Execution is everything and I have found that the ondevice index shipping with pixel devices displaying the title of the currently playing song on the lockscreen was such a better implementation than having to hurry up and remember where the shazam app is, open it, and try to identify the song (optionally having to try several times and store the sample for later when I have more network).
the reason i am being downvoted is because hacker news is fucking garbage now. too many insecure, underqualified jackasses looking for a reason to argue.
saying the algorithm "wouldn't work" without an app is like saying my door doesn't work without a doorknob.
OP made a point: Shazam is not magic, and people have the opportunity to compete or DIY. to me, it seems simple/contrarian/not helpful to respond with "they have an app too"
The point is that saying Shazam is just a button ignores the huge amount of effort that sits behind it. Not just the technology but more importantly the sales and marketing to get to the number of users they have.
Amazon or Youtube are not magic either. But good luck getting to that same scale without significant effort.
and saying "they have an app" is ignoring OP's actual point, which is all i am trying to defend. no one is calling into question the merit it's taken to build Shazam as a company.
how do i find myself defending the most ridiculous shit here?... like an algorithm can't work without a UI.
> guy 1: "index the Fourier Transform of all songs"
> guy 2: "[don't forget about] their huge database[!]"
how is this not contrarian? biz guy spotted? the dude straight up fucking said to build a database of "ALL SONGS". if you think that's simple you're either not thinking hard enough or you have no idea what he's talking about.
news report confirms another instance of the US planning fake attacks on its own citizens for political purposes and your response is to chastise conspiracy theorists? your frustration seems a little misdirected.
Maybe he read the accompanying document and saw that wasn't a document recording any instance of "the US faking attacks on its own citizens for political purposes", merely a document about possibly acquiring MiGs which noted in passing that if such aircraft were acquired or replicas built without it becoming known there would be more potential for use in "a deception operation designed to confuse enemy planes in the air, to launch a surprise attack against enemy operations or a provocation operation in which Soviet aircraft would appear to attack US or friendly installations in order to provide an excuse for US intervention".
But it shows again that attacking your own citizen and blaming the enemy is a tactic that was considered a few times(or maybe more times) by the US government, this seems disgusting to start a war with false motives, it puts everything to doubt, so some people around the world doubt that US interventions had any other motivation then self interest and not self defense
I really don't think a passing reference to a hypothetical use of MiGs the US never actually manufactured is of any evidential value whatsoever in concluding that US interventions were motivated primarily by perceived self interest (which is already well-established fact)
My point is that this operation or similar ones are bad and the citizens should condemn them and not try to minimize the importance. As a citizen I would also disagree with my government to start a war and send my family members to die for false motives and for political reasons.
This is the equivalent of shouting that a startup is proven to be on the brink of failing and lying about their finances because you've discovered a memo which notes that one of many advantages of contractors over employees is that you can get rid of them at short notice.
I've also edited. It's the third on a list of three hypothetical examples of a situation in which undisclosed MiGs are of more potential use than disclosed MiGs.
This is a "plan" to attack its own citizens in the same sense as a document noting "contractors are better from the point of view of flexibility, workforce mobility and the ability to downsize the work force" is a plan for mass firings.
i don't think your analogy is strong. but instead of continuing to mince words... s/*/plan/ for literally whatever word you choose. and my point stands. discussed? evaluated? none of it makes me feel better.
I'd say "took into account the possibility of as a factor in the usefulness of something they didn't actually make" if we're splitting words here.
I mean, the hypothetical considerations of the advantages of continuous offshore nuclear deterrents over land-based ICBMs are considerably more detailed and ugly in their implications, but I'd still consider a headline arguing "$NuclearPower planned to exterminate every man woman and child living in $RivalState after watching millions of its own citizens die" to be rather misrepresenting the intent of such documents.
my only point is that however you interpret the article, pivoting your response towards mocking conspiracy theorists speaks more towards a personal peeve than an objective analysis of the documents. at best it's almost irrelevant. at worst it's ironic.
yea, but we're not talking about the rest of the world in this thread, are we? also seems a little misguided to defend to a generalization with another generalization. no?
> If good full-body tracking comes to mainstream VR, we'll be doing it with cameras, not wearables.
you're not going to physically move your body through 3d space with cameras.
dude your post is all over the place. i can't ascertain if you play VR games or if you even watched the linked video.
and not for nothing, but you can't ask for no sensors and also ask for no dystopia. except we're not going to be fat, we're going to be plunged in some weird seasalt bath with no holes on our body anymore except the Lightning jack that's replaced our faces
