In the style of cheap tiktoks: "There are two types of people...". My wife loves listening to her phone on max volume, but it sounds so bad compared to half decent speakers.
Also what's up with the people hiking (by themselves) with a bluetooth speaker. You're by yourself, in nature. If you want to listen to music wear headphones!!
Also why are people using speaker phones in public places at max volume. The speaker in your phone is designed to deliver the sound directly to your ear, probably at higher fidelity.
I'm loving the fact that battery technology will eventually eliminate weed wackers.
Sorry if I sound cranky, I find loud noises challenging.
It's not unreasonable to expect certain behavior in a shared space.
I'm really not sure where some of the other people replying to your comment are coming from. Forcing every human and animal you come across to listen to what you're listening to is selfish. Full stop. And not doing it costs $0, which preempts any question of resources.
There are so many types of headphones that don't isolate much, including the cheapest crappy on-ears from the walkman era, there's really no excuse.
And on the few occasions where I've had no other option, it made so much more sense to set my phone to low volume and bring it close to my ear instead of holding it iut and maxing the volume.
And if I need to talk as well, many people don't know this, but there's a second smaller speaker on the opposite end of the phone, approximately one mouth-ear distance away from the microphone.
You touched a nerve for me — folks hiking with Bluetooth speakers. My god that grinds my gears. I can see an argument for playing music (at reasonable volume) while relaxing at a camp site, but on the trail it’s as aggravating as a dirt bike or snowmobile ripping along near by.
In potentially-dangerous-animal country (e.g. grizzly bears, mountain lions, etc), it could be a safety mechanism...I was told repeatedly you need to make some kind of distinctive noise regularly so they won't get startled by you rounding a bend.
those people, i've encountered them too, don't give a shit about anything let alone being safe around wildlife. If prey distress calls could be confused with music they'd be blaring that just as well.
Huh? I’ve never met anyone in the backcountry that played music to keep predators away. Even when forced to hike at dusk, the primary risk is quietly stumbling on a predator out stalking, or worse, a predator’s offspring. At most you clap every so often, maybe talk/sing to yourself, or dangle some stuff from your pack at higher risk times. Animals will do the hard work of avoiding you When you’re nearby, but its quite unnecessary to notify everything with in a 1km radius of your presence.
that's like harley riders with unmuffled motors "for safety".
On the other hand, I remember being in japan and watching some construction vehicles in tokyo. They were surprisingly quiet. After a while I realized what it was - in the united states all construction vehicles have these annoying "beep-beep-beep" sounds while they're working (for safety).
I wonder if one day they can play those only when someone walks nearby or play in some technologically quieter way.
This is my reason for blasting music from my bicycle. Feels less rude than clicking a bell at the pedestrians and somewhat more effective at attracting attention.
So fine if you don't want to use earbuds, but not necessarily fine to annoy those around you with music/talk shows or whatever sounds you want to introduce to the enviroment.
Maybe go without headphones and pay attention to your surroundings instead. I have zero patience for such excuses from people who choose to impose their preferences on other people.
> Maybe go without headphones and pay attention to your surroundings instead.
This. Even when you are seemingly quiet on a trail, 90% of wildlife are hiding from you. It’s amazing what happens when you stop and sit in complete silence for 5-10 minutes — a whole hidden world comes alive around you. 10/10, highly recommend.
> I have zero patience for such excuses from people who choose to impose their preferences on other people.
This as well. Somewhere along the way, civics teachings in America’s school left folks w/ the impression that the spirit of our liberty is, “It’s a free country, I can do what I want!”, rather of, “I have the liberty to pursue happiness, up until it infringes on the liberty for others to do so.”
This is domething I realized riding my MTB by night in the forests in the mountains. Thanks to the reflection of all those eyes staring at your headlight you realize the sheer amount of wildlife there is hidden a few meters from you.
I can't stand the way earbuds feel. That's why I wear over-the-ear headphones or bone-conducting headphones. There are so many options for personal audio. Even if you're truly allergic to all of them, that doesn't give you the right to inflict your noise on others.
