เรื่องสายแลนโพสท์สุดท้าย(มั้ง)
เรื่องนี้ทะเลาะกันเพราะสองฝั่งมีหลักการต่างกันคือ หลักวิทยาศาสตร์ กับ ความรู้สึก สองฝั่งนี้มีวิธีพิสูจน์ที่ตัวเองเชื่อต่างกัน (คนนึงเอา data มาวาง อีกคนนึงบอกว่ามาฟังสิจะได้รู้สึก มันมีเรื่องที่เอ็งไม่รู้อีกเยอะ) ซึ่งผมว่าก็ไม่ผิดหรอกครับ แต่มันคุยกันยังไงก็ไม่รู้เรื่อง ไม่จบแน่ๆ แต่เราหยุดที่การทดลองของเรานี่แหละครับ
1. เราทำการทดสอบเสร็จแล้ว เดี๋ยวผล Official ออกมาก็คงรู้กัน มีคนจาก AT prosound-shop ไปร่วมทดสอบด้วยนะวันนี้ ก็น่าจะช่วยได้ระดับนึงเรื่องความน่าเชื่อถือ
2. ทดสอบใน Domain Digital ผลคือประเด็น Correctness/ความถูกต้อง ของข้อมูล ไม่น่าจะต้องมาคุยกันอีกแล้ว ทุกบิทที่ส่งไปเหมือนกันเป๊ะ เราทดสอบก็เป็นไปตามนี้ มีท่านอื่นๆก็ทดสอบก็ได้ผลไม่ต่างจากเรา โดยเฉพาะอย่างยิ่งการใช้งาน Indoor แบบสายสั้นๆ ดังนั้นต่อไปอย่างน้อยก็อ้างไม่ได้ว่าสายแถมส่งข้อมูลไม่ดี
3. สัญญาณ Digital ที่ผ่าน DAC ถึงแม้อุปกรณ์เดียวกัน เล่นซ้ำสองครั้ง แล้วเอามาเทียบกัน ยังไงก็ไม่เหมือน 100% เราก็พยายามจะพิสูจน์ว่าสาย LAN ไม่ได้มีผลกับตรงนี้แบบมีนัยสำคัญ
- สาย A วัด X รอบแล้วมาหา Noise Floor เฉลี่ย
- สาย B วัด X รอบแล้วมาหา Noise Floor เฉลี่ย
- ถอดแม่งทั้งสองเส้นแล้วหา Noise Floor เฉลี่ย
ถ้า Noise Floor ไม่ต่างกันมันก็น่าจะตัดสาย LAN ออกจากสมการได้
ส่วนนี้ยังไง Audiophile ก็เถียงได้ ว่า DAC เราไม่ดี (ตัวละแสนกว่า ใช้ใน Production ศิลปินจริงนะ แต่เค้าอาจมีตัวละล้าน++) หรืออุปกรณ์อื่นๆเราราคาไม่ถึง หรืออุปกรณ์วัดเรา (Pro tools) ไม่ละเอียดเท่าหูคนฟังได้ ไม่จบไม่สิ้น
4. แต่สำหรับ Audiophile ที่ยังอยากไปต่อ ยังไงลองไปลองกับอีกคนได้นะครับที่เค้าวางตัง Blind Test กับอุปกรณ์คุณที่บ้านคุณเองนี่แหละ แล้วเค้าจะเอาสาย LAN กากๆไปเปลี่ยนให้คุณฟังว่าแยกออกหรือไม่ออก
พวกผมคงทำได้สุดแค่นี้ และให้การทดลองนี้เป็น data point นึงที่ใช้อ้างอิงได้ในอนาคต
ตอนนี้รอผล Official จากโอ๊ตที่กำลังตัดคลิปอย่างหลังขดหลังแข็ง.. เห็นว่ากระทืบสาย LAN รัวๆวันนี้
data correctness 在 李怡 Facebook 的最佳解答
Battle between Freedom and Equality | Lee Yee
A netizen left a comment under my article from a couple of days ago, and said that if Trump is re-elected, he would turn “dictatorial”, and pursue “Trump thinking as mainstream”. He said that he “divides the United States and gave birth to racism, white nationalism, and xenophobia”, which is disastrous to human civilization, etc.
Under the constitutional system of the United States, one will have to step down after one re-election, and there is no way to bring about a dictatorship. Moreover, just look at all the stormy attacks mainstream media throws towards him, how is one to become a dictator? In a multicultural America, how could any almighty notion exist? As for racism and xenophobia, the cited example is him crowning the novel coronavirus “Chinese virus”, and the media claimed that this has caused a sharp increase in anti-Chinese speech online. But the virus did originate in China, did it not?
Other than the infiltration of Chinese interests that drove the U.S. media’s anti-Trump campaign, it has also been the “leftard” ideologies that have dominated academia and the press. How does one define “leftard”? Something that So Keng-chit said a few days ago was very appropriate, "the definition of “leftard” is that they replace strong and weak with “wrong and “right”; strong must be “wrong”, and weak must be “right”. Leftards uplift the weak by putting down the bullies to attain moral high grounds. The leftards must oppose the United States, for the see the United States as strong. The leftards sympathize with Saddam Hussein, because compared with the United States, Saddam Hussein is weak. They cannot see that Saddam Hussein is strong compared with the Iraqis. Hence the ‘tard’ in leftard.”
