838812052807016

Can anyone provide a summary of the logic behind this decision? Preferably with references to the source document.

Much of the confusion and misunderstanding is because when this subject is taught and explained, the teacher usually jumps from sine waves to music, where a musical note is thought of as a sine wave.

But it is better to think of a musical note as a set of sine waves. Each sine wave in the set has a frequency which is an integer multiple of the frequency of the longest sine wave. These frequencies are known as harmonics.

If we plot these frequencies on a logarithmic scale, they'll be evenly spaced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spectrogram_of_violin.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Human_voice_spectrogram.j...

Imagine a note as a comb, where each tooth represents the frequency of one of the sine waves. Now imagine a second comb where the teeth are spaced farther apart. Now imagine that you put one comb on top of the other so that the teeth line up. You'll see a nice pattern. This is the harmony of the combs.

     C4   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
     G4     |     |     |     |     |     |     |     |
     C5       |       |       |       |       |       |       |       |
     E4    |    |    |    |    |    |    |    |

But these combs aren't only in an abstract frequency space. The cochlea inside your ear maps each frequency to a specific physical location where your ear hairs are tickled, forming a comb-like pattern.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Journey_of_Sound_to_the_B...

Consider this chord composed of the notes G4, C5, and E5, which some of you may know as C 2nd inversion or G⁶₄.

  chord     | | | |   | | |   |     | |   |   | |     | |   | |   |   | |

This chord will tickle your ears in many of the same places as the note C3.

     C3 | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |

One way we can tell human voices apart is by the relative intensities of the harmonics. And the way we tell different vowel sounds apart is by the relative intensities of the harmonics. So our brains have lots of wiring for interpreting relative intensities of harmonics.

https://auditoryneuroscience.com/sites/default/files/Fig1-16... (source: https://auditoryneuroscience.com/vocalizations-speech/forman...)

So when we hear this chord, our brains are likely using some of the same wiring they would use for a human voice singing the note C3.

How do you know the bug is unintentional?

We need a socially acceptable mode of habitation which is less expensive than renting a room. Tents seem like the obvious and established answer.

What I had in mind is that we need to solve those accompanying problems in order to make living in tents socially acceptable.

Tents show up on public areas and sidewalks because there are no better established places for them.

Trash accumulates around tents because there is no established garbage collection procedure like there is for buildings.

Maybe the solution is some kind of campground with a low fee.

It should be socially acceptable to live in a tent. There shouldn't be a big jump between renting a room and living in a tent. People who live in tents shouldn't be seen as some kind of underclass with the label "homeless". There should be a continuum with painless mobility between a tent, a room, an apartment, a house. Everyone should be expected to follow the law. The system should work for all people, all the way from 0 to infinity.

> Best Ever?

> Lots of athletes come to the Olympics hoping to be the Best Ever. But not javelin throwers. They've been told to dream smaller dreams ("Best Since 1984!") and I think that's a bum deal.

> Why not take this event away from crowded arenas, go someplace safe, design the best flying spear possible, throw it as far as you can, and then whoever breaks the record can say to all spear throwers going back over the ages, "Now I'm Number One, in the truest sense — mine flew further than all of yours!

> That would be true Gold.

Maybe the best design would use a rail-gun as a booster.

And if the goal is to make it go as far as possible, you might want to consider throwing it outside the atmosphere.

So it seems that honest self-examination is one essential ingredient.

Then based on this examination, one must take action and interact with the world, perhaps face fears.

From this interaction with your surroundings, you gain insight and experience. You are changed.

Repeat.

What do you think?

Seems like a code smell, when breaking the rules is the most beneficial to society.

I wonder if you could apply similar reasoning to critique "carbon neutrality".

I wonder how much of the disturbing content is spam from botnets or nefarious groups.

Standardized interoperability enables overall progress.

Every airline doesn't need their own webpage. They could all provide a standard API.

Is there any license which requires contribution in order to use the code commercially?

I wonder what would happen if there was a law which forbade corporations from pursuing anything going against the common good?

Or a law which only allowed companies to pursue the common good?

It's not open for me to set it up and sell as a service either.

I'm trying to think of a good analogy. Does anyone have a good one?

How about, the software is analogous to a floor plan. I come up with a great floor plan, and allow anyone to use it for their buildings. But I add a restriction that no one is allowed to sell buildings using this floor plan except me.

I'm not sure the tragedy of the commons applies here since there is no scarce resource. How does a big company profiting from open source code hurt the open source project?

You can swap the sexes and apply the same argument, predicting the opposite result. So I don't think you have it quite right.

How does SST compare to Serverless Framework?

I was able to find the video which triggered the suspension. Google didn't help me find it, by the way. Strictly speaking, he doesn't call for violence but instead tells people to go home in peace.

What he does say is that the election was fraudulent. This seems to be the illegal utterance. And by "legal", I mean a rule laid down by the relevant authority.