HN user
The decoder/player doesn't know how to read between the bits.
Same file -> same playback.
If you hear the same sound file twice (or two identical files) and hear something different, you software is broken or you're imagining things.
Disclaimer: I am NOT saying that I think 24/192 is a good idea or makes any difference.
That being said, the author makes the error to assume that we experience music only with our ears. But your body can feel e.g. the sound of a drum.
I call for a double bling test with loud enough speakers capable of reproducing the spectrum in question.
I highly doubt there will be an effect from 24/192 but then we will know for sure.
The unresolved problems of SysV don't automatically make the systemd approach right either.
How is OSX's directory setup more logical than the traditional Unix one? Be careful not to confuse your familiarity with one system with it's inherent qualities. I have switched between BSD an Linux as my main desktop OS a few times and had this "damn, this is so much clearer in x" feeling in both directions.
Are you intentionally misrepresenting what I said in the other comments? Quote: 'It's not about "having it my way"' (Explanation follows).
Also, is it not allowed to make statements anymore? Yes, it is my opinion that it is very bad practice to use anything but the de-facto standard intercomunication language for CS in programming code. Do I have to pre-/post-fix everyhing with humble phrases and opinion disclaimers? When was that established?
Learn Chinese?
And I suppose everyone else should learn chinese too? Just because a bunch of programmers is lazy everyone else needs to change?
And you call me arrogant.
Don't be so touchy.
I make bold statements because I have a strong opinion on this based on experience and good reasons. That is not arrogance. Insert redundand humble phrases here (IRHPH). Tell me about this again after you debugged an old program written by the friendly (insert nationality) colleague who left the company, and wrote all his code in (native tongue) under time constrains.
The question of who should learn which language should be answered in this way: The correct way is so that it takes the least learning effort overall (added up) while enabling maximum exchange of knowledge and ideas. IRHPH. At the moment that means english is the way to go. IRHPH.
And just to make this clear: I'm not demanding anyone do anything in any way. I'm just pointing out that it is a bad idea. IRHPH
Good point. What I was trying to convey is that it happened the other way round. I know english well because it is the language CS takes place in. Had it been chinese, I had learned chinese. Had it been elvish, I had learned elvish.
They have the freedom to do make that decision just as I have the freedom to voice my disagreement.
Ok, maybe their english sucks. Do you ever get better at something by not practising?
Yes... relying to machine-translation for important content, always a good idea.
You're missing the point comletely.
There needs to be a common, agreed on ("standard") intercommunication language for exchange of knowledge to happen. For computer science related things, programming in particular, this is english. This happened historically because a lot of the development took place in the US and it is also a good choice, because english is easy to learn (I'm no native speaker btw.). Had computers been developed mainly in china I would very likely write to you in chinese at this moment (which would be a bad choice because it is badly suited as a global intercommunication language).
But they weren't and english is the lowest common denominator everyone doing CS is required to know. Hell, anything on the internet. If you deviate from this than you hinder the free exchange of knowledge and ideas which is bad.
Do not use any language other than english in public code. It is a bad idea because it needlessly alienates the larger part of mankind. It's not about "having it my way" or having others cater to my needs. I'm not advocating it because it is the easier choice for me, but because it is the better choice in the big picture.
From https://github.com/b3log/wide/blob/master/editor/editors.go: // 编辑器操作. (...) // TODO: 目前是调用 liteide_stub 工具来查找声明，后续需要重新实现
This is not an isolated example. People, please. For open source code stick to english in the code. Otherwise, you needlessly exclude anyone who doesn't speak your particular language.
I was about to dive into the code thinking "this thing looks cool, maybe there's something to learn from it". This turned me away instantly.
Such as?
Also, this is completely besides the point.
The implied "it is used by a lot of people so it must be good" is a non sequitur.
Also, all these "real websites" also have very real problems that come from using PHP.
Then why don't you code your websites in brilliant elegant brainfuck?
The statement "It is possible to write good, or bad code, in any language" (1) might be true, but it misses the point. Consider "With or without cancer you are going to die" which universally true for all humans (as far as we know). But it also misses the point if applied to the question of whether you want to have cancer or not.
Particularly, your statement (1) is irrelevant to the question if it is a good idea to use PHP to make any kind of software that is functional, maintainable, reliable, secure, scalable etc. And anyone who has actually programmed in PHP knows, that just for example, it is VERY difficult to make a secure PHP program. Just because there are a thousand non-obvious ways to shoot yourself in the foot which are directly caused by weird quirks of the language. It might be possible to get this right, but if it is, it is a lot more difficult than in a language with e.g. sane rules for type conversions.