It is not that they cannot see, they are just intentionally not seeing. The mainstream media reports about Iraq after Saddam Hussein had fallen were that there was no longer a stronghold of a government, which led to the loss of societal management. Bombs were exploding daily, and blood flooded the land of the country. People lost homes and livelihoods. However, data showed that in the later phase of Saddam Hussein’s regime, Iraq’s population was 26 million, and the per capita GDP was only US$625, not to mention that the inflation rate was high in the three digits. After the United States attacked Iraq and introduced the democratic system, the Iraqi population has risen to 35 million, the per capita GDP has increased to US$4,600, and the inflation rate has dropped to 6%. Despite the global economic slowdown, the Iraqi economy has grown by an average of 9.9% per year for more than a decade.
In addition, the mainstream media rarely reported the substantial progress in Afghanistan’s economy and people’s livelihood after the United States eradicated the Taliban regime before establishing a democratic system in Afghanistan. It is rarely reported that after South Africa got rid of the white regime, social security was horrifying. It is because such truthful reporting is not politically correct.
Shouldn’t the motto of news publishing be “all news worth reporting”? When political correctness overrides this creed, there is no longer press freedom.
The so-called political correctness stems from anti-discrimination. Anti-discrimination means upholding the concept that “all men are born equal”, and to protect vulnerable groups. Anti-discrimination used to be a kind of progress, since the starting point is not the interests of the majority of society, but the moral and spiritual demands. But when this kind of protection gradually develops into a disregard towards differences and the diversity of human life, it becomes leftards who wave around the banner of political correctness. If the welfare of new immigrants is treated the same as that of local residents, how is that different from obliterating the long-term tax payment of local residents? Using Black Lives Matter to rationalize violence and chaos, you get Black Lives Better, and ignore the fundamental problems of the root causes of issues such as the Black community’s slighting of education; with the police worrying that law enforcement will cause them trouble, the crime in the Black areas will increase. Anti-discrimination has developed into a state where even praising women for being beautiful is discrimination. Obama once praised the Democratic vice presidential candidate Kamala Harris as the most beautiful State Attorney General in the United States, and was then accused of discrimination by feminists. He was forced to apologize. To protect LGBT, many American college toilets no longer distinguish between men and women, making women fearful.
“All men are born equal” is a false proposition. Some people are born with a silver spoon in their mouths, and others are born in the slums of Africa. How are they born equal? American conservative Russel Kirk said that we must pay attention to diversity and differences. Only before God and a fair court can there be true quality; all other attempts to achieve equality will inevitably lead to societal stagnation. If the balance of natural differences and conventions is tipped in order to pursue equality for all, then it will not be long before tyrants or despicable oligarchs start to create new inequalities.
Socialism waves around the banner of equality, and has been breeding tyranny for a whole century. Modern leftards is another form of pursuit of equality, one that is destroying the freedom of human society. Freedom is more important than equality. If there is no freedom, there will be no equality among people who are not free.
This U.S. general election may as well be regarded as a battle between freedom and equality.
data correctness 在 Howtindog's Channel Facebook 的最讚貼文
[HowtinQuote]
我一向都很欣賞Dale Allison的坦誠, 佢會更正自己之前寫過的嘢, 亦會對自己本來信奉的嘢提出疑問. 最近喺佢一篇文入面, 見到呢段文字, 是很真實的情況:
Imagine with me a young graduate student in a department of religion. She becomes convinced, let us say, that Albert Schweitzer’s reconstruction of Jesus was close to the truth—or, as the case may be, not close to the truth—because a revered professor, whose arguments she has not the means to rebut, persuades her of this. Once her paradigm about Jesus is in place, a cognitive bias will also be in place. We all see what we expect to see and want to see—like highly prejudicial football fans who always spot more infractions committed by the team they are jeering against than by the team they are cheering for. If we hold a belief, we will notice confirming evidence, especially if we are aware that not everyone agrees with us. Disconfirming evidence, to the contrary, makes us uncomfortable, and so we are more likely to miss, neglect, or critically evaluate it. We do not see things as they are but as we construe them to be. After a period of time, then, one might anticipate that our graduate student will have collected her own evidence for her professor’s belief and become all the more persuaded of its correctness. As soon, moreover, as she communicates her views in public fashion, say by tutoring undergraduates or publishing a paper, she may be set for life—especially as one’s self-perception as an expert, the psychologists tell us, typically enlarges self-confidence. The prospect of embarrassment from publicly admitting error can make it hard to admit error to oneself, to undertake the difficult cognitive task of rearranging data into a new pattern after one has long been looking at an old pattern.
......
In my own case, my picture of Jesus was developed long before I much worried about the details of method, and long before I went on record as espousing this or that view of the criteria of authenticity. Moreover, and as one would cynically expect, the method that I developed later led straight to a Jesus congenial to the judgments of my youth. This I find disturbing, and my history cannot be atypical. Surely no one started with method. The implication seems to be that developing and deploying our criteria serve less to help us make truly new discoveries than to help us to confirm inclinations already held in advance.
~Dale C. Allison, Jr., "How to Marginalize the Traditional Criteria of Authenticity," in Handbook for the Study of the Historical Jesus (eds. T. Holmen and S.E. Porter; Leiden: Brill, 2011) 3-30.