I could default on all my debts that are beyond my means tomorrow

But how did you manage to get debt that is above your means? If you take out a loan, for example, don’t they check if you can afford it?

fzf fuzzy finder. Great tool to quickly find those files you were looking for.

The Unforgiven and The Unforgiven II by Metallica

Yes they are. The only difference between a cult and a religion is the number of followers.

At that time in that region there were a lot of cults. It’s very likely that the Jesus figure from the bible is an amalgamation of multiple cult leaders from that period.

Kind of dumb to set the auto-reply to a Welsh text, you’d expect that people needing the services of a Welsh translator won’t be able to understand the text.

You have to exist to be able to write stuff down, so that’s probably why he didn’t.

Chef

There is also OTC https://www.open-telekom-cloud.com/en

Down Periscope

Galaxy Quest

points at username

‘Being born on the wrong planet’ is a common analogy to explain how people like me (asperger or high-functioning autism as it’s called now) experience the world. We live on a planet with people who look like us, but who behave in strange, illogical, irrational and often creepy ways. It’s like living among a bunch of aliens. You people are seriously weird.

You misunderstand me. My principal point is that any 2.0/2.1 (i.e., stereo) setup will always be better than the surround sound system of equal price.

Define better? Better depends on what your application is. They won’t be better at playing object-based surround sound. Both kinds of systems are set up for a different purpose. For example, in my home theater I want a subwoofer that makes me feel explosions in my gut. That’s not what I look for in the low-end of my 2.x system.

As for my comment on spending money on speakers I would only use for movies: surround sound only has a real advantage for movies,

Of course, but we were talking about sound systems for use with your TV for watching movies.

for other activities stereo speakers of the same price will undisputedly be better.

That’s why you have both kinds of systems.

I would hate to spend 3k on a surround system, when I’ll use my 3k stereo system for most of my listening anyway (this is an example).

I use both regularly, but at different times of the day and for different purposes. I use my HT system when watching a movie or series in the evening. I use my 2.0 system during the day while I’m working or relaxing on the weekend.

The long leaf pine has a grass phase where it just looks like grass

Trees are weird, because phylogenetically there is no such thing as trees. As in: there is no single branch of the evolutionary tree where trees split off from other plants and there’s just an entire branch of different trees. Instead, different plants in separate parts of the evolutionary tree evolved into trees, and sometimes back into non-tree plants, and sometime even back into trees again. So a tree that spends part of its lifecycle as grass is par for the course.

You’re like the audiophile’s evil twin (I’m kidding). The audiophile insists on purism, only 2.0, and you are waaaay on the side of the spectrum.

No, actually I’m not. I have a nice 2.0 system as well for listening to music. The 5.1.4 system is in my living room with my TV. The 2.0 system is in my bedroom where I can chill out on my bed while listening. I also have a nice set of headphones with a separate DAC for listening to music.

That is a big part of mixing, because I want as many people to enjoy my music and the music I mix for other people as possible.

Sure, but that’s a completely different use-case. Movies are mixed for theaters, people don’t need to spend a fortune on equipment to enjoy that mix, they just need to buy a movie ticket.

Movies, however, are frequently available past their premieres. Maybe this is greed on the part of the artist, that they sell the movies, even though they know that it is impossible to truly enjoy the movie without the very specific audio setup it was created with?

Not the artist, the publishers. They want to wring every dollar out of it they can. The people actually creating movies don’t care about people watching the movie on TV at all.

A good example of this attitude: your movie can’t even be nominated for an Oscar unless it has been in theaters. I.e. a movie that’s not made for theatrical release isn’t even worth considering.

You don’t need subtitles, you need a decent surround sound system.

I had a great experience, in part because I love more about the movie than just the visual and auditory delivery. I like the story and philosophy as well.

A chain is a strong as its weakest link. You want to tick all boxes, not just half of them.

You can, of course, build you own surround sound system for more than a few thousand, but that is a radically different price range, which I don’t think is really relevant to this conversation

It doesn’t have to be expensive at all. You can get a 5.1 setup with a decent amp, floor-standing fronts, bookshelf surrounds, a center and a subwoofer for as little as €3000, and that will blow any sound bar in the same price range out of the water. Add a nice 77” OLED, pick last year’s model for a good deal and you can have a home theater setup that will be good enough for 99,9% of people for less than €5k.

(I certainly don’t have that kind of money to spend on a speaker that I’m only using when watching movies).

Why do you think I would use it only for movies? I have never even heard the speakers in my TV because disabling them was the first thing I did after unboxing. I use my 5.1.4 set all the time. Why wouldn’t you?

I think it is borderline poor-shaming (or really just not-rich-shaming) to say that movies can only have audible dialogue at $10,000 surround sound systems. Before that, 2.0 or 2.1 will almost always be a better investment.

No one says you need to spend that amount of money, it can be much, much cheaper. €3k can get you a pretty nice set, but you can build a passable one for half that.

This is what I can’t stand about you humans. This tendency to be okay with mediocrity.

Doesn’t it bother you immensely that you’re getting a subpar experience? Even if you enjoy it, doesn’t just knowing it could be so much better suck all the enjoyment out of it?

By that measure, most movie theaters also shouldn’t be showing movies – very few of them have the precise setup a given movie was mastered for.

That’s what calibration is for. You master using a reference display and whatever you use in the theater should be calibrated to the same specs.

Or theaters with Atmos sound systems if the movie was made with DTS-X in mind.

Why would that be a problem? DTS:X is more flexible with speaker layout than Atmos. If you have a theater with a speaker layout for Atmos it should be no issue to use them with a DTS:X processor.

Or, you know, you release it for multiple projection and sound setups and accept that there is a close enough level of fidelity for a given use case. Which leads us back to actually properly mixing it for the home release

How do you go from “Atmos and DTS:X in a theater are close enough to give a similar experience” to “we should mix it for a bunch of crappy 2.0 TV speakers” ?

If you mix it for such an inferior setup, nothing is left of the original movie. Sounds i a huge part of the movie experience. Try watching a scary movie with the sound muted, it’s not scary at all. If you mix it for a TV’s built in speakers, nothing of value is left. What is even the point of watching a movie like that?