> I've been trying to square the physics and my experience.
> Pedal B flat is the fundamental, low B flat is the 2x, F 3x, mid B flat the 4x, D the 5X, high F is 6X, G half sharp is 7X and high B flat is 8X.
I've always been amused at how many sources state the "tube with one end open" model, derive the "odd harmonics only" behavior from the model, and then never engage with the observable behavior of the instrument or reconcile it with the model.
I did find this when trying to understand that disparity, but I don't know enough to confirm/refute/amend the explanation:
I took that to mean ≈ "Amount of training data isn't the big factor dwarfing all else." Depends who "we" refers to, I guess. Back when LLM-generated code was new, I definitely saw predictions that LLMs would struggle with niche or rarely used languages. These days, consensus among colleagues within earshot is that LLMs handle Rust much better than Python or C++ (corpus size and AutoCodeBench scores notwithstanding).
I’d argue that the multiplicity of different programming languages and programming language paradigms suggests there likely isn't a teleological trajectory towards some single standard for programming.
We also have a multiplicity of building materials, tools, fabrication processes, etc. What's the standard way to make a steel object? Do you cast, forge, stamp, mill, sinter, roll, weld? I would expect engineering as a discipline to have more solid arguments for choosing which (combination) of those processes to use for a particular task than what is typically thrown around in discussions about choosing a programming language or paradigm.
Apple did not need to be controlled by a majority shareholder in order to follow an ambitious, cohesive vision.