Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Pokota wrote:
I'm gonna take flak for this, but the Joseph Smith 'translation' is by no definition a translation since it was from the KJV to KJV.
I'm not an expert on the finer points of LDS, and only have superficial knowledge of some things, but I recall reading that Joseph Smith specifically used the Hebrew Bible and focused on some specific nuances for making his own books. I wish I had a good link handy, but from what I recall, there's several cases where he modified the KJV using an extremely literal (perhaps even outrageous) translation from Hebrew.
Much phraseology in Hebrew is taken from the Canaanite (Phoenician) language, and several parts of the Bible refer to Canaanite ideas, even though the general thought throughout the Hebrew Bible rejects these ideas. So for example, the Hebrew bible when referring to the general concept of the Deity nearly always uses plural language, and the end of Deut, beginning of Job, and some parts of Psalms refers to the concept of a Pantheon. It's clear the Hebrew Bible as a whole rejects the concept of the existence of multiple effective gods, plural worship, divine pantheons and so on, but it still refers to these ideas from time to time, generally to drive home some point. The general approach on understanding these sparse areas is usually to figure out why the idea is being singled out in a case, or why archaic terminology would be employed. However Joseph Smith's approach appears to be to accept the existence of multiple effective gods, pantheons, and so on, and to try to reinterpret the rest of the majority of the bible to conform to the concepts singled out in some rare cases. While some of these ideas are present in the KJV, the KJV itself takes a stance on using less literal readings to downplay these archaic and non-conforming concepts to the point you won't even notice most of them. In order for Joseph Smith to focus on or "revive" these ideas, he would to some extent have had to work from the Hebrew. AFAIK, (nearly) all the translations he had access to would not have preserved what can still be culled from the Hebrew in this regard.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
It's placing a constraint on the character a deterministic universe can take. Giving up locality is a (very) tough pill to swallow for physicists, as all phenomena can currently be described via fields and by extension local action. There's no "spooky action at a distance."
For a physicist it's more likely that the universe is simply not deterministic. Otherwise, you'd need to figure out the mechanism behind non-locality, and figure out why it can pass certain messages but not others.
All that is saying is that lets just go with some idea because it's too difficult to come up with something which will probably be more accurate.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
The only caution I would give is to remember that the Hebrew language evolved between the time of the Exodus and the time of the Maccabean uprising (I want to say the earliest known Aramaic translation is around the time of Maccabes, but I could be very wrong on that), particularly given the various wars and vassalages that the Hebrews/Jews endured, so even the current standard Hebrew edition might have lost some nuances between then and... uh, then.
None of the texts we have are "original" per se. The standard Hebrew edition is from 1524 CE, although it's based on complete manuscripts from ~1000 CE, and one can easily get PDFs of those manuscripts if they so desire (the differences are minor, and mostly affect pluralization). We also have partial manuscripts and quotations going back to ~250 BCE. There's some divergence in those, mostly spelling or sentence structure, although sometimes it goes beyond that. It's interesting though that not all the ancient manuscripts are uniform with each other. They mostly present the same content, but there are a lot of variation in how they do so. I'd recommend reading this book if you want to know more.
The first translation that there's written reference to is Aramaic (if the Hebrew itself isn't some translation of an earlier dead language), going back to ~600 BCE. However none of our actual manuscripts are remotely that old. We have some snippets going back to ~250 BCE, and no lengthy manuscripts till ~1100 CE. For these lengthy Aramaic manuscripts, we have multiple diverse ones, and while it seems all of them may be loosely based on something really ancient, it would appear they were all significantly updated and diverged sometime between 200 CE and 600 CE. Some of these Aramaic translations also like to add on additional descriptive information, or more details to enlarge the law or story being discussed. With even recentish manuscripts adding on "current events" from their time to elucidate some of the material.