Imagine if everyone decided they were entitled to play their music on speakers. The result would be a cacophony where nobody can hear their own music and life is worse for everyone. People who play music in public spaces are claiming a common resource for their own exclusive use.
Sincerely - someone who's lived with 7 other people in a 3-bedroom house.
I'm one of those people - I find any "in-ear" headphone/earbud to be outrageously uncomfortable.
Great news - there are a TON of alternatives! You're still an asshat if you play loud music without regard for your surroundings.
My personal pick? Get a bone conduction headset (ex: Shokz or cheaper alternative). Comfortable, lightweight, waterproof, you can still hear your surroundings.
Same problem with anything in-ear. I have two pairs of Shokz that I use for work (OpenComm) and play (OpenRun). I thought they would be a gimmick, but 3 years later, I love them and use them daily.
Fun hack: when I travel I prefer my over-ear noise cancelling Ankers, but they're bulky. So, for traveling light, I use Shockz and then silicone ear plugs to block out external sound on e.g. the airplane. Creates a little bit of a "swimming pool" effect acoustically, but works well and is tiny to carry.
I have a Shokz brand two-piece headset (the OpenFit 2+ i think?) that just wraps around the outside of the ear, with the actual speaker part held just outside the ear canal. I can't do in-ear buds either, but these just work for me. Doesn't even feel like anything's there.
I did try their bone-conduction headphones, but the quality was slightly worse and they didn't feel as nonexistent to wear.
now, imagine showing up to a hike and the person youre meeting whips one of these out and proceeds to blast rap music. its happened to me and it feels like Seinfeld but 2020s
I'm with you. IMO sound pollution is no different than 2nd hand smoke. IMO It should not be anyone's right to impose upon others, especially when there are lower externality options. Wear headphones.
"Not everyone owns headphones" is such a dumb response because 1. This entertainment is purely optional (not needed for survival) and 2. There are $4 headphones on amazon making me believe in cheaper/poorer markets you could get them for about 1/2 that.
I find it absurd that music in cafés and restaurants has become so loud that it’s hard to have conversations with the people on your table. Sound pollution is a real thing.
It's because they don't want you sitting there for any longer than it takes to eat your meal. They deliberately have tile floors and hard walls to amplify the noise.
> I'm loving the fact that battery technology will eventually eliminate weed wackers.
I've moved to all electric lawn equipment. Snow blower, lawn mower, weed wacker, leaf blower. They all work great, are quieter, and I don't have to deal with carburetors and oil ever again.
Side benefit: Our electric push mower has enough LED lights on it for some reason that I can mow after sunset. I've mowed the grass at 9pm without disturbing anyone and its magic.
I only moved halfway. I had some electronic failure in one of my more expensive battery powered purchases, and the thing was just dead. There's no servicing it for any reasonable cost. For more important things, I'd rather have a two stroke engine I can work on myself. For everything else, battery operated is the way to go.
>Also what's up with the people hiking (by themselves) with a bluetooth speaker. You're by yourself, in nature. If you want to listen to music wear headphones!!
I'm baffled by this too, but I think some people get accustomed to just having a soundtrack around them at all times, like they're living in a Hollywood movie. It gets to the point where they actually sleep with something always on (in the old days that would be a TV, not sure today. Probably a podcast)
> what's up with the people hiking (by themselves) with a bluetooth speaker. You're by yourself, in nature. If you want to listen to music wear headphones!!
Finally, it's my time to shine. OK, so I do this. Granted, I hike spots where I rarely run into other people. I listen to music out in nature because:
- I enjoy it and it creates a mood.
- I don't wear headphones because I want to be comfortable but I also want to hear the environment (for safety and enjoyment reasons).
- It also lets bears and cougar know I am around.
Finally, nature isn't new to me. I've spent significant amounts of time in the remote woods alone -- even living in the woods for some time. Not that it's boring by any stretch, but it's also not a novel experience to me.
But yeah, it'd be rude to be doing it where other people are trying to enjoy nature.
