fsckboy

came back and read, to late to edit. "privates" was supposed to be "provides"

and I wrote another long comment to a separate reply, you should look for it.

Growing up as I did in an old seafaring town, quite near Ahab's ports of call, I love the romance of the sea and I listen exclusively to sea chanties.

For low-value and bulk cargo, ships make sense, and modern computer-controlled sail trim and wind energy harvesting probably makes a great case. But high value cargo is largely today shipped by air. Nvidia wants money for its chips ASAP, too valuable to sit around non productively while being steamered. Maybe with surplus wind energy they could mine bitcoin while en route?

A sort of related topic, about 20 years ago during peak farm-to-table "buy local" fashion, the NY Times pointed out that lamb shipped from New Zealand (where is that on a map, I can't find it?) to New York City arrives with a lower carbon footprint than lamb delivered by trucks from nearby upstate NY farms, such are the economies of scale in shipping.

But now, blow me down me hearties, I look forward to dining on New Zealand lamb carried to my door by the winds of fortune!

with a bass reflex port, the design tunes it acoustically to work with the chosen speaker (and cabinet size blah blah). Given how acoustics work, that means you could tune it to be out-of-phase at the resonant frequency, or you could tune it to be in-phase at the resonant frequency. It would not surprise me at all if modern boom box speaker design was tilted to the in-phase mode in order to get a BOOM-BOOM room sound for hip hop, EDM etc. It could be a cheap way to achieve boominess that skateboarders or whoever would find appealing.

my information comes from the past where I come from. In the 1960s and 70s, bass reflex port design (which had only just bugun to be understood) was tuned toward out-of-phase tuning to accomplish the taming of the resonant frequeny hump in the frequency response, and the audiophile goal was generally regarded as recreating the classical music concert hall experience in your living room without sound coloration, and which music does not have boom-boom elements, except for the occasional timpani thump. The subwoofer had not even been invented yet.

as to the efficiency claims, see the cousin-to-this-comment i just made. In brief, wikipedia is talking about comparing different designs, and I (and the original youtube video) were talking about the efficiency effect it would have on the self-same system, not compared to other different systems. You can surely see that out-of-phase resonance might be likely to decrease the sound level, and in-phase reinforcement would be likely to increase the sound level. That is what I was talking about.

(it's not actually as simple as what it seems on its face, the acoustic feedback of the sound waves (bass reflex) will be transmitted back through the electronics to the feedback loop in the amplifier itself. Think of it like a conservation of energy type argument, shifting gears on your bicycle does not give you more energy but it can increase the efficiency-kind-of-sort-of of the transfer of energy from you to your bicycle, so comparatively speaking shifting gears on your speaker. I say kind-of-sort-of because what energy gets wasted where (in the form of wasteful heat) isn't completely intuitive. systems have their lowest impedance at their resonant frequency, thus highest energy transfer, but feeding back to change the behavior at the resonant frequency will change the impedance rather than simply "hey free efficiency" or something, because we are changing frequency dependent impedance rather than removing resistance/friction.)

the musical problem with choosing a "resonance reinforcement" technique is that it works at the same resonant frequency all the time (same for that speaker, different for other speakers). What's pleasing about music is the artists choices of musical notes. Different songs have different note choices, but the speaker's resonant frequency is always the same so a song in the key of, e.g., G will always be emphasized in the key of C which does not make musical sense.

the opposite is not the case, if you use bass reflex to demphasize the resonant frequency, you are making all songs sound better.

in the particular case of the youtube video, he would still be wrong because he is measuring/testing right at the bass port, which for bass notes with a long enough wavelength would still be reinforced by the sounds from the front of the speaker, but not in the directed way that he is trying to capture with the smoke ring cannon because the reinforcing waves would be arriving from elsewhere and not coherent with the (hypothetical) smoke rings. also the smoke ring cannon is tuned for a much lower bass note, if you pumped 20Hz through it (an extremely low note, the limit of human hearing), that would imply 20 smoke rings a second. Does anything about the smoke ring cannon seem to indicate that it could put out 20 smoke rings a second? highly doubtful, they would interfere with each other. notice that the bass port is much smaller than the smoke ring cannon, probably a bad impedance match, though I doubt the smoke ring cannon is operating at all on frequency, just simply the turbulent movent of air (and smoke)

my statement was that the bass reflex design decreased the efficiency of that system itself (as in "it could be more efficient in itself, which is what the youtube video was saying). Cancelling some frequencies decreases the efficiency of it's own components, but that it did so by choice in favor of accuracy of sound and beneficial compromises toward space-efficient form factor.