The second known translation was into Greek, and seems to have been done at different times for different books. Earliest probably ~400 BCE based on historical literature. Although our actual manuscript evidence of this translation is from ~300 CE, and it's clear there are changes in them that are non-original, especially as they differ from quotes of the Greek edition, some of these quotes are in books which are older than these manuscripts. This translation is useful as that it preserves certain readings that predate some later editing of the Hebrew original. However it also contains translation mistakes as well as intentional changes due to the desires of the translators, and it's not always clear if a variant is due to a different Hebrew original than we know of, or introduced by the translator(s).
Biblical scholars will generally use all these sources, and also put at their disposal early quotations and commentaries.
-----------------------------------
For helpfulness, I'll offer my own literal translations of the primary readings from the Hebrew we have, as well as several Aramaic editions, as that seems to interest you.
Hebrew wrote:
And [name] spoke to Moses, come to Pharaoh: For I I-have-hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, so that I may display these signs within him.
Aramaic O wrote:
And [name] spoke to Moses, go to Pharaoh: For I will harden his heart, and the hearts of his servants, so to display my signs among them.
Aramaic J wrote:
ואמר ייי למשה עול לות פרעה ארום אנא יקרית יצרא דליביה ויצרא דלבהון דעבדוי מן בגלל לשוואה אתוותיי איליין ביניהון
And [name] spoke to Moses, go to Pharaoh: I will be exalted, (since) I will harden the will of his heart, and the will of the hearts of his servants, therefore my signs will be displayed among them.
Aramaic N wrote:
ואמר ייי למשה עול לוות פרעה ארום אנה תקפית ית לביה וית לביהון דשליטוי מן בגלל למשוויה ניסיא איליין ביניהון׃
And [name] spoke to Moses, go to Pharaoh: I will be exalted, (since) I will fortify his heart and the hearts of his governors, therefore my miracle signs will be displayed among them.
It's possible "miracle" here should instead read "foundational", I'd have to see how else that word is used in this translation to know for certain.
Aramaic S wrote:
ואמר יהוה למשה על ליד פרעה הלא אנא יקרת ית לבה וית לב עבדיו לבדיל שבוי סימני אלין בה
And [name] spoke to Moses, go next to Pharaoh; haven't I hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, to captivate with my signs in him?
-----------------------------------
The general idea across all of these is the same, except the last one seems to turn the verse into a sort of rhetorical question explaining the action. "Servants" here unlikely means lowly servants, but some kind of officers or nobles, and N clarifies that point. J and N also seem to add some elaboration as to the reasoning of this construct, exaltation. Other than that, the differences are pluralization or tense. In all of these it's clear who is hardening (or hardened) the hearts.
Therefore I'd say Joseph Smith's translation is meant to be understood as: He (God) hardened his (Pharaoh’s) heart, but the wording used in ambiguous enough to mean anything (if Joseph Smith meant to imply Pharaoh hardened his own heart, then he didn't have the slightest clue how to translate a rather explicit text, or is purposely changing the reading for theological reasons).
Another reason why I hate these translations into English, these Semitic language have much less ambiguity than English in various cases, and the translations are incomprehensible, and readers don't even notice. There was an interesting example some pages back where Bisqwit interpreted an ambiguous translation of "before" to mean priority, whereas the original clearly means it positionally in terms of area, not conceptual importance. Cases like this are never ending though, and worse, trying to comprehend the legal portions via the English (and other recent) translations is usually absurd, as all the legal nuances are lost or rendered ambiguous.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bisqwit wrote:
And if memory serves right, also to Adam and Eve. That alone is an argument against the unsourced assertion you quoted.
The Bible does say God spoke with Adam, however, those chapters are commonly taken to be parables and not actually referring to any particular person that existed. Many ancient near eastern texts have parables about a god or owner, and workers who take care of a garden, and them doing something they shouldn't have done, and getting a creative punishment. The story there at the beginning of Genesis fits in well with all of those, and no reason to think it isn't one of those kinds of parables that were commonly used millennia ago. Maimonides also famously stated that all stories prior to Genesis 12 were parables.
Pokota wrote:
E2: Regarding the hardening of Pharaoh's heart: Joseph Smith has it as being "for he hath hardened his heart, and the hearts of his servants, therefore I will show these my signs before him", as opposed to the KJV's "for I have hardened his heart, and the heart of his servants, that I might shew these my signs before him". Not that I expect this to change anyone's position on the matter, just something to point out.
