Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Audiblegate

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 362 posts

Re: Audiblegate

#271

Post by SamBam »

ALittleLight wrote: post #27

I worked on a tool at Amazon once that incorrectly calculated royalties, not because Amazon was greedily trying to steal from publishers, but just because of general incompetence (or, lack of sufficient competence maybe). Basically, of the people who wrote the tool, tested the tool, and used the tool, none of them knew exactly how royalties should be calculated and none of them could tell whether or not they were bei…

I don't see how charging ebook authors 15c per megabyte a buyer downloads (it can't cost AZ anywhere near that much) before calculating royalties could possibly be anything other than shady accounting. That's not just a couple engineers confused about the specs.

> Basically, of the people who wrote the tool, tested the tool, and used the tool, none of them knew exactly how royalties should be calculated

I really don't see how this is a valid excuse. "How the royalties should be calculated" is a lawyer's domain, an engineer should never have had anything to do with the decision, and any engineer who was tasked with coding the calculation without proper guidance should have pushed back.

Re: Audiblegate

#272

Post by playpause »

salamandersauce wrote: post #207
ohgodplsno wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your housemate doesn't re-listen the recorded book, doesn't make edits, doesn't clear up passages, cut and rearrange unwanted silences? He is either wildly underestimating it by only taking the "talk into a microphone" part in consideration, or I feel terribly sorry for anyone listening to his audiobooks.

Does the narrator need to be involved in making edits, re-listen to recorded book, cutting and rearranging unwanted silences? Other than the occasional line redo if something is flubbed or off I don't see how that involves the narrator?

It's not just the odd flubbed line, it's loads of problems. I hear a lot of stories about it. Sometimes the narrator's pronunciation of a weird name can drift, very gradually, and the engineer then has to go a long way back to figure out where the drift started, and get them to restart from there. It has to sound natural and flowing, so no you can't just re-record individual lines and splice them in later, they would stand out and it would sound shit. That's why it can take up to a few hours to get one hour of audio down. (But not 5-12 hours, he says that's a huge exaggeration.)

Re: Audiblegate

#273

Post by pc86 »

IgorPartola wrote: post #256
AitchEmArsey wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Domain-Driven Design > It's not exactly rocket-science either I'd imagine that occasionally "rocket science" is exactly what it is!

This always baffled me. Rocket science is basically F = GMm/d^2 with m changing over time as you burn fuel and also thrust vectoring. Where is the complexity?

This might be the most stereotypically HN comment I've ever read. Not in a good way.

Re: Audiblegate

#274

Post by samatman »

zodo123 wrote: post #4

The giant nosed character shown in the twitter preview for the audiblegate.com site brings to mind some uncomfortable and hopefully unintentional stereotypes.

I actually came here to say this. I'm quite sure it's unintentional, and was just someone grabbing some clip art which was itself perhaps not fully thought through.

I'm not going to be leading the mob that makes a big deal out of this, because I don't care. But combining a huge nose and a bag of money in your splash image is not going to serve your cause in any useful way.

Re: Audiblegate

#275

Post by ateng »

IgorPartola wrote: post #256
AitchEmArsey wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Domain-Driven Design > It's not exactly rocket-science either I'd imagine that occasionally "rocket science" is exactly what it is!

This always baffled me. Rocket science is basically F = GMm/d^2 with m changing over time as you burn fuel and also thrust vectoring. Where is the complexity?

If you just model rocket science as a point mass with variable m then yes…

But it’s more than that. To name a few: * How does one raise the thrust temperature as high as possible without melting the engine to maximise thrust? (The burning temperature IS already higher than the engine material melting point) * how does one reduce the redundancy (both system wise and material wise) to minimise weight while ensuring the rocket won’t fail?

Re: Audiblegate

#276

Post by samatman »

IgorPartola wrote: post #256
AitchEmArsey wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Domain-Driven Design > It's not exactly rocket-science either I'd imagine that occasionally "rocket science" is exactly what it is!

This always baffled me. Rocket science is basically F = GMm/d^2 with m changing over time as you burn fuel and also thrust vectoring. Where is the complexity?

The "rocket scientist" became a metonym for a very intelligent and skilled professional during the Apollo program.

Does that unbaffle your baffles (oh, yes, rocket scientists do have to deal with baffles! You left that out) or should I elaborate? Bless your heart, but it isn't exactly rocket science.

Re: Audiblegate

#277

Post by samatman »

pc86 wrote: post #273
IgorPartola wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This always baffled me. Rocket science is basically F = GMm/d^2 with m changing over time as you burn fuel and also thrust vectoring. Where is the complexity?

This might be the most stereotypically HN comment I've ever read. Not in a good way.

Well, if you picture a spherical, frictionless rocket scientist, in a vacuum...

Re: Audiblegate

#278

Post by 1970-01-01 »

IgorPartola wrote: post #256
AitchEmArsey wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Domain-Driven Design > It's not exactly rocket-science either I'd imagine that occasionally "rocket science" is exactly what it is!

This always baffled me. Rocket science is basically F = GMm/d^2 with m changing over time as you burn fuel and also thrust vectoring. Where is the complexity?

     It takes sixty-five thousand errors before you are qualified to make a rocket.
     -Wernher von Braun

Re: Audiblegate

#279

Post by samatman »

bitcharmer wrote: post #201
bawolff wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> never assume malice if it's possible that incompetence took place". Reading the quote literally i disagree. There is miles of difference between "adequately explained" and "possible" > That's pretty naïve way to see the world, especially in this day and age. I would actually argue the other way is naive. Assuming that all bad things that happen in the world are because of an evil person is what happens in movies an…

Your sentiment is quite common among people raised in comfy, western parts of the world. I now live here and am astonished by the amount of adult, supposedly life-experienced people going into full shock that always comes with comments like: "I would never expect our government to do such thing!". It's time to grow up. I bet you think billionaires are good people and real justice takes place in the courts of law. Als…

Just so you understand clearly, when you lose the thread completely like this and start responding emotionally and personally, you've lost the argument and everyone watching knows it.

You would be better served not posting this kind of reply.

Re: Audiblegate

#280

Post by IgorPartola »

ateng wrote: post #275
IgorPartola wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This always baffled me. Rocket science is basically F = GMm/d^2 with m changing over time as you burn fuel and also thrust vectoring. Where is the complexity?

If you just model rocket science as a point mass with variable m then yes… But it’s more than that. To name a few: * How does one raise the thrust temperature as high as possible without melting the engine to maximise thrust? (The burning temperature IS already higher than the engine material melting point) * how does one reduce the redundancy (both system wise and material wise) to minimise weight while ensuring the…

Ah so you want aeronautical engineering, not rocket science!
Post reply on HN