alt.hn

5/2/2026 at 5:32:29 PM

Dav2d

 https://code.videolan.org/videolan/dav2d

by dabinat

5/2/2026 at 6:19:49 PM

Project description:

  dav2d is the fastest AV2 decoder on all platforms :)
  Targeted to be small, portable and very fast.
If you're out of the loop like me:

  AV2 is the next-generation video coding specification from the Alliance for Open Media (AOMedia). Building on the foundation of AV1, AV2 is engineered to provide superior compression efficiency, enabling high-quality video delivery at significantly lower bitrates. It is optimized for the evolving demands of streaming, broadcasting, and real-time video conferencing.
- from https://av2.aomedia.org/

by jzebedee

5/3/2026 at 12:08:46 PM

is there already an av2 encoder for ffmpeg?

by wolfi1

5/3/2026 at 1:11:08 PM

No, since the format is not final.

by jbk

5/3/2026 at 5:31:33 PM

Then how can there be a decoder if it's not final ?

by simlevesque

5/3/2026 at 6:44:07 PM

You seem to be unfamiliar with the concepts of alpha and beta or other pre-release software. Seems a strange thing to be unfamiliar though in 2026

by dylan604

5/3/2026 at 9:33:50 PM

If you see the state of what is called "production quality" software these days, alpha/beta quality has lost most of its meaning. You now just wait for "next prod"

// I jest... but only to hide the sadness

by saratogacx

5/3/2026 at 6:02:50 PM

it's a decoder of the current draft

by adgjlsfhk1

5/3/2026 at 7:27:41 PM

The bitstream could be "final" without the coding tools being so.

by BoingBoomTschak

5/3/2026 at 12:41:58 PM

i don't even own a dgpu capable of encoding av1 and they're already coming out with av2?

by dirasieb

5/3/2026 at 6:44:58 PM

If the thing you are working on is already out of date to the point there is already significant work on the 2 version, why would you continue?

by dylan604

5/3/2026 at 8:56:51 AM

> AV2 is the next-generation video coding specification from the Alliance for Open Media

Oh no. Not another one. I presume this one makes lossy better, or faster or both.

by hulitu

5/2/2026 at 7:08:40 PM

looks at if AV2 is dead in the water

https://www.sisvel.com/insights/av2-is-coming-sisvel-is-prep...

yep

by delfinom

5/2/2026 at 7:15:29 PM

They've done the same thing with AV1, and I can't see that having prevented adoption, nor can I imagine Sisvel wanting to poke the bear that is AOMedia unless they're certain their case is absolutely watertight.

by Telaneo

5/2/2026 at 7:19:10 PM

I see zero public evidence that they've filed any lawsuits against the members of AOM in any jurisdiction. I'm sure there's been a lot of threatening letters sent...

by walrus01

5/2/2026 at 8:26:30 PM

Yup. The Dolby/Disney vs Snapchat lawsuit is going to be the first one. So far it's only been filed.

The big question is if AOMedia is going to make good on their Mutually Assured Destruction promise of using their patent and financial war chest to to countersue into oblivion anyone trying to go after AV1 adaptors.

by jorvi

5/4/2026 at 11:43:05 AM

How would they counter-sue a company that does no business except by licensing its patents?

by CodesInChaos

5/3/2026 at 3:22:28 PM

There situation is more intricate: the allegations are that Snapchat infringes patents through its use of the AV1 and HEVC codecs. Dolby states that it did not participate in AV1’s development and made no FRAND commitment with respect to AV1, and that its HEVC FRAND obligations apply only to decoding, not encoding.

by pizza234

5/2/2026 at 9:25:42 PM

I would love to live in a world where this happens. I will place big bets that it will, regrettably not happen.

by dmitrygr

5/2/2026 at 7:24:30 PM

Same, which is what makes it seem to me that that case is absolutely not watertight. Those patents are probably all about esoteric minutiae (to be fair, that's because that's what it takes to make a better video codec these days) and everything and anything that can seemingly be connected to AV2 (or AV1 for that matter), many of which have only gotten a patent because the person approving it only barely understands what it's saying.

by Telaneo

5/3/2026 at 9:43:52 AM

The illusion breaks once tested in court.

Which is why they'd never sue, only threaten and try to settle.

by snvzz

5/2/2026 at 8:01:18 PM

This is a thinly veiled extortion racket and any competent system would fine them into bankruptcy.

by ronsor

5/2/2026 at 9:00:00 PM

We need a more efficient way to eliminate bullshit patents or bullshit patent infringement claims than "violate them then spend millions on lawyers to fight them in court".

by mort96

5/2/2026 at 9:02:25 PM

Sure, and at the same time we need a more efficient way to ensure big companies can’t just take what they want and bury anyone who complains.

It’s not an easy problem.

by brookst

5/3/2026 at 5:45:02 AM

Stop big companies from ever forming. They are not a natural force that cannot be reckoned with. We allow them to exist. Revoke the charters of any business over 500 employees.

by voakbasda

5/3/2026 at 7:17:32 AM

I can see a number of ways to work around that limitation, without even lobbying and bribing. And I'm not even a lawyer or an accountant.

