Could be wrong but this was a bit in Silence of the lambs. Roughly that Clarice was hiding her southern accent to not invoke northernerns prejudices so she could advance her career?
Here’s a new one for me: At a swimming championship, some coaches had taken to quick sharp [fingers in mouth whistling] bursts on say a breaststroke when their heads come up, which then caught on with other punters. Sometimes I was reminded of the voovoozela World Cup. Anyway one guy was particularly bad and I clocked him at 105db from 20m, but he was doing it next to people. I feel sorry for them.
Most dj’s are children and you can’t leave them alone for a second even if you’re very clear about noise restrictions, even driving very clearly into digital distortion without noticing or caring. More loud more better. Brick wall compression and have them sending hot and don’t let them near the console.
Potentially a hidden killer is exposure over time. You might be under because your 88db concert only went a couple of hours but you drove there with loud music and you’re going some place after with loud music and drive home. So nothing specifically was too loud but you’ll still be over for the day. But try having that conversation :/ far as anyone’s concerned duty of care applies while you’re in the limits of one specific place.
Hey, this thread is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone seemingly wanting HDCP, why is that? Isn’t everyone’s goal to strip it away from the video feed so it stops getting in the way? Is there some benefit to it I’ve missed?
Because if you don’t support it you won’t be able to play any protected content on it which means no AppleTV, FireTV or any other TV box at least above 720p SDR.
Thanks so it is just a roadblock. Please excuse me to keep going: most things either play or don’t play depending on that HDCP (yeash HD CP :s), but if I strip it away using say the second output of a splitter it will play. Is it the case that for example appleTV box will only output 720 if it doesn’t get some kind of positive handshake?
Allow me to add that every time I’ve removed it I’ve had full licensing and permissions, just that HDCP was in the way.
Yes if the source device does not get a handshake and a continuous one as there is one at least every 7ms they won’t display content or display it in a degraded form.
Same goes for not supporting HDCP of a specific version e.g. a display that supports only HDCP 1.3 but not 2.0 will be able to display 1080 Blu-ray’s but not 4K ones.
Yes in theory you can rip it off however that is very expensive and difficult especially with more recent standards (I’m not aware of any way to strip HDCP 2.1 and higher) and bandwidths.
Also to strip it you still need to get a license and keys so it would be quite difficult to do so on a commercial basis especially in a country with strong rule of law.
It's strange that a company as large as Walmart has a shopping category dedicated to "HDCP Strippers" at https://www.walmart.com/c/kp/hdcp-stripper. Upon further research, I stumbled upon numerous YouTube videos, such as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5-PJpSfDJ8, where the user was able to strip away HDCP 2.2 and still achieve 4K@60Hz output. The user also mentions that it would work with a 120Hz panel. This raises the question of how Walmart is able to get away with this, despite the rule of law.
Throwing out there that 16$ a week in coffee isn’t that much, make it two a day so you can be in the cool group, 16 goes to 40. Then chuck in a toastie because you deserve it twice a week now you’re at 60. A take away or two call it 100. I don’t think it’s far out to say it’s easy to squander 100 a week even when poor. 5k a year. Not enough to save for a house, but
1. the start of being responsible even if it’s squirrelling away pennies.
2. Having some savings means you don’t get wiped out by every unexpected bill.
3. Working hard to put away 50$ -100$ a week is a tough and long slog that might give you motivation to try for a better life (or give up but others have covered that).
But going by what I would call your low ball number, every 20$ a week you save works out a grand a year. 80 years for 20$, 40 40, 20 80, 10 160, 5 320.??? So, get on the treadmill or don’t but it’s weird how many people buck against the idea that when you’re very poor then every 10’s of dollars a week does add up. Not that 10 dollars matters, but can you make that 20 a week? Can you squeeze more for 40? 80? Some people have made those sacrifices, they don’t rate the pleasure of latte and iPhone higher than financial security. So please if you could manage, don’t throw out phrases like do that maths sarcastically.
Not just studio but also live sound, from the perspective of people who use it for work. And so there is no ideal. What does it sound like? Ask yourself. Also ask yourself what your objectives are. Is it reliable and consistent? Does it play well with others? What, how, and when are your choices and everyone’s weaker when things get boiled down to ‘the best’ in such a space. So I like gearspace because enough people there understand that. I love when the first reply to ‘what’s the best mic?’ Is ‘what are you going to do with it?’ Instead of fawning over some ideal. You only put a LDC on vocals? Well I get by fine with a 58 so how essential is it really? Budget and priorities, very few things in the professional realm are actually trash, but boy is it fun and easy to say things like all class d amps are trash. Maybe they aren’t the best at reproduction, but they’re also light and cheap. You gonna spec 20k$ gear for a single Vox, acc gui, stomp gig to 30 people? Or is the pair of 500$ Yamahas gonna be fine? Solo or with a crew? 18kg vs 36kg for a 12 inch top box can make a difference. Blah blah blah sorry I’m rambling.
