I’m really happy with my ASUS Zenbook 14 (16GB memory, 512GB SSD, Intel Core Ultra 7 255H), which I got for $700, in case you’re still looking for a recommendation. Absolutely worth it IMO, though I’m running Linux, so the Copilot key is mapped to the compose key.

Out of curiosity, could you link a source vis-a-vis AI’s water consumption?

On that note also:

• Alacritty: a minimalist Wayland GPU-accelerated terminal. Claims to be the fast currently available terminal. Also the coolest name ever. This is what I personally use, in combination with tmux.
• Kitty: a more feature rich alternative, also Wayland, GPU-accelerated, and on par with alacritty for speed. Actually starts up a little faster but uses up more resources and sacrifices in other performance metrics (in my experience).
• Foot: another minimalist Wayland alternative, but this time CPU driven. Despite this, the performance is still on par with the others. I think this is especially good for laptops and such that run on integrated graphics.

I should say I’m pretty biased because I’ve been using vim since highschool, but the post seems a little crazy. I’m almost wondering it it’s parody…

His palpable hatred towards vim in particular seems irrational though. Felt like much ado about nothing to me. I might be missing something though?

I think it’s pretty much on par with Spotify. Classical recordings take a hit, not in availability, but simply because it’s more difficult to search for them. There’s also some very, very obscure music I did lose. But where talking like my second cousin once removed released something with ~2 monthly listeners level obscure.

Apart from that, depending on your experience the audio quality is perceivably better than Spotify and Tidal Connect works flawlessly. I’m on a family plan, and everyone seems to be happy. I quite like the algorithm as well, almost more than the Spotify one.

Admittedly, I’ve had great experiences with Enterprise in the US. It blows my mind how expensive it is, but I’ve never had any issues like what OP posted.

Can confirm. I have low blood pressure (runs in the family), and I always need to make sure I’m drinking a lot of water and consuming enough salt or I’ll get crazy vertigo after standing up. Stay safe people!

I actually did listen to doom metal to fall asleep when I was a teenager. Good times…

Alpha is even better because it doesn’t have beds, which low-key ruined the game…

Now this I want to know!

*is a skinny marathon runner*

I am so fucking angry. Fuck Alabama.

Yay, a fellow neurodivergent person. And yet both of us are still human. FYI, referring to yourself as non-human (indirectly) alienates you (a very fitting word here) from everyone reading your comment. Saying “[y]ou people are seriously weird” does as well. You had no way of knowing that I am not autistic. You were lucky; I am in the 99th percentile of dyslexics and not autistic at all (to my knowledge, though the conditions rarely come together). But that is a presumption you made nevertheless.

I’m saying this because you have explicitly mentioned being autistic, and I have many a autistic friend who struggles to read social stuff: alienating yourself like that makes it seem like you think you are better than everyone else (which you may; I don’t know), which in turn makes you seem extremely arrogant. Keep in mind that you are only talking to people here through the lens of social media. You do not actually know any of us, and it is dangerous to judge people you do not know. Diplomacy in cases like this calls for decorum and decency: presume the best about people. Your comments make it seem as if this is not what you are doing.

Now that I know you are autistic, I see your comments in a different light. I will presume that you are not a spoiled rich person — which you very much seemed like due to the aforementioned reasons. But, presuming that you are not a sociopath, please keep in mind that other people around you are different and care about different things than you (maybe in part, though not necessarily, due to not being autistic). That doesn’t mean that they are invalid or should feel bad about having different priorities. Please respect that, and don’t fall into the “no one else understands” bubble, which I know all too well. (I, like probably you as well, did not have a good time in high school. Or really any school.) That bubble inevitably makes other people hate you and can thus also make your life rather unpleasant.

This may be unwelcome advice, but I urge you to think about how to discuss topics like this diplomatically, without offending or being overly harsh to people. You have made a few enemies with your comments (just look at the downvotes). That can be a burden.

No, actually I’m not. I have a nice 2.0 system as well for listening to music. The 5.1.4 system is in my living room with my TV. The 2.0 system is in my bedroom where I can chill out on my bed while listening. I also have a nice set of headphones with a separate DAC for listening to music.

