K0SM0S

52 ms·

331.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
No, on the contrary! Sorry for my ambiguous writing. Indeed double-blind is the only way to go. What I meant is that there is a sizeable chunk of the audiophile industry (a certain press, electronics brands, stores and even studios themselv
332.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
I think they mentioned ReplayGain with AAC and ogg formats, but it's possible they use some custom implementation. There's a good deal of information[1]; it is indeed not peak normalization: > ReplayGain is different from peak
333.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
The double-blind scientific approach to audio testing ("ABX") has long been a major point of contention between "objectivists" and "subjectivists"[1]. This has been a godsend for the marketing marketing of some
334.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
I've always been curious about Spotify's approach on this, because truth be told the service on good quality speakers does sound rather good. I'm very pleased by everything I just read in this link — they really think of the
335.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
I've reached pretty much the same conclusions, but you do make novel points that I think make tremendous sense. > We need to realize that "voting" and "money" and "shares" or "securities" etc.
336.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
Ah, I see. I think, in all fairness to him, you express a desire for some 'journalistic' or 'interviewer' skills. I totally understand that, the greats in those fields are awesome. However I think it's a tall order
337.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
The question is moot: it's precisely because we have evidence of things not currently explained (observation does not fit theory) that we must postulate that our theory is wrong, or that there is more to discover, or both. "Da
338.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
As far as I'm concerned, you're preaching the choir! ;-) Very well worded, by the way. But I've heard enough opinions to know this is opened to preferences.
339.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
Or better yet, do it oneself: about 70 episodes, 7 billion people and change, it only takes 1 out of 100 million of us to transcribe 1 episode each to clear the work. Hint: on a desktop browser, beneath the video you may click the "..
340.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
I agree with you. Just about the best 'proofs' I get in social-chaotic topics like this is by going to the extremes: - a "total" or "100%" data scientist researching ML might spend the better part of his days i
341.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
I think your post is valuable opinion and feeding discussion so have an upvote to balance the downvoters. (why did they..? oh well :shrug:) I actually disagree with you on interview style, I like his (it grows on you, or so I found); his
342.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
Honestly the most disheartening about that company was the half-baked NVIDIA shilling[1], that was called right away by the whole technical community[2]. I wouldn't get on my high horses about that, it's commonplace nowadays that
343.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
Rust is lower-level than Go, but it's also higher-level (!) insofar as Go is among the least "expressive" languages out there — has to be its #1 criticism / value depending on where you stand. Go is very niche in scope,
344.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
That's a vast question. Personally, two: - as a freelancer, new business use-cases. We're essentially bridging OS with browser in terms of capabilities at that point. I find that there are often a few low-hanging fruits in pretty
345.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
I bow to your technical points, I stand corrected; however in terms of problem space, actual production use-cases, do you really think Go is anywhere near C#/Java? Most devs in these languages tend to feel hampered by the roughness, th
346.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
> scripting languages That's what they say, but in practice people report that the lack of the more intuitive tooling like REPL in Python is a common reason not to use Go for scripts. > not really with either C or C++ Well in ter
347.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
If you're in the web sector, definitely give a try to wasm. Have a go at Rust while you're at it — see what I did there? I'm personally hot for GraphQL because it's a powerful paradigm to model data. Both Go and Rust are
348.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
Transforming the biological physical body into a biological 'pure information' 'energy-encoded' system (well, just software, but with incredibly specific rules) is one of my favorite ideas in SF. I tried to write a b
349.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
Oblig. disclaimer, IANAL and not a financial advisor either. > Did you think that companies can't interact if they're not subsidiaries of the same organization? Of course not :) I however wonder if defending anti-trust from a s
350.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
I pretty much share all your views, here. My everlasting-optimism is only tempered by a somewhat keen awareness of that Fermi paradox thingy, a Darwinian observation that species just disappear and the world just keeps spinning. I think the
351.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
I move that the article definitely touches upon a critical topic but fails to nail it due to a too-narrow yet too-peripheral account. Consider this: > Over the coming decades, however, agility will take on a new meaning: the ability to e
352.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
I think it's generational, and it will get better in the 2030-2040s at the latest, when millennials become the dominant generation. The ethos of climate awareness is simply not present enough in previous generations, the seeds were sim
353.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
Indeed, if we only think in terms of thermodynamics, the Earth could sustain trillions of people with ample private room (orders of magnitude more than our current average home+office size). And if you trickle down to implementation probl
354.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
My initial instinct exactly, because major corps are global now, which means they can easily set up shop anywhere on Earth: subsidiaries, but also quasi-independent structures which might only be related through distant funding or meta-agre
355.
Ask HN: Greatest consumer tech innovations of the 2010s?
1 points by K0SM0S 7y ago|0 comments
356.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
But if they could, why don't they, then? I mean, would you willingly put a subpar product to market if you could do better? I'm all for laziness, ignorance and greed explaining the decision-making of most people and companies (tha
357.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
7. Please, PLEASE, PLEEEEAAAAASE be right. We early millenials (1982-84) were promised both utopia and dystopia and I've yet to see the flying cars so I'll settle for good enough VR.
358.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
This, totally this. A weird situation though is that socially we're closer to the 1920's-30's, whereas geopolitically it's much more like the 1900's-10's. Weird how history repeats itself, never quite the same,
359.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
One rationale (well before/without AI) is that medicine operates at 2 levels of hierarchy (doctor, nurse) whereas most fields operate at 3 levels (say exec, mgmt/expert, worker/employee), typically mapped to 2-3, 4-5, and 7+
360.
by K0SM0S 7y ago
Goes to show that humor is a great tool to speak of important things! :D Also, funny that Apple should fail at skeuomorphism. [whistling face] This post was sponsored by the text-emoticon resistance.

More ›