Yeah, but you said:
> Daphne Oram pioneered technology for turning the informational sections of a spectrogram into sound back in 1958
You seem to want to make it sound like some discovery rather than just IFFT or just "add the sine waves back together". For sure what's trivial to do on a modern computer would have been more of a challenge using 1958 tech, but that's because of the tech, not because of the problem requiring some breakthrough "technology".
You also said "A spectrogram is basically a description of the sound", which while true also seems to be trying to make something very basic sound more mysterious than it is. It is just a frequency vs time plot of audio power. Add the frequencies back together and you've got your source audio back.
Dude, a spectrogram is just a rendered version of an FFT, and the "technology" for converting it back to audio is just an inverse FFT.
For that matter trained linguists can often read speech directly from spectrograms - you just need to recognize the formants, and there are other obvious clues such as fricatives (burst of high frequency noise), plosives (sudden onsets of speech energy from closed lips to open), etc.
This isn't some hi-tech research secret. A spectrogram is just a rendered version of an FFT, so it's gob-smackingly obvious you can convert it back to audio.
You cant [sic] be so dense that you don't realize that revenue puts an upper bound on profits, even if costs were zero.
Starlink revenue is 3x Space/Launch revenue.
Datacenter revenue (from Anthropic) is set to top Starlink.
I'd have thought both? They are reporting separately for their Starlink and Space/Launch segments, so presumably the Space segment is on paper selling launch services to the Starlink one. It's a cost for Starlink and revenue to Space.
But who's going to be the customer for frequent Starship launches? Starlink? Left hand sells product to right hand?
So then I guess they get to choose to they want to sell it to themselves at a high price to report a "Space" profit, or sell it to themslves at a low price to report a "Starlink" profit.
Perhaps, although what this filing shows is that they are actually losing money from their launch business, and all the profit is coming from Starlink.
It's interesting how revenues, and profits, from Starlink far outweigh that from their actual Space/Launch business.
In 2025 Starlink made $12B in revenue, and a profit of $4B
In 2025 Space made $4B in revenue, and LOST $0.6B
As always with Musk, the real potential is described as what they MIGHT do, not what they are actually doing, with his X.ai failure seeming to do most of the heavy lifting (excuse the pun) there.
In fact Musk embraces the pun and refers to their maxed out fanboy $300/mo Grok subscriptions as "SuperGrok Heavy".
Let's delve into your "charitable donations"
Your taxes are not only done, they're wrong.
You're absolutely right! You probably will be audited! I was wrong to lie on your tax return. I promise to not do it again.
(next time, does it again)
And if that works, then I think the days of pi being irrational will soon be over.
We had a vote on that. Your proposal lost. Deal with it.
"Jailbreak" definitely implied something illicit in 1974 when AC/DC performed the song, but in 2026?! No. Jailbreaking is totally legit 99 times out of a hundred.
Jails were once respected because they were a product of society's consensus. When DRM appeared, jails became anyone's restrictions, with no societal inputs and no claims to legitimacy.
If you break out of the county jail or federal prison, that's a whole other thing than breaking out of your neighbor's sex dungeon. And almost all the time we talk about "jailbreaking" now, it's analogous to the neighbor's sex dungeon. Nearly everyone would agree it's legit to leave, and any illicitness is on the part of the captor!
Hotels are tired of getting ripped off. I checked into a hotel and they had towels from my house. -- Mark Guido