> Also what's up with the people hiking (by themselves) with a bluetooth speaker. You're by yourself, in nature. If you want to listen to music wear headphones!!
Washington Department of Natural Resources recommended bluetooth speaker playlists for hiking:
> Also what's up with the people hiking (by themselves) with a bluetooth speaker.
Boy, that one really gets to me when I'm on the trail. Both hikers and mountain bikers are guilty of that. Also, the people with their AirPods in oblivious to anything going on around them...
Yes, but they're different kinds of bad. People playing music publicly are being obnoxious to everyone else, while people playing music privately are putting themselves at risk. (Not so much when hiking, but IMHO wearing headphones while cycling in traffic is suicidal.)
> Also what's up with the people hiking (by themselves) with a bluetooth speaker. You're by yourself, in nature. If you want to listen to music wear headphones!!
I've not done this, and I don't think I would ever do this, but I can sympathize with having the idea that they don't want to be so isolated from nature so as to have headphones blocking out the sounds of the world around them dampened, but also feel like it would be super sweet if they could listen to Bowie right now.
It's also been shown that having music reduces the feeling of loneliness, having similar effects to having had a conversation recently, so if a person is hiking along perhaps it offers them companionship?
_If_ I ever did this (I wouldn't) I'd probably have it down to a whisper such that you would hardly be able to make it out unless you were right beside me.
I've found myself wishing I had a bluetooth speaker crossing meadows in bear country. It gets old singing Yellow submarine's chorus for the 35th time. Bears will hide if they hear you, if you surprise them and they get scared you might have a bad time.
I think the following line puts it into more context:
> I find loud noises challenging.
They're basically comparing other people's speaker music to noise pollution. Two stroke engines can be heard from a long way off, and I've got box fans that are louder than my electric weedwhacker.
I am with you on speakers on a nature hike, but I think the line blurs a bit in a city context. As long as it's not extremely loud, I find it slightly more difficult to hate on the person playing some music and moderate volume while trucks and loud motorcycles go by. If we had less of a car culture, I might feel differently about it, but there's so much noise already that in that context I kind of shrug my shoulders at it.
TLDR it feels better to announce yourself with some (non aggressive) music than triggering a bell.
I wouldn't use that when hiking but it is true that I sometimes use a bluetooth speaker when riding my bicycle in the city.
I don't put it at full volume but a lot of pedestrians and their dog seem to be attracted by dedicated bicycle lanes when they are built on the same level as the sidewalk.
It is a good way to warn people of my presence without using a bell. Using a bell sometimes sounds a bit rude because people associate it to the use of the car horn which has become a proxy for insults instead of the warning device it used to be.
[1] I used to think pedestrians were doing it to annoy cyclists on purpose but judging by their often suprised reaction. I think it is just an unconscious behavior. Apart from bicycle lanes which aren't well marked, it is probably because the bicycle lanes are usually a smoother surface and thus more agreeable to the feet than the sidewalk thus people tend to walk on them natually.
If I'm hiking or cycling alone through the woods with high bear populations, I will often play some music to alert them to prevent an unpleasant encounter.
I used to work in Pioneer Square, and there was a guy with a "portable" (think desktop PC in a milk crate, bungie corded to a foldable dolly) gaming pc playing on the regular. Granted this is back a bit.
Every person is just a few missed meals and showers away from being a "sketchy looking person" even k-pop lovers. The majority of Americans are precariously close to ending up homeless.
there are many sibling/child comments here touching the bluetooth speaker topic.
obviously there are numerous people blasting those in public places in waay too high volume.
sometimes when I ride bicycle in non-car road (cycle/hiking paths around luxembourg) i put not-too-loud music playing on phone speaker (about 70% volume) both for vibes and also for safety. -- as there are people walking which may be obstructed by the bushes or other oncoming cyclists.
