bonestormii_

lol, yes, sure. But why don't you sound horrified?

Version control at least is essential for something of any size with any number of people working on it. You must be able to "revert" a set of changes quickly and reliably if the application has any importance at all.

Awesome, thanks for running the test!

I can't help but feel it is heavily impacted by ambience of the recording as well. The midi is of course a very rigid and literal interpretation of what the model is hearing as pitches over time, but of course it lacks the subtlety of realizing a pitch is sustaining because of an ambient effect, or that the attach is is actually a little bit before the beginning of the pitch, etc.

If it could be enhanced to consider such things, I bet you would get much cleaner, more machine-like midis, which are generally preferable.

Yeah, articulation should be standardized in the midi specification. It's always a custom mapping to control it even when proper articulations are available. "Oh cool, custom mapping?!", you might say. Wrong. It sucks, because it tends to make old old scores utilizing articulation unusable because the mapping was stored in some obscure plugin configurations divided amongst many plugins.

It would be great if articulation messages were standardized, and then you could just expect them to be there, and if they are absent, the soundfont can simply fall back to the closest thing available. That kind of helpful logic is not possible with custom mappings.

I wish more people thought this way about computing.

I think you are right in many respects. I would not consider myself one of the accused luddites, but in their defense, this ethos isn't baseless.

First and foremost, the luddites you speak of are programmers or sys admins. They have been using terminals and are still using terminals daily, and they see the benefits that those tools have to offer. Namely, they see composable, interoperable programs that abide by the philosophy that programs "should do one thing well" as the bench mark for real progress. I would say I agree with the merits of this perspective. But I still use VSCode in addition to vim, because I'm not a zealot and there are times when I want to edit something in a very flexible way that VS Code better facilitates.

Both ways of doing things have their merits I suppose. It just hurts a bit to see something simple and powerful be wrapped and rewrapped in progressively less helpful proprietary systems and given a JS front end that lacks all of the focus and freedom that charmed us with the systems to begin with.

I think it is perhaps a function of the way we train ourselves to be workers that passively accept tasks to occupy our attention. Much of school and many jobs provide anywhere from a drip to a torrent of regular units of work for us to focus on, and this occupies a huge part of time and training.

In the past, we used to criticize television for its passive, zombifying effect on the viewer. Games are more engaging. In truth, people like being actively engaged, and they are very accustomed to being actively engaged without the cumbersome work of directing their own activity.

Completing complicated tasks is, in a way, relatively easy. Defining tasks, reflecting on priorities, and allocating time to work on them--and importantly, suffering the emotional consequences of real world success or failure--is sometimes less pleasant. Games are maximally engaging and minimally taxing. That is their magic.

LoL @ "Perhaps Apple can't afford..."

It's all really stupid, actually.

The competition for the best schooling so that you can get the best job can indeed yield significant benefits for the winners. The private sector judges prestigious universities to be high-value; those universities use SATs to judge which students are high-value; and students judge universities as high-value based on their perception of what the private sector values.

All of this is apparently a filtration system designed to find the best and brightest candidates. Presumably, as many have mentioned, these are people with high IQ. And indeed, high IQ people are extremely noticeable when you are around them. They are frequently faster, more incisive, and have a knowledge base that is both deep and wide.

...And many of them are unproductive, valueless fuck-ups with poor temperaments for almost any work requiring a social component (i.e. almost all work). They have substance abuse problems. They have personality disorders. They lie. And many of them are also wonderful people.

I'll take a medium-bright, tenacious, responsible worker with a degree from a state school or community college any day of the week over some moneyed primadonna who is too busy trying to display their own cleverness to focus on the task at hand.

All of this judgement is stupid because it discounts character. Medium aptitude coupled with hard work can and does produce excellence. Focus, care, and attention to detail are at least as important as intelligence. The filtration process closes doors for these people.

Lastly, though this only an anecdote, anyone who's worked in the professional world has had the pleasure of running into idiot attorneys from prestigious schools. People who send e-mails full of misspellings, careless factual errors, and incorrect legal assertions beyond their specific scope of legal knowledge. Trust me, these people exist, and it's extremely difficult to explain how they exist if the filtration system is really the meritocracy it claims to be. It is frequently hacked as a vehicle for privilege.

The problem is that our legislators famously do not write or even read the legislation that they vote on. Sometimes it's strategic and intentional that a party will try to hold a vote on some 1000+ page piece of legislation with 24 hour notice. Other times, they simply don't care to read it, so they do not.

Actual lobbyists write actual legislation, in fact. And our politicians vote on them without having read it. It's a really stupid system.

It's easy to say that, but what do you expect the platform to provide? If the platform makes operating your business so trivial that they provide all functionality baked into the product, I would suggest that your business may lack novelty, and therefore it may also lack competitiveness.

"No code" doesn't mean you don't have to implement things yourself. You are simply limited to the platform's baked in abstractions in exchange for "not having to write code".

Your services may eventually not map well to the capabilities of the platform, and it may cause problems. In such cases, the easiest and likely best solution is to offload functionality to a private server running custom code that interacts with the interfaces to the existing platform.

The whole "no code" thing is spun as "empowering entrepreneurs", but there is a philosophy underlying it that implementation details don't matter, and programmers aren't needed. It may be true for some businesses who are in non-technical sectors, but if you are selling digital services themselves "no code" will only take you so far.

ooOOOOoooo