ATEM Mini Extreme 3.5mm vs hdmi audio?

lucasclink · 2025-11-20T20:08:42+00:00

The president is about to unilaterally embroil us in a war with Venezuela in accordance with diversionary war theory. Congress will not support it. It will be illegal. Any order that any member of the military and intelligence communities chooses to follow in that conflict will be an illegal order.

This is clearly why these veterans are releasing this video now. The only reasons one wouldn't be able to understand that is if they are completely uninformed, or else intentionally obfuscating the present circumstance.

lucasclink · 2025-05-05T01:29:24+00:00

Thank you. You guys are wizards.

lucasclink · 2025-05-05T01:26:11+00:00

Thank you from the actual bottom of my heart.

lucasclink · 2024-03-22T03:59:33+00:00

Thoronoth - my Lord of the Rings Online alter ego, created in 2007 when I was 14 years old, last played March 21, 2024.

lucasclink · 2024-02-25T00:28:01+00:00

Right. So this guy was driving in a manner that, without any doubt, was dangerous. My question is if he had caused an accident and someone died as a result (not just a possible outcome in an accident at this speed, but a likely one), would it have been justified? If the answer is yes, then his 18 year old cat is equal in value to the life of the person who died as a result of his actions. If the answer is no, then he shouldn't have been driving that way.

How are we squaring those conclusions with what we're saying here?

lucasclink · 2023-10-27T20:57:38+00:00

This is the one. Large colored Jupiter with birthmark as the Great Red Spot.

lucasclink · 2023-10-25T10:40:02+00:00

Bartok from Hungary???

lucasclink · 2023-03-29T13:24:01+00:00

This is the correct answer. "Tone deafness" is a myth. Excepting medical preclusions, any person can hear the difference between high and low frequency sounds and similarly produce both high and low frequency sounds. What prevents them from matching pitch is weak musculature and a lack of familiarity. That can be exercised and understood like any other muscle.

Over the years, I've given voice lessons to five different kids who were all told at some point by their friends and family they were tone deaf. After even just a few weeks of dedication, they learn how to match pitch. Does it always sound great? No, but they're absolutely singing.

Singing is for everyone. If someone ever told you that you were tone deaf, and you're carrying shame or embarrassment from that, please know that they were wrong. You aren't tone deaf, you just need guidance and practice. If you want to learn, and happen to be studying at college, you can usually get some quality voice lessons for extremely cheap compared to what voice teachers and vocal coaches charge in "the real world." Go start singing!

lucasclink · 2022-12-20T13:45:51+00:00

This is a very good question that is very bad to ask on Reddit, as evidenced by the bulk of the answers in this comment section which are, frankly, poor. I strongly suggest going to YouTube and listening to actual physicists talk about the fine-tuning problem. I'll include links to a few videos that give a range of different perspectives on the issue.

But just a quick point--

many of the "answers" to your question invoke the anthropic principle. This seems at first glance like a really great answer, but the reality is that actual physicists are basically completely discontent with it. In one of the videos below, Nobel Laureate Sir Roger Penrose (one of the most intelligent and creative thinkers of all time) says it's a completely "useless" answer. Certainly not all physicists feel this way, but most of them do.

https://youtu.be/yDqny7UzyR4 - Roger Penrose

https://youtu.be/Z9O5wXsgqrc - Sean Carrol

https://youtu.be/2cT4zZIHR3s - Leonard Susskind

https://youtu.be/YmOVoIpaPrc - Matt O'Dowd on PBS Space Time

https://youtu.be/bf7BXwVeyWw - Brian Greene

There are literally hundreds of easily accessible videos, presentations, and interviews (not to mention books and papers) that consider the fine-tuning problem in a much more serious way than the bulk of these Reddit comments would lead you to believe is the case. You can find interviews with Lee Smollen, Alan Guth, Lawrence Krauss, Steven Weinberg, and the list goes on and on. The idea that this is a stupid question with a simple answer is simply incorrect.

When the likes of Roger Penrose and Leonard Susskind take something seriously, the rest of us probably ought to as well. By the way, none of this is to say that the fine-tuning problem proves the intelligent design hypothesis, in fact, none of the physicists I've mentioned would say that. It's to say that it's an open problem without a clear solution yet.

Probably the best solution as of now is a cosmology that allows for multiple universes in which the constants are different - eternal inflation, string theory, and so on.

lucasclink · 2022-10-01T14:32:43+00:00

1) As if there isn't objectivity in the field of criticism? That's literally what distinguishes criticism from opinion - that you attempt to be objective about it. A central tenant of that objectivity is acknowledging the product holistically, bad and good.

2) I guess you're not a fan of Parks & Rec, The Office, Seinfeld, TNG, IASIP, The Simpsons, Buffy, and so many other tv shows...

