Time out.
The HDMI spec is backwards and forwards compatible, so a device compliant with one version is also compliant with any other version. A source will generally select the highest resolution video mode it can produce and the display can accept. Is your complaint that the LG TV doesn't support _everything_ the HDMI 2.1 spec permits? How would you advertise a display that needs more bandwidth than HDMI 2.0 allows but less than the maximum HDMI 2.1 provides? What about a display that uses the full available bandwidth but doesn't have eARC, perhaps because it is a pure display without any audio source?I can’t tell if you’re kidding or not anymore. It’s a device purporting to support HDMI 2.1, when it fails to meet the specification.. it was after review and eye brows raised by the public, they decided to make a comment explaining this tidbit.
Is any of the things I am saying getting through to you, or are you going to keep asking single questions to replies you never acknowledge certain portions of, and simply just go and ask away constant questions that should have been clear to anyone with memory retention ability of the discussion occurring?
Based on your next reply, I’ll either give closing statements, or continue. There is no way you’re proceeding in good faith if you’re still asking questions like this. So I’ll be asking some questions now. This has gone on long enough, and I’ve assumed you’ve grasped things I’ve repeated multiple times. Let’s find out if you have.
I will repeat a question I haven’t gotten an answer for. I want it explained to me, even if LG or whoever, provides information pre-release, that their TV will support HDMI 2.1, at what point in your rational do you figure they should be disqualified form being able to use the sticker on their advertising of the device. I want an explanation on what you think companies ought be doing to satisfy being about to advertise a “standard” at which point they’de be allowed to use it in advertising material?
Next, do you think standards should be based on the understanding that a minimum threshold should be satisfied? If so, I want you to tell me what that threshold would be if you were for instance one of the people in the HDMI forum that agreed upon the specs for HDMI 2.1?
Lastly, do you think it makes sense to offer “optional” portions of a “standard” while also still not differentiating in terms of labels - the difference between a manufacturer fulfills the minimum supported portions of a standard, while still being granted the ability to advertise the product, no better, nor worse, than a competitor that supports the full specification with all options?
The HDMI spec is backwards and forwards compatible, so a device compliant with one version is also compliant with any other version. A source will generally select the highest resolution video mode it can produce and the display can accept. Is your complaint that the LG TV doesn't support _everything_ the HDMI 2.1 spec permits? How would you advertise a display that needs more bandwidth than HDMI 2.0 allows but less than the maximum HDMI 2.1 provides? What about a display that uses the full available bandwidth but doesn't have eARC, perhaps because it is a pure display without any audio source?
I view an HDMI label in conjunction with the full spec sheet. If a device advertises 4K resolution and carries an HDMI 2.1 sticker, I assume it is able to receive and display a 4K video signal over an HDMI 2.1 compliant interface as opposed to, say, DisplayPort. I do not assume it can display an 8K image just because the HDMI 2.1 spec allows such devices to be made.
A compatibility sticker should not be confused for a spec sheet.
How would you advertise a display that needs more bandwidth than HDMI 2.0 allows but less than the maximum HDMI 2.1 provides? What about a display that uses the full available bandwidth but doesn't have eARC, perhaps because it is a pure display without any audio source?
I view an HDMI label in conjunction with the full spec sheet. If a device advertises 4K resolution and carries an HDMI 2.1 sticker, I assume it is able to receive and display a 4K video signal over an HDMI 2.1 compliant interface as opposed to, say, DisplayPort. I do not assume it can display an 8K image just because the HDMI 2.1 spec allows such devices to be made.
On some level, I do agree with you that optional parts of standards can be annoying and confusing. Nonetheless, there is a place for this, provided it is done right. If it doesn't makes sense to require all devices to support a particular feature, a good spec will say something along the lines of "you may optionally support Feature X, and if you do, this is how it must be done." The HDMI spec isn't the best example here (the HDR formats are a mess), but at least it guarantees that any compliant source connected to any compliant display will show _something_.
Misleading advertising is a problem, but I think it's wrong to blame that on the specs. The advertisers will always find a way to misrepresent.
Boy oh boy isn't that the truth. What we learned is that the monte carlo simulations of markets are right, they more or less instantly collude, become either monopolies or oligopolies, and the nonsense about the "invisible hand" is nothing but that. Nonsense.
If you did that, you'd be technically correct insofar all prior HDMI versions are subsets of HDMI 2.1. It would still be dishonest, since there would be an implication that the TV offered at least one feature that _requires_ HDMI 2.1. The sticker should, IMO, reflect the minimum spec revision required to fully utilise the capabilities of the device, even if an even more capable device is possible within the same spec.Maybe one last question will help you wrestle with this better. If I make a TV for example, who's hardware supports literally no single HDMI 2.1 exclusive capability, but I decide to opt to simply support HDMI 2.1 connectors so I can get more eyes on my TV at the store.
