What! A! Surprise!
I'm shocked, I tell you, totally and utterly shocked by this turn of events!
What! A! Surprise!
I'm shocked, I tell you, totally and utterly shocked by this turn of events!
I was curious enough to check and with 2KB SRAM that thing doesn't have anywhere enough memory to process a 320x200 RGB image much less 1080p or 4K.
Further you definitelly don't want to send 2 images per-second down to a server in uncompressed format (even 1080p RGB with an encoding that loses a bit of color fidelity to just use two bytes per pixel, adds up to 4MB uncompressed per image), so its either using something with hardware compression or its using processing cycles for that.
My expectation is that it's not the snapshoting itself that would eat CPU cycles, it's the compression.
That said, I think you make a good point, just with the wrong example - I would've gone with: a thing capable of handling video decoding at 50 fps - i.e. one frame per 20ms - (even if it's actually using hardware video decoding) can probably handle compressing and sending over the network two frames per second, though performance might suffer if they're using a chip without hardware compression support and are using complex compression methods like JPEG instead of something simpler like LZW or similar.
If there is one think we should all have learned by now in this Era is that talk means nothing at all: there have to be hard contractual clausules along with personal punishment for those who break them or some kind of escrow system for money meant to go into that "end of life" plan for it to actually be genuine.
"Valve reps have said" is worth as much as the paper it's written on and that stuff is not even written on paper.
Well that makes sense but might even be more processor intensive unless they're using an SOC that includes an NFU or similar.
I doubt it's a straight forward hash because a hash database for video which includes all manner of small clips and has to somehow be able to match something missing over 90% of frames (if indeed the thing is sampling it at 2 fps, then it only sees 2 frames out of every 25) would be huge.
A rough calculation for a system of hashes for groups of 13 frames in a row (so that at least one would be hit if sampling at 2 fps on a 25 fps system) storing just one block of 13 frame hashes per minute in a 5 byte value (so large enough to have 5 trillion distinctive values) would in 1GB store enough hashes for 136k 2h movies in hashes alone so it would be maybe feasible if the system had 2GB+ of main memory, though even then I'm not so sure the CPU speed would be enough to search it every 500ms (though if the hashes are ordered by value in a long array and there's a matching array of clip IDs, it might be doable since there are some pretty good algorithms for that).
It seems to me they're a country built on 19th century white colonialist values (Jewish white colonialism is no better than the once much more common Christian kind) and which has never evolved from those values but rather kept going until reaching the natural conclusion: Genocide.
(It's not by chance that Israelis keep claiming that they have "Western Values" - it's really just a politically correct way of saying "white values")
Israel is similar to South-Africa, except that they were never forced to stop and just kept doubling down on the racism and violent oppression of the ethnicity they victimize.
I blame mainly the US and Germany for the continued support of Israel's white colonialism and it's natural outcome of Genocide.
I'll hazard a guess that your circle is one mainly of highly educated city folk.
Quite independently of Religion, Education and one's level of exposure to all sorts of people and complex social environments (which normally comes with big city life) seem to be the biggest deciding factors about people having or not "traditional values" (read: conservative) and the excessive and blind tribalism that makes them more likely to find excuses to support Genocide along ethnic lines "when our side does it".
Well, as the guy falling from the top of the Empire State Building was overheard saying on his way down: "well, so far so good".
Or as the common caveat given to retail investors goes: past performance is no predictor of future results.
"So far" proves nothing because it can be "so far" only because the conditions for something different haven't yet happenned or it simply hasn't been in their best interest yet to act differently.
If their intentions were really the purest, most honest and genuine of all, they could have placed themselves under a contractual obligation to do so and put money aside for an "end of life plan" in a way such that they can't legally use it for other things, or even done like GoG and provided offline installer to those people who want them.
Steam have chosen to maintain their ability to claw back games in your library whilst they could have done otherwise as demonstrated by GoG which let you download offline installers - no matter what they say, their actions to keep open the option of doing otherwise say the very opposite.
To add to your point, it's amazing that so many people are still mindless fanboys, even of Steam.
Steam has restrictions on installing the games their customers supposedly own, even if it's nothing more than "you can't install it from a local copy of the installer and have to install it from the Steam servers" - it's not full ownership if you can't do what you want with it when you want it without the say so of a 3rd party.
That's just how it is.
