albutr

I just recently learned about Dorico's VST support and was considering trying it out as an alternative to the workflow I'm using now (compose in musescore, export to logic and then key in dynamics + velocities). It seems really useful to have everything "just work" based on articulation and dynamics markings.

Really looking forward to musescore's VST support, hopefully it can get to a similar point!

I just spent a couple of hours playing with the nolly trial and it's awesome, lots of fun. Definitely getting some 5150 vibes from several of the presets, I believe it

awesome, thanks for the breakdown!

Any experience with Plini? It seems to be the closest to Nolly, and from a cursory look it seems people generally like it better. I suppose I'll have to get the trials for both to compare

I had never heard of GGD's IR loader, seems awesome! Definitely on the list of things to buy now

Feel free to drop a link to the album you made with the nolly plugin, I'd love to take a listen

wow, I was literally just about to download the trial for the archetype nolly (after being iffy on whether the fortin nameless was right for what I wanted), what are the chances it's being discussed on HN.

I'm hoping that the nolly plugin can cover both dirty and clean sounds well enough to not need a second plugin, fingers crossed

Agreed, at some point I've used something from all three of those and they're all great! I've seen a surprising amount of great stuff from smaller universities too iirc, if you google around.

Even better is to look up the undergrad/grad curriculum from a university and then look at the course webpages (many universities still publish their course materials available to anyone who has the link, without needing to login through canvas or a university portal). Pretty often you can get access to homeworks/exams and solutions, lecture notes, etc. in addition to seeing whatever textbook they're using.

Plus, the added benefit helping limit "analysis paralysis" from having too many possible texts to choose from yourself, just pick whatever was standard for that particular class.

Ah yup you're right, I read your sentence too fast, whoops. The most likely location is at the nucleus, but the most likely radius (integrating over all angles) is at 1 bohr radius.

Are you forgetting a Jacobian? The maximum probability isn't inside the nucleus for an s-orbital. E.g. for hydrogen, the maximum probability for the electron is one bohr radius away from the center of the nucleus (and the expectation value of the radius is 1.5 bohr radii away).

I think it's pretty typical, at least in physics. Every offer I had/that I have heard of was around 30k, I've only heard of one that was around ~24k iirc

FYI they are totally different "singlets", a singlet exciton refers to the spin state of the particle (as opposed to a triplet exciton, which has a different total spin). A singlet lens is just a lens with a single simple component.

There are definitely papers in physics that are well-known to be wrong. I know of results published in high-profile journals where the authors have stated (in person, but not officially in a published update) that even they cannot reproduce their own results.

Just FYI, the idea that Nature Communications is inherently "untrustworthy" is completely unfounded, you can't take a quick look at rankings or briefly skim a wikipedia page and get a good picture of how "serious" or trustworthy a journal is. It is a generally a well-regarded journal, I don't personally know any actual scientists who would turn their nose up at research published in it just because of the journals name (although, there are some Nature-branded journals that many do instinctively scoff at, mostly Scientific Reports, but IMO that's unwarranted too). Most of the big names in my sub-field of physics have co-authored a paper in this journal.

It's a chalcogen vacancy, a very common type of defect in these materials. These materials are called transition metal dichacogenides, so they have the form MX2, where M is a metal (most commonly Mo or W) and X is a chalcogen (typically S or Se). In this case, there is an S missing, but you still see a spot because there is another S below it (if you look at the crystal structure, it resembles graphene but has more complex structure in the third dimension, its 3 atoms thick rather than being flat, with the two chalcogens in the unit cell right on top of each other).