* VP9 where AV1 is not available (default YouTube codec, almost universally hardware-supported). Also universally supported .webm is vp9+opus - which mostly used as modern .gif

VP9 works well too and more supported (default YouTube codec)

Do note that in current economics 32GB of RAM alone will cost something like $400

> This is a configurable setting.

Give me pointers please. Getting same headaches every day. Clicking on icon in dock, closing some window produces random results every time, across many, many apps

v7 exposes creation date, and maybe you don't want that. So, depends on use-case

I think I read something once about using v7 internally and exposing v4 in your API.

Or even an autoincrement int primary key internally. Depending on your scale and env etc, but still fits enough use cases.

fps getting increased but latency does not improve, and what's what important

> its differentiation from Elixir is purely syntactic.

Well, there's also standard library, Erlang one is very messy while Elixir one is very consistent (and pipe operator - `|>` - enforces order of arguments even in low-quality 3rd party code as well, making whole language more pleasant to work with. Same goes for utf8-binary string everywhere and other idiomatic conventions

Why .avifs when we have .webm already? Seems like overcomplicated replacement for already existing de-facto standard.

Nitpick - the question should have been:

> Why .avifs when we have .webps already?

Webp and avif are both image containers, both of which support animated images. The key difference here between avif|mp4 and webp|webm is the mime type and the associated UX with each of these. Image types are presented without controls, and are looping by default if they have multiple frames. Video types are presented with controls and with many other options.

It's a good question as to why avif though. Webp is entirely sufficient in most situations. Where AV1 as a codec shines is for more advanced compression, which may not be necessary for a simple looped gif-analog, but you'll still get some gains. The gains come at a processing speed tradeoff though, so they're good to use when you have advanced hardware on a low-bandwidth connection. I personally don't find the tradeoff worth it, so all of my media encoding pipelines opt for webp/webm by default.

1. How does one say that webm is the de facto standard? It’s common but not so ubiquitous that it can’t be replaced easily.

2. AVIF is a better codec with better compression, bit depth and hardware decode support.

I think OP is referring to the container than the codec when they talk about .avif and .webm - https://www.webmproject.org/docs/container/ (e.g. MP4 or MKV are container formats that support multiple codecs within them like OPUS, AVC, HEVC, AV1, mp3 etc).

1. It's VERY common, sometimes pretending to be a .gif file. Many major image hosters are serving .webm even if users upload gif files.

2. AVIF is not a codec but a container. Webm also can contain AV1 video (but usually contains VP9). Also, difference between VP9 and AV1 is not that huge to be noticable on small gif-like animated pictures

If it has better hardware decode support, why are there complaints in another thread that a folder full of avifs would slow a computer to a crawl? I'd expect hardware-accelerated decoding to be smooth and efficient.

Hardware acceleration requires your device to have the requisite hardware support. Unlike AVC or HEVC, hardware support for AV1 has been quite limited and only recently has seen a slow uptick (for example, Intel CPUs now offer AV1 hardware decoding). Not sure if Apple supports it yet though. But yeah, if it requires special hardware support to be "smooth", in my mind, it is clearly inferior to its competitor codecs that work fine with software decoding (i.e. running on the CPU).

How do we know those people have both a system with hardware support and a decoder that uses it.

Without specifics of hardware it’s hard to know.

Very different UX. They autoplay, no controls, no fullscreen, no sound, easy to copy, etc.

videos have all of this too

WebP also supports animation.

>Windows 7 was effectively just vista but enough time had passed that the required hardware to run it was easy to get a hold of.

Not really, Windows 7 had a lot of work poured into it, fixing Vista issues. Even first public betas of W7 were more polished than any of Windows 8..11 releases. That includes work on minimal amount of "noise" notifications, driver issues, speed, design etc

Basically all of those fixes were applied to Vista before the 7 beta. There were some rough parts to Vista's released, but a lot of those were polished by SP1 and SP2.

The reason the W7 beta went so well is because it was already just based on later versions of Vista.

Any favorites for "ebook into an audio book" process? Both model and software