rmxt
Joined 13 years ago
Karma
1,139
Submissions
430
Member since
Apr 15
Recent submissions
Comment · 9 years ago
Comment · 9 years ago
Nor did I say that the poster here was fit or unfit. I speculated about what two extreme opinion holders would say to one another.
My point was that polarizing the discourse and reducing the other side to "just came out of the psych ward" does absolutely nothing to further reasonable arguments.
Comment · 9 years ago
Says the person linking to "informationliberation dot com". Pot, meet kettle.
Sure her twitter profile is highly politically charged and should likely have made her unfit for clearance, but citing that as evidence that she should be institutionalized is ridiculous. She'd likely say the same about you given your proclivity for "informationliberation". Where does that leave us for discourse?
Comment · 9 years ago
What does "hybrid clip" mean? Audio + MIDI in the same track? Live's arrangement view + session view in the same screen?
Comment · 9 years ago
You can turn off auto-warp on audio tracks by default globally, and you can disable warp on a per clip basis as you go.
In your specific case... disable warping on your ambient track, line it up against your warped/synced "another sort of loop" in arrangement view, and then change the master tempo of the track until you find out what you want in terms of different tempos. (This is off the top of my head, and without the program in front of me. Apologies if it's vague.)
Live can definitely function as a "dumb" multitrack recorder that lets you do those things -- but, by default it has all the tempo/beat/quantize options turned on.
I saw your edited post above... I think people are reacting negatively to your criticisms because they're a bit harsh, and, I personally think it's shooting the messenger (Live). You can do the things you want to do in Live... but by default out of the box, it's not what's it designed for. Live lowers the barrier entry to making sound... the people/users cranking out 4-4 120bpm tracks likely wouldn't be making anything had there not been Live. If you don't want to call that sound art or music, that's on you. To many people, that's still music, and music they might not have created otherwise.
EDIT: Just saw your other post here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14300672) with some more specific criticisms. I feel your pain. You obviously already know how to do the thing I'm mentioning above, and are referring to more complicated scenarios. Thanks for sharing.
Comment · 9 years ago
Hate to be a pedant... but I'm not sure any one person gets to define what "music in the art sense" even is.
Yes, Ableton is rigid. Yes, Ableton favors certain musical styles over others. Yes, Ableton, here and in their design of Live, may just be giving lip service to anything beyond rigid song structure, tempo and dynamic changes, etc. Yes, Ableton loves their little boxes.
But, I find it hard to believe that Ableton has a "complete disregard for music in the art sense." If "art" inherently means "unquantifiability" or pure "aesthetics", then sure, session view Live might not be your best bet. Regardless, arrangement view is basically the same as Pro Tools as far as I can tell/remember from what I've used of Pro Tools.
What is Live missing for you?
Comment · 9 years ago
Not sure why this is downvoted. California, like many other jurisdictions, seems to make a distinction between groceries/"raw" foods, and "prepared foods" when it comes to sales taxes. Unprepared foods are generally exempt from sales tax, while store-prepared foods are not exempt. E.g. an unsliced bagel in NY is untaxed, but a sliced bagel can/must be taxed. Fruit and vegetables likely fall into the untaxed category.
From Wikipedia: In grocery stores, unprepared food items are not taxed but vitamins and all other items are. Ready-to-eat hot foods, whether sold by supermarkets or other vendors, are taxed. Restaurant bills are taxed. As an exception, hot beverages and bakery items are tax-exempt if and only if they are for take-out and are not sold with any other hot food. If consumed on the seller's premises, such items are taxed like restaurant meals. All other food is exempt from sales tax.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_and_use_taxes_in_Califor...
Comment · 9 years ago
Using the title "engineer" in conjunction with "submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification [...] of traffic signals", I believe, is the critical part here.
If he had merely submitted the "critique and calculations" for "consideration" as a concerned citizen, he would have not gotten a fine. Simply put, he called himself an engineer and suggested that public infrastructure be changed. In Oregon, when you're not licensed by the state, you can't use the title "Engineer", and you definitely don't want to use it while trying to suggest modifications to public infrastructure.
I'm not equating the two in terms of "I believe both situations are completely just"... but doing what he did is akin to a thief walking himself into the police station. The purpose of the Board of Engineers in most states is not to decide what is "good engineering practice" and what is "bad engineering practice", it's to regulate licensure and set the bar for who is qualified to be an "Engineer" in the eyes of the state. He mis-navigated the American system, for better or worse, and paid a fine that is meant to dissuade people from doing things like this:
http://laist.com/2016/01/30/fake_civil_engineers_may_have_bu...
Comment · 9 years ago
Completely agreed. He pretty much barked up the one tree that actively cares about use of the title "engineer", and used it in violation of the law (as it is now).
Had he sent the letter/formula/math/suggestions to the local state university civil engineering department, the local/state Dept. of Transportation, or the local/state representative, the response would have fallen on less deaf ears, and his use of the title would have likely gone less noticed.
Comment · 9 years ago
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but the Constitution is but one piece of law in the US. There's a litany of state legislation (and I presume federal, as well) that regulate the use of job titles (e.g., doctor, engineer, lawyer, dentist, etc.). Most of them still on the books, and most of them attempting to nip the "direct harm to someone else" in the bud. That is what this article sort of willfully ignores: sure, this guy didn't exactly go out of of his way to harm people, but others have and do for their financial (or otherwise) benefit. [1]
I doubt that these laws are going away any time soon. Perhaps modified as more and more influential people see "programming" as "engineering", but doubtful that they'll go away for things like civil/mechanical/electrical infrastructure.
[1] http://laist.com/2016/01/30/fake_civil_engineers_may_have_bu...
Comment · 9 years ago
Perhaps on the North Sentinel Islands now, or 4,000 years or so elsewhere in the world, "no regulations" is / was the default position. That isn't the case for recent history in most of the world.
Claiming that "no regulations" is the default position, and that all existing and future regulations must be reasoned, argued and articulated from first principles sounds like a distraction, more so than a reasonable way to approach the current political atmosphere.
Comment · 9 years ago
My point is that neither "insects are unpleasant" nor "plants are pleasant" nor "doctors are 66% male" are immutable features of the universe. They are merely snapshots of the human view of world conditions, as the world is now. "True now", but not "true forever and always".
The paper seems to advocate for designing ML systems that learn that what is "true now" may not be "true forever and always". It seems to be quite the opposite of "there are certain truths that ML systems should not learn."
Comment · 9 years ago
So, "plants are pleasant" or "insects are unpleasant" are universal truths?
I can understand why people don't want screen time when their kids are toddlers -- you only get to raise your kids once. If the jury is out on whether or not "screentime" is bad, some parents err on the side of caution. Regardless, kids are malleable enough that any "familiarity gap" that the "iPhone user from age 2" has over the "iPhone user from age 6" has will likely be near zero within a few months at that age.
What benefits have you found your child to have derived from relatively early smartphone use beyond being able to have access to their parents at any time during the day?
My personal take is that, as with all things, moderation is key.