>However, the company's response included a configuration change that disrupted VPN connectivity to the site. SoundCloud has not provided a timeline for when VPN access will be fully restored.
I attend a few parties that preach/practice this. Along with it being everyones responsibility to enforce a no cellphones policy on the dance floor. It provides for a much better experience on the dance floor. Just be yourself ;) Live in the NOW. I think some guy named Danny Tenaglia mentioned that once. The curators of these events have also built wall of sounds around the world(life changing BTW) and care about the music.
Education about a proper CLUB/PARTY night goes a long ways.
Everyone seemed to be influenced by AFX in the 90s? Or at least it was the in thing Todo, make ambient techno. Digging through the back catalog of techno artist you seem to find LOTS of 90s ambient / IDMish techno that are beautiful pieces of music. Speedy J's ginger and gspot albums and Luke Slater's the 7th plain albums come to mind for 90s ambient but now they are playing mind bending techno.
Great read, and happy to be a part of the "how low can you go" trend in guitars with my Agile Baritone LP style 27" scale. Sounds epic dropped lower run through a bass amp.
2nd year throwing the party they setup a nice stack of hay bales near the back of the dance floor. And then bought a double wide trailer and parked that to right of the stage, the camp site is also on that side.
Technically the comparison is not totally fair, that Hubble image was taken in visible light, while Webb's in infrared. Dust blocks visible light stronger, so background stars are effectively hidden from Hubble, but not from Webb. Here [1] you can see same field in visible and close infrared taken by Hubble. Webb of course shines in all the fine details and faint stars number.
JWST is undeniably a superior and remarkable instrument, but there has been a bit of a trend I have noticed on social media - and this may just be my perception rather than reality - of comparing it with suboptimal alternatives rather than the best image we had prior to the JWST, often making the new images look dramatically better when in fact the improvements to the best images we already had are more subtle (perhaps because they are particularly subtle on low res article thumbnails and mobile devices?)
I doubt it's anything nefarious. I think it's due to choosing comparisons based on popularity vs content.
Hubble's visible light Pillars of Creation image, for example, is super famous and instantly recognizable, but I'm not sure I would have known what I was looking at if the infrared version was used.
Also, different devices rarely have exactly the same usage and specifications. For example, Webb and Hubble have very different wavelength sensitivities, and this has tradeoffs in resolution and quality. In other words, the subjective image quality you get from the pictures may not tell the whole story of how valuable the data itself is.
Well some of that is because JWST's images are actually lower resolution than Hubble in many cases (depending on the wavelength). Though at wavelengths they both operate in, Webb's will of course be much higher resolution.
>Webb’s deeper infrared vision (0.6 microns to 28.5 microns)
That's true for the entire observatory, but this particular image was captured with NIRCAM, the near-infrared instrument, which goes out to 5 microns. Deep infrared is done with MIRI, a lower resolution instrument. (As required by the Abbe diffraction law)
Hubble can take images similar to what you see, but the famous pillars of creation image is not an example of that.
That in image in "Hubble pallet" or SHO. It's an image where the colors come from three extremely narrow spectral bands that have better contrast in astronomical images because they show ionized gasses with less noise from dust reflected blackblody light.
Red=sulphur line, Green=Hydrogen line Blue=oxygen line.
The oxygen line appear blue-green to the human eye, and the Hydrogen alpha line is a dim far red color that the eye isn't very sensitive to, the sulphur line is even further towards the infrared, barely visible at all.
Ignoring magnification and only considering visible light, Hubble imagery is a colorized version of what you could see if you could stare at an object for hours at a time while accumulating every photon during that time at a 0Hz refresh rate into a single image rather than just seeing new faint photons at a constant refresh rate.
Thank you. If I was in a spaceship at a much closer distance to the object than I am right now, would I be able to see the dust and the shape similar to what we see on the photos? Or is this all invisible to the human eye?
Sure. It's a physical object, reflecting broadband light from nearby stars. The colors would be different, and you might not see the same fine structure without filters, like how the Sun looks very different through a Calcium K line filter https://thelonelyphoton.com/2022/01/08/solar-imaging/
Given its size the density is probably pretty low, though. If you got right up next to it you wouldn't see much, in the same way a fog bank gets less visible when you walk towards it.