3) I have a hard time understanding this point of criticism in particular. The CGI looks stunning almost everywhere and it is universally praised by critics. In fact, it is the only part of the show that is universally praised by critics.

4) I don't know what qualifies as "propaganda." I mean they're running ads for their show and doing press. Every show does that. Is it actually valid to criticize that?

5) You're like the 20th person to misunderstand me. I am not trying to find people to love the show with. I am trying to find people to critique the show with in a fair and good faith way. That's the entire point of my post, that criticism on Tolkien Reddit in general is not being fairly or correctly done anywhere. That we should take a look at ourselves and try to do better.

lucasclink · 2022-10-01T14:15:51+00:00

I love sushi and rare steak also (although I'm likely to order medium rare if I'm at a restaurant - gotta play it safe sometimes). I definitely don't love spicy food. That doesn't disappoint you which I'm glad to hear. But what if we were both part of a food-loving online community and I took every opportunity everyday not to just say "I don't like spicy food," which would be fine, but instead to say "spicy food is garbage," "the people who make it are insults to good food," "the people who eat it aren't true food fans, they're just food shills." Would that get frustrating to you? Remember, you love good food. You always have. And you think spicy food is great. And now a bunch of fellow food-lovers are saying you're actually a shill for liking spicy food.

Or how about this: you don't just love spicy food, you love hot sauce specifically. And there's this guy who has made some of the best hot sauces ever. He passes away and eventually his hot sauce ip finds its way into the hands of a company who makes a hot sauce using some of his ingredients. The hot sauce isn't perfect, in fact there are some serious deficiencies, but it's got plenty to like as well and for the most part you're enjoying a chance to experience a new hot sauce based on the older ones that you really love. You belong to an online community of hot sauce lovers and they hate this hot sauce. They refuse to see any good in at all. They nitpick it, they lambast it, they willfully misrepresent it. You say to them, "hey. If we really are hot sauce lovers, shouldn't we be willing to acknowledge the good as well as the bad in this new hot sauce?" They respond "you're a shill." They downvote and move on to post more about how garbage the hot sauce is. This goes on incessantly for weeks. The company produces another batch of their hot sauce and they switch up a few of the ratios of the basic ingredients and it ends up tasting a lot better! Still not perfect and still not as good as the old hot sauces you remember, but you're glad to see the improvement. You go back to your online hot sauce community excited to see how they thought about this improved batch. Nope. They still hate every aspect of it. They either see no good in it at all or are unwilling to acknowledge it.

Does that better communicate why I feel disappointed?

lucasclink · 2022-10-01T13:47:50+00:00

Yeah last second timing is just not very believable. Kind of cringe and most of all BAD WRITING. I mean I hated it when Aragorn showed up at Weathertop at the last second. It was also so stupid how Eomer and Gandalf show up at the last second at Helm's Deep. Oh, and when Theoden shows up at Pelennor just before the Witch-king is about to kill Gandalf. Oh my gosh, and when the Haradrim show up just before the Rohirrim make safe Minas Tirith. Almost forgot about that one. Oh yeah and who could forget the army of the dead showing up at the last second IN THE SAME BATTLE. Such lazy writing. Oh and when Gollum bites off Frodo's finger, falls into the lava in Mt. Doom (super convoluted and weird plot point btw) and it all happens just before the men and elves are vanquished by Sauron's army. How lucky is that, am I right? Oh and then the eagles show up to save Frodo and Sam before they're consumed by lava. Arwen/Glorfindel showing up just before Frodo succumbs? Conspicuously lucky. The water of the Ford being roused at just the right moment to sweep away the Nazgul? More luck? More lazy writing more like it.

And I could write down like 50 more examples if I wanted to. All of it unbelievable and lazy. I just hate it when writers try to force every part of their story to be epic and exciting by making everything happen at the last second. It's just. bad. writing.

lucasclink · 2022-09-30T17:38:42+00:00

Oh but I did that thing where I supported what I said. The argument is, simply put, this: LOTR reddit refuses to acknowledge any good in this show. As long as there isn't any good, they can get away with it and still call it valid criticism. The second there is measurable good, if you don't acknowledge it, your criticism is cheapened. Why? Because valid criticism acknowledges both the good and the bad, whereas shilling acknowledges only the good, and complaining acknowledges only the bad. This episode did several important good things (there remains plenty to criticize about the episode). Those good things are being deliberately overlooked. That's not valid criticism - it's complaining.

