• 0 Posts
  • 17 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023

help-circle




  • Show This is pretty much our situation

    I sent this to her a long time ago, and now we call my hobbies (home improvement/woodworking/audio) "my Legos" as an inside joke. I don't spend frivolously, and my wife doesn't mind when I make purchases relating to my hobbies. We're financially secure and we're very much aligned in our financial goals and philosophies, so when I buy anything (which isn't very often), she trusts that the purchase won't have a negative effect on our finances. She even gets a little excited for me when something arrives at the house. It's very nice to be supported in this way


  • It's also possible people just don't care about those details, so they're not primed to notice them. For example, another difference between my wife and I: she's into sunsets, clouds, the moon, and celestial happenings. She's constantly in awe about these things, points them out to me, and talks about them all the time. It's cute; I love that about her. However, I really couldn't care much less about any of it. For me, that kind of stuff happens all the time (every day, in the case of sunsets). It's not novel or interesting to me in the same way as it is to her. We all have things we nerd out about, and I think the world would be kind of boring if we all only cared about the same stuff.

    Really, my only regret about this situation is that I want to give my wife the gift of feeling like I do when I hear music and when I notice the details, and I know she wants to give me that gift of the way she feels when there's a really cool cloud or sunset. It's very fulfilling to share feelings like that with someone you care about, and it's sad to me that we sometimes can't.


  • I'm into this, especially sound quality. I have a top-of-the-bottom/bottom-of-the-middle 5.2.4 setup for movies and listen to music on that same space as well. I have made solid progress on acoustically treating my space, and it sounds pretty good.

    My wife, who has done all the A-B testing with me and understands what high quality equipment and a well-treated space brings to the table would be perfectly happy watching Netflix on her phone speaker.

    I know for sure she does not hear things like I hear them. I have a couple of demo tracks I use to evaluate changes in my system, and I have described to her what I'm listening for (soundstage depth, for example), and she cannot distinguish whether or not this quality exists. So, I think one part of this is that there is something cognitive going on that she and I perceive things so differently. Another thing that I think is different between us is the way music affects us. For me, music is an emotional experience and ties deeply with my memories of events/time periods/feelings. When I hear a song, I know the artist, facts about the band and its members, the name of the song, the album, and I can describe the album art. My wife, on the other hand, usually can't remember the names of her favorite songs or who the artist is. And, like, no shade on my wife for this at all; I'm just saying we experience these things much differently, and I think that may be illustrative of the differences your seeing with other people too.

    Additionally, as far as diminishing returns go, I think a lot of people do not understand the importance of acoustic treatment. You're listening to your room, not your speakers. You can't out-speaker a bad sounding room at any cost. If you think you want new speakers to upgrade your sound quality and have given zero thought to room acoustics, you should do a little investigation before upgrading your equipment. I think that money is better spent elsewhere first.

    Once you have a good sounding space to listen, I really don't think most people need to spend any more than 10k (at the extreme upper limit) for a pair of speakers for 2 channel listening. That said, I have been in a fantastic room with a $15k pair of Sonus Faber speakers, and I have been chasing that feeling for a couple of years now.


  • This is how I remember his series on the Japanese involvement in WWII:

    Carlin talked about the Japanese military leaving gruesome "messages" (through terribly mutilated corpses of American soldier) to Americans, which in turn led Americans to take fewer POWs and also ramp up the violence. Additionally, this led to fewer Americans units who may have otherwise surrendered as POWs to continue fighting even if it meant they would all die; they were terrified to be captured. The Japanese military also knew what effect this must have on the Americans, and as a result would refuse to surrender in fear of similar treatment / reprisal.

    Japanese soldiers would report this back home to their families. Combined with the propaganda civilians received from their government and the stories from the front, many people believed that when the Americans landed in Japan, that the soldiers would eat their children. It was because of this sentiment it was believed that the Japanese populace would never surrender, and the fighting on the Japanese islands would require killing far more people as the invasion progressed northward.

    It is to be noted I am not a historian, and I'm just someone who listened to a really long podcast a couple years ago. He's more of an "historian" than I am, and he seemed pretty credible to me. I have done no other reading or research on the topic, and I probably shouldn't have commented here to begin with.




  • I didn't say anything to suggest that he should be taken any more seriously than professionals. The point of my comment was to give people the opportunity to listen to someone who collates the information professional historians have offered in a cohesive manner, in context, with nuance, and in a way that the host is candid in describing his shortcomings in relating or understanding the information.

    I think this topic is important to understand fully, and I offered a way to obtain more information that might be easier to digest and more complete than perhaps other sources.






  • At this point, no. As I read this, this is the earliest homonine fossil to date, to include those found in Africa (by over a million years, no less). Again, as I read this, early primates left Africa and returned as hominids.

    If this is true, it certainly upsets the apple cart regarding the hominid timeline. I'm no scientist, but my bet is the African fossil record is just incomplete, and eventually an ancestor to this creature will be found in Africa. I think it's just a "this is the best evidence we have at the moment" kind of thing. Again, I'm just some jackwad on the internet, so probably don't listen to anything I say