wiki link to Foley Sound

I was going to say; I wonder if it is a continuation of old radio show sound design, and it is!

I think there will always be a place for it just like the acoustic piano. There are too many variables and our subconscious is too in tune with sound that a digital sample will ever be enough to trick us. MAYBE they will get there but I can always hear when they use digital instruments in music.

Naah its just really unlikely (and difficult to define), of course you would need an infinitely variable wind source, stochastic sand generator and random humidifier/dryer to get a good result.

Wind on a beach is not nearly random enough.

No, making the argument that one is not as bad as the other isn't the same as making excuses. It's exactly what he said, they're both unacceptable, and he's trying to define the spectrum.

I have a touch more time, so let me go back to your first example.
Yes, if some dude broke my leg, yes I would appreciate that they didn't murder me.

Obviously, I don't want either thing to happen, but justice is about assigning degrees of a spectrum to an infinite number of variables of what is decidedly wrong. Please admit, it's at least imprecise to have a one-size-fits-all justice system.

I won't repeat the examples already given that should have laid bare the problems equating what should be corrected gingerly vs using a heavy hand, but I want to reiterate that they ring true for me.

NSFW warning:

I've had bad dates where I've been made to feel awkward. Believe it or not, I've been in a sexual encounter where I've been forced to hmmm... finish... inside a girl when I didn't want to. We had been together a short time and she was ENAMORED with me, and I felt 'meh' about her. (don't put your dick in crazy)

Long story short, I'm strict about using birth control so I'm not making kids when I don't want to. Although, in the heat of the moment, I'm not above a tried and true pulling out for lack of a better option. This had been the plan going into the sexual encounter, but when I let out a warning about a climax, instead of helping me push her off, she pushed her hands against my shoulders and clamped her thighs onto me. I objected "wait!!! no!!!" but not being a fucking Buddhist monk with complete control over every muscle in my body, well, you can imagine where it went from there.


Shortly thereafter, she started asking me what I thought about this or that baby name and it became clearer what she was really after. (yes really)

I waited for confirmation that she wasn't pregnant and we broke up immediately after, because of that and a general disinterest that I had towards her as a person.

That was when I was ehh? 19? idk, somewhere around there. More than 10 years ago at least.

But I digress, did what she did feel a little 'rape-y' to me? I said no, It was something we talked about beforehand, setting up parameters, etc. but it ended up just being a bad experience. Because of that bad experience I never really talked to her again. She does some kind of work in 3d printing now last I checked.

I don't think it's crazy to not want her to lose her job, and not want to file criminal charges against her, --- and this is key --- because even though something happened that was non consensual, I don't consider what happened rape, and I would NEVER equate what happened to me to what happened to all of Weinstein's victims because they fall on opposite ends of the spectrum.

Neither one was okay, and one is worse than the other.

That's a pretty cool "experiment" to perform on the song. However, a fully scientific experiment should attempt to minimize the amount of variables that are being changed -- ideally down to isolating the effects of a single one. This changed two:

1) Auto tune "correcting" the pitch of instruments and vocals AND
2) Changing the key of the song from minor (original is in F minor) to major

I think that the pitch shifting from auto tune to perfectly hit the scale notes actually has LESS impact than transcribing the song into major key. Would be interesting to hear the same thing, but keeping the key in F minor and just using auto tune to shift everything perfectly into scale notes in that key. I think it would still be noticeably ... weird ... compared to the original, but it wouldn't have the bland / banal / happy-poppy feel from the key change.

It sounds a lot like "tomatometer" methodology gives a result closer to a median than a mean. But both are useful, given both numbers you get an idea of the variability in scores, I'd love to see review aggregation sites express variability in some clear way.

For now, if you just want a site filtered by average, use Metacritic.

Maybe a variable frequency drive ramping up speed, combined with wheel slip causing the sound? I've never heard an electric motor make a sound like that.

This seems to be a false positive issue on chromes end for some days.
Saw some logs from admins reporting the same for the current version of chrome post 04032017. Also, there were false positives due to a bug some time ago.

It can result from taking up malformed parts of the page due to missing / unbound variables etc. and interpreting it as modified site content. Even perfectly fine content can be misinterpreted in certain circumstances.

example of older false positive bug: empty attribute in form header
<form method="POST" action=>

Try using another browser for the time being.

Do not disable protective measures. It is however possible that indeed parts of your page were modified by browser plugins and or wanted or unwanted additions to your system. If in question perform a scrubbing on your system via a bootable system if desired.

when all possible variables are factored (same positions compared, hours worked, education, experience, etc.), there is still a wage gap that generally can only be explained by gender bias. in the US, i believe it's about 8%.

@ChaosEngine

"Ironically, I'm somewhat echoing the sentiments in the video, in that facing an uncomfortable truth requires you to think and that's not a bad thing. But my uncomfortable truth is that not all speech can be free."

^this.right on mate.thumbs up.

free speech is not a binary equation.
many variables to consider,and i am of the thinking that i would rather not legislate words.

