The explanation afterwards typifies my skepticism of machine learning and the kind of magical thinking that makes people think that limitless tasks can be automated beyond set domains.

Of course, algorithms with enough data are going to be effective at determining scary, tender or action segments from movies. But just like how they admit, a human touch is required to then piece it together in a way that resonates on an emotional level.

Trailers ultimately are pretty formulaic so they may be automatable but there are bound to be a whole host of areas where either a deterministic result is not practical or the noise of the algorithm response will be high enough to render the prediction meaningless.

Also too bad the movie's getting panned by reviews, I was kind of excited about watching this.

I never knew a skunk made noises like that! I thought they were adorable!!

I'm curious about how much noise they produce. One of the problems with the traditional wind turbine design is they are quite noisy.

this was oddly uninformative and misinformative. the names for white and pink noise are related to light but brown noise is named after robert brown.

white noise is equal power (amplitude/"volume") across frequencies (1/1), pink noise equal power per octave (1/frequency), and brown/red noise is -6dB/octave (1/frequency^2). there is also grey noise, blue noise, black noise, violet noise, and others. and no mention of the fletcher-munson curve (how sensitive our ears are across the frequency spectrum).

You know, politics happen even when the presidential election is not happening. Start small and make this much noise in your local government -- you can actually have a voice there.

And fuck Jill Stein for the same reason. Start small. Gain traction in the local governments. Don't just pop up your head every 4 years and say, "Hey! See! I'm a 3rd party candidate!"

Go to city council meetings. Find a candidate for governor or mayor that you like and help them out both financially and with your feet and mouth.

That's how we got here. We wait 4 years until we decide to get political, as though that's the only time to do so. Even if Trump gets elected (which is seeming more and more plausible every week) that doesn't mean you have to stop making noise.

Hmm... you make a compelling argument Maybe I just got sucked into the marketing! Matthias's explanation even points out that venturi pumps are inefficient, and used where you don't want the liquid you're pumping anywhere near the inside of your pump.

The big disadvantage of using a small fan is normally that you get more noise, which I suppose might be overcome by the ducting.

I don't see any reason you couldn't use a larger fan in the setup though... you should even be able to use a box fan.

*Warning I've only gone and done yet another wall of text again! This may or may not get read by anyone on here (good god I wouldn't blame anyone for skipping it), but at the very least it's formed the backbone to a video script so it's not a complete waste of my time! (he tells himself)*

This is as much @bareboards2 as yourself, but he already made it clear he wasn't willing to engage on the issue, so you're getting it instead MWAHAHAHHAHA! *coughs*

I don't wish this to come across as over condescending (though I'm sure it will none the less as I'm in one of those moods). But pretty much every (successful) comedy premise operates on the same underlying principle of irony. i.e. there is an expectation or understanding, which is deliberately subverted, and what results is comedy.

In this case, amongst other things we have the understood premises that:
A. rape is a bad, often horrific thing.
B. that there is an established social taboo about praising such behaviour.
C. that there is a section of society inherently opposed to making light of things of which they do not approve (or in a way in which they do not approve)
D. most words and phrases have an expected association and meaning.

What Jim Jefferies (an accomplished and well respected comedies amongst his peers) has done here, is take these commonly understood premises and subverted the audiences normal expectations in order to evoke a sense of irony, from which the audience derives humour and amusement.

A simple joke might take a single such premise and perform a single inversion of our expectation. e.g. my dog has no nose, how does he smell?....terrible!

By subverting our assumed meaning (that the missing nose refers to the dogs implied lack of olfactory senses), the joke creates basic irony by substituting this expected meaning for that of the odour of the dog itself.

This is of course a terrible joke, because it is as simple as a joke could be. It has only one layer of irony and lacks any sense of novelty which, might tip such a terrible joke into working for any other than the very young or simple minded.

We could of course attempt to boost this joke by adding more levels of irony contextually. e.g. a very serious or complex comedian Like say Stuart Lee, could perhaps deliver this joke in a routine and get a laugh by being completely incongruous with his style and past material.

And herein we see the building blocks from which any sophisticated professional comedy routine is built. By layering several different strands or ironic subversion, a good comedian can begin to make a routine more complex and often more than just the sum of its parts to boot.

In this case, Jim is taking the four main premises listed above, layering them and trying to find the sweetest spot of subverted expectation for each. (something which usually takes a great deal of skill and experience at this level)

He mentions the fact that his jokes incite outrage in a certain section of society because this helps to strengthen one of the strands of irony with which he is playing. The fact that he also does so in a boastful tone is itself a subversion, it is understood by the audience that he does not/should not be proud of being merely offensive and as such we have yet another strand of irony thrown into the mix.