Eventually all the money and power will converge in a few sub 500, or sub 50, companies and nothing will change.

by pmontra

5/4/2026 at 12:25:33 AM

Does that happen in places like Europe, where software patents aren't a thing?

by extraduder_ire

5/3/2026 at 12:31:05 PM

Eliminate software patents.

by WhyNotHugo

5/4/2026 at 9:59:51 AM

The disgusting part is that they are proud of how complicated and exploitable this patent situation is, acting as if they were the key experts in developing codecs when they are just experts in gating access to them. Like, their entire business model is based on negating the value of the inventions.

by imtringued

5/2/2026 at 7:12:21 PM

Sisvel is a patent troll. Take a look at the combined list of all companies that are the AOM and tell me with a straight face that all of their corporate in house counsel specializing in intellectual property law are wrong.

by walrus01

5/2/2026 at 7:55:55 PM

I don't know this stuff super well but I imagine it's not necessarily about the lawyers being right or wrong so much as what they can convince people of. The ideal scenario for the patent troll is they can intimidate you into licensing with them. Another good outcome for them (though more costly) is they can convince some non-expert in court. In either case the big players behind the codec can defend themselves but a small one just picking it up downstream as OSS can't.

by asveikau

5/2/2026 at 8:03:06 PM

I don't doubt for a minute that they are going to attempt to intimidate companies using av1 which are much smaller than the AOM founders.

by walrus01

5/3/2026 at 2:01:41 AM

Trolls will always be trolls. The need to fight them just shows the need to reform the garbage patent system to make sure no one can ever patent software.

by shmerl

5/2/2026 at 10:27:02 PM

You can tell Sisvel are a bunch of grifters by the fact they use slight grey text on a slightly less grey background.

Aesthetics over function; style over substance. If that's their web design policy it's likely their policy in all other aspects.

I'm also not sure that they're aware that intellectual property rights no longer exist in the US. If AV2 was vibe coded, there would be no case.

by BLKNSLVR

5/2/2026 at 10:44:18 PM

> If AV2 was vibe coded, there would be no case.

…for copyright. Not for anything else. Patents would still apply.

by astrange

5/2/2026 at 6:30:08 PM

Not on topic, but wow the internet has very quickly devolved into: click -> "making sure you're not a bot", click -> "making sure you're a human", click -> "COOKIES COOKIES COOKIES", click -> "cloudflare something something"

by tensor

5/2/2026 at 6:57:58 PM

We had to set it up on the parts of VideoLAN infra so the service would remain usable.

Otherwise it was under a constant DDoS by the AI bots.

by thresh

5/2/2026 at 8:23:39 PM

Maybe I’m naive about this, but I didn’t expect AI scrapers to be that big of a load? I mean, it’s not that they need to scrape the same at 1000+ QPS, and even then I wouldn’t expect them to download all media and images either?

What am I missing that explains the gap between this and “constant DDoS” of the site?

by hectormalot

5/2/2026 at 8:51:26 PM

You cant really cache the dynamic content produced by the forges like Gitlab and, say, web forums like phpbb. So it means every request gets through the slow path. Media/JS is of course cached on the edge, so it's not an issue.

Even when the amount of AI requests isnt that high - generally it's in hundreds per second tops for our services combined - that's still a load that causes issues for legitimate users/developers. We've seen it grow from somewhat reasonable to pretty much being 99% of responses we serve.

Can it be solved by throwing more hardware at the problem? Sure. But it's not sustainable, and the reasonable approach in our case is to filter off the parasitic traffic.

by thresh

5/3/2026 at 1:19:38 AM

Thanks, appreciate the details. 99% is far above the amount I expected, and if it specifically hits hard to cache data then I can see how that brings a system to its knees.

by hectormalot

5/2/2026 at 9:57:55 PM

You kind of can though. You serve cached assets and then use JavaScript to modify it for the individual user. The specific user actions can't be cached, but the rest of it can.

by fragmede

5/3/2026 at 12:56:05 AM

Totally. Remember slashdot in the 1990s used to house a dynamic page on a handful of servers with horsepower dwarfed by a Nintendo Switch that had a user base capable of bringing major properties down.

by davidron

5/3/2026 at 1:03:33 AM

The "can't" comes from the fact that VLC is not going to rewrite their forum software or software forge.

Software written in PHP is in most cases frankly still abysmally slow and inefficient. Wordpress runs like 70% of the web and you can really feel it from the 1500ms+ TFFB most sites have. PhpBB is not much better. Pathetic throughput at best and it has not gotten better in decades now.

I don't know how GitLab became so disgustingly slow. But yeah, I'm not surprised bots can easily bring it to its knees.

by Avamander

5/3/2026 at 3:03:16 PM

> Wordpress runs like 70% of the web and you can really feel it from the 1500ms+ TFFB most sites have. PhpBB is not much better.

At least phpBB died 15 years ago with most communities migrating to Xenforo. I'm not quite sure how or why WP is still around with so many SSGs and SaaS site builders floating around these days.

by alexjplant

5/3/2026 at 9:53:35 AM

The funniest part about WordPress is that you can usually achieve at least a 50% speed boost or more by adding a plugin that just minifies and caches the ridiculous number of dynamic CSS and JS files that most themes and plugins add to every page. Set those up with HTTP 103 Early Hints preload headers (so the browser can start sending subresource requests in the background before the HTML is even sent out, exactly the kind of thing HTTP/2 and /3 were designed to make possible) and then throw Cloudflare or another decent CDN on top, and you're suddenly getting TTFBs much closer to a more "modern" stack.

The bizarre thing is that pretty much no CMS, even the "new" ones, seems to automate all of that by default. None of those steps are that difficult to implement, and provide a serious speed boost to everything from WordPress to MediaWiki in my experience, and yet the only service that seems to get close to offering it is Cloudflare.

Even then, Cloudflare's tooling only works its best if you're already emitting minified and compressed files and custom written preload headers on the origin side, since the hit on decompressing all the origin traffic to make those adjustments and analyses is way worse for performance than just forwarding your compressed responses directly, hence why they removed Auto Minify[1] and encourage sending pre-compressed Brotli level 11 responses from the origin[2] so people on recent browsers get pass-through compression without extra cycles being spent on Cloudflare's servers.

The solution seems pretty clear: aim to get as much stuff served statically, preferably pre-compressed, as you can. But it's still weird that actually implementing that is still a manual process on most CMSes, when it shouldn't be that hard to make it a standard feature.