Thank you - your explanation and that photo of the Sun with the Calcium K filter are very helpful.
With so many colorized photos of space objects and so many artist impressions, I wasn’t sure whether space is just a black void to the human eye or we are capable of seeing the gorgeous colors of different nebulae and such.
Take the colorized image to B&W, and that would be closer to what the human eye could see.
If you've ever been to a dark sky location so that you could see the Milky Way, then that's about what you'd see. Our eyes just are not sensitive enough to pick out colors. Even in a telescope, viewing objects like Orion's Nebula, which is incredibly bright, it is just B&W in the eye piece. Viewing Andromeda galaxy is also just B&W.
There is no way you could see this with your own eyes, there's no vantage point you can "stand on" to see the pillars - you'd either be too far away to see anything, or if you moved close enough so your eyes could actually focus on something, you'd be "inside" it, meaning you would see one star at most.
yes, hubble's image is closer to what you could see with your eyes, since we also (mostly) sensitive to visible light. the zoom magnification is different, though, of course.
Depends on when you would see it. Because of inflation the color of things far away is shifting to longer wavelengths so they become invisible later in the timeline of the universe (invisible to humans).
The subject of this particular image is part of the Eagle Nebula in our own galaxy. So it's near enough to be gravitationally bound and not subject to the redshift of cosmic inflation.
I think my point is that because the nebula is in our own galaxy, its motion relative to Earth would be dominated by the orbital motions of the two bodies (insofar as one can consider a whole nebula a "body"). So any Doppler shift of the light traveling from the nebula to Earth would be redshifted as the galactocentric orbits of the two bodies carried them away from each other, but blueshifted as the orbits carried them towards each other.
Which is a roundabout way of also saying: the nebula and Earth are in a gravitaionally bound system (the Milky Way) where gravity overpowers whatever it is that's causing cosmic inflation. So even if their orbital motions result in a redshift as currently viewed from Earth, the amount of redshift contributed by inflation (if any) is undetectable.
That said, if you know the orbits of two bodies, and can predict their motion relative to one another, you could calculate the expected red or blue shift, as viewed from one of those bodies, at any point in their orbits. :)
Put another way: jwst sees both the clouds and (many of) the stars, while Hubble seems to have been able to see one or the other more clearly at a time.
You could infer from that that the thing jwst is doing better is having a much greater range of spectrum available to it at a time (though I don't actually know if that's correct).
Fair? This is exactly why they are not the same type of telescope only Biggie Sized. Seeing these comparisons is the point. "Here's visible light, and now here's what's hiding behind the visible dust" should be the tag to everyone of these kinds of comparisons
The fact that the tiniest features of the cloud appear preserved between the two images gives an appreciation for how big it is. The two photos are taken 27 years apart
I'm more surprised by how much change there is. All the bluish stars in the JWT version are also in the Hubble version, but none of the yellowish. Is that parallax movement or are they obscured by the medium mentioned in the article? ("no galaxies")
The bluest ones in the JWST images are the higest frequency (shortest wavelength) it can see. These are the longest frequencies hubble can see, so they look reddish.
Anything in JWST that is lower frequency (yellow to red) will not be visible to Hubble
Actually Webb has marginally less resolution than Hubble. Even though Webb is significantly larger the wavelength used is significantly longer resulting in a resolution that is approximately half that of Hubble.
Of course the electronics are better so some of the image capturing is better but the resolution is not.
I would like to see Webb’s photo without so much lens flare on individual stars (not sure if that’s the right term). Just kind of toned down stars but the same level of detail.
It's been a interesting past couple of days of drama but the article fails to mention that twitch employees were accepting large amounts of money from gambling streamers live on stream.
Is that what triggered this action now? It's odd because any category of streamer could be paying employees large sums of money to recommend them. A lot of gamers say that Pool & Hot Tub streams are being recommended despite only watching game streams. Now that's probably because they have high engagement and sub activity, but they or any category could just as well be influencing employees.
>A lot of gamers say that Pool & Hot Tub streams are being recommended despite only watching game streams.