Now, it's perfectly fair if one says "yeah, but I totally trust them" which IMHO is kinda naive in this day and age (personally, almost 4 decades of being a Techie and a gamer have taught me to distrust until there's no way they can avoid their promises, but that just me), or that one knows the risks but still thinks that it's worth it to purchase from Steam for many games and that the mere existence of Steam has allowed many games to exists that wouldn't have existed otherwise (mainly Indie ones) - which is my own posture at least up to a point - but a whole different thing is the whole "I LoVe STeaM And tHeY CaN DO NotHInG wrONg" fanboyism.
Sorry but they have in place restrictions on game installation and often game playing which from the point of view of Customers are not needed and serve no purpose (they're not optional and a choice for the customer, but imposed on customers), hence they serve somebody else than the customer. It being a valid business model and far too common in this day and age (hence people are used to it) doesn't make those things be "in the interest of Customers" and similarly those being (so far) less enshittified than other similar artificial restrictions on Customers out there do not make them a good thing, only so far not as bad as others.
I mean, for fuck's sake, this isn't the loby of an EA multiplayer game and we're supposed to be mostly adults here in Lemmy: lets think a bit like frigging adults rather than having knee-jerk pro-Steam reactions based on fucking brand-loyalty like mindless pimply-faced teen fanboys. (Apologies to the handful of wise-beyond-their-years pimply faced teens that might read this).
Liberals are just pro-Oligarchy - they think Money should be above the one power which is led by elected leaders: the State - which is against Democracy just like the Fascists, just with a different and more subtle mechanism determining those whose power is above the power of the vote.
They're just a different kind of Far-Right from the Fascists, which is why it is so easy for them to support Zionists - which are ethno-Fascists, the same sub-type of Fascism as the Nazis - even while they commit a Genocide.
People with even the slightest shred of Equalitarian values wouldn't ever support those commiting ethnic cleansing.
It's even more basic than that: if there's no escrow with money for that "end of life" "plan" and no contractual way to claw back money for it from those getting dividends from Valve, then what the "Valve representatives" said is a completelly empty promised, or in other words a shameless lie.
Genuine intentions actually have reliable funding attached to them, not just talkie talkie from people who will never suffer in even the tinyest of ways from not fulfulling what they promised.
In this day and age, we've been swamped with examples that we can't simply trust in people having a genuine feeling of ethical and moral duty to do what they say they will do with no actual hard consequences for non-compliance or their money on the line for it.
PS: And by "we can't trust in people" I really mean "we can't trust in people who are making statements and promises as nameless representatives of a company". Individuals personally speaking for themselves about something they control still generally are, even in this day and age, much better than people acting the role of anonymous corporate drone.
Of course Neue-Nazi-loving Blinken would be hard at doing Modern Holocaust Denialism to support his favorite ethno-Fascist genociders.
So it's your certainties used to dismiss as "untrue" and now again as "farcical" what I wrote based on my experience of actually living in the place NOW, knowing the language and having talked to the actual immigrants here, come for "hearing about it from somebody who lived there".
The very racists you claim to detest have such absolute hard certainties about entire peoples based on 2nd or 3rd hand accounts of who knows who, and lots of presumptions, as the ones you have just displayed about a whole country and the people living there without even having visited, to the point that you even claim to know better than an actual native living there who knows the language.
I have literally seen that formula you just used of "I know how a people are and behave better than an actual person from that group" used by outright racists, most commonly against people of Asian origin or ancestry.
The irony of a loud anti-racist displaying that very same kind of prejudice is truly extraordinary.
I'm in Portugal were the single biggest immigrant group by far are Brasilians and the biggest discrimination is against Brasilians, even though they generally look like the Portuguese and speak the same language (though have a different accent) and there are also immigrants from Africa who are much less likely to be looked down on.
The whole thing is far from just plain Racism and is more broader.
Keep in mind that there are real problems associated with immigration, mainly that at least at first they put downwards pressure on salaries because of increasing the Supply of workers (it takes a while for the increase in consumption from immigrants to feed through into a higher Demand for workers), lower levels of formal education (some societal problems that the increase in formal education in Portugal since the end of Fascism in 74 had naturally corrected - such as religiosity, conservatism and illiberalism - are being imported again with immigrants) and due to different cultural expectations and behaviours so if they're a large enough number and come from a heavilly nationalist country, that can be a problem (for example, over 60% of Brasilians resident in Portugal voted Bolsonaro, whose politics are far more Fascist than even the most Far-Right party in Portugal).
I think we need to separate Immigrants from Immigration: it's absolutelly possible to be against "inviting more people over" (Immigration) and still think that we should to treat those who came at our invitation (Immigrants) with the respect that guests deserve - there really is no inherent right for people outside to be invited in (though I would say those who can do have a duty of within their possibilities help those in so bad conditions they qualify as Refugees, who are but a tiny minority of Immigration).
