spider-mario

Where is the dehumanisation in “I stopped using this because it makes extensive use of a source I consider untrustworthy”? That seems like quite a leap.

Perhaps in part Berkson’s paradox in action? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkson's_paradox

I think the parent is aware and was joking.

Mine (Acer Aspire One 756) had an EFI disguised as a BIOS. I only discovered it was EFI after a few years, when I inserted some bootable flash drive, opened the boot menu and saw an EFI entry for the flash drive there. Other than that, it’s as if they were trying to keep the EFI a secret (nothing in the settings hinted at it and I couldn’t get it to boot in EFI mode by default).

Older style? It’s still the case for the charger that came with my M4 MacBook Air.

Yes. You don’t sound that confused?

I can read it but it gives me a headache. I would rather not have to do this on any sort of regular basis.

This kind of comes across as a nirvana fallacy.

This is an assumption. How about neutral, or even hopeless? There's also the position of just not caring because you think it doesn't affect you.

Still effectively the same point.

Or NVIDIA.

OpenAI GptForce 5600 XT

16 bit isn't enough for hard, objective reasons. One is that the noise spectrum of quantisation is not simple. Most people assume it's something close to plain white noise, but it really isn't. It's actually a very complex spectrum with some prominent peaks at specific subdivisions of the sample rate.

What you are describing is the result of blunt truncation. If you use the most basic (“uniform” or “rectangular” a.k.a. “RPDF”) dither, the spectrum is in fact flat, as demonstrated by the video you are likely alluding to and calling “pseudoscientific” (https://youtu.be/cIQ9IXSUzuM?t=12m50s). If you sum two uniform dithers together, you get what pretty much everyone uses (“triangular” or “TPDF” dither) which, in addition to decorrelating the mean quantisation error from the signal, also decorrelates the standard deviation, eliminating noise modulation and leaving a correlation only in still higher-order moments like skewness and kurtosis.

You can even try it for yourself with SoX. Find a 24-bit track, quantise it with dither to 16-bit, calculate the difference between both tracks, blow up the difference and take its spectrogram and it will be completely flat. Or listen to the difference (mind the volume) and see if you can make out anything meaningful.

    $ sox source.flac -b 16 dithered.flac
    $ sox --combine merge source.flac dithered.flac loud-difference.flac remix 1,3i 2,4i norm -1 spectrogram  # assumes stereo input
    $ open spectrogram.png
    $ open loud-difference.flac

We hear much more complex signals in an active way, and if there's information missing in the quiet parts - which there is with limited quantisation - then the signal simply isn't accurate.

It’s not missing. You can do a similar test where you “bury” your source material in the 16-bit dither noise floor, blow it up again, and you’ll be able to detect it under the noise.

    $ sox source.flac -b 16 quiet.flac gain -100
    $ sox quiet.flac loud-again.flac norm -1
    $ open loud-again.flac

Ah, right, we agree then. That’s the point I was making.

It absolutely can be true depending on what you value. Let’s indeed not play dumb.

Are you aware that “it’s not comparable to” / “it doesn’t compare to” doesn’t literally mean that it’s strictly impossible to attempt a comparison? It means that the comparison is not favourable.

I swear, the blatant lies that come out of supposed Mac fans on HN is almost like Apple is astroturfing this forum with shill accounts.

How ironic. There is no “blatant lie” in “their hardwares aren’t comparable to MacBook” if you don’t know what aspects they are comparing, but there are in your comment.

for people who aren't in audio codec dev space

You don’t need to be in the audio codec dev space to have heard of one of the most widespread audio codecs of the last decade (used by YouTube, WhatsApp, SoundCloud and added to WebM in 2013).

It’s maybe not a universal consumer application, but it doesn’t seem that outlandish to imagine that some of them might want to protect their personal collection. Or am I that extraordinarily attached to mine?

By just always using 48 kHz, from what I recall?

It will probably remind French speakers of this: https://youtu.be/G7NB_RwtPx4?t=5m18s

Have you tried Z-Image (Turbo)?

Oh no, 0.6 kWh a day!

Why should the parent comment be immune from factual challenges? Reports of personal experience are not sacred.

Unless you mess up its associativity, like PHP until 7.4.

https://wiki.php.net/rfc/ternary_associativity

http://phpsadness.com/sad/30

Same in Perl, hence the good old pattern:

    open my $fh, '<', 'input.txt' or die;

They said it’s GPT 5.5.

What’s with the slanted figures until you hover over them?

To be clear, by “animation”, I meant the whole SWF document. Do you mean that tweens were decoupled from the document’s framerate?

That’s not at all how I remember it (having used it in the Macromedia Flash 8 era, around 2006 or so). You would set your animation’s framerate and that would determine how often your `onEnterFrame` would run.

Small correction: the formula itself was published by the Pleasurize Music Foundation (https://web.archive.org/web/20131206121248/http://www.dynami... ), not by loudness-war.info (which publishes only the results of the formula on various releases).

There are other tools that can compute it, including MAAT DROffline MkII (proprietary), as well as a couple open-source, Python-based tools (DR14 T.meter, DR Check), or https://github.com/sboukortt/speedr in C++.

For the use discussed here, they basically are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dash#En_dash_versus_em_dash