This is IMO the correct decision, and I say that as a regular user of middle-click paste. Middle-click paste is a classic convenience/security tradeoff. It's faster than using the keyboard, but it makes it very easy to accidentally leak confidential information. In all such tradeoffs, the default setting should favor security.
Only if the option was removed entirely would I have reason to complain.
In reality such features are often dropped, no settings in gnome-settings, and non default features are not tested in new builds.
So you end up googling how to get that feature back and the answer is manually navigating the config tree or using gnome-tweaks, both with large disclaimers that any changes might break your system.
No thanks, I'd rather have left click to select and middle click to paste, do we really have to involve the keyboard by default?
I half agree, but rather I'd say secrets shouldn't go into clipboard. Have some kind of separate channel for it. It is insane to me that so many workflows rely on putting secrets into a box any app or even webpage can peek into.
I love selecting some text in the terminal, then just middle-clicking and... aaahhh!
Classical labels were recording digitally even before CD players existed, to avoid the generation loss of recording to tape before transferring to vinyl. These recordings were later released on CD and mostly sound great.
Dire Straits - Brothers In Arms (1985 release, first CD to sell over a million copies) also sounds great, and IMO better than most modern releases.
Some early CDs were recorded using pre-emphasis, similar to the RIAA equalization used with vinyl records. CDs using this have a flag set in the metadata to tell the player to apply a matching de-emphasis filter. I sometimes see people blaming digital production for early CDs sounding "thin". I think it's more likely they heard rips of CDs using pre-emphasis that didn't have the proper de-emphasis applied.
An average CD from the 80s sounds better than an average CD from any other era, because it pre-dates the loudness war, and because it's intended to be played on a good home stereo (which if you were buying CDs back then you could probably afford).
The only additional data that (some) vinyl has over CDs is inaudible ultrasound. Ultrasound is intentionally omitted from CDs because they're intended for humans to listen to. In all audible aspects a correctly mastered CD release is closer to the original sound than any vinyl. And if you really want ultrasound (perhaps your dog enjoys it), you can get digital releases at higher sample rates.
It's not really about the data on the vinyl, and not really about sounding closer to the original. The vinyl flavor comes from the equipment. It's an analog device interacting with the real world, so the process of getting the sound from the vinyl to the speakers introduces a different sound. And some music sounds more pleasing with that process. Could you achieve something similar by using the digital release and running it through a filter? Probably.
But it definitely does impart a sound difference.
Since CDs are digital sound, there's not really the same reason reason to use CDs over a digital release.
edit: fwiw, I don't agree with the parent talking about more data, either. Since pretty much all the music these days is digital pretty much right through the entire recording process, I don't think this is all that relevant. I guess maybe sometimes they might use a different master for vinyl though? But regardless; if you're looking for "more data", you're not going to use either a CD or a vinyl.
Much of the vinyl noise and distortion is pressed into the vinyl itself. Even if you play it using an optical player it will still sound worse than a good CD.
My point was more that vinyl has a distinct sound, whereas CDs are just the digital files in a physical package. So if someone decides that distortion suits a particular album better, it's not going to "sound worse" to them.
And some do. But music listening is a personal experience, and sometimes the preference of the artists doesn't match that of the listener. Should an artist also prescribe the correct speakers/headphones to listen to their album?
Saying that vinyl doesn't have a distinct sound is a pretty wild take. It's pretty obvious if you've ever listened to vinyl and switched to a lossless version on the same setup. But here's some reading, nonetheless:
CDs have no distinct sound. CD quality (assuming correct dithering) is transparent to human hearing. You could play a vinyl record into a good ADC, dither it to 16 bits, then burn it to CD-R. It will sound 100% identical to the original vinyl in a blind test. The only way to tell the difference is that the vinyl continues to degrade with each playback, while the CD-R will last decades if stored correctly (pressed CDs last even longer).
Phonograph records tend to top out around 20,000 Hz. It's limited by groove and stylus size. CDs top out around 21KHz.