I did NOT say it was more or less efficient than any other design, nor did the youtube video, which is what wikipedia has successfully attempted to delude you into talking about, and unsuccessfully at being correct because it conflates infinite baffle with acoustic suspension which with absolute certainty have vastly different efficiencies and tonal qualities and therefore the wiki simply wrong.

On another dimension you have left out, different loudspeaker acoustic cabinet designs are optimized by coupling with completely different drivers (I'm using the term driver to refer to the metal-frame/paper-cone structure itself, not any wooden enclosure) With acoustic suspension, the air in the cabinet privates a taut springiness, and thus the spring built into the driver is more or less eliminated making the speaker cone on its own "floppy". You can't use that driver in a different design, the components must be designed together to work together, matching impedance, so it is silly to naively compare efficiency, and as I already pointed out, any 5% efficiency difference is dwarfed by other considerations.

I'm happy to educate you, but you don't know what you are talking about, so arguing against your uninformed reading of wikipedia is tedious.

do you realize that the Israeli population is far far more secular than the US's? the Israeli government is not "Judaic" which would refer to the religion.

>I'm not sure what Twitter's specific reasons are

as I recall it was the large number of bot accounts not scraping but commenting.

1. you can use the opcode, it's guaranteed. if it does something else, that's not on you.

2. you might know everything about the environments and that's how you know that different environments use different interrupt tables, but you want a code snippet that will not rely on that, so you use this guaranteed opcode.

a fuckboy is a sexually attractive and amourously successful male that women who want to tie a man down should stay away from. you've begun to suss out my username! now add in the fsck aspect

>There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here that many LLM advocates fall prey to.

I am not an LLM advocate (nor am I an LLM skeptic), I simply observe and think about what I see. So, I guess your comment is not intended for me?

>No one claims (anymore) that LLMs are completely useless. We agree that these tools can boost productivity.

I read this as something a skeptic would write as apologium for himself: "I am stubborn and stick my heels in when presented with something new, first at productivity, but when forced to retreat, now taking a stand at creativity."

but again, you are defending/attacking a point that doesn't apply to me. I wrote originally to say "they learn from humans" was not a good argument against LLMs because humans learn from other humans. (a simple point which was why my comment was simple)

Very few humans are Aristotle, Newton, or Einstein, and those three were as well building on the work of others.

you restated "humans learn from other humans, and slowly at that" so I guess you are indicating that computers do it faster, this activity of learning from other humans.

I said the same thing you mean, "no human will invent writing, they can only use writing as a productivity tool because they learned it from other humans. Therefore, in the context of my comment, saying "they learn from humans" is not a valid criticism of LLMs because humans also learn from humans, or live like cavemen"

you are agreeing with me, just hot under the collar about it.

how many humans would invent writing without being taught in school? how about algebra? how about arabic numeral-ing?

and you have no idea how humans reason, but LLMs are neural networks, what do you think neural refers to?

>BUT THEY RELY ON HUMAN INPUTS

humans rely on human inputs. can then talk about the small number of humans who push the boundaries of knowledge and then talk about when LLMs solve difficult math problems...

>you can raise software interrupts/exceptions

exception handling requires that some unrelated region of memory is initialized and intact and ready to do the right thing, whatever that is, and that region is outside the scope of your control, it belongs to the operating system or the the embedded ROM, and it may not have been laid out to take care of your case.

assembly/machine code is operating at a lower layer: "I don't know what larger thing I'm a part of, but I know I need to stop."

big purple concord grapes grow wild in the US and are thick skinned and you squeeze or suck out the grape inside, skin significantly more tart than the sweet grape, pretty sure those are the tannins that you get in wine from skin contact even those those are different grape varieties.

