LeoWattenberg

Just a little heads-up: the tech is the fun part. Moderation is eternal, relentless and categorically unfun, especially if your site is disconnected communities

You may enjoy the new global tectonic map with 11000 features and 1180 "tectonic plates". https://doi.org/10.1111/ter.12662, also available on Google maps: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1dXnQlelic4WjA4xKnY...

It's not an LLM, it is a purpose built model. https://arxiv.org/html/2411.19506v1

5 years ago we would've called it a Machine Learning algorithm. 5 years before that, a Big Data algorithm.

Dailymotion, Google Video, sevenload, german TV stations RTL and Pro7 even launched Clipfish and MyVideo respectively to compete with youtube. Youtube happens to be the only one that survived on Googles ad model, the others very quickly realized that paid premium content is much easier to handle (copyright, CSAM) and monetize.

Whatever the reason may be, the fact that pilots regularly engage in rather complicated and obstruse workarounds shows that cockpit design shouldn't be taken as the holy grail of UX.

Incidentally, I also wonder if the many checklists pilots need to go through before the plane does anything are strictly necessary. It seems like automating these steps and removing associated buttons may be beneficial to reduce cognitive load and prevent operator error (such as happened with the Air India crash last year).

While aviation is the origin of UX design, I'm uncertain whether modern cockpit design is born out of UX or out of a resistance to change. For example, for fuel-efficient takeoffs, you need to go in and override the ambient temperature and air pressure sensors and calculate what an efficient fuel mix would be yourself.

Most licenses, EULAs, contracts and so on don't have much precedent in court. There's no reason to believe that GPL would fold once subjected to sufficiently crafty lawyers.

Copy pasting code is allowed under LGPL, but doing so while removing license headers and attribution of code snippets would not be.

I mean, torrenting is decentralised and not technically takedownable. But it was entirely possible to make it legally painful for people involved in it, as seen in eg. The Pirate Bay, megaupload or an entire cease-and-desist letter industry around individual torrenting users

Intentional noncompliance with copyright law can get you quite a distance, but there's a lot of money involved, so if you ever catch the wrong kind of attention, usually by being too successful, you tend to get smacked.

> They just surveyed some college students and drew conclusions by running statistical analyses on the data until they got something that seemed significant.

Is this just cynicism or based on anything? From reading the methods section it doesn't appear this is what happened

I bet the folks of the state Schleswig-Holstein are celebrating right now, having switched away from it recently

https://www.heise.de/en/news/Goodbye-Microsoft-Schleswig-Hol...

They also want 150 Gripen E: https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/ukraines-...

please provide any sort of source that Audacity is, or ever has been, distributing malware.

There is no server in Moscow, and I don't think there ever was. Muse Group left their original office in Kaliningrad for Cyprus pretty much the second the war started, and at this point has no offices or employees left in Russia. The servers always have been bog-standard cloud things, so Cloudflare, DigitalOcean, aws via Netlify and such.

A waveeditor inside a DAW is very helpful anyway; it's the place where you can chop up source files to become loops, and where you can throw in stretch markers to conform fluctuating tempo in the source to your beat. And once you have that going, there's very little in the way of having a template which only shows you that.

In Audacity, our goal is to keep it extremely approachable for beginners, so for us the idea of having one view of a clip in context of the project and a different view in which you only see the clip is something we'd rather not do. A wave editor window or panel separate from the main project timeline is however the industry standard, and as such it might be exactly the sort of feature which would be very at home in Ardour.

You are aware that VLC, LibreOffice and many other FOSS apps have an update checker?

After its inception, Tenacity unfortunately tackled an irrelevant, yet opinionated part of development first: The build system, together with any internal variables saying "audacity" getting replaced with "tenacity". As such, a lot of the work that's gone into it don't manifest to users, and merging any upstream changes takes needlessly long. As a result of this, Tenacity fell behind upstream a lot, being stuck somewhere around Audacity 3.1 while Audacity already was around 3.7. Last month, mercifully, Tenacity got rebased onto Audacity 3.7: https://codeberg.org/tenacityteam/tenacity/pulls/527 (a +261299 -395037 diff!)

As far as user-facing changes go, it's some new themes, a different compressor, keeping features visible which upstream has hidden by default, MKA support without FFmpeg, as well as support for some more niche systems (Haiku, BSD). All of this is in some stages of ongoing; Tenacity 1.4 alpha 1 got released a few weeks ago, and while that does include the rebase, it hasn't ported back all of the changes which were made before the rebase.

Noteworthy: Most of the development is being contributed by one person, Avery King.

As of right now, I'd recommend Audacity 3.7.x over Tenacity, as Audacity 3.x has been in maintenance mode pretty much since 3.6, while Tenacity is currently finding its footing again. Disabling update checking is easy enough anyway.

In the future though, it appears that Tenacity is going to keep alive legacy Audacity for legacy systems while Audacity 4 is on the way of adding more DAW features and dropping support for older systems. Definitely a worthwhile role to inherit.

(disclaimer: I was a designer for Audacity)

I've seen XLR used for DMX lighting. The advice for stage techs seems to be "don't do that". Same thing applies to this standard probably.

It clusters symptoms "without underlying cause" because we don't know the underlying cause. If we wanted to go for a fully "physical mechanism" approach to mental health, we could just end any treatment attempts and say "come back in a few decades or perhaps centuries".

But we do know that certain symptoms tend to show up in clusters, and that patients in certain clusters tend to respond to certain drugs with an above-placebo level of effectiveness.

The same is true for a runny nose: It can be caused by any number of viruses (there is no such a thing as "the" influenza virus or "the" common cold virus), or allergies, or irritants like pepper spray, or a problem with the body's ability to regulate itself, or something else entirely – but going through the effort to test for every virus, allergen, irritant, and whatnot is wasteful, if all the patient needs at that moment is some nasal spray to breathe properly again. Incidentally, a runny nose is (or perhaps: was) not a common symptom of Covid, so unless other symptoms more indicative of it show, there may not a good reason to test for it, or prescribe medication specific to it.

If more symptoms accumulate over time, or the symptoms don't go away, you then probably can go back to your doctor, will get a different diagnosis and possibly a different prescription. The same is (or at least: should be) true for mental issues, where you might switch treatment over and over until something is found which actually helps your symptoms. Is this a flawed process? Frustrating? Absolutely. But is it "worthless"? I don't think so.

It feels broadly desirable to have a court decide what is and isn't a scam and perhaps hand out punishment instead of having a private entity act as the judge and executioner.

I sure have. Mozillas main and perhaps only real mistake was that they didn't meaningfully attempt to become independent from Google the second Google started building Chrome (with Mozillas help, no less!). A truly independent Mozilla would not have needed to implement DRM, and would be shipping with adblock by default - which incidentally is exactly what made people switch from IE to FF in the first place, popup ads.

Now the ship has beached itself and the crew is frantically trying something - anything - to plug the leaks, prevent her from capsizing and trying to get her back afloat. I don't know if they'll manage, or if ladybird is the alternative to the new IE that is Chrome

The beer brewers in my home town used to have a self-driving horse and cart which knew the daily delivery route going by all pubs and didn't really need a human to steer it or indeed be conscious during the trip. Expectedly, the delivery guy would get drunk first thing in the morning and just get carted about collecting the money.

The tragedy of the commons requires a resource that is being depleted, which definitely isn't something that merely using FOSS would do.

If you go to Filter > Video, it gives you a more traditional search.

Additionally, YouTube can be thought of as the second most used search engine. Which in return means that the built-in search is now up against Google, Bing and whatever else - and most other engines can be restricted to just search YouTube using the site: operator.