And yeah, I absolutelly agree with you that the anti-immigrant demagogy is a play from the rich to deviate the rightous anger of the locals who feel their lives are getting worse away from those who are trully to blame for it (the rich and their very much local wilful servants in the major political parties) and towards the people who have the least power over here of all people (immigrants can't even vote). In some countries (such as the UK and US) you see the very same kind of group demonisation and scapegoating deployed against Immigrants also deployed against the Poor (anybody who lived in the UK should be abundately familiar with the "Lazy Poor" rethoric) which IMHO reinforces the point that this kind of demonising of the weakest in society is a propaganda technique rather than a natural phenomenon.
I would even go further and say that the conflation or anti-immigration with anti-immigrant is purposeful and leverages the liberalist takes that the "modern" Leftwing in Europe has copied from the Anglo-Saxons world to get them to end up taking pro-immigration postures thinking they're defending an oppressed group (immigrants) and that puts them against an ever increasing fraction of the population who do have fair concerns (though they too have been swindled into being anti-immigrant when the source of their problems is high rate of increase in people competing for the jobs, with lower average education levels and different cultural norms and even political preferences - i.e. the immigration)
I think the "thinking" Left needs to separate immigration (inviting people over), from immigrants (people who came because we invited them over in the past, so our guests) and refugees (people who we are helping or should help due to their dire need and we being able to help them) and treat those things differently since there is really only a moral and ethical duty for the last 2, not for the first one.
Yes, that's very much my point of view, only much more succinctly and well put than I managed :)
Immigration is a numbers problem: it's the interplay of rate of arrival, rate of integration, how fast do the locals get used to immigrants and how wide are the educational and cultural differences between those already in a place and those arriving.
Immigration is also a racism problem because racism lowers the rate of "locals getting used to immigrants" and makes cultural differences seem worse than they actually are: for a racist there are no "low enough cultural differences" to make the targets of their racism feel like "one of us", as can be seen in the US with racism against Afro-Americans who are fellow citizens with a shared culture.
All those things benefit from more Education, both adult education for the immigrants to help with flattening the educational differences (which is a good idea overall, not just for immigrants), education for their children to help integration and education for the children of the racists to stop the racism from crossing to the next generation.
This is, however a far more pragmatic take than the extremes of "we should help everybody that needs help in the World by inviting them to move over whenever they feel like" on the side of the Liberals and of "foreigners are bandits and eat other people's pets" on the side of the Far-Right.
Me living in the place and having talked to Brazilians about it and hearing what people around me say, including my aged parents as they start saying more and more racist shit.
I mean, if you can get me access to that peer-reviewed scientific study that made you conclude that my "claim about anti-African discrimination in Portugal is untrue" I'll be happy to have a look at the section in it about the single biggest minority in Portugal by quite a distance - Brazilians - as any study made in the last 20 years not covering them would be highly unrepresentative.
The kindness of that feeling if not tempered by hard-nosed pragmatism directly collides with the reality of what is actually achievable.
There are 8 billion people in this World, most of which have a lower or much lower "chance to live a life worth living" than the even the average Western.
If everybody outside the West that could have a better life in the West was allowed to come over what would happen is that the place would end up with lots of people with a far lower level of formal education (so less capable of doing the high value jobs that produce more wealth in the West), with different customs (causing lots of friction) and who do not know the language (again a problem for them to be productive alongside the natives), and its capacity to create wealth would most certainly collapse on a per-capita basis - essentially too many people coming over from places with very different quality of life and education system would kill the very golden eggs goose that justified them coming over in the first place.
There are limits to how much we can help without endangering the very thing that allows us to help, which means we have to look at it from a hard nosed pragmatic perspective. As I see it, it breaks down into 3 things:
A genuine will to "ensure that people all over the world have a chance to live a life worth living" means we have to find solutions that actually work in the context of objective reality, not high-moral-horse-ridding simplistic takes on things.
I too think that the best possible situation would be a World were it would be absolutely normal for everybody to move around as they saw fit and one's place of birth was irrelevant.
The problem is how to realistically go from were we are now to that utopia.
Simplistic approaches of the "lets just one-sidedly act as if we lived in that utopia and hope we'll get it" aren't going to do it and neither will prejudices about people because of the genetics they were born with or the geographical area they were born in.
