I wish they could repurpose macOS to touch screens... Oh well.

Any manual efforts to combat AI won't scale as models get better and better. Show HN is a place to show-case cool projects, I don't see why a 100% AI generated project can't be shown. AI has allowed many to rob themselves of their retirement projects and the uptick reflects that. My hunch is once we settle into the new shift, we can perhaps tweak the parameters around decay of Show HN posts.

Or we could allow upstanding members to signal-boost Show HN posts. Something along the lines of "Hey guys I _really_ want you to see this post so here is it (again)".

Where I'm from, citizens _need_ more awareness of their rights today and in the future.

PS You might have pasted two different answer drafts above. Paras 1,4 and 2,5 deliver similar information

I do agree there are other intangibles, though (sense of community with fellow volunteers, sense of freedom by doing something exceptional, work experience). These intangibles are good things (mutual benefit).

Some people also benefit without expectation of reward. There could be an argument of self-interest (e.g. to feel good or alleviate some past wrong), but in practice, it makes sense to just thank these people for their actions without worrying about their motivations (which they might not even definitively know).

The main downside with providing all the on the record statements in recorded audio, is that some statements by an interviewee can be false. If a scientist misstates a figure and corrects it later, listeners can latch on to the incorrect figure. Keeping it to print allows the reporting of the correct figure, or the printing of the quote with a note that it's a misstatement. You could also try to contextualize such statements in the transcript itself, but it then becomes more resource-intensive than the current system (publications are obligated to verify the entire transcript, versus selected parts).

So you need someone to review it and clean it for accuracy. It's not trivially easy at all to provide all the source materials for every interview because it's time consuming to clean and verify. For especially sensitive investigative reporting that isn't breaking news, and where there's more time to report, news outlets (e.g. CBC News) already publish recordings and full email transcripts.

I would also argue that it's the norm for journalists from respectable outlets (usually the ones with paid subscriptions) to put quotes in proper context. It's an ethical principle of the field. When they don't, the current system works when the interviewee, readership, and press watchdogs call out the unethical reporting.

This shouldn't happen considering the price, but it wasn't a dealbreaker for my personal preferences (as the fix wasn't too noticeable, and I enjoy the noise isolation and sound quality).

Articles from high-circulation newspapers often have five or more interviewees per article. Quality newspapers are averse to publishing quotes without fact-checking them if possible (e.g. if a politician makes a false claim, you don't want to publish it without indicating it's false). To maintain the same principle, newspapers would need to fact-check the entire transcript, versus just the quoted part, for accuracy.

But if you want only a partial transcript, then you're essentially at the current state of affiars where you only quote the part you need, and paraphrase the rest. Journalistic ethical guidelines already require quotes to be in context for fairness. Reputable publications have an incentive to publish quotes in context (the interviewees, journalist watchdogs, and many readers would criticize that publication if they don't). So I don't see anything wrong with reading quotes and assuming they are published in good faith.

To mitigate ethical lapses, you can also read the same coverage from different sources (e.g. Wall Street Journal and New York Times) to get broader context about particularly important articles, and also subscribe to newsletters on reporting (e.g. the American Press Insitute newsletter, the Columbia Journalism Review).

For audio quality, however, there are definitely better alternatives at the same/lower price (but not necessarily as good for exercise or noise cancellation). I also heard that the AirPods Pro are comparable to Bose's QC35s for noise cancellation, but not as good (though the AirPods are far more portable), and their batteries don't last as long in the long-term.

Also, it's easy to clean silicon tips with dish soap and water (alternatively isopropyl), but I found that Comply tips break down really easily with washing. They're also expensive to replace frequently, and I found that cheaper foam alternatives didn't measure up.

If regular cleaning isn't a concern (isn't strictly necessary, it's just a personal preference), Comply tips work, though I would only use them for IEMs that don't fit well for silicon.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbDgTa8Htzo

I also bought a replacement cable, which didn't work, then contacted support for a replacement. Their suggested fix of changing the filter worked. I suspect the reason may have been moisture; I washed the silicon tip with soap and water, then put it back on the earpiece and filter without waiting for it to fully dry.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbDgTa8Htzo

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28657578

Points: 9

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28438257

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28341617

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

The blog by biologist Dr. Colin Purrington also has advice for maintaining a notebook (discussing why, backups, and what to note down): https://colinpurrington.com/tips/lab-notebooks/