The idea of environmentally friendly, non-food wasting burgers sounds good but I'm not sure if it's possible. Meat is so phenomenally resource intensive[0][1] that reducing waste at the restaurant to zero still leaves you with a pound of beef that required up to 1,800 gallons of water to make. That number gets smaller if the animal eats wild grass or what would otherwise be waste products but a cow is a an inefficient way of getting nutrients to your plate.
Livestock in general eat large amounts of corn and oats, and with their feed conversion ratios[3] that's a 40-95% food loss of food humans are perfectly capable of eating.
It's strange to have Ardour and Reaper up there with ProTools and Logic described as a MIDI sequencer. That's how it started but at some point it crossed over into a full-featured professional DAW and I'm not sure even Reaper has caught up to its live instrument mixing and editing capabilities.
Ableton is literally a sequencer (and much more) and probably belongs in your MIDI sequencer category.
No, the point doesn't hold up. That's like saying 'workbench' or 'car' is too general to mean anything. It's a general category and you put adjectives in front of it as needed.
And if you're going to eschew the term and use descriptions instead, then it's important to get the descriptions right and not arrange them just so your favorites are up top next to ProTools even though they don't belong there.
Better categories:
Professional DAWs - these do everything well: ProTools, Logic, (maybe) Cubase.
Consumer DAWs - these aim to do most things well: Reaper, Ardour, GarageBand.
Sequencers - geared for hip-hop and electronic music: Ableton Live (yes, it's awesome and will probably become full-featured), Fruity Loops.
Trackers....
My point is being fussy about the term DAW derailed GP's question, when they asked if it's a DAW they're asking if it's a general purpose or specialty platform which is frankly a good question.
I said not all of these things should be called "DAW", but they are all called DAW by many people. I'm saying that is confusing terminology and I wish we could settle on calling some of these things something else. I don't care which things get called "DAW" and which ones get called crows or other types of corvid.
But, the term "DAW" is overloaded, and one of the negative side effects of that overloading is that whenever the discussion comes up somebody has to argue that a bunch of these things that people call "DAW" are stupid and we should hate them because they aren't good for X, Y, and Z. As you have eloquently demonstrated.
Were you trying to demonstrate that fact?
Also, I not only had no intention of derailing OP's question, I answered it by explaining that Radium is in the "modern tracker" category.
To be clear, I'm not agreeing with you and it's bizarre that you think I am. The term DAW is just fine, it's not overloaded and I found grandparent comment's usage of it to be perfectly clear.
Rereading your post I see you did put Radium under your 'modern tracker' category, I think I was so appalled at how you described the other products that I didn't pay attention to where you put it because at that point you had already demonstrated the depth of your knowledge.
The new artificial boundaries are only recreating the natural boundaries from before. If you wanted to boost your fuel/air ratio in 1965 you had to open your hood and take apart your carburetor, that keeps most people out of it.
Now we're talking about downloading iPhone apps that promise 10% more speed and the only technical challenge is aligning your car's USB plug with your phone. And then hitting the big green button labeled "GO FASTER!"
> Now we're talking about downloading iPhone apps that promise 10% more speed
That doesn't sound like anything I've ever heard of. Many manufacturers require expensive subscriptions to access service manuals and programming software.[1] The average person (and even a lot of small-time mechanics) doesn't have access to those resources.
You haven't heard of it because it's too stupid and dangerous to allow to happen. But it's a natural consequence of car ownership including read-write access to its computers.
Many cars have had externally reprogrammable ECUs since the mid 1990s (with lots being fully reverse engineered), but yet tuning is still relatively esoteric and generally very expensive.
What do you think has changed / will change that will lead to an onslaught of dangerous amateur tuning by phone? The technology to do so has existed for years.
It exists in other motor vehicles. My last roommate had a quad where he would tune the ECU with software on his laptop depending on where he was riding and what parts he had installed.
Falling barriers. Like you say, tuning is currently very expensive. The financial and technical costs act as an idiot filter (forgive my negativity.) Those barriers are falling so we're left with artificial costs i.e. legal penalties and intentional code obfuscation.
I generally agree with the EFF, I'd even say I'm a fan, but I disagree on this one.
TL;DR == "tough"
Regulations can be bad, they can stifle innovation, enforce inequality, maintain awful power structures, etc. But, they can also save lives. In America there are a million things you can't do because they infringe on the safety of others.
At an abstract level, an automobile is 3,000 lbs. of metal holding 10 gallons of gasoline that carries human beings through public spaces at up to ~70mph. It travels through neighborhoods where children live and play at up to 25mph. It's a mixture of chemical, mechanical, computing and electrical systems that an engineer needs about 10 years of study to be able to handle after they get to engineering school. Even then they'll specialize.