There's some audiophile content on Blu-Ray disks encoded at 24-bit/192 kHz, intended for people who subscribe to The Absolute Sound.[1]
(Typical TAS review: "Their Crystal Cable Infinity power cords markedly lower background noise; increase resolution, density of tone color, and dynamic contrast; and add a more substantial third dimension to images." US$34,000 for a 2 meter AC power cable.)
And vinyl has no sub bass, unlike digital formats. They would run it through a high-pass filter (disturbingly close to where the fundamental frequency of a kick drum is) in the mastering process, because record player needless jump from low frequency energy.
People used to say human eyes can't perceive >60fps.
It's also just CDs, not digital formats in general. Grab an audiophile and ask their opinions about digital PDM/PCM formats, high bitrate AACs even, against true vinyls. They wouldn't have as much opinions as they do against CDs.
Also: 44.1kHz sampling rate != arbitrary waveform up to 22050Hz, unless music you're listening to consists of pure sine waves(and not even classic Yamaha FM sound chip signals).
But in the case of analog recording, nobody can distinguish a pure analog recording from the same thing but with a good ADC/DAC pair in the signal path in a blind test. It's theoretically possible to hear undithered 16 bit quantization noise if you turn the volume up extremely loud, but correctly mastered CDs should be dithered from higher bit depth.
And 44.1kHz sampling rate can theoretically represent arbitrary waveforms up to 22050Hz. The only complication is that this requires a brickwall filter, which is impossible to implement. That's why the sampling rate is set higher than needed to exceed the 20kHz limit of human hearing (in practice the limit for adult hearing is almost always lower). The higher sample rate allows for a practical filter with a shallower transition band to be used.
No, because a reconstruction filter is used to remove the stairsteps. This does not lose any information. I recommend watching the xiph.org videos explaining it:
EDIT: Also, consider that true square/triangle/sawtooth waves are mathematical abstractions that can't exist in reality. If you try to move a real loudspeaker cone in a square wave, you have to reverse direction in exactly zero time. This requires infinite acceleration and therefore infinite force. If you take the Fourier transform of these waveforms you get an infinite series of harmonics.
A real-world "square" wave only contains the lower harmonics within some frequency band. When you limit it to audio frequencies, all square waves above 6.67kHz are identical to sine waves because the only harmonic within that frequency band is the fundamental.
Music doesn't need so much support from imagination. You could argue that 24 fps film is a good thing (I disagree), because special effects are expensive and the bad motion quality obscures the flaws, but the same doesn't apply with music. Every major city has an orchestra full of skilled musicians and a concert hall with good acoustics. Just record it as it sounds in the room and put it on CD. You can apply the same philosophy to popular music genres too. CD quality is good enough for this to work. The only imagination needed is to pretend that stereo audio is the full surround sound experience, and that's not difficult when you're sitting in the right position.
Depending on what you mean by "fail" and "stretching", that sounds a lot like eccentric training [0] (a.k.a. "negatives"). It's effective but notorious for causing delayed onset muscle soreness.
I trained myself to do pull-ups using this method, repeatedly lowering myself in a controlled motion from the top position while I was too weak to actually pull myself up.
It's a clarity problem too. Stereo speakers always have comb filtering because of the different path lengths from each ear to the two speakers. It's mitigated somewhat by room reflections (ideally diffuse reflections), but the only way to avoid it entirely is by using headphones.
Try listening to some mono pink noise on a stereo loudspeaker setup, first hard-panned to a single speaker, and then centered. The effect is especially obvious when you move your head.
If you are at an arm's length from a proper amplifier/speaker setup, why are you using a tiny screen to watch movies? (that was a rhetorical question)
Phone/tablet/laptop etc. in my top comment was not a technological limitation, like "oh no, we don't have a port or protocol to connect o speakers and so we can't use them". It was a logistical limitation. Like being physically in place without speakers or possibility to even buy them. Traveling, renting, having big family and only one set of speakers, and so on. Situations where you can't just pluck a Dolby setup from a thin air but do still watch movies.
