|
Kent Sharkey wrote: the same company and same title due to laziness, comfort, or other reasons.
If the job gives you enough money to cover your needs and allow you some luxury from time to time, doesn't fill your daytime and leave you enough spare time to enjoy with family, friends, hobbies or whatever you like, you team is OK and there is a respectful clima...
you would be an idiot if you changed your job.
The problem is, that to find that, there usually are less probabilities than getting a winning lottery ticket.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
GnuCOBOL "has reached an industrial maturity and can compete with proprietary offers in all environments," boasted contributor Fabrice Le Fessant, in a FOSDEM talk. Time to party like it's 1959
|
|
|
|
|
Shouldn't that website be "The Gnu Stack"?
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
Up next: The Gnu Stagecoach
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Time to party like it's 1959
That's more than 20 years...  
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Developers and researchers can use the ‘weights and architecture’ that power X’s Grok chatbot for free in their own projects. "There was so much to grok, so little to grok from"
|
|
|
|
|
To boost the time people are spending on the platform, the company is breaking into a totally new area: gaming. Of course I'm looking for a job, what else would I be using that site for?
|
|
|
|
|
Well... that might useful too
The person that is no naive to spend a lot of time there and think there is no consequences, is not going to waste the time of the companies.
Or...
If the game is something really specific and with any kind of relationship to a interesting topic, it might even give a company a Heads-Up for that person.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Audiophiles swear lossless music sounds richer than MP3, but most people don't hear a difference at all. This is why I walk around with a full orchestra at all times
|
|
|
|
|
Lossless = *.wav?
I did a lot of tests back then at the Napster times.
I only could tell differences between 128k or less and 320 or higher and a pretty loud volumen.
I rip my CDs for the cell phone at 160K - 192k and never had to say "this sounds so much better in the original" the difference is in the device, not in the compresion level. In my PC and both version in "normal" loud is (for me) the same.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Remember that MP3 doesn't define how to compress digital sound, only how to decompress it. Lots of different MP3 streams may decompress to curve forms that reasonably well matches the original sound, as well as resemble each other. Which one of the alternatives is the "best"?
While the MP3 patents for decoding expired many years ago, the smart tricks for determining which are the best way of encoding are getting better all the time, even today, and some of it is covered by patents that do not expire for another few years. The LAME encoder is frequently pointed out as an example: The first releases had rotten quality (the sound quality - it became popular due to its "free" quality  ), but as it caught the attention of some true experts, it gradually improved to become one of the fines encoders around. So the sound quality obtained with encoders of today is significantly better than from a 10 or 20 years old encoder, at a given bit rate.
All decoders are equal. The unpacking is deterministic and well defined, and has not changed over time. All decoders deliver the same sound quality. It is the encoder that matters. That also go for newer formats such as the AAC family.
The AAC family is built on the same basic principles as MP3, and the encoding format has been gradually expanded as more experience is gained (so an old, "simpler" AAC file can be played with an AAC decoder for a new format. Obviously, if you have a brand new encoder and enable all the newest features, the files you generate may not be playable everywhere, or possibly with reduced quality - e.g. if your player doesn't support parametric stereo (but your file uses it), you get mono sound. If it doesn't support SBR (but your file uses it), you won't get much sound above 7 kHz from your speakers.
I suggest that you try the most recent version, called "xHE-AAC" - you can go to really low bit rates while maintaing an impressingly high sound quality. The problem is that you won't find very many players for xHE-AAC (it is used in DRM radio, but I don't know if there are radio sets that will play files in the same sound format as they get over the air.)
For listening tests, I use the xHE-AAC encoder in "EZ CD Audio Converter" from Poikosoft[^] - an excellent ripper/converter. I encode a set of roughly 30 sound samples of different nature, decode them back to .wav files, and give the files names so you can't tell which variant is the original .wav, which is xHE-AAC@48kbs, which is MP3@96kbps (or other encodings/bitrates.
I have met many 'golden ear' MP3-bashers over the years, giving them a copy of the 30 samples each in 3 or 4 different encodings, all converted back to .wav, and an ABX program. An ABX program plays, in parallel, two sound files A and B with the same content. The listener can switch between A and B, and X which is randomly chosen as either A or B. After switching between the three, the listener should be able to tell if X is identical to A or identical to B, and indicates his decision by click the right button. X is randomly selected anew, playing continues and he can make another guess. After 20 such guesses, how many of them were correct? 10 correct answers is not impressing .
I have handed out at least 20 sets of such samples to golden ears guys. Not one of them has dared to let me see the logs from their ABX listening. Every one of them "needs more time" or they would rather like to test it on some better stereo system, or whatever excuse that you can read as "I did listen, but the program said that my guesses were little above pure random".
So, if you use a top notch modern encoder, and still claim that you can with reasonable certainty hear the difference between MP3@128kbps and MP3@320kbps (or original .wav), then I'd be really curious to see the logs from a double-blind ABX test! If you can do it, then you are better than all the golden ears MP3 bashers I have ever met!
Note: Every MP3 basher has known from childhood that castanets are not handled well by MP3. So they all have a single castanet sound file: They never listen to Spanish music at all, but that one castanet file is worth its weight in gold for a single purpose: to prove that MP3 Is Sh*t. If they cannot determine X reliably from my different samples, they can say: Try this one - it will prove that I am right! It doesn't work with AAC, AAC handles castanets well.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
There's another Chinese-manufactured product – joining the likes of TikTok, cars and semiconductors – that poses a national security risk to Americans: Electronic locks, such as those used in safes. Who needs to pick the locks when you've made them?
I just love this quote, "It would be one thing if these backdoors were only available to US government agencies, but they are not". Ah, priorities.
|
|
|
|
|
But people don't learn...
If something is for free, you are the product.
Corolary: If something is for free, you are the Troy horse.
  
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, they do say that locks only keep honest people honest.
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft is once again injecting pop-ups into Google’s Chrome browser in a bid to get people to switch to Bing. Are you really, really, REALLY sure you don't want to try Bing?
|
|
|
|
|
Injecting, as in 'injecting from the OS', or as 'putting popups on MS sites'? An entire article, and that simple point isn't clarified...  If it is from the OS, wouldn't that be a class actionable offense?
edit - it is the former - the linked article kinda addressed it... Wow! The hubris!
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, sorry. I should have used the Windows Latest[^] version of the story. They went into a bit more detail:
"In our tests, we noticed that this Bing pop-up isn’t part of a Windows update, and it is possibly linked to either BCILauncher.EXE or BingChatInstaller.EXE, which were added to some systems on March 13.
"Microsoft signs the two files, and you’ll find them inside the c:\windows\temp\mubstemp folder."
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
And Microsoft will surely allow Google to drop some signed files into the Windows folder, to do whatever they want. Right? Right?
/s
|
|
|
|
|
Remember when Microsoft was kinda cool? Now they're acting like your aging drunk uncle Bill who can't get any attention anymore.
modified 18-Mar-24 8:32am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
So - Google pops up everywhere. The only offender worse is Meta.
|
|
|
|
|
Boiling down guidelines to one-sentence rules has drawbacks that make your code harder to understand. "By all means break the rules, and break them beautifully, deliberately and well. That is one of the ends for which they exist."
|
|
|
|
|
In Spain we say: "Learn all the rules, this way you will know which ones you might break"
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
A classic historic example: "Do no evil!"
|
|
|
|
|
For those unfamiliar, Visual Studio App Center is a set of cloud tools and services that help developers create, test, distribute, monitor, and maintain applications on Windows, iOS, Android, and other platforms. I suspect that "for those unfamiliar" is quite the majority
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
