dugidugout

Where are we placing the responsibility?

What is the point of using your account to generate replies like this? Even your use of "Sorry" is obviously vapid. Try addressing my comment or don't participate.

> ... maybe OP is confused about how the audio spectrum works in general then, because they themselves talk about this 70hz shelf in the same breath as human vocal ranges etc -- that isn't amplitude modulation frequency.

In a CI, voice pitch actually _does_ arrive as amplitude modulation at the F0 rate. The processor keeps only each channel's envelope, and the harmonics of a voice that share a channel beat against each other at F0. So a 70 Hz flutter ceiling and vocal ranges do belong in the same breath.

> ... so I was confused at how someone could say they 'don't hear anything above 70hz' and yet can somehow hear 'noise' at '2000 hz'. But it is dawning on me that the implant / associated driver hardware may simply be 'saturating' ...

The TMTF carrier was noise by design, so above 70 Hz the flutter vanished and the noise that was already there is all that's left. No saturation is needed to explain it. The “wind” in SRD is what a spectral ripple sounds like through limited spectral resolution. This is a resolution problem, not a level problem.

> The exposition is strange and again that could just be the translation and writing style...

This paragraph was why I initially made a comment. They were radically honest with their methodology and obviously living inside the problem. OP is actually reading this thread, for what it's worth.

I think there's a misreading at the root of this. The "70 Hz" in the post is the modulation rate from the TMTF, not an audio frequency. The TMTF measures how fast loudness can flutter before the flutter is undetectable. It isn't a pitch or discrimination test. From the post, OP does discriminate, somewhat, above 70 Hz and says they can't judge pitch direction at all, so there is no 20–70 Hz "working band" to retreat into.

I agree with the broader instinct that OP deserves a clinician to help with the hardware side (having their map and device parameters alone would go a long way), but it seems OP is taking any step they can towards this effort.

I regret that I don't have anything to actually add towards helping OP. Their posture towards understanding is refreshing and the Lean bit reads to me more as a cute testament to that than anything eerie or strange.

> I guess "it's all relative", "it depends on your point of view" for you. Maybe you're softer than you think.

Not to take a side, but they clearly took a position on how it is not relative. It is your reference to other periods of history that is doing relativism.

I think their broader point is, after you've typed all that, what is there to do?

Merely suggesting everything is evil and everyone is prejudice and I don't want to see that, leaves us with evil and prejudice... it is only when one has postured past the relativism (as I suspect you do wrt to your examples) that anyone can act.

You actively chose to click on an article titled "An Arrogant Way of Killing (2016)". Your decision to prefer something is your responsibility to uphold. Sure, there could have been some disclaimer, but frankly, you lamenting this is nothing more than a distraction from the article... dealing with the realities of being presented with dead bodies.

Further, this actually is solvable with tech... write a script to quarantine posts that match a filter list (killing is obviously a candidate), then offshore the curation of the containment to some 3rd worlders to vet any human bodies present. It would be a very fitting exercise for you if not a bit tongue-in-cheek!

Finally my idealized living can be achieved and I can play mahjong until I sleep!

I spent some time crafting that response. Unfortunate for me. Thank you for the follow up, I do agree with this.

A term is all you need?

> I've chatted with people who will refuse to read a story because they think the cover art was generated by AI (even though they don't really know; they're just guessing). "It's AI slop."

There is beyond enough literature on offer for me to read in my lifetime. I'm not certain what this new age of expression will bring us, but the genie is out of the bottle. It is obvious to me that viewing llm output is distinct from the fusion I am part of traditionally when reading, even in the case of a shoddy translator. So for me personally, I will be attempting to continue reading in the same spirit traditionally. Anything contemporary I am reading, I will more fittingly treat as introspection or a window for dialect.

“Today’s old world won’t get in our way,” said the machine, enigmatically. “It even came to our aid. History has ceased its flow; no need to refer to it any longer."

They are not being pedantic here, they are establishing a meaningful difference in words to help distinguish a shared phenomena. I think the original comment was unnecessary and certainly bigoted, but I would need more to say racism. The "grammar" guy clarified twice the semantic difference they personally observed (note they did not labor on syntax like you wish to suggest).

