methehack

And a sound business decision until the copyright law works itself out.

The Erie Canal (362.9 mi) is not as long as the California aqueduct nor the Grand Canal in China but it is also longer than the "man made river" of the article, and IT HAS A SONG, and a good one at that.

Maybe the idea is that from the first person perspective, neither pursuit (EDIT) felt like doing anything useful... and yet...

Dude, the DAC is not the dongle.

Check out roon + quboz and/or tidal -- that's the audiophile route.

Roon is just meta-data and presentation. Quboz/Tidal hold the content. Roon's content and interface is fantastic compared to spotify and apple music. It uses third party content (wikipedia, reviews from tivo, maybe others) seemlessly. And it elevates the use of the album art. Also, it allows for album-centric approach to viewing/organizing/listening which I vastly prefer. Roon also allows deep linking. Like every album/track has a list of the people on it and you can see everything each of them has done. Same for composers/etc. Also, from each track, you can get to all the other recordings across all artists. Using this for the last month has really pointed out to me how crap apple and spotify are for discovery/learning/investigation.

Technically, this route is also superior because, as I understand it, roon tells the streamer + DAC, which may be way higher quality than the DAC in any apple device, to stream directly from TIDAL or QUBOZ. This yields higher quality because you skip the apple DAC and airplay, both of which lessen quality compared to what's possible with the other route. I'm sure the apple DACs are fine for what they are, but I'm also sure they're full of compromises. You can spend like 5K on a DAC alone.

I know audiophiles can really overdo it, but I have been using this combination for a month or so now and I think it's sooo much better. Music is way more like I remember it. It was confusing to me because spotify/apple music have everything and yet I found them very frustrating to use. My instinct was right -- they're crap products compared to what's possible. Your mileage may vary.

Given your description, I'm surprised you, or any responsible driver, would keep using the feature. It sounds really dangerous.

Rails is really a gift. It's so productive and works so great on teams because of the heavy conventions I think. And the ruby library ecosystem is insanely good. Libraries generally do what they say they're going to do and there are libraries for everything. I've wondered a lot about why this is. Heavy air time? Is there something about ruby?

Every now and then I try some new web app framework that catches my eye in some new language and it always seems like its just getting started compared to rails -- and, it is. Worth noting -- rails works great API only as well. I bet Django is pretty good by now too of course, but Rails is really a fantastic tool well suited to task.

Nonsense. No one is trying to establish a causal link here. Still, a concrete example of what's possible is useful and inspirational. If you do this, will you get this outcome? Probably not. Does it help me imagine a possible path? Yes, definitely.

Rails + angular works well, might be a compromise for you. You could replace the backend endpoint by endpoint... e.g. (or similar to incrementalize it). I mean -- assuming the C# is not something you want to carry forward.

I think if you get a bad performance review, they should probably just send you to prison.

Yes because it is still a hyper-effective and flexible way to build and iterate many products. And it's not just rails. The library breadth and quality of ruby libraries IME is off the hook great. Some kind of magic has happened.