One of my frustrations is incompetent but nice people, but defined more like: can’t be trusted to not have their work checked but is adept at social games. When your manager, you cannot ‘just do’ anything they ask because it wouldn’t of been thought through, when your colleague, you can’t brainstorm with them or trust anything from them has been done to minimum viable. This requires people to push back, but doing so risks being seen as a jerk, and risks actually becoming a jerk if you one day realise how much of your time is babysitting.
But they play golf with your boss, they make friends with people (instead of working), it’s always someone else’s fault that something went wrong. Which is to say these people form cliques, and they gossip constantly to develop and maintain in and out groups. They play favourites something shocking too, and focus on the weaknesses of people they’re threatened by and point them out constantly. They seem nice, but imo I’ve seen highly competent but direct and mission focused teams be reduced to petty infighting and guarded position jostling in less than a month upon the hiring of just one such person.
Hey, am I, or we, actually talking about autistic traits vs narcissistic traits? Not sure. Wasn’t my intention going in, just wanted to point out that nice people have coping strategies too, and their incompetence might just be that they don’t prioritise trying to be good at their job and find their success in ways I personally find manipulative and toxic far more than someone being directly rude.
To reword the top comment: the incompetent destroy team morale, make good people leave, and paralyse junior employees and those lacking confidence/assertiveness. They may contribute to a friendly environment, but they burden others.
Jerks, as long as they are not so jerky as to be abusive, can at least contribute to a strong team culture by stripping away uncertainty and fluff and make less assertive but competent people want to show up and succeed.
Final reword: the need for jerks increases the more BS is in the system. A system with enough BS will produce jerks out of necessity.
I thought the market knows best was kind of a joke. As in all your best reasoning and prayers, but it can still go against you, the market knew best. Is it in the same vein as a wizard being neither early or late, he arrives precisely when he means to (nothing’s ever priced incorrectly)? Or, like a loving mother who beats you (you didn’t properly factor in jupiter)? Depends how you’re feeling, but the market always knows best.
Loose summary: Final payout 2005, collapse 1990. Depositors returned 51% of the dollar. As it was happening: govt says nothing to worry about. Months later: no govt guarantee lol. To someone who didn’t get involved in the run: what are going to do for food, all our savings are locked away and it’s a fortnight until next payday. Those effected unlikely to forget easily.
It’s not apples to apples, aus vs USA, conditions have changed since etc. but I think the rough jist of if you can manage to, don’t rely on the govt in a crisis still applies. Anecdotally.
From reading that account, it sounds like the deposits were not actually insured at the time.
> The Victorian government of the time had chosen not to participate in that scheme [an Australia-wide National Deposit Insurance Corporation], believing the government could regulate and supervise societies.
The cultural memory in America is that in the 1929 crash there were little to no government protections and economic disaster ensued. Reforms, including the FDIC, were created precisely so that people could lean on the government in time of crisis. The beauty of the FDIC safety net is that it's mere existence reduces the risk of its needing to be used.
And the more recent living memory is our 2008 financial crisis in which the government issued enormous loans (since repaid with interest) to a few large banks to protect the whole banking system, and the belief that, in retrospect, it worked and was a good move.
So I guess my question still is: why distrust the safety nets that are in place, when they are shown to be working? What's the story about a time when the US government enacted an economic security promise and then broke it?
Isn’t the pretence important? If I talk to a bunch of people at the pub I’m likely to get various answers, increase the size of the pub and I’ll get to hear all kinds of different stuff and since it’s just people at a pub I can take it or leave it at my will. But when there’s perceived authority involved, a trusted newspaper, maybe a uni lecturer, that kind of thing, then it’s easy to be frustrated that you still have to treat them like people from a pub because they’ve spent considerable effort having me believe they’re better than that. Maybe it’s the difference in expectations between brainstorming and a final review, or a professional and an amateur.
Perceived authority of the source is important to the question of how many people trust & believe some information, yes, you’re right.
This is why “Q” claimed to be a high-level government official, for example, to attempt to establish authority. Pretense, or just experience or expertise or authority, is always there even with the stuff on 4chan.
The authority of a source is a shortcut for evaluating the truth of a source’s information. I think this is what @t12hrow meant by the question of practicality. It takes a long time to verify information on it’s merits alone.
A skirmish thing happened a couple years back between India and China where a bunch of soldiers on both sides had a fight and bludgeoned and stabbed each other to death over some incitement or another. I think they weren’t allowed to shoot each other because then it counts as war or something so instead it was sticks and stones pushing back maybe kilometres into contested Chinese territory and it was kinda like ‘yeaaaah what are you gonna do? No big deal.’
