Passive IEMs are better, ANC is always weaker and more selective. I was once using Etymotic IEM and frantically searched for the source of a loud wind noise that hit my ears upon removing the earphones, only to realize it's just an air conditioner on the ceiling. That don't happen with ANC headphones, partly due to technology and partly for product safety concerns.
Have you compared passive IEMs to Apple's noise cancelling headphones? I compared Apple's products to properly inserted earplugs and Apple's ANC was better for low to medium frequency sound, so I wonder how you arrived at the opposite conclusion when it comes to IEMs
With properly inserted hardcore isolating earphones, and with music playing at low volume(important), I just don’t notice any other sound. Including landline ringing. Perhaps fire alarms too. It’s an auditory anesthesia. Like if I’ve put on a VR goggle, but for my ears.
And that is natural, after all it’s 40dB advertised isolation with ~15dB? sound on top. There’s no way those ANC earphones with small drivers powered from a toothpick batteries and thin rubber cap sealing the ear canal can beat that.
I also have a SONY WF-1000X, and an SE215 for that matter, both with Comply tips. They are nice, but no match against proper Etymotic dead silence.
ANC earphones are not designed with maximum sealing in mind(sometimes intentionally). Doesn't matter how plug and ear canal is tightly fit together, if what is suspended in the middle was a pipe with open ends.
ER4SR is the most classic/standard Etymotic model currently sold, other models complementing in both direction of prices. Perhaps more important than tip selection is correct insertion, or Practice and patience, which is unbelievably the exact wording used in their instruction manuals at least for my ER-6i. It is definitely not the healthiest earphones in the market.
Pretty good, I use Shure IEMs to block wind noise on motorcycle rides and having access to podcasts/audiobooks are a nice bonus when slogging down freeways. I can still hear car engines and sirens, but it removes the wind buffeting in my helmet that really drains you (and damages your hearing) on a long ride.
Better, in my experience. They can get around 25-30db reduction across the spectrum, and they don't let voices (i.e. non-repetitive noises) through like ANC can.
Combine them - I often wear earplugs plus a pair of bose nc700s. They have better noise canceling for your conditioner noise compared to my airpod Max's
Is this based on your experience having tried both? Because that reasoning is questionable. IEMs don't block all sound from hitting your eardrum, some of that sound will hit your eardrum via bone conduction. And ANC headphones do block some sound passively, the inner ear ANCs can often create an airtight seal.
Yes, I have tried both. However the only ANC I have experience with is AirPods Pro, so that's all I have to go on. But I can definitely say that IEMs do a better job than the AirPods.
Shure SE215 and the default tip it comes with. I can only speculate on why the IEM is better, but I suspect it comes down to the tip material creating a better, more substantial seal. The outer shell is also physically larger, and that may also play a role in keeping more sound out.
I wonder if we can replace the tip on the Airpods Pro to create and IEM like seal. I suppose that should be the best of both worlds? But the outer shell would still be smaller so maybe not.
This is how it always works, though. Moderna is standing on the shoulders of centuries of cumulative human knowledge without compensating all the sources of that knowledge. Musicians learn from other musicians and imitate to an extent, which is why all the musicians in a genre sound very similar, and we don't see present day rappers compensating the previous generation of rappers.
This is where some modest taxation comes in. To reallocate a slice of the output of value creation to its actual source in a rough kind of way wherever more direct compensation isn't feasible.
> Musicians learn from other musicians and imitate to an extent, which is why all the musicians in a genre sound very similar, and we don't see present day rappers compensating the previous generation of rappers.
You clearly don't know how copyright around sampling works. Yes rappers are paying shitloads to previous generation musicians for samples they use.
Sure, if we're talking about sampling, which is analogous to co-pilot copy and pasting chunks of code verbatim (which we've seen happen). But the complaints about co-pilot go far deeper than that. Quoting from the tweet: "it just sells code other people wrote". Do musicians "just" copy from all the people they've been inspired by and learned from?
Yes, but those humans are humans, not machines. With machines the scale changes dramatically. Which, incidentally is something copyright law has addressed explicitly: if you mechanically transform at best you end up with a derived work.
