> Tack on that they don't have latency, though I've never really tried to track vocals on wireless cans

The truth is that the OS usually hides the latency of wireless heapdhones, e.g. airpods, by delaying video to keep it in sync. The real latency is somewhere around 100-400ms if the RF environment is crowded. Even worse is that the latency isn't actually constant, but drifts all the time.

At many IT conferences organized by hackspaces, everything is done by volunteers, including broadcast and video/audio postproduction. And that is actually one of the most common issues: our volunteers use wireless headphones even if we ask them repeatedly not to.

We cut talks in postproduction primarily based on audio, e.g., when does the applause start/end, when does the speaker's introduction start/end, etc. Obviously, that doesn't work reliably if the audio latency is nondeterministic.

Even worse, as different venues have different audio setups, there are sometimes real audio/video sync issues that need to be fixed. But if our volunteers are using wireless headphones, they won't just set the wrong offset, but they end up trying to fix issues that don't even exist.

And then you get complaints from viewers that e.g. the livestream audio/video is out of sync, even though it's not. The issue turns out to be caused by the viewer's laptop and wireless headphones not supporting the latency compensation technique I explained earlier. And there's nothing we can do about that.

Wireless headphones tried to fix something that wasn't broken, and made it worse. In German, we'd call that "verschlimmbessern".

> The truth is that the OS usually hides the latency of wireless heapdhones, e.g. airpods, by delaying video to keep it in sync.

Right, but that only works when you control both. I love my Sony and Shure Bluetooth headphones and have 0 issues watching videos with them; they work great even on Linux.

But when people figure they're gonna use BT headsets for conferencing, it just turns into a shitshow of people waiting for the other to speak, then starting to speak at the same time.

I have an old Jabra headset for my video call needs, and it uses DECT. That thing has so little latency that I can use it to play FPS games without issues (I'm by no means a competitve player, so YMMV). At the same time, its range is huuuge. For the life of me, I cannot understand why nobody makes such headsets anymore: they've all switched to BT for some reason. The only models that seem to still use some form of low-latency transmission are some "gamer" models, but I've never tried one.

ugh the most annoying thing about the conversation clash latency is that the person causing the issue just thinks others are being weirdly rude.

wireless headphones externalize the cost of latency to other conference participants. if you think your airbuds are "perfectly fine" it's because you're not the one paying the cost.

I have some Asus gamer earbuds with a dongle for a proprietary BT alternative: zero perceptible latency.

> Wireless headphones tried to fix something that wasn't broken, and made it worse.

I think you are going to far here.

Do wireless headphones have problems? Sure. Did they fix some problems wired headphones had? Yes. Yes, they did.

Simply the ability of moving around without having to worry about the cable getting tangled or dragging the headphones or the phone is phenomenal. My wireless headphones are a lot more reliable than my previous wired ones. Somehow the cable and the connector was always the source of failures.

Do you not like wireless headphones? Don’t buy them. I will keep buying wireless headphones because they have clear benefits to me in my usage.

I find it insulting that you represent your preference as some universal truth.

Do you have a German word for ignoring the things the person you’re replying to liked about a given thing?

Most of this thread is already exploring the consumer perspective, and as the previous poster said they couldn't talk about the professional perspective, I chose to only focus on the production/broadcast angle in my comment.

Fair enough. There are plenty of reasons why I don't have professional experience monitoring over BT wireless, which you lay out well.

Though I've been working with writing software for esp32 and so that might change in the next month or so.

For the past decade or so, many children had no access to real computers. Before covid, many households either only had school-issued chromebooks, or only smartphones. With covid causing a rise in remote schooling, many families got laptops, but again often only locked-down chromebooks.

There's adults nowadays that do their taxes on their phone, cut videos on their phone, and edit spreadsheets on their phone.

And while smartphones and chromebooks are great at accomplishing your desired tasks, they offer no opportunities for growth. You can't change and play around with the system, become a power user, modify your system, look behind the curtain, and gain real understanding.

There's an excellent blogpost on this topic, "The Slow Death of the Power User": https://fireborn.mataroa.blog/blog/the-slow-death-of-the-pow...

