andrewzah

"or asked for ID"

That ship sailed long ago in the US if you use any exchange. Not using an ID is much, much harder now. And is kind of besides the point with a public ledger.

This is why "audiophile" is a joke term in the audio engineering community.

It is not biologically possible for us (unless one is an alien) to hear above 22kHz. 44.1kHz is enough to record in perfect fidelity [0]. For strictly listening purposes, 192kHz/24bit is wasteful, just extreme overkill because "bigger numbers = more good".

People can't even reliably detect a difference between 320kbps MP3s and source-quality FLAC/ALAC/WAV/PCM. On very good headphone and speaker setups. Good quality MP3/AAC is all one needs for airpods and the bluetooth protocol can easily handle those bitrates.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist%E2%80%93Shannon_sampli...

edit: changed record->playback. Here I'm just discussing playback; for audio production purposes 192kHz/24bit is desireable for several reasons. Once one ships that album/song though, it should be downmixed back to 44.1kHz/16bit.

Would Dhall [0] suffice?

[0]: https://dhall-lang.org/

Anyone can build a bot that automatically watches any submissions to any subreddit, and bans those users from their subreddit. Like it or hate it, reddit is very hands-off with how subreddits are moderated beyond maintaining overall site rules.

Most larger subreddits are managed pretty poorly.

I use syncthing for that, and it's been great so far.

There’s nothing preventing you from automatically filtering those emails. All of my GitHub / CI emails go straight to a subfolder. All spam gets added to filters, etc.

Depending on the registrar you use, you can set up a 2nd inbox or aliases for junk mail and filter anything that goes to those, etc.

I don’t see why it has to be one or the other. Both live and studio albums have their quirks and benefits.

Lately, I’ve been obsessed with live jazz. Every Friday and Saturday, I’ve been at a local joint to catch a few sets. Hearing good players live makes me appreciate older albums even more.

There are great live albums too like Full House by Wes Montgomery or After Hours by Charlie Christian & Dizzy Gillespie. Some of them even have video from live concerts in the ~60s.

I suppose it’s different with jazz albums as they’re not typically overengineered or note perfect anyways. The main issue is accurate reproduction; it obviously doesn’t sound like real life... The upright bass in particular tends to sound quite different. On the other hand, live music has lots of people talking in the background except on special nights where everyone seems to shut up and listen.

But these albums are a way of connecting as far back as the 30s and they’re crucial for learning the tradition & origins of modern jazz. Depending on your setup they can still sound quite good.

"young, attractive candidates and bias away from shy people or those without a lot of confidence or experience talking"

Is this not exactly the same for regular interviews today? Ageism is a huge problem. People who lack confidence won't do as well, etc.

Most people have an online profile, so what's preventing the interviewer/hiring personnel from just looking them up online?

Not that I support tiktok, but I feel the opposite. Resumes aren't really that useful for determining whether or not you'd want to work with that person. A short video is a lot better at that, before moving to something more detailed like a resume. How we handle resumes in general is just very outdated and archaic.

That doesn't have anything to do with Texas; like, overusage, like, of "like" is, like, incredibly annoying. Growing up in the midwest, we were taught to not use filler words/sounds like "uhh" or "um" in general.

That’s their fault, not discord’s. Apps existed before discord, and will exist after.

Or we could not police people's language. "So" is a way to start sentences; like anything else, it can be overused. Just like "like", etc.

There's a good podcast episode from John Mcwhorter on this "So" phenomenon. [0] TL;DL It has some interesting applications (including functioning as a discourse marker), and isn't going away anytime soon.

[0]: https://slate.com/human-interest/2018/10/john-mcwhorter-on-s...

"I ordered some Rust books from Amazon (printed in house) and they basically seem to be ebooks that have been printed out, loads of whitespace in random areas and no signs of proof-reading.