And as for Git web interfaces, the correct solution is to require logins to view complete history. Nobody likes saying it, nobody likes hearing it. But Git is not efficient enough on its own to handle the constant bombardment of random history paginations and diffs that AI crawlers seem to love. It wasn't an issue before, because old crawlers for things like search engines were smart enough to ignore those types of pages, or at least to accept when the sysadmin says it should ignore those types of pages. AI crawlers have no limits, ignore signals from site operators, make no attempts to skip redundant content, and in general are very dumb about how they send requests (this is a large part of why Anubis works so well; it's not a particularly complex or hard to bypass proof of work system[3], but AI bots genuinely don't care about anything but consuming as many HTTP 200s as a server can return, and give up at the slightest hint of pushback (but do at least try randomizing IPs and User-Agents, since those are effectively zero-cost to attempt).

[1]: https://community.cloudflare.com/t/deprecating-auto-minify/6...

[2]: https://blog.cloudflare.com/this-is-brotli-from-origin/

[3]: https://lock.cmpxchg8b.com/anubis.html but see also https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45787775 and then https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43668433 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43864108 for how it's working in the real world. Clearly Anubis actually does work, given testimonials from admins and wide deployment numbers, but that can only mean that AI scrapers aren't actually implementing effective bypass measures. Which does seem pretty in line with what I've heard about AI scrapers, summarized well in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43397361, in that they are basically making no attempt to actually optimize how they're crawling. The general consensus seems to be that if they were going to crawl optimally, they'd just pull down a copy of Common Crawl like every other major data analysis project has done for the last two decades, but all the AI companies are so desperate to get just slightly more training data than their competitors that they're repeatedly crawling near-identical Git diffs just on the off-chance they reveal some slightly different permutation of text to use. This is also why open source models have been able to almost keep pace with the state of the art models coming out of the big firms: they're just designing way more efficient training processes, while the big guys are desperately throwing hardware and crawlers at the problem in the desperate hope that they can will it into an Amazon model instead of a Ben and Jerry’s model[4].

[4]: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/05/12/strategy-letter-i-... - still probably the single greatest blog post ever written, 26 years later.

by Nathan2055

5/3/2026 at 10:15:58 AM

> And as for Git web interfaces, the correct solution is to require logins to view complete history.

Why logins, exactly? Who would have such logins; developers only, or anyone who signs up? I'm not sure if this is an effective long-term mitigation, or simply a “wall of minimal height” like you point out that Anubis is.

by Sesse__

5/2/2026 at 8:35:46 PM

I think there's a few things at play here

- AI scrapers will pull a bunch of docs from many sites in parallel (so instead of a human request where someone picks a single Google result, it hits a bunch of sites)

- AI will crawl the site looking for the correct answer which may hit a handful of pages

- AI sends requests in quick succession (big bursts instead of small trickle over longer time)

- Personal assistants may crawl the site repeatedly scraping everything (we saw a fair bit of this at work, they announced themselves with user agents)

- At work (b2b SaaS webapp) we also found that the personal assistant variety tended to hammer really computationally expensive data export and reporting endpoints generally without filters. While our app technically supported it, it was very inorganic traffic

That said, I don't think the solution is blanket blocks. Really it's exposing sites are poorly optimized for emerging technology.

by nijave

5/3/2026 at 7:09:09 AM

Also, relevant for forges: AI doesn't understand what it's clicking on. Git forges tend to e.g. have a lot of links like “download a tarball at this revision” which are super-expensive as far as resources go, and AI crawlers will click on those because they click on every link that looks shiny. (And there are a lot of revisions in a project like VLC!) Much, much more often than humans do.

by Sesse__

5/2/2026 at 8:33:20 PM

They are a scourge, they never rate-limit themselves, there are a hundred of them, and a significant number don’t respect robots.txt. Many of them also end up our meta:no-index,no-follow search pages leading to cost overruns on our Algolia usage. We spend way too much time adjusting WAF and other bot-controls than we should have.

by Y-bar

5/3/2026 at 2:46:33 PM

You've gotten several comprehensive responses so far and I want to add a niche corner that people might assume might not have the bot problem but still does.

I run a website that hosts tools for my family: games and a TV interface for the kids, remote access to our family cloud and cameras, etc. Sensitive things require log in and have additional parameters required for access of course.

I specifically blocked bots from search engines so my site is never indexed, as I'm not selling anything nor want any attention, as well as some other public non-malicious bots in case they communicate with Google, just to be safe there, and my robots.txt doesn't allow anything.

I assume then, that the only way a bot could even find my site is to do what the indexers do: brute force try every single possible ipv4 address hoping to hear something back, as my domain should not be known (and isn't simple enough to be quickly guessed), and most traffic must be malicious, or indexing (AI overview and other scrapers won't be finding it via web search).

Since it isn't indexing, and keeping everything in simple black and white boxes, my remaining traffic is family or malicious bots, and 99.9% isn't family.

I currently have the most strict bot-blocking setup I could come up with, which nicely cut down on quite a bit of traffic, but I do still receive ~2k attempts per day, which as you can imagine, still is around 99% not traffic, as I have fewer than 20 kids, and my kids aren't using the site nonstop.

Conveniently, my setup has never accidentally blocked a family member, so I'm pleased with the setup.

by eks391

5/3/2026 at 5:32:37 PM

> I assume then, that the only way a bot could even find my site is to do what the indexers do: brute force try every single possible ipv4 address hoping to hear something back, as my domain should not be known

If your site uses https, they could also get your domain from the certificate transparency logs for the certificate you use.

by thayne

5/3/2026 at 11:58:48 PM

You can get around this by grabbing a wildcard certificate and then using a hard-to-guess subdomain.

by PokestarFan

5/3/2026 at 12:27:43 AM

Yes, it's that BIG of a load: https://status.sr.ht/issues/2025-03-17-git.sr.ht-llms/

by eipi10_hn

5/3/2026 at 1:15:03 AM

Thanks. I imagine there is a (a) a lot of interest in scraping source code, and (b) many requests to forges hitting expensive paths. 99% of volume though, wow, much more than expected.

by hectormalot

5/2/2026 at 8:26:47 PM

While I do sympathetize with the AI DDoS situation, it'd be nice if there were a solution that allows them to work so they can pull official docs.