Here is a datapoint - in the whole world around 1-2 *billion* headphones are sold, every single year. I would bet that at least a double digit percentage of those numbers had been used to watch a movie at least once. Proposing that all those people in all those situations bought themselves a surround speaker setup just to understand voice track in the movies is an inane take.
The set of toys I spent the most time playing with was a big bag of wooden blocks my grandfather gave me when I was very small. They are well designed, with a good selection of different shapes, e.g. it has cylinders and arches and thin planks as well as cuboids. They got a lot of use because they're so flexible in combining with other toys, e.g. you can build roads and garages for toy cars, or obstacle courses for rolling marbles. The edges and corners are rounded and the wood tough enough that clean-up was just dropping them back into the bag.
I've since given them to a nephew and I'm happy to see he gets just as much entertainment out of them as I did. Plain wooden blocks can represent almost anything. There are no batteries or moving parts to fail. Mine got a little bit of surface wear but they still work just as well as they did when they were new and small children don't care about perfect appearance. I wouldn't be surprised if they end up getting passed down to another generation and continue to provide the same entertainment. I highly recommend this kind of simple toy for young children.
> I highly recommend this kind of simple toy for young children.
As a parent I very much agree. And for grown-up children too.
On my desk I have a small tin containing small wooden blocks and planks, arches, etc. I get lots of play value from them - when my thinking is blocked, or if I just want to fool around and not think at all. I'm in my mid fifties.
And over at my climbing club's off-grid climbing hut we have a big box of over-sized, home made jenga blocks. Pretty-much everyone plays with them: not only jenga, but also just building structures or giant domino runs or whatever.
Sticking to the magnetile theme of the OP, my kids and I have spent the most time and most occasions playing with the mangetile marble run kits. It works so well.
I bought the magnatile-knockoff-version essentially and while not as pure montessori as the wooden blocks, they're 1/10th the price and my 4-year-old is _loving_ this kit: https://amzn.to/3MVXRXg
Beech is the cheapest of the common European hardwoods. Even through a distributor it’s only about 1400-1700 € per cubic meter in 5cm / 2” planks. For context, the cheapest construction lumber is about 300-800, oak 2500, american walnut 4000.
It’s not great compared to 10 years ago, but the last 3 years it’s been pretty stable. About 11-15 euros incl VAT per square meter at retail prices for the cheapest 3-ply 9mm and 5-ply 12mm softwood ply, brazilian import.
I dabble in furniture, which means I’m looking at baltic birch plywood, at about 40 euros per square meter of 15mm 11-ply sheets. At that pricepoint I might as well buy actual hardwood lumber.
As an aside, there's an app out there is an app for the iPad called "Cuboro Riddles" which is a "how do you make the marble go from here to there using the blocks." Given that there are multiple ways that a block can channel a marble, this is a tricky one.
... and then if you get this over into the lego domain (not as "just something to fiddle with..." it gets you into the GBC. There is a standard for how one connects to another described at https://www.greatballcontraption.com/wiki/standard ... and then at lego conventions people hook them all up. https://youtu.be/avyh-36jEqA
Looks like their site links to a good number of US stores that sell them, many mom/pop. While there may not be a store close enough to you, perhaps there's one that would ship to you.
As an adult, I bought on impulse a set of wooden dominos intended for domino runs. It included a few other props. It was on clearance for almost nothing because the box was damaged.
With friends and family on occasion (individuals ranging in age from 27-70) , multiple hours have passed setting up and playing with this domino set.
I really believe that play is vitally important at all ages.
At one point way back then, my dad made something in the workshop that improved them tremendously: Wooden boards.
These were small, thin, very flat boards of oak -- about 3/16" thick and 3/4" wide. Their lengths varied in 2" increments, and the length of each board was written on it.
With boards added in, the blocks got a lot more interesting. Fastening was still limited to gravity, but things like cantilevers started happening.
Same. We had a kids’ play table (low to the ground and rectangular) that we’d prop up with a few blocks under one end to give it a slight incline. We’d spend hours covering the surface with blocks in different positions to simulate a pinball table.
