however it is harder to do, takes longer to get there, and there are some tough patches on the way.

because quality takes time and effort (and always encounters failure along its path). it's just more expensive to do things that way.

It's also true that "lo" is seldom used in Spanish and there are almost no neutral nouns (like in german).

I take it to mean that commercial interests are stronger that potential gains enabled by new technological forms of collaboration. We (as a society) are 'choosing' to keep all gains enabled by digital technology private rather than revising the capitalist apparatus which is strained by these new digital possibilities.

Also, I have this perspective in which, given the case that this is a corrupt practice, it ends up as a form of taxation (corrupt taxation, but same thing from an certain business perspective).

And that got me thinking how in "the west" companies have to hire lawyers (and accountants) for legal compliance reasons.

I see a parallel there.

but don't get me wrong, 12-tet is an incredible accomplishment on its own. but it's what it is because of (now obsolete) physical constraints of instrument building.

I've been trying to think about how to go beyond 12 tet for years. I recently read this quote on a (unrelated nothing to do with music) book[1] "So it's a bit like a piano that has a meta-key that lets you add new keys." which summarizes my goal better than I've ever been able to.

[1] https://www.wiley.com/en-us/Don%27t+Teach+Coding%3A+Until+Yo...

The type of billionaire individuals who by virtue of inheriting billions upon billions, don't ever have any real skills (nor the need to develop any) and yet, they live in societies (subcultures) which expect that they keep having (and making) billions upon billions.

Think of descendants of descendants of founders of what are now giant corporations.

They fund VC-backed startups, which they then own (by proxy). They can barely use an iPhone; let alone understand how it works or is made.

Except the business being funded is a criminal enterprise, maybe their riches originally come from "shadier" dealings?

My point is that the underlying principle is the same, it's a very powerful principle. This is how the market enables societies to build super complex stuff. The marketplace abstracts away the complexities. This 'principle' is a technology, it's ethically neutral.

rant-on: the individual potentializing power of software (which necessitates open-source-style collaboration) goes against the centralizing power of empires.

thus, the economic incentives (softly but relentlessly) lead us all into a situation of increasing complexity (google-scale practices for all) which make for ever more complicated software. combined with a lack of incentives towards simplifying this complexity (which is very difficult) lands us in a situation in which software only gets more complex requiring ever larger groups of engineers to be able to handle them. this also happens to law practice, specially in common law systems. /rant-off

In any case, as such matters are usually state secrets I can never really know, only imagine things.

I think it's more plausibly a gradual slippery slope. the kind of slope you don't notice

IMO they handle Elsa's powers in the worst way possible. The trolls sublty hint at what not to do: "fear is the worse you can do"; then they do exactly that. She's taught to deny and hide everything by her parents. So when they tragically die, she just keeps on the same self-repression path until it gets real bad.

I've talked with people who also see these two sides but call them differently.

As I see it, this book is closer to the algebraists side. Thus, you probably lean closer to the nuemerical side.

I also like to think about it as the Turing perspective (numerical, algorithmic) and the Chruch outlook, which is more algebraic-symbolic.

At the end of the day, it's both "contrasting" viewpoints coming together that truly animates the science of computing.

https://github.com/patoline/patoline

I've been thinking about this a lot. often I hear (specially old-guard) hackers talking about easy and simplicity but they really mean it's familiar to them.

I think it's better analogy to think of it as a technique, like a somersault or a cartwheel. but I'm just nitpicking.

taking this point and running off with it. why bother having humans at all? let's all become a simulation and live within a computer.