For instance, MCP, static sites that are easy to scale, a cache in front of a dynamic site engine

by nijave

5/2/2026 at 8:55:40 PM

Of course, static websites is the best solution to that problem.

Our documentation and a main website are not fronted by this protection, so they're still accessible for the scrapers.

by thresh

5/2/2026 at 11:40:08 PM

[dead]

by stefantalpalaru

5/2/2026 at 8:07:24 PM

I highly doubt there is no other technically feasible option to block the AI bots. You end up blocking not just bots, but many humans too. When I clicked on the link and the bot block came up, I just clicked back. I think HN posts should have warnings when the site blocks you from seeing it until you somehow, maybe, prove you are human.

by nerdralph

5/2/2026 at 8:20:32 PM

I'm sure there are many solutions for many problems, but expecting a small Foss development team to know or implement them all is rather unreasonable.

I think the world gains more if the VLAN team focuses on their amazing, free contribution to the world, than if they spend the same time trying to figure out how to save you two clicks.

We all hate that this is happening, but you don't need to attack everyone that is unfortunately caught up in it.

by goobatrooba

5/2/2026 at 8:22:25 PM

> I highly doubt there is no other technically feasible option to block the AI bots.

If you have discovered such an option, you could get very wealthy: minimizing friction for humans in e-commerce is valuable. If you're a drive-by critic not vested in the project, then yours is an instance of talk being cheap.

by overfeed

5/2/2026 at 8:19:52 PM

I'm all ears on how we can fix it otherwise.

Keep in mind that those kinds of services: - should not be MITMed by CDNs - are generally ran by volunteers with zero budget, money and time-wise

by thresh

5/2/2026 at 9:52:17 PM

First off, don't block the first connection of the day from a given IP. Rate limit/block from there, for example how sshguard does it.

I've seen several posts on HN and elsewhere showing many bots can be fingerprinted and blocked based on HTTP headers and TLS.

For the bots that perfectly match the fingerprint of an interactive browser and don't trigger rate limits, use hidden links to tarpits and zip bombs. Many of these have been discussed on HN. Here's the first one that came to memory: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42725147

by nerdralph

5/3/2026 at 5:54:58 PM

> don't block the first connection of the day from a given IP.

The bots come from a huge number of IP addresses, that won't really help that much. And it doesn't solve the UX problem either, because most pages require multiple requests for additional assets, and requiring human verification then is a lot more complicated than for the initial request.

> For the bots that perfectly match the fingerprint of an interactive browser

That requires properly fingerprinting the browser, which will almost certainly have false positives from users who use unusual browsers or use anti-fingerprinting.

> use hidden links to tarpits and zip bombs.

That can waste the bot users resources, but doesn't necessarily protect your site from bots. And Also requires quite a bit of work that small projects don't have time for.

Unless there is a prebuilt solution that is at least as easy to deploy and at least as effective as something like anubis, it isn't really practical for most sites.

by thayne

5/2/2026 at 8:07:11 PM

Nearly every single website I'm not logged into these days want me to "confirm I'm not a bot".

it is incredibly annoying but what can you do? AI scrapers ruined the web.

by notenlish

5/2/2026 at 6:32:12 PM

The internet is such a Tragedy of the Commons… its citizens that act selfishly and in bad faith will slowly make it unusable.

by port11

5/2/2026 at 6:48:59 PM

Its pretty explicitly not a tragedy of the commons. Its a tragedy of the ruling class abusing the resources of the 'commons' to extract value. There is nothing 'commons' about trillion dollar companies extracting all available value from the labor of the working class. That's just the tragedy that'll bring around the death of society, the same tragedy that brings all other tragedys

by honktime

5/2/2026 at 7:13:18 PM

The commons in question is the internet itself.

by throw-the-towel

5/2/2026 at 7:07:14 PM

Thank you for describing the tragedy of the commons

by amusingimpala75

5/2/2026 at 7:34:52 PM

The commons were never unregulated. This is a tragedy of enclosure.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

by multjoy

5/3/2026 at 5:32:39 PM

We might get stuck discussing semantics. Large parts of the internet remain public and open; but an incredibly vast part of it is a toxic wasteland.

It’s true that many spaces people frequent are ‘enclosed’, but these are also less subject to the abuse taking place in the public and open areas.

by port11

5/3/2026 at 12:46:50 PM

tragedy of the commons with your ideological buzzwords sprinkled in, truly innovative

by dirasieb

5/2/2026 at 7:18:24 PM

There’s definitely lots of problems with the ruling class and wealth disparity. Perhaps the defining problems of our current age.

That being said, so many of the plebs suck. Like 2% will ruin everything for everyone.

by dyauspitr

5/2/2026 at 7:20:17 PM

While a lot of the plebs do suck, a pleb who sucks causes way less problems than a big corp that sucks simply by virtue of not having too much resources.

by throw-the-towel

5/2/2026 at 9:21:37 PM

I agree.

But whether you agree with me or not, most paradigm shifting changes come from billionaires/corps because they are the only ones with the money to pull off massive shifts. Most innovation is not grassroots and heavily funded by the “elites”. This is how most successful countries have been for atleast the last 100 years. So billionaires add a lot of value even as they cause a lot of pain.