Then we’d take a large marble and use two long triangular blocks as flippers to “play” on it.
100% agree. Box of blocks cannot be beat. My sister and I used the hell out of ours: we built towers, cantilevers, mazes, Rube Goldberg devices, houses for rodents, vehicles, elaborate locks, catapults, you name it. They're still in the same condition as day 1, ready for our children.
Bonus: You can roll a lot more down those long rubber racetracks than just cars.
I had such blocks as well. For a recent take on this, I can recommend Kapla, typically come in a large (a couple 100s) box of skinny rectangular cuboids. I had fun doing, ahem, preliminary testing, before gifting them to my niece.
I got set for my son after noticing he loves stacking Jenga blocks and generic Kapla gets 10x more usage than Lego.
Can it be that the moment Lego moved from mostly bricks to custom single use shapes for every kit the joy of combining them died? My kids build car, Dino, Harry Potter set once and then gather dust. Bridges, castles, towers and roads from Kapla get rebuild every day.
When I was young there were fewer types of shapes but a lot of new sets contained a lot of such specialized shapes. I rather played with the lego i found in the attic.
My kid builds the specialized sets, and also makes houses and other structures out of basic brick pieces. But he rarely combines the two like I remember doing.
I remember having an airplane and an airport. I built them once, played with them for a while, and then broke them down to add to the pool of bricks which I built into other things.
I’ve seen some sets that are blocks with random flat surfaces but still balanced.
However, I notice that many antique block sets seem far superior to newer sets.
(I’m sure someone must make an amazing new set, I see some suggestions in the comments).
Having made some wooden block sets from scratch, what I am always amazed about with a good set is balance / size of pieces, coupled with variety and quantity. The balance being a vitally important part that seems to be overlooked in “bad” sets.
I also played wooden blocks for hours as a kid but I've tried getting them for my kids and they're not interested. And I suspect it's because the product is worse than the set we had from the 80s.
It’s called the Humdinger set. Made by an eccentric guy in NZ with no online presence beyond resultantly keeping an email address.
Stumbled across him randomly at a market when we visited last and had to triple take - “is this THE Humdinger” type thing. My mum confirmed it was the real deal, so we bought it on the spot.
Interesting that you mention it. Now I recall we also had wooden blocks,
they were rectangular. I played with them a lot to build simple things.
Kind of before I transitioned into LEGO. But those wooden blocks really
were great - simple, durable and one could do quite a lot with them. I
think I also built houses for my cat back then. Quite amazing how wood
is so dominating - price-wise nothing beats it. And LEGO is now so expensive
that I wouldn't buy it due to that outrageous prices alone.
Same here, my kids favourite toy was a set of wooden blocks their grandfather made from just simple 2" by 2" stock and sanded them. Cubes of different sizes they could build anything out of.
And because they were just untreated wood, they could be painted and decorated etc.
Similar story for me but the blocks were just a few scraps of construction wood. Infinite possibilities even with a few short blocks of 2x4 and angle cut pieces.
I did my first programming with those wooden blocks.
I would build structures deliberately designed to gradually self destruct through a long sequence of actions. A cylinder rolls down a ramp and displaces a support that tips a tower that hits a lever that tips another ramp… endless fun.
I used to use these and a big table to simulate Stalingrad and other WWII battles. Popsicle sticks laid together as half-destroyed floorboards, and of course I had a lot of army guys to position around.
There is one important difference between the harmonics of string and wind instruments: it's possible to build a wind instrument that suppresses (although not entirely eliminates) the even harmonics, e.g. a stopped organ pipe. If it sounds like a filtered square wave it's definitely a wind instrument. But if it sounds like a filtered sawtooth wave it could be either.
All wind instruments and all bowed string instruments produce a perfect harmonic series while emitting a steady tone. The most important difference between timbres of different instruments is in the attack, where inharmonic tones are also generated. Several old synths used this principle to greatly increase realism, by adding brief samples of attack transients to traditional subtractive synthesis, e.g.:
Only if the option was removed entirely would I have reason to complain.
reply