You know how better music tends to have more and/or more complex musical things happening at once? It is the same with comedy. The more ironic threads a comedian can juggle around coherently, the more sophisticated and adept their routines could be considered to be.

Naturally as with music there's no accounting for taste as you say. Some people simply can't get past a style or associations of a given musician or song (or painting or whatever).

But dammit Jim is really one of the greats right now. Like him or lump him, the dude is pretty (deceptively) masterful at his craft.

There are at least 4-5 major threads of irony built into this bit and countless other smaller ones besides. He dances around and weaves between them like some sort of comedy ballerina. Every beat has been finely tuned over months of gig's (and years of previous material) to strike the strongest harmonies between these strands and probe for the strongest sense of dissonance in the audience. Not to mention, tone of voice, stance, timing etc.

I think Ahmed is basically terrible too, but it is because the jokes lack much semblance of complexity or nuance. Jeff Dunham's material in general feels extremely simple and seems like it uses shock as a mere crutch, rather than something deeper and more intelligent.

Taste is taste, but I feel one can to a reasonable extent criticise things like the films of Michael Bay, or the music of Justin Beiber for being objectively shallow by breaking down their material into its constituent parts (or lack thereof).

Likewise one could take the music of Wagner and while not enjoying the sound of it, still examine the complexity of it's composition and the clear superiority of skill Wagner had over most of this peers.

I guess what all this boils down to is, Jim seems to me to be clearly very very good at what he does (as he ought after all these years). Reducing his act to mere controversy feels a lot like accusing Black Sabbath of just making noise and using satanic imagery to get attention (or insert other less out of date example here).

The jokes were never at the expense of victims, they are at the expense of our expectations. He makes his own true feelings on the matter abundantly clear towards the end of the section.

As as he says himself his job is to say funny things, not to be a social activist.

I take no issue with you not liking it, but I do take issue with the suggestion that it is somehow two dimensional, or for that matter using controversy cheaply.

Offensive initial premises are some of the most ironically rich in comedy. It's like deliberately choosing the brightest paints when trying to create a striking painting. Why would you avoid the strongest materials because some people (not in your audience) find the contrast too striking?

Eh, much love anyway. This was more an exercise in intellectual masturbation than anything else. Not that I didn't mean all of it sincerely.

The Concorde was never really successful though, because Americans wouldn't let it fly through American airspace (well, not farther than NYC, anyhow). They claimed it was because of the noise, but in reality it was just sour grapes at being beaten by the French.

I may have made some very high-pitched screaming noises at the office, this morning.

Maybe.

For obvious reasons. People that want something banned, don't want statistics showing that shows it doesn't kill. And people that don't want something banned, don't want statistics showing that it kills people.

Bed manufacturers wouldn't want the CDC studying beds - because 400+ people die each year by falling out of bed. Windows tint manufacturers would have no problem with the CDC studying the effects of window tint.
Combine that with sufficient political influence, and you get either a ban or a mandate.

Pretty much most things you encounter in the day have some lethality rate to them, just most don't have such an effective organization defending their use. Nor do most draw as much attention. Not much noise about the lethality of bad bread, or errors in GPS maps, or whatever else gets people killed each year. But if there was noise, and there was political strength behind it, you'd be seeing bans on CDC studying GPS map errors.

-scheherazade

Sounded like a fake fart to me, and most critters react to loud noises. Cute as a button though.

I remember when my brother had to have a psych evaluation, he told me that one of the questions they asked was "Do you see and hear things that other people don't see and hear?"
I realized it was good I wasn't the one being evaluated, because I see and hear things other people don't see and hear all the time, whenever I'm alone for instance, and often when I'm with others if I'm looking at or listening to something no one else is. That answer wouldn't go over well, I'm fairly certain.

I often wonder if auditory hallucinations that are not verbal or in any way communicative are indicative of anything important or worrying. I often can hear phantom music or phantom unintelligibly quiet talk radio in white noise, which defeats the main purpose of the white noise (made by a loud air filter), which is to drowned out all distracting noises so I can sleep.

"mocap" = "motion capture", correct. procedural animation is animation driven by an input. like the shapes/colours of the materials can be driven but the types of movements the mocap itself or by the music (though i don't think that one is being done here) or by physics simulations or generated noise.

Well, to give her the benefit of the doubt, maybe that driver has been cruising her street, making noise. It is a modified muffler, and is probably pretty loud when revving. I can't even figure out where she was in the first place.

I think I heard her say something like "that car almost took my leg out" or something like that. Maybe there was an earlier incident?

Pretty weird.

I refrain from making a comment.

@newtboy is already making enough noise.