|
Wordle 495 3/6
π©π¨π¨β¬β¬
π©π©π©β¬β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 495 X/6
π¨β¬β¬β¬β¬
β¬β¬β¬π¨π¨
π¨π©β¬β¬π©
β¬π©π©β¬π©
β¬π©π©β¬π©
β¬π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 495 3/6
π©π¨π¨β¬β¬
π©β¬π¨π©β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
could've been a two if I hadn't made a mistake
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well-preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming βWow! What a Ride!" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 495 6/6*
β¬π©β¬β¬β¬
β¬π©π©β¬β¬
β¬π©π©β¬π©
β¬π©π©β¬π©
π©π©π©β¬π©
π©π©π©π©π©
Just made it!
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 495 6/6
π¨β¬β¬β¬β¬
π¨β¬β¬β¬β¬
β¬π¨π¨β¬β¬
π©β¬π¨π©β¬
π©β¬β¬π©π¨
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 495 2/6
β¬β¬π¨π©π©
π©π©π©π©π©
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 495 X/6*
β¬β¬β¬π¨β¬
β¬π¨π¨β¬β¬
β¬π©π©β¬π©
β¬π©π©β¬π©
β¬π©π©π¨π©
π©π©π©β¬π©
|
|
|
|
|
Just needed to rant and to open for discussion. MS - Monopoly split, AT&T - Monopoly split, MCI/Worldcom - Monopoly split, Google - Monopoly...... Ect. We can go on and on about what has been taken down and split. Now I ask why is it that JavaScript is the ONLY language left on most browsers for DOM access? Why can't we use C, C-script, C#, EMCA-XXX, CGI, PHP, or any other? MS was slapped with lawsuit when they added classes to Java. I can understand why they won't touch JavaScript/DOM. But please, as new frameworks and Web Technologies rise, we need to ALWAYS turn from the network choice of language that we use, back to JavaScript in order to access DOM elements. We are forced to use JavaScript, oh and only JavaScript to access DOM. Mind you there are DOM Implementations, APIs and other AddOns, but they are just that, AddOns. If you want to access you have to use JavaScript, or as other frameworks call it, an interop with JavaScript. WHY? 
|
|
|
|
|
All Web pages have to use an agreed protocol so they can be interpreted by any/all browsers. For better or worse, this is html with various predefined sections (css, JavaSript, etc.).
You are free to add any desired section to the html page, using any possible language, but bear in mind that browsers will not know how to interpret it.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Because JavaScript is a cross-browser/device supported language, not a monopoly.
It seems to me that you're also mixing apples and oranges. The language (for example, a "thin" transpiler like TypeScript) vs. DOM element access, are two different things.
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for your input. Yes I am aware that it is a cross-browser/device supported language, but why not add one more? If I do a project with a framework in c#, I have to use an interop to get to DOM. If I use another framework, I have to always go back to JS. Seems a limitation rather than having the frameworks access DOM directly.
It may seem that I have apples and oranges, but if we want to keep cross-browser/device functionality as you speak for one language applied to devices itself, then let us all use only Linux, or only Apple, or only PC. That is a whole different battle, but the heart of it all is the same. I like Apple, I use Apple; I like PC, I use PC. On that thought, for this example only, I like C# and am using a framework for developing a webapp, I use C#, but I also have to include JS. I am forced to include JS for DOM. So, I have to get another nuget, or addon, or plugin, or interop to have my C# code communicate with JS which then communicates with DOM and then DOM through JS give the desired response to my C# request/call/etc. What if I want to use C++, or the famous python? Plugins, nuget, addons galore. All browsers if they want to truly be cross/multi-platform should also be cross/multi language APIs to allow DOM access to what you are developing. Then you would be platform AND language independent thus giving the freedom to develop apps within the language that you choose.
|
|
|
|
|
This is why Node and the like have become popular.
Same language on server and client: JavaScript!
|
|
|
|
|
Vinyl records, as well as 78s (with the exception of a very few, and incompatible, records from the very first years), have a V-formed track where the stylus rides. On a stereo record, the sound from the left channel is engraved in the 'hillside' that is the one arm of the V, the right channel sound is engraved in the opposite V arm hillside.
The question: How is the sound 'encoded'?
If the sound in both channels is identical, like mono sound (or the source located exactly midway between the microphones), do the hillsides then move out to each side, and come in from both sides, in identical moves? If so, the bottom of the V, the valley between the hillsides, forms a straight line, but moving up and down, and so does the stylus tip.
Or, do the two hillsides move in parallel to the same side and back again, 'holding hands'? Then the stylus tip moves from side to side, but not up and down?
