Anyone who has ever mixed music seriously knows the effect of psychoacoustics - your brain is such a proficient signal to noise optimiser, that differences in audio quality are perceptible only for the first few minutes of hearing a given sound source.
This is why mix engineers have multiple sets of speakers, so they can periodically reset their perception. Additionally, it is well documented that the top scoring speakers on Audio Science Review (where people who think linear reproduction of audio is the only job of a speaker) do not align well with the top tool choices for audio professionals, and this is not because they are governed by supersition.
There is not currently a metric for many of the things that become essential as soon as you start listening critically and having to make binding decisions from your perception - will it fatigue me, is the speaker lying to me, dimensionality, etc. Saying these are problems with your listening environment is punting on the problem of the actual duty a speaker is required to fulfil.
I don't see why an audiophile, who is a critical listener, should be any different. They're obviously doing it without a generated artefact from their listening, so there's no data based feedback loop for the quality of their experience, but it's a hobby, so everyone's preferences have value.
More deeply than programming being a search problem, programming is a means to an end.
If the end is a combination of education and product discovery, then yeah maybe, although those are also dimensions of personal productivity that can be amplified by leveraging AI tools.
If the end goals of programming is leveraging computer automation, then nobody actually cares how the automation infrastructure gets established, and the less distractions with low value implementation complexity, the better.
Pretty sure unaccountability is a desired feature of management decisions in most organisations.
That quote has an unexpressed precondition to the effect of "In order for an organisation to be objectively well run..." or "In order for an organisation to equitably benefit all stakeholders at all levels..." etc
I walk slower and talk slower than I used to, and do both way slower than people I interact with.
I can appreciate things better by moving slowly, with more intention, conserving my concentration and energy for matters of substance.
Why must moving slowly be stigmatised?
I am surrounded by people talking at such a high rate, they start responding before the other person's sentence or thought is completely expressed.
My value at work has become disentangling messes made by people failing to communicate effectively, and the first step in addressing that problem is always, slow down.
You will not get 10% further in life by going 10% faster. People moving quickly, failed at planning.
The entire mystery of the universe is accessible to you in your current location.
The president of the United States sets the tone that hated without reason or explanation is the way the system works now. Belligerence and power are the currency.
Speaking to people's better angels as if it has a chance of influencing Trumps behaviour is a fool's errand. It's not derangement. His word is worthless.
...and when your labour, and the labour of 90+% of all humans on the planet have no economic value, we'll do what?
Continue to avoid exploring obvious solutions because certain words have been made into epithets, or failed previously because they were solving future (now imminent) problems?
Nope. Humans are statistically fallible and their attention is too valuable to be obliged to a mundane task like executing navigation commands. Redesigning and rebuilding city transportation infrastructure isn't happening, look around. Also personal agency limits public transportation as a solution.
I don't doubt this description of what happened, but the sad irony in a company whose product was producing tools to generate archival copies of images, not recognising the value of retaining archival copies of images... facepalm.
Is that true, that it's money that belongs to people?
OpenAI isn't spending $1 trillion in hard earned cash on data centres, that is funny money from the ocean of financial liquid slushing around, seeing alpha.
It also certainly is not a cohort of accredited investors putting their grandchildren's inheritance on the line.
Misaligned incentives (regulations) both create and perpetuate that situation.
Right, because that is a national emergency on the level of severity and immediacy of a foreign military invasion - which is the actual legal arguement put forward.
This is why mix engineers have multiple sets of speakers, so they can periodically reset their perception. Additionally, it is well documented that the top scoring speakers on Audio Science Review (where people who think linear reproduction of audio is the only job of a speaker) do not align well with the top tool choices for audio professionals, and this is not because they are governed by supersition.
There is not currently a metric for many of the things that become essential as soon as you start listening critically and having to make binding decisions from your perception - will it fatigue me, is the speaker lying to me, dimensionality, etc. Saying these are problems with your listening environment is punting on the problem of the actual duty a speaker is required to fulfil.
I don't see why an audiophile, who is a critical listener, should be any different. They're obviously doing it without a generated artefact from their listening, so there's no data based feedback loop for the quality of their experience, but it's a hobby, so everyone's preferences have value.