WAV is uncompressed. MP3 is highly compressed, but lossy. FLAC is compressed and lossless. If you wanted to store lots of master copies of audio, you could use WAV or you could reduce storage space by using FLAC instead.
WAV is the original lossless audio file. FLAC is just a compressed version of that file (think of it as .zip).
MP3 is more like an edited version of the original where "extra fluff" is removed from the audio in a way that you can still hear the important bits. And then compressed for further space savings.
Obviously, there is no point in converting MP3 to FLAC since when the original lossless audio track was MP3'd , it lost some of the audio information, so you'd only be changing the compression algorithm, I imagine.
What? Most all FLAC is created (converted) from a WAV source. If your source is MP3, then yes, FLAC is irrelevant... But FLAC is basically a lossless compression format for WAV.
I'm really confused by what you're talking about lol... especially "up"convert...??? WAV is the ultimate lossless audio on PC. It really doesn't get any better than WAV. There is no "up" from WAV. FLAC is a compression format for WAV, that does not lose any data. The output of FLAC will be identical to the WAV file, even though its compressed. MP3 is a compression format for WAV that loses data, and will not be identical to the original WAV file.
In 1988, Apple developed the Audio Interchange File Format (AIFF), which is uncompressed pulse code modulation (PCM). PCM is what is stored on CDs, so any Mac with a CD-ROM drive attached will recognize the PCM information on Red Book audio CD's as AIFF files.
Inexplicably, 3 years later, Microsoft and IBM developed the Resource Interchange File Format (RIFF) in 1991, of which the WAV format is one implementation. RIFF doesn't store PCM. Instead it stores various formats of data in 4 byte "chunks."
Depending on the audio file format specified, one can always distinguish a Windows user from an audio professional (or a Mac user), because since about 1990, the vast majority of professional audio recording (tracking, mixing and mastering) studios have been exclusively Mac shops, including such greats as Skywalker Sound and Abbey Road Studios.
All these formats, IFF, AIFF, and RIFF, use named chunks for organization, and store PCM basically the same way, though there are other payloads possible.
My post was BS. The reason Macs became ubiquitous in audio had nothing to do with file formats and likely had everything to do with pro audio software and hardware developers that initially ignored Windows and PCs, and by the time these became platform independent, Mac was too ingrained to be dislodged. But AIFF does have smooth and sexy contours compared to WAV's clunky aesthetic. There I go again.
PSA: If you want to recreate the original file (WAV, AIFF, etc), including metadata, you should use the --keep-foreign-metadata switch to flac, otherwise it only preserves what’s needed for the audio.
I work at a desk, lean my chair back, and use a footrest. Here's the one I'm using now: https://amazon.com/gp/product/B07PWT8X6K/ My desk has a keyboard tray so I can keep my chair low, and I'd want something taller if I had to raise my chair.
For me, this totally eliminates back strain from working. I've also got a friend who uses a La-Z-Boy in his home office, with his laptop connected to the TV. He can't say enough good things about that setup.
A couple years ago I got a Secret Lab Titan, which does have high back/head support. I'm very happy with it. Before that, I've worked this way with whatever chair my job gave me. The head support is nice, but for me it isn't critical.
So basically, if there's a distribution of possible outcomes (with estimated duration plotted on the x-axis, and probability on the y-axis), then we put bounds on either side of the distribution and take a 'central' point on the x-axis between them. But instead of a simple average, we can use a log scale on the x-axis, so that we represent estimates of different magnitudes well. Now the simple half way point on the x-axis is on a log scale, and (I think) equivalent to the approach you described.
The geometric mean being equivalent to the arithmetic mean of values transformed under a log scale is an interesting perspective that I haven't considered, but appears to be well known. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_mean
So one question here is: Why reduce the distribution (with long tail or whatever) to a single estimate number? If the distribution represents the range of possible outcomes well, then the single number throws away most of the information in the distribution.
I strongly agree, giving people the distribution conveys a lot of information especially if everyone is clear on what the parameters of that distribution mean (ie: what's the low estimate mean?).
At the same time, there are occasions where it can be useful to collapse a distribution for some types of reports, or for quickly looking across estimates.
Yes, I don't see the logic of using fertile agricultural land for solar PV. It seems like short term thinking and a planning failure. I've heard at lest one similar story regarding reforesting, i.e., a scheme that was planning to use fertile land in Wales that was ultimately canned due to local objections/resistance.
For the battery storage, perhaps they will ultimately choose https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery. The cable manufacture seems like more a 'when' rather than an 'if' problem. The scheduled first phase of construction is 2025-2027, which we can reasonably expect to be delayed by 2-3 years if they are trying to build new manufacturing capability. Overall this still looks to be in the realms of possible/viable IMO.