Car enthusiasts simply don't have the skills to merit carte blanche access to mess around with cars that drive on public roads. In general, they probably don't even have the skills necessary to evaluate their skills which is what makes this so dangerous.
Tinkering with a mechanical system like your brakes is very different from tinkering with a computing system that through an electrical system is controlling the mechanical system that is your brakes. That's orders of magnitude of new complexity. Do you really think the average car-guy will understand the bugfix, written in optimized C or assembly, that accounts for how a certain transistor behaves above 200 degrees Fahrenheit?
To be clear, these laws aren't to protect anybody from their own stupidity, they protect the rest of us. If you do have the skills to tinker at this level then you're free to use them in race cars that aren't street-legal.
The EFF isn't against regulations on cars. They're against companies using the DMCA to restrict access. There are no regulations - that's precisely the point of the article.
Can we just be honest about this? The EFF hates the DMCA and I think it's clouding their judgement. They need to separate their very good fight against the abuses of copyright law from this ridiculous fight to let people do stupid and dangerous things to their cars.
If they have a better tool than the DMCA to keep the average person from defeating safety features built in to their car, they should say it. But any system strong enough to ensure there's no dangerous code running in any cars on the road will be opposed by the EFF because it would be a whole new level of surveillance.
... Did we read the same article? The EFF is arguing exactly that. They say that if the transportation authorities deem it necessary to regulate then fine. But they haven't. Abusing the DMCA instead is just stupid and wrong.
We did read the same article, but I don't think it was very consistent throughout. Their opening statement is this:
> EFF is fighting for vehicle owners’ rights to inspect the code that runs their vehicles and to repair and modify their vehicles, or have a mechanic of their choice do the work.
So I see "inspect" as read access, "repair and modify" as write access and I think what would we do if we had read-write access to our cars? Relly think about that one for a second.
I disagree with the "regulation will be enough" idea in the same way I understand the law regulates people from entering my house but I still lock my door.
Later in the article they go into why the DMCA is the wrong tool for the job and they're probably right, this shouldn't be done in the name of ending music piracy.
> And you don't have to leave your frame of reference to see a difference between acceleration and gravity, they are distinguishable in any frame of reference.
One of Einstein's great contributions is the knowledge that this isn't actually true. If you're in a box with no windows it's literally impossible to tell if you're on the ground in a planet's gravity or if you're being accelerated in empty space.
That is actually wrong, the equivalence principle requires careful wording. Imagine a point mass. Gravitational forces will always point directly towards it and therefore the direction of the force you measure within the elevator will vary a tiny bit in order to point exactly towards the point mass. It will also vary a tiny bit in strength because of the varying distance to the point mass depending on where you measure it within the elevator. On the other hand normal acceleration of the elevator will not show any dependence on where you measure the force.
Right. So sorry. "Constant" gravitational field. Happy?
But I agree, if you put the box within the event horizon of a black hole (aka near a point mass) the person inside the box might be able to tell, if they and the box were still intact. What I don't agree with is that splitting hairs on the divergence of the gravitational field is productive.
But that's an important point, there is no such thing as a constant gravitational field besides no gravity at all. I only used a point mass because it is easier to visualize but the actual mass distribution does not matter. Therefore the simple statement that it is impossible to distinguish gravitational and normal acceleration is not true unless you restrict yourself to an infinitesimal small volume.
The comment you jumped in to "correct" was based on the equivalence of inertial reference frames which you can take up with Newton, and the equivalence of force-accelerated and gravity-accelerated reference frames which you can take up with Einstein.
If you don't like the thought experiment commonly used to give people an intuition about the Equivalence Principle then come up with a better one. I don't think yours holds up either, I'm guessing that thanks to the Uncertainty Principle you'll also need infinities to generalize it.
The original comment correctly pointed out that you can make fictitious forces vanish by selecting a suitable frame of reference (which will not be a inertial frame of reference), he incorrectly stated that you can do the same with gravitational forces which you can not because they will at best vanish locally.
The response to my fist comment I could not fully understand but the last part of it sounds to me like it implied that a frame of reference only comprises a single point in space which of course is not true.
All in all my objection was the you can not treat gravity like fictitious forces which is an understandable and easy to make mistake if you base your reasoning on the simple elevator gedankenexperiment. I have absolutely no objections to the way the equivalence principle is introduced to people. So I am not really sure what we are arguing about, it seems to me that we - at least mostly - agree on the matter.
> And you don't have to leave your frame of reference to see a difference between acceleration and gravity, they are distinguishable in any frame of reference.