The solution in my mind is we absolutely need uncapped billionaires but they need to be effectively taxed (not like 90% but closer to 50%) and they have to have absolutely no influence on the government.

by dyauspitr

5/2/2026 at 7:29:15 PM

> its citizens that act selfishly and in bad faith will slowly make it unusable

It's rarely been the citizens that have been the problem, but the governments and companies that seek the use the network connection for their overwhelming benefit.

Re (above):

> Not on topic, but wow the internet has very quickly devolved into: click -> "making sure you're not a bot", click -> "making sure you're a human", click -> "COOKIES COOKIES COOKIES", click -> "cloudflare something something"

by esseph

5/2/2026 at 8:10:53 PM

wat. The protections in place that the OP is talking about are almost entirely due to (not government and company) bad actors.

by fastball

5/2/2026 at 7:25:31 PM

No, it is because citizen allow treating them like this.

by codedokode

5/2/2026 at 8:29:39 PM

No one's even clicking anymore, everything implores me to tap or swipe these days, and everything is optimised for humans with one eye above the other.

Then I press the X to close the all-caps banner commanding me to install the app, upon which I get sent to the app store. Users of the website refer to it as an app.

by pixelpoet

5/2/2026 at 7:24:09 PM

Wow I’m glad it’s not just me. I thought my IP block had gotten caught up in some known spamming or something.

by rayiner

5/3/2026 at 10:40:01 AM

Their bot-detection page took more than 40 seconds to complete on my low-end smartphone. This sucks.

by timpera

5/2/2026 at 8:47:58 PM

At least this one was significantly faster than Cloudflare and required no action on my part.

by tomwheeler

5/2/2026 at 6:37:40 PM

I get exactly none of that. Is your adblocker still working?

by tosti

5/2/2026 at 7:01:32 PM

renders your gigabit connection pointless

by oybng

5/3/2026 at 8:24:08 AM

AI is a gift that keeps on giving.

High hardware prices, locked information sources, plenty of AI slop etc.

by croes

5/3/2026 at 12:02:43 PM

Rather people unable to setup a static websites where needed.

I hate that I can't do a curl, or automate my curls to retrieve data from the web because I either see some cloudfrare protection or some captcha.

Information is blocked in walled gardens.

by krzyk

5/3/2026 at 12:07:26 PM

A little extra context:

Dav1d was the surprisingly fast assembly implementation of AV1 decoding. Even for something in hand-coded platform-specific-assembly I think the general impression was that they'd done amazing work to really chase down every last bit of potential performance.

It didn't initially exist when AV1 was first rolled out and its arrival was a step change in powering adoption on devices without hardware decoding.

Dav2d is likely to play a similar role, but it exists from the start of AV2 and can build on the work of dav1d, so should have an even bigger effect.

In a weird reverse chicken and egg scenario, having really good software decode that can be deployed will spur on hardware development and adoption due to network effects.

by ZeroGravitas

5/2/2026 at 11:46:10 PM

AV2 video codec delivers 30% lower bitrate than AV1, final spec due in late 2025 (videocardz.com) | Oct 2025 | 277 points | 223 comments | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45547537

by infogulch

5/3/2026 at 11:45:31 AM

I care much less about bitrates than about hopefully finally settling on one series of "standards". It looks like H.266 is dead in the water (I haven't even heard of it existing) so we might finally settle on AV2 as "the" new standard, rather than having the infight with half of hard/software only supporting either the state-of-the-art codec from the H26x or the AVx series...

by tgsovlerkhgsel

5/3/2026 at 4:40:15 PM

Don’t worry, hardware manufacturers are going to keep ripping us off with HDR encoding. HDR10, HDR10+, Dolby Vision, and so on.

by Beretta_Vexee

5/2/2026 at 7:30:40 PM

Glorious. Really looking forward to seeing how much better than AV1 it actually turns out to be. It's a shame it'll take a while before we'll have a decent encoder (it took an annoyingly long time until SVT-AV1 was usable).

by Telaneo

5/3/2026 at 3:29:09 AM

Mostly ASM for performance critical paths is a pattern that never gets old. The VideoLAN team did the same with dav1d and it paid off. Curious how much of dav2d ends up staying C as AV2 matures.

by amitbidlan

5/3/2026 at 9:30:31 PM

I've noticed that a number of comments seem to have missed the recursive naming pattern:

    Dav1d AV1 Decoder
    Dav2d AV2 Decoder
Just like "GNU's Not Unix"

by thebeardisred

5/2/2026 at 8:26:01 PM

off topic, but related to the recent github alternative discussion:

Wow, this gitlab instance looked so much cleaner/simpler and less clunky than my past experiences! Also loaded really fast on first page load as well as subsequent actions

by pkos98

5/3/2026 at 12:44:59 PM

Gitlab has been better than github in almost every aspect for a few years already, I don't understand why anyone still bother with github at that point

by toasty228

5/2/2026 at 8:56:17 PM

is there any understanding of how big of an improvment av2 will be over av1?

by risho

5/3/2026 at 2:19:03 AM

About 30% better compression than AV1 at equivalent quality. But it'll be a while before it's a good idea to use AV2 in your home media server. (AV1 is still not that broadly supported)

by ChadNauseam

5/3/2026 at 1:30:56 PM

Where do I get example AV2 videos to test it?

by jiffygist

5/3/2026 at 1:59:48 AM

Nice.

What's the current state of of Dolby trying too attack AV1 ecosystem (Snapchat more specifically)? I hope there is an organized fight back by AOM against these trolls.

by shmerl

5/3/2026 at 1:51:37 PM

Agreed. Software patents were a mistake in general. It is impossible to implement a modern video codec without using work in patents because of how overbroad and poorly written they tend to be.

by razighter777

5/2/2026 at 7:24:55 PM

I would even remove the C code and lower the usage of the assembler pre-processor to a basic C pre-processor.

Happy, AV2 decoding already here.

