massaman_yams

Yeah, with a CV strip the Mean Wells with CC dimming have an abrupt shutoff at low brightness - maybe 5% (I haven't measured it), and a brief flash upon increasing brightness just above that threshold. Otherwise they work reasonably well for my use case.

Thanks for the additional recommendations.

Can you think of a scenario where a well-intentioned organization doesn't realize they're sending some unwanted mail, and by looking at the right metrics they realize they have a problem and take steps to fix it?

Speaking from quite a bit of experience, content can matter at Gmail if it's very obviously malicious/spammy, but not usually otherwise. Metrics matter more than content at gmail.

For other filters/ISPs, content can matter a bit more, but as a general rule for consumer mailbox providers, metrics are the primary thing that affects filter outcomes.

I deal with email at global scale, and yes, you're a fringe case. There are many billions of messages sent every day which have lots of links, and which recipients in general are interested in, and want delivered to the inbox (or promotions), rather than spam.

You're correct that a lot of senders have no idea when they're sending unwanted email, and that unwanted email is well within the realm of possibility here. But don't assume DOI is a panacea; you can use DOI and still send unwanted email. It can improve quality metrics (fewer bounces), but engagement metrics are a much stronger signal, especially for gmail.

Gmail is subject to specific targeting by spammers in a way that fastmail is not. The returns for spending weeks or months finding a niche way through Gmail's filters are justified by the number of gmail addresses that can be targeted, which is probably 3 orders of magnitude larger than the total number of fastmail subscribers.

Prefect, dagster, or maybe one could argue google cloud composer is different enough from vanilla airflow that it earns a spot on this list?

But you're right, Airflow is still the de facto standard, there's just increasing awareness of pain points with it.

Another comment suggested an extra rinse cycle.

It's not the only ambiguous wording in the post; the math doesn't add up here. It's probably a peak of 254 million/hr.

"during Black Friday processed a whopping 254 million emails every hour and 3.3 billion during the day"

Diet alone can't restore strains that don't exist in a patient's microbiome.

Yes, it's clear Gordon has applied a mastering limiter to the tracks he delivered to Bethesda, and given that the style of the music involves heavy processing/effects and multiple levels of compression, a somewhat aggressive mastering limiter seems appropriate here.

But your point about "increased dynamic range" due to the editing errors is a distraction from your claim that Gordon applied a mastering limiter (which he clearly did). It creates ambiguity, because you're using it in a way that's not aligned with common usage in this context. That's part of why you're getting pushback.

In any case, if we want to try to answer the question of why the OST has low dynamic range (in the mastering limiter sense), I am somewhat receptive to ndepoel's argument - it seems reasonable that in-game tracks could be mastered more aggressively, and with lower dynamic range, than what would be appropriate for a proper OST release. Caveat: I haven't done mastering work in the context of game audio so I can't say if that's common practice, but it seems a little more likely than not.

Now, applying a mastering limiter to sub-tracks? Extremely novice mistake, and could be described as brickwalling. Certainly within the realm of possibility given the novice quality of the editing here.