I don't understand the difference between Co-Pilot on the one hand and Moderna (on the shoulders of medical research) or SpaceX (on the shoulders of physics knowledge and cumulative rocket engineering knowledge) on the other. They all heavily use technology, automation and machines. I don't see where the distinction is coming from, and if there is a technical legal distinction, is it an ethically important one?
The distinction is a legal one: intellectual property can not be re-used without permission of the rights holder, be it a patent or a chunk of source code.
And you can bet that SpaceX using physics knowledge and cumulative rocket engineering knowledge are very careful to either license the tech they use or be very explicit about documenting their own.
That you can't see the difference is entirely on you, going 'against the flow' of society sometimes leads to change but more often it simply results in friction and a lack of comprehension.
Keep in mind that open source is based on copyright law, and without copyright law the protections that open source offers would be gone.
To give an extreme example: if you had a chunk of software that was constructed in such a way that it would spit out a complete copy of 'the Gimp' without the license file if you started to write an image processing program that would be a very clear case of copyright violation.
If you then start breaking the Gimp down into smaller and smaller re-usable fractions at some point you might be able to argue that such a generic and oft used snippet should be free of copyright. But that only works as long as you then don't string together a whole pile of pieces that you each copied somewhere else, the whole idea is that your creation is an original one.
Medical research (which quite often leads to patents, which I don't believe should be possible, especially if that research was publicly funded) and physics knowledge are of a different kind than copyrighted program code. The latter would be better compared to universally present language constructs and constraints, such as 'memory management', 'data manipulation' etc. Once you make those explicit in an implementation copyright applies.
Or, to make another analogy: it's like comparing the skill of writing to the product of that skill. The skill isn't protected, but the output of the act of writing is.
There are thousands of novel decisions in the work of Moderna and SpaceX beyond their cultural starting points. Same thing with art. Copilot isn't inventing nor is DALLE-2 being artistic.
> I don't understand the difference between Co-Pilot on the one hand and Moderna (on the shoulders of medical research) or SpaceX (on the shoulders of physics knowledge and cumulative rocket engineering knowledge) on the other. They all heavily use technology, automation and machines. I don't see where the distinction is coming from, and if there is a technical legal distinction, is it an ethically important one?
They are all in compliance with intellectual property laws? Seriously, that's a bloody big difference.
Co-pilot is not in compliance with many of the source code it is using!
Whether you like it or not, compliance with the law is necessary.
> This is where some modest taxation comes in. To reallocate a slice of the output of value creation to its actual source in a rough kind of way wherever more direct compensation isn't feasible.
I was with you until this statement. The vast majority of society consumes, but doesn't create something new in the process. I'm bewildered as to why you think taxation is a solution rather than a disincentive towards creating. As far as compensating the giants upon whose shoulders most stand, there are plenty of vehicles for that: royalties, patents, copyrights, pensions, awards and prizes, paid fellowships, etc. These are relatively easy to calculate and write a contract for.
Your comparison fails a test of facts. Yandex actively censors any perspective not approved by the Kremlin. Google does not do anything comparable to this.
Not to mention that Yandex does it in Russia because the law forces them to, while Google does it happily just to maintain the political status quo, of which they are a part of.
There is lots of content Google bans/hides. Copyrighted content, Adult content, child pornography, official secrets, etc.
I don't think thats so different from other countries which also have a (partially overlapping) list of whats not allowed.
Normally, when people think about that they say "well pictures of naked children are morally wrong, whereas talking about LGBTQ stuff is fine". But people in other parts of the world might have different morals and might think the other way around.
- Disparage or belittle victims of violence or tragedy.
- Deny an atrocity.
- We don’t allow content that promotes terrorist or extremist acts, which includes recruitment, inciting violence, or the celebration of terrorist attacks.
Now I don't think these are bad rules, but they are rules that very much depend on the official narrative. A terrorist to one is a freedom fighter to another. These are rules that can be applied as wanted.
It'll be as falsifiable as many other questions that historians grapple with (e.g. did famine X lead to conflict/instability Y?), but only once the warming has happened and we're looking retrospectively. The best we can do now is an educated guess that large amounts warming will lead to migration away from hotter countries which will lead to some instability.