:)

by sylware

5/3/2026 at 9:42:53 AM

With the first RVA23 boards shipping this month, I find it a mistake to still focus on legacy ISAs like x86 or ARM rather than what will be dominant by the time AV2 is deployed.

by snvzz

5/3/2026 at 3:09:59 PM

riscv is primarily used in microcontroller or peripheral cores on an soc. It'll be a while yet until it is competitive on application cores that applications people run on such that we adopt it in mass. Arm and x86 are also not legacy or going away. The choice to focus on them is rational at this time.

by surajrmal

5/3/2026 at 5:24:47 PM

I hear you, I disagree.

We do not need to argue over this, but rather, we can see what happens over the next couple years.

by snvzz

5/3/2026 at 10:55:11 AM

[dead]

by kk_mors

5/2/2026 at 6:34:07 PM

[flagged]

by Zopieux

5/2/2026 at 7:05:07 PM

Not just C, dav1d and dav2d are actually mostly written in ASM! Then there's a bit of C as the glue or for functions that don't have optimized ASM yet.

Since dav2d is newer it has a higher fraction of C, but not enough for it to be the main language in the codebase :)

by tux3

5/3/2026 at 4:27:13 AM

for dav1d there is https://github.com/memorysafety/rav1d although it reuses the dav1d assembly and performance is typically slower by a single-digit percentage.

by dataking

5/2/2026 at 7:35:09 PM

What are you even implying?

by Almondsetat

5/2/2026 at 11:15:19 PM

It’s not Rust, therefore it’s bad. Or something. This is getting rather tedious.

by kergonath

5/3/2026 at 12:56:44 AM

I don’t think it’s unfounded. Media codecs have been one of the top sources for serious vulnerabilities. The code is incredibly complex, and takes complex input from untrusted sources.

Decoders are one of the best places for rust because they are both performance critical and security critical.

JPEG-XL couldn’t get off the ground until they recreated the decoder in Rust since none of the browsers wanted to touch it. And the apps that did utilise the C based libjxl ended up hit with vulnerabilities in it.

by Gigachad

5/3/2026 at 5:24:50 AM

> JPEG-XL couldn’t get off the ground until they recreated the decoder in Rust since none of the browsers wanted to touch it.

This is extremely misleading. Before they even started work on the Rust-based decoder, experimental JPEG XL support was added to Chrome and Firefox using the reference C++ implementation. Chrome later removed this support for very dubious claims of lack of interest and improvement over previous generation of codecs.

Around that time, Safari shipped JPEG XL support in production, still without the Rust implementation. So the assertion no one wanted to touch it is plain false.

It was actually Mozilla who, a long time after stating they were ambivalent on JPEG XL, brought up memory safety as a major consideration, for the very first time. That’s when the work on the Rust implementation started.

Since the format continued to be more and more supported and talked about, it’s hard to say what exactly were the factors which made Google reconsider their stance. The notion that somehow everyone was super worried about memory safety from the very beginning, and once the JXL team fixed that, everyone was happy to embrace it, seems to come up a lot lately, but it’s terribly distorted and simply not true.

by F3nd0

5/3/2026 at 9:17:35 AM

> I don’t think it’s unfounded.

Not necessarily. What’s annoying is these low-effort posts that bring nothing. In some contexts the discussion is worth having, but we can do better than "it’s bad because it’s not in my pet language" groupthink.

by kergonath

5/3/2026 at 7:45:11 AM

you're falling for and/or playing along with astroturfing, that's what's tedious

can't people coping about rust come up with something fresh? always the same dance:

- fake annoyance about <thing> not being written in rust (bonus points if nonsensical, like here)

- if merely insinuated, fake question about what do they mean exactly

- fake surprise about omg why are people like this, the rust community is so bad, wah wah wah

yawn

oh yeah, let's not forget the other classic:

- the rust community is so dumb for thinking <shit they don't think made up for an easy beatdown>

- yeah ikr haha so stupid

every fucking rust thread is like this, and it's unreadable. by intention of course, obviously.

but it's ai / corporations / the government ruining the internet guys! totally...

by perching_aix

5/2/2026 at 8:03:26 PM

I think they mean that video decoders and encoders tend to have custom assembly code for speedup.

by notenlish

5/2/2026 at 8:54:11 PM

And? It's common knowledge that the "reference" or "research" version of any codec is always quite high level to get development going and actually produce a working bitstream

by Almondsetat

5/2/2026 at 8:08:01 PM

That codecs should be written in safer languages given that they usually process untrusted files. There have been a number of serious hacks from file parsing bugs due to them being written in unsafe languages.

There's literally a DSL designed for this purpose (Wuffs) so it would be interesting to hear why they didn't use it.

by IshKebab

5/2/2026 at 8:27:41 PM

There's an order of magnitude difference in speed requirements between file format parsing and image decoding, then another order of magnitude difference to video decoding. Even rav1d reuses dav1d's assembly (most of the actual runtime) to approach its speed.

by brigade

5/2/2026 at 10:29:57 PM

There was already attempt for dav1d to re-implement in rust by rav1d. It was hard to match performance: https://www.memorysafety.org/blog/rav1d-perf-bounty/

by adobrawy

5/3/2026 at 1:21:04 PM

Not just performance, the code was littered with unsafe blocks and the benchmarks (IIRC) were gamed heavily by the Rust devs.

It was a dishonest effort that actually undermined the memory safety pitch.

by hitekker

5/3/2026 at 9:28:00 AM

> It was hard to match performance

They say it is 5% slower. That's close enough. I know they say it isn't but in reality that speed difference is just going to be used as an excuse by the anti-Rust crowd.

by IshKebab

5/2/2026 at 10:41:02 PM

The people who write DSLs for video codec asm, or who claim that it's fine to use intrinsics or X higher-level language and it will still be fast enough to be usable, are simply wrong and have never been able to demonstrate otherwise.

