I was surprised at the audible difference it made to reset the RNG seed for the hi-hat noise function every time it triggered. I’m curious what the justification for doing this is—does the randomness arise from the geometry of the hi-hat itself and not the way you hit it? Is the idea to imitate the sound of sample-based percussion?
My understanding is that because it's a very small sample, it's basically a combination of a subset of sine waves, and because we're very sensitive to the nuances of high-pitched sounds, even small changes in that space make a lot of difference. Every RNG seed produces a different sounding hihat, and if you don't reset it, it continues producing different hihats, which is unnatural. Another explanation is also to resemble sample-based audio, but perhaps it's all of these things combined.
He’s also built a popular movement invested in getting his policies implemented. He may not “control the busses” as an individual government official, but his movement can pressure the people who do.
Apple relies on internal feedback and executive reviews rather than user testing. They likely received a lot of different feedback internally, but the execs decided to ship it anyway. I think they would rather ship something half-baked than change the yearly release process that has been continuously operating since the early days of iOS, and at the scale of the whole platform, it's hard to turn back once you've committed to making the changes.
This sounds nice until you think more closely about the framing implicit in “follow the rules and make the nation better”. Who makes the rules and defines what is good for a nation?
sorry, "rule following" is possibly a sub-optimal language choice. I more mean the sort of selfishness that leads to corruption. Those who see their turn in government less about directing the nation and more as their turn to line their pockets and abuse their power.
I think there is broad consensus that too much poverty is a problem, and (perhaps somewhat less broad) that therefore too much wealth inequality is a problem. I think there's fairly broad consensus that college costs are a problem, that healthcare costs and access are a problem. I think there's a fair consensus that fixing these things would make the nation better.
Then you get to "how do we fix them?" and all consensus disappears.
As for the rules, it seems pretty clear to me that "the rules" are the Constitution and the existing law, plus the rules on how to pass or repeal laws.
But this framing also misses one category: Those who think that they should break the rules to make the nation better. I think that they are misguided at best and lying (either to others or to themselves) at worst.
Why misguided? Because preserving the rule of law is a really big deal. Even if they have the best of intentions, once they knock the law down flat and pave a road over it, they won't be the only one to drive on it. Tyrants try to build that road; if it's already there, the tyrant's job becomes much easier and much harder to stop.
So I oppose such tactics. It doesn't matter whether they are well-meaning or not. Even if the person doing them will never be a tyrant, the next person who wants to be a tyrant will find the door wide open.
I see another problem with rules, that being the little rules that were put in place to solve some social issue at a time and are now out of place but waiting to be used as a stick on someone who's a burden on the establishment. It's hard to look forward when you're always looking over your shoulder.
We need a github for law makers, the law needs PRs with documentation for the reason the law needs changing, and links to the research that brought a conclusion. And tests to make sure the law isn't unfairly impacting an unintended audience. Or just having a negative impact in general.
Majority opinion can look like consensus. And yet things like wealth inequality make for an uneven distribution of opinion where the minority end up having the most votes in effect.
The correct way to do "anticipation" is to apply it as something is being pressed, then finish the animation on release. Putting both together in a single easing function is missing the point, IMO.
That tab is using 4-5% CPU on my M1 Pro, and I also have a "GPU process" in my task manager, which is showing about 8% in the "CPU" column when it's onscreen. So, no, using a 64x64 GIF (1/100th the area of my example) you'd need to do this animation would absolutely not use any significant CPU or GPU. Which is why those worked very effectively to animate small icons with zero lag on the potato computers we had in 2000.
It’s frustrating to have to find the right place to report a bug, learn the specific format the project is expecting, then have the bug closed by a “stale bot” after a few weeks. I wish there were an independent, cross-product bug tracker that focused on cataloguing and diagnosing bugs for the benefit of users rather than on tracking work for the benefit of the developer.
reply