Touhou Cirno Radio / chiru.no

What are your thoughts on this amazing piece of open source software?
https://gitgud.io/chiru.no/chiru.no

yes, this is programming related

>>73
I'm not convinced. Have you identified your successor?

BOOMPSY

>>80
PHP doesn't compile to C either

>>80
It is

>>84
No.

>>84
It's not.
If there's no bytecode, it's transpiling.

>>86
you fucking idiot, there's nothing in definition of 'compilation' that talks about bytecode or machine. compiling transforms from one language into the other, in 'transpiling' you just have target language that is also designed for directly writing sources in it. HIBT?

>>87
Shut up, autist
This is the same bullshit all these "compile x to javashit" idiots spew. You don't compile a high level language to another high level language, you transpile it. are u dum?

>>88
transpile my anus

>>1
Is there an FTP server where we can upload?

Put into tar file and curl -F upload=@file.tar https://chiru.no

>>91
That's not an ftp site or as simple

https://chiru.no/u/IMG_20180101_185240.jpg

Denafrips Ares + ESP-950

https://chiru.no/u/IMG_9810.jpg

SRM-1 + SR-LNS

https://chiru.no/u/20151005_235733.jpg

SR-007

>>93-95
Hope you're happy you paid for your placebo.

>>96
It looks cool, though.

>>93-95
Credulous audiophile detected

Streaming 352KHz flac

https://chiru.no:8081/highres.flac

FLAC is placebo, 22050hz MP3 is where it is.

>>100
Flac still has merit in the way that all lossless codecs do: for archival. Streaming flac files, though, is just a gratuitous waste of bandwidth.

>>101
It's actually SACD

>>101

Streaming flac files, though, is just a gratuitous waste of bandwidth.

Because?

>>99
It sounds like shit, mostly because I can't download that fast. Edited on 04/01/2018 05:37.

>>99
It looks like shit, mostly because I can't download that fast.
It sounds like shit, mostly because I can't download that fast.

>>104
Wow that edit was a waste of time and now you look ridiculous.

>>105
Thanks. I do my best.

>>103
Because that's the whole point of compression? Are you joking?

>>107
I understand the point of compression, but there is nothing good about listening to MP3s.
Compared to FLAC/wav (and lossless music in general) MP3 is objectively inferior and a pain to hear. Why would you want to hear a version of a song that's inferior and loses its touch? The only acceptable time to keep MP3 copies is when you can't buy or find any copy of the song except in MP3 320 CBR.

Worse is when you hear music via youtube. The music from a YT video is severely inferior to the lossless version for listening because of compression. This is 1990 anymore; you can easily get a good HDD for a cheap price. Don't tell me you're one of those guys that uses SSDs for storage? You can see that OP runs his entire collection that has more than a million songs in the highest quality formats (SACD is 5-10x FLAC in size), and they only take up 15TB of space.

8TB WD Reds cost about $180, so you literally have no excuse for preferring MP3s over FLAC rips except for being poor. Being poor is a personal choice, but please don't attempt to convince others to follow the blind (or deaf in this case).

If you aren't listening to the highest quality of audio or lossless, then you don't really have good ears.

>>108

If you aren't listening to the highest quality of audio or lossless, then you don't really have good ears.

Enjoy destroying your golden ears as you overwork them with a long period of load noise

>>108
You're blatantly conflating flac with lossless and mp3 with lossy. It's no huge secret that mp3 is technically inferior, but your rant isn't even relevant, because we're not talking about that specific codec, just lossy codecs in general. You don't even understand what container those YouTube videos are going to be served to you as; that could vary drastically depending on your browser and the uploader. Webm specifically uses Vorbis Opus, not mp3. Plus, the quality of the audio of those YouTube videos could simply be that the audio is compressed at a level below the transparency threshold and, as such, isn't a reflection of any sort of technical flaws.

It's ironic that you'd say listening to compressed audio is archaic, because the fetishism of lossless files and audiophile in general was spawned out of the abysmal quality of audio cassettes, where such amendments would actually be warranted, because things were sincerely bad.

check my trips

>>110

You don't even understand what container those YouTube videos are going to be served to you as

It's either opus or AAC 92kbps

>>112
Neither of which are mp3 and basically proves that the quality of YouTube audio is because of consumer expectations and not the codecs themselves.

>>113
MP3 is the most common container for music files, king autismo
No need to nitpick in that guy's argument to prove him wrong

>>114
MP3 is proprietary and, therefore, considered harmful.

>>115
Nope, hasn't been for almost a year now.

>>115,116
But mp3 is outdated and unmaintained, vastly different than its competitors, which is why you can't just lop it in with everything else. To do something so ignorant and nit-picky makes a disingenuous argument.

>>111

Back to 4chan, please.

>>117
So just use ogg.

It's Jesus/>>108-san https://lambda.sx/Uzy.mp4