Yes, but your "IF" is doing the heavy lifting here and it would be your burden to proof how dirt would be a means of artistic expression before anybody could take your argument seriously.
As a musician myself I can assure you that the high stakes releases for any musician are vinyl releases. They also happen to be the ones with which most musicians earn the most money.
Now technologically vinyl isn't superior (and anybody who claims it is is an idiot in the sense of the word), but technology isn't everything. A noisy casette tape can evoke the same (and sometimes more) feelings than the digital recording. A vinyl record with a big cover, an inlay with band info, that you specifically chose to put on the record player while reading the liner notes and examining the design is in a ritualistic sense a thousand times more gratifying than having spotify select a song for you without knowing why, in the background of the daily life. That is like the difference between a candle light bath and getting wet in a rainshower.
Now that doesn't mean people will be binary either 100% vinyl or 100% digital. Vinyl is for the special occasion or for DJ sets, digital is for everything else.
Yes that's my point with the "if"! And in general I largely agree with you.
The parent comment basically argued vinyl is superior because when artists used vinyl the resulting music was creatively better (because of whatever process). Sure, but then you can't selectively ignore the great music that has been made with other recording technologies. I can point to a lot of good music recorded on tape or digital. Unless we are arguing that music back in the vinyl days was broadly better than now? (Different argument then...)
As for artistic choices, I totally agree that vinyl can be a valid choice! Then it's silly to say one thing is "better" than another.
But in terms of raw technology, I say it's just copium to claim vinyl is in any way superior to digital. Digital's recording capabilities are a superset of vinyl's. There is no magic sauce killer feature unique to vinyl.
Music may have been a bigger culturual force during the heights of vinyl record sales. Whether that translated to better music or whether it is some form of survivorship bias: I don't know. In fact I doubt it. But there is something to the music that happened when it was new, e.g. Punk music was better when everybody was still trying to figure out what is punk and what isn't, while today it feels like most bands just copy was has been made in the past. You can extrapolate the same idea to many other genres that developed. So was the music better on average? Probably not. Was it more exiting and had more impact on society, fashion, culture? For sure.
As for vinyl: I agree that digital is superior in terms of sound quality. Nearly every vinyl record is pressed from a digital master nowadays after all. Even those who want "vinyl warmth" could have that easily emulated in digital nowadays. Digital is endlessly flexible, you could theoretically envision (and some have done) a vinyl experience that is purely digital under the hood – or you could do whatever netflix is doing.
But in practise vinyl comes with the experience, forces you to do the ritual, to listen to the whole album, is immensly direct (just the waveform pressed into the material) etc. This is a limitation if vinyl is all you have, but in times where you could listen to 10 nameless streams of sounds at once for the whole day that limitation has become a popular feature. I have friends with pressing plants and all of them have more job offers than they could realistically fulfill for years now.
I'd advice against too easily dismissing the value of the ritual a technological dispositif forces onto the people interacting with said technology. Listening to a vinyl record in a time where people rarely ever sit down and just listen to music in a concentrated way is a thing people look for. Those who say it is because vinyl is technically superior are wrong, but the limitations and the listening habits a technology enforces are unseparably a part of the technology itself. And if you are looking for what vinyl gives you, vinyl is the thing that gives it to you best.
I have huge nostalgia for older analog audio and photo formats for many many reasons. I also don't really miss them. Had a lot of fun and memories with vinyl and processing B&W film in a darkroom--also shot a lot of slides--but you can't go home again and all that.
Not really. Analog electronic instruments are based on non-linear feedbacks loops. Those are pretty much impossible to emulate digitally without emulating actual electric circuits and current flow.
(Yes, I know, irrelevant to the vinyl discussion.)
I used to think that, and indeed a computer can run any equations you want. However with analogue you're getting a bunch of interesting-sounding equations without having to think of them and write them down, and that's the "analogue sound." Analogue circuitry isn't a perfect math processor the way digital is, only an approximation, and the deviations from perfection are useful.
Especially if you get into synths. A digital sine wave oscillator is doing sin(time*frequency)*gain. An analogue one is designed to produce a close to perfect sine wave at a certain set point, but you make it able to be varied around that set point by replacing some of the components with adjustable ones in somewhat ad-hoc ways, and see what it sounds like. The frequency may be set by a 3-stage RC circuit, you replace all the Rs with vactrols and see what happens, now the impedance changes as well as the frequency and it might affect other parts of the circuit. You may one-point calibrate it to 1 volt per octave but it won't be linear.
I'm convinced that at least 90% of "analog sound" can be simulated by taking the ideal block diagram and replacing every link with a parametric EQ->waveshaper->parametric EQ chain. Configuring those added components correctly is left as an exercise for the reader.
