
But it wasn't behaving that way at all. It instead behaved as an excellent bandwidth-waster.
(Woe to those who click this link on metered connection, I guess.)
> Are AI researchers so used to burning through compute and network resources that they don't stop to think about a webpage that will autoplay and loop multiple HD videos?
I’m sure they’ll give their Claude instance a stern talking-to.
Would it be physically possible to play? Yeah, probably. But it sounds terrible, and if I heard a band do it live, I would genuinely consider walking out of the venue.
No they don't, do they. That also corroborates the fact that they could be both switched to CUTOFF within a second, like the report states. That impossibility was raised by parallel threads here. In the video they are both switched on even faster than 1 sec apart, or, at least it feels like it.
What do people have against chickens? Roosters should not be allowed but hens aren't loud or particularly smelly at all. Dogs can be a much bigger nuisance.
Ironically, the article depicts the homeowner holding a rooster; I can see why a neighbor would be pissed.
Backyard hens are thing in my city (dancing around HOA is another issue altogether), but our ordinance makes it abundantly clear that roosters are not permitted.
A former neighbor had chickens and didn't keep their coop properly secured. Coincidentally, the neighborhood raccoons were also the fattest, roundest animals I've ever seen.
Why? We have a rooster. He protects the hens. He crows in the morning, just like dogs bark, and F-250s rev past the neighborhood road. Where do you think chickens come from in the first place?
It's just another small step to say "hens should not be allowed"
Because I have a right to sleep peacefully in the morning until a certain time. Just like I cannot host loud dance parties at 2AM on a Saturday or start mowing my lawn at 6AM on a Sunday. For people to coexist peacefully in a society, there have to be reasonable boundaries.
Protects them from what may I ask? I live in a city where chickens are permitted, and my neighbors chickens are all roaming the streets free-range, and their greatest danger is cars which roosters can't stop.
Do you mean, if the government 'sanctions' you, your remedy is to sue the government?
The government can't sanction you without due process. Executive branch agencies have internal legal processes, with administrative judges, that can be appealed to the courts.
Also, you can't sue the government in most cases due to sovereign immunity.
