I think the feeling that it's bad is made worse if you've been a long time user, because I remember that it used to be better.
I dislike that they pushed so much for the liked playlist thing, and that it's now a bit tedious to navigate into just looking at my playlists.
I also really dislike their annoying push for podcasts, and this would really be a super quick and easy opt-out section in the settings of the app. And I think from here it's a good transition into what this makes me feel: I feel like Spotify doesn't give a shit about me anymore and they are just trying to squeeze me. And that really rubs me the wrong way.
I think it's probably more if you are not aware of tuning stereo width or stuff like that, it'll get you to a nice "default". But obviously if you're more knowledgable you might tune this yourself.
There are probably (or soon will be) different presets for mastering a rock track or an EDM track or a jazz track, with different targets for dynamics, loudness etc.
I did a music course last summer and met some prefessional musicians and also sound engineers working for big record labels. I saw specifically LANDR in action.
I think like all of these new AI tools, it can be a tool for you to use, but an amateur with untrained ears will still not make "professional-grade" masterings. But you can get maybe 80% there. If you're a hobbyist and don't know anything about mastering and can't afford to pay a professional, this is great!
> untrained ears will still not make "professional-grade" masterings
There's quite a few people who hate the modern mastering, so... maybe that's not a bad thing? Also considering the pro grade masters are often aimed for wildly different setup than the cheap earbuds many people will use. I'm not trying to say pros don't know what they're doing. But also, I'd love to see people play a bit more. (Still dreaming of a real release format that contains the raw elements + effects stack)
Then again, I'm a weirdo who honestly prefers some accidentally preserved band practice recordings with noise and mistakes and raw energy to their released official albums.
I don't think it's weird at all. Art and culture generally are exercises in communication. Sometimes fine craftsmanship or technical prowess and spectacle is an important part of the message. Sometimes it simply is not. People get excited when their favorite sports team tries a daring play, whether it's on an 8k monster display or their grandma's black and white set from the 70s. More pixels won't make you cry any harder in Titanic.
the idea is that if it sounds good on the 'wildly different setup' (i.e. posh speakers in controlled environment) then it will also sound good on cheap earbuds... but not the other way round.
to me the whole 'mastering AI' stuff misses at least some of the point of what mastering really is, but i suppose it'll be useful for people doing stuff on their own who wouldn't pay a proper mastering engineer anyway.
Sometimes true... Sometimes you get Christopher Nolan, with his own quote:
> Because you can make a film that looks like anything, you can shoot on your iPhone, no one’s going to complain. But if you mix the sound a certain way, or if you use certain sub-frequencies, people get up in arms.
well yeah, "good" meaning "as the artist intended"... that's the other thing with this AI stuff, there is no objective definition of "good sounding record" unless you just want everything to sound like Steely Dan or whatever...
Kind of reinforces the idea AI is going to lead to mediocrity in a lot of industries. I feel like our food, like the stuff at the grocery store is a great example. Our bread is made on a production line. It's good but not great. I feel like the real bummer is the option to get great bread tends to disappear overtime as everyone moves to the 80% solution and the training and economics needed for the artisan solution disappear.
I predict the cost to make an 80 percent solution will plummet, which is great for consumers.
Essentially, consumers now might pay X amount to get only a 40% solution (probably unusable and not something a company would even offer), but with AI, the same X gets you an 80% solution.
The price of >80% solution will remain the same, until AI improves.
When I get to a point where I'm second guessing like the author ("Should I follow-up or not?") I try to go with actually listening to what the other person said. In this case, Jimmy said "please follow-up if you have questions" and I'd just assume that that was genuine and so it's fine.
And if I called he could still be like "Yeah, we went over time last time, actually I'm sorry I don't have time anymore."
And so I also try to communicate in this way, just saying things I mean and if I don't want something, I'll also say that. Makes everything much easier. (I'm German, maybe it's also a cultural thing.)
Definitely a cultural thing, but also has to do with neurodiversity; for some reason, a lot of people speak in riddles, they don't say what they mean and/or they don't mean what they say, and you're left having to make assumptions because if you don't get it, that's somehow your fault?
Another factor there is (corporate) politeness and avoiding emotional responses; the amounts of times I've had colleagues go on an angry rant / vent to us (as teammates) over a meeting they just came out of, instead of direct and use that anger during the meeting itself is a lot.
> We can roughly break the costs of operating any power plant into three categories: fuel costs, operation and maintenance costs, and capital costs
The article forgets to mention another cost: The cost of disposing/storing used up fuel. This is often forgotten, but a major cost too, if the spent fuel is to be stored safely and securely. And it needs to be stored like that for hundreds of thousands of years!