God's power sure is a variable thing. I guess when Dylann Roof struck in SC god was busy elsewhere.

Ethics doesn't even come into the argument until we know whether it will actually work, and work without any negative consequences.

There are just too many variables in nature to test something like this completely in a lab.

OK, so cured meats cured with nitrates are now classified carcinogenic, but non cured meats, and meats cured without nitrates, salt, or smoke only "may" be slightly carcinogenic...or may not. So still, not all deli turkey, not all chicken nuggets (I make them at home from whole chicken with no preservatives) or bacon (I had some uncured bacon a few years back...it sucked, but it does exist)....so not ALL processed meats are in that category, and certainly not all nuggets, sliced turkey, or bacon...so exaggeration, even if you wish to say it's only exaggeration by omission of detail.

Because he strongly implies it's because they are meats, says "The World Health Organization recently published a report that puts chicken nuggets, deli turkey slices, bacon and other processed meats in the same category as cigarettes and asbestos: known carcinogens" without explanation, and extrapolates to imply that all meats are as carcinogenic as habitually smoking processed tobacco cigarettes.

In terms of disease, overall danger to a person's health, and morality, it's completely inaccurate, and grossly misleading. A processed plant diet (the norm) can be FAR worse for you and the environment than a sustainably raised, non processed meat based diet (which is not the norm). It's not cut and dry, details matter.
"The International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) used clearly defined guidelines to identify hazards (qualitative evaluation), i.e. whether an agent can cause cancer, but IARC does not assess level or the magnitude of risk.
Even though smoking is in the same category as processed meat (Group 1 carcinogen), the magnitude or level of risk associated with smoking is considerably higher (e.g., for lung cancer about 20 fold or 2000% increased risk) from those associated with processed meat – an analysis of data from 10 studies, cited in the IARC report showed an 18 percent increased risk in colorectal cancer per 50g processed meat increase per day. To put this in perspective, according to the Global Disease Burden Project 2012, over 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to high processed meat intake vs. 1 million deaths per year attributable to tobacco smoke."
source- https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/
So, smoking =2000% greater risk, eating meat daily-18% greater risk....so not honestly equivalent by any stretch.

I would agree that switching from a processed meat based diet to a non processed plant based (not even necessarily pure vegetarian) diet, in general, might be equivalent to quitting smoking (but smoking how much, and smoking what, depends on MANY variable factors, and it appears it's generally equivalent to smoking <2 cigarettes per week, while breathing air in most cities is equivalent to smoking a pack a day).

Correlation and causation is distinguished by controlling for variables directly where the list of possible covariates or confounders is known & limited, or when it is not, using say machine learning techniques to infer a model from the data and repeatedly cross validating it with different test and training samples to ensure that it is rigorous. Read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

There is nothing about repeatability.

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross-validation_(statistics)

Repeatability has nothing to do with testing for correlation / causation. Okay, you repeat an experiment. It looks like X causes Y, like in the first test. But it turns out that Z (that you didn't consider or can't measure) is acting on X & Y at the same time, creating the appearance of a relationship between X & Y where none exists. Read:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding

If anything the political hype is underblown. Politics deals with the immediate, tangible and the "what directly helps me now." With the financial crisis, politics in the US has decreed that any action on climate change that might marginally impact wages or living standards is out of bounds.

If we assume the risks are real - polluting has specific benefits (cost reduction to polluters) and incredibly dispersed costs which are almost imperceptible for decades while the damage is being done. It requires global coordination for a cost on carbon to be politically feasible. And the effects are seen at least 40 years into the future:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-The-40-Year-Delay-Between-Cause-and-Effect.html

That's the problem, by the time the effects are obvious, it will be too late to react. In the meantime, you have massive amounts of money, interest groups, politics and delayed effect all acting against any action being taken.

Blast from the past, I miss my VIC-20. I learned to program in BASIC on it, that 3.5K of RAM was painful. So you gave variables one or two-letter names and borrowed the screen memory when you didn't have to display anything.

My teacher at the time despised BASIC and told me to learn Pascal. I finally understood his contempt when my first computer job involved reverse-engineering somebody's BASIC spaghetti code on a Kaypro computer.

I would never down vote a video like this simply because it offends my knowledge of math and logic and irritates the hell out of me. These kind of problems have been coming my way on facebook repeatedly and they do get huge numbers of comments with wildly different solutions. Actually out of the 500,000 comments claimed for this one probably half of them give 42 as the answer. My problem comes from the assumption that an algebraic variable represented by a symbol (an image of a boot) bears some inherent relationship to a different symbol (two boots). Even if you make that leap that two boots is two separate variables, if there is no operand between them they should be multiplied, not added. In algebra a term such as 3AB equals 3 times A times B not 3+A+B. Unfortunately in this problem with two horseshoes equaling 4 it works either way but if two boots equals 2 then one should equal the square root of two and the correct solution would be 21.414.