Some hot tub streamers regularly get 10k+ viewers. If that viewer base overlaps with $your_favorite_streamer, then you will get hot tub streamer recommended. That said, I personally don't see problem with hot tub streamers; it seems like incredibly puritanical moral panic for some reason and I don't know why that gets so much attention in 2022.
Some of us like to use twitch to see people playing games (you know, its original intended purpose) and when half of the front page is glorified camgirls, it undermines that. More and more streamers are abandoning games and going for boring IRL garbage instead because that's what Twitch promotes.
>and when half of the front page is glorified camgirls, it undermines that.
Half of the front page has never been glorified camgirls. This is just more moral panic. Amouranth is practically the only streamer who is pulling enough numbers to be in the top 10 of any section. The featured section of twitch has never featured hot tub streams. Of the top 5 hot tub streamers, as of writing, the top one with 800 viewers are otters (like the animal), 1 is a vtuber and another is a man.
The issue is incredibly overblown. Amouranth is the only one doing numbers regularly.
>More and more streamers are abandoning games and going for boring IRL garbage instead because that's what Twitch promotes.
That has nothing to do with hot tub streamers. Kai Cenat and Adin Ross are some of the largest growing streamers in the past year, and they are primary Just Chatting streamers. This really just feels like you are complaining about Eternal September. It sounds like you just don't like that the world is changing. "Old man yells at cloud".
>Some of us like to use twitch to see people playing games
Some of the largest streamers on Twitch don't play games. Expecting twitch to remain some "insider only country club for video games" is ridiculous. No one is forcing you to watch hot tub streams. Getting recommended a titty streamer won't kill you. It really just comes across that you are mad that there are women on the platform doing stuff you don't like. It's arbitrary censorship; I doubt you would accept this kind of censorship on any other platform. And even then, when you look at the hard numbers for these titty streamers it's incredibly hard to take the moral panic seriously. Amouranth is only one doing numbers (and she is literally an outlier, I believe she is like top 10 on onlyfans as well) and the rest have fewer viewers than a Zoo's livestream.
It's definitely the case that streamers focusing on their bodies are not large in aggregate: Twitch streamers are overwhelmingly male, and even among female streamers they're a minority . However, "hot tub streamers" (by this I more broadly mean streamers whose main content is clearly meant as titillation) are significantly overrepresented among the top female streamers. Amouranth is the top female streamer by a long shot, with an audience twice as large as the next largest female creator on the platform.
There's definitely a moral panic component, but there are nonetheless negative aspects to having this content on Twitch. Women on the platform report feeling pressure and an expectation of producing this kind of content, because so many other popular women on the platform do it. There's also the idea that this juxtaposition spreads the message to viewers that men gain attention by exhibiting their skills and women get attention by exhibiting their bodies.
I do support the ability of people to produce this kind of content - or even explicit streams, for that matter - but I'm sympathetic to the idea that twitch should spin it off into something like lifestyle.tv in the same vein that twitch.tv was once a gaming spinoff of justin.tv.
> Women on the platform report feeling pressure and an expectation of producing this kind of content, because so many other popular women on the platform do it.
That's kind of ridiculous. You don't get to tell people they can't voluntarily do an optional thing just because you don't want to do the same optional thing.
It's not telling them to voluntarily do an optional thing, just that they can't do said optional thing on that specific platform. The fact that people are appearing side by side with creators making this content is what leads to the assumption that this is the kind of content women are going to create. It's the adjacency that's the issue.
Twitch already bans content like pornography, but people are free to do what they want on OnlyFans. These creators should be entirely free to produce "hot-tub streams" and other such content, just relegated to "lifestyle.tv" or something to keep a barrier between softcore-erotic content and typical creators.
Your entire comment is a blatant attempt twist my words into things I never said. Please stop that, thanks.
Twitch was originally 100% games. That's literally why it was created, and why I signed up and started using it. Now that it's no longer focused on gaming content, I am losing interest and finding it harder to watch content I enjoy. It's that simple.