This is the part that doesn't make sense. If the most demanding video mode supported doesn't require the full bandwidth, what is the problem? How would you send it more data, and what would you expect the TV to do with the excess?LG in this case, they didn't adhere to HDMI 2.1 compliance, as HDMI 2.1 is the transmission standard, and they decided to forgoe the full bandwidth, even though their displays have the ability to handle the full transmission bandwidth if needed.
Where is the non-compliance? Which aspect of that LG TV is in violation of which paragraph of the HDMI spec?The second, I chose HDMI to show how even with it being relatively sensible standard wise. It shows non-compliance doesn't really cost manufacturers much.
Sheldrake.what WAS the OP again??
Yes, I know. I think it was a trolling post.
Someone who was mad with science because it was mean to him.Yes, I know. I think it was a trolling post.
Iv deleted two posts , clearly they were nothing to do with the OP and politically divisive.
I want to reopen this thread but not have to worry this will flare up again so the two members involved are receiving thread bans .
Dang, you mean I missed all the fun.Thread open , behave please.
Not so much.Dang, you mean I missed all the fun.![]()
![]()
Regarding the Monte Carlo model it is a legetiem question what it can not do or better what it is depended of. The same can be said from Black-Scholes option model. I spoke some weeks ago a market maker that went bust because he could not predict his hedge model based on dividend strategy (that worked for him for years without any problems) that went wrong in a few days time. Models work if all unknown variableness/data are put in basically that is not possible IMO. The problem is that these models are put forward/used as a sort of insurance based on science which it is not. You have to trust the person who decide which risk/data is put in sign here...
What Monte Carlo methods cannot do:
Although extremely flexible and obviously useful for many risk assessment problems, Monte Carlo methods have four significant limitations that risk analysts should keep in mind. (1) Like most methods based on probability theory, Monte Carlo methods are data‐intensive. Consequently, they usually cannot produce results unless a considerable body of empirical information has been collected, or unless the analyst is willing to make several assumptions in the place of such empirical information. (2) Although appropriate for handling variability and stochasticity, Monte Carlo methods cannot be used to propagate partial ignorance under any frequentist interpretation of probability. (3) Monte Carlo methods cannot be used to conclude that exceedance risks are no larger than a particular level. (4) Finally, Monte Carlo methods cannot be used to effect deconvolutions to solve backcalculation problems such as often arise in remediation planning. This paper reviews a series of 10 exemplar problems in risk analysis for which classical Monte Carlo methods yield incorrect answers.
source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10807039609383659?journalCode=bher20
Someone who was mad with science because it was mean to him.
Gresham would turn in his grave if hé had knoledge about Quantitative easing When Will people notice that their current dollars, euro's loosing like hell it intrinsic value. Negative interest rates time has no value ??? same as confiscating money lol.Yes, I'm aware of the problems with many kinds of analysis, Monte Carlo among them.
The real world results, now and in the 1920's, however, fully validates the Monte Carlo analysis, in fact to a frightening extent. Gresham's law emerges naturally, and the abuse takes over.
If you did that, you'd be technically correct insofar all prior HDMI versions are subsets of HDMI 2.1. It would still be dishonest, since there would be an implication that the TV offered at least one feature that _requires_ HDMI 2.1. The sticker should, IMO, reflect the minimum spec revision required to fully utilise the capabilities of the device, even if an even more capable device is possible within the same spec.
This is the part that doesn't make sense. If the most demanding video mode supported doesn't require the full bandwidth, what is the problem? How would you send it more data, and what would you expect the TV to do with the excess?
You seem to have a different expectation of what the HDMI spec should be than what its authors intended. The initial version, based on DVI, allowed pixel rates _up to_ 165 MHz. A standard-definition DVD player with HDMI output is still compliant even though it never comes close to that maximum rate. The spec exists to ensure that if a compliant source is connected to a compliant display, you will get a picture. Subsequent HDMI revisions have increased the _available_ data rate to enable ever higher resolutions and refresh rates. The bandwidth actually used still depends on the needs of the selected video mode.
Where is the non-compliance? Which aspect of that LG TV is in violation of which paragraph of the HDMI spec?
"While LG covered most of the HDMI 2.1 related specs in its 2019 TVs, including full bandwidth support in all of the HDMI ports for its 4K and 8K TVs,"
LG decided to re-allocate the hardware resources of 2020 chipsets optimizing for AI functions including CPU&GPU and supporting full bandwidth in only 2 ports of 2020 8K TV series (ZX series, NANO99, NANO97, NANO95). And the rest of the ports of 8K TVs and all HDMI 2.1 ports of 4K TVs have lower bandwidth than 48 Gbps but support up to 4K 120P 4:4:4/RGB 10bit. We apologize for not flagging this earlier to you.”
Gresham would turn in his grave if hé had knoledge about Quantitative easing When Will people notice that their current dollars, euro's loosing like hell it intrinsic value. Negative interest rates time has no value ??? same as confiscating money lol.