If your takeaway from your link was that "it's fine" and not "that further research is necessary"... you are going one step further than the article.
I can understand why people don't want screen time when their kids are toddlers -- you only get to raise your kids once. If the jury is out on whether or not "screentime" is bad, some parents err on the side of caution. Regardless, kids are malleable enough that any "familiarity gap" that the "iPhone user from age 2" has over the "iPhone user from age 6" has will likely be near zero within a few months at that age.
What benefits have you found your child to have derived from relatively early smartphone use beyond being able to have access to their parents at any time during the day?
My personal take is that, as with all things, moderation is key.
Nor did I say that the poster here was fit or unfit. I speculated about what two extreme opinion holders would say to one another.
My point was that polarizing the discourse and reducing the other side to "just came out of the psych ward" does absolutely nothing to further reasonable arguments.
Says the person linking to "informationliberation dot com". Pot, meet kettle.
Sure her twitter profile is highly politically charged and should likely have made her unfit for clearance, but citing that as evidence that she should be institutionalized is ridiculous. She'd likely say the same about you given your proclivity for "informationliberation". Where does that leave us for discourse?
You can turn off auto-warp on audio tracks by default globally, and you can disable warp on a per clip basis as you go.
In your specific case... disable warping on your ambient track, line it up against your warped/synced "another sort of loop" in arrangement view, and then change the master tempo of the track until you find out what you want in terms of different tempos. (This is off the top of my head, and without the program in front of me. Apologies if it's vague.)
Live can definitely function as a "dumb" multitrack recorder that lets you do those things -- but, by default it has all the tempo/beat/quantize options turned on.
I saw your edited post above... I think people are reacting negatively to your criticisms because they're a bit harsh, and, I personally think it's shooting the messenger (Live). You can do the things you want to do in Live... but by default out of the box, it's not what's it designed for. Live lowers the barrier entry to making sound... the people/users cranking out 4-4 120bpm tracks likely wouldn't be making anything had there not been Live. If you don't want to call that sound art or music, that's on you. To many people, that's still music, and music they might not have created otherwise.
EDIT: Just saw your other post here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14300672) with some more specific criticisms. I feel your pain. You obviously already know how to do the thing I'm mentioning above, and are referring to more complicated scenarios. Thanks for sharing.
Hate to be a pedant... but I'm not sure any one person gets to define what "music in the art sense" even is.
Yes, Ableton is rigid. Yes, Ableton favors certain musical styles over others. Yes, Ableton, here and in their design of Live, may just be giving lip service to anything beyond rigid song structure, tempo and dynamic changes, etc. Yes, Ableton loves their little boxes.
But, I find it hard to believe that Ableton has a "complete disregard for music in the art sense." If "art" inherently means "unquantifiability" or pure "aesthetics", then sure, session view Live might not be your best bet. Regardless, arrangement view is basically the same as Pro Tools as far as I can tell/remember from what I've used of Pro Tools.
Not sure why this is downvoted. California, like many other jurisdictions, seems to make a distinction between groceries/"raw" foods, and "prepared foods" when it comes to sales taxes. Unprepared foods are generally exempt from sales tax, while store-prepared foods are not exempt. E.g. an unsliced bagel in NY is untaxed, but a sliced bagel can/must be taxed. Fruit and vegetables likely fall into the untaxed category.
From Wikipedia: In grocery stores, unprepared food items are not taxed but vitamins and all other items are. Ready-to-eat hot foods, whether sold by supermarkets or other vendors, are taxed. Restaurant bills are taxed. As an exception, hot beverages and bakery items are tax-exempt if and only if they are for take-out and are not sold with any other hot food. If consumed on the seller's premises, such items are taxed like restaurant meals. All other food is exempt from sales tax.
Using the title "engineer" in conjunction with "submitting the critique and calculations [...] to members of the public for consideration and modification [...] of traffic signals", I believe, is the critical part here.
If he had merely submitted the "critique and calculations" for "consideration" as a concerned citizen, he would have not gotten a fine. Simply put, he called himself an engineer and suggested that public infrastructure be changed. In Oregon, when you're not licensed by the state, you can't use the title "Engineer", and you definitely don't want to use it while trying to suggest modifications to public infrastructure.
I'm not equating the two in terms of "I believe both situations are completely just"... but doing what he did is akin to a thief walking himself into the police station. The purpose of the Board of Engineers in most states is not to decide what is "good engineering practice" and what is "bad engineering practice", it's to regulate licensure and set the bar for who is qualified to be an "Engineer" in the eyes of the state. He mis-navigated the American system, for better or worse, and paid a fine that is meant to dissuade people from doing things like this:
Completely agreed. He pretty much barked up the one tree that actively cares about use of the title "engineer", and used it in violation of the law (as it is now).