I've visited a number of European winegrower family farms and they frequently also grow table grapes for their own consumption. The table grapes they eat are much much less sweet than vinifera grapes where the yeast consume all the sugar into alcohol and which are basically too sweet to enjoy.

what you are calling agreement between me and him I don't see at all. I'm not going to watch that video again. I could watch another one and tell you what's wrong with that one, that would be more interesting.

I know the field of loudspeakers/acoustics very well, what I've said so far and will say now is all off the top of my head, and it's unlikely that it's in his head at all. We're not going to research a number like 5% more efficient because that's a complete waste of time, let me explain. "We" measure loudness of sound on a decibel scale, that is tenths of a Bel, and the Bel scale is a logarithmic scale, more or less because that's how human hearing perception works, I guess because that's how sounds occur in nature (evolution). But what that all translates to is, to be perceived as "twice as loud" requires a 10 decibel increase; that corresponds to an increase of 10 times the power. On a smaller scale, a 3 dB increase requires doubling power. 3dB is perceptible, but minimally so. So for a tiny 3db increase in loudness requiring 2x the power, is anybody interested in an 5% inefficiency increase taking us to needing 2.1? no, nobody is interested in that, they don't make power amplifiers with ".05 times more power!"

(maybe I should add, the decibel scale is a comparative scale, not an absolute scale, and the hearing/sound phenomenon is not linear to begin with, so it works best and most intuitively on smaller ranges; to put it a different way, a power amplifer can go from zero (off) to 10 Watts, 100 Watts, 1000 Watts, but there is no "log of 0")

now, as to the comparison of tuned ported/bass reflex compared to acoustic suspension (which is what sealed box refers to): acoustic suspension is NOTORIOUSLY ineffient; it is also notoriously good sounding, and in a compact amount of space like an apartment living room the inefficient power is not important to achieving high sound volumes to create a symphony listening experience.

But that is not true of infinite baffles (consider a speaker mounted in a wall), so to lump together infinite baffle with acoustic suspension and call something else 5% more efficient is just plain wrong, but who cares because 5% is nothing on a logarithmic scale.

(space efficiency btw is very important in most people's living spaces, and that's where acoustic suspension really wins. I don't know the "efficiency" of acoustic suspension, but people did need to upgrade their power amplifiers, say from 3 watts to 10 watts or to 20. This was in a period of time where electronics were still transistorizing and shrinking so people would notice "hey, I need to buy something, can't keep using the old thing" more than %ages)

the goal is not efficiency, it's good sound. bass reflex improves its sound by cancelling the resonant frequency which would be overly loud otherwise. acoustic suspension also tames the resonance, but with an entirely different method, the speaker box is small enough that the compression of the air acts as a spring, where the entire surface of the (paper) cone is supported by the sealed air cushion; the acoustic supsension loudspeaker driver itself does not need a spring in that setup, but it is required for other applications of loudspeakers.

he didn't ask himself any questions about the difference between the air cannon and his bass reflex port plus air cannon setup. The frequency of of audio, even very low bass notes would be minimum 20 Hz (that is unrealistically low for most sound systems), and the normal air cannon "balloon snap" is not really comparable. A test he could do would be to keep the speaker cavity filled with smoke and see if a 20 Hz signal blows 20 smoke rings a second: guarantee, it does not, but it might do something interesting. the relatively slow swirl of the smoke ring is a turbulence after effect phenomenon

but lets go back to why I wrote my original comment. incels here were making fun of a mexican high school girl and using that video to point out she had accomplished nothing. so to give her the same credit every high school student deserves for their science fair project, I thought I'd point out that this youtube genius could also be made fun of.

related to this topic, here is a very interesting little external combustion engine that runs on the heat from a flame directly (i.e. not a steam engine)

https://i.4cdn.org/b/1789145070031855.mp4 (completely SFW)