Interesting. See, I don’t want to spend a few thousand on good bookshelf or tower speakers and then spend a few thousand again on a surround system. Especially when a surround system has no real benefit over good stereo speakers (as I mention in a different comment). I would rather either save the money or spend that money on a better stereo system. But you seem to have no issues with spending large amounts of money on several different audio systems. The thing is, most people do. Most people would — if they are going to spend quite a bit of money on speakers in the first place — rather spend that money on one set of speakers. Not several. And it so happens to be that stereo speakers are generally quite a bit more flexible and quite a bit better value than surround systems. But you do you.

<satire>

Headphones also work with binaural recordings, and thus will give you the best possible sound stage and 3D audio, far superior to any multichannel speaker system. It will also give you a more accurate frequency response, and be closer to “what the artist intended.” So you should probably switch to that. I can recommend the Sennheiser HD 800S for sound stage, since that is something you seem to care particularly much about.

I would recommend you get a treated room, though, if you’re taking audio seriously. Or really just a whole new building, with sound insulation in the walls; that’s the only good way to do it. Property is quite cheap nowadays, and you don’t need to get nice land anyway. Building costs aren’t too bad either. Get a farm somewhere out in the country, rebuild with proper insulation — maybe even add an anechoic chamber for good measure.

And you’ll need a Class A amp, a discrete multibit DAC for proper dynamic range, a good DDC to avoid jitter, a better streamer since your TV audio is probably crap… and have you taken measurements of your room’s reflections to ensure that spatialization and crosstalk aren’t issues? Have you checked for signal jitter for all of your system clocks? Are you using I²S for audio transmissions? Otherwise, you aren’t getting proper spatialization and experiencing the movie properly. And you’ll want silver speaker cables too, to avoid distortion and noise. Otherwise you just aren’t getting the real experience. Truly a disrespect to the artist. Why would you even bother watching a movie or listening without silver speaker cables and I²S data transmission.

</satire>

In all seriousness, I frankly think that what you are saying is a little pretentious. Actually very pretentious. You are, in effect, gatekeeping movies and the enjoyment of said movies. One doesn’t need the perfect setup to still enjoy something; though, judging by your previous comments, you do, which I don’t envy. I’m an audiophile and have spent more money on headphones, amps, DDCs, DACs, room treatment, etc. than I am willing to admit.

I did not, however, grow up with money and I don’t have a particularly high-paying job right now either. I have just been willing to give up a lot in life in favor of audio quality. HiFi brings me joy. Somewhere inside of my heart, I feel similarly to you about audio for music. When someone listens to a album I particularly love on a crappy car system or airpods, or — god forbid — JBL headphones (my arch enemy), it hurts me a little on the inside. But I also understand that not everyone is willing to spend as much money on HiFi as I do (I spend more on HiFi than on cycling, which is a crazy expensive hobby). And I think that they should still be able to enjoy what they choose to listen to on whatever it is that they were able to afford (or where tricked into buying by marketing staff and sales).

I think that is analogues to what you describe with movies. I think that people should be allowed to still enjoy what they watch on whatever they were able to afford. And I frankly think it is poor-shaming and discriminatory for people like you to insist that what ordinary people are doing is invalid. I still recommend music to my friends and family, despite knowing that they are listening to it on $20 earbuds and can’t hear anything below 150 Hz.

(I am actually currently traveling and only have $20 IEMs I bought out of curiosity with me. They really, really suck. But… somehow — and I really don’t know how this is possible — I am still enjoying my music library. Inexplicable… I guess, give me the choice to never listen to music again or only listen on crappy IEMs, and I would pick the IEMs… not so sure about you.)

It would be okay to mention that whoever you are talking to might enjoy the movie more with DTS:X, and that they should see it in the cinema if they can, but I don’t think it is okay to force that onto people. All you are doing is hurting people and making them feel bad about how they watch the movies they love. Let them love those movies and please don’t try to ruin their experience. Live and let live.

Clearly, though, we are very different people. We disagree on a fundamental level. I think it best to end this conversation here.

you humans

Errrrr. Are you not human? Has this all been a satire of rich obnoxious spoiled people who don’t even consider themselves human anymore? Are you Elon Musk?

That is a non-answer. You argued that it is “simply pointless” to watch a movie in the same setting I did.

I disagree. I very much enjoyed the experience, ergo it was not pointless: it brought me pleasure.

I was just pointing out that it is indeed possible for people (maybe not you, but other people) to enjoy movies without the luxuries that you afford yourself. You asked a question (“why even bother watching a movie like that”) and I answered.

