|
NO! Not the dreaded Dihydrogen-monoxide poisoning. I'm kind of thirsty just thinking about it! Wait, not I'm not!...
|
|
|
|
|
Wait. Wasn't that the basis of that movie "Tuxedo"?
You mean Jackie Chan was actually doing a documentary? (you have to love that opening scene)
Money makes the world go round ... but documentation moves the money.
|
|
|
|
|
Wasn't it Winston Churchill who said, "The internet is something up with which I will not put"
|
|
|
|
|
He said it in his summit meeting with Abraham Lincoln.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
The look on their faces when Jesus walked... priceless!
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: why do people keep questioning officials and scientists, but are quick to hop on the bandwagon when some random fool makes a claim?
Because officials and scientists are sometimes wrong and sometimes can't even be trusted? Which opens the door to anyone with a different take on things, regardless of their expertise.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: Because officials and scientists are sometimes wrong and sometimes can't even be trusted?
Greg Utas wrote: anyone with a different take on things, regardless of their expertise.
Who are mostly wrong and mostly can't be trusted 
People are basically saying that they don't believe or trust people who research subjects for a living, but they're perfectly fine with someone who read something on the internet.
My favorite (and very non-Lounge safe) example:
90+% of researchers: "Research has indicated that the earth will be 3 degrees warmer on average in 30 years which will have huge consequences to how we live."
People / POTUS: "It's -3C today so that indicates researchers are obviously lying."
I wish I was joking 
|
|
|
|
|
"Officials" often have an axe to grind because the government, run by politicians, pays them. And politicians have more axes to grind than any other group.
Scientists are usually paid by politicians or corporations, so neither are they immune to knowing where their paycheck comes from. It's far worse with economists.
I look on most predictions with amusement and/or skepticism. There's no end of them, and I love Taleb's observation that Semitic languages have no distinct word for forecasting, and just use prophesying. When I was in high school, two forecasts were that an ice age was heading our way and that, over the next 30 years, billions of people would starve to death. These prophecies were made by scientists.
|
|
|
|
|
I think your post fits in perfectly with the type of posts being discussed.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Who are mostly wrong and mostly can't be trusted
We have lots of experience with people predicting what the weather will be like the coming winter, or summer. They study how the crows fly, the patterns formed when they throw the coffee grounds on the ground, the stars or whatever.
If these soothsayers are completely wrong nine out of ten years, but hit reasonably close one year, which do we remember - the nine failures, or the one hit?
How many persons can you name who made predictions and failed?
That one that you do know the name of: He failed last year, didn't he? Yes, he once hit the bulls eye so well that they wrote about it in the newspapers - that was, lets see... seventeen year ago, I remember that very well, and he has had a name since then. Even though he has not repeated the feat, he must possess some very special abilities, don't you agree? Everybody does!
Another side is how exact and provable statements the soothsayers make. A few years ago, one of the guys at the Norwegian Meteorological institute played a little prank on the TV audience after reporting the forecast for the next day, he gave an overview over the weather for the summer: There would be some rain and some sun, we must expect wind on the coast and in the mountains, but also calm periods … A couple days later, he was back, telling that he had received much positive feedback on his summer forecast, no negative. But it was nothing but a joke. Of course we will have some sun, some rain, some wind, some calm! He took us through what he had "predicted", pointing out how he had not pinpointed anything neither in time nor region, not given any temperature in degrees, only as "warmer" or "colder", without any point of reference. Similar with rainfall, he predicted "some", and, in periods not fixed, "more". "Wind" can be anything from a soft breeze to a full storm; he had deliberately not used any more exact terms. It was all just loose bs. But, he claimed, his summer forecast would be 100% correct. He had looked through the previous fifty summers, and every one of them fit well within his predictions: There had been sun, rain, wind and calm, as he had predicted.
Weather, pandemics or anything else: Usually, 90% of it phrased so vaguely that it is non-verifiable, or it is natural. If a soothsayer is caught making 5% mistakes, he (or his followers) will point to the other 95%: Look there! That was not wrong! No, but if it was bs throughout, it leaves only the 5%, which was proven to be wrong. We must peel away the bs and that which goes without saying before even starting to consider how much truth and correctness there is in what's being said. For the summer weather forecast, there would be nothing left - but that was certainly intentional.
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: I believe that to be actually true for Java, JavaScript and PL/SQL
Aaw, don't be so hard on JavaScript. 
"'Do what thou wilt...' is to bid Stars to shine, Vines to bear grapes, Water to seek its level; man is the only being in Nature that has striven to set himself at odds with himself."
—Aleister Crowley
|
|
|
|
|
Wait a minute - have you actually SEEN them walk and chew gum at the same time?
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, navigate a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects! - Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
You win the internet for the day.
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen many educated people be afraid of what they do not understand.
Social Media - A platform that makes it easier for the crazies to find each other.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it.
Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
|
|
|
|
|
These silly conspiracy theories were shared by celebrities, weren't they?
I am not surprised then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
8D music[^]
Dust off your earphones (not headphones).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
modified 4-Apr-20 15:13pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Hey, just like some of my 33 1/3 long playing records. Albums used to do that sort of thing all the time.
|
|
|
|
|
What I like is that it's really simple tech; you just have sliders to delay the sound to each channel, and that makes it "move" with incredible precision (way more effective than using multiple mics -- and editable).
Unfortunately, the creative genius of most producers results in just moving individual point sources from side to side (making it sound, for example, as if the singer is swinging on a rope behind you), but the few genuinely creative people who manage to get into the music industry will do a lot more with it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I listened through my speakers, not very special.
Put on my earphones and the sound is moving, very cool!
My dumbass looks at the laptop (right of me) wondering why the sound is not coming through the speakers (in front of me) 
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I think I'm in love with Elle Vee.
|
|
|
|
|
Back o' the line, Bub!
Actually, I've been thinking about how good this would be for audiobooks and training material. The way sounds and voices can be placed and moved around you with such precision and timing makes it a very personal experience; moreso than can be obtained by using gain and multi-mic set ups (and, as evidenced, it can increase the feeling of closeness to the singer/raconteur, so vicinity becomes a variable tool).
Me <-- Tempted to invest in some equipment and play with it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Mr Dolby and his crew have managed to do it with speakers.
My ATMOS receiver manages to simulate 2 extra speakers to get 7.1 out of 5.1. Really impressive!
Still, getting such effects from just 2 channels is pretty cool. I remember similar stuff with SQ Quadraphonic LPs using in and out of phase signals.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been digging into this audio stuff for a couple of days, now, and a lot of is really is damned clever engineering.
It's nice to know that there are still scientists in the world who do things right (given that we mostly hear about the ones who don't).
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
What are the best skills to learn in 2020 and form where ?
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