Yeah, there were multiple books that I read the reviews on amazon and people were complaining about the poor print quality. One of the Ted Greene books I got had a typo on the 2nd page in the table of contents, so I'm not sure if any proof reading is being done really.

I prefer both for this reason. With physical it's easy for me to mark it up/add tab bookmarks for fast reference. If I buy a book I try to find it on libgen as well so I can carry it around / search digitally.

Release it chapter by chapter and put it up on substack/patreon or just for free in blog-style format. That's what ithare.com and some other programming books did to build an audience before (self) publishing.

I feel like I'm one of the few people that still does purchase books. In 2020 & 2021 I bought music theory books from amazon + jazzbooks.com, and I had some Korean books imported by a friend. I have the space and bookshelves to house them though.

Why do so many HN redesigns completely miss the boat?

HN loads very fast, and scanning the list of posts is very fast. The information-dense design is important. On my phone, on the original site, I see 8 posts by default. On this redesign, I see 2.

Every single HN redesign I’ve seen makes it slower and less information dense. And sometimes requires JavaScript to work at all. Why?

No. They lost sight of what made them great in the first place (building a trust network). They added unnecessary things like chat and a wallet for a shitty alt coin.

Both of those were fine in the beginning. HS became impossible to play without endless grinding or spending money. Overwatch became tedious and toxic, due to both the players and how the developers responded (spamming in-game voicelines is now "toxic").

I think people just got fed up with online trading card games and the grind/monetization that they have. At least with MTG I can resell the cards... In fact MTG online with cockatrice is way more fun than HS or any of the other clones.

"we put a dialog in front of people and they made a selection, therefore people wanted this dialog"

You're suggesting that it's impossible for people to have wanted a feature, because UXs have a popup showing people that it's possible to use that feature now. I disagree. You're projecting your personal opinion as everyone's personal opinion.

And that emoji picker still allows you to pick the default yellow color. So if people -really- didn't want to use them, they wouldn't.

I agree that they're not an -authority-, but the Simpsons is a huge cultural institution. They definitely made an impact on how the yellow tone is coded (as white).

So yes it seems silly, but I think a default of blue or green would be better.

"Not that anyone wanted this, or that this feature is beneficial."

Usage clearly states otherwise. No one is forced to use a particular skin tone (they can continue using the default yellow one).

This comment frankly is quite dismissive. Just because you don't use a feature doesn't mean "no one wanted it".

Unlike latinx, people actually use the skin-tone emojis. I see them used quite a lot, actually. You can disagree if you want, but usage states otherwise, and I'm glad that we're adding emoji that actually get used.

You're thinking in terms of real people, not what weird things rich people do with their money. The uselessness is part of the point.

I have not once heard this being mentioned as a metric.

Most people I know don't really care at all (I'm 25 for reference), since they generally don't have the money to waste on such frivolous purchases.

No, the user can't do that. They can't do that with records, and they can't do that with bits either.

Users can -download- specific bits and play them via decoding, and that's about it. Nobody can actually re-arrange anything themselves, although one could spend their life trying to manually flip bits to magically recreate it in the same manner. Good luck.

The artist isn't limiting anything other than sharing those pre-made bits without a license/permission. And that is not unreasonable. My stance on this is referring to works of art as merely "bits" for the sake of argument is a bit ridiculous. We don't refer to LPs as "a collection of atoms", etc.

Referring to art or products in general as "just bits" is just being pedantic for the sake of winning an argument.

"That is to say imaginary property is a set of restrictions on how I am allowed to use my actual property."

No. You yourself are not re-arranging any bits. Your computer receives bits, then decodes them, and plays them. There is no "re-arrange bits exactly like this album" button.

You wouldn't say that LPs are "placing restrictions on your record player". The artist may no longer have that specific product, but you can't really re-arrange the grooves on a record however you please either.

"This restriction is supposed to be justified by society benefiting from the useful arts and sciences."