If you think all programming languages are equal, then you still have a lot to learn.
What would be the point of this? Any significant improvements would make it a different language.
Taking care of radioactive waste for thousands of years requires energy. How do you propose we generate that energy?
France tried doing that. I suggest you have a look how it turned out. Hint: It's an absoluty disaster in practice.
Nothing you say in the second sentence is true.
Thorium reactors do not work reliably (just have a look at those that where actually built). The current designs do not work - we don't even have an idea how to do it right in theory. They absolutely are not less complex and are not in any way safer than any other nuclear reactors.
Radiometric dating is very reliable. I would be interested in seeing this "different analysis". Can you provide a source please?
Chopping down trees to make room for wind farms is certainly dumb. If you take a closer look that is yet another story about the dangers of subsidies.
"nuclear fuel is 2 million times more energy dense than any other fuel"
Citation needed. Also i don't think energy densitiy is what we are looking for here. Remember the thorium car? A drop of water (in principle) also contains all the energy needed to power a car for years. Now if you could just get the H-atoms to fuse... The point is, it matters how much energy you can (efficiently, at all, ...) get out of it.
"How can we factor in" - Calculate it.
"We should count not just (...) CO2 during operation, but also (...)"
Yes, PLEASE make a complete calculation based on solid numbers taking every aspect of the whole lifecycle of a power plant into account INCLUDING fuel production, fuel transportation and waste management. The publish it please.
U238 decays to (among others) Polonium which will kill your very fast from inside you body.
I think your estimate is off by a few orders of magnitude.
Edit: "pure U238" is another point where you go wrong. There is no such thing in nuclear waste, nor will there ever be when it decays. So if i grant you that pure U238 on it's own is not that dangerous, that does absolutely not make nuclear waste less dangerous. The U238 decays to other radioactive substances, then those decay and so on. The long half life of the U238 guarantees that you have a very toxic mix for tens of thousands of years.
Yes, I edited the other comment because I felt i needed to add a note for clarity. Sorry if that nuked your response...
Concerning the carbon free issue: That is false advertising and needs to be put in an extremely negative light because it suggests something to the consumer which is not true. How much carbon or emissions a power plant generates under some specific conditions (like in its main operation time) is completely irrelevant to how environmently friendly it is. The complete balance needs to be taken into account, otherwise you end up cheating yourself (or others) into believing you have reduced emissions when overall you haven't.
It's true that standing next to a kg of U238 for a limited amount of time will likely not hurt you much. The same is true for lead for example. That does not mean it is not hazardous! It still needs to be taken care of. Also, it is interesting that you ignored the Pu. I'm not trying to fear-monger. The statement from the article is simply wrong. Nuclear waste has to be taken care of for tens of thousands of years, not hundreds.
Quote from http://www.upowertech.com/p/technology.html: "carbon-free and emission-free"
You're telling me that you get enriched fuel, plant production, transport and waste management (plant and fuel) emission free?!? How do people fall for things like this? "I doesn't produce emissions if you only count the parts that don't produce emissions". Brilliant.
And don't even get me started about the super secret "nano-nuclear" tech they claim to have or the cooling using "proprietary technology".
From the website: "waste products that have to be buried for hundreds of years"
Wow, that is... inaccurate. Let's have a look.
(EDIT: to clarify, format is substance (% present in used fuel): half life
U238 (~94% of used nuclear fuel): ~4.5 billion years
Pu (~1% of used nuclear fuel): 24 000 years
Sources:
http://www.techniklexikon.net/d/abgebrannte_brennelemente/ab...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Isotope/7._Periode#92...
"cost advantage of fission" -- you state this like a fact, but it is actually a subject of much discussion.
Since the developer(s) is/are anonymous - why would they need any elaborate way of telling people this? They could just state that they consider the code compromised and advise not to use it anymore.
You're missing the point, since there was no rape joke.
I agree that the argument about keeping lead out of the environment is weak. As for using lead in any products I think it comes down to whether its possible that the lead leaks out into the environment in any way. That is very unlikely with car batteries (assuming they are recycled correctly) and remains to be shown for these solar panels. If the lead in them is bound in a way that makes it impossible to leak out (despite being exposed to weather or broken in a storm etc) I think it's a fair tradeoff.