da_murvel

Of course, but that doesn't equal the sound "moving around", the violin section will always remain in the same place for example, which is the feeling I get when listening to one of those 8D Audio videos on youtube. The sound moving around that is.

And I think your example of the plane is where this technique is applicable. In a cinema for example, imagine yourself watching a horror movie and you can hear the evil demon sneak up behind your back. shivers. In a concert setting however, the source of the sound is (usually) static, while I might move my head slightly from time to time and pick up the sound from different angles. If that could be simulated using headphones, that would be pretty cool! But again, I fail to see what purpose it would serve in a normal stereo setting where the sound is produced the same way, from stationary speakers. Then of course there are other factors like the venue layout, design and material. As well as speaker placement, mixing of the sound and even the crowd itself. Which all contributes to the sound and the "feeling" of listening to the music.

I have never understood what problem self-driving cars is trying to solve. I can, on the other hand, see that it could be more desirable to have self flying planes. But to even think that self flying = issue free and non crashable planes is beyond naive. Personally I believe that the best is to let humans do what they do best, and let computers do what they are good at. Without trying to force one into the other's shoes. (Computers has shoes, don't they?)

So you think that someone who's capable of building a system like this, has somehow missed the fact that you should store passwords safely? Nah, I don't buy that.

They should have been fined more than a measly €20k in my opnion. As a developer I'm deeply ashamed that people are still storing user passwords in plain text. There is no reason behind this behaviour what so ever, other than pure laziness ...

"... much of what is done is faux-agile, disregarding agile's values and principles." This. It feels so easy to get caught up in methods and tools, to not make a proper commitment (because it is tough to change the way you work) and to land in a sort of semi-agile state that no one likes.

I love the idea of having your actual users testing the software, rather a dedicated tester. A dedicated, employed, tester can never use the product like a normal user would. They have too much knowledge of how the system works and what it can and can't handle. In order to truly observe something, we must completely, or as much as is possible, remove ourself from that situation. A normal user however doesn't know that it's not possible to achieve task X within the system, and will try, and if enough users try to perform that task, it might be an indication that it is a task that should be implemented or looked over to see why they are trying to perform this. This is just an example, but I find the role of a tester pretty confusing and awkward. As a developer I build and test the code I'm writing. If something doesn't work within that code I want to know as quick as possible if something isn't right. So why should I hand over my code to someone else? And also, if a user doesn't find the bug, is it really a bug?

I don't think it's baffling at all. Facebook is the largest social media company, and what do they do to try to stop all of the propaganda, troll factories and hateful things going on there? Naught. They know that they are the largest company and therefore doesn't have to do anything as long as their position stays the same. Which it seems to be doing. Yes, there are people leaving the platform but where do they go? There is no real contender, therefore Facebook will remain number 1.

The surname is wrong in the title, it should be Klint, not Klimt. It's an interesting read however, although I'm no art expert by any means, I've always liked abstract paintings as they have a sort of liberating effect on my mind where the imagination in some cases can run completely it's own course.

... "why even call it the "disgusting food"? Obviously anyone who connotates the exhibit with the items inside will be going in with a specific bias." Well, isn't that what they are trying to challenge? The 'whys' of disgusting food. I think it's an appropriate name considering that these items are usually presented as disgusting in the general public. So by giving it the name Disgusting Food Museum they create a mindset for the visitor that is saying 'you're now entering a museum of food you'll find disgusting', and then making the visitor quesiton that mindset; Why do they find Surstromming or Balut disgusting? You can't ask yourself such questions unless you think those dishes are disgusting in the first place. Why do you think chocolate is disgusting? Well, uh, I don't.