|
I wrote that message at 02:00 at night; I wasn't completely awake.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
I know a programmer who just loves exclamation marks.
He'd used to do things like: MessageBox.Show("An error occurred!!!")
Very unprofessional.
|
|
|
|
|
Terry Pratchett - "Eric": "Multiple exclamation marks," he went on, shaking his head, "are a sure sign of a diseased mind."
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I used to add exclamation marks in error logs to quickly analyze them with BareTail One exclamation mark would trigger the highlighting in yellow, two highlight in red, [OK] in green.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
The shortest horror story: On Error Resume Next
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: You pressed a button!!!1! Real talk, my mom used to always let go of the shift key when using exclamation marks and did that on accident. So, I spent several years doing that intentionally everywhere, as a joke.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: So, I spent several years doing that intentionally everywhere, as a joke.
...and then there's the meme where someone will actually spell out "one" in the middle of one of those, as if it could happen by accident.
OMG!!!!1!!one!!
|
|
|
|
|
Wasn't there a Seinfeld episode involving exclamation points?
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Says the guy whose own site says, "Submit your solution!"
|
|
|
|
|
Where? I will hunt that exclamation down like a dog
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
The button for submitting a solution to a Q/A question. Go git 'em!
|
|
|
|
|
Done. And the magic of Git allows me to cast a dirty look in the appropriate direction (even though it's been starting me in the face for 10 years now, so I do have to share the blame)
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
One small step for a man...
|
|
|
|
|
I want the ability to change the volume for specific people. not mute them per se. but to change their volume coming thru.
I just had a meeting where one person had a very high voice that was quite loud and another person had a low voice that was quite soft. I really wanted to turn ones volume down and ones up.
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
You need the "Reach out and slap someone" feature!
"Ten men in the country could buy the world and ten million can’t buy enough to eat." Will Rogers
PartsBin an Electronics Part Organizer - Release Version 1.3.0 JaxCoder.com
Latest Article: SimpleWizardUpdate
|
|
|
|
|
I installed the local version of Teams a couple of months ago and so far, haven't figure out how to get to do anything other than advise me that I must run the web version.
The individual volume control thing sounds like a good idea. I can mute mine, why can't I mute theirs?
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
"Hope is contagious"
|
|
|
|
|
Technically, it is easy to understand why you can't: You receive a single, mixed sound stream. For you to adjust the volume of each individual speaker, you would have to receive each speaker an individual sound stream, and mix them in your PC.
I have been in web meetings with way above a hundred participants, almost all of them passively listening/watching, but they could all unmute themselves. Meetings with 30-50 participants is quite common. These systems are not designed for distributing 30-50, or 100+, sound channels to every participant. It would probably be resource consuming: If 100 participants should receive the sound from the 99 others as individual channels, the central switch would have to manage 9,900 sound channels.
An alternative implementation: You receive a single sound channel, but it is adapted to your preferences. You can send commands to the central switch for it to reduce the volume of a single participant in the mix you receive. That would require the central switch to manage 100 mixers of 100 inputs each (for a 100 participant meeting). I guess that would be even more resource demanding on the central switch.
So I doubt very much that your request will be honored in the next software update.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
Would it be possible for the client side software to demultiplex the incoming sound based on loudness, pitch, tone, frequency, etc., and attenuate/enhance the loudness of the one selected by user?
Looks like it will then need a new UI showing the list of demultiplexed sounds, as it will not perhaps be able to correlate speaker A video with speaker A audio.
|
|
|
|
|
But that assumes mixing at the recipient end. Somewhere in the middle is where the mixing of all audio "senders" occurs. Why not allow unique, by recipient IP say, mixing. That would then only require sending unique audio, already mixed as per each recipient's needs, which really is what's happening anyways but of course currently without the custom mixing by the middle layer.)
|
|
|
|
|
That is the option where, for a 100-participant meeting, the central switch must maintain one hundred 100-input mixers. I do not think that is technically viable.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
So how / where are all the audio streams mixed together now?
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting analysis.
I have been in meetings where the speaker had a very low volume and everyone noticed it. Presumably the same causes might impact it being too loud. Usual attempted solution for them at that point is to disconnect and reconnect.
Perhaps then rather than an adjustment on the receivers end add an adjustment on the senders end.
|
|
|
|
|
but if they do will they pay me?
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|
|
This is exactly what I was thinking of...each participant gets a single sound stream combining all audio from all participants; if each participant was sending his own audio to everybody else separately, that would get very expensive, resource-wise.
|
|
|
|
|
I want to be able to have voices be changed to whatever celebrity voice I choose. Further, I want the speech idioms to be updated to match a character from a movie.
My next Zoom call will be full Pulp Fiction.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I would use Toy Story. because they are more real than the people I work with.
Just kidding mostly
To err is human to really elephant it up you need a computer
|
|
|
|