(links to 4chan expire in a day or so, so if anybody has a better link for this, future generations will be able to see it too)

he called oxygen the fuel for the fire. the discovery of oxygen was an enormous milestone in the history of science, chemistry, and biology precisely because it's not the fuel for the fire. before that, people knew about fuel, they didn't know about oxygen.

also, he doesn't understand how a bass reflex speaker works. unlike what he said, the port actually decreases the efficiency of the speaker by letting the negative bass note sine waves cancel out the positive sine waves from the front of the speaker, but this is done to tone down the "boominess" of the speaker at its resonant frequency, thus making the speaker more "neutral" sounding, and it's achieved by having the dimensions of the box and the port finely tuned to work most "efficiently" at the resonant frequency.

but in any case, what he says about the "bulk" movement of air (he should probably call it net, i mean all air is bulk by nature) there is no way that the speaker pumping air in and out of the cavity could turn into net movement in one direction. (the smoke ring blower is slowly charged up in one direction, then released in something like an impulse function but loudspeakers don't have that nature) if what he is seeing with his fan-probe is correct, that should have impressed him more and distracted him into studying what exactly was going on (ex: the air coming out was directionally focused from the cone? and sucking back in was amorphous and somehow not detected by his device?) because it is looking for explanation.

I'll bet that high school girl's science was better than what's in that youtube (it doesn't set a very high bar)

that's not how threading works

there were plenty of other threads under that comment in that direction

>it is reasonable to assume that the point here is that a full-screen

wrong. you answered under the context of yunwal's comment https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49630931#49634166

  > None of that matters for a phone.
  Of course it does. They show the most basic example right 
  on the page, which is that you can side-by-side full screen 
  apps. 

which is talking about the case of two separate apps running side-by-side (unfolded), as was shown in one of the pictures of the device.

>I think they intended to continue "... without changing their aspect ratios"

but the context was "see, you can have two different apps running side by side, each with the same aspect ratio as either of the apps when run in the space of the folded screen. not only the same aspect ratio, but the same dimensions"

the whole A3/4/5 scheme is completely overblown as a feature for consumers. You format a document for A4, ok, but you wouldn't print that document A5 because the fonts would be completely shrunken. nobody does that. We use word processors to format documents for the space we have, and we don't ever print wedding invites on A3 or A4

>If you unfold a square, you don't get two squares.

yes, you do. Two squares will fold together into the space of one square, and the same with 2 A4 sheets of paper, or two 8½x11 sheets of paper, two of them will fold together to make one of them.

they anticipated liking the taste?

the stock market goes up and down daily, but with a functioning economy it will overall be up. from a distance you are right, something that keeps going up keeps achieving new highs.

but, if you follow the market on a daily basis, you will be paying attention to the market swooning for periods of time, maybe with a small recovery and then another swoon. New "all time highs" do provide convenient notifications that the economy has now grown from before. Without new highs, your investments are treading water.

Albanese is an Italian name, for the record

In Albania, Albania is called Shqipëria.

the Wilshire Corridor view is completely wrong, it should be the stretch of tall buildings a bit above Century City in the Century City view.

and just to make the point more firmly, PDP-11 didn't have a preincrement/postincrement pair of instructions, it simply had indexing with post-increment of the index or pre-decrement, i.e. one paradigm, not two. Or in other words, "stack" behavior.

>and even the pre- and post-increment operators cleanly lined up with the PDP-11 addressing modes.

pre- and post- increment operators cleanly lined up with... the programmer's conceptualization and objectives--the index is/was frequently used in other contexts than loop bounds and indexing. if that's not your conceptualization, don't use that operator. whether you are on a PDP-11 makes no difference.

possibly Hokkien 膎汁 (kê-chiap, “fish sauce”) via Malay kecap ~ kicap “any dark clear sauce from soy, fish etc”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketchup#Etymology

>A lot of cultures appear to name botanicals using apples

don't know if it makes the point or upends it, but the fruit in the Garden of Eden wasn't specifically an apple.