encomiast

I guess minimalism is relative. I wouldn’t describe this as minimalism. Minimalism is not using a tool “that combines together X, BlueSky as well as Farcaster and Lens”. To me that is a way to cope with the opposite of minimalism.

You actually can just leave Twitter and read a book instead.

Maybe worth pointing out that this is also decision laundering. If computers can't make decisions, corporations certainly can't. In fact, corporate decision laundering seems more dangerous to me.

> If you dont want to follow the constraints of service XYZ, you dont have to consume its content.

I am 100% okay with this. I don't want what Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook offer, so I no longer have an account these platforms. But I do have an account with my local electric utility. It's my only option. And if I want to find information about an outage, it's posted on their Facebook page. I'm 0% okay with this.

Random number generators notwithstanding.

I wonder if we will get to the point where this is all so easy that we'll need something like Flickr to organize all the random things one has vibe-coded.

It's already starting to feel like the days when your uncle would make you sit in a dark room and look at his vacation slide show. Sure, they're fine photos, but we quickly got to the point where a photograph was so easy to create that it needed to be extraordinary not just in execution, but in vision, timeliness, originality, etc. And even then, if you couldn't get it in front of the right editor, it just sat in a pile.

It is amazing, that just a few years ago this would have been a pretty amazing, portfolio-worthy project and today it's "pretty cool", said with a shrug.

The problem is that saying "we need to do something" is equally unhelpful because "we" isn't a thing that takes action in any ordinary sense of the word. You are just putting words together in a syntactically correct order that are devoid of actionable meaning. The way this sentence is normally interpreted is, somebody needs to do something, but it's not clear who that somebody is, or what power they need in order to act on a large enough scale to be effective.

If you can't say with any clarity what action needs to take place and by whom, then you aren't really contributing to a solution. Reacting to a fire in a house is much easier because it is clear how individual action can help. For example: you can call the fire department, I can get a fire extinguisher. Notice the word "we" is not in those sentences.

Some people are clearly doing less nothing: there are activists protesting, formal political action groups, scientists doing research, etc. What isn't as clear is whether any this can actually overcome the huge social and economic structural issues to actually make a dent.

This does seem to be the result of human activity. But I'm not really sure how the words 'we' and 'choose' work in a sentence like that. The collective of humanity doesn't really make choices the way I understand that word. And, while individual citizens make choices that contribute to this, and business people and politicians make choices that prioritize the short-term over the long term, it's not really correct to say they prefer and therefor choose the climate change. It seems like we don't have a good vocabulary for talking about the cumulative results of small choices.

Right! I have been looking longingly in the direction of Grand Seiko.

Maybe it's just a general fatigue from AI, notifications, microphones, and cameras everywhere, but I'm pretty sure my next watch will be something from Germany or Switzerland containing springs and gears.

I think most people want to talk and have only the person they are talking to listen.

I understand your point. Music is one of those careers, like professional athlete, that make parents cringe when optimistic children announce an intention to pursue it. Your numbers are off (the base pay of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra last time I checked was around $200k) and there ~30 violinists in that orchestra alone. But it's not an order of magnitude.

But just because the numbers are small doesn't mean society does not support them. There just isn't a need for a lot of them. It would be like saying society does not support professional athletes. Clearly it does, but only at the highest level. And at that level, it supports the very well.

> Snark noted, though I have no earthly idea why you felt it necessary

I apologize. I come from this world, have close friends in major orchestras and experience on the world's opera stages. This culture is full of shibboleths: referring to works as "songs", clapping in the wrong place, hell, even pronouncing 'Don Giovanni' the same way you pronounce "Don Draper" lets people know you are not from around here.

> Even the first-chair musicians and conductors have side gigs.

A principal player (I don't think anyone beyond high school band calls them 'first-chair') in a major symphony orchestra in the United States makes $250k-400k a year. These are extremely competitive jobs and they are paid well. Certainly enough to live on if you wanted to.

These people often teach, but not really because they need a "side-gig." If you ask them, they will likely tell you they feel a certain duty to prepare the next generation, they like teaching, and their rehearsal/performance schedule affords them the time.

The video makes claims about how much easier it is to learn to play with this keyboard layout vs, the traditional piano layout. But learning the chords has never been the difficult part of playing the piano. Learning arpeggios, scales, repertoire, all while being relaxed and expressive is the hard part. I wonder if this makes any of that easier?

It seems like this can get you from zero to the equivalent of picking up a few chords and how to strum on guitar fairly quickly. But I would be curious what mastery of this instrument looks like? If you were the Oscar Peterson or Franz Liszt of this thing, how would the layout limit or enable you?

To say nothing of this bit of markup, which actually raises an exception in the browser:

`<link rel="icon" href="data:;base64,=">`