brian

not a typo

puplic

This amuses me

When you talk about a sample, what does that actually mean? Like I recognize that the frequency of oscillations will tell me the pitch of something, but how does that actually translate to a chunk of data that is useful?

You mention a sample being stored as a number, which makes sense, but how is that number utilized? Again assuming uncompressed, if my sample "value" comes up as 420, does that include all of the necessary components of that sound bite in a 1/44100th of a second? How would a sample at value 421 compare? Is this like a RGB type situation where you'd have multiple values corresponding to different attributes of the sample (amplitude, frequencies, and I'm sure other things)? Is a single sample actually intelligible in isolation?

I guess it's more asking what the alternatives could be. I don't have the answer, and truthfully don't have much of an idea what is out there to solve that problem.

Is there a system that can get information to someone, maintaining anonymity for the sender the whole way through? Like having an open drop box where you'd be able to put whatever documents you want into it.

So I recognize that having the files securely encrypted is a valuable thing, and that having privacy for sharing is also important. But how do you actually share this without creating a vulnerable point?

Say I wanted to leak some file as a whistleblower, I'd still need to get the link/password/etc shared to whomever I'm leaking to, right? Sorta defeats the purpose when you need some other source of contact, right?

Manufacturing

While it's amusing that it feeds these Onion articles, it's also a bit worrying when the search queries are worded in such a way that allows for such stark confirmation biases.

It's very similar to asking ChatGPT the same question phrased differently and getting entirely different answers.

My response to your question, is another question:

what?

I think we're going to need a bit of an explanation here

What's amusing to me is that they referred to the job interviewer having similar reliability, but didn't say whether it was good or not. Purely let the bias of the article imply that they were highly reliable.