I assume people don't buy "dumb" TVs because they basically don't exist any more, outside of industrial/commercial screens that cost way more than an equivalent consumer TV or PC monitors that cap out at about 32". I'm curious which option you went with?
I just use a regular Samsung smart TV, but I use a Chromecast + PS5 instead of the smart features and have never connected it to the internet. If there were viable "dumb" tv options I would totally prefer them though.
I went to a local store (I'm in EU) and asked the salesperson "what's your biggest 4k, dumb TV?" It happened to be a 49" NEO. So that's what I have at the moment. When it's time to change it, I will try the same thing again. If that fails, I'll either get a "hotel TV", a really big PC monitor or a 5k projector.
One of the reasons might be that there are no non-smart TVs with the same kind of features available. For instance, I am unsure whether there are non-smart large OLED TVs.
Also, price of a TV with "smart" features typically does not differ much from a price of a similar TV with only non-smart features. So, people buy them because they are getting something extra at little additional cost.
Of course one can create a DIY smart setup with any TV. But given that many people already have a TV with a capable hardware, it is in my opinion only natural that they want to turn it into a proper smart TV simply by changing its software, rather than by buying a smart PC, adding cables, etc.
This is the most Hacker News comment I’ve read in a while.
Also would love to know how you are doing Dolby Vision playback for example as I’ve never found a reliable way to do Dolby Vision on Windows, macOS or Linux.
mpv can now decode most of the spec if you want a software player; if you want to passthrough the DV metadata to your TV, still no luck on PC AFAIK. I believe the approach most take is using an Android TV device (e.g. Nvidia Shield), where various apps are able to do it because there's native support. Kodi, Plex, etc, can do it on the Shield.
Hacker in the old meaning; someone who knows computers well, not someone who exploit this knowledge for greed.
When I bought my first computer, a VIC 20, I got so hooked that I hardly slept for several weeks. In that time I learned Basic, figured out software design and wrote my first application, a word processor. My next interesting application, ready a few years later was a multi-user BBS written in C for the QNX operating system. I know hackers from that time with skills magnitudes better than mine - and the all sound like that. If people on "Hacker News" can't tolerate hacker speak, then either they, or the hackers, don't really belong here.
Well, sometimes I don't speak like this. I can be dull and boring and polite and say all the right tings; when I'm surrounded by snowflakes and people without any original toughs.
> Learning how to be a decent person ain't harder than learning to use a computer.
Being a decent person is actually quite hard to learn, and even harder to practice. Being polite and /pretending/ to be a decent person, is something any idiot can manage.
Mine was a Commodore PET (VIC 20 precursor), while I worked with PDP-11 and CDC Cyber machines on the side .. you don't speak for a generation and you could use some manners.
One of the few things in life I really feel depressed about, is never getting the opportunity to work with one of those.
> you don't speak for a generation
I speak only for my self, and in this thread only of my own direct experiences.
My experiences from working with some really extraordinary people (hackers, editors, adventurers) is that they are often anything but nice on the surface. When you speak, you can speak to please, or you can be honest. You can be dull, or you can use rhetoric to spice up your points. Personally, I find dishonest people despicable and dull people boring ;)
