Just to be clear the parent is still 100% correct that wired headphones:
* Do not need charging
* Are hard to lose.
* Offer better audio
* Never glitch out with pairing.
BLE Audio offers lower need for charging and better (but not equivalent) audio. So 2/4 are not as bad with BLE Audio (and arguably only 1 since you still need to charge). The other two 2/4 are related to the form factor. Wireless headphones have advantages but they are not the decisive winner.
Right, my point was just that "Bluetooth sucks" does not necessarily mean "wireless headphones suck", but since nearly all wireless headphones use Bluetooth Classic (or some proprietary analogue protocol), it can be hard to disentangle the two. But yeah, I agree no matter how good the protocol improvements are, wired is still better for some use cases.
Is BLE the only way for Bluetooth to have multiple connections? I'm no audiophile but in my experience, the audio quality noticeably drops when multiple devices are connected (I've only ever had at most two at a time). I reasoned out that the bits were being divided so `quality /= 2` as well. I've only ever done this accidentally so I can't be certain the connection was really over BLE.
Granted, I've only ever done multiple connections on Linux so maybe it's a Linux problem.
> Is BLE the only way for Bluetooth to have multiple connections?
I think (?) that it's possible with Classic Bluetooth too, but like everything else with Classic Bluetooth, it's kinda buggy and unreliable.
> I'm no audiophile but in my experience, the audio quality noticeably drops when multiple devices are connected (I've only ever had at most two at a time).
I haven't personally noticed any audio quality difference with two devices connected over BLE, but I've never tried to play audio simultaneously from two sources. My phone and my laptop both auto-connect to my headphones, so I usually have two devices connected simultaneously, but I only ever play audio from one at a time.
Would love this but I feel like it is equally likely to end up being something like: “solve 500 leet code hard problems with agentic tooling while I grill you about a time when you dealt with failure”
I still prefer that to "here's a problem statement with some subtle non-obvious approach specific to this class of problem, either you've memorized it in advance or you fail."
I appreciate them doing the right thing in this one particular instance but I can’t say that I feel anything but hatred toward the people who chose to enrich and empower themselves by casting the very existence of humanity at risk.
Do you not notice the circularity of your reasoning here?
Also I didn't say incompetent, I said "not very". More competent researchers make journal rep only a very small factor, and it is not via the "high rep = more trustworthy" direction (which is the bad heuristic), it is "pay-to-publish journals = not trustworthy" (better heuristic).
Once you have ruled out a publication being in a trash journal, reputation is only a very minor factor in consideration, and methodological and substantive issues are what matter.
It all depends on whether the paper fits the journal. Minor journals serve a useful service as a repository for minor results. And minor results are still worth publishing because they might provide a detail or technique later needed for a major result. The thing to be wary of is when you see a stunning result that should really be in _Nature_ or _Science_ in some minor journal. Why isn't it? Was it submitted there first and rejected? It would be nice if the history of a manuscript (and its peer review) stayed with a manuscript so you could see if the authors really corrected problems brought up by peer review or were just spamming journals with a flawed manuscript until they found one that published it.
Agree with all this. Once you've filtered / made decisions of quality based on the more substantive criteria, journal reputation can provide useful additional information / context. The case you mentioned is a good example.
There is no reasoning. I gave you a statement of fact:
I have personally seen highly talented and successful researchers use the heuristic of journal quality when looking at the state of their field. These people are highly competent by any standard. If you want to play word games with negation you could say they are not not very competent.
Less of a problem in a county that is more or less laid out East to West with massive 500 mile wide provinces. British Columbia deciding to adopt Mountain Standard Time is more or less equivalent to Portugal using Berlin time.
I'm thinking more 'companies in the same country working together' - physical distance does not really matter, imho. Many countries span 1000km and unless traveling in person you don't care if it's east-west or north-south. Coordinating meetings and opening times is different.
It is pretty hard to have a calm discussion about the outbreak of war. War is awful. People will suffer, people will die. Being angry is an appropriate response. The article is just a list of the ap wire briefs, so it does not tell us very much.
As the sister comment to this makes clear: regulation is needed in this area but that specific bill has a ton of problems. We should rewrite it and remove the more privacy infringing aspects.
That's an interesting point in general. On this particular topic I would go so far as to say that the citizen journalists are far more than what professional journalists are producing. I would guess that this is more a function of the idiosyncrasies of this particular data source. Most journalists are experts in tracking down hearsay and getting specific people to talk. The house Epstein email releases are just a massive pile of open data where someone with a more data-centric background can walk in and apply their skills.
Massive piles of documents, released erratically and possessing apparently random and sloppy redactions with inconsistent formatting rules are a common tactic in some corporate cases as well, since they intend to wear down opposing counsel through exploitation of reptile theory.
AFAICT it's not well considered by DoJ that this works roughly in proportion to the technical aptitude of opposing counsel. The public has excellent technical aptitude when motivated and none otherwise and this is clearly a situation of motivation.
BLE Audio offers lower need for charging and better (but not equivalent) audio. So 2/4 are not as bad with BLE Audio (and arguably only 1 since you still need to charge). The other two 2/4 are related to the form factor. Wireless headphones have advantages but they are not the decisive winner.
reply