For a book like Exodus, my approach would be to see the Hebrew edition, along with the early translations, Greek and Aramaic. I put no stock in the English translations from recent times. Most of them are awful, missing key nuances, and missing all the word plays that are common in the original text.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Derakon wrote:
That starts getting into "does it really matter if functionally the result is the same?" regions. I mean, barring some security exploit that allows us to jailbreak the simulation, someone mucking with the numbers to make our tests nondeterministic is identical (from any perspective we can achieve) to a nonsimulated reality in which things really are nondeterministic.
It matters in terms of being able to prove things.
I propose the following theorem: If all input variables are known and the algorithm is known, then the exact output is always calculable there is no room for "surprising" results.
I also propose another theorem: It cannot be proven all the input variables are known and the full mechanics of an algorithm are known unless the output is always accurately calculable.
Under these strict rules there is no room for non-determinism for something we *believe* we know everything about (even though that's probably unlikely). It would mean that QM cannot possibly show non-determinism, but can show that someone is actively mucking with stuff. There's just a level of determinism - the jailbreaking, that we cannot penetrate.
Which sort of flows into what you said in the end:
Derakon wrote:
If we were able to actually determine that we were in a simulation, and that was why our test results seemed nondeterministic, then that would be a different matter. Likewise if we were able to achieve some deeper understanding of (a non-simulated) reality that explained the seeming nondeterminism.
If we really think we know everything there is to know about QM, and that both my above theorems hold true, then we have proven we are in a simulation with active mucking going on.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
Every hidden variable theory possible has been found to be either inconsistent with QM's predictions (failing to accurately describe known phenomena) or inconsistent with Special Relativity's (superluminality). This result is known as Bell's Theory.
Which does not in any way indicate that things are non-deterministic. Just because existing theories/tools have yet to prove what is determining existing phenomenon does not mean that nothing is determining it.
I haven't seen anything claiming that it's impossible for there to be determinism. All I see so far is that we cannot know if there's determinism.
On a side point, say the simulation theory was true, and those ruining the simulation just wanted to "mess with" those running tests to confuse the results and hide their influence. In this case, the simulators are the determining factor, yet every test is rigged. To put it differently, only looking for some hidden "variable" as it were is shortsighted.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Pokota wrote:
Politically, Pharaoh wouldn't have had much of a choice but to hang on to the slaves as long as he could; a Pharaoh (or an Emperor, or a King) only remains in power so long as his taxpayers and generals leave him in power.
Regardless of the beliefs of the time as to whether or not Pharaoh was divinely appointed to rule, the nobility and generals would not have simply let him let the Hebrews go. Frankly, they likely would have staged a coup and pursued the Hebrews if he had.
That was true at first. The more disasters that occurred, the more they were begging Pharaoh to let the Hebrews go.
Exodus 10:7: And Pharaoh's servants said unto him: 'How long shall this man be a snare unto us? let the men go, that they may serve the LORD their God, knowest thou not yet that Egypt is destroyed?'
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
The Bible itself doesn't really talk about free will. This whole concept of "free will" as an all-encompassing explanation for every single objection seems to be mostly extra-biblical apologetics.
(I'm sure that, given the vast amount of text in the Bible, if you search enough, you will find some passage that can be remotely interpreted as talking about "free will".
Since I'm a hardcore skeptic when it comes to free will, people are always quoting portions of the bible to me that insinuate the existence of free will. The most popular is Deut 30:19: I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before thee life and death, the blessing and the curse; therefore choose life, that thou mayest live, thou and thy seed;
This verse clearly states that the people have a choice if they want to follow the laws or not, however much they're strongly encouraged to keep them, or discouraged not to violate them.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
To add on to this, there are times where it seems that God explicitly violates free will within the Bible. For instance, the best known is hardening the Pharaoh's heart, because it's so explicit.