I also ask that you take into consideration that not everyone can afford to watch a movie with the luxuries you describe. That is ok too. Please don’t gatekeep watching movies is all I ask.

You misunderstand me. My principal point is that any 2.0/2.1 (i.e., stereo) setup will always be better than the surround sound system of equal price.

That axiom only starts changing when talking about exceedingly expensive setups (e.g., spending 10k on a custom Elac or KEF system). Until then, a stereo system will have better value 99% of the time.

As for my comment on spending money on speakers I would only use for movies: surround sound only has a real advantage for movies, for other activities stereo speakers of the same price will undisputedly be better. I would hate to spend 3k on a surround system, when I’ll use my 3k stereo system for most of my listening anyway (this is an example).

But I see that we have very different values (and likely different budgets) when it comes to audio.

You’re like the audiophile’s evil twin (I’m kidding). The audiophile insists on purism, only 2.0, and you are waaaay on the side of the spectrum.

I have created, mixed, and mastered music. Half of doing that has been creating really cool sounds on my 2.1 monitors (which sound like shit because they’re monitors) and then spending hours trying to get that same sound on other systems. Not just Kilobuck headphones and megabuck surround sound systems, but also $15 earbuds. That is a big part of mixing, because I want as many people to enjoy my music and the music I mix for other people as possible. I am not so pretentious and arrogant that I insist that everyone who listens to this music do so on my exact speaker setup (that would be the closest to “as the artist intended”).

I have also created pieces for multichannel audio systems. These pieces get exhibitions, and are not available for purchase as audio recordings. Because no one can recreate those exact multichannel systems the way I designed them.

Movies, however, are frequently available past their premieres. Maybe this is greed on the part of the artist, that they sell the movies, even though they know that it is impossible to truly enjoy the movie without the very specific audio setup it was created with?

I’ve literally watched 2001: A Space Odyssey on the plain in mono because my seat’s audio was broken and I was trying to use my IEMs without an adapter. I had a great experience, in part because I love more about the movie than just the visual and auditory delivery. I like the story and philosophy as well.

You may not have enjoyed it in that setting, but please don’t gatekeep the experience. It’s also worth mentioning that a lot for movies are, unlike 2001, not art.

I sorta agree with you, except that I’ve worked in audio before, and you can in fact mix for HiFi and normal people at the same time. That is actually what like 90% of mixing/mastering is. Making it sound good everywhere.

I also hard disagree on not being able to get a good experience with 2.0. Spend a couple thousand (obviously not everyone needs to do this) on 2.0 tower speakers, maybe add a sub (technically now 2.1), and you will almost certainly get a better experience than 99% of pre-build everything-in-the-box surround sound systems.

You can, of course, build you own surround sound system for more than a few thousand, but that is a radically different price range, which I don’t think is really relevant to this conversation (I certainly don’t have that kind of money to spend on a speaker that I’m only using when watching movies). I think it is borderline poor-shaming (or really just not-rich-shaming) to say that movies can only have audible dialogue at $10,000 surround sound systems. Before that, 2.0 or 2.1 will almost always be a better investment.

Yes, of course, it’s only natural to replace a 2.1 or 2.0 HiFi system with the scam that is Dolby Atmos…

Dolby Atmos does jack shit for quality audio; I say this as an audiophile. It is extremely controversial in HiFi, and not some gold standard. Additionally, the sound bar system you linked is just a facil approximation to what Atmos is, and far, far inferior to good passive stereo bookshelf speakers of the same price (I think Elac DB52s cost about $250, plus a $70 300W per channel fosi v3 amp will get you a fantastic setup. Later you could even add a $200 sub for the <60Hz range.)

Here’s a Benn Jordan vid I found on the subject: https://youtu.be/5Dw3aKbw5Wo

The farthest I would ever go with surround/quadraphonic sound would be something like the Schiit Syn, which is now discontinued anyway. I have two ears: I only need to speakers. If the speakers are good and the track is well mixed, this will always lead to a better result than Dolby Atmos.

Movies like Interstellar are mixed with quiet dialogue for the dynamic range, like you say, and that can make speach difficult to understand. This is a questionable trend in movies led by Christopher Nolan but is absolutely not alleviated by Atmos.

I won’t go into what I think of the trend, but I really want to emphasize that buying an overpriced consumer sound system with Atmos marketing on it will not solve the problem. Please do not invest you money into faux-HiFi! If you are going to spend that much money, spend it wisely, and don’t pay attention to marketing.