HN user
Exactly. Ask customers "do you want AI in your phone?" and their response will probably be "meh", as shown in the article. But ask "do you want notification summaries, a better camera in low light, Siri to be able to look up more things, searchable photos, etc?" - and they absolutely will.
The use of "this one weird trick" is humorous at this point
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.
Then would you consider radio waves to be "light"?
Exactly. It's not sound, it's infrasound. "Sound" means audible to humans, much how "light" means visible to humans (e.g. radio waves are not considered "light").
As ridiculous as that is, it's not on the same level as GMC's mandatory subscription.
I don't really see the point on a physical keyboard. It makes sense to repurpose the enter key on a phone or tablet where there's limited real estate and the keyboard covers half the screen. On desktop/laptop, that isn't necessary - you can just tab over to the next field (or click it, for the less tech savvy), and click the "submit" button.
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.
Emulators are legal, including emulators for current-gen systems. Switch emulation is exactly as legal as Gameboy emulation.
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.
Try TWEET in today's Wordle and you'll see what I mean
if the correct answer is TWEED and you guess TWEET, then you’ll get YYYYM
No, this would give YYYYN
Why not use full language names?
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.
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 also strongly suspect that the owner of the copyright(s) in question would think very hard before making an infringement claim in the first place, for fear of the adverse publicity.
Except the entity that would make an infringement claim is an algorithm, not a person
Not exactly - Zoom stuff does a clever trick of using 2 ADCs at different gain levels (essentially the same way that HDR photography works), but ultimately it's still using fixed-point ADCs.
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.
Is there enough population in these counties to make any difference?
In the case of the lambda version, the compiler will fail if you forget a break statement or don't handle a possible case. Plus this way you can make x const, which can also prevent breaking other code further down.
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)
This also lets you make x const
Thanks. One of my biggest bad-internet-journalism pet peeves as of late is articles that talk about a thing that exists on the internet without linking to it. I mean, I know I can just search it, but it's a dark pattern designed to keep you on their site, disguised as lazy journalism.
How is this an example of trademark erosion? Fiat-Chrysler still owns the rights to the name and would easily be able sue a competitor that tried calling their vehicle a Jeep. Sure, it's colloquially used as a genericized trademark, but it's not a true example, unlike ones like aspirin, cellophane, escalator - or yes, trampoline.
Yeah, this is my theory too. I use Tinfoil for Facebook on Android, and it shows I have 15 unread messages. Basically, every time I open Tinfoil while I have a new message I haven't read in Messenger, it increments, and that never gets cleared. If they were trying to drive engagement or to get you to install Messenger, why would they want the number to keep increasing well after you've caught onto the trick?
I'm assuming you mean instruments and microphones excepted, because many high-end recording microphones cost $1000 and up. Yes, there are legends of a few albums being recorded with only a few SM57 (a $100 mic), but they're the exception - and most such albums aren't generally regarded as audiophile-quality.
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.
Not necessarily. "aaaaaaaaaaaa", "password1234", and "pennsylvania" are all 12 characters, but they're all insecure. These might seem like stupid passwords that nobody would use, but if you enforce a minimum password length as your only requirement, then I guarantee some user is going to use something like this.
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).
It can. U2 did something similar in Vancouver - you needed to show the credit card the ticket was bought with in order to get in. It created huge lineups (a couple hours long) and a lot of fans missed the opening band (Mumford & Sons) [1]. Eventually they just started letting everyone in without checking credit cards, so they could get in before U2 came on.
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...
"Engineer" is a protected title in Canada (like "Lawyer" or "Doctor", although not as strictly enforced). You can't use it unless you're a member of your province's professional engineer organization.
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.
And punk rock songs and prog songs can be an order of magnitude apart in length.
Are we talking 2-minute punk songs, 4-minute pop songs, or 20-minute jazz-prog odysseys? And is this CD quality wav, or 128 kbps mp3?
What if I have my phone set to wipe itself after 10 incorrect login attempts, and I "accidentally" get my password wrong 10 times while trying to unlock it for them?
Yeah, creativity is hard. As Ira Glass put it:
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.
That only covers the mic/ground pinout, though. As far as the remote buttons working goes, assuming the info in the post is correct, it is Apple not wanting to play fair:
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
Uhh, TAOCP predates Erlang by quite a bit. Shouldn't the headline be, "Erlang uses a Donald Knuth-like notation"?
How is switching to IPv6 going to fix that problem?