SeanLuke

Yeah, but would Verizon (let's say) let TikTok on its servers given that they'll be fined for it retroactively (in 4 years) regardless of Trump's order now? And it's a big fine.

No, this is something different. The law allows a 90-day reprieve only if significant effort has been expended towards selling TikTok. But ByteDance hasn't made any effort at all. Trump is instead trying to prevent the Justice Department from enforcing the law. But the penalties -- and they are very large -- for violating the law can be enforced any time up to 5 years after the violation; that is, after Trump has left office. So his action may not have any effect.

So I presume your complaint is that by synthesis you mean taking two things, smashing them together, and producing a new thing. In which case, sure, subtractive synthesis isn't synthesis unless:

- Two oscillators undergoing detune, sync, ring or amplitude modulation, or fm prior to getting fed into the filter?

- An LFO combined with an oscillator?

- An envelope (controlling the filter or amplifier) combined with an oscillator?

Perhaps these things might be considered combinations? I agree this is weak. You can blame the RCA Mark I and II for calling subtractive synthesizers "synthesizers".

> MacWrite was released 5 years after WordPerfect, which itself is predated by WordStar. I don't get why Apple fans have this obsession with pretending Apple invents these things.

Um, hello, Wang OIS? WordStar and WordPerfect didn't invent anything. They were copies of terminal-based word processors.

But MacWrite was different in two important ways. First, like Bravo and Gypsy before it, it was WYSIWYG, a million times better than WordStar/WordPerfect. And it worked with the LaserWriter. But more importantly: it was free. This made MacWrite revolutionary.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bravo_(editor)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gypsy_(software)

Per bbum and others, NS long predated Sun getting involved.

Nope. NeXT switching from NX to NS predates Sun's involvement.

For discussion here, the number of labels is irrelevant: only their market share.

UMG alone has 38% of the entire record label market share. Its annual revenue is more than the entire revenue of all independent record labels combined.

AFAIK the lion's share of the market is held by the top ten labels, none of whom have the musician's best interest at heart. So yes, it's reasonable to say that labels generally don't represent musicians.

> I looked up how he's actually associated with the Iron Guard, and it looks like he literally said that they 'also did “good deeds”' [1]. This is literally on the level of "fine people" hoax that the mainstream media perpetrated against Trump!

What hoax?

https://www.politifact.com/article/2019/apr/26/context-trump...

Clive James is wrong. The Italian is very straightforward, and the traditional translation is right.

Guaifenesin, like Phenylephrine, is now widely viewed as having no efficacy.

It's been definitiely shown since at least 2010 that phenylephrine is useless for this purpose. How in the world did the FDA let the decongestant industry push this drug for 15 years before coming down on it?

The top response is wrong. So of course it was locked and made impossible to downgrade or correct. If this isn't a canonical Stack Overflow example I don't know what is.

IIRC D&D was so directly based on Tolkien that they used the terms "halfling", "goblin", and "magic user" to avoid a fight with the Tolkien Estate over the terms "hobbit", "orc", and "wizard". This article thus makes little sense to me: how many half-elf magic users do you see popping up in medieval history?

It seems that they could just set up a zipline.

Do you have support for this claim? It is pretty extraordinary, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

AFAIK, "Him" has been the accusative (subject) form since at least Old English. https://www.etymonline.com/word/him

> This is known as the curse of dimensionality (the more things you have to vary, the exponentially more combinations you have to test)

Is this really a valid usage of this term? The only definition I am personally familiar with is from machine learning, and it is something totally different.

Sure. What I said, or had meant to say, was in reply to people complaining that there was some kind of cartel against negative results. Rather, what we're seeing is just the natural, if unfortunate, response to the basic problem with negative results as a whole. You can't just treat them as the same as positive results: because of their numerosity they require unusual justification for their publication.

> The idea is that some null hypotheses being true is actually interesting because it challenges an assumed belief.

??? As I had said originally, that's one of the primary situations where a negative result should be published.

But the huge, huge, huge majority of negative results are trivial and uninteresting. Thus the fundamental issue with negative results is that you have to provide rather more compelling justification for why such results should be published.

Sure they are.

So let's say I claim that the sun goes in a circle in the sky in the morning. The null hypothesis is that it doesn't do that. Perform experiment. Null hypothesis wins. Write up paper! This is a negative result.

The point is that for every result where the alternative hypothesis wins, there are a massive, if not infinite, number of results where the null hypothesis will win. Are these publishable?

I think the fundamental problem is that for every claim yielding a positive result there are many more, perhaps infinitely more, related claims yielding negative results.

Positive result claim: the sun comes up in the morning.

Negative result claims: the sun moves sideways in the morning. The sun was always there. The sun peeks up in the morning and immediately goes back down. And so on.

Positive result claim: aspirin is an effective pain reliever.

Negative result claims: eating sawdust is an effective pain reliever. Snorting water is an effective pain reliever. Crystal Healing is an effective pain reliever. Etc.

Because there are so many negative results, it's trivial to construct an experiment which produces one. So why should that be published?

Negative results should be published when people in the community are asking that question, or have a wrong belief in the answer (hence the replication crisis). But if nobody cares about the question, it's hard to argue for why a given negative result would be preferred over any other negative result for purposes of publication.

Fracking is believed to be a major source of (minor) earthquakes. This article didn't even mention it.

In fact there is. https://hackaday.com/2021/01/17/leds-from-dubai-the-royal-li...

Okay, so you click on the zoom box to go to the "editor". But: if the hypercard player was emulated, why wasn't the editor emulated? Or even an attempt made to be reasonably similar to it? Instead it's replaced with something completely different.

Point taken, but you can put together 2 ae vcas, a vco, power supply and headphone amp plus this module for less than 2/3 the cost of this thing. And they're optional. It's still much too expensive imho.

I'm pretty unimpressed: this is stupid expensive for rather little.

Tangible Waves's AE Modular format is particularly easy for hobbyists to develop on: it's strictly 0-5V, with simple power requirements, etc., and it's very cheap. For a number of years Tangible Waves has sold the BRAEDBOARD module, which is more or less the same thing as Erica Synths's product, but costs $30. And Tangible Waves goes further: they sell a PCB prototyping module kit for $20, called DIY, to take your design one step further.

https://www.tangiblewaves.com/store/p92/BRAEDBOARD.html

https://www.tangiblewaves.com/store/p91/DIY_kit.html

They compete with other insurance companies for customers. And the way to do that is to minimize the cost of insurance for a given payout. Which can push the expected value to go positive.

If a bank can pay you positive value (in the form of interest), an insurance company can as well.

Actually, insurance is very often positive expected value for the individual. He's paying the insurance company $n, which the company reinvests for even higher expected value, which is how the company makes a profit even when it's paying out to its customers slightly more than they put in. It's essentially the bank model.

I suppose that even when insurance is negative, its primary function is to buy protection against being shunted to $0 value. You're paying value to eliminate risk.

Insurance is just a form of investment. It seems to me that the primary difference between gambling and investment is that the utility of gambling (the expected return over time) is negative, and the utility of investment is positive. And that's it.

In a casino, the gambler is gambling, while the casino is investing.

Bologna cannot be faulted for not being able to capitalize on its age.

Northern Italy went through an awful lot of tumultuous history between 1450 and now that England didn't experience: it was cut up into lots of little fiefdoms, dominated by several external powers, and generally kept under constantly changing iron thumbs.