71–80 of 113 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
is it the http header? content-type: text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1 I suspect the developer used utf8 on his system but has no control over the response headers
In this case he could use http-equiv meta-tags.
Does "The Singing Vacuum Cleaner" from The Fifth Element count? Despite the rather ludicrous costume given the actress, the singer behind that piece is actually quite good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inva_Mula
"The Singing Vacuum Cleaner"? That's Diva Plavalaguna for you. Show some respect! Green?
Does "The Singing Vacuum Cleaner" from The Fifth Element count? Despite the rather ludicrous costume given the actress, the singer behind that piece is actually quite good: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inva_Mula
Humans always being ready to destroy expectations, someone of course did it, Jane Zhang the opera singer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrJFNYOw4wk
It’sa sad day when shallow content like this reaches the HN front-page. Calling a narrow subset of U.S.American/UK artists as “greatest artists of all time” is a big joke on the art of singing. Others are complaining about missing Nusrat Khan, or Dimash but heck, they didn’t even include Western greats like Pavarotti!
It’sa sad day when shallow content like this reaches the HN front-page. Calling a narrow subset of U.S.American/UK artists as “greatest artists of all time” is a big joke on the art of singing. Others are complaining about missing Nusrat Khan, or Dimash but heck, they didn’t even include Western greats like Pavarotti!
Ooor instead of being angry about the page and calling it a sad day, you could be happy about the interesting discussion it generated? Lots of new stuff here I've never heard about that was cool to check out.
Saccharine positivity is ruining HN. In the past few days I've seen HN posts that:
1. Said a company's behavior only looks immoral, but it's actually not their fault, because they're just following incentives.
2. Said volunteerism isn't needed right now because lots of people are out of work.
3. Complained about a long-form article not containing science, because they only read the first few paragraphs of the article.
The first is a reprehensible position, the second is harmfully ignorant, and the third is willfully ignorant. But all they had to do to get upvotes is say these horrible things in a nice tone. Responses which called a spade a spade got downvoted and/or deleted entirely.
This isn't even "being kind". It's not kind to screw people over because you're following incentives. It's not kind to encourage people not to volunteer during a time when the need for volunteerism is at a high. HN is optimizing for a shallow veneer of being kind over actual kindness.
I've considered just leaving HN in the past few weeks, but decided to stick around and try to change things. But at this point, getting downvoted or even banned doesn't feel like much of a loss to me. That's not to say you should care if I leave--you should care that your forum is becoming a place where people pat each other on the back for innovating, whether or not they actually innovate or their "innovations" are uninformed or harmful.
And sure, this did generate some interesting conversation, but the most interesting thing to me is The Range Planet[1] link, which could have been the original submission.
It’sa sad day when shallow content like this reaches the HN front-page. Calling a narrow subset of U.S.American/UK artists as “greatest artists of all time” is a big joke on the art of singing. Others are complaining about missing Nusrat Khan, or Dimash but heck, they didn’t even include Western greats like Pavarotti!
Ooor instead of being angry about the page and calling it a sad day, you could be happy about the interesting discussion it generated? Lots of new stuff here I've never heard about that was cool to check out.
It’sa sad day when shallow content like this reaches the HN front-page. Calling a narrow subset of U.S.American/UK artists as “greatest artists of all time” is a big joke on the art of singing. Others are complaining about missing Nusrat Khan, or Dimash but heck, they didn’t even include Western greats like Pavarotti!
Not to mention there is little accuracy in these ranges. They don't tell you the tonal quality of these high and low notes, which may occur properly in only a single song which the singer can't even replicate live. The idea that Axl Rose can legitimately hit that full range with good technique is laughable.
To be clear, that's not a criticism of Yorke--there's a lot more to vocal talent than range, and I'm actually a huge Radiohead fan.