I think you may have forgotten
to add "imho", otherwise the message looks like its telling an indisputable truth. Audio professionals don't complain about skeuomorphism and philosophies and certainly there're no worshippers, as nobody cares about the new fancy names of mainstream visual styles (btw non-skeuomorphic knobs are quite common, e.g. Ableton).
From my own experience, knobs are far superior to sliders in audio applications, as all the adjustments are typically guided by hearing, and sliders' values can jump if you click in a wrong place. This just disturbs the flow. Most of the work with audio software UI is fine tuning parameters, often by a few percent, so relativistic nature of click-drag is perfect for this. Sure, there're relativistic sliders, but they feel rather unintuitive.
I mitigated this by storing username in the gpg file itself using the 'user:' tag, while having the file named jdoe or something similar instead of a login name.
To me, the show stopper was web pages blinking white when reloading or opening a new tab. And no real way to fix that, except to change the global CSS, which messes up some websites that doesn't set background-color, etc. etc.
It probably depends on a personal workflow, but for me, Finder works perfectly, and I really miss it on Linux. I have a reasonably organized directory structure, and I navigate and do basic tasks like copying mostly using just a keyboard. I remember directory names and I just start typing their names and the Finder goes to them (actually, most file managers have this feature). Occasionally, I do 'ls | grep' or 'find' from the console to find some specific stuff (I have Spotlight disabled).
In my opinion, the results are not quite exciting as they might seem like at the first glance. The hip-hop and minimal house classification perform almost randomly (the random classifier would have accuracy of 50%). The claim of music genre subjectivity is not fully appropriate for the categories used in this work: the presented genres are quite distinct, and they have objective differences. Knowing only BMP and rhythm structure of the tracks would be sufficient to classify most of the mentioned genres. Also, the article lacks of critical analysis of the results. The network may not have learned to analyze structural properties of the music; if this is true, than what is it classifying exactly? An averaged spectral envelope or spectral distribution? In this case the network will fail if you feed a filtered music piece into it. There is a nice paper on issues like these called “A Simple Method to Determine if a Music Information Retrieval System is a Horse”, you may want to check it out: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265645782
I understand this is an educational project, but nevertheless it's published, hence open for critics ;)
Thanks! Interesting work, indeed. I found the showcase photos appealing and nice. I briefly skimmed through the paper with hope to find some interpretation of the “aesthetics”, but couldn't find it. What is meant under “all aesthetic aspects” and “aesthetic quality”? Did you perform a critical analysis of the network? How do you know that the network learned “aesthetics”?
> In Russia, Yandex.Taxi has gross bookings of $1.01 billion on an annualized basis, while Uber had $566 million, according to a presentation prepared for investors.
Two companies will be merged (in Russia), but the brands will stay. The investment-stake asymmetry is probably due to the difference in the gross bookings.
> There was no scenario under which a Western firm was going to be allowed to dominate any meaningful Russian infrastructure long-term.
I think that's not quite true. The industry (oil, car manufacturing, software, etc.) is pretty much dependent on the Western products and tech.
Besides Uber, GetTaxi is quite popular in Russia. And there are more local similar taxi services besides Yandex, but they are less known. In general, Uber and Yandex are the most popular at the moment.
Scientists make contributions and they work supported by the previous contributions. So the argument "X were the first" doesn't have to do anything to science, but only to populism in politics.
I'd better consider you a russophobic. Quite typical for eastern Europe, and ex-USSR countries.
> when another wave of Russian nationalism sweeped over
There is no Russian nationalism. You see is the distorted and fragmented reality, projected onto you from your media (I'm wandering what). The problem is that you don't really understand what are you talking about and what is the purpose of your discussion. Your messages are not connected with a single subject, you use slongans, populisms, trumpisms, but no substance. I've seen this in 2014–2015 when the Russian media were brainwashing people at insane rates.
Microwave: you can look for the excerpts from the magazine "Trud" from 13 June 1941 (in Russian). Scientists explained their experiments with using ultra-high frequency waves for heating up meat.
Lasers, TVs: check my previous answer.
If you want to know more about scientific success in USSR, please find yourself a course on history and philosophy of science / informatics. Soviet scientists did a lot contributions to the scientific community, including in such areas like chemistry, cybernetics, neurophysiology, psychology among others, just like any other big country in the world.
I was particularly interested in the history of sound synthesis in the 1930s, which I personally find fascinating (Evgeny Scholpo, Arseny Avraamov, Boris Yankovsky). They basically implemented spectral resynthesis and wavetable techniques using light and film! The sad thing is that this history has been stocking in archives until someone accidentally found them.
There were no questions, except agressive "Really?", so I decided to skip the points. The thing is that the original author tries to put a nationalistic mask on science, i.e. "the X was invented by country Y", which is a fallacy suitable for populist debates. Science doesn't happen in vacuum, and scientific "achievements" are usually called "contributions".
Regarding your questions. 1) Three scientists received a Nobel prize for their work on lasers, you can check the wiki for names. 2) About the TV: my bad, A. Zworykin has been working in the US on the TV problem --- it's hard to trace everyone who emigrated due to the Soviet massacre. Anyway, you can find experiments, etc. for example, by Leo Theremin.
It appears that you simply don't understand the definition of the word "science", nor the meaning of "scientific". Thus your posts mix up "science", "innovation" and "commerce". You can't measure USSR in terms of "commercial success", as there were no commerce.
That's commercial achievement, not scientific. The Obninsk power plant has been connected to a grid in 1954. It is useless to assess commercial achievements of the country which didn't have commerce at all. And in general, the question "who was the first" is unproductive, as science doesn't have nationality.
Sir, you don't have mind discipline. You started off from the subject "scientific achievements" and ended up with "commercial achievements", so the discussion with you will be boring.
From my own experience, knobs are far superior to sliders in audio applications, as all the adjustments are typically guided by hearing, and sliders' values can jump if you click in a wrong place. This just disturbs the flow. Most of the work with audio software UI is fine tuning parameters, often by a few percent, so relativistic nature of click-drag is perfect for this. Sure, there're relativistic sliders, but they feel rather unintuitive.