4
points
potamic
Joined 2,115 karma
- potamic parentI don't think they are confused. They are simply challenging the assertion that the model should not work with other software. Which is fair because there is a lot of precedent around whether a service can dictate how it must be consumed. It's not a simple answer and there are good reasons for both sides. Whichever path we take will have wide consequences and shape our future in a very distinct way. So it is an important decision, and ultimately up to us, as a society to influence and guide.
- > It is a luxury good that only a very small number of people care about
The world runs on computers. It is as essential as oil for the functioning of societies. Increase in silicon costs is going to increase costs unilaterally across the board. It happened during the pandemic and something similar will happen now. If anything it should be a wake up call to countries to start thinking about securing their own supply chains.
- 6 year time period between 1990-1996. Would have been interesting to see how these results would have fared across the 2000 crash.
But I don't think the paper claims that they beat the market. What they are concluding is that you can classify investors as skilled and unskilled, with the skilled group able to achieve returns consistently. But whether those returns can beat the market, they say the evidence is limited.
- Not a dentist, but my read of the situation is that dentists generally are not very excited about doing fillings and there's a push towards getting into more complex procedures like root canals, invisalign and implants. It's probably partly due to wanting to upskill and increase your repertoire and partly due to the margins. The margins with these procedures can be an order of magnitude more than that of fillings, especially anything that is supplied by a big brand.
- The most important principle in software architecture is that no principles are absolute, except this one, otherwise it would be a paradox. Theoretical correctness must be balanced by practical necessity. I don't know what the ulterior motives were in this case, but I can think of many possible reasons. Unreliable, lack of support, lack of tooling, missing observability, operations heavy, deprecation plans, dependency on another team that is unable to cater, etc. there could be many reasons one might prefer to trade-off a small performance penalty against these. Trade-offs are unavoidable in any significant system, and this seems is one of the smaller ones you would see IMO. What's more important is to make sure the trade off is a conscious choice and to plan for the consequences.
- It's sad that such a thing needs regulation in the first place. In real life if a salesman is being inconsiderate, I'll go out of my way to avoid their sales and find someone else who is better mannered. But we don't seem to apply the same measure to ads. Ads can be brash, insulting and manipulative, and yet that doesn't seem to cause a negative outcome for them. Rather it appears such ads work better and now that's what everyone's pushing towards. Human psychology is such a weird thing.
- It does mention compliance with the CALM act, which lays out the precise methodology by which loudness will be measured [1]
> The Calm Act refers to A/85, and A/85:2013 specifies BS.1770 (specifically referencing BS.1770-1) as the source of its loudness measurement techniques (1770-2 did not exist at the time A/85 was finalized). So BS.1770-1 currently serves as the yardstick by which U.S. television programming will be evaluated for CALM Act compliance.
> BS.1770 recommends the Leq(RLB) measurement algorithm, where Leq(W) the frequency weighted sound level measure, xw is the signal at the output of the weighting filter, xRef is the reference level, and T is the length of the audio sequence.
> The drawback of BS.1770 as originally conceived is that it measures average loudness over the entire length of content. This may be fine if the loudness is fairly consistent over time. If not, a quiet section of content may, as illustrated in Figure 5, bias the average level so that it measures as acceptable despite having some sections that are unacceptably loud.
[1] https://www.telestream.net/pdfs/whitepapers/wp-calm-act-comp...