for the vibes part, i am really hoping smart-glasses or similar equipment to be more common, as i got echo frames last year, i am quite happy about the vibe it adds when i play background music (just to myself) in different occasions. (even though quality is not great)
many people mentioned headphones & earbuds, but i do not see them as the solution for nature/hiking related situations;
- (partial) blocking of external sounds, even if there is no noise cancellation, it dims outside sounds like bike bells, engine sounds, other people yelling at you because you are in danger, ie. may cause accidents
- comfort & compatibility issues with other equipment. like hearing aid (maybe that's the reason some people blasting away such high volumes? -- maybe never hearing loss haven't diagnosed properly!). if you have a helmet, over-head headphones usually dont work, stuck with ear-buds. fit and comfort of these are quite difficult. even if you use over-head ones, cushions usually go bad quite fast due to mild sweating or contact with external air & humidity.
i really hope price of bluetooth-speaker or bone-speaker glasses will go down significantly in the future. this way, you don't obstruct external sounds, not add heavy or squishy things to your ear while adding your theme song on a moment.
---
obviously i mention these as a reasonable human being, who keeps their phone in silent 7/24, and all videos muted all the time (i also mute my laptop, as i hate hearing other people's zoom/chime calls constantly ringing throughout the day!)
> Also what's up with the people hiking (by themselves) with a bluetooth speaker. You're by yourself, in nature. If you want to listen to music wear headphones!!
I also sound cranky a lot lately when complaining about loud or unwelcome sounds in public spaces. So this project (and your comment) resonates with me.
Also yes, hiking with a bluetooth speaker is particularly galling. you're in nature! For that reason I've been considering buying (or building) a portable bluetooth jammer. I wouldn't do all the time, no reason to punish someone using wireless earphones respectfully. It'd need to have a trigger for JIT intervention.
I've a smallish lawn so I've just been using wired yard tools my whole life. Have to be careful to mind the extension cord but it's dead simple and zero-maintenance. My lawnmower is just about old enough to run for President. Just make sure you get the right cable gauge for your mower, since you're dealing with long-enough runs that resistance loss in the cable is substantial and Home Depot just wants to sell you 100 foot 16 gauge thing that probably shouldn't be anywhere near a proper lawnmower.
> Also what's up with the people hiking (by themselves) with a bluetooth speaker. You're by yourself, in nature. If you want to listen to music wear headphones!!
Maybe they don't know of or don't have access to bone conducting earphones. Whatever they're listening to, that way they'd also still hear their environment.
>Maybe they don't know of or don't have access to...
Maybe they don't know of or don't have any access to any sense of boundaries, as if they skipped the infant stage of development where they should have learned that "mom" is another person with her own coequal set of needs. And anybody with the urge to push back on this notion, please cover the case where it might apply to you to.
Yea, with you on that one. Headphones are great at the house where I have a controlled environment. When I'm out and listening to things I'll typically only use one at a time because it's easy to miss very important, possibly deadly things.
They're obviously not the most affordable things around, but if you have an iPhone and spending ~US$250 on a pair of wireless earbuds won't unduly stress your budget, the transparency mode on AirPods Pro is great for this.
They are great.
But… I tried them on a plane. It may have been full sound cancelling rather than transparency, and it works, and goes silent but it’s a weird silence. It sort of feels heavy, or loud.
> Also what's up with the people hiking (by themselves) with a bluetooth speaker. You're by yourself, in nature. If you want to listen to music wear headphones!!
I used to hold this same opinion. Unfortunately, times have changed and now everyone is constantly in their phones, isolated in their own universes, typically with earbuds or headphones. At least the obnoxious speaker dude is present; in a shared physical reality with the world around him. A lesser evil.
Wearing headphones while hiking is uncomfortable, and wearing earbuds for any length of time is always uncomfortable - hiking or not. They also fall out.
As others have said - not really a big deal. Either get ahead of them and maintain a significant distance, or stay behind and do so.
No. Your first sentence is framed from the point of view of your own experience. Regardless, I will not tolerate sound pollution like this. It's one thing in the city, where noise is chronic and endemic. Bringing that into a natural setting is simply inconsiderate of others, and it is the inconsiderate person who must change their behavior, not the people who are being imposed upon.