Having said that I do think you could write a DSL to generate safe performant asm for a video codec. Just not a platform-independent one. It would still have to be asm.

by astrange

5/3/2026 at 12:27:27 AM

It sounds like your second statement contradicts your first. But also, WUFFS exists and it looks like the Google Chrome GIF decoder ships in it: https://github.com/google/wuffs

by dwattttt

5/3/2026 at 2:48:44 AM

It does not contradict it, and also, a gif is not a video.

by astrange

5/3/2026 at 5:17:56 AM

> a gif is not a video.

They're not that different; the image codec WebP is derived from VP8's intra-frame coding.

by dwattttt

5/3/2026 at 8:08:36 PM

I'm well aware and I know the inventor. The important difference for performance is that a gif isn't 60fps.

by astrange

5/2/2026 at 8:05:02 PM

[flagged]

by sergiotapia

5/2/2026 at 6:32:28 PM

[flagged]

by xnx

5/2/2026 at 6:44:37 PM

And who ever heard of this in the majority of the world? It was news to me, I'm white and European btw.

Did you know the US consititues about 4% of humans? When we look at adults and age range that likely ever hear of D4vd we are talking probably considerably less that 1%.

The rest of humanity has no negative association with these four letters.

by virtualritz

5/2/2026 at 7:28:39 PM

It was my first thought when I saw the name, unfortunately. The US constitutes a large portion of this site's user base. Whether the association sticks around is yet to be seen.

by pesus

5/2/2026 at 6:51:42 PM

> And who ever heard of this in the majority of the world? It was news to me, I'm white and European btw.

It's a recurring headline on the rolling news channels on broadcast TV right now - and it's on the front-page of Reddit for me as well.

by DaiPlusPlus

5/2/2026 at 6:58:25 PM

So a project should change its name because when it will be production ready 6 years from now the 1% of the 1% of the 1% will think for 1 microsecond about a piece of news from today?

by Almondsetat

5/2/2026 at 7:03:59 PM

Just that remember that there were people that said calling the second LOTR movie The Two Towers was disrespectful.

by Lerc

5/2/2026 at 7:37:22 PM

Hollywood retitles movies based on books all the time[1], for the silliest of reasons ("Sorcerer's Stone" was contemporaneous to LOTR too); so given there's precedent, it follows that those wanting to retain the original title from the books should defend their position.

[1] https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/book-movie-titl...

by DaiPlusPlus

5/2/2026 at 7:33:36 PM

> So a project should change its nam

Potentially... supposing the criminal investigation into this uncovers a hitherto unknown organ harvesting scheme operating within the global music records industry; the subsequent police dragnet implicates significant proportion of the world's music stars and record labels and generates continual major headlines and criminal convictions - with all their lurid details - all for multiple decades from now on.

It's quite ridiculous when I put it that way, but this is basically the same thing as Epstein's network, just with a different crime; and Epstein was already in the news almost 20 years ago from his first conviction.

...so back in 2009, back when everyone was building their own social-network websites and online dating services, and supposing your real-name was also Epstein, so you called it "EpsteinLoveIsland.com" - would you have changed the name back then?

by DaiPlusPlus

5/2/2026 at 6:56:01 PM

Gotta admit this was the first thing I thought of as well. Hard to focus on the code implementation with that in mind!

by dingdingdang

5/2/2026 at 9:05:48 PM

> I'm white and European btw.

Why did you feel the need to explicitly specify that you're white as one of the reasons you didn't hear the news?

I'm not american either, but the news is all over social media platforms like reddit and Twitter, it's hard to turn a blind eye on them.

by flykespice

5/2/2026 at 6:34:55 PM

Its a followup to their existing Dav1d decoder (av1, av2)

by cosmotic

5/2/2026 at 7:00:49 PM

Which, should be noted, was a thing before d4vd started his career.

dav1d - started in 2018

d4vd - started composing in 2021

by cogman10

5/2/2026 at 6:42:15 PM

It's just unfortunate. Like there was a pharmaceutical company named "Isis" that changed their name due to the association with the terrorist group. That said, while people will notice for the next couple of months, I don't think it warrants changing a name for.

by NewsaHackO

5/3/2026 at 2:16:27 AM

More importantly there's a really good band named isis that probably has not benefitted from the Islamic state. (Ok, they disbanded in 2010, but still).

by cozzyd

5/2/2026 at 7:04:48 PM

By this logic nobody should ever name their child Ted or Theodore because Ted Bundy existed.

by walrus01

5/3/2026 at 11:22:05 AM

You ever meet someone named Adolf? Sometimes names actually are no longer used after a particularly terrible person had that name.

by quickthrowman

5/3/2026 at 8:12:20 PM

the dav1d video decoder predates the person using the stage name "d4vd" by many years.

by walrus01

5/3/2026 at 10:31:29 AM

Some dude at videolan be like, I've have a cool name idea

by abhishek03113

5/2/2026 at 11:09:57 PM

maybe not great naming. Sounds very similar to the rapper D4vd, who was just arrested for murdering a 14 year old girl

by arkensaw

5/2/2026 at 11:12:11 PM

Actually it's closer to https://youtube.com/@dave2d who is a popular tech YouTuber

by jofzar

5/3/2026 at 3:17:00 PM

Huh, I also thought the same

by hackerlytest

5/3/2026 at 1:45:21 AM

That is what I thought of too. Almost live David is a popular name or something... /s

by bl4ckneon

5/3/2026 at 12:42:08 PM

Maybe he should change his name so it's not confused with a popular video codec.

by bloggie

5/2/2026 at 7:46:20 PM

I wonder if the author is a Dave2D fan?

https://www.youtube.com/@Dave2D

by kylec

5/2/2026 at 10:59:42 PM

The AV1 decoder is dav1d. The AV2 decoder is dav2d.

