AmbientChaos

joined 2 years ago
[–] AmbientChaos@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

I read recently that a big factor is motivation for the ADHD brain, where long term reward can be a motivating factor for a non-ADHD brain other things like urgency can be a much more powerful motivator for an ADHD brain. For me, something needing to be done but not urgently doesn't motivate me at all, but when that same thing needs to be solved immediately I lock in knock it out ezpz

[–] AmbientChaos@sh.itjust.works 7 points 2 months ago

Lemmy is such a rad place, I love it here

[–] AmbientChaos@sh.itjust.works 3 points 3 months ago

We might be the exact same guy!

[–] AmbientChaos@sh.itjust.works 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (2 children)

I was born with VS, never seen a clear image in my life. Ironically very into AV stuff and chase the highest quality picture. I often lament that I'll never experience perfect quality and clarity because of my VS

Born with tinnitus too! The double whammy haha

[–] AmbientChaos@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ah, I see! Like I said though, not necessarily a quality difference but a mastering difference. It's not that the mastering isn't made for the album/songs, it's just the target medium of the masters that are different and the nature of the mediums the masters are destined for.

This obviously comes down to the specific album, but from what I understand it is common to have just two masters, one for digital (streaming/CD) and one for analog (vinyl). A huge driver of this is that you CAN take a streaming master and put it on CD but you CANNOT do the same for Vinyl, because of it's physical limitations. A streaming master on CD functions perfectly while a streaming master on vinyl has a good chance to cause the needle to jump tracks and have distortions because of the loudness the vinyl can't handle. That's why maybe only vinyl gets a special master, because the medium demands it.

Of course there is nothing stopping an audio engineer from creating that vinyl master and sending it for the CD and Vinyl!

Not trying to argue merits of either format though, I love and use both. I even stream music (gasp). I'm just an audio nerd info dumping haha

[–] AmbientChaos@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago (3 children)

I think in general the reason people think vinyl sounds better actually isn't a quality judgement and is down to the different mastering vinyl typically receives. Streaming music sources are typically mastered very loud with the dynamic range reduced as a result, this is to compete with all the other tracks mastered for loudness. Loud typically subjectively sounds better when A/B comparisons are done, like when a streaming service serves up a bunch of random songs. Because vinyl has the privilege of not being shuffled with other productions and due to the physical nature of the medium it typically receives a bespoke mastering of the content. This bespoke master typically has a better dynamic range because it doesn't have to max out loudness. In my experience I prefer the vinyl mastering of an album versus the streaming mastering 90% of the time. There are some stinkers though :P

[–] AmbientChaos@sh.itjust.works 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

The benefit of having unused RAM is that every program you are using can remain in memory for quick multitasking access and when you go to launch a new program it can be loaded into that unused RAM without unloading any of the currently running programs. What part about that is a misunderstanding? Would the user be better off if the application in focus aggressively reserved RAM it didn't need to slow down every other running application? Because that's what Photoshop does

[–] AmbientChaos@sh.itjust.works 10 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Consumer software running on a consumer OS should not be grabbing all available RAM just because. Doing so will cause other applications to be moved to swap and have to be loaded back into RAM when the user goes to use them. In a server environment doing something like running a SQL server it would make more sense to grab all available RAM and start aggressively caching frequently accessed data in RAM to present it sooner with the assumption that the server's primary role is to perform SQL operations as quickly as possible.

Specifically with Photoshop what would be the benefit of it be aggressively reserving RAM beyond what is needed to function?

[–] AmbientChaos@sh.itjust.works 11 points 5 months ago (8 children)

This is only remotely true if you have a box dedicated to doing one single thing and nothing else. That is almost certainly not the case for the vast majority of Photoshop users

[–] AmbientChaos@sh.itjust.works 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

I mean, that's all they really do these days too. I've been playing since season 2 and there are definitely ups and downs across the history of the game. These days they've slowed down on new champs, like 2 a year or so. They've maybe gone a little trigger happy with item changes, but it doesn't bother me or my friend group too much. Like I said, gives us more opportunity to theory craft and less time for boring stale metas to set in. Game modes got boring for a while, but they're doing better these past couple years (Arena 2v2s is one of the best modes they've ever released)

As far as ruining it for people who like it how it is, I don't know anyone who fits that, but it's definitely possible people are getting alienated by changes. But I think it's okay alienating that small minority to keep the game alive and fresh for the vast majority

[–] AmbientChaos@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago (2 children)

It's not for the whales, it's for the long time players like myself who like the game to stay fresh. Big changes give me new opportunities to theory craft and try new things, so I play more when there are big changes VS when things are stale and getting boring. Might be part of the reason people have a hard time learning the game though

view more: next ›