digitailor

I was working with the 5mb, and it was not enough, Bill Gates’ famed comments notwithstanding

Maybe we need the nostalgia to live! :)

Had to dig it up, threw some of the tracks up quietly on SoundCloud in 2010. Thanks for reminding me and your interest

https://soundcloud.com/filthybysunday/sets/the-lost-flatbush...

Thanks for this Xmas present, benbreen. I was reading Mondo2000 in the early 90s as a prepubescent while learning HyperCard. It ended up making me good friends at a particularly insane time of NYC history.

I figured out how to produce music with HyperCard, using audio samples, with the 8-bit mono 22khz audio-in on the Macintosh IIsi. Using a program called Soundedit, I could build, chop and render multitrack audio files to one file. I couldn’t hear them before rendering, so it was mostly a visual waveform editing process.

I would then get the rendered audio files into a master HyperCard stack’s resource fork using ResEdit, and sequence songs and albums through HyperTalk scripting. Albums would be a page of buttons that played individual songs, with graphics, and then a script to play songs in sequence that I could record to cassette tapes easily.

I would press the album’s “Make Tape Side 1” HyperTalk script button and record on the tape deck at the same time, then flip the tape and press “Side 2” when the tape hit the end, after hearing that old helpful mechanical button pop sound. Boom, production.

Good times, part of the foundation of my entire life. Making music that way made me some of the realest friends you can have. HyperCard ruled

Good point you raise. Without broaching speculative argument as to the general state of Mr Musk’s consciousness-stream:

Giant, bloated organizations (and projects, and other things) can often be helped by reduced-size, highly-directed streams of consciousness suddenly making unilateral changes to them.

One way to term it— and there are many— is crisis restructuring. Whether Twitter was actually in crisis, and whether the unilateral stream of consciousness doing the restructuring is ”divinely inspired,” remains to be seen.

Certainly paid enough for the privilege

Not saying that this is the case here, but this may be possible due to having a bad tab open. Especially over cellular. Haven’t looked into it with any depth, but I’ve had correlations on a much shorter timeframe. Suddenly, CloudFlare and/or Google start questioning my humanity, so I close all tabs. Then okay. Sloppy hypothesis with no evidence: JS gone haywire

I get what you mean, it was a temporal issue, but it’s a PCM synth. That’s sample playback, and vibrato in that context is a modulation of pitch of sample playback over time. It’s a pitch playback problem that was caused by too fast a clock causing too fast a pitch playback modulation. (The LFO being used to produce the vibrato effect being misclocked due to too-fast MCU, causing a pitch playback problem. The pitch playback modulation was at the wrong rate.)

The later S550 is the unit I was fixing mentioned in another comment, that one was a 8095

Didn’t know that: hard to believe they managed to pull off additive synthesis on an 8096. That’s impressive

I had a later Kawai K5000 which added short PCM samples for attack transients. That thing was crazy, foolishly gave it away more than a decade ago

This is cool, so TL;DR: The 3rd gen run of a Roland early digital synth product had an unresolved timing issue causing pitch playback problems. Recently, investigation revealed they hadn’t accounted for an Intel MCU part sub. The spec indicated the sub part was running too fast. They downclocked it via crystal swap which destroyed the unit’s MIDI timing. So they located the control ROM instructions to modify to fix the resulting MIDI sync issue and burned a new one:

  0x1A8D: 1D5Fh -> 1388h
  0x215C: 17h -> 0Fh
  0x216D: 1D5Fh -> 1388h

That’s it. Surgical.

I spent some time inside an early Roland sampler of this era during the pandemic. It’s really well engineered stuff that sounds great.

Well said- it's as much or more to try to provide minimum reasoning to allow a party to bring them to court as influence proceedings in court. But the lack of statements made after termination is undeniably helpful to parties with this kind of MO if things end up there.

It's a really good point about Apple willfully using an Experian service as part of this strategy. As to defamation, I don't think that's clear. Apple is intentionally using the term to be as legally vague as possible about how it externally reports its past connection to its ex-payees. This is mostly liability management, essentially saying less that can't be called false, instead of the defamatory tactic of saying more that is not true.

  as·so·ci·ate (n)
  1. a partner or colleague in business or at work.
  2. a person with limited or subordinate membership of an organization.
  3. joined or connected with an organization or business.
                 - Source: Google search results fed by Oxford Languages

This kind of vague hedging in communication for legal purposes is pretty longterm characteristic of the organization. It's the "say absolutely nothing after termination that can be dissected in court later" school. The school has adherents all over the place.

I think you could go even further and add that a lot of power users who you'd think would want decentralized identity don't want it either, for the same reasons you mention.

