As far as "studio monitors", you should know that a quality set of over ear headphones has better sound reproduction than any speaker. I used to be involved in the pro audio scene, until I realized this.
Its impossible to eliminate echo and stereo bleed with speakers. If you try to EQ a room using mics you will see this clearly. You might get close building an anaerobic chamber, but headphones are still better.
If you're on a budget don't waste money on expensive speakers, just use headphones
Cross ear perception of the other speaker is actually desirable, unless you're specifically mixing binaural for headphones. Crosstalk is key to localizing the apparent acoustic image in front of the listener instead of "inside the skull."
If you mix purely on headphones, you can just put a quick filter inline that does a reasonable job of simulating it. Without this you'll have difficulty mixing things well for playback on speakers.
This only works if you either have a guarantee that everyone else is also going to listen to your work on headphones, or total disregard for anyone who isn't.
If you expect people to listen to it on speakers, you need to listen to it on speakers.
TBH, I am mixing an album this weekend in a pair of HD280s, but a) I have been using this pair of headphones (well, everything but the drivers have been replaced at least once) for almost 15 years and b) I have mixed quite a few albums.
And I wouldn't choose to do that if I weren't stuck in an apartment or had the budget to rent a studio for a couple of days.
Echo and stereo bleed create frequency, amplitude, and phase cues that are important to listening, and while the room reflections or speaker deficiencies can cause a whole lot of problems, most folks are probably better off mixing on a home stereo if they had the choice.
I agree, but one problem with headphones though is that you don't feel the low tones. The bass will end up too loud if all you ever use is headphones. At the very least, you need to listen to the penultimate mix on speakers. There's also the old trick of making sure it sounds good in your car speakers.
Aside from the comment below regarding bleed as desirable, this just simply isn't true. Yes, you can spend an order of magnitude less for "good" headphones, but the advantage of a cabinet for tuning the driver will always beat what can be done right near your ear.
India and China aren't exactly friends, I think its pretty reasonable to limit business ties of any kind. A sovereign nation has the right to ban any import, are you disputing that?
I'm struggling to understand the intent of your comment. In no way is it about "not having the right". I took it to mean the implications of a souring relationship - which certainly isn't the "right direction" to see relationships evolve.
China and India are economic giants - it'd would be preferable that they not see each other as not friends.
Is a video game, or any digital file, "an import" anymore? There's nothing physical to be imported so what the government is really "banning" here is access to information. That makes me a little uncomfortable, especially given India's reason: "they are engaged in activities which is prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defence of India, security of state and public order".
I'm not even sure what that means but I suspect that's intentional. From my reading though it doesn't sound like India is doing this as economic sanctions or for the health/safety/welfare of citizens (which would be the typical reasons for a democracy to ban an import). Instead it seems the government has decided that allowing citizens to access this information presents some sort of national security threat.
I don’t understand the argument you are trying to make. Yes, China bans Google and Facebook, and it’s legitimate as they are a sovereign nation. Are you in fact advocating for those two companies to be allowed in China? If I recall correctly Google even banned itself from there because they didn’t wanted to comply with local regulations.
I keep hearing people saying it's wrong that China bans Google and Facebook. But why it's OK for India to ban Chinese apps? What is the difference here?
By most anecdotal accounts GS-441524 is better and possibly safer. And its readily available on the black market for treatment of cat FIP because apparently its much easier to make than Remdesivir.
So yes, probably the only reason Remdesivir exists is patents
I never "bought" TDD. Just like "microservices" it adds a ton of complexity and cost for something you probably don't need.
The TDD cult doesn't consider that its the last thing you should try, test everything. If you need high reliability you should move to a safer language first. Dynamic typing to static. Unsafe memory to safe, like Rust or Go. Turn on a bunch of linters too. Move to a language that doesn't allow nulls.
Once you've got a bunch of linting and a static language that doesn't allow memory corruption, do you really need to test everything? Probably not. The linux kernel is a good example as usual. Virtually no tests and its the backbone of the internet
I think there needs to be rules about orbital distance. Low earth orbit satellites like Starlink aren't risky because their orbit decays rapidly without constant boosts. Its the perfect failsafe.
The only reason to use higher orbits is to save money on satellites and complex communication systems. Orbits that allow space junk to hang around for centuries should be banned.
Useful but not necessary. Anything pointing at the Earth, nearly all satellites, work better closer. The issues of line of sight and coverage are all about money, and the cost of small satellite launch is dropping rapidly.
There are some satellites like telescopes that need to be far from the earth. But the vast majority could be banned from orbits beyond a distance where they won't decay in a reasonable amount of time, with the only downside being cost
Not an expert, and have barely studied anything related.
