DieterParker @ DieterParker @feddit.de

Posts

2

Comments

39

Joined

2 yr. ago

Youtube's quality isn't as bad as it's used to be, in fact you can get pretty high quality aac and opus streams given that the upload had legit quality and your using legit software to download and not some shitty webapp.

From the YouTube Help section on "Encoding specifications for music videos":

Although it is not recommended, YouTube accepts compressed audio. YouTube transcodes from the delivered format; audio quality is much better when transcoded from a lossless format compared to re-compressing a lossy audio format.

If you must deliver compressed audio, use these specifications:

Codec: AAC-LC
Sample Rate: 44.1Khz
Bit Rate: 320kbps or higher for 2 channels (higher is always better; 256 kbps acceptable)
Channels: 2 (stereo)

I won' rant over youtube's inferior sound quality, but please tag or mark your finished files as youtube sourced, at least if there's any possibility you further share them.

They named 2,749 sound-recording copyrights that the Archive allegedly infringed.

collection includes more than 400,000 recordings.

Has anybody the list with the 2749 recordings in Question?

BBQ

thx, nice read!

currently watching on youtube.

There's also an archived version

Best tipp i ever got in this regard was putting a cup of crushed charcoal in the fridge. Absorbs odors for years.

"all my patriot friends know christianity is about burning crosses, duh!"

"He's dead, Jim."

I guess foobar2000 is non-foss as it's free but not open source.

75$/year subscribtion model for a graphical user interface.. In contrast Total Commander for life costs 39€ + tax.

It's still a godsend for large comic book archives. Thx comicrack for supporting this wicked new format since August 2013!

edit: there's also a relatively new plugin for avif and jpegxl support.

I guess in the same way Cat Stevens and Muhammad Ali became fanatics /s

Well, there was and still is 4chan. You can say anything over there, it's a place full of freedom and rainbows.

The graphics 58,6 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per Year and Child are 266,25% higher than the average americans 16 tonnes and 1365% higher than the global average of 4 tonnes.
What are the assumptions on that hypothetical child's lifestyle? Will it roll coal and eat beef jerky 24/7?
The Guardian article says that

figure was calculated by totting up the emissions of the child and all their descendants, then dividing this total by the parent’s lifespan. Each parent was ascribed 50% of the child’s emissions, 25% of their grandchildren’s emissions and so on.

Considering the global total fertility rate dropping from now 2.42 childs per woman to 1.66 in 2100, a global sex ratio of 101:100, average age at first child of 28 and a global life expectancy of currently 74.3 years (82.1 in 2100) my crude calculation would look like this:

    
  0.5    * 4t * (74.3 +  28 * ((82.1 - 74.3) / (2100 - 2023))) / 74.3
+ 0.25   * 4t * (74.3 +  56 * (     7.8      /      77      )) / 74.3 * (2.42 -  28 * ((2.42 - 1.66) / (2100 - 2023))) / (201 / 100)
+ 0.125  * 4t * (74.3 +  84 * (     7.8      /      77      )) / 74.3 * (2.42 -  56 * (    0.76      /      77      )) /   2.01
+ 0.0625 * 4t * (74.3 + 112 *           0.1012               ) / 74.3 * (2.42 -  84 *            0.0098              ) /   2.01
+ 0.0313 * 4t * (74.3 + 140 *           0.1012               ) / 74.3 * (2.42 - 112 *            0.0098              ) /   2.01
+ 0.0156 * 4t * (74.3 + 168 * 0.1012 ) / 74.3                         * (2.42 - 140 * 0.0098 ) / 2.01
+ 0.0078 * 4t * (74.3 + 196 * 0.1012 ) / 74.3                         * (2.42 - 168 * 0.0098 ) / 2.01
+ 0.0039 * 4t * (74.3 + 224 * 0.1012 ) / 74.3                         * (2.42 - 196 * 0.0098 ) / 2.01
====================================================================================================================================
= 2.076t + 1.148t + 0.518t + 0.228t + 0.1229t + 0.0634t + 0.0327t + 0.0168t + 0.0087t + 0.0045t = 4.2191t   @ 10 generations
                                                                                                = 4,2238t   @ 25 generations
                                                                                                = 4.2238t   @ 50 generations


  

Even if i quadrupled those 4.23t to match the US citizens average CO2 footprint, 16,89t doesn't even come close to the claimed 58,6.

where's my mistake?

pS: for the calculations I fixated the birth rate at 1,66 starting in generation 5 as well as the age with an estimated maximum of 123 years starting in generation 18.

Exactly that. Old cds and books change their owners for little to no money all the time. I have accumulated 100s of cds without spending anything, that where about to get thrown away. I will rip and share them on soulseek eventually.

Photoelectric barrier at the entrance for acceleration and a timer to slow it down.

👍

As US maternal mortality rates surge, Idaho abandons panel investigating pregnancy-related deaths [idahocapitalsun - Natalie Schachar - 2023-06-30]

Idaho disbands Maternal Mortality Review Committee [ktvb - Andrew Baertlein - 2023-07-05]

Idaho dissolves maternal mortality review committee, as deaths remain high [boisestatepublicradio - Rachel Cohen - 2023-07-07]