Watching someone playing a game and subsequently being suggested a stream of someone sitting in front of a camera doing literally nothing as thousands in donations come in just feels like twitch telling me "hey, stop watching that entertaining content you like, watch this unrelated garbage instead because it's more profitable for us". And like others have mentioned, these streams being shown off right next to gaming streams pressures the streamers to move over to that type of content to potentially grow their audience and get paid more.
In case you're not aware, Twitch was a spinoff of justin.tv that was created as a place to contain gaming content (which was quickly becoming very popular at the time) while justin.tv continued to host other kinds of streams, but justin.tv was eventually shut down because Twitch completely dwarfed it. Now Twitch is becoming justin.tv again. They should just repeat the process in reverse and revive justin.tv to contain all of this non-gaming content, but they wont because it's easier and cheaper to just shove it all into the same space.
I don't have a horse in this race, but Twitch's "original intended purpose" was not just gaming. It was called justin.tv and over time the gaming category became very active. Later they refocused on gaming.
Twitch's original purpose was splintering off the gaming section of justin.tv (a general streaming site) onto a separate website specifically for gaming content.
They never refocused on gaming as that was the entire focus of the site's creation. During the early days any non-gaming content was strictly prohibited on Twitch.
For a while justin.tv and twitch coexisted, with justin.tv for general content such as "social streams" (equivalent to "Just Chatting" on modern day Twitch) and largely streams of copyrighted content such as tv shows (an obvious liability).
Prior to Amazon purchasing Twitch, justin.tv was shut down and a lot of the general "social" content started becoming allowable on Twitch over time.
I'm out of the loop, what is the difference between a camgirl and a glorified camgirl? is this like a pejorative where you and others don't like camgirls and people are pretending that those streamers are something else?
doesn't twitch let you just go directly to the streamer you want to see?
why are people making excuses about being camgirls or not? and also is this misogyny? or something like people are needing to pretend they aren't paying for some sexually attractive things? I don't really know Twitch's community, I remember teenagers though
Whoa hold on there, Fortnite has an ESRB rating of Teen, which is intended for audiences 13+. Should Twitch be recommending Fortnite content to 10 year olds?
You can, as others have, about any platform that allows salacious content. It's not different than banning trying to ban GTA because 10 year olds have playstations. Why is softcore content the line and not GTA which has a mature (17+) rating? Why is Amouranth a problem and not Grand Theft Auto. Even Fornite has an ESRB rating of 13+. It's straight up moral panic (and IMO, moral panic directed at women who are making money from doing "nothing").
My barometer for this issue is why is this content a problem on Twitch, but not on Instagram which has a much higher penetration amount kids and teens, and is way more brazen about it.
A lot of gaming culture is quite misogynistic so whilst bikini streams make up a tiny percentage of the overall viewership bar a couple of bigger names it annoys them no end. See also the constant bringing up of one girl who had sex on stream and the worship of Andrew Tate.
It’s basically convenient whataboutery that fits their politics.
For this particular category I think there's going to be a lot more contributing variables than for gambling. Not only would it have high engagement and sub activity but:
- a lot of the streamers also game
- even if they don't, there are streamer cliques and social groups which are primarily gaming, of which they're a part
- a lot of viewers who only watch gaming will watch some streamer within the aforementioned clique/social group and be exposed to crossovers
- a lot of the viewers of that category also watch gaming streamers, so this will put those streams in the "people who watch this also watch" algorithmic bucket
None of the above are significantly the case for gambling except maybe the last one, and even then much less so.
My understanding is that this is not the catalyst. The catalyst involves a bunch of drama between various streamers, which led to the revelation that a particular Twitch streamer had fraudulently asked to borrow something like $350,000 from various other streamers and viewers, and had gambled it all away.
Once that happened, a bunch of influential streamers started to suggest that they may do a strike if Twitch didn't address the issue, and that was the final straw.
You are right about this event being the catalyst. The funniest part is that the person who scammed and alledgedly spent it all on gambling did it on sports betting... which is specifically excluded from the ban on gambling by Twitch.
And the very likely reason for the exception is that Twitch has signed a 13 billion deal with a famous sport betting company tied to the NFL. This is peak hypocrisy from Twitch and it seems to get very little media coverage.
> It's odd because any category of streamer could be paying employees large sums of money to recommend them.