To chime in with the choir, you do get it. You bring up OpenSea and I can give you an example of the defeat-of-decentralization that you mention. One of the things that commonly appeals to people about the idea of NFTs is that smart contracts allow for things like a resale fee (points) to go back to the original owner automatically for all future resale transactions. But you actually can't automatically receive the resale stipulation if the resale of the NFT takes place off of the OpenSea platform due to its design, which is basically an intermediary smart contract that has the functionality that allows for the points to be assigned.

I'm not a decentralization purist so I can't say that "Web 3.0" centralization bothers me in and of itself. I do think it dulls a lot of arguments of there being great innovation in this specific area, especially when your non-fungible token consists of a URL string. Real-world, existing laws and regulation apply to this new stuff already, as you indicate.

I do not hold any meaningful amount of btc. I am not selling bitcoin, I am countering FUD. there is not a single example of my intent in this thread being promotion or marketing. I'm pointing out classical FUD techniques on a public technology forum, not making an argument. There is zero desire to compel you. Your proclamation of damnation is noted here for posterity.

I'm specifically refusing the demand that it's my responsibility to provide evidence of commercial btc usage in order to highlight FUD tactics. The alleged story I mention is likely to receive media exposure in Q3 2022, and it's largely but not completely up to the target.

In your opinion the anecdotal story of aiding in the stopping of a predatory crime is not compelling and does not demonstrate meaningful utility. If you think every human agrees with you that is not compelling, I believe that is an extraordinary statement on your part.

The common hostile attitude here on the subject is what's being captured and addressed, and my response to it is what I'm specifically capturing in my comment history for posterity. It has utility.

You're correct, it's not an actual thing. I'm using it as a device to summarize the kinds of protocols and networks that are part of common visions for what Web 3.0 constitutes. There is no canonical "pure Web 3.0" vision I can point to. But http:// doesn't play strongly in most advanced visions, especially if you subscribe to the hypothesis that wallets will move on from the web browser for average users for security reasons. Speculatively, wallets could possibly become a kind of browser themselves, with http://'s utility becoming more marginalized eventually.

I'm not referring to Gavin Wood's specific conception or the associated Polkadot and its foundation's specific usage of the term. FWIW, I'm really trying to dissect the name and not the vision and perhaps not doing it that well. As far as I'm concerned, the usage of the term predates even bitcoin and originally meant Semantic Web. Content-addressable networks like IPFS or Arweave could be seen as related to that conception, but it's a bit of a stretch.

The best part is, in the pure Web 3.0 vision, http:// would be deprecated. It's somewhat absurd. The description of a proposed post-WWW Internet as "the Web" is incoherent. That being said, I think there are some critically important ideas involved. I came up with the term Internet 4 as a substitute but that's also not exactly accurate.

Apologies, but not really. I became "involved" with bitcoin in 2013 somewhat accidentally through a job in behavioral finance. I was at the first bitcoin conference and was one of the few willing to talk to the "suits" who were there. Some of the neo-libertarian stuff used to frustrate me and I would refute certain points, only to uselessly draw ire from groups.

What I've found is like most people's relationship with money in general, a person's beliefs on the subject are usually rooted in their emotions. The area has always been technologically interesting to me so I tend to ignore everything but identifiable FUD, because that's part of what I do generally.

I agree with most of your points. If something as real-life meaningful as the stopping of a predatory crime does not satisfy you as a legitimate usage example against people claiming there is essentially none, I'm at a loss and am unsure of what we're actually discussing.

As you may imagine, it's impossible for me to provide the 1,000 page+ documentation trail of an in-progress federal investigation here in order to refute a comment. I understand that my sincerity may be questioned and there's nothing I can do about that.

If you're in the HN knee-jerk native digital assets hate camp, this is how you attempt to refute bitcoin. As someone who has stood up to FUD about bitcoin on this forum, this paper provides the ammunition that's actually needed and is relevant to discussion on this forum.

> Going through monetary history, we show how a true numeraire must be one of minimum variance with respect to an arbitrary basket of goods and services

The issue with this paper that I can see is it that it's a purely economic analysis that makes no mention of the inherent value of the technological underpinnings. In other words, it abandons some practical business valuations to the exclusivity of economic/financial ones. I don't think it's reasonable to say that the technological solution to game theoretic challenges like double spending on public digital networks indicates a final value of 0 as he does. I have no idea how to value this properly but have seen proofs by geniuses that are in complete contradiction to each other on the matter.

To be clear, I'm talking about the bookkeeping element of an in-progress federal investigation involving theft of corporate equity and corporate tax fraud. The target was legally disabled.