You're clearly presenting an idealized situation, which is fine. You've chosen a non-idealized (or less idealized) gravitational field, which is also fine. But the convention when talking about this particular subject is to also idealize gravity and take it as being the same everywhere. If somebody reads this statement with the usual definition of gravity, they might get the wrong idea.
All it needs is some signal that the gravity you're using is different (less symmetric) than usual. It is an interesting idea, I'm just saying maybe present it a little differently so people like me don't get confused.
There are a lot of planetary science (née geological) experiments using various instrumentation to figure out variations in the force of gravity over land masses. I wonder if they account for what you're describing?
If 100 biologists sign a petition saying your model is wrong that should be a sign that it's time to double-check some things. And here we have an economist lecturing scientists about how to properly view and use math? True, biology is on the "softer" side of the scientific spectrum but I'm not convinced economics is even on it.
"Math comes first" is a bad strategy. I'd (softly) argue that just like your probability of randomly hitting a rational number on the number line is zero, the probability of a given framework of math describing reality is also zero. You must explain why you think the math is relevant and descriptive of reality. Or you can demonstrate that your framework allows you to make better predictions than anything else. Either way you'll have to use your words.
This is exactly the thing. Your mathematics may be absolutely watertight, but if your starting assumptions aren't based in reality then your result isn't going to be either. Garbage in, garbage out – and that's going to be true regardless of how "hard" or "soft" your subject is.
You could derive perfectly sound results about the population dynamics of pigs assuming that they can fly, but biologists are going to tell you you're wrong regardless of the maths – and rightly so.
Welp, I guess we're going to have to pack up the modern world and go home then. Because many of the major advances in science thus far have been widely rejected by credentialed people at first only to eventually be proven correct.
I could do this for days if you'd like. Credentials are worth something of course, but credentials don't have metaphysical powers that prevent a person from being wrong once they have their credentials.
EDIT:
That's not to say I necessarily believe that these folks are correct and Dawkins is wrong. Just that the credentials don't mean as much as people think they should. It's not like getting a PhD prevents you from ever having a bias ever again. It'd be great if it was true, but it's not.
Those scientists all had ideas that made demonstrably superior predictions than other ideas at the time. Evidence outweighs credentials, arguments can take a walk.
So what evidence is Taleb bringing to the table? I ask honestly, because when he says "I spent some time scrutinizing the math: it is impeccable, though unsophisticated by mathematical finance standards." I just think Please...spare me If all he has is a mathematical critique that was roundly rejected by 100 experts in the field it's time to put up or shut up. Einstein predicted Mercury's precession, Galileo predicted new laws of motion. What's Taleb predicting?
> If all he has is a mathematical critique that was roundly rejected by 100 experts in the field
So, Taleb has looked at the math and says it's good. They haven't looked at the math at all, or if they have, they've made no effort to refute it. If the conclusions are supported by the math (presumably they are, otherwise what's the point of writing the paper?) then to say "no we don't agree with the conclusion" without making any attempt to understand the way that the authors got to the conclusion is pretty freakin' suspect to use a colloquialism.
Looking into it more, Taleb's only clear connection to the paper or biology in general is an old grudge against Dawkins. He's a fascinating economist but it looks like he's out of his element here.
It looks like a complete non-story scientifically. However, Taleb's now wandered into a new neighborhood, he's insulted people, he's bragged about his math skills, and he's borderline demanded a paradigm shift in a field he has no background in. This might still get interesting considering A) Dawkins' response might be classic and B) some mathematical physicist might wander by and take issue with a group of scientists being disrespected by an economist who thinks he's good at math.
> and he's borderline demanded a paradigm shift in a field he has no background in.
I don't think that's true at all, and it makes the rest of your argument a lot weaker.
What he has said is "if someone goes to the trouble of doing the math, at least take a look at it!" because there are a bunch of people who haven't bothered to refute the math in the slightest, but who are demanding retraction nonetheless. I don't think that position is entirely unreasonable, either.
I assure you if my arguments look strong it's an illusion! Biologists know their field and they either dismiss things that anger people or they go on a million wild-goose chases. It's no-win. They know this area far better than Taleb and I have to defer to their expertise while accepting that in very rare occasions they'll be wrong.
Looking around the rebuttals[0][1][2] seem pretty non-exceptional. From the looks of it nobody's claiming Wilson's math is incorrect on a technical level, but that it's wrong on a conceptual level. Taleb's mathematical audit may have preemptively refuted a claim nobody was even making.