It is a big deal. It means for a lot of people there's nowhere they can go to actually enjoy the sound of nature. The strategy of getting ahead or staying behind doesn't work when there are switchbacks or crowded trails. The strategy that does work is to get fit enough to go deep into the backcountry because the troglodytes that bring speakers to hikes lack the discipline to ever get that far.
There you go. Quite comfortable, don’t have to stick them inside your ears, and still allows you to perceive the sounds around you.
In the spirit of fairness, I’ll also share the cons from my experience: First is battery life isn’t as good as headphones. That’s somewhat obvious as they’re much smaller, but they will still last you the whole day so not really an issue for hiking. Second one is that because they don’t block outside sounds, they’re not appropriate for audiobooks/podcasts while walking in the city. Again, not an issue for hiking.
Yes, you are a crank, but you are not alone. Either way, we should at least acknowledge the crankiness.
Not everyone owns headphones. Some people might have received the speaker as a gift or decided on the speaker instead of headphones. How people spend their time outdoors is not up to you or I to decide. If they want to listen to music from a bluetooth speaker, that's what they want to do. There's a lot more outdoors for you to use as well so rather that stewing, just find more outdoors. Especially on trails. Just keep going. Or wait until they have kept going. I've never seen a bluetooth speaker that's big enough for someone to be on a trail with that doesn't "go away" after a minute or so.
I have discussed the speaker on trails issue with friends, and we've noticed that the louder one's speaker is the shittier the music it is playing.
> How people spend their time outdoors is not up to you or I to decide. If they want to listen to music from a bluetooth speaker, that's what they want to do.
What if it interferes with my desire to NOT listen to their music on their bluetooth speaker?
How people spend their time outdoors is not up to you or I to decide.
If they're blasting music in a normally quiet place, they are deciding for me. You're literally giving priority to whoever chooses to be less considerate of others.
Often when I encounter a person loudly listening to music or videos on their phone in a cafe, it's because they are completely unaware of how loud they are or they obviously have some challenging psychological issues ( I live in SF ).
I have a lot of wired headphones I got off of Temu, I just give them a pair.
Of the three you mention, only one is the law in every public land place I've hiked.[1]
Staying on the trail is mostly a suggestion for your safety (and to preserve the area) - definitely not a law.
Ditto for loudspeakers. People often go into nature and throw concerts.
[1] OK - trails in state parks and perhaps some national parks likely have more rules. But trails in general public lands (BLM, forest, etc)? Not many.
This is willful misreading. They specifically also said “social norms”.
This “it’s not technically illegal so it’s not a problem” sentiment is unhealthy for civil societies. I for one would like basic social norms to be respected without law-enforcement being involved.
I was pointing out the pointlessness of invoking "laws" in this scenario. I'm not the one that brought it into the conversation.
As for social norms, one only has to read the comments to understand that there clearly isn't consensus on this point. People go to nature for many reasons - not all related to enjoying the sounds of nature. What dylan604 is pointing out is to be mindful of that.
There are a lot of people who are loud about not wanting to follow social norms (which is expected when we're talking about people rudely being loud, I guess). It seems to be a point of pride. I don't get it but I've definitely seen it.
I'd argue that unspoken rules apply even more strongly in actual outdoors setting, because a good number of those norms actually have serious consequences when violated. Anybody seriously hiking or offroading gets to save a non-zero number of behinds of people who ignored those rules, every single year.
And they also know they need to rely on those rules, because they might get them out of trouble too. The outdoors is not always friendly.
The "No speakers" thing is just the "let's try not be an ass to the same person who might need to pull me out of a ravine next" part of the rules.
> Not everyone owns headphones. Some people might have received the speaker as a gift or decided on the speaker instead of headphones. How people spend their time outdoors is not up to you or I to decide. If they want to listen to music from a bluetooth speaker, that's what they want to do. There's a lot more outdoors for you to use as well so rather that stewing, just find more outdoors. Especially on trails. Just keep going. Or wait until they have kept going. I've never seen a bluetooth speaker that's big enough for someone to be on a trail with that doesn't "go away" after a minute or so.