That being said, this:
> I think there needs to be rules about orbital distance. Low earth orbit satellites like Starlink aren't risky because their orbit decays rapidly without constant boosts. Its the perfect failsafe.
doesn't necessarily sound like a bad idea. Obviously you are correct about the second part however.
is there a good metric for distance between two objects in different orbits? you can say something like "must not come within x km of each other for the next n years" but extending that to all orbiting object pairs seems complex. i may be overthinking this, though?
anything with an orbit calculated to take more than a decade to decay without station keeping is banned. These calculations are routine so the requirement is only a burden for mission cost (needing more satellites for coverage). Exceptions for scientific missions and satellites used for extra-earth communications
When the monopolistic rideshare titans were banned in Austin there were local competitors within weeks. They kinda sucked for a few months, but by the time Lyft and Uber returned they worked quite well. They also paid the drivers FAR better, I heard on driver forums that it was easy to make over 20 an hour. Most drivers I talked to were very upset when Lyft/Uber returned, because they took over 50% pay cut.
With the technical might that is Silicon Valley, California only needs to hold their ground for a few months, then Lyft/Uber will become an afterthought
This really needs to be the top post. The fact of the matter is that there isn’t anything special about Uber and Lyft, and the competitors that popped up in Austin during their absence proved that it is possible to have a viable business and treat your workers with respect and dignity by paying them well.
Its clearly what they do. The best example, a default sub TwoXChromosomes is full of blatant hate speech against half the species and its touted as a progressive bastion when its a different variation of The Donald.
- A post about finishing shampoo and conditioner at the same time
- Celebration of a black female CEO
- Discussion of abortion
- Discussion of Women's only gyms (pros/cons/benefits/etc)
- Discussion about marketing vis-a-vis unhealthy body image
- Inappropriate boss in a meeting
None of those posts are even about men, let alone "hate speech against half the species?" So the emphasis is definitely on you to show that this is a popular usage of the sub.
Subs don't get removed for a scattering of hateful comments, the moderators are expected to deal with those. Subs get banned because their popular purpose is against Reddit's rules or their moderators are unable/unwilling to enforce the rules.
Without specific examples and links cited, this discussion will just run in circles. It probably will anyway, but it has no way of not without citations.
its pointless to bikeshed this. People did the same to defend TD and other crazy communities. Most of the posts are fine, but occasionally blatant sexism will make the front page and mods don't do anything about it, or even encourage it by putting the post in "real believer" mode where opposing viewpoints can't exist. Same as TD.
"A message to all men" . Basically telling "all men" their opinions aren't valued or wanted on the sub. Wonderful. And it hit the Reddit front page. Imagine a "mancave" sub on Reddit with mods saying women's opinions don't matter and aren't welcome here and shit like that. It would be banned immediately, probably after making 5 o'clock news
That's...literally not what that message says, "basically" or otherwise.
It literally says the opposite, in fact
> Men, I have a request: Please, think twice before you reply to a post that you can't relate to. I'm not asking you to leave this sub, because I think that it's valuable to read about other people's experiences to learn about their unique challenges in this world.
TwoXChromosomes has improved dramatically since it was first made a general sub. I'm sure it drove most of the misandry to other smaller subs. If anything it's a good example that exposing hate and echo chambers to a wider audience can help improve them in some cases.
Do they really need to access thousands of C++ API calls from Rust? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of writing safe code in Rust? This smells of "not invented here" which applies to Google projects pretty often.
They should focus on integrating Rust in portions of the API instead of exposing a gigantic unsafe API surface, essentially making all their code unsafe. Unless the Chrome codebase is really such a mess that they can't do anything without exposing this giant API surface. In that case they should rewrite it to... not do that.
"We can't use Rust unless it allows us to write all our code in C++ without showing unsafe warnings"
> Doesn't this defeat the purpose of writing safe code in Rust?
While the Chrome authors will not be protected from memory unsafety in the wrapped C++ APIs, the usage of those APIs in the new code they write on top will be safe, which is better than nothing. Similarly, much of the Rust standard library and many popular crates are "safe" wrappers around unsafe code, like calls to libc, winapi, openssl, etc. If there is a memory unsafety issue in one of those libraries, Rust won't save you.
> Do they really need to access thousands of C++ API calls from Rust?
Yes. It's turtles all the way down. Applying this line of thought to its logical conclusion, it wouldn't be worth it until we have written the OS itself and all firmware in Rust.
Its impossible to eliminate echo and stereo bleed with speakers. If you try to EQ a room using mics you will see this clearly. You might get close building an anaerobic chamber, but headphones are still better.
If you're on a budget don't waste money on expensive speakers, just use headphones