> I don't care that it shines when using Garage Band because I don't really use Garage Band.
Who uses Garage Band, ever? Such a limited piece of dumbed down Logic X garbage. I go buy good software for music and delete that st but, man!, that program is like cancer—it just keeps coming back.
Don’t worry, Facebook. I was affect by this (even though my account has been disabled for 2 years) and realized I should leave finally. So I did. And nothing will bring me back to any service you have since you’ve only demonstrated CYA and uncaringness. If you really cared, you’d compensate me monetarily for my loss due to your negligence.
I had to recently increase my user noproc ulimit because Chrome was spawning so many background threads that it was hitting the limit and causing all my applications to crash/behave strangely. On a system with (only) 4GB of ram, Chrome is such a resource hog that it is almost unusable without Tab Suspender.
I generally use Firefox as my main browser. However, I've been leaning on Chrome while the whole post-XUL extension apocalypse settles down and session managers in Firefox are back on par to what they were prior to the switch to web extensions.
I very much miss Session Manager (from Mozdev) on newer Firefox releases. The WebExtensions based session management extensions are still not as rich or as reliable as that one. So on machines I control, I use an older version of Firefox so that I can rely on Session Manager and a few other extensions from the XUL world.
Firefox 52.x ESR, which does work with XUL extensions, would remain a supported choice until September 2018 (a couple of more months from now). After that, there wouldn't be a Mozilla supported browser that's not exclusively WebExtensions based, AFAIK.
Not to criticize, but you sound like a can’t-put-the-Kraft-single-cheese-on-if-it-didn’t-come-out-of-the-package-right person. To each their own. This bed might not look “clean” but it does make sense structurally and the author has a complete working knowledge of how his bed works and can do any repair he wishes. It’s the author thinks it’s good, then he can deal with it.
No offence taken as I am actually a pretty handy person. When I choose what to build myself however, I decide, or at least I hope I do, based on what my skills are and how expensive bought or ordered things are. Beds and mattresses are not in the expensive category. Things like isolating your attic or redoing your bathroom are expensive to get done, so I do those things myself. This week I am replacing the shower, sink and cupboards in the bathroom, which saves me between 2000 and 3000 euros. For beds and mattresses you can just go to IKEA and making them yourself would probably save you a few hundred at most.
"how his bed works and can do any repair he wishes". How beds work is not hard and mattresses are not for repairing.
The most important thing though, is that you have fun building things, so who am I to judge.
p.s. There must be a name for the linguistic construction: "Not to criticize, but".
My intention was not to save money but to get a particular product that didn't seem to exist otherwise (large mattress in the US, and then large mattress with particular properties). I tried to buy one first, there wasn't much else for me to do.
Sure, I get that. I was just wondering whether the extra space is worth having to deal with a less solid professional finishing, where esthetics are less of a concern than support of your body. Mattresses are pretty important for your sleep and therefore your physical and mental health. I am not trying to have a discussion about how you spend your time though, I am sorry if it came across that way.
Hey no problem sorry if my response came off as if I thought you were attacking me.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that despite the lack of professional finish around the edges, this bed is more supportive of my body than any I've been on. To describe it in more detail it's like lying on a firm surface that conforms to your body.
I’m sticking with my 2015 15” until it bites the dust and then probably getting something else if Apple hasn’t figured this out yet. Even there software is degrading. I feel like I’m doing better by not running updates (I know this is not so, for security reasons, but...)
My favorite is the latest Air (years old now) which doesn’t even have a retina screen yet, a perk in my book.
I could watch Netflix on my bare stomach with my Air. Latest Pro is quickly too hot to handle. Of course not the only issue but the computer never bounced back from that first impression.
The dedicated gfx card doesn’t even seem to run games like Civ 5 better than my Air which I’m guessing is due to all the extra screen pixels.
> I could watch Netflix on my bare stomach with my Air
Don’t try that with a first gen Air. It had a very significant problem with thermal related issues. Several times a week it’d get so hot I could make pancakes off it, the rest of the time it was in a throttled state. Was a very common problem among folks I worked with (albeit mine was a personal, theirs was a work machine) too.
The Air story is incredible. It went from compromising, underpowered, overheating, pricey, loathed and ridiculed, to everyone's favorite laptop, with excellent performance across the board at a stupefyingly low price point.
Yes. I've talked with some in the social media industry about addressing GDPR. What it means is a massive shift in the way data is handled.
What's the difference? Well, it's helpful to have some context on how data is used in a place like FB. Data originates (for the most part) with the user. It get's dropped in one of the many operational data sources that back the service. From there, it's mostly waiting to be used by someone for some reason, which might be a ML project or something else. So, then you will want to move the data. You'll make some sort of pipeline from the source to where you want to work, such as ETL the data you want out or set up some sort of messaging system to handle things in an online way.