I am very open to the argument of "you do you", which is pretty much my philosophy also. But I do think there are /some/ limits to this, because some behaviors are inherently anti-social. My philosophy is more than "you do you" should apply to policy and regulation, meaning that we should not criminalize or directly punish anti-social behaviors that don't cause direct and immediate harm. But that definitely does not mean that we should not shame people for acting in completely inappropriate ways, or directly inform them that their behavior is unwelcome, or otherwise seek to ensure that we act to exist in spaces devoid of anti-social behavior.
I've had this same exact scenario happen, and I simply spoke to the person and told them to lower the volume, use headphones, or stop altogether because they were scaring away the wildlife that I was there to see and photograph. They apologized, lowered the volume, and we both went back to doing our own thing. Most people are reasonable, and act in anti-social ways due to lack of awareness not malice. We are both sharing the trail, and we are both there to experience nature, and that very well might include many different modalities (including accompanying music), but if someone is acting in a way that completely prevents me from enjoying nature I definitely have the right to say something, to complain about it, and to complain about it after the fact, and "you do you" is not a valid argument in response to that.
> Most people are reasonable, and act in anti-social ways due to lack of awareness not malice.
Sometimes. I’m pretty sure that very often it’s because they simply do not care that they are being rude/inconsiderate/whatever. But even the willfully rude will likely lower the volume if you ask them nicely because not caring about being rude is not the same as wanting confrontation.
I've been on both ends of this. One of the local parks allowed for permits to use amplified sound which we took advantage of about once a month weather permitting. Lots of complaints to the point I often interacted with police. We showed them the permit, we'd show dB readings from a meter, the police would leave, we'd keep going. It's a public place being used in a way allowed by those that be. There's no bluetooth speaker today that can compare to our use of amplified sound.
We all have rights to be in public parks/trails/etc. Cities have ordinances about nuisance things like loud anything. If you're on a trail and someone comes along with a speaker you don't like, just let them pass. They aren't hurting anyone/thing, you're just annoyed. If you've plopped down in the park or at the beach when someone else comes along, you can talk to them about, but they again have rights to do it.
You are free to talk to your local representatives to change ordinances if that's how you feel. Good luck with that if that's what you so choose.
A public park and a trail have very different meanings in my mind. When I say that I have encountered this on a trail, I'm specifically referring to trails in places which are designated wilderness areas, which are not subject to any ordinance. The US has a lot of national parks, national wilderness, and BLM land that is completely open to the public. That's a wonderful thing, but it also does not make sense to call for a park ranger to get involved in what is fundamentally a discontent at someone else's anti-social behavior, when I can simply have a conversation with them.
Behavior, and the response to behavior, exist on a spectrum. The fact you responded to me pointing out that "you do you" has philosophical limits, but that those limits should not involve criminalizing behavior, by suggesting I should campaign to enact an ordinance seems extremely obtuse. There is no need to change the law to criminalize making noise in a natural area, but similarly it's perfectly appropriate to tell someone to stop doing it.
> The US has a lot of national parks, national wilderness, and BLM land that is completely open to the public.
Many concerts, shooting ranges, and other loud activities occur in two of the three categories you mention above. All a lot louder than multiple hikers with Bluetooth speakers.
I won't even get into ATVs.
(Not disagreeing with your intent - merely pointing out to other readers of the various socially acceptable uses in these lands).
I'm sure grandparent meant to modify it so they'd just have to click "Backup to cloud" on their iPhone and instead of the iPhone sending their files to Apple's servers, it sends them to a local backup server...
I feel like it's kinda maybe here. Stochastic parrot or not, I can ask for "tea, earl grey, hot" and get an orange juice. It's way better than this time last year.
It's not perfect, but it doesn't need to be, to be useful.
Sorry to hear this happened to you. Everyone's piling on, like they've never made mistakes. With no "hard" limits, it's almost like google wants this to happen. Have you tried contacting your credit card company? They may be able to chargeback google. Maybe you can make a case about idle capacity?