Jim Lill's video on guitar amp tone is an interesting demonstration. Hear how close he gets to the original with an even simpler combination of EQ and distortion:
Coincidentally my statement comes from the position of someone who has been building and designing analog synths for years and teaching exactly that on the university level.
The analog part of a synth can be meaningful and sometimes it is. But very often it is really not or can be adequately (or more then adequately) emulated digitally.
As a noise musician I am also aware that a lot of the interesting behavior of some circuits only comes to light under extreme conditions. It is a long standing pet peeve of mine that equipment tests always only test the gear in vanilla conditions. But quite frankly vanilla conditions are exactly what 99.9% of the musicians will use the gear with
> But quite frankly vanilla conditions are exactly what 99.9% of the musicians will use the gear with
Any filter resonance or guitar distortion/overdrive is not a "vanilla condition", so you're absolutely wrong.
In fact, the extreme conditions is precisely the reason why normies even listen to music. Nobody would care for electric guitar if it wasn't overdriven.
I happen to both teach electronics on a university level and DSP program, so I will add a [citation needed] to your statement. Yes, there are analog circuits whose edge case percularities have not yet been adequately represented in digital circuits. But much of that is nor whar the layperson would even use and beyond any limits of perception.
All analogue oscillators and filters are based on nonlinear feedback loops.
Those nonlinearities can't really be modeled mathematically.
We very carefully tune these things to a narrow range of stable parameters so that they sound more "digital", but really it's the unstable parameter ranges that make music interesting.
Wired headphones are infinitely more durable when good. I had a single pair of Sennheiser HD25II for 16 years now and I use them to run 16km a week, often in the rain.
I teach at an art university for 8 years now. I would highly doubt that: The most creative people are those who measure both high intelligence and low neuroticism.
In my experience that isn't the complete picture. I have met highly creative people who are extremely (unhealthy so) concerned with what others think, yet go their own path anyways. It is true that creative people often tend to do things in a way that appears as if it is outside of the frame of normal parameters. But this isn't so simple either, because maybe it is context dependent. A punk musician may live in disregard of the aesthetical conventions of society, but they also may have a traded canon of styles and works their own subculture. So maybe that punk doesn't care what society thinks about them, but they may care about what other punks think.
My experience with hundreds of art students is that there is no correlation between how independent someone works and how creative their output is. There are many ways of producing interesting ideas and the lone (usually: male) genius being the only true way is by this point a well-refuted idea.
I think the idea that one must be naturally impervious to shame to be "the right sort" of creative is attractive, but it's used to disregard the courage necessary to show oneself and open up in the way that builds the creator.
Lots of amazing artists, creators and researchers are obviously highly neurotic.
I did not base my comment on personal observations. It comes straight from psychology and the big 5.
I was also once an art student myself. Creativity extends far beyond individual contributions, which becomes evident in resource and personnel management. Creativity is highly correlated to openness, as is intelligence, and is least restricted by those who are most eager to exercise decisions and try new things without fear of consequence, whether real or perceived.
Openness is on the closed minded-openness axis. Neuroticism is on the neurotic-stable axis. These are independent things. You can be highly open-minded and highly neurotic. I’d seriously question your understanding of the Big 5.
The logic in your OP is absolutely muddled. And it's evident I'm not the only one that followed your reasoning to you implying neuroticism is negatively correlated to creativity.
To restate your argument: openness is correlated to creativity (not controversial) and being neurotic dampens that because you care a lot what people think (no evidence).
There is no correlation between neuroticism and creativity. Neuroticism doesn't effect openness so it makes no sense. Either your argument is that neuroticism influences openness and that influences creativity or your argument is I just think neuroticism makes you less creative because I just think so. You might as well not even mention the Big 5 because it doesn't effect your last point.
What are you talking about? In your previous comment you suggest I correlated neuroticism to openness, which I did not. Now you are claiming I correlated neuroticism to creativity, which I did do. Neuroticism dampens many things, not specifically because what other people think, but because it imposes hesitation and artificial restraints on decisions in general.
In order to better understand what neuroticism really is and how it really works I suggest reading about the amygdala, gaba, fear impressions, and looping. The less a person is so restricted the more free they are to universally experiment, consider alternatives, and act. That is generally how people perceive creativity.
I was saying that your argument only made sense if it was the strawman you said I created. The only other option is something that you did not show any evidence for in your argument. Please show me papers that demonstrate this link between neuroticism and creativity.
Can't vouch for the accuracy of these descriptions but they don't suggest lack of neuroticism however brought on. Bodily dysfunction of whatever kind can be causative of course.
It is not even about understanding. It is about how easy it is to distrust it.
Contrary to what nerds think, the goal of elections isn't to get bulletproof results by mathematical standards. The goal is to create agreeable consent among those who voted. A good election system is one where even sworn enemies can begrudgingly agree on the result.