All that said, I make this comment as I believe the other commenter's worry is on display im this comment here...

> Again you seem more concerned with grammar than, y'know, condemning racism, prejudice, or bigotry. They're all equally bad and closely related concepts

These are _not_ all equally bad. Prejudice is foundational to understanding, there is no escape from this. In this understanding, we should treat particular postures of prejudice more serious than collapsing any "bad prejudice" under the same label.

I don't know, that sounds like a question of taste. :)

Because value in this case is particular to the engagement of a player.

Most playing a video game know nothing of programming let alone the specific architecture or development process, so I am not sure how you would expect them to express feelings about the code.

Narrarive or script is still in the same artistic consideration though, so say if the game was a sort of meta exploration of the code, this might expose the same sort of "value" over code.

The article was both fun and honest.

Thanks for sharing!

Interpreting facts always involves argument, so that's not evidence of mean spirits. Do you include yourself in 'most people'? If not, why assume you're the exception?

That is quite an ugly posture and without any bit of substance. What was this meaning to add? I'm genuinely wondering.

Were you not "[being] cute" yourself? I don't like it, but they did have to goad you into giving some substance.

What point are you making here? The author of the review doesn't seem to be affiliated with any keyboard. Are you suggesting the distributor of the MoErgo Glove80 provided the author with this image and/or a general narrative?

Regarding guns and chat bots. You've said as much and the origin of the discussion says as much. Where does anyone suggest they are referring to use of LLMs in military deployments other than you?

> a chat bot

We are clearly not discussing deployments in military campaigns.The suit in question is specifically regarding "ChatGPT" used conversationally.

> The store obviously has an obligation to hand over either money or the goods, but it's not clear that obligation is transient to anyone that ends up with the goods.

It is extremely clear. You are just detailing the buffer being used to pretend otherwise.

This line is basically the review in miniature.

In answering whether Nguyen's argument holds, Runciman decides Nguyen isn't talented enough to be worth judging, then judges him anyway. A book about scoring systems gets scored on the wrong axis. Runciman then uses this to great effect, blending this silly aesthetic complaint with a real structural one.

The structural point I even agree with. You can always take up a new game, but at the social level there is often no other game to play, and you can't opt out of a metric that has power over you. But Runciman doesn't trust the point to carry the piece, so the verdict on Nguyen's prose is enlisted to stand in for a verdict on Nguyen's case.

The irony: to fault the book for not being "compelling reading" is to let a convenient proxy displace the value it was meant to track. That is "value capture" as Nguyen puts it.

Being that can be understood is language. The previous commenter is making an particular argument for how we can improve this understanding. They didn't suggest we should use less familiar words, but different familiar words. Why is this strange?

I believe it was emergent from FPS gaming culture, particularly following the popularity of Apex Legends. In Apex Legends you have an energy shield which serves as a buffer of hit points. When playing cooperatively it is useful to communicate when this energy shield is "cracked", thus the line "they are cracked" emerged. This originally meant a target player's shield is down in Apex Legend specifically, but it was then the Fortnite (and broader FPS) community which took this phrase and warped it to mean someone is precise or an excellent shot. Today it is certainly used in the context the original poster intended.

edit: Looking again, this may be overstated. Apex-era gaming culture likely helped popularize the usage, but considering older idioms like "crack shot," the actual etymological root is more likely there.

What did you find slightly imprecise?

Why not link the study?

Drama is the moment a person discovers their most private feelings are not private at all, but historical forces passing through them.

Hopefully the capital owners care to tell the difference.

I personally could not stomach the clocktower. I may just be bad at platforming, but the stage felt jarringly frustrating compared to the pleasant frustration I was having with the rest of the games challenges. After my 10th or so time getting blasted by a fireball while inching across a beam, I made my peace. It is a shame because I very much enjoyed the premise and world otherwise.

This is what I suggest too, what a good way of putting it!

Some people have very funny ways at looking at the most mundane context in my mind. It would be a shame if I didnt spend time sharing my funny head in ways that can't be captured in a record!