clejack

We communicate with the most detail using words, but body language, facial expressions, touch and other scrubs act as girls of communication as well. All of these things have a common foundation in pattern.

What we call art is the manipulation of these common patterns. When it's most successful, it often regurgitates patterns that have proven successful. When it's most meaningful it modifies the old pattern to make new patterns that people can appreciate.

The question then becomes, how much modification can you engage in before your work because meaningless to everyone but yourself.

Imagine if your friend was a writer who got tired of the spoken languages and began writing novels in his own custom language. Would you lament the fact that no one reads his books?

Btw, I took a (very) brief listen to your friends music and it seemed kinda interesting, but I can certainly see why he lost all of his followers.

A bird can't teach a fish how to fly. Any advice you hear could be good, broadly speaking, and still ill suited to you because none of us know anything about what's causing your dissatisfaction.

With that in mind, what makes you hate your job? What are you looking for in a job?

What are your goals? What resources or talents do you have to help reach those goals? What things are you willing to sacrifice to meet your goals?

Start there, and maybe the rest will fall into place.

Now to completely disregard my previous statement. My answer to your original question is, 'you don't.' I've come to the conclusion that no job can make me happy because of my personality--this may not be true for you. Consequently I sought a job that didn't make me miserable, and that has been good enough for now.

If the original comment said 'it would not be language evolving [normally]...'

As opposed to 'organically' would you still have an issue understanding?

Assume here that normal is a linguistic approximation to the mathematical idea of arithmetic mean. It could also be replaced with the word typically.

In this context, your notion of a top down demand that blue means red or vice versa, is not 'organic' evolution, it's guided. Closer to the dog than the wolf.

I went to watch the interview just because of this comment, thinking "of course it has to be more than just Indian singing," and it turns out it was a variation on that theme. Apparently it's called Konnakol. I've heard the style, but I wasn't familiar with the name until now.

As you said, though, everyone has blind spots. The world is vast, and there's a lot to miss. I have to wonder why the woman who did the singing never told Hans Zimmer what it was, or why he didn't ask, since the situation implies one of those two.

I suspect the reply is saying a western notion of civility is irrelevant because the woman in question, and those like her, are acting against 'the core of civilization' as they know it.

I'm far from a pro producer, but I use tracktion's daw essentials for tasteful fx. Tal has some free old school chorus and cheesy(in a good way) reverbs, then of course there's Uhe.

I haven't tried there standalone fx, but if their built in synth fx are any indicator, you should be able to get some nice sounds from the standalone fx. I do feel like Uhe fx tend to be a little more opaque in terms of the names and values. E.g. having a filter that goes from 0 - 100 instead of just putting the cutoff frequency is a bit too old school. Having a parameter on a delay that's just called "wow" is not very helpful.

In any case all of these companies support Linux, and they all produce software worth taking a look at.

Cats and dogs don't tithe.

The most amazing thing about this to me is that as conceptually interesting as this contract is at a high level, and given that I started off interested in the document, about half way through my eyes were glazing over ;and I gave up.

I have to wonder how lawyers do their job. I've read chapters of academic text for my own knowledge, but somehow this legal writing style crushes me every time.

Your posts have been wild, but the last statement here is the biggest stretch of all.

There's a difference between actively eliminating a group of people, and that same group of people choosing not to have kids due to the requirements of "success" in their own culture.

Even though I don't agree with you in the slightest, I somewhat sympathize with you simply because I think you truly believe your perception is a reflection of reality as the saying goes. When it feels like the world is against you or apathetic towards you, that's a terrible thing.

Let me preface my point with this. I'm not white, but I am 'Western' culturally speaking. Unlike you seem to be able to do, I can acknowledge the flaw of western culture and still appreciate the positives like scientific and technological progress.

Ultimately, this is the truth of the matter. For centuries, Western European cultures have actively sought conquest of new frontiers with wealth and power being the two primary motivators. This set the stage for our modern trade network, technology, and capacity for migration.

The decision makers did not ask or care about the endgame of this activity, though. As wealth grew for the western world, it also grew for its average citizen, and like a drug, we have grown addicted to wealth.

White populations are in decline because they were one of the first groups to largely achieve the manifestation of the idea that "Anyone can be (financially) successful"

In the modern world, if your job doesn't pay you well enough, the only ways to maintain this success are to not have kids, have less kids or have kids later. You maintain this success culturally by making sure the few kids you do have know to follow the same line of reasoning.

Surely you aren't going to suggest that native non whites are forcefully suppressing white births? Or that immigrants are doing the same?

If you removed the immigrant or brown factor, you'd have the same situation as Japan with an aging population and no one to replace it.

The culture that led you to your current state, is also the culture that will be your undoing. I don't know what the solution is, but it's very clear that when financial success is the primary goal of individuals and infinite growth is the primary goal of governments and other institutions, population decline follows. Growth can always be greater, but the amount of time in a day grows ever shorter, and limits of human physical and mental stamina has a hard ceiling.

I first read this and immediately thought it was ridiculous. After a second read, I'm wondering if there is some deception going on. The idea that a license should be required to make advisement on designs impacting the public is reasonable. While nothing is guaranteed, it allows for a simple verification of skills.

I find it hard to believe that any engineer would not know this because I was told companies and the gov. use PEs to sign off on designs that impact the public when I was getting my degree in mechanical engineering.

The question here is whether this man was truly barred from speaking publicly about engineering or whether he was barred from testifying about engineering.

The former would be a problem due to its broadness, but the second would definitely not be.

I partially agree with your initial statement. I think precise definitions are only helpful in certain contexts. In general they might not be necessary or even useful, but precision is useful when you're trying to examine your own beliefs and the beliefs of others.

Consider this: the soldier being willing to defend against an enemy when he doesn't fear death isn't necessarily displaying courage. This particular soldier could have a death wish for all we know.

If I posed this scenario, then maybe you'd dive a little deeper and say something like "Most people are afraid to die, so if you were a soldier that didn't want to die, and you choose to defend your post when confronted by an enemy that can kill you, that would make you courageous."

By probing for specifics, we learn a property of courage. We might say something like "Courage is the ability to act against the compulsions of fear." Whether that's satisfactory or not is another issue, but it allows us to have a better understanding of what we're seeing in the world. It gives us a better example of acts of courage versus acts of overconfidence, inebriation or apathy.

The downside to this definition is, if someone approached me in public and asked me to defined courage; if I used this definition, I would probably need to follow it with an example.

Sounds like a case of bad metrics. Time on page when your goal is to get people to use your software/framework isn't meaningful. In fact, I suspect better communication leads to shorter times.

Similar idea with news. The objectives of profit and conveying meaningful information aren't necessarily aligned.

Disregarding the subjectivity of 'meaningful,' the advice 'know your target audience' is good from both a product design and marketing presentation stand point.

"From false premises, anything follows"

"Money too has a structure..." - Brett Scott

Hear I'm focusing on this undefined, elusive structure that Brett keeps alluding to. Not the superficial description of paper currency or coinage. Being honest, I hardly see a difference from a superficial description of an object and the author's use of structure, but I'll ignore that for now.

What is the structure of love? Of wisdom? Of pride, anger, hatred, or even better, of value?

The reason people/economist focus on the function of money is because that's a wise thing to do given it's immaterial source. Money, is a manifestation of the idea of value.

The fact that people conceptually struggle with it is no more significant than the fact that people struggle with calculus.