Not a public library -- their institution's library. The context here is higher ed students in poverty situations, and I've never heard of a college or university (that isn't online-only, at least) that didn't have a library.
But seriously, the poster is probably complaining about how most modern music is heavily compressed in dynamic range, so that it sounds better on crappy earbud headphones and smartphone speakers.
That's an incredibly weird response to a comment primarily concerned with the user experience of vendoring software on Linux. Not only does it not engage with my comment but it also virtue signals quite a bit, don't you think?
It is incredibly ironic when looking at your post history that you state that you have "been involved on[sic] [...] the nuances of interface and user experience". Does my comment not meet that very criteria?
Yeah, you can buy a cheap android and uninstall everything, except the thing will still be huge and google will still be in your pocket. They're all made for media production/consumption, and there are very few adequate devices available.
Yeah, zuck is the worst of the bunch.
Funny that some weeks ago there was so much praise in HN for open sourcing ai models and being an engineer at heart. No, buddy. He's evil. Dunno if he was born this way or became this way but behind that robotic facade lies the worst villain of the modern world, along with putins and netanyahus and larry ellisons.
Now, here, in latin america: what must we do to get off whatsapp?
Dunno. Writing fiction myself; asked AI to read it aloud. Narrative paragraphs worked fine: a clear, if a bit deadpan, slightly tone-deaf delivery. But dialogue was horrendous: it didn't understand emotional reactions and connotations at all. More so than cringey and robotic, it felt soulless. And the distance from "something that makes sense" to "something that feels human" felt unsormountable. Yes. Many novels will be written with LLMs in the coming years. They might even touch us. But this little Text-to-Speech experiment felt like an evidence that this technology has a void at its core: it doesn't have access, like a human does, to a gargantuan emotional spectrum, which allows us to understand all sorts of subtleties between what is being said, and why, and what does it actually mean, and why does it affect us (or, hell, how should the next line be read in this context, because it has no context, it doesn't feel).
I'm also writing a novel, and using text to speech to hear how it sounds. One of the ones built into Mac OS. And I'd agree with your assessment, I value the synthesiser for bringing my attention to things my eyes gloss over, such as unnecessary repetition and typos which are still correctly spelled words (a common one for me is lose/loose).
But: AI was seen as "decades" away from beating humans at go, even 6 months before it did.
I don't know how far we are from them writing award winning novels (awards we care about, it doesn't count if it's an award for best AI), though my gut feeling is we need another breakthrough as significant as the transformer model… but even then, that's only a 1σ feeling.
You wrote a book with an LLM and it has bad dialogue _today_. So why do you act as if all this progress hasn't only been in the last couple years? Fast forward 10 years from now and you think LLMs won't have the capability to write compelling fiction, that what we have then will be exactly what we have now?
Malcolm Lowley writes on The Literary Situation (1958; first published 1947):
"Aside from the hard-working authors of textbooks, standard juveniles, mysteries and Westerns, I doubt that two hundred Americans earned the major portion of their incomes, year after year, by writing hard-cover books".