It's an interesting paradox: the more we made computing accessible, the less we got out of it.

When a PC was expected to boot to an OS and not much else, we had all the freedom - by necessity - to tinker and learn. Hardware was barely enough for most day-to-day usage, so we upgraded relatively frequently and got to know the physical innards as well.

This is all so streamlined today that even computers can be smartphones with "apps", or even just a browser that gets you to google slides and everything else (or the MS equivalents). It was probably a necessity that, as computers became infrastructure, they would become simplified, so 90% of the population can indeed file their tax return online (and the remaining 10% have their younger family members do it).

This also means that people nowadays simply don't know that they can walk into any second hand store and get a $200 PC with a warranty that'll be much more productive than any smartphone if they have the knowledge to use it properly. But was there really a loss? These are, for the most part, people that would not have been able to hop on the internet wagon if it'd relied on maintaining a linux distro at all. That's regarding adults; children now do indeed grow up with walled systems for the most part, and that might be a loss.

In the past, it was hard to start using computers, but once you did, the journey from user to expert and developer was smooth sailing.

Now it's much easier to start using a computer, but going beyond that has become so much harder.

Often times it's the points where free software has to integrate with proprietary hardware that becomes an issue. Yet that's exactly where the GPL shines. As this proprietary hardware still uses linux, these manufacturers–which would never provide their source code willingly–are forced to provide it, and as result, we can build open drivers for them.

I usually prefer writing drivers and weird protocols from scratch, but often that's not possible, so I'll have to spend months discussing with some manufacturers' legal teams before I'm able to receive the sources.

Without the GPL, sure, you'd still have free software operating systems, but basically no hardware to actually run them on.

> Sure but once you learn long multiplication/division algorithms by hand there's not much point in using them. By high school everyone is using a calculator.

And many lose the ability to do long division by high school, where they'll have to relearn it for polynomial long division, which typical school calculators can't handle easily.

So is fraudulently claiming your code has a different author & copyright (you) than it actually has (whether that's someone else's code, or LLM-generated code).

> Oh, would you just accept my blatantly, verbatim copied-from-another-codebase-and-relicensed PR just because I said “I solemnly swear this is not blatantly, verbatim copied from another codebase and relicensed”?

At that point you've proven intention, meaning you'll get the chance to argue your viewpoint in front of a judge.

> At that point you've proven intention, meaning you'll get the chance to argue your viewpoint in front of a judge.

Sure, put out an international search warrant for xXImADogOnTheInternet86Xx.

Please stop embarrassing yourself, that's unnecessary.

Many major projects now require a signed DCO with a real name. That can be a nickname if you have a reasonable online presence under that name, but generally it has to identify you as an individual.

So you wouldn't sign it as "xXImADogOnTheInternet86Xx", but as "Tom Forbes (orf)".

And even if there won't be direct legal consequences, it'd certainly affect your ability to contribute to this or other projects in the future.

Please make your substantive points without swipes. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Your comment would be fine without that first bit.

I’m really struggling to understand why you think any of this means anything?

Why would I sign it as my real name? Does the DCO require ID verification? No? So it would be “Mr Ima Dog”.

People can lie in the internet, saying “oh but no they can’t because there’s a form they need to fill in!!” is supremely off topic nonsense.

I'm really struggling to understand why you would burn down a decade+ old reputation over this particular issue. Is this really the hill you wanted to die on?

This is not an abstract argument, you are showing a willingness to do the wrong thing in spite of being told not to, repeatedly, by many other participants here. I see only two things here:

(1) you would lie

(2) you fundamentally don't understand the concept of consent

> "I’ll make a change any way I choose, upright, sideways, using AI. My choice. Not theirs."

The fact that other people would lie is besides the point: those other people would get the exact same treatment if found out. Whether or not they would be found out is moot, it is the act of lying and ignoring consent that makes this what it is: asshole behavior. By extension anybody that practices this behavior is an asshole as well and by extension of that tying your own rep to people that would behave like that makes you an asshole and I highly doubt that that was your intention.