Things like for example being able to operate certain kinds of computerized industrial machinery does mean that a single individual can produce more than one who is not able to do so.
I agree with your point that such advantages for the West were for the most down to luck rather than any kind of deserving it. Some countries did use their luck more wisely than others, but that's about it.
I also agree that quite a lot of the "extra" value being "produced" in the West is nothing more than pillaging of somebody else's resources. My point #3 on my previous comment is anchored on that view - I might have given just a handful of the most obviously bad concrete examples, but there is a lot more than that at more levels, especially around mineral resources.
I don't at all think that Europeans (or any other Westerners) are any more (or less) deserving or capable than the rest - my statement on the capability to do higher value added jobs was purely of the "things are as things are hence certain actions will have certain consequences" kind and not at all a value judgement, and in another comment here responding to somebody else I actually suggested that we should be investing in Adult Education, including for immigrants, and should provide Education for the children of immigrants the same as for the children of the locals.
One supports Fascism at home, the other supports ethno-Fascist Genocide abroad.
The distance between one posture and the other is small and far more easy to transverse than people want to believe, whilst the distance between supporting Fascism at home and not supporting Fascism at all (much less the same type of Fascism as the Nazis, whilst actively commiting Genocide) is pretty much an impassable chasm.
Just because their Theater Of Morality is different doesn't mean Biden and the DNC are significantly less pro-Authoritarianism than Trump and his cronies.
That's not how AIs are trained.
In a session they're responding to what you wrote before because they have a long buffer of context for your session, but that's just temporary and doesn't get fed back to into anything permanent.
The main political difference between Neoliberalism and Fascism is the order at the very top of the power pyramid:
For both the rest of the pyramid - I.e.citizens - are only there to produce wealth for the top.
Whilst it's much more obvious to people that Fascism wants to control them because the Fascist State cannot allow itself to be controlled by the populous via elected leaders, Neoliberalism keeps the vote as a sort of meaningless ritual were people elect "leaders" (and generally the "choices" offered are carefully selected) for an entity which is not the one that actually controls things so de facto the vote controls little or nothing and all the Neoliberals have to worryabout is to stop any politicians who would actually try to undo the Neoliberalist structure (which is why you see things like transnational Trade Treaties which require countries to practice elements of Neoliberalism, sometimes even including element such as "arbitrage" courts explicitly placed above all sovereign power including the highest courts of a land).
I strongly suspect MBF is an actual Intelligence operation of the US Government.
It makes all sense that to control the information that people access in this day and age of people being able to read news from just about anywhere using the Internet and when there is widespread awareness of Fake News and similar opinion making mechanisms, for a state to set up and fund an intelligence op disguised as a "well intentioned group" to act as an "independent" (always without the transparency, clear processes and supervision to guarantee said independence) gatekeeper to all that information and tell people which information sources can be trusted and which cannot.
With such a scheme you can even get infiltrated agents in popular social media (such as moderators in high traffic places where anybody can be a moderator) to leverage that "well intentioned group's" image of "independence" to get both soft (advice bot) and hard information control mechanics in place (post rejection) determined solely by that single gatekeeper's decisions.
It doesn't even take a conspiracy, just a handful of individuals and some careful talk and image management to sway well intentioned people who aren't exactly trained in data analysis or counter-propaganda to "use these nice and honest people to protect our readers from fake news" - people seriously understimate just how much influence a person who is paid to spend all day gaining influence in open groups, who has done it long enough to be experienced at it, who has zero ethics or honesty and who has access to the level of resources a nation state can provide, can gain and then leverage.
Server-side checks cost processing power and memory hence they need to spend more on servers.
Client side kernel-level anti-cheat only ever consumes resources and cause problems to the actual gamers, not directly to Rockstart's bottom line (and if it makes the game comms slightly slower on the client side it might even reduce server resource consumption).
If Rockstar's management theory is that gamers will endure just about any level of shit and keep on giving them money (a posture which, so far, has proven correct for just about every large game maker doing that kind of shit) then they will logically conclude that their bottom line won't even suffer indirectly from making life harder for their existing clients whilst it will most definitelly suffer if they have more server costs due to implementing server side checks for cheating.
I played WoW right when it came out, on a PvP server.
There was already a subset of the crowd just like there back then - some people rushed game progression to have higher levels as soon as possible only to then hang out in beginner areas and "pwn" significantly lower level players.
That's around the time when the term "griefer" was coined.
