Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/02/20 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    I don't particularly disagree with that. I'm reasonably convinced that 90% of gender tensions remaining would evaporate in 5y if lefties stopped "genderizing" and "racializing" everything, stopped obsessing and judging on the basis of skin colour or gender and stopped re-opening and re-prosecuting old historical wounds unnecessarily.
  2. 1 point
    Aged care and government collude to hide information about nursing homes from customers and potential customers. Want to know the staffing levels at an aged care home? Nope, they don't have to tell you. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-09/federal-government-blocked-law-nursing-homes-reveal-finances/11943380
  3. 1 point
    The amusing reality of the most religious consuming porn is matched by the sad reality of the most educated voting for socialism.
  4. 1 point
    Armageddon is a small price to pay for dismantling whiteness #WakandaForever
  5. 1 point
    My favourite bit is that it's for a commercial law firm that thinks this is a good place to fish for traffic via... linking coronavirus with spam and divorce?
  6. 1 point
    save every cent you make, and never go outdoors unless it is to make more money. you will be richer on paper, whilst your quality of life will be poor. there is more to life than money. i assume you are talking about these money flows because youre interested in what is best for Australians. but accruement of wealth is not the ultimate measure of success. a healthy amount of spending is a far better measure of the success of an economy, and the net quality of life of the populace. the option to enjoy all that NZ has to offer improves Australian's quality of life. suppose we avail ourselves of their wares more so than they ours — such that 'the wealth transfer from Australia to New Zealand' is not $10m as in your hypothetical, but $15m? so what! this means next to nothing in isolation. say we both have $100, and stuff we want to sell. you haggle with me and end up buying something from me for $20 that you wouldve paid $30 for. i buy something from you for $50 dollars that i woulve paid $80 for. now you have $80, and i have $50. so who "won"? nobody won! firstly, the idea that you can make a meaningful determination from a spreadsheet is grossly simplistic. secondly, there is no obvious way to quantify how much my purchase improved my quality of life relative to your purchase. thirdly, i may happen to know a buyer who will pay me $100 for your used gay porn mags, hence, i will soon be in front in the spreadsheet stakes anyway. the analogue to this is a Australian photographer who spends a lot on NZ travel, helping to inflate our country's outgoings, but then makes a mint selling the resulting photos locally. where does such seconday wealth creation factor into your appraisals? nowhere, thats where.
  7. 1 point
    LOL! A spamming laywer....................better call Saul! edit - Nich..............you coulda fixed my spelling while you were at it!
  8. 1 point
    necromancy! if we are talking about a whine at 12khz that is consistent in pitch and volume, then i think a combination of a very fine notch filter and multiband compression is called for. both could easily be too brutal in unison. the multiband probably wouldnt trigger when the offensive sound is most noticeable, and the EQ would suck life out of a fair chunk of the high end throughout the song. my suggestion: 1. make a copy of the track and keep only a narrow band either side of 12kHz (like an inverse notch) using a linear phase EQ or FFT filter etc. make 2nd copy of this track, and run it through a gate to preserve only the loudest parts — which likely includes desirable sounds in the 12kHz-ish range that also tend to naturally drown out the 12kHz whine. invert the 2nd copy and sum it with the 1st copy (thereby eliminating the aforementioned desirable sound) — resulting in a track that preserves only the most noticeable and obnoxious 12kHz-ish material. 2. use the 'noise track' to trigger some fairly severe multiband compression on the 12kHz band. the compressor will kill the whine that wouldve persisted noticeably during a break when there is only bass playing, for example, but do nothing intrusive when percussion or voices etc are occupying the band.
  9. 1 point
    https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/news/intel-new-microcodes-cpu-security-flaws Particularly troubling is the Whiskey Lake U vulnerability. These should have been patched with the entire whiskey lake lineup. Likely the performance hit would have been too negative for Intel's big ticket item sector I suspect. It doesn't matter now that both 10th gens are out. Hopefully someone does a retrospective performance analysis of this.
  10. 1 point
    I have updated some of the suggested builds in this wiki more recently than the parts guide on these forums if you want a look https://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/rmp_sg_whirlpoolpcs_gaming_configs_1
  11. 1 point
    gotta do some lawn work, first time I’ve lived in a place with a lawn. It’s only 3x3m, didn’t want to deal with two-stroke machines.
  12. 1 point
  13. 1 point
    'wiggle room'? you can either improve the original or you cant, but you are free to re-encode to whatever bitrate you like. if you mean that at 192 the original is apparently intact enough quality-wise to be worth the effort, sure, but your ears already told you that! first, lets consider what would happen if you encoded a WAVE file to mp3 at two different quality levels — one at 256 kbps, and a smaller one at 192 kbps. would you suppose that in either case the encoder would begin by discarding bits of audio in exactly the same order? in other words — as per your abstraction — would the first 15 of 20 cut at 192 kbps precisely match the 15 cut at 256? not necessarily! keep in mind that the encoder uses a psychoacoustic model. its main job is to remove sounds that are so close in either time or pitch to nearby louder sounds that they are undetectable to the human ear anyway and won't be missed. however, the full or partial removal of any sound introduces new sound/s (ie. noise) whose perceptibility must be weighed according to the uneven frequency response of our ears. and being digital, its often a game of choosing the lesser evil between rounding a binary integer up or down, or in this case, between spending one less bit on a desired sound only to add a smidge too much noise, or comfortably keeping the noise low at the cost of using one too many bits. its a no-brainer to assume that every encoder begins by trimming away the predictable shit nobody can hear anyway — and all the better if theres a lot of it (many small cuts = low noise). and this is why sufficiently high bitrate lossy compression can sound every bit as good as lossless. but beyond that, and as compression gets more severe, theres going to be a decision tree to evaluate alternatives that are qualitatively similar. for argument's sake, lets suppose that in one section the encoder is scraping the bottom of the barrel to cut the last 7 bits needed to meet the target bitrate. it has boiled its options down to either two 4-bit cuts in one frequency band or a single 7-bit cut in another, and it chooses the latter because it is preferred by the psychoacoustic model. however, if the process were to be repeated with a slightly lower target bitrate, at this point the encoder might need to cut an additional bit, meaning that the single cut option would not be on the table. the result: a more compressed file keeping some stuff that a less compressed file would have removed. now, although i think differences like the above are inevitable, i am being very pedantic, and nobody would ever hear these differences in practice — so what is my point? my point is, your assumption is "safe" enough, although i noticed that the last part of your post almost contradicts it. hopefully i have shown why recompressing to the same bitrate would be nowhere near as aggressive as you may imagine. i bet they would be almost identical. i mean, you wouldnt — and not just because you are probably using a different encoder. but you really only need to bump it up a bit for safety. as for the song -- its unlikely that you will be able to surgically notch out the offending sound with a filter (although by all means try), so i think a multiband compressor is your best bet.
  14. 0 points
    Someone related to me (by marriage) who I'll not get specific about is pulling the ID as aboriginal scam... he's in fact a "10 Pound Pom" with sufficient remaining accent to hint that. Got listed with help from his GP. Not sure what "benefits" he's getting, but one of them is a $20 a week dog food allowance (and no, not sure if he in fact has a dog or not)
This leaderboard is set to Sydney/GMT+11:00