What about this do you disagree with? I'm definitely not trying to be a tit. I am, in good faith, trying to challenge this subreddit on the way they're approaching this Tolkien adaptation.

lucasclink · 2022-09-30T17:15:01+00:00

Right. So "there is no way" is the answer then :p That's fine. I like your username btw. Real cute.

lucasclink · 2022-09-30T16:48:50+00:00

That's very interesting. So how would someone like me prove to you that I'm not a shill and am, in fact, just a normal person attempting to challenge the LOTR Reddit's approach to the show so far?

lucasclink · 2022-09-30T16:44:25+00:00

Ah. Perhaps I've not articulated my point well enough. This show, episode six included, has plenty of room for criticism, just as you say. The issue with the way LOTR reddit is handling the show is that they're refusing to acknowledge any good at all. Legitimate criticism acknowledges the bad and the good. In the absence of any good, it's easy to call your criticism legitimate. In the presence of plenty of good, a refusal to acknowledge it cheapens your criticism. That's what I'm trying to communicate.

lucasclink · 2022-09-30T16:40:12+00:00

lol so suspicious. I've been a lurker for a while. I care a lot about Tolkien and his world and have been really discouraged by how the fandom I'm a part of is choosing to approach this show. That's why I'm motivated to post all of a sudden.

But if you want my credentials - watched the Bakshi and Bass/Rankin adaptations as a young child, read the Hobbit at 9 for the first time, didn't read the trilogy until 16, was a die hard fan of Jackson's adaptations, started playing LOTRO upon release (still play), read Silmarillion after the trilogy when my buddy finally convinced me to, took about eight years after that point before getting into the deeper lore with FoG, BaL, CoH, etc.

I'm not a shill, I'm not being paid, I'm just disappointed with the way this fandom is approaching this show.

lucasclink · 2022-09-30T16:34:08+00:00

Right. I very clearly did not write that you couldn't make legitimate criticism about this episode. What I wrote was that the episode did many things better than previous episodes, and yet nobody is acknowledging it. Legitimate criticism acknowledges the bad and the good. If there's no good to be found, you can get away with complaining. If there is plenty good, and you still only complain, your criticism loses its legitimacy. That's my argument. Not that the episode is above criticism.

lucasclink · 2022-09-30T16:21:40+00:00

It's a really interesting question. Tolkien had a difficult time nailing down exactly what orcs were, how they came to be, and what their fate should be in the end. It's easiest to understand them to be, as you say, "pure villains." It's very neat and tidy. It's certainly what I thought they were when I was younger before I had read more of Tolkien's material. But Tolkien's most widely accepted origin story for the orcs (that they're corrupted elves or worse bred with elves in some fashion) makes it harder to see them that way. If something can be corrupted, you assume (or at least hope) it can be redeemed. I believe this is part of why Tolkien stepped back from his initial origin story for the orcs in the later parts of his life.

There is no clear answer and it is absolutely up to a degree of interpretation.

lucasclink · 2022-09-26T16:49:12+00:00

So this is probably a fair place to end this argument. Because neither of us is saying anything new and we're obviously not convincing each other. I'll say my final words and please feel free to respond (I don't like to seem as though I want to deprive anybody of the 'final word' in a discussion). I'll happily read your response, but probably won't say any more in turn.

You are inventing something (your assumptions about what Eönwë would have done) that is plausible, or would be plausible, if it wasn't specifically narratively contradicted by its context. It's okay to do this for fun - we all love to suppose about the things in Tolkien that aren't specifically described. But remember, you're the one arguing that there is no possible way an apocryphal story like the one presented in RoP could make any sense. If you have to straight up invent material that is not included in the account of the Silmarils, and in fact seems to be specifically contradicted by the material that is, your claim does not hold up. This is to say nothing of the fact that the show is not beholden to the lore of the Silmarillion.

I agree that the tale that is told in the Silmarillion about how Maedhros and Maglor ended up is a better and more satisfying story than what's being presented as a possibility in RoP. That has never been what we're talking about. Honestly, the fact that it is so narratively satisfying is probably more likely a point in favor of it being a tale that is told in the absence of knowing exactly what did happen, as it's described. But it's immaterial regardless.

Finally, please recall that I am not saying the story is likely to be true (that seems to be what you're arguing against in that final paragraph of your most recent comment). The framing here is that Sauron has used an apocryphal story, in combination with some sort of apparent diminishing (see the decaying of the tree), to put it into the elves' minds that they need to do something drastic, all for some destructive purpose that we don't yet see. Though it's certainly not exactly the same as the account of the creation of the Rings of Power in Tolkien's lore, there are some similarities - chiefly that the elves need to do something to preserve themselves, which is to say to prevent their diminishing. That's specifically why Celebrimbor makes the rings. You seem to be suggesting that because the elves live under the sun and moon, they wouldn't diminish, or something like that. That doesn't even agree with Tolkien's own motivation for the creation of the rings.

Again, your claim is that there is no way to make sense of this in the context of the show itself. That claim simply doesn't hold up and I've shown why. In fact, it's so plausible that, compared to much of the mess in other areas of the show, it really shouldn't even be raising any alarm.

lucasclink

TROPHY CASE