Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | danadam's commentslogin

> Your comment really deserves nothing more than an eye roll emoji, but HN doesn’t support them.

(◔_◔)


There is -.-" for exasperation/annoyance


I clicked on some random post from 2020, 19 em-dashes.


You do realise there are AI checkers online. https://www.zerogpt.com/ assesses this content as: 27.49% ChatGPT

While this writer obviously had a lot of input into the model, they even state (or more accurately according to zerogpt, ChatGPT wrote this whole paragraph) "The writing process should be highly iterative", so they have added their own flavour into the writing, but it is still, (probably not for much longer) but still obvious when this is used.


I fed the text of John F Kennedy's 1962 speech "We choose to go to the Moon" into ZeroGPT and it is rated as 72.02% AI generated.


You do realize (god I hate that phrase) it’s impossible to definitively classify something as AI- or human-produced?


Great observation! Not only does ChatGPT produce seemingly human-authored output—humans can also produce ChatGPT-style output.

If you really want to fly below the radar you can even include instructions to adopt a certain writing style, e.g.: you can tell it to use a Gen-Z style with minimal formatting.


Some Google Pixel phones couldn't dial emergency number (still can't?). I don't know if there were any deadly consequences of that.

https://www.androidauthority.com/psa-google-pixel-911-emerge...


> Normalization increases gain of all frequencies at any given point-in-time while reducing gain of all frequencies at other points in time.

When you do that then the difference between the loudest and the quietest part of the audio gets reduced. That's dynamic range reduction.


True. But.

While normalization is usually one-way, if you're doing DSP normalization & have a record of the level offsets you've applied, it's reversible. This is never the case for compression - you can't increase dynamic range of a compressed file (short of AI-generating something that never was)


> trace it down to the select bitset having a hardcoded max of 4096

Did it change? Last time I checked it was 1024 (though it was long time ago).

> and no bounds checking!

_FORTIFY_SOURCE is not set? When I try to pass 1024 to FD_SET and FD_CLR on my (very old) machine I immediately get:

  *** buffer overflow detected ***: ./a.out terminated
  Aborted
(ok, with -O1 and higher)


You’re right. I think it ends up working out to a 4096 page on x86 machines, that’s probably what I remembered.

Yes, _FORTIFY_SOURCE is a fabulous idea. I was just a bit shocked it wasn’t checked without _FORTIFY_SOURCE. If you’re doing FD_SET/FD_CLR, you’re about to make an (expensive) syscall. Why do you care to elide a cheap not-taken branch that’ll save your bacon some day? The overhead is so incredibly negligible.

Anyways, seriously just use poll(). The select() syscall needs to go away for good.


You've had a good chance to really see 4096 descriptions in select() somewhere. The man is misleading because it refers to the stubbornly POSIX compliant glibc wrapper around actual syscall. Any sane modern kernel (Linux; FreeBSD; NT (although select() on NT is a very different beast); well, maybe except macOS, never had a chance to write network code there) supports passing the descriptor sets of arbitrary size to select(). It's mentioned further down in the man, in the BUGS section:

> POSIX allows an implementation to define an upper limit, advertised via the constant FD_SETSIZE, on the range of file descriptors that can be specified in a file descriptor set. The Linux kernel imposes no fixed limit, but the glibc implementation makes fd_set a fixed-size type, with FD_SETSIZE defined as 1024, and the FD_*() macros operating according to that limit.

The code I've had a chance to work with (it had its roots in the 90s-00s, therefore the select()) mostly used 2048 and 4096.

> Anyways, seriously just use poll().

Oh please don't. poll() should be in the same grave as select() really. Either use libev/libuv or go down the rabbit hole of what is the bleeding edge IO multiplexer for your platform (kqueue/epoll/IOCP/io_uring...).


page 112

> if [[ "${1-}" =~ ^-*h(elp)?$ ]]; then

> ... is an option that starts with one or multiple - characters ...

"one or multiple" is + not *. The regex above will also match "h" and "help" without - character(s).


I'd probably call it "disclosure".


I've never used it but sounds like https://rr-project.org/


> It isn't tho. It's close but not exactly.

It isn't tho :-). It's not close to double loudness. It's double power, which is 1.41 higher sound pressure, which is only slightly louder.


Some laboratory-grade equipment probably.

> 0 dB doesn’t mean “zero sound pressure”

From the decibel definition, zero of anything is -∞ in dB_suffix scale.


> Some laboratory-grade equipment probably.

I wasn’t able to find any listings, that’s why I’m asking.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: