One of my annoyances is that most male pop singing is at too high a range for normal baritone men without vocal training to sing along. I actually find it easier to sing along to female pop songs (by singing an octave lower) than to male pop songs.
If a handsome crooner with a deep voice sings sweet love songs, their fans will consist of hetero women.
If a woman sings in a high voice with a girly-girl image, she will tend to attract men.
A singer or group with great falsetto/whistle register, or female tenor/contralto, ambiguous or hetero lyrics, and androgynous image or radio-only can effectively draw in a broadly mixed-gender audience.
See new wave, synth pop, hair metal, David Bowie, Concrete Blonde, Janis Joplin, Alison Moyet, et. al.
If a performer lands on the far side of the spectrum, the producers will inevitably hire backup dancers and singers to broaden their appeal.
One of the great injustices of music. As a bass voice, both pop music and theater is _dominated_ by tenors (or maybe they're baritones? The point being that it seems no one wants to hear you if you can't belt a Bb4).
They’ve defined memorization complexity as having to memorize the best out of almost equally good moves (as opposed to being able to play the best move without memorization because it is so obvious.
In reality it’s almost the other way around. Because white usually has several good moves at every point, they can just memorize one of them, while black needs to memorize how they’ll respond to every good move white could make.
What? I didn't know that. Do you have a reference? I'm particularly interested in the origin — is this something that applies to countries with a common law tradition, a roman law tradition, does it originate in one of the copyright treaties, etc. That kind of question.
What is the actual value of using agentic LLMs (rather than just LLM-powered autocomplete in your IDE) if it requires this much supervision and handholding? When is it actually faster / more effective?
Why use a nailgun instead of a hammer, if the nailgun still requires supervision and handholding?
Example: Say I discover a problem in the SPA design that can be fixed by tuning some CSS.
Without LLM: Dig around the code until I find the right spot. If it's been some months since I was there this can easily cost five minutes.
With LLM: Explain what is wrong. Perhaps description is vague ("cancel button is too invisible, I need another solution") or specific ("1px more margin here please"). The LLM makes a best effort fix within 30 secs. The diff points to just the right location so you can fine tune it.
The primary value is accrued by the AI labs. You pay hundreds or thousands of dollars a month to train their AI models. While you probably do increase your productivity saving time typing all the code, the feedback that you give the agent after it has produced mediocre or poor code is extremely valuable to the companies, because they train their reinforcement learning models with them. Now while you're happy you have such a great "assistant" that helps you type out code, you will at some point realize that your architectural/design skills really weren't all that special in the first place. All the models lacked to be good at that was sufficient data containing the correct rewards. Thankfully software engineers are some of the most naive people in the world, and they gave them that data by actually paying for it.
Out of curiosity were the positions (especially of the Galilean moons) actual simultaneous positions, or positions as seen from Earth, given the ~40 light-minutes distance between the Earth and Jupiter?
Very good question! I believe they are simultaneous positions. Skyfield has facilities to calculate the light propagation adjusted position but i didn’t use them. Would you have? Is one more “correct” or more likely to be anticipated by future sentients? I’m always unsure about ther design details.
Also there is an other skewiness. Because obviously the drawing is not to scale the moon position can be correct from the sun’s coordinate frame or the Earth’s coordinate frame, but not from both. I choose to make the moons “correct” in the sun’s coordinate frame. Meaning that if you were hovering over the ecliptic frame looking down at the Jupiter during the wedding and rotating the pendants so the sun is in the direction the real sun is, then you would see the moons under you in the same arangement as they are on the pendant. But if you would stand on the surface of earth (during the wedding) and look at Jupiter you would see the moons in a different arangements than a tiny human standing on the earth dot looking at the jupiter dot. (And not just because of the time delay difference, but because the coordinate systems are different.)
Which is weird. Because the wedding happened on Earth, not hovering over the plane of the eliptic over Jupiter. So maybe that was a weird choice. (And not even talking about how north-centric it is that i decided to draw the diagram from the “north” looking down at the eliptic, instead of from the “south” side. These are all kinda culturally driven arbitrary choices. Would love to have none of those present but I haven’t found a good and principeled way yet.)
Wow such a great answer, thanks for sharing the thoughts that went into this. It's crazy that there are so many considerations when taking into account the limited speed of light.
The speed of light is most frustrating. I find myself alternately wishing it was infinite or slowed down to 'disc world speeds' depending on which of the two would make my current project easier.
Many Hindus celebrated Malay Sankranti a week ago. It was originally meant to coincide with winter solstice but because the Hindu dates are based on the position of the Sun against the background stars (as viewed from the Earth), precession over the last ~1700 years has driven it out of sync with the tropical calendar.
> unlike Canadians.
Who did what? Symbolically threaten to tax electricity exports to some cities close to the border and stopped importing American booze?
I think expecting to get paid to fix bugs, add features, etc. to one’s open source code is much more reasonable and there should be marketplace infrastructure that makes this much easier to do (compared to the current system where developers have to apply for corporate grants for long running projects).
If you willingly choose to make source code publicly available under an open source license you can’t then act all shocked that people don’t have to pay you for using that code. If you wanted to be guaranteed an income whenever your code gets used, you should have chosen a different license.
perfectly articulated. Moreover, the license is whatever the copyright holder wants to put into it. They can easily dual license , copy-left variants -- there are tons of licenses that provide compensation for commercial use.
And if you're ok with not getting paid but you are shocked that corporations take it and use it in a non-FOSS-compatible way (e.g. selling their version for money) you should have used GPL instead of MIT.
reply