In these things the real difference is how the servers are structured rather than the human beings: if the architecture is designed so that there is some way to filter players (smaller servers with moderation or some kind of kick voting system that bans repeat offenders), griefers end up in their own griefer instances griefing each other and the rest can actually play the game, otherwise you get a deeply beginner (or people with less time, such as working adults) unfriendly environment.
As somebody else pointed out environments were people run their own servers tend create those conditions at least for some cases (basically if there's some kind of moderation) whilst massive world centralized server environments tend to give free right to people whose pleasure in a multiplayer games derives mostly from making it unpleasent for others (in game-making, griefing is actually recognized as one of the 4 core types of enjoyment - along with achiving, exploring and socializing - people can derived from multiplayer games)
Considering they're the one who pushed for decades to extend the Copyright period from the original 20 years to "Death of Author + 75 years" (so, around 125+ years), making the entering in our lifetime into the Public Domain of any of the cultural elements we grew up in pretty much de facto impossible, thus breaking the quid-pro-quo of Copyright Legislation, I'm surprised that anybody here sees the Disney Corporation as anything but Evil.
These people did more damage to freedom in modern society (as Copyright also affects things like Software) than anybody else.
Yeah, but because amongst all those people killed by the Israeli army in the very place they told them to shelter, there isn't a nice looking western girl with glamour pictures on social networks, the murder of those people will never cause the same disgust in the West as the plight of the girl kidnapped by Hamas which has been turned into a constantly repeated Israeli propaganda piece (you can tell it's now being pushed as propaganda because it's been repeated well beyond its newsworthiness and always with the same glamour picture).
The gapping chasm in numbers between those murdered by Israel and those by Hamas is inverted in terms of the disgust they cause in the West exactly because Israeli has a vastly superior propaganda machine.
Thinking people would start wondering why, reliably, 100s of murdered palestinians are portrayed with less emphasys than 1 kidnapped israeli-german teenager.
There's an anecdote that goes like this:
An important machine in a factory stops working. No matter what they do they can't get it to work again.
So they bring in a specialist to solve the problem, for an agreed fee of $1000
The guy checks the machine over and then goes and presses a specific button and the machine is back working again.
So the factory manager goes: "All you did was press a button! Why should I pay you $1000 for pressing a button?!"
To which the specialist answers: "Well, you see, you're paying me just $1 to press the button. The other $999 are for knowing which button to press".
Over a decade ago I worked as a freelancer for an Investment Bank (the largest one that went bankrupt in the 2008 Crash, which was a few years later) were the head of the Proprietary Trading Desk (the team of Traders who invest for the profit of the bank) asked me if I could change the software so that they could see the investments of the Client Trading Desk (who invest for clients with client money) was making, with the assent of the latter team.
Now if the guys investing money for the bank know what they guys investing customer money are doing they can do things like Front-Run the customer trades (or serve them at exactly the right price to barelly beat the competiotion) thus making more profits for the bank and hence get bigger bonuses. This is why Financial regulations say that there is supposed to be so-called Chinese Walls between the proprietary trading and the customer trading activities: they're supposed to be segregated and not visible to each other.
Note that the heads of both teams were mates and already regularly had chats, so they might already have been exchanging this info informally.
I was quite fresh in there (less than 1 year) and the software system I worked in at the time was used by both teams, but when I started looking into it I saw that the separation was very explicitly coded in software and that got me thinking about what I had learned from the mandatory compliance training I had done when I first joined (so, yeah, that stuff is not totally useless!!!)
So I asked for written confirmation from the heads of both teams, and just got some vague response e-mails, no clear "do such and such".
So I played the fool and took it to a seperate team called Compliance (responsible for compliance with financial regulations) saying I just wanted to make sure it was all prim and proper, "just in case".
Of course, it kinda blew up (locally) and I ended up called to a meeting with the heads of the Prop Desk and whatnot - all stern looks and barelly contained angry tones - were I kept playing the fool.
Ultimatelly it ended up not being a problem for me at all, to the point that after that bank went bust and its component parts were sold to another bank, the technical team manager asked me to come back to work with the same IT group (remember, I was a freelancer) with even greater responsabilities, so this didn't exactly damage my career.
That said, over the years there were various cases of IT guys in large investment banks who went along with "innocent" requests from the Traders and ended up as the fall-guys for subsequent breaking of Finance Regulations, serving jail time, so had I gone along with that request I would've actually risked ending up in jail.
(Financial Regulators were and are a complete total joke when it comes to large banks, which actually makes it more likely that some poor techie guy will be made the fall guy to protected the bank and its heads).
Way to make everybody believe your government did actually murder somebody in Canada, Modi.
