You argue that the courts are not corrupt, hence there is no corruption. Without considering the president.

Personally I think musical notation should be optimized for ease of playing first and foremost - and I think that would be best achieved with a 1-to-1 mapping to the pitch. I.e. if I just want to play a piece in an orchestra, it's easiest if it just literally says the notes. Having to parse what a note with a double flat actually is on the fly is just unnecessary mental labour, when the information you need as a player is just 'what note do I need to play'.

I also imagine that transposing is a lot easier if I was reading piano roll notation - just play the note but X down.

It's easy enough to extend piano roll notation or something like it with hints regarding what interval it is etc, so you have both benefits.

For the rithm though I always found the existing notation intuitive, piano roll probably would be hard to parse in that regard.

See http://terpstrakeyboard.com/about/

I know neither is about music notation per se (but about fixing the piano), but it is analogous: Music notation has exactly the same problem as the piano -> it defaults to C, which makes everything else relative to C and overly complicated.

For the record, I don't think this means we should switch to a new system, but it is usefull to recognize that it is suboptimal, if only to be able to accept it and continue (because nobody is going to translate everything to some new notation)

But it, and the piano black keys with it, are definitely not optimal. It makes playing in C easy, and playing in anything else hard. I've picked up a new instrument since ~2 months, and 1 month in I could already play all scales by by deliberately staying away from music notation, learning the raw distances/steps that make up a scale and how to play them, rather than the 'delta from C', which is how classical training taught me to think. (Same story for chords etc)

I keep having to correct 4.8, but 5.5 more often than not is correcting me.

Opus writes a bit nicer though and it is easier to follow wat it is doing/saying. Not too different experience from talking to humans: 5.5 feels like a very smart 'nerd' that doesn't make a huge effort to communicate wel, while Opus is a bit less intelligent but that makes it's ideas easier to communicate

Forcing certain minimum amounts is just arbitrary gatekeeping and prevents companies that don't need that 'trust' and don't have the money from being created.

Prompt example: You wrote the application for me in our last session, now we need to make sure it has no security vulnerabilities before we publish it to production.

In the OP's example, the user is logging in to BAD.com intentionally, but his GOOD.com account is still hacked into.

This is a lot harder for the user to catch on to.

Out of curiosity, would you agree with me if I said 'Calculators have superhuman capabilities'? (Not just talking about speed here, since you can easily construct complex enough equations that a human wouldn't be able to solve in their lifetime but the calculator could within minutes).

The term is often used in fiction, particularly in superhero comics and fantasy, but it can also be used metaphorically to describe extraordinary effort or achievement in real life (e.g., "It took a superhuman effort to finish the marathon").

(Definition from Gemini)

It seems reasonable to use the term to me simply to say the abilities on a benchmark of the model were greater than the human annotated data. Computers have always been superhuman at many tasks, even before llms.