Facebook at it again

would you go with them again? my fathers are the cheapo's from costco, and they have definitely helped him, when he remembers to turn them on.

 

Mine have an uncanny lack of filtering out my wife's voice. No, I'm not joking. He voice seems to have a pitch that is not compatible with my Electric ear trumpets.

 

I have the Kirkland Signature 6 from Costco. They were actually one year old high end from a major manufacturer when Costco rebranded them. Costco pricing on these is awesome.

In my experience, hearing aid claims are not real-world, but better than the alternative. Much hinges on having a good professional program them since you cannot self-program. With Costco, if you have a bad professional, you can go to a different store for no charge and have them adjust them.

tl:dr, There is currently no better choice.

 

Unfortunately, my wife is soft spoken.
Before we were married, she took flying lessons and they sometime had issues hearing her on the radio.

 

Legally speaking, much of that is not protected personal information.

On many of these personal information issues, private commercial entities are under fewer restrictions that governments.

 

True, but we should own & control it. Not those who happen to have a copy for a specific use.

 

If Facebook can make money off the data they mine from me, it is worth more to me than just getting free use of their service.

 

Yes, I believe we should own it. Unfortunately, Congress and the new Administration moved in the opposite direction, just two days ago.

 

I'm disappointed, too. But to be fair, all they did, as I understand it, was to kill a bill that hadn't yet taken effect anyway. We never have had government rules against ISP's selling our browsing history. Would have been nice, though. So far, the big ISPs claim they have no intention of selling our info, but that could change in a heartbeat.

 

Jeez....

How long have you hearing aid guys been married?

After about five years of marriage, my ears developed -- I assume as part of natural evolution -- their own filters, which filter out about 85 percent of what my wife says to me.

I think they strive to catch only the important stuff, but sort of like the man-made filters, sometimes they fail whereas they filter out only the important stuff. Small price to pay.

 

Reminds me of the wife who asked her hubby, "How come you say you have to have good plated speaker wires because you say you can hear the difference, when you can't hear me call you from the kitchen?" LOL!

 

LOL. In air traffic control college they always reminded us "It's a microphone, NOT a megaphone. A whisper over R/T is just as clear as a shout, perhaps clearer. Turning up the receiver volume makes the difference when listening.

 

I believe that, at least back then, the analog radio bands limited the higher audio frequencies. Higher pitched, softer voices were more difficult to hear well.

 

Although the concerns are much the same, FB is not a "big ISP"........and unlike the people who carry your traffic, you are not obligated to go anywhere near FB or anything like them if you don't want too.

But then.......Somehow FB seems to "know" that I am shopping for a new motorcycle......and even what brand it is.
Even though I don't think I have mentioned that AT ALL anywhere on FB.
So there must be a conspiracy of sorts at work.

Every day that goes by I hate FB more and more. One of these days I may just pull the plug. The thing that somewhat worries me is that they may still have there tentacles into me even if I stop using them.

 

No conspiracy, just standard business interplay. FB has partnered with a gazillion other businesses, and some FB content gets loaded with every page view on those business's websites, and FB's cookies get refreshed with relevant details. The result is that FB knows approximately what you are doing on those sites.

The whole industry is doing this. Nearly all web pages load content from multiple other sites, many pages load from dozens of others. I see them (and block most, including FB) with my FireFox NoScript add-on, but various other tools will show the same stuff.

 

I have to agree that most flightdeck aircrew reported to me that they found it harder to hear some of my female controller colleagues. As to exactly why, I don't know.

 

For my aging dad, who has been exposed to a lifetime of loud machinery and gunfire, the cause is clear. A simplistic YouTube hearing test showed that he can no longer hear frequencies as 'high' as 1,500 Hz. This is well within the normal range of speech, more so for many female voices than male, so less of their voice falls into his remaining hearing. In contrast, I could still hear up to 13,000 Hz. As a young engineer, the 15,750 Hz horizontal re-scan rate of common televisions (of the analog era) really annoyed me, but that disappeared several decades ago. Sub-adult persons can often hear up to 20,000-ish Hz.

Did some of those flightdeck crewmembers have appreciable hearing loss, possible related to the work? Or maybe it went back to limitations of legacy audio equipment designed and built before women were allowed into those jobs?

Are you suggesting that divorce is an effective treatment for male hearing loss?

 

I seriously digress, but commercial and military aircraft usually have female voices for prompts and warnings. The prevailing theory is that the right female voice has a sharpness to it that is more attention grabbing. The World's Top Fighter Pilots Fear This Woman's Voice