I have enabled some google services to play with (maps, calendars), that required me to put my credit card down. I'm thinking I should get a prepaid credit card so if things get out of hand, they'll shut me down rather than keep charging me until my max credit limit.
This is anecdata point of one, but I bought the xbox hoping to play split screen with my kids and to play some more of the ghost recon franchise which I last played on the original xbox. My kid got into the latest ghost recon on the xbox, but I don't like sandboxes so I never played it. The split screen on xbox never materialized for us, I just couldn't find any good titles.
I ended up getting a steam deck which is just amazing and the kids ended up on on tablets (minecraft/roblox) and on PCs (arma and such).
For split screen we ended up occasionally connecting the steam deck to the tv and re-pairing Xbox controllers to it.
I can absolutely relate. I bought a series x at launch with the exact same idea, and have had the same disappointment. Minecraft and Borderlands have been about the only solid split screen titles on this whole generation. That being said, I do feel like I've gotten my money's worth out of the hardware. It just didn't play out like I was hoping. Also, I agree with the article's complaint about gamepass. I had ultimate starting when I bought the console in 2020. I don't remember what I paid at the beginning, but I think it was like $8/month. They lost me when they just upped it from $20-$30. I mean, $20 was already a stretch, but a 50% increase on top of that? Bye.
Quite hard to find couch coop these days. People play mostly online. Overcooked, It Takes Two, Larian studios games are the ones we’ve found that we enjoy as a couple. But realistically only Overcooked is drop in arcade like playable.
Though one vertical shooter “sky force reloaded” is super fun in the old style.
The ONLY split-screen games I've found of any use on Xbox are the various silly cooking/moving games (which are fun), Minecraft, Stardew Valley, and ... that's basically it.
> Meta has found that the scheduler can actually adapt and work very well on the hyperscaler's large servers.
I'm not at all in the know about this, so it would not even occur to me to test it. Is it the case that if you're optimizing Linux performance you'd just try whatever is available?
almost certainly bottom-up: some eng somewhere read about it, ran a test, saw positive results, and it bubbles up from there. this is still how lots of cool things happen at big companies like Meta.
I liked An Answer for Linda (1961), which shows the work of outward toll operators using mark-sensing call tickets at traditional (3CL) cord switchboards. “Watch Billie closely, as she handles a group of typical calls.”
(I won’t spoil the Answer; you’ll have to watch for yourself.)
When you start a subscription, you're agreeing to pay X amount every Y period of time; you're not starting a new agreement every single Y period of time.
They can cancel the prior tier or bump up the price on renewal though. This is the problem with subscriptions, you become complacent and accept incremental changes until you finally notice that you’re being rinsed.
And actually some subscriptions can include unilateral price increases in the contract (a subscription is a contract) with early termination fees. It just isn’t commonly done because word gets around and you will lose business. You typically only see this in predatory industries where there are few alternatives and the service is necessary, like local waste management.
If the contract is unfair enough you can usually escape it in court or arbitration, but nobody wants to go through that.
No, that doesn't make sense at all. You've paid for consistent terms for that Y period of time. Not cancelling the subscription when it's up for renewal is an implicit agreement to any new terms. And I'm sure if you'd read those terms in the first place, you'd come to the same understanding.
(And it's not even that: the X you're charged is subject to change upon renewal!)
I'm not arguing that this is a good or bad thing, just pointing out the reality of every single subscription agreement I've signed up for online.
They can cancel the subscription if you don't agree to the new proposition after they fulfilled their contract. But they can't just change the terms of the agreement after it was made.
But doing so would mean risking to loose customers who were just too lazy to cancel. So most Businesses don't like it. (Spotify did cancel their old contracts though, for people who had not agreed with the recent price hike)
Also what's up with the people hiking (by themselves) with a bluetooth speaker. You're by yourself, in nature. If you want to listen to music wear headphones!!
Also why are people using speaker phones in public places at max volume. The speaker in your phone is designed to deliver the sound directly to your ear, probably at higher fidelity.
I'm loving the fact that battery technology will eventually eliminate weed wackers.
Sorry if I sound cranky, I find loud noises challenging.
reply