It's interesting how the article is written in the past tense, and the Society (presumably) no longer exists, but there's nothing in the article about the decline and fall. The history just basically ends in the 1950s, at the height (?) of the society's cultural relevance. Most articles that are this well sourced and detailed include at least a bit of "late history", but not here. I guess people just stopped writing about it so there are no sources that chronicle how it petered out?
When it's built into the game engine and is used as part of the game loop, responding to user input in some way, and evolving as the game unfolds. (As opposed to just using AI as a tool in the game creation process.)
Various other viral (and even less commonly, microbial) challenges, though it's rare. HIV is special in this regard because it's the only example (so far as I know) that's transmissible.
This is one of those situations where the video is just an insane value-add above and beyond the Wikipedia article that this sort of response is baffling to me. The well thought out presentation and progression of the concepts. Just enough context to keep the non math grad students following along without wasting time or talking down to the audience.The incredible visualizations that are both beautiful and insightful. Someone spent months of their life making this video as good as it could be, and it shows.
> This is one of those situations where the video is just an insane value-add above and beyond the Wikipedia article that this sort of response is baffling to me. The well thought out presentation and progression of the concepts.
This is good to know, for this video. Unfortunately, HN doesn't have a way to indicate this other than linking to a YouTube video; and in my experience very few YouTube videos are a superior way to absorb information than reading. To find that out, I'd have to either watch the video (negative expected value), or wait for a comment from someone like you -- and now that the latter has happened, perhaps I'll actually try to watch it. In the meantime, I do think there's value in providing information without a (sometimes literal) song and dance around it for those interested in learning over entertainment, on average.
All you have done is contribute a wikipedia article which is the second google result if you search the title of the video. Another user made a comment referencing a textbook they used to learn this material as well as some extended comments of their own - this actually provides information unlike a bare wikipedia link presented with a dismissive attitude.
I'm struggling to understand the negative tone in your reply to the parent comment. They simply offered an additional resource on the topic. Rather than welcoming it, you seem to have taken issue with it. One of the strengths of HN threads is that people often contribute further material that others may find helpful.
The video is useful but so is the Wiki article. Some readers will prefer the video, some the article, and some both. Why object to someone sharing another link?
In fairness to the GP, the OP has now admitted that they made the post without having watched the video and that they did so out of prejudice against YouTube videos. GP wasn’t objecting to the additional resource but the implication via “Without video:” that the video itself is less valuable.
As the OP, I agree with everything you said, but I suggest an alternate characterization: Some subset of people, including me, prefer written communication to video (regardless of whether the video is on YouTube or elsewhere). Since my favorite HN threads delve into a topic, rather than into the details of a particular presentation of a topic, and since on seeing this topic raised I hopped over to Wikipedia to refresh my memory on this topic, I thought I would provide a breadcrumb for others of similar mindset to help jumpstart the topical discussion. Which, clearly, I was not quite successful in doing -- so, lesson learned.
The link you posted is different content from the video. You link has, in your language, "negative expected value". Someone who trusted you would be deeply frustrated and misled by trying to read that Wikipedia page instead of the watching the video. Some humility and introspection would serve you well.
The current top comment by u/steppi is a stellar example of how to offer an additional resource on the topic in a way that adds value to the discussion. This was not that.
I (correctly) interpreted the terse, dismissive tone of their comment, which implied that the video added no value beyond what was found in the Wikipedia page. Other comments here confirm that I'm not the only one who read it that way. The clear subtext was "don't waste your time with that slop, just read this." I was certain that, if that was their takeaway, then they hadn't even bothered to watch the video (which turned out to be correct). But I only knew that because I had already watched the video the previous day and was deeply impressed by it.
At the time I replied, it was the only comment here, and was therefore setting the tone of the discussion. I didn't want all the people who only follow the link after checking the comments to assume that the video was just a lazy Wikipedia summary, upvote the comment for "saving them time", and then move on. My primary goal was to actually describe the video and encourage anyone out there who likes this sort of thing to give it a shot. In order to do that effectively, I felt I also had to push back on the impression left by the comment I replied to.
You're still assuming that all of a person's music metadata _belongs_ in a global database. Some of my collection includes:
-"frankenstein" musical soundtracks where I've assembled my favorite version of each song from all the various published recordings. Sometimes I've even edited pieces of different recordings together into a hybrid track.
-a soundboard recording of my friend's high school talent show performance
-Music I've personally recorded from video games or other random sources
-Songs where I've edited out parts I don't like (such as overly-long drum solos) leaving just the parts I do.
I've organized these things in a way that makes sense for me, not for the world.
This is like a bookshelf that can only store books with an ISBN that can be classified in the Dewey decimal system. Too bad about your family photo scrapbooks or your personal sketchbooks!
What I think they're doing (and what I've done) is add music that wasn't already in the global database to it. For example, a promotional CD, or releases from a small publisher, etc.
In these cases, you're not adding personal metadata or mixtapes.
That said, definitely do self organization if it works for you. Most of your examples seem like they're suitable for custom playlists.
I have similar reservations about custom tags. My collection makes heavy use of non-standard tags, such as performer:<instrument>, opus, key, subtitle, or style. I can't find anything in the documentation about which tags are supported, or for which formats (I keep A/V registrations in Matroska containers, using the same tagging convention -- like using performer:<role> to save actor credits).
There is value for me in having a central database for this data, for example to find misspellings of the same name. But the fear of having 20 years of custom data entry destroyed by an overzealous tool makes me very hesitant to even try a solution like this.
The text of the article directly contradicts the headline. If we take the text at face value, then the act of closing the TM does not "open more copies". It just fails to close cleanly, leaving behind a zombie process. Every time you launch and close the TM, it adds another zombie process, and they can add up over time. But that's very different from what the headline says.
reply