These are the same people that convinced 3rd-world mothers to feed their babies freely provided formula until their breast milk dried up, and then the formula ran out, and they could not afford more, and their babies starved to death.
That pretty much describes all the social sciences. A morass of non-reproducibility, lack of controls, cherry picked data, bias, and subjective conclusions.
Audacity, despite its weaknesses compared to commercial tools, still excels at batch processing due to its Nyquist plugin suite. The macro tool is finicky, but you can still do things that nothing else can in a batch, like trimming leading and trailing silence and then adding an exact amount of silence to the front and end of a file. You would think functions so simple and obvious as this would already exist in Audition, RX, SpectraLayers, etc., but no.
Audacity is also commercial, even if it's free and open source. That's because Muse is developing it and has a commercial interest in it, and their goals now (partly) govern the project.
For example, that also makes them vulnerable to "enshittification".
Not really. Enshittification requires high switching costs, so users stick around despite thinking "yeah I should go somewhere else". With Audacity, switching costs are low. You either can compile the thing with the relevant features disabled, or you can just download an older version of the software and stick with that to the end of time if you dislike the changes a new version brings.
Even to the suitiest of corporate suits it's clear that the enshittification funnel (first it's awesome for users, then for partners like publishers and advertisers at the cost of users, then it's awesome for making money at the cost of everyone else) simply doesn't work with an open source program.
That is a good point, but I'm not that optimistic. Maybe it dampens the effect, but for me with Musescore 4 I already think some things went in that direction.
VS Code is also not immune (I use codium, but only as a secondary editor to Neovim).
Total OG oldschool swiss army knife for audio processing | playing .. that takes me back.
In the 1990s in a long workroom of sun workstations we rigged a rlogin sox script to play succesive parts of some spooky music as a co worker walked past each one late one night.
Why would they want to support AU? The only reason to use AU is Logic. Everything else (Protools excepted) supports VST, and all the plugin devs release in VST and AU, so it would be a waste of time. Bitwig is putting their time into CLAP, and for good reason. It's cross-platform, much easier to develop against, and much more advanced that all the alternatives. Even Avid has shown interest in CLAP. So has Image Line. I expect Studio One to support it in v7.
For starters, AUs are "easier" to run under Roestta than VSTs since AUs run out-of-process by default. This means you can use a x86_64 AU without running the entire DAW under Rosetta on Apple Silicon.
It hadn’t occurred to me that AU run out of process, but this makes sense. Does this mean an AU crashing in theory won’t take down your DAW? (The same thing that Bitwig has it’s own isolation feature for)
I always default to AU just because I’m on a Mac and I arbitrarily decided to do so long ago. The Rosetta thing has been a nice bonus. Not sure what the other (dis)advantages are, these days I try to focus on using native Ableton and M4L stuff anyway!
> Does this mean an AU crashing in theory won’t take down your DAW?
Yes, this has been my experience with AUs in Logic Pro, at least. You simply get a message saying a plugin failed and that you can try reloading it if you'd like.
Ignore the sour grapes. Yes, Docker is constantly evolving. But the title does say "in 2023."
I, for one, need tutorials like this, and I am grateful for it. Devs who have been using Docker for a while have forgotten how intimidating it is for those of us who have our entire dev tooling built around VMs (orchestrated with vagrant in my case). You need just enough hand holding to get you up and running efficiently, and this tutorial does exactly that. It gets you over the hump a lot faster than trying to follow years-old and incomplete advice from Googling.
Yes, a thing or two may be deprecated. So what? We are used to that. But 99% of it still applies.
Yes, we care about flavors of Linux in the enterprise. RHEL is an industry standard distribution that nearly all vendors support. We have a significant amount of commercial software that is only supported on RHEL or its derivates. Not running on a supported distro? You get no support. That’s a non-starter for mission critical systems in the enterprise.
We used to be able to run this software, fully supported, on CentOS. IBM pulled the rug out from under us. Rocky and Alma rose to the occasion, and the various vendors supported one or both, since it was still RHEL minus branding. Now IBM is cutting off those distros also in an attempt to force everyone into RHEL licenses and support contracts.
But because it IS Linux, after all, a lot of enterprises like mine have NEVER needed support for the OS itself. We just needed our vendors to support their software running on it, and we needed vulnarability patching on the OS, something which CentOS, Rocky, and Alma always provided.
If I had my way, 100% of what we run would be on Debian. I have Debian running everywhere possible. But not all 3rd party applications support Debian. I’m hoping that one consequence of IBM’s move here will be to drive them all to Debian.
Yeah, I'm hopeful the five year support window for Debian LTS releases now will help drive that migration. I suspect though the lowest-effort path for migrating from one commercial vendor to another will be towards Canonical, given Ubuntu's LTS releases and existing infrastructure around commercial support / certified hardware compatibility lists / etc. I may not be a huge fan of some of their decisions over the years but as my objections have tended to be technical rather than business/contractual/ethical I think they'd be nicer to deal with than IBM or Oracle, heh. :)
Yes, it turned out to be wrong, but not for the reason you cite. Dawkins completeliy dismisses the critical role of mutational fixation of epigenetic gene expression. He admits it exists, but dismisses its relevance in speciation.
More recent discoveries point to the genome's 3D architecture as being critical to its function, and large chunks of non-coding DNA appear to play key roles in keeping it stable.
The point, however, is that Dawkins is not a scientist, he's just a rather fundamentalist-minded ideologue, and that's true for the whole "New Atheist" cohort.