No, they couldn't. That is nonsense. I am a former twitch employee, of 4 years, and the recommendation algorithm is a complicated service, managed by whole teams of people.
A random employee couldn't just take a bribe, and get someone recommended.
The closest that someone could maybe do, is submit someone internally, to be hosted on the front page carousel for one specific day, for a few hours.
But even these manual requests are reviewed by a team of people, who especially make sure the front page people are brand safe. So the idea that they would put a "hot tub" streamer, on that manual hosting list is absurd.
The decision happened literally live while Hasan was talking about how terrible it is that gambling content is still allowed on Twitch in front of an enormous audience so I'm inclined to believe this exposure forced their hand on a decision they were already considering making, probably for a while.
>A lot of gamers say that Pool & Hot Tub streams are being recommended despite only watching game streams
In my experience, Twitch recommendations seem to be based heavily on what you watch, so if that's what they're seeing its probably because they watched it at some point.
I've only ever watched MTG tournaments and a handful of replays of factorio & pokemon streams. I too get the hottub streams recommended from time to time. Stopped after I reported it as porn a few times, but that might be a coincidence.
According to what I've seen on /r/livestreamfail (take everything with the finest grain of salt possible), it was only one twitch employee who took money, and they have since passed away.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's against a "Twitch/Amazon code of conduct", but that fact at face value doesn't mean anything nefarious. These could call center employees, qa testers, developers, etc that have no connection to the internal politics of deciding what is allowed on the platform.
If they are in fact the decision makers or able to influence policy, yes that' doesn't seem right.
Yes. IIRC there were two low level Twitch employees who won something in the giveaway, but I believe they were entered because they performed chat moderation (yes, using the same mod tools normal channel moderators use) for the streamer in question (Trainwrecks). It's being made out like this was some form of bribe, but that seems disingenuous given they have (had, one died, one left the company) no influence over Twitch policies, and the decision to accept gifts (or not) is their responsibility as an Amazon employee either way. Perhaps they have colleagues who they could sway who are involved in policy setting, but that feels like reaching to me.
However take this with a pinch of salt too, I wouldn't like to bet on being fully correct! ;)
I never really liked exploring music on Spotify the back catalog was non existent for DJs putting out amazing stuff in the 90s and 00s. You get like 2010 all the way to current year. Worthless.
Do you need algorithmically curated music if you're only interested in music that is decades old, especially DJ remixes? Looking through historic DJ set list or even just listening to new sets from old DJs seems like it would be much faster.
Spotify is great for recommendations of licensed content that is new. I rarely feel there is some small or big hit I'm missing in the genres I like, but it is heavily supplanted with the use of SoundCloud for sets and music that will never legally be licensed and on the platform.
I frantically smash the Shazam button over and over again while I loop a certain part in a live DJ set on SoundCloud. When the DJ is overlaying 2 tracks at a faster bpm, adding their own basslines and AFX, Shazam rarely works. But when it does it's like finding a diamond in the rough. Then I listen to the EP it's on A and B sides, listen to other EPs from the DJ and listen to other releases on that label. Combination of SoundCloud, discogs, mixesdb.com, bandcamp and YouTube.
Lots of times the first comment will be a partial track list or I'll look up the tracklisting on mixesdb.
In the 90s to discover music it was you had to attend shows and crate dig or even call up the record label (long distance number!) and listen to the latest release over POTS.
The past 3 times I have tried to use tinder, I was left thinking it's just a front for onlyfans, sex workers and scammers. Profiles would either have 'onlyfans $name' or 'of $name' or 'I don't use this app much here's my Instagram'. But when you opened up their insta profile first line in their about me section was a onlyfans link. Sprinkle in some gift card scammers, sex workers, not being good looking and huge anxiety problems and I was left disappointed and frustrated every time. If I reported profiles it would just show them later on and not block them. So I would always report them again and again.
I would always play along with the scammers. Mostly out of curiosity and bordem. I would practice my osint skills. And try to report domains for abuse.
>However, the company's response included a configuration change that disrupted VPN connectivity to the site. SoundCloud has not provided a timeline for when VPN access will be fully restored.
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/soundcloud-co...