It would be mostly quiet (remember that humans only hear up to ~20 kHz).
Sure, this is a joke today, but if we continue down our current path, we would probably hit ultrasonic rates in the not too distant future.
The video was fun and insightful to watch. Big fan of sonification of computer processes. We can hear such a large and important range of frequencies (more than the 'audible range' because we hear impulses in the subsonic range as events) and it works as a nice complementary in real time for an experience that charts can't convey.
I talked to a scientist who works on sonificantion over a cofee once. Whats interesting is, that they keep finding applications where sonification is superior to visualisation. it boils down to continuous monitoring being more efficient via an audio channel, because humans are not really able to focus on a monitor without occasional distractions. If you do the sonification right, its also easier to detect subtle changes over time.
So true. Although I often prefer silence, the sounds my devices make can be really nice. For example I open my Nextcloud app on my phone and the drives in my server start rattling. I find it soothing.
Reminds me of Picard lecturing a young engineer on how in the old days they “were trained to detect some warp core misalignment of .2 micron” (or something).
I understand that some astronomers listen to radio telescope outputs and my car mechanic can often hear what’s wrong in a heartbeat.
What is the training data and have you thought about how to build a causal model that would be robust to interventions (e.g. by changing or adding a gene)?
This is a great point, in fact is the main purpose of the model. The model is validated against genomes with variations which were never seen to check its prediction capabilities.
AFAIK, variants are created either by changing/adding/shuffling already known genes. And not trying to create an unknown mutation of a gene we never saw before. Therefore, our thesis is that with enough information we can capture the effect of the gene in the final product.
Of course, there is epigenetics as well; which is tackled with additional information about the environment.
Yes, they all have significant 'ghosting' artifacts where the harmonics are a bit fuzzy if you listen closely. AFAIK all of the recent neural speech engines have this, from SoundStream to EnCodec, especially in low latency causal setups. Wavenet was a bit better in that regard but has fallen out of style due to complexity and the lack of a bottleneck. It seems like something diffusion post processing would be able to clean up.
I genuinely want to understand this mindset. Are you only against things that help extend lifespan a very large amount, or is it more nuanced?
80 years was only achieved recently because of various quality of life and medical advances. Do you feel that those are 'ok' for other reasons, or for example, that things that cure cancer, HIV, or better sanitation that increase lifespan should also be repealed if it was up to you? Or do you feel we just happen to have the perfect amount of life-extending conditions at this exact moment?
We are at a point in history that many people can live up to the natural limits of human body. They don't die during childbirth or as very young children, because of bad sanitization or through unlucky sickness.
Those improvements in healthcare are fine in my eyes. Someone could argue that dying because of some illness that we cured is also natural. Perhaps yes, but for me the baseline is healing the "unlucky" instances - viruses, cancers etc.
My golden standard worth aiming for is someone like the nonagenarians in Sardinia or Okinawa - someone who ate healthy food, lived in a tight happy community, low amount of stress and lucky to evade any serious illness. Those people still die and this is fine.
I would like everyone to have a chance to live like this, this to me is the natural limit of human body.
I am not a fan of extending life beyond this limit.
I love the math/stats history around gambling-related things, thanks for mentioning this. This method assumes the flipper can't introduce bias. ET Jaynes in his book Probability Theory also mentions that it is easy to learn to flip a fair coin in such a way that the result can be predetermined. I searched a tiny bit for this but couldn't find what he was referring to though.
I’ve heard that, with many hours of practice, dedicated amateurs and many famous magicians are able to do this kind of thing. I wouldn’t call it sleight of hand, but it is similar, although it may fall under that category broadly. I’m not a domain expert but I was taught some simple coin tricks as a child by my artist mom’s artist friend who ran the local frame shop. I never tried or thought to try to favor the coin flip or introduce bias, but it’s definitely a skill that can be acquired.
I remember at one point in my childhood learning a trick where it looks like you're flipping the coin, but you're really only causing it to rotate and wobble, meaning it's guaranteed to land on whatever side faced up as you tossed it. I don't remember how I did it though, and a few minutes of trying to recreate the effect has failed.
Lots of practice, use your thumb to hit the edge of the coin to give you more control, aim for a specific spot so you use the same amount of force and control the amount of times it flips. You can also use a surface that absorbs more so the coin is less likely to flip after hitting it.
Definitely bikeshedding, but it also kind of looks like the TensorFlow logo and for a second I thought there was a group breaking the project free from Google.
The essay was fun to read and had excellent balance - the author talked about distractions semi-ironically with fine control of its focused structure and pacing while keeping a light and carefree tone that was nonetheless academic. I'd like to learn to write closer to this style. Is regular writing and reading more of these literary journals the way to go about it?
Pretty much. Essays are a great medium for this style, I think of them like a curated conversation almost. You've organized your thoughts in a way that you could present them to a friend in polite conversation; you're trying to convey a point without the need to be pretentious or serious in order for it to be respected. Publications like the New Yorker and the Atlantic are a good place to find lots of high quality ones. Many authors also publish their essay collections as books, my favorite being "Consider the Lobster" by DFW.
Thanks for the recommendations, I will check them out.
I appreciate the point about seriousness too. One part of it that I liked kind of feels like travel writing from the last century (e.g. John Muir) that goes in and out of various subjects with respect to the main one. On the other hand, the author shows their 'seriousness' and culture by being able to reference and talk about the subject in the context of many other subjects. If I try to do this it probably feels pretentious, so I admire the skill of being able to pull it off.
There is also 10+ years research for tinnitus using Vagus Nerve Stimulation to stop it [1]. Results seem mixed. Many other drugs/neuro-stimuli for T have gotten mixed results and passed clinical trials such as Leniere only to flop in actual usage. It's interesting that the community anecdotal evidence such as r/tinnitus and TinnitusTalk are so useful for these cases because they are more likely to report negative results at the post-approval stage.
I’ve got tinnitus and can’t really foresee any kind of solution. Not sure what the vagus nerve would do given the ears go straight in to the brain. Hopefully one day though, I’ve learned to live with it for the time being.
Thanks for reminding me about this. MacsBug was great. Besides being a useful development tool, MacsBug was used extensively to break shareware as well by the mac warez community. I remember seeing some guides about it that were very illuminating about how program execution and object code actually worked that made things click for me.
It was also a time when any consumer could issue a system interrupt with the same two keystrokes because it was built into mac OS, and see the cpu registers and enter hex to change the program flow. Since there was not as clean a system/program barrier as there was today and single threaded OS (I think?), before OS 8 the system froze all the time because of apps, and even non-expert users memorized the hex code for the system exit() trap.
Sure, this is a joke today, but if we continue down our current path, we would probably hit ultrasonic rates in the not too distant future.
The video was fun and insightful to watch. Big fan of sonification of computer processes. We can hear such a large and important range of frequencies (more than the 'audible range' because we hear impulses in the subsonic range as events) and it works as a nice complementary in real time for an experience that charts can't convey.