I use Apple dictation heavily for transcribing interviews. I've tried all the voice-to-text services out there and none have been reliable enough *at transcribing an audio file. I've settled on playing audio in my headphones and pausing while I carefully dictate text into a document. If I could upload the audio file, get a first-pass transcription, and then go through and edit / make corrections with voice, that would be awesome.
A difference in error rate from 20-something percent down to less than 5 percent sounds incredible.
Is there anything like this for watching foreign television (or radio)? I don't want to create a document, I just want real-time translated subtitles, but I can't do it in advance for live shows.
Earth Abides by George R. Stewart is a more gentle post-apocalyptic story, but very beautiful. Not really much in the way of hackers. I like how it chronicles a procession of animal population boom and bust cycles that would naturally happen in the wake of humans disappearing.
Conquistador by Buddy Levy is also an great source on this topic. He has other books about disastrous expeditions in the Arctic. His writing theme is basically "some guys set out on an expedition and then everything went to shit."
I appreciate the research and comparisons, but framing it like "what if we replaced..." is childish. I hunt with a traditional bow for my own reasons, and also hunt with rifles. It's interesting on its own to compare them and talk about their history, and the transitionary period where they were both used in combat. But it kind of ruins the story to trot out a silly argument like it's worth serious consideration.
The root of humor is surprise. Not everything that is surprising is funny. But if there's anything you can generalize about humor, I think it's subversion of expectation.
I agree, but as I read the article, I thought more about slapstick and physical humor ("The Superiority Theory of Humor" as labeled in the article). When I think, for example, of The Three Stooges[0], the pratfalls never seemed surprising, rather you knew Curly was eventually going to get banged up. I never found that part of their routine as funny as the verbal/visual puns and comebacks.
There is a strange paradox where sometimes you see a bit coming and it's hysterical, other times it's predictable and falls flat.
Ex (first case): In Ruthless People, they walk into a store to play a VHS tape on a VCR. They don't know (but we do) that the tape contains embarrassing scenes, which are about to be displayed to the whole store.
Another example of first case: In Asterix, whenever the Pirate Ship appears. We know (and they know) they're about to get trounced.
With the Three Stooges, we know he's going to smack him upside the head, the question is just how's he going to do it this time?
In my experience you unfortunately just can't put 'surprise' at the root. That's just one form. You'll discover that literally the opposite is also true, and that people will crack up laughing when exactly what they expect to happen ends up happening.
Catchphrases are a classic example of this, but it's everywhere. I once wrote a pretty terrible sketch where Sean Connery kept saying 'schlap' over and over. By the end of it, there was a sentence where it was obviously, blatantly, absolutely going to end in the word 'schlap'. You could /feel/ the the audience hang on that expectation, and when it inevitably hit, they lost their minds. Zero surprise. Zero subversion of expectation. Brought the house down.
"Benign violation" is the only generalization that I have found comes close to being true. Why did that line land even though it was no surprise? Because while it didn't violate expectations, it violated a lot of other norms (mockery, incorrect pronunciation, domestic abuse). And in fact, the more predictable it got, the funnier it got, because it simply became absurd that it was being uttered so frequently.
In any case, I have literally never been able to write anything funny from first principles like "surprise" or "benign violation". If you try, you ironically put yourself in the mindstate opposite to the nature of those terms. You actually need to forget the principles, to let go and be free, to reach anything that fits the principles.
I think you can reasonably generalize to surprise + inevitability. It needs to be unexpected, but make perfect sense in some context once revealed. Not everything funny works this way but a whooooole lot does.
If you make $100k in a year in wages, and after all your expenses you net $16k in savings, 1/8 of that is $2k. Imagine violating some law that harms children and your fine is $2k.
>Imagine violating some law that harms children and your fine is $2k.
"Harms children". To make the analogy fair, imagine you're keeping a diary, and recording the observable information of every child that walks past your house. $2k seems like a reasonable fine.
I've seen people walk past news reporters with children. They even asked them questions about Santa Claus. Then they sold advertising to display before and after that event. Then they showed it to the public. What fine should we impose? 10%
A difference in error rate from 20-something percent down to less than 5 percent sounds incredible.