I don't think the author realizes the time*attention triage that happens when your sole corporate responsibility is to manage others. I've noticed a distinct personal trend in "email succinctness" the more people I need to manage.
That said, using good grammar is never a bad thing and depending on the subject matter and relationships between the respective communicators, short-hand can be both a deliberate obfuscation practice and social coding of the intimacy of the respective relationships.
The chosen propagation media (wire substitute) wouldn't have significant frequency responses differences for those lengths for that level of power in the audio frequency range.
You'd need to have transmission-line effects kick-in which would occur at higher frequencies and/or if a cross-section of the signal propagation paths would have a significant difference in impedance. All three of the chosen medium act like simple power-sink resistors in this scenario--attenuating the signal consistently across the power frequency spectra.
Seriously, just do a frequency sweep and plot the log of the output responses! But no, that would be far too straightforward an experiment.
What really matters is the signal source, any amplified distortion in the signal, final sonic transducer (speaker), transmission medium (air density), transducer orientation (for higher frequencies), and the individual listener's ear.
"However, the tester surmised that introducing the materials into the circuit is just like adding a resistor in series, and they’re unlikely to distort the audio too much, except by lowering the signal level."
It's really a terrible write-up (AI?), pure click bait.
The final sentence is just garbage:
"They then tried various materials like mud and banana, which, although they’re pretty poor conductors, still seemed to introduce imperceptible changes to the signal, at least for the average person."
This is also not true and hasn't been so for years. One can set a preference to "not recommend", but one can not explicitly block any channel.
Depending on your particular "preference constellation's weights" (over which you have no direct control), you can, in fact, be shown videos from that channel again.
I pay for plenty of other media (music, games, sports, comedy, books) and even do some Patreon for a few podcasts and YT channels, but I refuse to directly support a publishing monopoly that has had an actively user-hostile interface for over a decade.
I used to use Invidious but it was breaking too often. Nowadays, I just open YouTube in a private window, or use yt-dlp from time to time to watch something later offline.
Who is actually doing this routinely and how is this even a problem?
For actual data work, any sort of "rich formatting" is no bueno and icons are great for quick reflexive categorization for information-dense habitually used interfaces. They just take a slightly slower learning curve.
I used to be an Eddie Bauer customer, but the quality of even their basic clothes (think business casual "docker" pants) rapidly diminished and their technical/functional gear was never remotely in the same category as Patagonia or Arc'teryx.
I still hold out hope for Patagonia in the post Yvon Chouinard era.
Their quality and customer service remain top-tier. Hell, they repaired my puffy jacket's zipper for free--hopefully it will have another decade of hard use.
That said, using good grammar is never a bad thing and depending on the subject matter and relationships between the respective communicators, short-hand can be both a deliberate obfuscation practice and social coding of the intimacy of the respective relationships.
reply