Bluetooth technology doesn't have the bandwidth capacity to stream lossless audio, sorry. You will be listening to a compressed stream. The only way to listen lossless is wired.
Lossless is MEANINGLESS because Bluetooth audio itself is a lossy compressed stream. How are Apple going to market lossless streaming to Airpods, when such a thing is technically impossible?
Apple aren't marketing lossless streaming to AirPods.
There are lots of hardwired devices ready to playback in hi-res via phone or Mac, surely. And AirPods Max support spatial audio already and are apparently good quality.
I would expect the future of the H1 chip's audio streaming quality to soon be much better than Bluetooth.
They aren’t marketing it to AirPods. They’re marketing the spatial audio for the AirPods. They even call out that for the highest quality lossless you need a DAC.
They are archiving the "wrong" thing. There have been similar "archive this!" movements this year, generally focussed on online communities targetting their political opponents.
In 50 years what is going to be "hard to find" and unarchived? The things that NOBODY is talking about now! You need to be coldly unemotional and consider what your community DOES NOT CARE ABOUT. This will often be things that are politically awkward for you and your community. There will be 1000s of people archiving this event and NONE archiving events which do not suit the political narrative. Accepting this is difficult!
What is happening here is the equivalent of your parents keeping a newspaper of man first landing on the moon, which is now the most common vintage newspaper that exists.
The fear is that that these events will end up falling down the memory hole, so it's best to ensure as much remains as possible. They want to ensure the actual moon landing newspaper is not replaced by the millions of replicas sold each year.
Beyond that, let people archive what they want. If you think there are more important targets, archive it yourself or politely ask their community for assistance.
If we use this logic then we are saying what people aren’t talking about will be the “right” thing to archive.
Is this a true statement?
Is it not that popular things are the things that people remember? The Beatles were popular. But that’s not why they are remembered. There were other popular bands completely forgotten.
Things become popular for various reasons.
Sometimes it is because it reflects a truth of the time, or it was simply good, or beautiful. Other times it is because it’s something that feeds a craving. Mass produced food isn’t necessarily good, but it is popular.
I think the things that are good beautiful and true, can be the popular things, but they often aren’t.
However the things that last are often good beautiful and true and the things that don’t aren’t.
Then again our memory of Hitler lasts, and he wasn’t good, but he did reveal what good was, because it shone so bright against the dark evil of his way of thinking that permeated that culture so well.
If you think of Hitler’s murder of Jews, then think of the stories told about those unknowns who risked their lives hiding Jews. The stories show that an utterly unknown person is a vastly better person than Hitler, and his name will never be celebrated the way that unknown person is.
We’d do better as a society if we told less stories about Hitler, and more stories of the unknown, courageous, good sacrificial man, who saved the lives of many Jews.
Reuters is a newswire, although you can get their work directly there's nothing untoward about a network republishing it: that's their principal business model.
I have no issue with Al Jazeera itself, but if they just republish a story they provide no value. It's not the original article and in this case they don't act like anything more than an (inflexible) aggregator.
This made sense in newspaper times (since compiling your news from multiple sources was hard), but in the internet age I don't see why it would.
The closer to the actual source the better (HN policy I strongly agree with).
Al Jazeera is 100% owned by the Qatari state (itself lacking democratic institutions), with its 2 last CEOs being from the ruling Qatari family. The current editorial standards are supervised by AJ chair man, who is Qatar's former minister of information.
So no, there's no comparison whatsoever with CNN or BBC and it's a problem that articles and information from AJ is shared without any caution.
>So no, there's no comparison whatsoever with CNN or BBC
Yes, in the sense that the US (CNN) and the UK (BBC) have had and have their gruby hands all over the globe, in occupation, colonisation, invansions, interventions, trade wars, national interests, resource grubbing, etc., whereas the Qatari interests are somewhat limited.
So, I'd take the AJ editorials on most matter with smaller grains of salt than CNN and BBC.
> For years, critics have assailed what they see as anti-Semitic, anti-American bias in the channel's news content. In the wake of 9/11, Al Jazeera broadcast statements by Osama bin Laden and reported from within the ranks of the Taliban, earning a reputation as a mouthpiece for terrorists. In October 2001, a New York Times editorial took Al Jazeera to task for reporting Jews had been informed in advance not to go to work at the World Trade Center the day of the attacks.
Also, throwing all news sources affiliated with a national government into the same basket is like throwing all the media, or all of humanity, into the same basket. Obviously they are not all the same or guilty of equivalent sins. It is the fair starting place, but it is only a good place to remain if you are too lazy, ignorant, uninterested, or incompetent to go further. If the accuracy of statements means something to you and you are capable of doing better you don't stick with "let's assume they are all the same".
You had to click "controversies and criticism" at the bottom of the original link. Probably this section was getting so big it was promoted to having its own page.
Anyway, even the aljazeera link ends with [Kim Kyung-Hoon/Reuters] and is a clearly a copy/paste from reuters.
I have an old iPhone SE (2016). It has a headphone jack. Does this mean my old iPhone can play lossless music but the latest iPhones can't?