A paper ballot system has the advantage that it can be monitored by any group that has members which have mastered the skill of object permanence and don't lie. That is not everybody, but it is much better than any hypothetical digital system
> The goal is to create agreeable consent among those who voted.
If you still consistently miscount so that popular power isn't aligned with the electoral results, you will still face all the problems a democracy was designed to avoid. Starting with violent protests and revolutions.
But then, most countries fail this at other stages already.
So you double-count, you checksum (our table just tallied 100 ballots, do our vote counts sum to 100? good, keep going), you checksum some more (does our total vote count amount to the number of registered votes in this poll station), you film everything, and ideally you do this with volunteers drafted on election day.
Sure. But that problem is not inherent to paper ballots. In fact miscounting (read: manipulation) is even easier and harder to detect with digital systems.
More importantly, you want your system to be bulletproof before it's audited. By the time you're talking about audits, the populists have already started flooding the zone.
The system should be so obviously secure that any person walking into a poll station should intuitively understand, seeing the poll workers, why fraud would be very hard to perform, so that when their favourite populist candidate loses and claims fraud, they think "that doesn't make sense".
If the voter needs to read technical documentation to understand why the populist is wrong, it's already too late.
How about a machine voting system with paper fallback. You as a voter can review the paper protocol from your vote. If there is distrust, the justice system can review the paper trail as well.
I don't understand the reason for electronic voting. The UK manages to tally up paper votes overnight, even from far-flung Scottish islands. Electronic voting is literally solving a problem that nobody has.
So more populated countries have more potential poll workers to choose from. Isn't this a linear relationship? What does size have to do with anything?
UK population density (people/sq km) is 289 and Switzerland's is 228, so not very different. Plus Switzerland is fully connected, there are no remote islands.
What is the rush to tally the ballots? Do we need an _instant_ count? Isn't that actually a negative attribute as far as security is concerned?
The distance between the election and the taking of the office is often months. I just don't understand why electronics need to be involved at all in this system.
> If your system takes longer than that, it's a bad system.
Why?
> which can take effect more or less immediately.
In our jurisdictions they're usually reserved. Courts can be used to challenge laws as unconstitutional. And you typically want a bright line implementation date that everyone can see coming.
Because hand-counting of paper ballots, as done in Switzerland (and many other places) is the bare minimum. Any more complicated system that still takes longer is adding complication unnecessarily. An electronic election system should be able to count all the ballots basically instantaneously.
In Switzerland the courts have no power to rule laws as unconstitutional - this is a power reserved to the people (who are sovereign), via referendums. So when the people strike down a law at referendum, that takes effect immediately as the voting population is the "final instance". Usually when they vote positively for something, there is still then some implementation period - sometimes quite a lot of it, e.g. there was a vote to reform the tax system passed on Sunday, and it will take effect according the government at the start of _2032_.
What is the need for it? You want faster results? Not needed, elections don't need to be fast, they need to be trusted. You want to have less humans in the loop to be more efficient? Having humans in the loop is actually a feature not a bug as it distributes the trust on many actors.
Paper ballots work just fine if done correctly and most democracies have a long history of knowing how to do them correctly with very high stakes.
Electronic (or even online) votes are fine for low stakes stuff, like what the color of that new bridge ought to be, but not to select the fate of a whole nation.
> the goal of elections isn't to get bulletproof results by mathematical standards. The goal is to create agreeable consent among those who voted. A good election system is one where even sworn enemies can begrudgingly agree on the result.
First you must explain to them why the former is not an example of the latter.
Just imagine you have to explain a child in kindergarden how the collective choice is made. Raising hands works. Putting different pieces of paper into a jars works. Magical machine says the result was X does not work unless they trust it, regardless of how correct the magical machine was under the hood, because the majority lacks the skill of intuitively understanding this themselves. Sure, they could trust an expert or an figure of authority, but that is a fleeting thing. A fleeting thing that may be enough for inconsequencial decisions, but not enough to steer countries.
Even I as someone who would have the skillset to understand why it has to be correct would have an easier time verifying a paper ballot process than ensuring that network connected complexity behemoth was running the program I checked for weeks correctly in any moment during an election. And even if you had a way to guarantee that, who tells me this was the case in the whole country or thst evidence wasn't faked a millisecond before I checked?
Meanwhile with paper and poll watchers from each party it is very easy to find actual irregularities and potential tampering — trust is a gradual thing with paper while it is much more binary with digital. If there is a sign for the digital machine being untrustworthy you can throw the whole result into the bin.
That's easy to explain. We live in a world where A&W's 1/3rd pound burger failed to compete with the McDonald's 1/4th pound burger because 4 is bigger than 3 so people thought the McDondald's product was bigger. There's zero hope that this public will understand fancy encryption.
> eVoting cannot be understood and audited by normal citizens, not even by nerdy ones.
