I don’t support the bombing of Iran, but where is the US media that reflects my opinions? I will literally throw money at any publication using the “T” word to describe Trump’s actions here.
If you were around for the last bush terms you'll know that anti war media is going to be restricted to small circulation news papers and blogs. Any large TV channel will follow the white house on this kind of thing, with varying flavors of reluctance about the necessity of it or exaggeration of the threat posed by WMDs, etc.
Try small news sites on the scale of 404media or social media commentators you trust, I guess.
We might not be in this mess if US media weren't utterly compromised. I don't know how we get back to a world where there are news outlets with principles, but the free market of ideas doesn't seem to be working out.
That's certainly the primary driver of the state of media outlets today, but good ideas don't win on even ground either. The nuances of reality cannot compete with simple narratives for human attention and buy-in. Gatekeeping and general respect for intellectual integrity are necessary cultural components that have been eroded, and it will not be easy to reestablish them.
From my poli sci student days, AP wire and (yes, really) the Christian Science Monitor were considered about as good as you could get for straight reporting of events without much of a slant (so far as that's possible). That was a while ago, though. And they'll still use biased language for US and allied actions versus our "enemies".
If you're seeking news with an actual leftward lean (not "leftist" CNN and "leftist" NPR and "leftist" NYT, which, LMFAO, sure Jan) to anything even remotely resembling the rightward lean of a Fox or your average AM radio program, your options are extremely limited. I guess Democracy Now! and The Nation. They don't do a ton of their own reporting AFAIK (outside labor action and issues, and sometimes environmental movement action, on which DN local correspondents are often practically the only people covering them) and are more on the commentary/analysis side.
You can also check out stuff like the journal Foreign Affairs, for this kind of topic. Your library probably gets it, no need to pay. It's more for gauging the zeitgeist among the mainstream international politics wonk/consultant class than anything else, but sometimes contributors accidentally write something more broadly insightful, too.
Try non-US media for foreign affairs topics. Even machine-translated French or German or Indian papers, that kind of thing, if you can't read the language. Sometimes they'll spend a lot of time on stories that have practically zero visibility in the US, and with a different perspective that's less deferential to the US.
(Pro tip: for any story that features Trump himself heavily, and especially lots of quotes from him, it'll be 1,000% more fun to read in the BBC's pidgin English service. Try not to think too hard about whether your enjoyment of it is kind of mean to speakers of pidgin English, and just bask in the distance & shifted perspective [and, yes, humor] the language difference provides for these stories in particular.)
Its funny to me, because there’s many strong studies that basically show the life expectancy for vegetarians is about 10 years higher, but most people including myself wouldn’t become a vegetarian despite the clear health benefits.
Yeah that’s what really worries me, many people have been clinging to this ability as something that’s really special and AI is really going to disillusion them.
To me it’s a totally insane argument from the judge, if it doesn’t stop the authors from making money on their works, then the judge is basically capping the income on all writers. The AI is totally useless without their knowledge and yet they have to prove they aren’t hurting its profits. Like these authors are entitled to derivative uses of their writing, if they’re not it’s a total farce.
When I was kid in school I would write original essays, and I mean truly original creative ideas. But of course any new idea has a chance of failure, so these essays were mostly bad and got bad grades. At a loss for what to do I quickly stopped reading the books I was assigned basing my essays on Wikipedia summaries and other people’s reviews. I saw my first few As and even A+s and I realized if I write something original of even just average intelligence roughly 50% of people will be too dumb to understand it. For an idea to truly be considered intelligent in literature it has to be appealing to people have no actual memory of the things they’ve read. Even for a knowledgeable intelligent person they have a sea of similar information clouding their view.
Or you're just a bad writer. I certainly could not understand your main point, particularly the sentence "For an idea to truly be considered intelligent in literature it has to be appealing to people have no actual memory of the things they’ve read." which is ungrammatical.
I ask for something, when they say they can’t do that. I say the magic words “Maybe your manager can do it?” You just don’t accept the possibility of your request not being fulfilled, say they are contractually obliged to do, even if you’re not sure, if all else fails reverse the charges on your card. Threatening small claims court works well. I now do that on the on the second email, do I look like a fool? Yes. Do I have a lot of time to investigate your platform's org structure and capabilities when I have dozens of companies like this I deal with daily? No.
Before threatening small claims court (known to be a PITA for the plaintiff), I'll tell them that if they can't resolve it, then they should send me an email telling me so, which I'll forward to my credit card company so they can reverse the charges. Then I'll remind them that that's bad for the business because it increases their transaction fees and ask (again) if there's any way to just refund me. This works for me like 90% of the time.
I always wondered about doing this with hardware. Surely there must be some other mechanism for accurately creating sounds then a flat magnetic speaker.
You can use a transducer to excite any physical surface. This is how plate reverbs work for instance.
You could stick one (or two) transducers to a guitar or piano and then mic it up, and get the sound of the body of that instrument and parasympathetic resonance of any undamped strings.
The body is quite easily modelled with an impulse response, but parasympathetic resonance in DSP is still not great
re-recording digital stuff by playing the sound through something analog is a good way of making things feel more 'real', and can impart really interesting, hard to get character to a track. It's just time consuming to do, as the analogue world really only works in real time.
Speakers, themselves, have an absurdly broad range of nonlinearity, even within a single speaker, the way it behaves at 10% power and the way it behaves at 90% power can be drastically different. That makes them fairly difficult to model. Impulse responses are the soup de jour, and do a good job, but, they only really model a slice of what a speaker can do, ie, a given amplitude.