That's actually a terrible example. Pharaoh in that section is being utterly blasted by disaster after disaster, where no sane human being wouldn't fold at this point. We can easily say this hardening of Pharaoh's heart was to counterbalance against what was being done against his country so he still had free choice despite the duress he was under.
Aqfaq wrote:
How about this:
1. Satan knows God directly, perhaps better than anyone else.
2. Despite the direct knowledge of God, Satan uses free will to be against God.
3. Therefore, Satan's free will was not violated by the direct knowledge of God.
4. Therefore, God would not violate our free will by letting himself be known to us directly (rather than through faith shenanigans).
The above is supposedly an argument against the assertion that "God will not reveal himself to us directly, because that would violate our free will."
Is the reasoning solid? ars? Bisqwit? feos? Nach? Pokota? Anyone?
Thanks for calling me out. There is no Satan, any such understanding of such an entity is missing the point of the original material where such a name is mentioned. A Satan as such as understood by most today of some real and persuasive entity controlling people's thought process is from other religions, with that understanding in relation to Biblical material first found in Greek translations of original material.
"Satan" in original Biblical material is simply a prosecutor in a courtroom, performing his courtly duties, and even then, the entire courtroom is imagined/hypothetical, not a concrete description of a real entity.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
The rest of your passage doesn't prove the freedom I'm experiencing is an illusion. It might be.
I agree with you, it's even what I wrote:
Nach wrote:
That freedom you're experiencing may well be an illusion.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
Your very existence is following a script with reactionary responses and a predefined maturation/progression algorithm.
Citation needed (c).
It's based on the premise which follows:
Nach wrote:
Every time you decide to do something, it's based on the criteria you know about something, your existing knowledge and experience, and your built in dispositions as they currently are. Given an exact moment in time with the exact same circumstances both within yourself and what is around you, can you possibly make any decision other than the one you made?
Do you disagree with this premise?
------
Per Masterjun's rule of post updating, I changed "promise" (typo) to "premise".
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
RGamma wrote:
Can you control what you think? In a sense it is assumed that at any moment you're given the choice to think about something else (which is synonymous with being in control of one's though process), although these choices are not presented externally. What then is the guiding principle behind how thoughts are "chosen" (how they occur)?
Everything I've seen about human thought is that it's simply a program (biology) operating on variables (environment, memories). You may *feel* you're *free* to make whatever choice you want, but you're just executing whatever you're programmed to do. The feelings and freedom are part of that program.
feos wrote:
If the above means to you that free will does not exist at all, well, ok. But I'm actually free in what I decide, since I have this ability to actually chose anything. However, I don't even know why "free will" is such a big deal. I always try to find the most productive reasons to rule my will whenever I'm about to choose something. Then again, that's my will to choose those reasons for my actions. It's based on my priorities, and priorities are based on what brings me pleasure (and different kinds of pleasure also have priorities). I don't see how having reasons (that one still can choose too) means absolute determinism and no free will. But whatever.
That freedom you're experiencing may well be an illusion. Your very existence is following a script with reactionary responses and a predefined maturation/progression algorithm. Every time you decide to do something, it's based on the criteria you know about something, your existing knowledge and experience, and your built in dispositions as they currently are. Given an exact moment in time with the exact same circumstances both within yourself and what is around you, can you possibly make any decision other than the one you made?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bobo the King wrote:
Nach wrote:
Which is probably just wishful thinking if not outright baloney. Every perceived possibility for randomness is simply inability to understand the variables or algorithms involved.
This is strongly suspected to be false. To fully understand why, you'll need to thoroughly study RGamma's link on hidden variable theories as well as things like quantum entanglement and the Bell inequalities. We have strong reason to believe that probability naturally arises out of quantum mechanics and attempts to explain quantum mechanical phenomena as a consequence of probability theory results in predictions that are not upheld by experiment.
I've read up on all this material, I find it entirely unconvincing. All the experiments can prove is that so far there is much phenomena that cannot be explained by existing tools. I would go so far as to say that determinism is unfalsifiable, anything which proves non-determinism can be viewed in a different perspective to prove lack of knowledge.
