I swear to god that's a texture from cruelty squad. What the fuck.

This game is already out. Why did we need an update on an announcement for a game that's already released?

One of the core skills would be the ability to pick out different sounds from a soundscape. I suspect you already have a knack for that given how much you seem to think about audio quality. Tied in with that would be an understanding of how digital audio works in terms of bitrate, dynamic range, what clipping sounds (and looks) like, etc. I'm sure there's tons of info on all that online. Analog audio has a whole other set of skills associated with it, but I doubt it's super accessible these days for a beginner. That's outside of cassettes, at least. I'm sure old 4-track cassette recorders are super cheap. As much as I loved analog recording, you're probably better off just going digitally and using processing to get an approximation of the "traditional" analog sound, though, if that's your jsn. Or if you're going for a black metal sound or something else intentionally grungy, go to town on a cassette deck.

I can already do a lot of this, and while I'm a bit lacking on the analog aspect, I have an okay understanding of how electricity works, which would probably help with the analog side.

From there I'd say the biggest skills would be understanding basic mic technique, the general physics of sound, and how to properly set your levels (basically the ratio of preamp vs amp). Next up would be figuring out basic processing - namely the different types of EQ and compression. Effects play into that too - especially reverb and delay - but EQ and compression (plus proper micing and levels) are generally going to be the foundation of a good mix.

Don't have as much of an understanding here, especially when it comes to calling out specific frequencies to be EQ'd. I don't do enough of that to be able to "play it by ear" and know what frequencies I want to adjust without some experimentation. I'm also somewhat familiar with how compressors work, but I need a UI because I tend to forget what bit does what, so I need visual feedback to show me what I'm changing. Shouldn't be too difficult to memorize the terminology and how certain frequencies sound, but it would take some effort. I do understand how decibels work though!

That being said - this all entirely depends on what you're going for. If you don't do anything musical yourself and aren't inclined to record other musicians, you can have tons of fun remixing other people's work. I'm pretty sure there are sites out there where you can download raw audio tracks to mix yourself. Another viable option if you're into electronic forms of music is to get a sequencer and experiment that way.

It's something I'd probably do as a career. The career I wanted to go into has turned out to be extremely toxic and heavily exploitive, so I'm kinda looking for alternatives. That said, most creative careers tend to be very exploitive so I might be looking in the wrong place.

Ye, though tbh, I've thought about just getting a secondary pair of headphones, like a cheaper wireless pair for being out and about, and a more expensive pair for at home. If I went that route then I'd probably do something like the ath-m50x

Holy shit those actually kinda sound exactly like what I want. They are pretty expensive, and I wonder what the sound quality is like, but those are basically the kinda thing I've been looking for.

I'll have to check them out, thanks!

I actually don't, but maybe I should because I love audio stuff, I just don't usually have the money to blow on it. Any idea what skills audio engineers usually have?

I don't have a problem with wireless headphones when it comes to mobile devices. It sucks, and I wish I still had a headphone jack, but I've kinda come to peace with the fact that wireless accessories for phones are apparently the future.

However, I wish there were "mid/high-end" Bluetooth/wifi cans. All the wireless headphones are either earbuds, IEMs, or overpriced Skullcandy/beats/Bose/apple/etc. I want an AKG or Audio-Technica pair of wireless headphones that go over my ears, and I want an option between closed-back and open-back headphones. I prefer closed-back due to the sound isolation and I'm annoyed that there's a price gap where it's hard to find closed-back headphones in the $300~$600 range.

...or at least it was when I checked a year or two ago; everything with a closed back was either entry (<$100), low-level (<$300) or too expensive (>$600 + $100 or more for an amp, because at that price range most headphones need one).

Edit: oh yeah, and a optional balanced cable that uses a standardized connector, like miniXLR

Ironing seems like it'd be a really chill and relaxing activity, if we had time to engage in it.

Nope, CPU-Z says it's a Snapdragon 8. It's a factory-unlocked US model on verizon, and I doubt a EU/ROW phone would support Verizon frequencies (it used to be that phones in the US had to be made for carrier-specific bands, but that might have changed with LTE), but I used CPU-Z just to double check.

My understanding is that it depends on context. Have you been sweating a lot? Are you super dehydrated? Sports drinks (actual "sports drinks" like Gatorade) are probably better for you than water.

The reason for that is because you lose a lot of salt and other electrolytes through sweat, and drinks like Gatorade are meant to replace those. That's why professional athletes, especially stamina-based athletes like marathon runners, football players, etc, tend to drink some form of sports drink (the sponsorships help though). Additionally, if you're extremely dehydrated then you may also be low on electrolytes (because you've been out in the sun, or you've been sweating a lot). I've also heard that sports drinks hydrate faster because they're supposedly similar to saline, but I can't find any sources for that, so take that with a grain of salt.

However, if you're just kinda thirsty or want something to drink, then water is probably better. I doubt you'll hurt yourself drinking Gatorade instead of water, but you don't need it either.

Imo, we should have one, or at most, two Olympic states. They'd be small countries that are more-or-less politically neutral, and instead of sending teams, their purpose would be to host the Summer and/or Winter Olympics. Construction, maintenance and upgrades of the facilities would be paid for by participating countries, as a percentage of their GDP. That way, the hosting country(ies) wouldn't have to spend billions building the facilities, they get guaranteed tourism every 2~4 years, the facilities get reused, non-hosting countries have a place to measure their penis size, don't have to spend outrageous sums to build their own facilities (they're all paying together, after all), don't have to bulldoze houses or forests, be concerned with water quality, and probably many other bonuses I'm not thinking of.

Bonus points if the facilities are open year-round for Olympians to train at, so that the athletes are more used to the climate, equipment, tracks, trails, etc.

The biggest downside is that hosting the Olympics is prestigious itself and generates a lot of tourism revenue (which in this case, would only be going to the "static" host(s)). It's a chance for the host country to show off their economic strength, culture (like during the opening ceremonies), and more. You'd have to convince countries that they're better off without the tourism and chance to flaunt their wealth.