I suggest you explain the verifiability of evoting systems to your grandma or your friend with an art degree. Then ask them to explain the same to their peer while you just listen. Then repeat the exercise with paper voting. You will see the difference.
This is the point. The way you carry out elections need to optimize for not having the loser riot on the streets, nearly all other considerations are secondary: speed, efficiency, etc.
It is also interesting which role human psychology plays in this. Trump for example used the late trickeling in of the mail vote to incite the January 6th riots. His followers found it shady that the gote changed in the end.
I would ask the opposite. For years now for most of my family even a Raspberry Pi 3B+ 3ould be enough. 95% of people use their machine to run a web browser, that easily ran on hardware that was old 20 years ago.
Well but that's the thing. It is priced like a phone for exactly the kind of person who would spend 600 bucks on a phone. I don't think this is a coincidence.
In terms of performance the raw compute people have in their pockets nowadays surpasses what they typically need by magnitudes for a while now. Granted: programmers and tech companies find new ways of wasting that compute on features that people ultimately do not need, so they may need that the compute so things feel snappy, but if I think about what my parents do on their devices you could easily enable them to do theirs tasks with far less. They are essentially doing the same as ca. 2006 with pictures and videos being higher fidelity & resolution and websites running hundred thousand lines of javascript being the main difference.
The thing with laptops in my experience is a) they last ~6 years (macs at any rate) so that's ~$100/year or 27c a day and b) people spend a lot of time on them, hours a day often. Is it really worth cutting back much on that when it's like 1/10th the cost of getting a cup of coffee?
Well if you want to ensure there person in front of a machine at that time is actually above certain age the only way to do it is to reveal their identity. Of couese one could imagine a cryptographic scheme where only a binary true comes back etc. but you could sell these like fake IDs to minors.
1. That those in power believe they are so beyond consequences that literally nothing will happen to them, ever
or
2. That the time wasn't there to build the narrative since someone else forced their hand (e.g. Israel going in solo and either relying on the allies or having some Kompromat on specific actors)
If I had to put money on it, I'd bet on this regime continuing to ignore the rule of law and illegally remaining in power, until some insurrection... Yes I'm talking about the MAGA regime. They're already ignoring so many laws and court orders...
While I certainly wouldn’t say that wasn’t a risk, I think it implies a lever of coordination and planning the government almost certainly is not doing.
I wish there would just be laws against this type of behaviour, but we all know who is in control of which laws are getting passed. So short of that social shaming will have to do. A CEO that treated humans and/or the planet like dirt, should for example be unable to go to a restaurant, a bar, a park, down a road, onto a beach without getting thrown out or ridiculed, heckled or just called out by others. Behave like scum? Get treated like scum. Fuck with the tribe? Get thrown out. It is one of the oldest correctives for shit behavior any society has ever used in the history of humanity. The problem is they have created a world in which they have too many spaces to avoid this type of consequences.
Now of course within the rules of our society everyone should get a fair process. But these people are the ones who ignore and bend the rules the most and even have them rewritten. At some point when you play a game and you constantly have the other guy break the rules and bribe the referee to make ever more elaborate exceptions for them, at some point you just have to cancel the game and ensure it is never again played with that person on the field. They can watch from the sideline, but playing? Nope.
Now this should not target the occasional ethically neutral or even ethically responsible CEO, but I am afraid by that point it will be hard to have people see that difference anymore. It will come crashing down one way or another.
As weird or hard as it sounds, you need to embrace being alone. That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to expose yourself to situations where you meet people or think about how you spend your time (may I suggest: limit internet/computer time). It just means you should enjoy the positives that come with being alone and avoid seeing it as a shameful thing you need to distract yourself from. Other people in other circumstances never get a chance to be for themselves and have the reflection and thoughts this allows for. You are with yourself and that is hard and frightening, but also a chance to come to terms with yourself. From your description it is pretty clear thst this is probably something you need to do.
Get something to care for, plants for example. If you need inspiration on a deeper level consider watching Perfect Days by Wim Wenders. Don't read too much about it before. It is one of those films that gave me a new perspective on things, may it do the same for you. To find joy in the simple things and go through your day in dignity.
As a musician myself I can assure you that the high stakes releases for any musician are vinyl releases. They also happen to be the ones with which most musicians earn the most money.
Now technologically vinyl isn't superior (and anybody who claims it is is an idiot in the sense of the word), but technology isn't everything. A noisy casette tape can evoke the same (and sometimes more) feelings than the digital recording. A vinyl record with a big cover, an inlay with band info, that you specifically chose to put on the record player while reading the liner notes and examining the design is in a ritualistic sense a thousand times more gratifying than having spotify select a song for you without knowing why, in the background of the daily life. That is like the difference between a candle light bath and getting wet in a rainshower.
Now that doesn't mean people will be binary either 100% vinyl or 100% digital. Vinyl is for the special occasion or for DJ sets, digital is for everything else.
reply