the way I've dealt with semi-related issues is to regard 'engineered music' as it's own artform distinct from live music
the archetype I'm trying to follow is painting. when the camera was invented photorealistic paintings became usless and what followed was impressionism, which focused on what the cameras cannot do.
however I do not think music has reacted to reccording technology in the same way painting did (pretending for one sentence that 'music' and 'painting' are entities with agency). I don't think there's an "impressionistic" movement within music that arose as a response to reccording technology, at least not yet.
if I could be a researcher, this would be one of my main topics. I have personal reasons to be interested in languages with alphabets that have "very special symbols" such as the parenthesis.
in general, i'm curious about how as you progress up the type language hierarchy it becomes necessary to keep adding specialized symbols to keep up. most interestingly, i wonder about how one pair of symbols (open and close) add a lot of expressive power but I suspect adding more different types of pairs of symbols won't significantly augment the expressiveness but I don't know for sure.
this is also reminiscent of dyck languages and their corresponding automata, which can recognize and match open and closing parenthesis. I did not know visibly push down was sufficient to recognize parenthesis, I thought a stack was sufficient. but given a stack is more powerful than the unidirectional "stack" of a VPLs it all makes sense
High housing costs in the UK are not caused by the royal family. They're caused by the UK (and Ireland) having the worst planning system in the world which makes it illegal to ever build any new housing. It's actually even worse than the US - at least zoning implies you're allowed to do something by right.
The US also has a better tax system since it uses property taxes more often, which reduces land values.
That "lord" in "landlord" ain't there for no reason. Are people finally prepared to understand that landlords are just the modern incarnation of parasitic aristocracy?
One might think. But common and even corporate landlords are not that powerful.
See the fact that the FBI is raiding them for price fixing. Which they should, as rent prices are a major political instability pressure point and a major factor in the unspoken social contract. Private landlords exploiting tech to destabilize housing needs to be checked without quarter.
Federal Police virtually never raid actual aristocrats in such a public manner, and especially not with a focus in their livelihood. Remember that the aristocracy was traditionally a powerful position: collectively challenging the King and often winning.
The aristocracy actually morphed into parliamentary government, which is the dominant government throughout the West. That's where you find the legacy that you thought resided with modern landlords. While some might still earn a living in that manner: making and wielding the law long ago became more attractive.
I think this has led to parliaments being confused with legislatures;
a similarly sublte distinction exists between prime ministers and presidents.
I worry this kinds of apparent loses sublte distinction will be politically abused in the coming election under the scenario were the direct vote count and the electoral college suggest different winners
I think that you are unnecessarily getting lost in semantics. Regardless, I'll clear up my meaning.
By "parliament" I'm indeed referring to a legislature or a body of lawmakers that passes law.
Often, that body is named "Parliament". In the US, it's Congress. My meaning would exclude any body with the name of Parliament that does not make laws. Though, I'd acknowledge that such a system would likely be a proto legislature and carry lawmaking influence.
Prime Minster and President are just titles. Their function in any one government would reveal their role, from diplomat to commander to figurehead.
The "direct vote count" does not suggest a winner because it isn't a thing in the US except at the State level and in the minds of wishful thinkers. I have no idea what you mean by the relevance of a "subtle distinction" in that context.
35% of landlords were between the age of 55 to 64 years
there is no such claim that all were merely renting out an extra room.
It's more fruitful to look at the landlord power distribution of number of properties per landlord and cast those renting two or more houses toward the "(small a) aristocrat" category .. with those renting out multiple million dollar plus houses in dense inner city upscale suburbs likely being very well heeled.
> The possibility of America placing sanctions on RISC-V
this is why they must get their messaging right? I disagree, I think America is who is wrong and should focus on getting "right", but I hate how in this political times right is associated with republicanism. wtf
in any case, I think it already passed the Turing test and then some because in my (in this case, not humble) opinion, there are some UFO contactee and disclosure groups (such as swaruu.org) who I think are actually an advanced military grade chat AI that's fooled a lot of humans
now which is more farfetched? what they say they are; they claim to be in orbit already.
or that they are an advanced sentient AIs (many of them in fact) made somewhere in europe or maybe russia? impossible to know
I guess the most plausible is that it's all fake or whatever but it's also the least exciting
But Gandalf absolutely exists in objective reality. it's a very real fantasy figure. there exists posters, figurines, drawings, the word "Gandalf" printed millions of time in tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of printed physical copies of LOTR
That essay was written earlier, so it's not part of the series, but that's the answer. Yes, Gandalf exists in objective reality, but as a fictional character, not as a wizard. So "Gandalf was a wizard" is false if it is taken to mean that Gandalf was an actual wizard in the real world.
the archetype I'm trying to follow is painting. when the camera was invented photorealistic paintings became usless and what followed was impressionism, which focused on what the cameras cannot do.
however I do not think music has reacted to reccording technology in the same way painting did (pretending for one sentence that 'music' and 'painting' are entities with agency). I don't think there's an "impressionistic" movement within music that arose as a response to reccording technology, at least not yet.
reply