I was prepared to be absolutely fucking disgusted by such a comment but I.... shit. I mean... this is.... this is wild
I gotta go contemplate 'where we're at' again it seems. If that is truly a straight generative audio diffusion model.... wait, how did they get the same verse by verse chord progressions to match? this has to be professionally post-produced, right? AI models aren't able to do this end-to-end yet, right?
> wait, how did they get the same verse by verse chord progressions to match?
Usually these AI covers don't use AI for the whole thing, but rather specifically for melding the to-be-impersonated voice into some given melody. That's been possible for a couple years now with decent results; one of my favorite examples is that of Plankton from Spongebob singing Disturbed's cover of “Sound of Silence”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eLRsw9mkmY
Possible that these newer ones are also using AI to generate other musical elements, but it's probably all being combined after-the-fact rather than being generated all at once.
I had similar emotions. The cover of 21 Questions by the same YouTuber is even better. And other covers of Mario's "Let Me Love You" and Mariah Carey's "All I Want For Christmas" are equally mind blowing.
I'm ashamed to say I prefer these to the originals so much so that its difficult for me to listen to them any more. Make of that what you will...
As a big fan of Chris Cornell I went through the same stream of emotions with their Motown version of Like a Stone[0]. And if you can get past the thumbnail, check out the 2000s Rock version of Many Men[1]
You could argue that point but you would need evidence which showed trade with dictatorships resulted in peace in Europe. To that point, my gut reaction is that peace in Europe is a product of internal politics, MAD, American imperialism, and global trade (in that order).
The past fifty years may just be an exceptional footnote. Fifty years is not a significant period of time and the peace we have endured has not been evenly distributed (nor does it appear to be stable).
One can argue about the causes -- and no doubt there are many, the biggest IMO being that WW2 was so horrific that Europeans were willing to do anything to prevent it again -- but there's no disputing that the last 75 years of peace in Europe is unprecedented in its long history of near-continuous inter-state warfare for the past ~2000 years (since "Pax Romana").
> WW2 was so horrific that Europeans were willing to do anything to prevent it again
But this is total childish nonsense. We gained 75 years of peace in Europe not because the war was terrible, but because the entire world was divided between the USA and the USSR. And, as it happened, these two countries decided not to fight each other in a full-scale war.
The reason we gained 75 years of peace is because France and Germany decided to form an alliance to prevent further conflict (considering they had just fought 2 wars in the space of 40 years), and, as a secondary goal, to reduce dependence on the US (de Gaulle being especially eager), starting with the Treaty of Rome, and evolving into the EU.
Node count doesn't matter. You could use an embedded database and encounter the same problem. There is some time T between when you acquire a lock and release it. Depending on the amount of contention in your system, this will have some affect on total throughput (i.e. Amdahl's law).
Almost all commercial MVCC implementations (including Postgres) use row locks. Very few use OCC even though it's arguably a more natural fit for MVCC. Pessimistic locking is simply more robust over varied workloads.
Its a financial database built for use cases where this invariant holds and built for enabling new use cases where this invariant prevented businesses from expanding into new industries. The creator says as much:
> Without much sweat for general purpose workloads.
> But writing that traditional SQL databases cannot go above these "100-1000 TPS" numbers due to Amdahl's law is going to raise some eyebrows.
I don't think that's controversial. Amdahl's law applies to all software. Its not a peculiar feature of SQL databases. The comment is well-contextualized, in my view, but reasonable minds may disagree.
I'm writing a programming language for feature-flags/remote-config. I figure a simple DSL has to be an improvement over YAML or a series of forms in a web app.
I'm also generally disappointed by the lack of testing that's performed on feature-flag definitions. So I'd like to have a test runner capable of asserting your feature flag's rules matches your intent.
It's better than a professor in some respects. A professor can teach me about parser combinators but they probably can't teach me about a specific parser combinator library.
There's a lot of specificity that AI can give over human instruction however it still suffers from lack of rigor and true understanding. If you follow well-trod paths its better but that negates the benefit.
Sure, for some people it will be insanely good: you can go for as stupid questions as you need without feeling judgement, you can go deeper in specific topics, discuss certain things, skip some easy parts, etc.
But we are talking about averages. In the past we thought that the collective human knowledge available via the Internet will allow everyone to learn. I think it is fair to say that it didn't change much in the grand scheme of things.
> In the past we thought that the collective human knowledge available via the Internet will allow everyone to learn. I think it is fair to say that it didn't change much in the grand scheme of things.
Just an anecdote of course, but for me having access to the internet changed my life. I found a community I couldn't find locally (programming) as I'm from a rural place, and most of my employments since then have, in one way or another, come from people finding me on the internet. I'm surely not the only one who managed to climb the class ladder mostly because of the internet.
Why are we pretending like LVT doesn't exist already? I pay taxes on my land. Those taxes are calculated based on size and location. The Disney example is particularly egregious. They pay taxes on the land AND the structures they built but the article acts as though they would be disincentivized from building if we _removed_ taxes on the structures? Huh?
The idea is not to disincentivize developing on the land. To me, it only really works when you remove the friction/gaming of all the other taxes and put it all into LVT, but that will never happen of course.
If your land can be treated as an asset, then we don't really have LVT yet. The goal of LVT is to tax land to the point where it is no longer an appreciating asset (and, not too much that it becomes a liability)
The same reason a sovereign state can't act unilaterally in any domain -- diplomacy. If your actions affect another (or even just inspire interest) then the other party may make decisions which affect your country.