Switzerland is currently in the process of building a national waste storing facility, a quick Google search showed that the US currently does not have one.
It's only a major cost due to the need to manage media headlines, NIMBYism and an uninformed public. You actually could just dump it into the ocean to join the billion tons of Uranium already there...
Your comment comes of as a bit dismissive, but I'm trying to take your word here.
A quick google search shows that the there have been policies [0] to prevent ocean dumping of nuclear waste due to adverse effects on the environment. It doesn't seem like something we should do.
Also it seems like you are implying that spent fuel and raw, unenriched uranium are somehow the same, which is also not true.
> A quick google search shows that the there have been policies [0] to prevent ocean dumping of nuclear waste due to adverse effects on the environment.
Check the citations. The wikipedia article is conflating general oceanic waste dumping with nuclear waste dumping. Things like oil float(!), come in huge quantities and react both physically (coating) and chemically with wildlife. As best I can tell dumping solid dense nuclear waste onto the abyssal plane has no known or theoretical environmental effects.
> Also it seems like you are implying that spent fuel and raw, unenriched uranium are somehow the same, which is also not true.
You're correct here. However the moderating effects of water mean that if you did glass solid nuclear waste and dump it in the abyss you'd get no detectable increase in ocean radioactivity.
People also seem to forget that the power plants have to be removed after their lifecycle. The safe decommission of a nuclear power plant takes decades and costs billions again.
I read the thread, and it is said that by now the implementation cannot be changed without breaking a lot. But there are multiple workarounds and fixes you can apply depending on your situtation. There also seems to be a new HTML renderer where the problem is already fixed.
I think this is actually a great example of how dedicated Dan Allen is to the project! He has been following up on the ticket for over 6 years!
I have interacted with him briefly on the Antora Zulip Chat a couple of times and he is always very helpful, it's a pleasure.
the issue is still open, and for good reason. whatever excuse they may have, the current HTML output for lists is not idiomatic, and their suggestion is essentially to use CSS hacks to fix the problem. sadly the AsciiDoc version with the problem is the one being used by GitHub itself. So until the issue is properly fixed, a new version pushed, and the new version accepted and put into use by GitHub, I am not interested to switch. This could all happen in a week with the proper motivation.
I am not sure what the worry is with backward compat. The only difference with the resultant HTML, is extraneous "p" elements would be removed from "li" elements. Anyone who has been relying on that behavior, has been relying on non-idiomatic HTML and should be inconvenienced.
Hmm, but you will probably like to link to something, right? Do you just put links in your Markdown? Do you link to markdown files an post-process when rendering to HTML (or maybe you don't render it at all)?
I find this view a bit simplistic. As a reader I find it much easier to follow if I don't have to piece information together from different documents. Including relevant sections in the correct place will improve the flow of the text a lot.
I think the bigger downside is that the include directive doesn't really help you when you're reading the source file, but markdown was explicitly designed to also be pleasant to read "raw". Realistically however, you will render you docs into HTML (or pdf) so that doesn't really matter.
I also find includes neat to include code snippets from separate files, so I can run linting and other checks on them independently (and sometimes even run scripts as independent files).
That, honestly, feels like a problem with the markdown reader, not the format itself. A problem common to modern browsers, but also prevalent in many doc readers: Much like how a good code editor can show you "the thing you need to resolve" inline (e.g. looking up the definition of a function you highlighted), a good markdown reader should be able to trigger what looks like a transclusion in the document you're reading when you click a link, in addition to the normal link resolution.
I see a lot of comments in this thread mentioning that it is only Ruby, but there is asciidoctor.js [1], a JS implementation. I'm using it at my company for the docs, together with Antora. It's the only docs system I have used extensively, but so far I didn't miss anything! We have quite a complex system with different components versioned independently, but it just works!
Edit in sublime Text, save, See the browser window on the other monitor (portrait orientation) update, tweak, repeat... That is my workflow for long and short Docs. AsciidoctorJs Chrome Extension is the glue.
I dislike that they pushed so much for the liked playlist thing, and that it's now a bit tedious to navigate into just looking at my playlists.
I also really dislike their annoying push for podcasts, and this would really be a super quick and easy opt-out section in the settings of the app. And I think from here it's a good transition into what this makes me feel: I feel like Spotify doesn't give a shit about me anymore and they are just trying to squeeze me. And that really rubs me the wrong way.
But I also have no alternative lined up.