| HN Mirror

I'm also an audio person and I understood it just fine, so whatevs.

If you're trying to get attention, copy should be clear to all readers. The fact that you did not misread it in no way demonstrates that others won't.

And why the rude response?

IshKebab 701 days ago

I also understood it fine, but maybe we both just remember the Adobe demo that vunderba mentioned. I guess it might not be so obvious if you don't know about that?

On the other hand it does say "not waveform" which I think makes it pretty clear. What would you suggest instead?

You're being insecure. It's not rude to disagree.

Also, there's often no perfect combo of words, there's a spectrum of options and you just pick an operating point. Transcription is a longer word than "word" so there's a tradeoff. It doesn't feel like a chasm to me.

dialsMavis 701 days ago

I’m genuinely curious what you were trying to convey by completing your, totally valid, disagreement with “so whatevs”? I believe this is the part that’s perceived as rude because the expansion of that, “whatever”, is often further expanded as the sarcastic form of “whatever you say”.

I was going for something between YMMW and "whatever you say." The slight tilt toward the latter was received poorly ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It's just how I talk. Maybe it's generational.

DidYaWipe 701 days ago

Nah. It's just being a condescending dick.

bryanrasmussen 701 days ago

in some context "whatever" can be it evens out, but in others it can be "your opinion doesn't matter".

At any rate when I first read it I thought it was going to be some sort LLM thing where you said "remove the third bridge and increase pitch by one octave in the outro" and it would give you back an edited mp4 which you could then listen and cringe to and sometimes say "whoa, that's amazing!"

lol, great description of what I thought too. Someone's going to do it...

Uh, no I'm not. In my work world, disagreeing with "whatevs" would be considered rude and dismissive and would be called out.

Believe me, I don't care that you disagree. I just don't like to see people breaking the civility guidelines here as it's just about one of the last places online where discourse is largely held to a a civil level for disagreements.

I write copy professionally, among other things. If you don't care whether what you write is clear to almost all readers... then I suppose it doesn't matter. Most people do not want misunderstandings of their copy and most copy editors would flag that as unclear. The new version is much better.

> I just don't like to see people breaking the civility guidelines here as it's just about one of the last places online where discourse is largely held to a a civil level for disagreements.

I seriously disagree that this breaks any sort of social contract between you and I on the internet. It was intended to be mildly dismissive but not overly rude. There's a higher standard for communicating with care at work (you should care about your coworkers), but do you really think people on the internet have time for this shit? I don't know you guy.

RockRobotRock 701 days ago

To me (not an audio person), it was pretty obvious that the headline meant editing voice recordings.

It's not at all obvious. Given what we have seen recently, an equally plausible interpretation is "talk to an LLM and it will edit your audio" where audio could be anything.

It's not a good idea, but then tons of the LLM ideas we see here aren't either.

dang 701 days ago

What would be a clearer title?

TheRealPomax 701 days ago

"[...] by transcript, not waveform".

dang 701 days ago

Done. Thanks!

WAY better!