Hi-resolution audio, especially for streaming. The general idea is that listening to digital audio files that have a greater bit depth and sample rate than CD (24-bit/192Khz vs 16-bit/44.1 KHz) translates to better-sounding audio, but in practice that isn't the case.
For a detailed breakdown as to why, there's a great explanation here. But in summary, the format for CDs was so chosen because it covers enough depth and range to cover the full spectrum of human hearing.
So while "hi-res" audio does contain a lot more information (which, incidentally, means it uses up significantly more data/storage space and costs more money), our ears aren't capable of hearing it in the first place. Certain people may try to argue otherwise based on their own subjective experience, but to that I say "the placebo effect is a helluva drug."
Yes, and legislation that forces companies to pay higher wages (or in this case, royalties given back to users) is itself a form of wealth distribution that can help to reduce income inequality.
We can talk about the overthrow of capitalism, if you like, but that's a whole separate issue.
Right, so instead of big tech companies keeping all the profits made from utilizing user data, a big chunk of it goes back into the pockets of the users themselves. Like a cooperative organization that shares profits with its workers.
With the most bigups going to Haaretz, quite honestly. It's hard for non-Israeli outlets to do this kind of extensive investigative reporting from outside Israel. That much of the information used to debunk various bits of Israeli propaganda being parroted by Western media comes from original Haaretz reporting should not be ignored.
Private ownership ≠ capitalism. Monopoly is a critique of free market capitalism, which naturally leads to a concentration of wealth for those who hold all the assets. Giving people ownership of their own data would help redistribute that wealth in a more equitable way.
No, it won't fix the underlying problem of Capitalism, but it would at least be a step in the right direction.
This is exactly it for me, too. Despite having significantly more users than Lemmy, Mastodon still feels much less social.
Case in point: I went looking for journalists to follow, because that's one of the main uses I had for Twitter, but found almost none. Of the few I did find, almost no one was interacting with their posts at all. I even saw one journalist post a plea to her followers to boost, like, or just do something because she was on the point of giving up due to the lack of response she was getting. It was sad, quite honestly.
There needs to be a way to help users find content to engage with that doesn't require an algorithm to force feed it down people's throats.
Big tech companies making vast profits off of users providing data for free instead of paying workers wages in exchange for manufacturing goods is only going to deepen the disparity of wealth in society.
What we desperately need is essentially a Digital Bill of Rights so that we can legally own our own data.
That's true, but it still doesn't change the fact that the FOSS ethos runs in direct conflict with the ideals of capitalism and private ownership, and libertarians are nothing if not fanboys of those things.
He was (and still is to a certain extent) fairly progressive for a US politician. A look at his campaign issues page shows that he is pro LGBTQ rights, pro worker's rights, pro gun control, pro Medicare, and so on.
It's really his outspoken and unequivocal support for Israel that has soured a lot of people on the Left.
My armchair-psychologist explanation is because Trump is a textbook narcissist.
Individuals with Narcissistic Personality Disorder typically have a fragile self-esteem and a high sensitivity to perceived slights or criticisms. When they feel wronged or humiliated, they often react with intense anger and a desire for retribution in order to restore their self-image and sense of superiority.
aleph @ aleph @lemm.ee Posts 4Comments 582Joined 2 yr. ago
Hi-resolution audio, especially for streaming. The general idea is that listening to digital audio files that have a greater bit depth and sample rate than CD (24-bit/192Khz vs 16-bit/44.1 KHz) translates to better-sounding audio, but in practice that isn't the case.
For a detailed breakdown as to why, there's a great explanation here. But in summary, the format for CDs was so chosen because it covers enough depth and range to cover the full spectrum of human hearing.
So while "hi-res" audio does contain a lot more information (which, incidentally, means it uses up significantly more data/storage space and costs more money), our ears aren't capable of hearing it in the first place. Certain people may try to argue otherwise based on their own subjective experience, but to that I say "the placebo effect is a helluva drug."