• FuckyWucky [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    a. okay you can argue that it’s better utilisation of resources not having your pc idle. There is an argument against office computers to be made there.

    b makes no sense. The servers serve thousands of people at a time, it is not idling.

    I do not have data for this but I’ve noticed that much of the speed I get on torrents come from like top 10 peers all of which are dedicated servers

    C. Sure.

    My preference has always been for a centralised state owned streaming service. One which allow users to download shit without drm.

    It allows routes to be short, minimising hops, also reduces connections made.

    • Orcocracy [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      Th DRM is the real issue, especially when viewing habits are taken into account. The most watched shows on Netflix for years have been repeat viewings of old sitcoms. The re-watching of shows like Friends, The Office, Seinfeld, etc is especially energy intensive because of DRM. Viewers download the same episode again and again and again, only for the DRM to automatically delete the downloaded file every time. If Netflix was just a folder on a server of DRM-free .mp4 files it would be very efficient.

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 months ago

      Streaming itself is the problem. Storage is CHEAP. Every human should be able to have enough storage for their media consumption for their lifetime. There is no need to consume a stream for the same piece of media through your entire life.