> I can also assure you perpetual futures would not be allowed to trade on any exchange inside the legitimate financial system.
I don't disagree that the point of perpetual futures on crypto exchanges is primarily to facilitate speculation and gambling, but they're just delta 1 derivatives (track the underlying 1:1) in the form of a CFD, different in mechanism but no different in use case to regular futures, which themselves are traded widely on traditional exchanges. And these perps are quite useful to temporarily hedge holdings, even more convenient than regular futures since you don't have to bother with rollover. The instrument itself is really cool. The criticism should be directed to the high amounts of leverage which is only ever useful in a gambling context, and the marketing + gamification aspects which are clearly targeted at encouraging gambling behavior. If Binance got rid of their perpetual futures, users could still gamble all the same using Binance's regular futures contracts.
There's a big gap between securing funding and actually completing large infrastructure projects. We have a bunch of cancelled nuclear power plants halfway through construction from NIMBYism, cost overruns, office changes, etc.
Touching the poop in these threads is always a bad idea. And this is more to the passer-by who might be reading and thinking that the person to whom I am replying is onto something (edited; I don't think 'csee is being disingenuous). In these sorts of claims, "the top few percent" is never actually defined, and it means that folks who do quite well for themselves but aren't unironically studly chads have to be cut out of their narrative.
It is easier to assume that it's everyone's fault rather than your own, but I found that I did a lot better (not just romantically but--well--everywhere) when I worked on having reasons to like myself before I wanted other people to. The people who go on about "the top few percent of men" are most frequently so bitter that it can be detected from space, and that's a them problem. It was, for a while, a me problem. It requires concerted effort and desire to unscrew your head and to make yourself somebody you like, but it is doable. Therapy helps. So do honest friends who aren't in the same shitty boat you're in.
I am not fit, I am affluent but not rich, but I try to be decent and patient and kind (which is different from being needy), and I do pretty well for myself. Saying "just do X" would be lying because of the "just" part, but--you can do okay for yourself too. You probably have to work at it some.
You give good advice but I was commenting on the well documented asymmetry and inequality in outcomes that cut across gender lines which are likely magnified by these dating apps. It's not bitterness to point out objective facts that are highly relevant to the topic of conversation. "Improve yourself" is always the healthiest mindset on a personal level but that's not exactly deep analysis on the impact that these apps are having on our society or the lives of lower ranked men.
> the well documented asymmetry and inequality in outcomes that cut across gender lines which are likely magnified by these dating apps
Or only specific to these apps? I'd like to see the documentation on the "well-documented asymmetry" to believe otherwise, because that's not what I observed.
It's not just on the apps. Evolutionary psychologists have a bunch of empirical studies that tease this out. We also see this in our genetic lineage, more female ancestors than male ancestors. The evolutionary theory behind it is pretty well worked out and supported by a lot of data.
I dunno, from where I stand what you are defining as the problems of "lower ranked men" are symptoms of living in a late-capitalist society problems. It's not the app's fault that people respond to incentives; the way out, if "out" is to be defined as to find people who want to interact with you, to "not settle" or whatever, is to improve oneself. It can both suck and be the only option. Fortunately, it's a lot easier to be interesting than it is to be rich.
That is the only way out on a local, personal level, since that's all we have much control over. But how is it not the app's fault? When Twitter and Facebook create social dynamics that encourage outrage and division, I blame them (or at least I blame the incentives and systems that cause them to do this). Ditto for the impact that these dating apps are having.
How is it? Like, okay, what's the alternative? I genuinely don't understand the criticism beyond "well, self-described low-status men are getting passed over because people have options." Should they not be getting passed over? Should people be taking one for the team for these self-described low-status men and dating them despite themselves? There have always been lonely people, and some so for good reasons and some for not. I am not sure that there's a way to substantiate that there are proportionally more of the latter group now or that dating apps etc. are accentuating it for this population.
These apps do suck, don't get me wrong--they're gacha games, and they're structured like it--but the mode of criticism matters. As near as I can tell, the It's A Wonderful Life of this is "nothing", not "something theoretically better for self-described low-status men". It's not like people would be going to church to meet and then obligatorily marry Goody Marshall's cousin's son were it not for Tinder.
