I scrub all over, but especially my smelly bits with a cold water until they stop smelling. I vigorously rub my scalp to make sure to get off any dandruff. That's it!
I think you mis-understand how iOS privacy controls work. An app doesn't get to 'see all your photos' just because you grant photo access, you still have to select which photos to put in the app. Same goes for camera, that just let's the app pull up the camera interface, not be able to access it 24/7 for whatever purpose they want. Same with the mic.
The apps do get permission to see all photos. How else would facebook or google photos automatically upload all your photos. Both apps have the option to do this. It requires no extra permissions on your photos and you don't have to select anything. It just requires giving permission once to "photos"
I can't tell you how many times I've definitely had a photo show up in the "do you want to post this" preview that I most certainly would never want to post.
I feel like I'm having a heart attack every time thinking I posted it already. That feature sucks.
Whenever an app asks for access to Photos to save an image or to read a photo, it gets access to the entire camera roll (all photos). So it can certainly upload your entire photo library someplace if it wants to, subject to foreground usage time, network speed and background activity (limited by iOS).
Compared to that workflow, if you open the stock/official photos app and use the share sheet to share one or more photos with a specific app, then it would get only the selected photo(s).
Yup. I guess I'm a millionaire on paper, in reality my bank account is negative several hundred dollars and all my credit cards are maxed out. Yay start-ups!
It's probably bullshit. If there would be an effect that can be reliable recreated using only a CRT and certain modulations it should not be hard to setup a double blind placebo controlled study and become famous. I presume there was and is a lot of research regarding electromagnetic waves and their influence on the human body and if you exclude effects that are caused by very high energy electromagnet waves like heating tissue or effects on the brain when using a helmet and lot's of energy nothing was ever reliable shown that would work on a CRT.
Hell, if brown note was real don't you think in the last 50 years either bored students would have attempted to implement that on campus or law enforcement would use it to disperse crowds. If this would work reliably every facility that has access to equipment to create such waves would have probably a setup to expose the new guys/students to these effects for the amusement of all.
Maybe I'm naive but extraordinary claims warrant extraordinary evidence. If this works we would have heard about it by now.
But well - if you search for the patent you are pretty much in tinfoil hat land - no amount of scepticism or reason will help there.
It has trouble with negation outside the relevant clause. So it is not fooled by e.g. "I don't hate it" vs. "I don't like it", but the first of the following two sentences is rated more negative than the second:
I don't seem to hate it.
I don't seem to like it.
Edit: In fact it can even be fooled just by increasing the linear distance between a positive term and negation. The following is rated +0.6!
Digitized from a shellac record, at 78 revolutions per minute. Four stylii were used to transfer this record. They are 3.8mm truncated conical, 2.3mm truncated conical, 2.8mm truncated conical, 3.3mm truncated conical. These were recorded flat and then also equalized with NAB.
The preferred version suggested by an audio engineer at George Blood, L.P. is the equalized version recorded with the 2.3mm truncated conical stylus, and has been copied to have the more friendly filename.
I'm trying to guess but can't imagine what the reasoning for this is. I've tried A/B/C/D testing a few tracks on some crappy speakers and can't discern any difference.
While it's certainly admirable to try and digitize it as thoroughly as possible, I just can't see how a difference of 0.5mm in the stylus width is worth increasing your work load 4x times over (having to record each record 4 times rather than just once).
"During the 78rpm era there are no standards for speed, stylus size, or record/playback equalization. Within the trade there is broad agreement that optimizing playback requires both knowledge of the documentation that’s available on these parameters for each label over time, and some amount of judgment. There are many reasons why judgment is necessary. One reason is that the disc may be worn from being played many times with the correct stylus size. Better results may come from using a different (“the wrong”) size stylus because it sits in a portion of the groove that is in better condition. But there’s no free lunch. Using a smaller size may mean a noisier transfer as it plays a less cleanly molded part of the disc. Using a larger size may increase tracing distortion that is the result of the larger size not fitting all the way to the bottom of the smaller grooves of higher frequencies. [...]"
