I think my monthly costs, when amortized out daily, comes to about 20 minutes...

Anyone who prefers Obj-C just doesn't want to learn something new. Apple didn't invent a new language because of hipness reasons, they did it because their platforms are saddled with this shitty language which is missing modern conventions and is difficult to learn and use.

I'm mostly with this. My biggest problem with swift is there are still some holes in the compatibility with C code -- I was doing a project that called into CoreAudio to do some conversions, and the CoreAudio API required me to give it a function pointer for a callback, and Swift (shock!) cannot pass a function as a C function pointer, you have to write it in C. Little things like this are a irritating PITA, particularly when you can bang out 3 dozen classes in CoreData and Foundation and otherwise not have any problems, and suddenly you hit a dead end.

The problem with being able to allow/deny individual permissions is the app developers now have 2^n configurations to test, instead of just one.

Most of these permissions are for facilities that may not be available, let alone permitted, under real-world conditions. GPS might not be available where you are, the contacts database might not be available, network access apart from port 80 might be unavailable.

This isn't the same as screen size of hardware chipsets, this is runtime allocation of OS resources -- you always have to check to make sure that the OS can give you them, and then handle failures gracefully.

Repeat after me: "Android is an ad-presentment platform." Effective privacy controls would interfere with that.

It's the LTO drive itself that kills you, the drive and the SCSI card will set you back a couple $K to start.

It starts to make sense once the "backup bandwidth", the frequency of backups times the size of the archive, exceeds a couple TB/week, but it just makes no sense to spend $2K to keep a backup of $500 worth of drives, particularly in a situation where you just don't need to have the weekly tapes from two years ago and the last working tree is the only one worth keeping.

If you take the MTBF for a large hard drive, the averaged cost of failure per year might be like $50 per TB per year. (Total POOMA numbers, but it's probably the right order of magnitude.) HDDs have low fixed costs but a higher cost per gig, tapes have a much higher fixed cost but lower cost per gig, so wether one or the other is more economic depends on how much you're backing up, the level of reliability you need, so many different factors.

Never underestimate the latency of your archive room attempting to restore a station wagon full of tapes...

I work for Sony Picture on projects as a sound designer from time to time, I wasn't there yesterday.

Sony Pictures is an almost completely distinct operation from "Sony." The studio itself is just the old Columbia Pictures, that Sony bought in 1990. The lot itself was the old MGM/Lorimar lot-- all the long-time staff at Sony are either Columbia people or MGM people. You can go years there without meeting a Sony corporate exec, they leave the place alone and just a let it do its thing.

No that's a different thing. The event horizon is a spherical region around the singularity from which light cannot escape. A singularity is a zero-dimensional point in space lying within the horizon. The gravity at the event horizon is not infinite.

Now, it's very likely that what is meant by "cross connects" in the context of AI is substantially different than the "cross connect" capability that global networking enables, but it's equally true that people generally fail at understanding exponential growth.

Paramecium can grow exponentially in a jar. This does not mean that, once you have as many paramecium as there are cells in your brain, the jar will start talking to you. The difference between a computer and a mind isn't just quantitative, it's qualitative.

But there are a lot of very unglamorous diseases that kill more people every year.

Yes, but in southern Africa the AIDS prevalence rate between 15-25%, and those numbers go UP when juvenile cases are counted. It's "glamorous" because in Africa it's a pandemic comparable to the great 14th century plagues of Europe.

Reverberation *should* be the easiest kind of noise to remove, because it has a simple mathematical model:

S(t) = signal(t) + f(signal(t - delay))

It's not that simple, a reverberant space can have dozens of different discrete delay taps, add secondary (and tertiary, etc) reflections and the resulting spectral envelope is just a fog with an effectively continuous system of delay. Also keep in mind that all "functions that attenuate frequencies" are themselves just delays whose length is a function of a particular wavelength of interest. The spectral changes a reverberant space imparts -- attenuating and resonating -- are a function of cavities in the space, modes, and surface diffractions that have the effect of filtering the signal due to multipath interference.

In practice, reverb removal is impossible to do perfectly. Techniques for doing it do things like modelling the reverberant space as linear time invariant system and then inverse-convolving the recorded signal. This is sortof what you described, by getting the LTI model in the first place is the difficult nut to crack, some systems simply do blind deconvolution, where the spectrum of the dry signal is guessed or some kind of average in the spectral domain. And once you have the model, it can change the moment a source moves in the space or the space changes configuration, by say opening a door. Good systems for speech often involve psychoacoustic modeling...