Had he sent the letter/formula/math/suggestions to the local state university civil engineering department, the local/state Dept. of Transportation, or the local/state representative, the response would have fallen on less deaf ears, and his use of the title would have likely gone less noticed.
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not, but the Constitution is but one piece of law in the US. There's a litany of state legislation (and I presume federal, as well) that regulate the use of job titles (e.g., doctor, engineer, lawyer, dentist, etc.). Most of them still on the books, and most of them attempting to nip the "direct harm to someone else" in the bud. That is what this article sort of willfully ignores: sure, this guy didn't exactly go out of of his way to harm people, but others have and do for their financial (or otherwise) benefit. [1]
I doubt that these laws are going away any time soon. Perhaps modified as more and more influential people see "programming" as "engineering", but doubtful that they'll go away for things like civil/mechanical/electrical infrastructure.
Perhaps on the North Sentinel Islands now, or 4,000 years or so elsewhere in the world, "no regulations" is / was the default position. That isn't the case for recent history in most of the world.
Claiming that "no regulations" is the default position, and that all existing and future regulations must be reasoned, argued and articulated from first principles sounds like a distraction, more so than a reasonable way to approach the current political atmosphere.
My point is that neither "insects are unpleasant" nor "plants are pleasant" nor "doctors are 66% male" are immutable features of the universe. They are merely snapshots of the human view of world conditions, as the world is now. "True now", but not "true forever and always".
The paper seems to advocate for designing ML systems that learn that what is "true now" may not be "true forever and always". It seems to be quite the opposite of "there are certain truths that ML systems should not learn."
Accuracy might mean "positively" right, as your post suggests, but that doesn't necessarily mean "normatively" right.
From what I understand, the fear surrounding embedding human stereotypes into ML systems is that the stereotypes will get reinforced. In some way or form, there will be less equality of opportunity in the future than exists today, because machines will make decisions that humans are currently making. Societal norms evolve over time, yet code can become locked in place.
Is your takeaway from this paper that we, as the creators of intelligent machines, should allow them to continue to making "positively" right assumptions simply because that's the way we, as humans, have always done them? Is "positively" right, in your opinion, in all cases equivalent to "normatively" right?
Seems like you can't Google, don't quite understand how American civil procedure works, or are willfully ignorant to both so as to be able maintain your predispositions. I'll call this "trolling". Or, at a minimum, posting in bad faith.
A police report doesn't quite matter anymore in the case mentioned above, nor should it be the final arbiter of what you believe to be true, when a grand jury of one's peers has already determined there to exist probable cause enough for the person to stand trial for capital crimes (crimes that contain "act of terror" and "hate crime" as "modifiers").
"The grand jury voted to charge Mr. Jackson with murder as an act of terror in the first- and second-degree, Joan Illuzzi-Orbon, an assistant district attorney, said during a brief appearance in Criminal Court in Manhattan. Judge Tamiko A. Amaker ordered Mr. Jackson, who was also charged with second-degree murder as a hate crime and misdemeanor weapons possession, to return to jail until his arraignment on April 13 in State Supreme Court."
I am not sure what you could possibly be denying at this point. Do you think that the NY Times is lying? That this Grand Jury never actually convened? That he didn't actually stab the victim? That this wasn't actually (at least potentially) a hate crime? That we are in a post-racial America?
How can you take something as useful evidence when it has been explicitly prohibited from use?
Unless public colleges are secretly flying in the face of a Supreme Court ruling, your assertion that "being black is worth +1.0 on GPA, whereas underrepresented state is +0.1 and underrepresented county in Michigan is +0.3," is unproven by the evidence you provided.
Had you said "was," and explained that you don't believe things have changed, that would have been far more intellectually honest.
It's flagrantly misleading to claim that "being black is worth [x]" when this scale is dated and explicitly prohibited from use after Gratz v. Bollinger (2003).
See here for UMich's 16 year old explanation of this scale:
It's clear upon clicking the link or viewing your HN profile, but in the interests of transparency, it might be useful to note that the link is to your own article and website.
I can understand why people don't want screen time when their kids are toddlers -- you only get to raise your kids once. If the jury is out on whether or not "screentime" is bad, some parents err on the side of caution. Regardless, kids are malleable enough that any "familiarity gap" that the "iPhone user from age 2" has over the "iPhone user from age 6" has will likely be near zero within a few months at that age.
What benefits have you found your child to have derived from relatively early smartphone use beyond being able to have access to their parents at any time during the day?
My personal take is that, as with all things, moderation is key.