Electronics too! While there are measurable differences there are no audible differences between fancy DACs and the $10 dongle Apple sells, for prerecorded music at least. You had to pay thousands to get this kind of performance in the late 90's. https://www.kenrockwell.com/apple/lightning-adapter-audio-qu...
If you want good sound you can still spend money on big speakers and room treatments though. Physics.
Why use an obscure language like Golang when you can use Java? It is just as capable and boring as Golang but has an order of magnitude or two more available libraries, training data, and runtime support.
If you've only had exposure to one corner of the software industry then it's very easy to develop blinders. Not saying that this is what parent is guilty of but as somebody who has regrettably had this particular problem in the (thankfully distant) past I feel compelled to point out that this type of ignorance is sometimes just a side effect of one's circumstances.
As an example PHP still powers something like 75% of web sites and I've never once used it professionally. If I didn't know better I might think it dead.
> This conviction has nothing to do with uploading AI generated music
He probably estimated the company would have noticed quickly if the fake listens were concentrated into a handful of real tracks. So machine generated audio was necessary to achieve the scale without detection.
Anthropic has an API, you can use any client but they charge per input/output/cache token.
One-price-per-month subscriptions (Claude Code Pro/MAX @ $20/$100/$200 a month) use a different authentication mechanism, OAUTH. The useful difference is you get a lot more inference than you can for the same cost using the API but they require you to use Claude Code as a client.
Some clients have made it simple to use your subscription key with them and they are getting cease and desist letters.
> So our farmer should compare a treatment group of turkeys that watches TV with a control group that doesn’t.
For human subjects if you do that you get an "A vs. A+B study" which has a high probability of bias towards intervention B. Just sitting and talking with someone in a white lab coat will improve outcomes over those who do not.
You must compare to some sort of placebo and the closer it is to the intervention you are testing the better. Testing a drug with side effects against an inert placebo can break blinding and show an effect for the drug that isn't there (Type I error.)
This experimental design is very common in the world of So-Called Alternative Medicine (SCAM) e.g. "patients receiving conventional treatment vs. patients receiving conventional treatment plus a chiropractic technique." If you look for this you will find it virtually every time a SCAM practitioner presents an RCT as evidence for its efficacy.
Research by Harmon suggests almost everyone, musicians and pros included, prefers exaggerated lows and highs over flat response. Check the "Harmon Curve"
And there is certainly a way for you to set system wide eq, see what AutoEq recommends.
reply