There are massive communities around tools far more simple than Ableton was even a decade ago, like SP404, Akai MPCs, Elektron Digitakt.

Many musicians treat any item as an instrument, not as a plaform. There are probably dozens of videos on youtube, where musicians explain, why they use more limited tools instead of Ableton.

To make a successful music tool (that includes DAW), you have to own a powerful workflow, that some group of musicians love or need. Extensibility is fine, but not the only way to succeed.

There are now people making music on pocket trackers that have ± same amount of features as modplug Tracker I used in the end of 90s.

The thing is, when you make a music with a guitar, you don't want your guitar to be 'built around composable scripted modules'. You want to play an instrument, and the UX should enable it, and generally get out of the way.

It has a lot in common with the fact Rust is very low level language, a direct C++ competitor, and many people use it for apps that could be easily implemented in much higher languages and run fast enough.

A driver or kernel extension in Rust? No problem. A todolist SaaS startup with no users? It's better to use Rails, Django, or Laravel for that.

Now, people fill this time with TV, because if they have kids, they live 5000 km away.

In Europe, innovation in the end help everyone. Better healthcare starts with the rich, and ends distributed to everyone. The same is true for everything else.

Are those names erased during compilation? It has a massive impact.

If you have indirect calls, how are those resolved? That matters a lot.

What is even the language, after the code is compiled/interpreted. Does it disappear like in many languages? Do you have some parts available, but not all (like in PHP)? Or do you have full runtime at hand and you can mold it like in Smalltalk? There are languages with no runtime, languages with some runtime, and languages with full image in place. Each has massively different pros and cons.

When you say Haskell and Smalltalk are name focused, you are technically right, but developer experience is extremely different.

There is a massive difference between Clojure, Prolog, and Forth.

The whole:

    type name = value—type-focused
    name: type = value—name-focused
    var name type = value—qualifier-focused

If you are choosing between Kotlin and Go, it is for the platform, not the syntax. If you decide between Haskell, Idris, Scheme, you do it with the syntax in mind.

People change countries, partners, careers not because of one book. This is usually the last drop. They were long-term unhappy, yearning for something else.

And as this guy wrote, he was sick, he was burned out. I suppose, he wasn't able to limit his screen time, it was all or nothing. Sometimes, those big changes work better than incremental steps. 20 years ago, I went from a pack of cigarettes a day to zero. If I went to 19, then 18, then 17, I might still smoke to this day.

The state owns national parks, army equipment, buildings... Also, the state owns an impact on regulated companies, subsidies, etc.

Just the US army receives funding about $1 trillion a year. It must own equipment, weapons, and buildings in a value of many trillions.

Every single citizen has a share in all of what the state owns and controls. The state also partially controls the wealth of billionaires.

So I suppose, that the top 0.001% holds as much value as... the bottom 5%?

Very often, when designing ERP, or other system, people think: "This is easy, I just this XYZ I am done." Then, you find that there are many corner use-cases. XYZ can be split to phases, you might need to add approvals, logging, data integrations... and what was a simple task, becomes 10 tasks.

In the first year of CompSci uni, our teacher told us a thing I remember: Every system is 90% finished 90% of time. He was right.

Here is an example of ToS being enforced: https://kennedyslaw.com/en/thought-leadership/article/2023/n...

Another example https://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case392.cfm

Here is an example of ToS being enforced: https://kennedyslaw.com/en/thought-leadership/article/2023/n...

I think, when we look at all social phenomenons, we need to look on the whole system. What is the role of religion? When religion is not there, what fits the hole? (Nowadays, there are many non-religion religions like consumerism, extreme-individualism, or global warming; all of those have their own prophets, the story of fight between good and evil, rituals, inherent sin and a way to 'buy out' out of that sin)

The reason those studies are just correlational, is because in social sciences, you don't really have many other tools.

There are no axioms, deduction is impossible. So that part of the argument is not really all that much valid. You have no mechanism to make social sciences more exact.

--

Yes, there are also negative outcomes. But positive ones are stronger than the negative ones.

And also, some of your examples are not negative at all. The point of fear of damnation for example is the reason why ethics were enforceable for hundreds or thousands of years, when the state was significantly weaker, there weren't real courts, etc. Shame and guilt are important motivators. They developed in humans to make correction of antisocial behaviors possible if you don't want just violently punish people for everything. Having no shame and guilt is an attribute of psychopaths.

So yes, most religions if not all are based on unscientific claims, but they make people's lives better.

Yes, I want it. It would 100* our GDP, and make people significantly more independent.

Mix it with open source unbiased AI, living on a land large enough to feed you and your family, and cheap energy, and utopia is here.

Either lose funding, or comparable other universities should be funded so all relevant spectrum is covered.

Federally funded institutions should cater for all Americans. The army, police, schools, hospitals... shouldn't be there only for one half of people.

If there is a Christian university, it should either be sponsored by Christians only, or similar funding should go to other universities representing other major American groups (for example Jews).

Discrimination based on political views should be treated the same as discrimination based on sexual orientation or race.

Harvard is older than both parties. There is no good reason why it should cater to only one half of Americans.

- Stop promoting Democrats' agendas as the ultimate truth; stop bullying people for non-Democratic views - Allow Republicans' agendas to be equally represented

Is it really so difficult to understand?

Out of many bad things Trump has done, this isn't really bad for anyone except core Democrats voters.

The US academia has become hostile to anyone except one particular culture. This should stop.