But I am also sure that there will be recruiters that work in film and some of them will specialise in sound. I was working on the premise that you were getting a call to talk about your line, not something totally random. Hence not understanding why you would yell at them.

Oh no, they were specifically asking me if I wanted to do software development. People in my business have below-the-line agents, there are established firms and players though and they don't recruit this way. A lot of my Github projects are CoreAudio and DSP stuff, and I have a lot of StackOverflow points on audio dev, and I know audio is sortof a black art for even experienced developers, so I assume maybe that had something to do with it to. I never yell, I wait and see what they want and then politely decline.

Hello iluvcapra, My name is Harlequin80 and I specialise in the recruitment of sound specialists in the TV and film industry. Have I got you at a time you could talk?

The term "sound specialist" and "TV and film industry" and even the term "recruitment" are clumsy and inappropriate, and would signal to me that you don't know what I do, what my job is, who my competitors or even who my clients are, and lacking that, you probably wouldn't know how to sell me. I wouldn't engage a rep unless he had 10-15 years in the film industry in some capacity, let alone he got the lingo right. An agent relationship for "specialists" in the "TV and film industry" is a very particular skill set, it implies that you'll be finding me a new job every six months, from among a pool of maybe two dozen people at any one time with hiring authority--people who everyone knows and who you'd better be on ideal speaking terms with (preferably you're talking to them every day selling your other clients).

Obviously this is show business and a lot of people calling themselves "agents" and "business managers" are scammers, you have to be really careful about who you talk to and all business is done face-to-face, with people you've either known personally and worked with for years, or are one degree of separation from these. LinkedIn provides a simulacra of this kind of interaction, but it's really not the same. I'd never engage with someone who found me through "LinkedIn," even if it was through a recommendation, that's a big red flag.

(All of this just FYI.)

I work in film sound, really my only gig for last 15 years. I have never been a professional software developer, I have no such work on my resume, I have a BA in film, I didn't even take an engineering course in school.

However, every 6 months or so, I get called by some recruiter somewhere to ask if I'd like to "make a move" and start doing iOS development at some shop he's working with. The only reason I get these calls, that I can figure, is because I have a Github account and a few public repos with Objective-C code. It's a nuisance and these people are total flakes. The most irritating thing is the utterly phony conceit of "trying to find me a better fit" or "develop my career": They don't know fuck-all about me, all I am for them is a possible lead conversion.

I don't know what's so fucked up with software development that cold-calling random people basically out of the phone book is considered a workable strategy. You guys need a union or something...

Right, but does that mean that pull-ups are part of the essence of masculinity?

The main attack against "sexism" is that it's essentialist, it holds that even if a woman can do 20 pull-ups, even if she has her gonads changed, she'll never "truly" be a man, there are irreproducible properties to maleness and femaleness that are natural and determinative.

The problems are that no one ever lays down a marker and say what these properties exactly are, because just about everything a man can do, a woman can do, and many other man cannot do. I can't do 20 perfect form pull-ups either, but that doesn't mean I'm not a man or any less of a man. And then essences break down completely when we deal with the case of hermaphrodites, or transsexuals, or queer people who decline either identification, or people that identify in some way at variance with their chromosomal sex. In the end the best we can come up with when it comes to sexual essence is chromosomes, but if that's all it is, or even if all it was was pull-ups, aren't these really irrelevant to things like "damsel tropes," or male gaze, or sexual fetishization? And then, even when it is relevant, it's a naturalistic fallacy to assert that because women are X, a depiction of them as X in a video game is justified. That's an appeal to nature to settle question of aesthetics or morality.

I'm not disagreeing with your position, a lot of feminists agree with your basic point (though they'd take issue with your presentation). I'm just pointing out that the question is irrelevant for the most part and is probably intractable, due to its reliance on a metaphysical worldview that's disputed.

"If they don't express anything, there's nothing to censor. If they DO express something (even something banal) they're protected."

Maybe protected from censorship, but not from criticism. The previous comment asked why advocates of free speech didn't defend video games, and I tell you, it's because the people who make video games themselves are highly equivocal about what they are trying to do aesthetically and morally, and the only thing they can agree on is that they want to make a lot of money.

This argument is not likely to sway activists and academics who are motivated by their belief in the moral power of art and are in general agreement that money corrupts art...