Looking at the "about" page for the project, it explains that they're using a special turntable with 4 styli that can record simultaneously. So it doesn't really increase the workload by 4 times to archive in this more thorough way.
That's extremely cool. With decent headphones (ATH-M50x), there is a noticeable difference between the styli, so probably worth the extra work for archival.
1. "friendly filename" sounds good, little static/pop, etc
2. Super loud squeal thing in the background, yuck. Voices sound poorly equalized
3. Quieter than (2) but way more noise than (1), voices causing weird audio artifacts in my headphones (as if they're blowing their available range) and are radically changing volume in the middle of a line
4. Weird squirrely noises on high-volume peaks, sounds like crap on the loudest parts. Right channel is like, totally f'd in the A man.
5. Seems to be same as (1), but with the standardized filename. I gotta agree with mr audio engineer, it just sounds the best.
This may help you refine your intuition about why it could matter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuCdsyCWmt8&t=5m0s It's an electron microscope animation of a needle passing through a record's groove.
(I would note that due to the way the recording is made, it may be the case that a real needle would jerk around a bit more. On the other hand, it wouldn't have to jerk around much before this entirely stops working, so I'd guess in the end it's probably pretty accurate.)
And you'll need to be well past "crappy speakers" land for the DAC to matter. A good DAC helps with things like lower noise and better EQ at the extremities of the frequency range, and we're talking about 78's. Anytime a transducer (mic or speaker) is involved, it's the vast majority of your coloring right there.
It's possible you just got a good record as well. The benefits may be more prominent on records that are worn or otherwise have playback peculiarities. There has always been an often subjective art to vinyl, both in it's production and it's playback.
While I'm not sure about any specific record, the reason they'd use different styluses is probably because they don't know which particular style was used to cut the original media. The closer you are, the better the reproduction should be. Too narrow a needle and you'll wobble in the groove too much. Too wide and you'll end up ignoring higher frequencies and loose content. I'd also imagine the state of the media to be relevant, i.e. scratches and other defects will be picked up differently on each size of needle so you could even piece together a composite of each needle if one picked up a scratch and the others didn't.
If you really want to do this thoroughly, you'd probably have to sample the same recording from different records several times. Then you can use a "consensus" algorithm, that reconstructs the original audio in some optimal way. (But better yet to publish the original recordings, so others can still try different algorithms).
This makes me so excited. I can't wait until the interiors of cars can change completely due to the safety brought by self driving cars. If all cars were self driving and communicated with each other, the risk of crash would be almost nonexistent (obviously there would still be wildlife and other issues). Given a near 0% chance of crash however, we could remove many of the annoying 'features' of a current car, like seat belts and having all the seats in the car face forward. Maybe you can even order specific types of cars for what you want. Tired? Order a bed car. Just a door and inside is a bunch of mattresses and pillows with windows that can be blacked out. Late for work? Order a work car. Has desks with swiveling chairs etc. Just getting groceries or going shopping? Order a hauler car, etc.
Rear-facing seats are not illegal I think (obviously not allowed for the pilot, currently) - and they have been amply proved to actually be safer. They've been the standard on military planes (again, not for the pilot :-) ) for quite a few years.
Once people get around the initial shock (something not to be discounted - it may kill the sales of a car) they are quite happy with them on planes.
I think that's basically right. The worst crashes are usually frontal, and your entire body is evenly supported, rather than hanging on a seat belt or something.
Rear-facing seats are definitely not illegal in cars. Tesla has them as an option for a third row in the Model S. I think they would be legal in airplanes too, and the main reason they don't see more use is just that people are often uncomfortable not facing the direction they're going.
I mean, yea. I guess I left out the details of how the car service you were renting from would clean things between uses. Didn't think that was necessary to spell out. There are public 'nap rental' places now that have that particular problem pretty well sorted out.