On a 'true' monophonic record, the V track goes from side to side, with constant depth, suggesting that for a stereo record, the second alternative is the right one, but I am far from 100% sure about that.
Can anyone tell, with absolute certainty, which alternative is right for a stereo record? Does the stylus tip go in a straight line, but up and down, or from side to side, but at the same vertical depth, when a stereo record plays exactly the same sound in both speakers?
|
|
|
|
|
It's left/right encoded: How stereo phonograph records work
About 2/3 of the way down the article there's a highlighted photo showing different frequencies on left and right channels.
Keep Calm and Carry On
|
|
|
|
|
Very cool - never gave it much thought before. Just yesterday I brought a couple Weather Report albums circa 1970's up from the basement to play this week. 
|
|
|
|
|
Craig Robbins wrote: Weather Report albums
Guess what I'm going to listen to when I get home?
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
I had the Heavy Weather album, hat with lightning on the sleeve. Favorite tune, "Birdland". Just looked it up, it's the Indiana Jones Fedora!
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, first track on side 1. My favorite tune of theirs as well. I turn up the volume for that one. Their albums have great cover art.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When I was a boy, in the 1970, our neighbor shipped some old, worn records across the pond to have them photographically read/restored - he got the results as an open-reel magnetic tape. Today, I am quite sure that must have been 78rpm records - I very much doubt that the technology of the 1970s was good enough to do it on 'microgroove' vinyl records. He was very satisfied with the results, claiming to hear instruments (he specifically mentioned triangles) that he had never heard from the mechanical record. The stylus rides down in track, not touching the edges between the 'land' and 'valley' surface areas, so these edges are not worn with use. In stray light almost parallel to the surface let the original, the original, unworn edge could be read with an optical pickup, as the borderline between the lit land and the dark, shadowed valley.
I was considering if a similar technique would be possible on 'modern', stereo vinyl records. Some simple back-of-envelope calculations did tell me that it is not a project for your hobby workshop in your basement.
Say that you use a microscope with an image area 0.2 to 0.1 mm wide - vinyl grooves are typically packed 7.5/mm, on some records up to 10/mm. Assume the microscope ocular is a high-res 8K video sensor. Since the image must capture both sides of the groove (on a stereo record), there are 4K pixels to each side. This is to capture the amplitude of the signal: 12 bits of resolution at the very most. More like 11 bits on the average. Maybe you can steal an extra bit of resolution by looking at the bit on the edge: is it almost white, light gray, middle gray, dark gray, almost black?
What about the microscope optics? Can it, for an image area, 0.1 mm wide, provide a resolution of 8K pixels? That is pixel width of approx. 0.01 - 0.02 Β΅m on the record surface. The traditional resolution measures, such as line pairs/mm is not directly transferable to sensor pixels, and I am by no means an expert in the field anyway, but from what I read about microscopes, that is significantly beyond the capabilities of traditional optical ones. The wavelength of the light limits the resolution. Maybe you can get closer by using short-wave UV?
... What fascinates me is that what I want to read out are no smaller details than the pickup stylus manages to read out! From a top quality, factory new vinyl record, it can deliver at least 60 dB S/N. That sure isn't more than 10 bits, but it does it almost without any effort. Why should it be so much more difficult to trace the edge optically than with a needle?
So I cannot let go the idea of reading the edges of the groove optically, as well as the simple mechanical stylus does it. Hoping that there will be some way of doing it, the next step is how to decode the waving edge forms to proper music. Even if we call it 'analog', it isn't as identical to the sound waves as we are led to believe; you need do correct for various curvature of the grove, various linear speed, separate the stereo channels, do proper de-emphasis, and then noise removal which might benefit a lot from the direct microscope images to identify e.g. dust particles ...
At the moment, the real show stopper seems to be how to read the curves optically with the same precision that we can to mechanically. The subsequent steps are, essentially, not that advanced math. I just would like to have it ready when the imaging problem is solved ...
(No, I am not expecting to be able to build such an optical pick up; I just use the problem as a mental toy.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fascinating solution!
However, the guy in the video seems very focused on 'no digitalization', direct to analog. That means you have no option to use digital techniques to e.g. handle scratches, dust particles etc.
The video doesn't tell anything about how the laser beam is read. The simple 2D figure shows two laser beams perpendicular to the sides, but how do you then detect how far away the side is? How is the amplitude measured? I wouldn't be surprised if that is a business secret ...
|
|
|
|
|
If he is really determined to stay analog, I'm betting you could get an analog signal from the laser reflections. Just raise the price even more -- all of those analog-loving audiophiles will still beat a path to your door!
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
