sus

The thing is, distortion (maybe more accurately called nonlinearity) is the only known objective way to measure the difference in sound quality between two headphones EQ'd to the same target. (there are some other measures like signal-to-noise ratio but they are even more useless) And the difference in the value becomes very small for a technically good $50 headphone and the best headphone ever made. (technically good eg. the natural frequency response isn't crazy far from your target and the nonlinearities are competitively low)

Now, two headphones EQ'd to the same target, even if both are measured to result in the exact same sound, won't actually sound the same to your ears because the "head dummy" used for the test doesn't have the same ear shape and characteristics as you do. But unless there is some strong evidence that the headphone manufacturer has a better methodology than what is publicly available, then there's no reason to think they are somehow able to account for your specific ear's needs without custom designing the product just for you. - You're left with having to either EQ yourself, or using dozens of headphones and testing which you like the most. And the EQ route is going to be much faster and cheaper

for sources, these discussion seem the most useful

https://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/comments/144yaiq/why_dont_we_measure_headphone_resolution/jni4z70/?context=5 (whole thread is useful)

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/is-there-any-way-to-objectively-measure-headphone-resolution.17684/

you can say that most people who spend a lot of time and money trying to achieve "perfect audio" seem to think that EQ is only a supplement to already good headphones, but given that there has been no success at objective measurements of quality and that many people swear the thousands they spent on insulated golden cables improve their audio quality, I err on the side of saving my money.

if you use a good equalizer, you can equalize pretty much any headphone to your ideal frequency response, as long as it has a loud enough maximum volume and doesn't have distortion (so any half-decent headphone over $50 should do fine. Some would say you can go even lower)

because the goal of tamper resistance is to make it harder to unscrew without apple's approval

the environment or operating system will ultimately have to use a sorting algorithm with a normal time complexity to determine the order of events (or it can give up and sort them incorrectly once the time resolution is not high enough)

♫ monopoly duopoly oligopoly cartel ♫

♪ anti-trust, pork barrel, propaganda lobbying ♪

♫ economies of scale, information asymmetry, regulatory capture and personal responsibility ♫

♪ unions, pinkertons, labor theory of value and the CIA ♪

♫ rent seeking, georgism, tax incentive, scarcity ♫

♪ free trade, minimum wage, petrodollar and the MIC ♪

♫ we didn't start the fire, it was always burning since the world's been turning ♫

~provided~ ~as~ ~is,~ ~no~ ~warranty~ ~in~ ~regard~ ~to~ ~serving~ ~any~ ~particular~ ~rhyme~ ~or~ ~meter,~ ~express~ ~or~ ~implied,~ ~consult~ ~a~ ~licensed~ ~physician~ ~before~ ~attempting~ ~to~ ~sing~ ~along~

what?

other techbros have praised him, citing the exact list of symptoms google gives for "high-functioning psychopath"

(disclaimer: google may give bad medical advice)

I wonder if it's common for those steganography techniques to have some mechanism for defeating the fairly simple strategy of getting 2 copies of the file from different sources, and looking at the differences between them to expose all the watermarks.

(I'd think you would need sections of watermark that are the same for any 2 or n combinations of copies of the data, which may be pretty easy to do in many cases, though the difference makes detecting the general watermarking strategy massively easier for the un-watermarkers)

you can often just slap compiler cache on a project and get a 20-150x speedup, but when the original compile time was 45 minutes, it's still slow enough to disrupt your workflow (though, I suspect you may be talking about some manual method that may be even faster. But are those really common enough where you would call the lack of it a code smell?)

C++ is std::__cxx11::list<std::__shared_ptr<table, (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)0>, std::allocator<std::__shared_ptr<table, (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)0> > >::erase(std::_List_const_iterator<std::__shared_ptr<table, (__gnu_cxx::_Lock_policy)0> >) /usr/include/c++/12/bits/list.tcc:158

your underflow error is someone's underflow feature (hopefully with -fwrapv)