428 karma · joined November 28, 2014
Only when it's used ironically. If the article uses that as a headline and forces you to read the whole thing before giving so much as a hint what the "one weird trick" is, then it's legitimate clickbait.
Don't get me wrong, it's an interesting article. I just think if an article is attempting to humorously use a clickbait headline, then it owes it to the reader to at least add a subheading.
Also, it's right in front of your eyes, so it's clear when it says something else. Your computer keyboard isn't, and people don't usually look at the enter key before hitting it (even hunt-and-peck typers should have the enter key committed to muscle memory). Forcing people to look down at their keyboards before hitting enter would make ergonomics worse, not better.
I know you're talking about emulators, not ROMs. But it's also worth mentioning that the legality of Switch ROMs actually is quite different from Game Boy ROMs. I was recently surprised to discover archive.org has ROMs for older systems - IANAL, but apparently this is covered by a DMCA exemption for obsolete formats [1]. Also, Switch ROMs are encrypted on the cartridge, and while I really don't know the details, breaking the encryption also seems to open another legal can of worms (remember when people would get tattoos of the DVD encryption key?).
Once again IANAL, but I suspect Nintendo would have a better case against videos that include instructions on acquiring & decrypting Switch ROMs. I'm not sure if that's the case with these videos or not.
No, this would give YYYYN
If I end up on the page in a language I don't know, then how would I find the language selector?
I agree that flags aren't great, but I don't know of any other solution to this problem.
I agree that flags aren't great, but I don't know of any other solution to this problem.
Except the entity that would make an infringement claim is an algorithm, not a person
This isn't actually a new idea - I know Line 6 has been using it in guitar pedals since at least 2006. Of course, ADCs have gotten better since then - I doubt they were getting even 24 ENOB back then.
It seems to me the extra safety it provides actually makes it harder for a novice to break your code?
Unless you mean strictly in the sense of "harder to break compilation", but I'm not sure that's a good thing (insert obligatory mention of Rust here)
But regardless, even just the input transformer on most mixing consoles costs at least $100. And many extremely high-end consoles use discrete opamps which can get really expensive. There's also a lot of tube-based outboard gear in studios.
Sure, you could build a mixing desk with only $2 opamps and no transformers, no tubes, etc. But that would sound bad. Unlike the audiophile world, recording isn't about doing everything possible to prevent distortion - if it was, all recording would be done with calibrated measurement microphones and other various lab equipment.
So how can distortion be good in recording if it's bad in reproduction? A few reasons. IM distortion, for starters - distorting every channel individually is going to sound much different (and in most cases, better) than distorting the mix of all the channels.
But also, in recording, the distortion is finely tuned to the exact song, by someone who gets paid hundreds of dollars an hour because they are very good at it (and yes, good at getting it to sound even better on a variety of different systems). A recording engineer can use exactly whatever mic preamp they think will sound best for the song. Yes, audiophiles do tend to adjust tiny settings for each song, but not to the degree that recording engineers do - no audiophile is going to own 20 different amps and switch them out for different parts of different songs (or at least not on a regular basis).
Recording engineers can also do so on an individual channel basis - use one preamp for the vocals, a different one for the large-diaphragm condenser over the piano, another different one for a small-diaphragm condenser pointed right at the piano hammers, etc. Unless they're using Dolby Atmos or some other multichannel format, an audiophile doesn't even have that option, no matter how much they enjoy tweaking minor settings.
So no, the signal path is certainly not way less than $100 worth of components - and it wouldn't sound nearly as good if it was.
I agree that length is generally much more important than anything else - but it's not the only factor. Long passwords can be insecure too. Unfortunately it's not easy to validate what exactly what makes an insecure password, and as a result we get stupid requirements that prevent some very good passwords (e.g. diceware-generated passwords).
Maybe it works for the 20,000-seat arenas NIN plays in, but it sure didn't work for a 54,000-seat stadium.
[1] http://vancouversun.com/entertainment/music/big-crowd-for-u2...
It's incorrect to say an engineer can "become" a member of one of these organizations, because you're not legally an engineer until you are a certified member.
> All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff, it’s just not that good. It’s trying to be good, it has potential, but it’s not. But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your work disappoints you.
(full quote: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/309485-nobody-tells-this-to...)
I really wish "just make something" was that simple, but for people who are already full of self-doubt, it might not make things any better, especially for people with high standards. There are ways to get around this (see the rest of the Ira Glass quote), but it's not the panacea the article makes it out to be.
> Additionally, Apple has patents on their TRRS connection- in fact on the resistances (the actual ohm resistance in-line on the controls- not to get scientific or anything) so that the headphones are designed to work only with Apple products