So now you've - over endless comments - shown that you fundamentally don't get this very important concept. Yes, people lie. But there are mechanisms for dealing with liars. Misrepresentation and fraud are serious things. Lawsuits, fines and in an extreme case jail, but on a more immediate level ostracizing. It makes you as a person into an undesirable. It also makes the world as a whole a worse place to live in, which is why such behavior is strongly discouraged, even if it is possible.

That's why we don't structurally go around clubbing old ladies over the head as a revenue model, not because we can't do it or because it would be acted upon by the law (that's for the few who don't get it) but because it is simply a bad thing to do. It is a matter of ethics. That's why if an open source project has a 'No AI' policy you either abide by the policy or you can expect massive backlash.

To think that you could do this and even should do this to make the point is as stupid as walking out and grabbing some old lady's hand bag to prove that it can be done: you are hurting an innocent to prove your point and it will cause a reaction that is at a minimum proportional to what you did and worst case you will be made an example of. This can be the proverbial career ending move. If you are Elon level rich and your inner asshole seeks a way out then yes, you could probably do it. But for normal folks such behavior is highly discouraged. Actions usually have consequences.

Finally: open source is a massive gift to society. The whole reason you can use AI in the first place is because that gift got abused in a way that open source contributors did not anticipate. If you're going around to pollute open source with AI contributions to effectively karma farm you have to wonder why you are so intent on doing that. Is it your purpose to destroy open source? Or is it just because you enjoy destroying stuff in general? I don't see any other options, this is a pathology and it would do you good to introspect on this for a bit instead of to respond with yet another ill conceived reply digging yourself in further. You've gone from 'mildly annoying' to 'wouldn't work with this person for any amount of money because they are a massive liability' in the space of 15 comments. I hope it was worth it to you.

You have to go through all the dependencies anyway, to roughly judge their quality, and the activity of their maintainers. Quickly looking at the license doesn't take any more effort.

Totally realistic expectation

Considering you have to list all used open source software, their authors, and their licenses in your UI anyway, sure.

Or how are you handling that?

Sure, sometimes you can automate some of it, but you'll still have to manually check the attributions are correctly done.

I also really like the way Androidx's Room handles query parameters and the corresponding APIs.

    @Dao
    public interface UserDao {
        @Query("SELECT * FROM user")
        List<User> getAll();

        @Query("SELECT * FROM user WHERE uid IN (:userIds)")
        List<User> loadAllByIds(int[] userIds);

        @Query("SELECT * FROM user WHERE first_name LIKE :first AND " +
            "last_name LIKE :last LIMIT 1")
        User findByName(String first, String last);

        @Insert
        void insertAll(User... users);

        @Delete
        void delete(User user);
    }

It's one of the better abstractions given the lack of first class expressions in Java, having used EfCore/Linq a while I'd be hard pressed to like going back though.

The Linq code is native C# that can be strongly typed for ID's,etc but you can "think" in SQL terms by writing Where,Select,OrderBy and so on (I will admit that the C# world hasn't really gotten there in terms of promoting strongly typed db ID's yet but there support is there).

In that case, I'd recommend jooq, which is just linq in Java :D

    create.select(AUTHOR.FIRST_NAME, AUTHOR.LAST_NAME, count())
      .from(AUTHOR)
      .join(BOOK).on(AUTHOR.ID.equal(BOOK.AUTHOR_ID))
      .where(BOOK.LANGUAGE.eq("DE"))
      .and(BOOK.PUBLISHED.gt(date("2008-01-01")))
      .groupBy(AUTHOR.FIRST_NAME, AUTHOR.LAST_NAME)
      .having(count().gt(5))
      .orderBy(AUTHOR.LAST_NAME.asc().nullsFirst())
      .limit(2)
      .offset(1)

No, it's not, it's a SQL builder.

A vibecoded article, about a vibecoded solution, to a trivial problem. Not entirely sure what to think of it, tbh.

Just talked with a colleague and we used this as example where vibe coding is already brain draining people.

You missed the cases where the facebook app ran a local webserver on your smartphone which the facebook ad trackers would send data to to be able to track you across all websites, breaking GDPR laws and circumventing browser third-party cookie controls?