Maybe now that you have the data, you'll share it with other people working on the project. The data might be distributed (best case) through an environment meant to work with the data (e.g., Spark/HDFS/Hadoop) or might just be sent piecemeal as CSVs. Once the project is done, the data might just be left in place. Who knows where those CSV's go?
One of the big requirements of GDPR is deleting an individual's data EVERYWHERE. And while the above is a sort of simplified view of user of data in a logical manner, I can assure you someone out there somewhere is doing something that doesn't make sense. In light of that, getting rid of a person's data everywhere is a HUGE architectural/infrastructural/process problem for a platform like FB.
I love the internal attitude here. Everyone is (at least portrayed) to be assuming that the leakers were being "evil". One think I've been taught is to assume everyone's intentions are the best they could be (aside from the reality of what they are), and I always try to put this into practice. It seems like the attitude is "everyone-is-out-to-get-me".
The author is correct in saying that music theory is not a "theory" the scientific sense.
But as a musician/producer/composer I'd never want that anyway. Having studied many forms of music, I know that there is no "right" and so a proscriptive/predictive "theory" of music is not at all what we want. On the contrary, what is "right" in music comes from a long line of collective cultural reasoning. This is much more evident in the distinctions between the development of eastern and western music, each having their own "theory". Notably, eastern music has a lot lower emphasis on harmonic progression and tends to use different tuning, sometimes "perfect" tuning (something which western music must eschew to support flexible harmonic motion). This leads me to my thesis, that music theory is primarily descriptive in nature and there are many theories of music, driven by historical-cultural development.
Music "theory" should lie outside of the domain and concern of science. There are fields which address the human response and other scientific natures of this such as psychoacoustics, electrical engineering and signal processing, and mathematics. Music "theory" has in its view aesthetics which lie outside of the domain of science and is a tool for use in describing things which have been found pleasing aurally and culturally.
I think what many miss is that Music Theory is designed to be after the fact. It seeks to explain - after a piece has already been written - why something works harmonically / rhythmically / etc.
It has no prescriptive power, it was never intended to be a set of formulas that can then be used to generate "good music". Only to create a language to explain whats already there...
I don't disagree but I would say this is half the story. Music theory is a way to describe the patterns that have emerged over centuries of musical developments. As you say, you can't generate "good music" through rote use of these formulas. But the formulas provide a context both to explain what's there and ALSO to create new music within that context. Musical interest comes mostly from using and abusing these rules.
For example, I can predict ahead of time that if I use a V-I progression there is going to be a sense of tension and then release in the music. There is (probably) no scientific reason for this. But scores of other composers have adhered to this principle and so we all understand this concept. And by recognizing this I have a tool with which to control the level of tension in a musical passage.
I think it goes both ways. Historically, most music theory has arisen after the fact to explain why music written a hundred years before sounds good. However, it is possible to discover some particular mathematical structure in music and then generalize to create new previously-unknown forms of music. There's a certain degree of artistry to this, so it's hard to say where the science ends and the art begins. To an outside observer it may look like someone just randomly made noise until something "worked".
Personally, I think western music is stuck in a 12-tone-equal-temperament rut. It's not as if we've discovered all possible 12-TET music, but it's getting harder to find anything truly novel harmonically or melodically. (Timbre and rhythm are still good ways to innovate within 12-TET.)
In my view, this isn't entirely accurate. On some occasions, musicians have invented theories for prescriptive use, for instance to overcome a creative roadblock. I think that modal jazz and 12-tone systems are examples.
Noting a neighboring comment, theory may not be necessary for composition, but some specific forms of composition may be prohibitively difficult without theory. I have musical colleague who composes multi part jazz harmonies for small to large ensembles. They are steeped in theory.
On the other hand, my spouse attended a seminar given by a fairly well known film composer. She asked him if he followed any particular school of theory, and he said no.
It's just a framework. Like music history, ethnomusicology, music cognition, music lessons, instrument building, etc., it will deepen one's appreciation for music if you learn it.
As far as composition-- I've had some encounters with talented musicians who get stuck putting together a song or electronic composition because "something just isn't sounding right." In those encounters, a process of elimination improved a chord/voicing that an understanding of fundamental music theory principles would have revealed without my help.
The problem is that without the fundamental understanding, it's nearly impossible to reverse-engineer such an improvement and deduce the general principle at work. Lacking that basic understanding makes one reliant on others just to figure out how to get the sounds out of one's head and into the air.
> Music "theory" should lie outside of the domain and concern of science
Said every carpenter, craftsman and artisan that was eventually replaced by machines. There's a place for both, but it seems silly to argue against the march of progress given where it's gotten us.
to say that music theory lies outside the realm of science is not the same as saying that a machine can never produce pleasing and/or artistically valid music (or art in general) "on its own" (assuming that you believe it's possible for a machine to become independent of its creator(s) as an animal child can).
Who uses Garage Band, ever? Such a limited piece of dumbed down Logic X garbage. I go buy good software for music and delete that st but, man!, that program is like cancer—it just keeps coming back.
Now, THAT is frustrating.