Was there? It seems like that was the perfect natural experiment then. So what was the outcome? Was there a sudden rash of holocausts the year that publishing started again?
2016 was also first Trump, Brexit, and roughly when the AfD (who are metaphorically wading ankle deep in the waters of legal trouble of this topic) made the transition from "joke party" to "political threat".
Major book publishers have sensitivity readers that evaluate whether or not a book can be "safely" published nowadays. And even historically there have always been at least a few things publishers would refuse to print.
GP said major publishers. There's nothing stopping you from printing out your book and spiral binding it by hand, if that's what it takes to get your ideas into the world. Companies having standards for what they publish isn't censorship.
I used to be very active in the hippy music scene. Permanent effects are exceedingly rare. I know people who trip fairly frequently and beyond some dreadlocks or tie dyed shirts off the clock, they are perfectly normal well adjusted people. You are being extremely hyperbolic.
Even a company of 100 people should have a change process. I work in infra mostly and to even shut down a VM that has already been decommissioned I have to go through a change process. You can't have a dozen IT/dev cowboys just doing things they think are fine on a whim because you have to take into account what all the other teams in the company are doing. We've got 30 people in our IT dept and change processes are absolutely crucial to not fucking things up on a regular basis.
Subtext is that the solution is always the best possible move sequence. OP’s comment is clarifying that sometimes after executing the best move sequence, the puzzle ends with a capture, and sometimes ends with a checkmate (“winning”).
The goal is always the best move. You shouldn't think of "what is my goal?", you should be finding the best move. This is something I struggled with as a beginner. There is always a best move, find it. Don't search for "the goal".
Brains work with chemical gradients and hormones. There's no magic involved, we just don't understand the meta, and are probably incapable of doing so.
I like to think of this in terms of the information theoretic formulation of physics and the bounds placed on that by the holographic principle. For any system to fully represent another internally, it must contain more bits of information than the system being internalized. In other words, it must contain more matter and energy, or be physically larger. The brain expends an extraordinary amount of energy looking for patterns it can distill into leaky abstractions in order to build internal representations of reality without violating this principle. However, since the abstractions are leaky, our understandings are imperfect.
Well I've been able to get Suno to do Beatles covers. It only works maybe 1/20 times, but you can do it. It's not an exact replica either, but you can get the same chords and melodies as the original.
As a former musician, yes, we do. Any above average musician can play "Riders on the Storm" in the style of Johnny Cash, or Green Day, or Nirvana, etc. Successful above average musicians usually have almost encyclopedic knowledge of artists and albums at least in their favorite genre. This is how all art is made. Some artists will be more honest about this than others.
I have learned 100s of songs in a summer for various fill in gigs. Most music is extremely similar. You don't need to learn every song in existence to write suno pop.
And those bands can successfully sue you for that. Especially if you sell it for money. Double especially if your sales of their songs displace them in the market.
Honestly, no, you won't. It's very difficult and requires training. Those famous players made music their entire lifes work. Thinking that means you can just teach yourself at 35 with no musical training is idiotic.
reply