I don't disagree that copyright law is poorly implemented. However, I do disagree that society somehow isn't benefiting from artists being paid for the work. It takes a -lot- of man hours to produce music, record it, mix and master it, and distribute it for release. None of that changes just because we distribute the end result electronically now.

If someone takes months and years to come up with an engaging story and universe for a book, they deserve to own that creation and get paid for it. Why would anyone make anything creative in a world where it would be impossible to make a living from that work? Are we to expect artists to have infinite money supply and just produce things for our leisure, for free?

This is just entitlement, with playing games about technicalities of distribution mediums to justify not paying people for their work. No one is forcing people to claim ownership of the things you create; Go ahead and write a book and make it public domain. Produce an album and make it public domain, if you feel that strongly about ownership. You can pay in the time, money, and man-hours of work involved yourself and still keep it free and public domain.

People conveniently like to ignore the costs (time, money, social capital, etc) it requires to even put on boxing or fighting events. Or to make music or films.

It is particularly vexing for me to see all of this creative, hard work flippantly thrown aside because people suddenly become philosophers about bits and rearranging them.

If one doesn't like that people charge $$ to watch boxing fights... Then don't watch them! People are not entitled to having things for free because it's "theoretically possible to re-arrange my hard drive's bits in that exact manner".

edit; changed you->one to clarify I was speaking generally and not about the parent commenter specifically

"It is granting a singular owner the privilege over say the concept of ham and cheese on white bread and demanding that people not make each other sandwiches that are identical in construction to the "owner" of that recipe"

Nothing is being constructed by the end user. A music album is a finished product, encoded into bits from an original creation by the author. This is a side-effect of how computers innately function, and doesn't change the fact that authors are -not- selling recipes to build products, they are selling finished products. There is no difference ideologically between selling an LP or a CD or a zipped download; the encoding and distribution mechanisms are different, but the customer still purchased the same thing: a complete product that can be played by equipment that understands how to decode and play it.

If someone singularly came up with a song, then of course they are the singular owner. Making art and music is a complex process, and specifically with music production one ends up with things that have never been constructed in that particular musical and instrumental arrangement, that key, with those musical ideas, those rhythms and note placements, etc. To say that ownership is just impossible ignores essentially -all- of the work that goes into making things like music. It's not like someone just pushes a button and calls it a day...

"Pretending its the same leads to many logically nonsensical things"

No, companies will always make absolutely ridiculous claims for copyright. Whether it's digital or not. This is separate to the idea of ownership of something whether digital or not.

"All of art is derivative thus endless copyright would cede all of the creative universe"

No one is arguing that people can claim copyright ownership on any and all works that may have been inspired from it. This is a strawman argument and also has nothing to do with digital vs physical copyright. It also completely ignores that songs, etc, are much more than mere constructions of notes.

The current implementations of copyright protection are pretty bad.. But that doesn't mean the idea in general is bad. Artists, just like anyone else, need to get paid for their work. You and I do not automatically deserve things just because they are distributed electronically now. Artists still deserve to have ownership of the things they create, even if they distribute them electronically.

No one is forcing anyone to go out and buy music or other art, it is an elective choice because one specifically desires that exact sound, which can be distributed as bits now. However, people aren't going out and "buying bits", they are buying specific products. The fact that things can be represented as bits is entirely irrelevant to both parties aside from not needing to lug around physical items.

"to limit people from certain bit arrangements"

I don't understand how things can apparently have no restrictions just because it comes down to "digital bits".

Life and the physical objects within it are "just ~~bits~~ molecules", that we re-arrange in specific ways.

People spend time making things that we like and enjoy. Observing that as "certain bit arrangements" completely downplays the work and ideas that the author(s) put into it. Why does transferring that electronically instead of acoustically/visually/physically mean we throw ownership out the window?

No one is forcing people to pay for musicians' or film makers' "specially arranged bits". People just feel entitled to having things for free, completely ignoring the time, effort, production costs etc that went into producing said things because the end products now are -digital-.