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

Predicting Best Picture winners using coughs and sneezes

journal-doi.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 155 posts

Re: Predicting Best Picture winners using coughs and sneezes

#91

Post by willis936 »

drnonsense42 wrote: post #69
V__ wrote: post #16

> Editor’s Note: The claims in this paper have not been verified because the researchers have refused to yield their full dataset and methodology, citing “intellectual property rights,” “the sanctity of the First Amendment,” and “the Wright brothers never had to show their work.” We are publishing their paper here because they won’t stop mailing hard copies in triplicate to our homes and offices. Love it.

Would love to see these folks hijack certain conferences :). Might be good for “science” in the long run

Assuming "science" = pseudoscience: yes but pseudoscience is already doing a bit too well these days.

Re: Predicting Best Picture winners using coughs and sneezes

#92

Post by soneca »

hiccuphippo wrote: post #64
0xfeba wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also: > We prefer subtitles over machine-learning-based detection because the presence of a cough in subtitles means it was prominent enough for a person to write it down. Also our postdoctoral fellow was the only one who completed the Tensorflow tutorial. lol

In my experience Closed Captions almost always describe sounds, specially if they happen offscreen or things like the type of background music; Subtitles don't, I assume they expect you can hear the sounds.

Also, Closed Captions always describe sounds and lines of background dialog (like TV) that I definitely can’t hear in the sound.

As a non-native English speaker who can hear I often see movies and shows with English audio and English closed captions, the redundancy helps me. It happens all the time that the CC tell things that you just can’t hear in the movie.

Re: Predicting Best Picture winners using coughs and sneezes

#94

Post by skrebbel »

V__ wrote: post #16

> Editor’s Note: The claims in this paper have not been verified because the researchers have refused to yield their full dataset and methodology, citing “intellectual property rights,” “the sanctity of the First Amendment,” and “the Wright brothers never had to show their work.” We are publishing their paper here because they won’t stop mailing hard copies in triplicate to our homes and offices. Love it.

wow looks like the entire domain https://journal-doi.org/ was made just to make this look like a real journal article, love the attention to detail.

the only reason i checked was because the layout and typography was too pretty for a real journal site :)

<3 pudding.cool

Re: Predicting Best Picture winners using coughs and sneezes

#95

Post by willis936 »

hhmc wrote: post #65
waffl wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The German word for 'time' is 'Zeit', so that would be 'Zeitgeist' :)

Wouldn't want to leave the joke unexplained now, would we

There's a metajoke in here somewhere.

https://youtu.be/llE7wT1BKt8

Re: Predicting Best Picture winners using coughs and sneezes

#96

Post by toyg »

thathndude wrote: post #81
toyg wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's been underrated, in critics' circles, for 15-20 years or so by now. Since the tales about its production, and the related art, have fully emerged, it has been widely re-evaluated - also because Lynch has gone on to become a bit of a sacred cow after Twin Peaks and his later work.

Twin Peaks was one of my Covid binges. So trippy.

The original series set the bar for thriller tv series from then on - both on the good elements (always one more secret, one more cliffhanger; living on the edge of fantasy) and the bad (making up stuff as they go along; disappointing finale; unceremoniously cut).

I have only watched a couple of episodes of series 3 but by now I've seen enough Lynch to dread his output, narratively speaking.

Re: Predicting Best Picture winners using coughs and sneezes

#98

Post by Well_Keen »

0xfeba wrote: post #44
V__ wrote: post #16

> Editor’s Note: The claims in this paper have not been verified because the researchers have refused to yield their full dataset and methodology, citing “intellectual property rights,” “the sanctity of the First Amendment,” and “the Wright brothers never had to show their work.” We are publishing their paper here because they won’t stop mailing hard copies in triplicate to our homes and offices. Love it.

Also: > We prefer subtitles over machine-learning-based detection because the presence of a cough in subtitles means it was prominent enough for a person to write it down. Also our postdoctoral fellow was the only one who completed the Tensorflow tutorial. lol

> only one who completed the Tensorflow tutorial

Surprised one did, it is a real pain in the arse

Re: Predicting Best Picture winners using coughs and sneezes

#99

Post by jhbadger »

bena wrote: post #83
rado wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jason Momoa was 100% Jason Momoa. His (lack of) characterisation was so bad I stared at his scenes in disbelief.

To be fair, Patrick Stewart was 100% Patrick Stewart when he played the role.

Although that's really only recognizable in hindsight. In 1984 Stewart was still a fairly obscure character actor who had minor parts in BBC shows like I, Claudius.

Re: Predicting Best Picture winners using coughs and sneezes

#100

Post by mcv »

hiccuphippo wrote: post #64
0xfeba wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also: > We prefer subtitles over machine-learning-based detection because the presence of a cough in subtitles means it was prominent enough for a person to write it down. Also our postdoctoral fellow was the only one who completed the Tensorflow tutorial. lol

In my experience Closed Captions almost always describe sounds, specially if they happen offscreen or things like the type of background music; Subtitles don't, I assume they expect you can hear the sounds.

Subtitles frequently describe entire background conversations I can't hear when I'm watching at home. Maybe I should turn up the sound to a ridiculous level.
Post reply on HN