Indeed I have, appearing later in this thread due to how it became organized by moderation. Digital assets aided in stopping a predatory crime this year. If this kind of usage doesn't satisfy as a rebuttal to a negative parent post containing no supporting information, you may want to examine the fact that this entire thread is meant to explore some technologist's fear-based need to publicly associate digital assets with crime alone, in this forum especially. Emotionally-driven posts meant specifically to steam-roll any and all positive discussion by simply shouting "But Crime!"

Tracking the making of negative generalized statements using FUD techniques is something I have been involved in algorithmically tracking professionally and am countering not in the pursuit of karma or sycophantic agreement but simple public commons maintenance. (The data was often used to identify FUD campaigns of short sellers in finance forums and resulting sentiment analysis feeds are available via subscription through financial data providers.) These comments never mention the continual reigning supremacy of the US dollar for crime, ever, and never provide any evidence that bitcoin has a higher crime usage ratio than the dollar with less prosecutability. This is because law enforcement generally haven't advanced that position while enforcing and in earlier posts I've explained my extensive experience in detail as to how and why they haven't. There has been no direct engagement with this factual information.

In my view some on this forum are intent on spreading classical FUD on the subject and countering FUD is an occupation for some. After a decade of particularly questionable behavior coming from the technology sector involving unfathomable amounts of US dollars, we run the risk of portraying an image of incumbent ideological corruption instead of supporting meaningful technological discussion. This slide has been happening for years IMO and it saddens me. Younger technologists have considerably less opportunity than we did, not more, and the frontier is much smaller. Ruthless negativism doesn't serve them.

I understand your point of view, but you haven't even attempted to qualify it.

I can tell you that I helped stop a predatory crime that was being committed using US dollars this year, partially by using digital assets defensively. Defamatory general statements about the target and digital assets had been made in the past in this case, and it backfired on the perpetrators- horribly, in the federal jurisdiction.

Could you take a moment to consider why unqualified generalizations like yours could concern some? In the past, the perpetrators had attempted to capitalize on the perception you are asserting as reality. The possibility of resultant ankle bracelets or worse for them is high, due generally to record keeping and time stamps.

The reality of this technology is that it solved the technical problems associated with Internet native asset classes. The rest is editorializing.

(To help qualify my perspective and insistence... I was involved in stopping a long term predatory crime this year where digital assets were used to help protect the victim against perpetrators using dollars. As you might imagine, having clear records of transactions is likely to be more helpful to the targets than the perpetrators in these cases.)

OK, I think I get it better. I'm not disagreeing and sincerely appreciate the cynicism, but you're saying the guy who ran on a relatively classic tough-on-crime platform is also appealing to some kind of criminal subclass of NYC voter who prefers bitcoin to cash for their locally committed crimes and also appreciates tough-on-crime platforms for everything else?

Perhaps... or maybe the reputation for crime that some people are intent on projecting onto bitcoin is not particularly accurate to the realities of currencies used most frequently in the commission of criminal activity.

My argument hinges upon the fact that Mr Nagle has been waging a FUD campaign for some time without much contest here, through leveraging his reputation. It's become tiresome, very few LEO support his concerns at this point, yet he continues unchallenged. It's mostly cherrypicking and well below the quality of his other posts.

All of us who've been around enough know what FUD campaigns look like on well-managed Internet forums. I am middle-aged and find this worthy of countering as it appears obsessive. Younger technologists are constantly having their efforts defamed needlessly on this leading technology forum with nothing being added to the conversation.

Help me understand. Are you saying that former LEO are well-served from a PR standpoint by attaching themselves to the "points" you're holding are clearly evidenced by the parent post?

The exuberant behavior of the VCs is really what's being noted. The core business could very well be sound. One just has to hope the very technical founder is being well advised.

This is a press release after all

A case study of the pandemic speed of capital:

  May 2020- $1M Pre-Seed
  Sept 2020- $3.7M Seed
  April 2021- $20.7M Series A
  Dec 2021- $68M Series B

How can so many rounds be condensed so quickly for a business like this? Is the number of Homebrew downloads (37k as advertised on the home page) a metric that can lead to an 18 month ramp to Series B now?

I think there's a trend at play here I'd love to hear more about.

That's true, except they have been enforcing and building the capabilities to enforce at a larger scale. They can enforce going back decades, are called in constantly to help other investigations and prosecutions, and are in no rush.

It's just like everything else, literally, and tax evasions only get media coverage under pretty limited circumstances.

Taxation in the space has always had a foregone conclusion that some have chosen to handwave or rationalize away. Not a bright strategy IMO.