They will say of themselves as being Irish/Italian/other-european-nationality because their great-grandfather or great-grandmother came from there.
Well, yeah, it's put on the database.
It's the only way to avoid double voting from the same account or to remove the reverse vote if one changes one's mind and votes the other way.
Did you think that it was any different on Reddit and that no random employee with access to their database could run a similar SQL query with a couple of joins and end up with nicknames, e-mails and IP addresses?!
Do you know who are the Reddit employees with access to their database or a copy of it? Have you had a chance to vet them? I don't think so.
At least here it's a bit more transparent.
The only shocking thing in this is that anybody is shocked by it.
They went for a retroactive pricing change.
Imagine that you start a game project (which will cost you years and a lot of $$$ to develop) and at any point Unity just arbitrarilly changes the conditions (which can be of any kind, not just extra charges) that apply to your game, after you're too far into development to feasibly replace Unity, and do it retroactivelly, so after your game is already out it can still get impacted by it.
Suddenly a totally viable project might become unviable or, worse, an active drain on your company's finances or even your own (i.e. your company and, depending on how you structured it, even you yourself can go bankrupt), and all of that based on the fickle wishes of a higher up in Unity.
At this point it makes no business sense whatsoever to choose Unity: there is way, WAY, WAY too much risk involved by choosing it (new charges that apply retroactivelly as this one can literally kill your company) and at the same times there are viable alternatives out there without such risks.
For any project not yet deeply tied to Unity, from the day they came up with a retroactive change to their pricing, the obvious, clear as day, choice from a business point of view became to not use anything from Unity, even for shitty shit asset-flipping "near zero investment" projects.
"Do no evil^1^"
^1^ unless we can make money from it.
What's funny that Satan is living rent free in this person's brain...
It's a start.
Now do the Board who chose an EA CEO with his track record to lead Unity and stood behind this until finally forced by the consequences of his actions to push them out.
Certainly and after what happenned, merelly pushing out one guy in the nicest, most career protecting way possible, isn't sufficient to restore my trust in Unity as a platform on top of which to base my business.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
One should be even more skeptical and demanding of proof for wannabe trust-gatekeepers of the entire Internet, than one should already be for single newsmedia entities - the former place themselves as supervisors of trust in the latter and yet have even less proven trustworthiness than them.
So it's curious that the !world@lemmy.world mods keep on pushing for people reading posts on that community to use this specific self-annointed trust gatekeeper who has repeatedly shown that they themselves are biased (quite a lot to the Right of the political spectrum and pro-Zionistl) as their trust-gatekeeper.
I keep downvoting it because such action reeks of manipulation and is exactly the kind of thing that State Actors and Political Actors would do to shape opinions in the this day and age when people can read articles from anywhere in the World.
The guy was a decent salesman, heavilly empowered by daddy's money and connections, who had a bit of luck, even though he only had one kind of salesmanship technique - the Techbro Brew: heavy on selling "high-tech" and "innovation" as inherently good and always trumphing other considerations - and kept walking the grey legal area between lies, exageration and Fraud.
However he seems to have started believing his own schtick that he's a special golden boy whose farts smell of roses, and here we are now.
It's called a single-point of failure in Engineering.
Funny enough it wasn't even a technical one but a contractual one.
Maybe there is some kind of lesson here on the risk of delegating critical structural elements to 3rd parties that rent rather than own that which they're selling ...
In the late 70s around 23% of US corporate revenues went to pay salaries. By 2012 that had fallen to 7% - in other words, just before neoliberalism really took off almost 1/4 of the money workers spent buying goods from US companies was almost directly back in workers' pockets, whilst by 2012 less that 1/14 of what workers spent buying goods from US companies ended back in workers' pockets.
All that excess money that doesn't get recycled back to workers anymore has got to be pooling somewhere.
We're talking about fingerprinting stuff coming in via HDMI, not stuff being played by the "smart" part of the TV itself from some source.
You would probably not need to actually sample images if it's the TV's processor that's playing something from a source, because there are probably smarter approaches for most sources (for example, for a TV channel you probably just need to know the setting of the tuner, location and the local time and then get the data from available Program Guide info (called EPG, if I remember it correctly).
The problem is that anything might be coming over HDMI and it's not compressed, so if they want to figure out what that is, it's a much bigger problem.
Your approach does sound like it would work if the Smart TV was playing some compressed video file, though.
Mind you, I too am just "thinking out loud" rather that actually knowing what they do (or what I'm talking about ;))