Implies that 'that major machinery of capitalism' is an assumption. If it doesn't happen even under optimal conditions, you've learned something about the assumptions you've been taught as axioms.
well.. capitalism is still what made them happen, so we can still have that as an assumption.
I think the real takeaway here is the right conditions within companies can lead to breakthroughs. If a company employs the smartest engineers and gets them to work 12 hours days, it's obvious that they are going to take the lead.
There's some other places that migrated to Reaper because of its own specialties. Reaper runs great and is absurdly, unreasonably customizable.
That of course means extensive skinning capabilities, but it also means ReaScript, a scripting language with a whole API. I recently succeeded in using ReaScript to take my control surface, the faders of which I'd colorcoded, and using them to on the fly adjust output level controls on plugins I wrote.
Not just 'assign the plugins to a fader', or 'assign controls to plugin parameters on the selected track, or discontinuous selections of tracks', though those are also things Reaper happily does.
I mean, in a big mix I can assign track colors to the tracks in Reaper, and the parameters (in plugins, mind you, anywhere in the FX stacks) will all jump to the live position of the control surface fader with that color. A bit specific and personal, but it's entirely done in scripting.
The game industry uses Reaper for similar reasons: being able to automate generation of a game's entire collection of sounds has its uses. I would say it is the DAW equivalent of what Blender is, in 3D modeling.
Interesting, that's a very cool idea! I tried Reaper when it was released but didn't find a good reason to move away from Pro Tools. That was a very long time ago though.
What's the best community for sharing ReaScripts? Also, is your script available anywhere?
Huh. Doesn't return to the one, ever? You've got sort of a I - III - IV thing going on, and it just goes to IV and stays there forever. Did you think that was the root?
Fun toy, though! I take it you extended it backwards into an intro, or you have playing it can read that you muted, leading into your guitar stuff. Did you play to a click or is it reading your tempo too?
I think I played straight into Logic with the metronome on, two sections and then pushed that forward to create some blank bars for the intro and then added the drummer on multiple tracks and same for bassist, then fiddled with some of the settings for each section.
I was pretty impressed, though, for approximately ten minutes start to finish. I should probably go recall what I played so I can try and finish the riffs off or something.
An actual competent musician ought to be able to make the most ridiculous demos with this thing.
The 'people wouldn't fall for it' is in error.
People aren't rational actors and don't have complete information.
That's a bold statement, I know, but it's at least as correct as 'people wouldn't fall for it'. I'm pretty sure it's easy to make a case for 'too many people will fall for it'.
The concept is that it is possible for people to be in bad faith. This also underlies the idea that people can commit crime, be guilty of crime. I guess the term is 'law'?
Bottom line is that you can't have the bottom line be 'does a person earnestly believe what they're doing is right and good', much less 'do they say they're right'. Can't fall back on that, it's hopelessly inadequate.
Beautiful work. I'm happy to read it from start to finish. Not at all sure I have an application for this, but I completely get why this is a beautiful thing :)
I put a monitor screen behind my camera for video-making, adjusted so the eyes are just barely showing over the camera. Then, when my eyes are drawn to me on the screen, I'm looking at the camera (just over it) which works pretty well. The eye contact is pretty good, but I can look away or around all I want: I'll just tend to be drawn to 'display of eyes' so I'm hacking that instinct to make better videos.
That said, plenty of people don't make eye contact with the camera much at all :)
I was looking for this comment as I saw one of the NYT headlines manufacturing counterfactuals towards whatever end. It cites a politician looking at worker migration to small, struggling towns, "and he fueled a fire that was already smouldering".
My understanding of THAT story is that the town is very protective of the black workers who moved there to work, and that it wasn't the politician but his subordinate who 'turned his sights' there, and did so to say horrible things about those people with no evidence. That's my understanding of what that story is. To claim 'he fueled a fire that was already smouldering' seems a wildly irresponsible thing to say as a headline.
Maybe try pulling from the Associated Press? I'm a bit at a loss. You can at least avoid bad faith headlines.
No, I don't think that's true. What will instead happen is there will be expert humans or teams of them, intentionally training AI brains rather than expecting wonders to occur just by turning the training loose on random hoovered-up data.
Brainmaker will be a valued human skill, and people will be trying to work out how to train AI to do that, in turn.
Barring simple typos, human mistakes are erroneous intention from a single source. You can't simply write human vagaries off as 'error' because they're glimpses into a picture of intention that is perhaps misguided.
I'm listening to a slightly wonky early James Brown instrumental right now, and there's certainly a lot more error than you'd get in sequenced computer music (or indeed generated music) but the force with which humans wrest the wonkiness toward an idea of groove is palpable. Same with Zeppelin's 'Communication Breakdown' (I'm doing a groove analysis project, ok?).
I can't program the AI to have intention, nor can you. If you do, hello Skynet, and it's time you started thinking about how to be nice to it, or else :)
reply