My experience with FireFox and YouTube has very much not been this. YouTube works perfectly for me on FireFox. I would check your config/addons and see if there is some setting that is causing errors on YouTube.
To me it seems like their passion drove them to learn as much as they could. They knew enough to get the job done, but not enough to know that they "couldn't do" the things they wanted to do.
More experienced devs may have thrown out a lot of the ideas the Half Life team ended up implementing as "too time consuming" or "practically impossible". Valve's devs at the time weren't experienced enough to make those assumptions, so they just worked their asses off to figure out how to do it.
I've implemented multiple tools that do this and do not use langchain. You just use chroma, the openai sdk and f strings. I can't share the projects because they were implemented for my work and are private.
Ashida Kim is a rabbit hole. He was very serious about being a Ninja. He also wrote a terrible book about all of his supposed sexual exploits. Real narcissist.
I have the Logitech G403. I've had it for about 7 years and it's still working great. I don't know how long ago you had your Logitech, but it's possible they've improved since then.
Who are these "academics"? The article you linked uses politically biased language and provides no sources.
Seems like you're talking out your ass about something you don't understand. To make the claim that "90% of California's forest shouldn't exist"(paraphrasing, correct me if I misinterpreted) as you did in one of your other comments is absolutely absurd. It illustrates a complete lack of understanding regarding the extremely varied and countless ecosystems present in California. California is not "a desert", California "has a lot of desert".
To be clear though: It definitely HAS been proven that the absurd amounts of fire suppression California has engaged in over the past several decades has indeed increased the severity of wildfires[1].
And what makes you think Maslow was right? Just because someone wrote something down or a belief is held as true in the Zeitgeist does not make it objectively true. There are many things that we hold as "true" which we really can't say are objective fact.
I'm not trying to be combative, I just believe that it's important to question things we believe to be true when we don't fully understand the reasoning.
Admittedly, though I know OF Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, I have no idea HOW Maslow came to their conclusions. So, I just looked it up:
> The most significant limitation of Maslow's theory concerns his methodology. Maslow formulated the characteristics of self-actualized individuals from undertaking a qualitative method called biographical analysis.[1]
> He looked at the biographies and writings of 18 people he identified as being self-actualized. From these sources, he developed a list of qualities that seemed characteristic of this specific group of people, as opposed to humanity in general.[1]
> From a scientific perspective, there are numerous problems with this particular approach. First, it could be argued that biographical analysis as a method is extremely subjective as it is based entirely on the opinion of the researcher. Personal opinion is always prone to bias, which reduces the validity of any data obtained. Therefore Maslow's operational definition of self-actualization must not be blindly accepted as scientific fact.[1]
Doesn't seem like the experiment was very rigorous or even scientific.
The linked article goes on to explain more modern and scientific research on the subject that seems to disprove some of the original hierarchy's assumptions.
I think I'm interpreting algorithmic composition in a different way than you are. I am someone who has always been profoundly affected by music. This is to the point where some songs consistently give me frision or make my eyes water up. Music, for me, is a profoundly emotional experience. I was just never very good at creating music; that is, until a few years ago.
I got into making music using DAWs and learned a lot of theory. I focus on making Synthwave/Outrun style music. Not the most technically complex genre sure, but there is a lot of room for creativity as the genre isn't very well defined. I also enjoy how Synthwave isn't really about musical complexity or technicality; instead, it's about the atmosphere. It's nostalgia for a time that never existed in a sense.
Now, all of this to say that I'm still not a great musician. I've been learning banjo for the past year, and getting pretty good at it.
I'll get to the point though: to me, algorithmic music isn't an end, it's a means to an end. The end in this case is composing music. Algorithmic music can be a source of ideas and inspiration in a way that nothing else can. This is especially true if we are able to specify the rule set for music generation. How many times have I sat down at the keyboard and tried to write a melody over some really cool rhythmic bass line I came up with? Countless times. If I could, for example, plug in the a key, rhythmic signature and feeling I'm going for and generate a melody, I would be able to finish more songs. I could use the generated melody as a starting point; it might spark some new ideas. This would be even cooler if I could provide the algorithm with a wav file or some midi and have it try to generate a bass line, melody, chord progression etc.
So, I guess I see algorithmic music generation less as something to replace human made music and more as a tool to aid in sparking creativity in humans composing music.