One day in the mysterious future the AV3 decoder will be dav3d.

by breve

5/2/2026 at 8:18:42 PM

They’re more of a D4vd fan

by foo-bar-baz529

5/3/2026 at 2:04:00 AM

D4ve's not here!

by DonHopkins

5/2/2026 at 6:58:28 PM

We must not continue to develop media codecs in memory unsafe languages. Small, auditable sections can opt-out perhaps, but choosing default-unsafe for this type of software is close to professional negligence.

by dcsommer

5/2/2026 at 7:14:43 PM

Cryptography and video codecs are notable exceptions, they put a lot of effort to making the code provably memory safe: no recursion, limited use of stack variables, no dynamic allocations, etc. As a result, memory safe languages bring nothing but trouble by making it non deterministic, that’s especially true for crypto where compiler “optimisations” guarantee you side channels attacks.

by fguerraz

5/2/2026 at 8:59:56 PM

Thank you for mentioning this.

I wonder IFF Rust had an effects system that a Jasmin MIR transform (ie like SPIRV is for shaders) would be useful?

https://github.com/jasmin-lang/jasmin

by WhatIsDukkha

5/3/2026 at 9:53:32 PM

How is this POV compatible with the exploitable vulnerabilities, caused by memory safety, found in openh264, x264, dav1d, and practically every video decoder out there?

by dcsommer

5/4/2026 at 11:04:18 AM

Easily. It's a tradeoff.

by izacus

5/2/2026 at 10:43:19 PM

Video codecs just don't need to do dynamic allocations because it's not relevant to the problem. There's still certainly plenty of opportunities for memory bugs because there's a lot of pointer math.

by astrange

5/2/2026 at 10:51:41 PM

What in the world do you mean by “non-deterministic”?

C compilers, Rust compilers, and assemblers are all deterministic.

by simonask

5/3/2026 at 6:19:44 AM

In cryptography, you want operations to run in constant time, even if it’s wasteful, otherwise an attacker could guess information about the key or plaintext by measuring execution times.

Modern compilers are extremely clever and will produce machine code that takes full advantage of modern CPU branch predictors, and reorder instructions to better take advantage of pipelining. This in itself will make the same code run at different speeds depending on the input data.

Then there is the whole issue of compiler version roulette. As a developer you have no idea which version of compilers your users and distros will use, and what new and wonderful optimisation they will bring.

by fguerraz

5/3/2026 at 12:32:48 PM

I know that, but none of that makes the compiler output non-deterministic.

Determinism does not mean “easy to predict”, it just means “predictable”.

by simonask

5/3/2026 at 2:57:45 AM

> C compilers, Rust compilers, and assemblers are all deterministic.

Within a version, yes, but not cross version. Different versions of GCC/Clang etc can give you completely different code.

by adgjlsfhk1

5/2/2026 at 8:39:43 PM

For the codec itself, the majority of it is performance sensitive and often has a significant amount of assembly even, so a memory safe language doesn't change much.

However for the container/extractor... those should absolutely be in a memory safe language, and those are were a lot of the exploits/crashes are, too, as metadata is more fuzzy.

As a practical example of this see something like CrabbyAVIF. All the parser code is rust, but it delegates to dav1d for the actual codec portion

by kllrnohj

5/2/2026 at 7:28:37 PM

Of the 3 software AV1 encoders, the only one that is fully dead is the Rust encoder (rav1e). If people truly wanted memory safe encoders/decoders, they would fund and develop them.

by fishgoesblub

5/3/2026 at 9:45:41 AM

https://github.com/memorysafety/rav1d got funded and developed. it is unfortunately a bit slower (typically by a single-digit percentage) than dav1d.

by dataking

5/3/2026 at 10:47:21 AM

I can totally understand why people would want a memory-safe decoder, but a memory-safe encoder is niche. Finding a memory-safety bug in a decoder is a matter of finding a single unchecked integer field somewhere; finding a memory-safety bug in an encoder requires first finding some sort of logic bug in the encoder and then crafting an adversarial input that survives a number of highly lossy transformations.

Compare the number of CVEs against x264 (included decoders don't count!) and FFmpeg's H.264 decoder.

by Sesse__

5/2/2026 at 10:53:48 PM

Encoding is a way, way less risky thing to be doing compared to decoding.

by simonask

5/2/2026 at 8:08:54 PM

Fully dead in what sense? Seems like it still has active development to me.

by vlovich123

5/2/2026 at 8:11:27 PM

It hasn't had any proper quality/speed improvements in years. Only thing that has changed is updating deps and some bug fixes.

by fishgoesblub

5/3/2026 at 9:48:19 AM

There are many paths to memory safety, even if the one Rust project seems to be going nowhere.

There's other memory-safe languages, and there's formal verification.

e.g. seL4 favors pancake.

by snvzz

5/2/2026 at 7:31:20 PM

> If people truly wanted memory safe encoders/decoders

Really? How many codecs have your neighbors contributed money for the development of, just curious.

by esseph

5/2/2026 at 8:46:12 PM

I think these conversations are directed by the parties funding the efforts. Example: "we (large company) want a fast AV2 decoder" -> they pay a specialized team to do it -> this team works in C for the most part, so it is done in C. If there were financial incentives to do it in Rust, they'd pay more for a Rust decoder.

by computerbuster

5/3/2026 at 3:34:44 PM

I'm more interested in the idea of general "people" (the commons) funding complex video encoders. I do wish that was the world we lived in, however :)

by esseph

5/2/2026 at 7:44:41 PM

Given Netflix's involvement with SV1-AV1, (not even that) indirectly, at least 1.

by Telaneo

5/3/2026 at 5:35:02 PM

Are you part of any codec development team to use "we" here?

by izacus

5/2/2026 at 8:51:23 PM

Decoders written in Rust will be a lot slower than the equivalents in assembly.

by maxloh