I get annoyed just seeing all of these spelled out.
Speed is an absolute requirement for a launcher, and if one of the search providers is taking too long it needs to be removed until its speed makes it usable. There’s no way I want to wait for web results if they take between 1 and 10 seconds. The number of local results should always be such that it can be held in memory without being a burden, and return in an imperceptible amount of time.
Pathfinding is another great example.
Yes, neural networks are, usually, AI, but no, thermostats are not AI.
The definition of AI is more or less “a machine that can accomplish something that an intelligent thing like a human can do but which would be unfeasible or impossible to create an explicit algorithm for the machine to follow in order to accomplish it.”
So natural language translation is AI: before it became usable in the 2000s, this was seen as something that only humans could do. Producing meaningful text and recognisable images from scratch or a prompt is AI for the same reason.
On the threadiverse people equate AI with Artificial General Intelligence, i.e. something capable of true reasoning, with something we might call “understanding” (not a concept that I can attempt to define, but if you think about that ability which LLMs lack in spite of being able to produce text as if they had it) but this is ahistorical.
Look up the case of Standard Oil, against which an antitrust suit was filed, charging it with abusive monopolistic practices. The case was won, and Standard Oil was broken up - at a time when it had less than 70% market share.
Why would repeatable read raise an error? I’m a little rusty but I thought it was only serialisable that could do, and that repeatable read simply ensured that the committed writes of transaction 2 would not be read in transaction 1, so it updating over the top of 2 is fine.
Wouldn’t that be an error due to serialisation failure if in postgres if you enabled serialisable isolation?
If you didn’t, you could get anything, because unless I’m mistaken this is the typical example used to illustrate what goes wrong when you don’t have full serialisable isolation.
Yeah, I guess it looks cool. Tho I think lots of instruments, and playing them, look cool :P
I don’t think you really answered (or even whether you were trying to).
I don’t think randomly going off-pitch is an aesthetic goal; I think if you wanted to do that you could easily, in an electric instrument, introduce a random pitch bend. No-one ever does… What people do do is introduce intentional pitch bends - vibrato is an obvious example, but also pushing the tuning of certain intervals outside what the typical equal-tempered distances would be.
The reason I asked the question above the way I did is because it seems universally acknowledged that intonation on the theremin synthesiser is significantly harder than on a fretless string-instrument, which affords the same expressiveness in pitch. Unless there is genuinely an advantage to its setup (and, again, randomly bad pitch is not one IMO) should we not want to make it easier?
I, of course, was not saying I demanded perfect intonation, which does not exist. But intonation that I, an at-best-moderately critical listener, can tell is way off, is not what I would aim for and I have heard that in a professional recording.
Why don’t I reframe it: why would you not want an instrument which is like the theremin synthesiser but which instead of placing the hands in free space you place them on some kind of board? How does it get worse?
Muscle memory is not enough when playing a string instrument, so I can’t imagine it is when playing the theremin synthesiser either! Muscle memory gets you in the right ball-park but you need tactile cues as well as to listen to be as accurate as possible. Typing on a touchscreen keyboard gives you visual cues (it’s usually close to where you’re looking, closer than a physical keyboard) and I believe accuracy suffers compared to a keyboard with its tactile feedback (that is, if your fingers are off, you feel that you’re hitting the edges of the keys).
It seems to me that anything you can do in the free air you should be able to do with an appropriately-scaled slider or other control system. I was enamoured of the theremin synthesiser when I first heard about it, but when I realised it is just using the hand position to affect two single capacitance values, rather than anything more complicated, I was disappointed!
I always thought the theremin was an overly impractical synthesiser. Even having the two control axes controlled by wheels or rods would make more sense.
I play cello and it’s notable that hitting a note when you have to arrive there by sliding the finger into position is a lot easier than when you have to place the finger in the correct position from the air (during a shift - the latter is fine if the whole hand is in position)
That is to say, having a tactile reference is better than waving your arms around in the air. This was reinforced for me when I heard a theremin recording by a pro and the intonation was noticeably bad.
The Spotify app is a “native” app that includes the Chromium Embedded Framework. The actual app that Chromium renders is the exact same web-app that appears in a standalone browser.
I’m not going to respond to the rest, or anything else you reply with, because you can’t find it within yourself to cough up anything remotely resembling the statement “I was wrong.” Yeah, maybe it doesn’t feel great, but it’s a necessary part of holding conversations.
So those require what is effectively a web browser to run them - do you know what the “WA” in “PWA” stands for?
None of this goes against the fact that I went and checked for you and indeed the Spotify app takes about 5x as much RAM as the native app. Do you want to, I don’t know, give a hint of recognition that you erred in some way?
BTW when I replied you hadn’t edited your post. I’m getting to get the laptop that suits my needs, not yours. You said RAM is only expensive if you’re “dumb enough to buy a Mac” and now you’ve retreated to, “or any of the hundreds of non-Apple laptops with soldered RAM.”
I mean, it’s OK and good to adapt your position as you come to new realisations, but if you continue to do it this gracelessly, I will just block you because it’s annoying and there’s no reason to put up with it.
We are talking about PWAs?
Uh… yes?
Spotify memory usage: 450MB
Rhythmbox memory usage: 95MB
A browser is one of the most complicated applications commonly running on a computer; its code is massive before you load in the mountains of javascript. Also that is measured by RSS - the difference is even starker when you bear in mind that of the 50MB that rhythmbox might be sharing with other processes, most of it probably is being, because a lot will be graphical toolkits used by other programs. Spotify has a smaller fraction, at about 130MB, and god knows what it’s pulling in and is able to share with e.g. the main browser process.
RAM is only not expensive in desktops. In laptops, getting more RAM almost always means getting a higher-tier laptop in other ways which adds a lot to the price.
RAM is expensive.
They have the largest share and can direct the market/development
That means they’re a monopoly. Having some small fry competitors doesn’t make you not a monopoly.
“Lock-in” doesn’t make it a monopoly; market share does, and Steam dominates there. So much so that EA gave up on offering things exclusively on Origin.
So they can start making inaccurate guesses about something only tangentially related to the price. Cool.