I’m not really scared of AI becoming more intelligent. I’m more concerned about stupid people giving control to stupid AI. It’s plenty capable of fucking things up as it is provided it is given access to do so.

I think the people who just pick up an instrument and fool around with it might be more tempted to use AI than an actual composer who knows and cares about music theory and sound production.

It’s all about what they want to do. You don’t ask a algorithm to solve your sodoku, because what’s the point of doing it then.

It’s a standing joke that composers actually make their living doing tedious tasks like commercial jingles and background music for radio shows. The AI can easily do that, removing both the tedious work, but also the payment.

Algorithm based music isn’t a new thing. One could argue that it was exactly what Bach was doing. His ideas were mostly simple three note motifs, and the rest of the hourly long concerts were just him churning out all the possible arrangements using strict theory. AI could do that faster than a human, but I also don’t think any human is really interested in doing it like that anymore. It was a huge accomplishment by Bach, but only because he was the first to lay the groundwork. It’s not interesting today.

Composition today is all about conveying an idea or emotion through sound, which would be rather difficult for an AI. It can probably fake it well enough, but it’ll be based on already existing methods, aka slop. There’s already enough human made slop in music to saturate the market for such. AI doesn’t really have an edge in doing it, except it might be cheaper for those that need it.

The G is silent in English words starting with gn. Gnarly gnats is pronounced narly nats.

There’s not a lot of those words anyway

Gnu and gnome are exceptions only when used to describe the software. The gnu animal and the mythical gnome creature are pronounced with silent gs.

I know it’s completely off-topic, but anyway. No, I’m fine with the rake. That’s what’s makes it funny.

It’s the drawing of the skater that is too good, and that doesn’t add up with the other details being wrong. Someone who can draw a skater that good wouldn’t make the other things that wrong or even random.

The rake is drawn as doing a frontside shove-it, popped from mid-air and failing because of gravity suddenly changing in the middle of the sequence. The skater is “obviously” doing a varial heelflip instead of a frontside shove-it.

So that’s the clue to why I thought it was drawn off an actual picture. That the background is also a copy of the original only reaffirms my theory.

In hindsight I can also see that the skater is obviously Andrew Reynolds. The tuck and landing is his signature style.

The last picture in the meme always bothered me, because the sequence doesn’t make any sense physically. (Popping the rake from mid air and doing the wrong flip and such)

So, I went on to find the sequence that I believe it was drawn from.

I’m going with “no”, because it’s a shit product for the environment when you have batteries and electronics fitted into rubber. If the battery runs out, the electronic breaks or the rubber wears out, the entire product is likely to be discarded and burned together.

If you want to attach small lights to your shoes, go ahead. You can then also transfer the lights to your next pair of shoes, change the battery and repair or discard of everything separately.

Not officially. It was removed in 2023.

It’s the other way around. Addicting things like drugs etc. are mimicking or triggering the natural endorphins, which are released in sex.

The reason addicts say that drugs are better than sex is that they do the same thing, but the drugs are 100% successful, easier to obtain and dose.

Sex is an instinct, a naturally born addiction. Sex addiction is a different thing though. That’s when people can’t control their urges.

Nobody said this had to be easy/everyday things.

Plumbing. I’m not a plumber and I’m not particularly good at it, but it’s one of those things that most people won’t even consider looking at.

Also, 3D visualization. I had a carpenter do the gutters on my house and I explicitly told him that the reason I didn’t do them myself was that the eaves are slanted inwards so that the slope on the gutters would cause the gutters to go inwards when it goes downwards, and I was unsure what best practise was for that case, where to get the proper hangers for this or if we’d need to put a vertical board up first in order to make it work. He assured me that it’d be fine, having done many gutters before. When I got home, he had put ordinary hangers right on the slanted eaves, and the gutters were halfway under the roof at one end. He stood there scratching his head and tried to argue that the wall of the house was not straight, because he could simply not see any other reason for it to do that.

Yeah that’s a well known southern insult. It’s really not that subtle, but then again, god didn’t intend for everyone to be as smart as you.

“Ding ding ding!”

I think it’s condescending as fuck.

It’s more about set theory than the actual numbers.

Let’s say you have 100 people with everyone tied up across both tracks. Heads on one track and legs on the other. Let’s assume they die if the train touches any part of them, but you still need to choose between running over heads or legs.

The best choice is then legs, because there’s a probability of some of them being handicapped and not having legs.

Guess I was wrong. Maybe it adds up.

I never said I was good at counting.

The real numbers also includes the integers.

The practical consequence of this example is that the integers die regardless of what you choose.

However infinitely many people will survive if you choose the first option.

I counted the letter “o”. It doesn’t match up.

I wouldn’t think too much into it. I guess that most users here just don’t have older kids yet, so they might lack the perspective of being the ones to give advice that kids don’t listen to.

My own kids aren’t that old yet and will still listen, but I really hope that one day they will stop listening, because then I know I’ve taught them to be independent.

Rich people don’t buy those things, like jets and infrastructure. They own companies that buy those things.

I think that for an individual rich person, their personal purchases are still within the million dollar range. Luxury doesn’t come from a single purchase. It’s the cost of upkeep that really separates rich from poor.

One thing that shocked me is the price of getting an elevator in a house. It easily costs as much as a small house, but it’s the maintenance that is gross. It can cost about the same as a full time employee just to own one. It makes sense in a tall apartment building where the elevator is in constant use by many people, but for rich people who are never home and only use it maybe once a day, it’s ridiculously expensive to pay that much just to not walk a stair.

It’s a pretty vague description, but it reminds me of a handpan drum, or vibraphone.

Anything can rattle your bones when in played loud enough, but if you’re looking for a way to create the kind of sound that fills the room without being loud, try adding chorus, reverb and stereo delays.

I was playing around with such the other day, in making an effect chain that would catch the tail of a reverb and then amplify it into an endless delay loop where the entire sound is made from the effect of something that doesn’t exist anymore.