Bobo the King wrote:
There is so much suffering in the world and the ideas that it was all predestined to occur and/or that we can exert effectively no control over our lives gives me the heebie-jeebies.
If the simulation hypothesis is true, this is indeed correct, no one has any control. But I would take that one step further, some people may be *real*, and the simulation is about them, while others are simply controls for the experiment. Maybe some of the suffering is not real per se, and is only there to see how you or I react to it.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
RGamma wrote:
I assume this definition of free will: The ability to -given multiple courses of action- choose any of them, whereby the choice is not fully explained by the circumstances in which it is made, that is the origin of the choice solely resides in the subject making it.
Are you considering the ability of an outcome to be included in the definition of free will, or only the thought or desire of a particular outcome? They are not the same, as not every action comes to fruition.
RGamma wrote:
Although I'd like to believe in
"Believing in" something is a fallacy. That very notion is to turn off or ignore your logical resources. Rather you should be aiming to "believe that something is true due to...".
RGamma wrote:
If all constructs and interactions in our universe are deterministic and computable
There is no proof that it is anything but deterministic. However, as a hypothetical, there can be things which are running on top of two distinct sets of determinism, with no relation between them. You must also consider if such a thing as "free will" exists, if its existence is limited to things that are not deterministic, if we can somehow divide parts of the universe or human function between deterministic and non-deterministic.
RGamma wrote:
Parts of the currently known laws of physics include the possibility of true randomness
Which is probably just wishful thinking if not outright baloney. Every perceived possibility for randomness is simply inability to understand the variables or algorithms involved.
You might also want to read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation_hypothesis
Is there any proof that any moment you experience is actually connected to any previous moment, or is that an illusion?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
It should be noted that the recent interim build is for feedback and testing so Warepire can improve Hourglass Resurrection. You should not be using this release yet for creating submissions.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
You really don't need to report the site is down in this thread, someone will surely notice right away.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
zeromus wrote:
Nach: I have the old packages. What should I do with them?
If you can get them to me, I can put them up on the server.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Do people have the old packages? We should be hosting them somewhere.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Nach wrote:
I can add a full sweep of existing torrents with -u, and cause all new torrents uploaded to be ran through -u -p.
Done!
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Anyone have anything they'd like to add?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Dumped, everything looks right.
Thanks, this helps immensely.
Dark Noob wrote:
now we just need to wait Nach decision.
I made my decision already ~3 weeks back, but I can't enter it without getting this run to sync. Since feos got it to sync this removes that hurdle. However, without knowing what to make of this BIOS situation, I can't process it yet. We do not accept runs which use invalid BIOS and game combos.
The more you can do to explain why the BIOS used is as it is will help.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
<Pokota> It's more akin to selling Styrofoam, concentrated orange juice, and gasoline all at the same police station.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
I'm kind of surprised by some of the things you tried that wouldn't work. Due to relative addressing and virtual memory management, nothing other than properly parsing and offsetting memory references in the correct application's address space is going to work. I'm glad you got it figured out in the end!
So, what's next on the agenda?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Everyone needs to send Mothrayas brownies.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
feos wrote:
The initial goal was to have a 512kb file that has proper subtitles, but then we end up with mp4 file with bad subtitles anyway, wether we make it or Archive does.
Incorrect, the "initial goal" of 512kb is to offer a streaming MP4 which can be played back directly on the site. If archive makes it, the file is huge and looks terrible. This is unacceptable.
I meant the goal of making 512kb.mkv in the first place. They were made because subtitles suck in mp4.
I'm not familiar with what the support is like for subtitles embedded in MP4 files. If encoders/publishers want to offer 512kb MKVs for embedded subtitles, that's fine. However, this does not free the encoder/publisher up from the requirement for ensuring we have a good 512kb MP4 for site playback. Regarding subtitles with site playback, the site can handle it fine if you upload an SRT to archive.org for the 512kb. [1443] NES Metroid "low%" by Lord Tom in 11:08.78 is an example of a publication which has done this properly.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
