• 0 Posts
  • 35 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 2nd, 2023

help-circle
  • To add to what the other poster said:

    I’m not an expert, but my understanding is that noise cancellation works by inverting sounds waves to deaden the sound. So, like, if you add sin(x) and –sin(x) you get 0.

    This system is actively adding inverted sound waves to cancel most sounds. What makes this system unique is that it samples the voice and uses the unique “voice print” to selectively not invert the sound waves from the targeted voice.

    Or that’s what I’m getting from reading this, as a layman.













  • I’m really liking Logseq. I started on it instead of Obsidian since Logseq is FOSS. I understand it’s not too hard to switch over since they both use markdown files, granted some scripts need to be run to convert markdown differences between the two.

    Logseq’s business model is to charge $5/mo for syncing on their (fully encrypted with a private key) server, but you can use a FOSS syncing solution (or a property one) if you prefer. I pay to support the project and to simplify sync on work devices I don’t have administrator rights on (so most other sync solutions wouldn’t work well.)




  • It’s not WYSIWYG, though, it uses markdown (like Lemmy/Reddit). I prefer markdown since I don’t want to fiddle with UI buttons while typing, but it’s not what OP is asking for.

    OP, why do you want WYSIWYG (on mobile)? I could see it, maybe, on desktop, but a note taking app should be focused on efficient input, imho, so markdown just makes more sense to me. Triple-# for an h3 is way faster than navigating to a Style menu and clicking Heading 3 in a UI dropdown (or whatever).

    Regardless, I like Logseq so much that it’s the first open source project I regularly contribute to financially. It’s a game changer for me and managing my ADHD across 6 devices. (Lots of different work and personal machines/devices).



  • Like what arguments? I thought most atheist arguments essentially boil down to the burden of proof and falsifiability, or they take an anthropological approach to the origins of religion. Essentially, they don’t depend on theological arguments at all.

    Like, “religion cannot provide any falsifiable evidence of its existence, hence it should not be believed” doesn’t involve theology at all, and “religion was invented by a priest class to control the population and maintain power” similarly doesn’t depend on theology. Neither are related to a specific religion, even.

    To clarify, I’m not trying to start a theological argument here. I just literally don’t understand your perspective, but clearly I’m missing something based on both you posting it and others upvoting you. Am I just out of the loop about what people on the Internet argue about? (Granted, that’s quite possible; I haven’t been subscribed to /r/atheism in well over a decade.)


  • blindsight@beehaw.orgtoMemes@lemmy.mlthe land of the f...
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    On the last point, a better comparison would be base 6 or base 14.

    10 = 2 × 5
    6 = 2 × 3
    14 = 2 × 7

    Or maybe a better way of thinking about it is the percentage of numbers that divide nicely in the base, as a percentage.

    Base 10 has 2, 5, 10 = 30%

    So maybe base 3 is the closest, at 33% of numbers being easily divisible.

    Either way, 7 is a significantly worse base than 10.