The alternative is the way things were 15 years ago, where people found mates via their physical networks, work, family, hobbies, religion, and day to day life.
The criticism is similar in nature to the criticism of Twitter and Facebook. These apps play to and encourage the worst side of humans in the way that their social dynamics are designed, which distorts relations between people for the worse.
In the case of dating apps, it's because the "first meeting" is viewing someone's curated digital profile instead of getting to know their full self in the real world, they strongly encourage selection based on trivialities like height, hip to waist ratio, income and other signals. You also encourage the same narcissistic performance games that Instagram encourages. It's also the sheer deluge of profiles. Like, our dopamine system isn't designed for that, and nor is it a fully free choice when the app has exploited that evolved system to hook users. And what's going to be the impact of designing a system that makes it easy for people to self select into opposing political tribes?
Of course most of this stuff happened to an extent 15 years ago too. But as with Facebook and their tendency to stoke outrage and division, the problem is how the app has turbocharged our worse tendencies while also creating dilemma like incentives that make it tricky to opt out from.
My point about low status men is that they often aren't bad mates. They're low status through the prism of hyper gamified dating apps that magnify the importance of trivialities. There's no question that there's people who've had it worse in this regard in the pre-dating app era (various low-caste/untouchables types in different societies), my point isn't that we are at rock bottom, just that dating apps are a pretty large step in the wrong direction.
I think I notionally agree with a lot of what you're saying. Where I think we disagree--and this is me maybe not being the most optimistic person in the universe--is in the alternative. I think the fracturing we are seeing right now doesn't mean the alternative is "find mates at work and through other physical networks". I think it's "don't find anybody."
To that end, I think these are awful, but perhaps not the darkest timeline.
>I genuinely don't understand the criticism beyond "well, self-described low-status men are getting passed over because people have options." Should they not be getting passed over?
You seem to miss that outcomes are not only getting worse for men.
I don't think that that's true. I'm not particularly attractive. I'm not tall. I'm not fit. And yet I do all right. I do have a great dog, but I don't think that makes up for it. But I do think that people can detect a shitty vibe pretty quickly even through a couple photos and a bio, and Not Being That is a significant step up.
As a matter of fact due to the halo effect attractive people are just considered to have better personalities and no women don't have supernatural abilities to detect "shitty vibes" it's basically just about looks.
> But I do think that people can detect a shitty vibe pretty quickly even through a couple photos and a bio, and Not Being That is a significant step up.
I think you’re just bad at describing yourself here and your outcomes. It’s also locale dependent.
Where I am in SF - it’s purgatory. Even when I change to NYC - it’s incredibly difficult. The main reason? So much choice for the women. Why date sideways or down when it seems like you could always date up? There’s endless options available - whether they’ll stick around… not likely.
It's not a personal issue. OKCupid has published a lot of data on this. The top 20% of men as rated by women are having overwhelmingly more sex through online dating than anyone else. It's not close; it's more of a cliff than a curve. It doesn't matter how much you "like yourself", you will be swiped left if you're not physically attractive.
I am not saying this as sour grapes. I have had sex with dozens of women from Tinder, putting me in the top success percentiles of male users. The reality for average men online is extremely bleak. Denying this, giving advice to "like yourself" or to do therapy, or the ever common "you have to be happy alone first", are entirely fabricated coping mechanisms.
If you are even getting a handful of dates from the app from which to test your personality theories, you never had the problem at all.
You make a good point about discarding the source of random noise that the one-time pad is being applied to, and just focusing on the thing that's generating that one-time pad.
But I still don't know where to draw the line and how to justify it.
If that source of random noise mapped to a Turing machine running consciousness.exe for a short period of time by sheer chance without a one-time pad being applied to it by an external observer, would that classify? If we observed that this mapping held true by sheer chance as we observed additional bits in this random noise source, what about then? Does it make a difference that it's a random noise source that happens to be corresponding to a Turing machine for a period of time, and not an "actual" computer? And if that matters, what about the point that actual computers aren't perfectly deterministic, either?