If Wilson et al. have a better tool it's on them to demonstrate it. Nobody needs to check the math, they just state their better predictions and the community examines them. Sometimes the claimed mathematical tools aren't even as good as the current ones, and then the correctness of the math is moot. FWICT, the biologists are saying they already have better tools and they're declining the offer to downgrade.
I've read them, and I've yet to see anything other than a bunch of people saying "nuh uh! you're wrong!" to paraphrase. They might be smart folks, but the fact that people can't point out obvious mistakes and must simply say "it's not right" is really unfortunate.
In a lot of science there are right and wrong answers and the math (and experiments) make it obvious which is which. Here it seems to be a lot more opinions rather than facts.
Domain redirects are useful for portfolio apps if you'd like to have some coherency in your urls, and maybe you're not trying to showcase that your app is on Heroku's free tier at that moment. That's legitimate, it's also a use case where 12 hours/day is likely sufficient. However users breaking TOS and keeping those apps awake 24/7 so recruiters don't have to wait ~30s for them to load is probably a problem Heroku's trying to solve.
well amazon's free tier allows you to have a smallish machine up 24/7 (for a year), seems to me heroku is going to push away a lot of smallish side projects that might have evolved into actual usage.
Is there anyone outside of a total beginner or a newly created company who hasn't had an AWS account for over a year now? I don't even use mine a lot (mostly S3) but signed up very early on just to check it out, as with most things, so I wonder how relevant Amazon's free tier even is now.
you might have an AWS account but not necessarily to run a web app, cause you're in the "meh, I'd rather do git push heroku now than learn to setup elastic beanstalk/opsworks+docker/ec2+deis".
The latter becomes more attractive now, and once you have learned to use AWS's X tech to run $SILLY_SERVICE you might end up using it for $SERIOUS_SERVICE.
I am in charge of a high volume, medium sized deis setup, and have been actively using deis since 0.2.0, but I don't have that kind of setup for my personal blog. It's overkill. Heroku is easier and allows me to get one with development, so I use Heroku.
It's not so much a "meh, I'd rather do git push heroku now than learn to setup elastic beanstalk/opsworks+docker/ec2+deis" than it is a "I just want to develop a quick idea without wasting time on ops".
That says unsigned artists must register with one of those four services. From their web page, the first one listed (https://www.recordunion.com/) is a digital distribution company that charges under $15/year to interface with an online store on the artist's behalf.
If an artist is signed to a label then it's on the label to have a working relationship with the online stores and streaming services.
Would this article make the front-page if the word mushroom was replaced with mycelium or fungus which removed the hope of legitimizing psychedelics? I doubt it, even in the article they extol the virtues of "magical" mushrooms:
> While it’s also being researched for uses in less cosmic concerns like breaking addiction and treating cancer, psilocybin’s third-eye-opening properties aren’t superficial. Some theories argue that modern human intelligence itself was borne of consumption of the stuff. Magic mushrooms are something about which Stamets is (naturally) an expert...
OTOH, maybe it's good to have the word mushroom in the title since it also signals to the rest of us that it's probably going to be an article by and for fans of psilocybin.
I think that very few people clicked this because they thought that psychedelic mushrooms could somehow solve the problems threatening the human race (e.g. climate change, overpopulation, water shortages, nuclear weapons, etc.)
My bet would be that they thought what the title wanted them to think: "I wonder how mushrooms are good to feed humans and/or save the ecosystem?"
Just because some readers of HN use drugs doesn't mean they're any less science-y or that they're idiotic, blind fans of psychedelic mushrooms.
If the article wasn't in Vice, if the main subject of the article didn't credit magic mushrooms for his world view, if the author of the article didn't reference insane theories of evolution happening because primates started tripping on mushrooms, if the author didn't extol the virtues of psilocybin, I would probably agree with you.
As it is the article clearly has a bias towards mushrooms because of the psychedelic properties some of them possess.
In his rambling ranting about how the Pono player is equivalent to homeopathy (?) nowhere does he take on the the strongest claim of the pro-Pono side: that they've spent the money to better engineer a music player and the product uses better parts and better circuit topologies than their competitors. If this thing was packed with the same parts as an iPhone just playing back at 192k he'd be right, but you can't rest on ceteris paribus unless you make sure the other things really are equal.
He postures as a scientist but he doesn't do his diligence and post any studies on whether or not people can tell the difference between music played back through $5 and $50 DAC chips. That actually pisses me off, if you want to take the "science" side in an argument you should do your homework.
Livestock in general eat large amounts of corn and oats, and with their feed conversion ratios[3] that's a 40-95% food loss of food humans are perfectly capable of eating.
[0] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/13/food-water-footprin... [1] - http://foodtank.com/news/2013/12/why-meat-eats-resources [3] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feed_conversion_ratio