crtified

The answer is quite patently that, in this brave new world, people with noticeable writing skill will face that false cry on a regular basis from the literary lowest-common-denominator.

I think that highlights one of the reasons why, in this case, hardware has not been hard. (besides the fact that you are very clever)

The value you have created is actually more in the App than in the hardware.

As a maker of small devices (mostly open source) including MIDI - and putting aside commercial aspects like injection molding - I could recreate the hardware side of this project without much issue. The necessary components are likely already in this room with me. (I won't - I'm not in the business of copying things that people don't want copied)

But I'm not a software engineer, and therefore could not produce software of the scope and quality that you have, which is where the unique functionality of your device sits high above the relatively simple "receive MIDI data from MIDI devices" principle of the hardware by itself.

The opposition you face is purely statistical, based on the fact that alcohol is by far the most commercially successful recreational drug.

When statistics are so biased, quality of objective argument is swamped by simple numbers.

While using GPTs to explore my own bias, I liked the re-phrasing "the chemical opens a window so that the profoundly human experience of care, safety, and novel emotion can finally get through to a brain that had walled itself off".

Highlighting how the human experience is an intrinsic part of the benefit seen, but not the only part.

(and I totally agree with you, alcohol is one of the strongest and also one of the less pleasant - both in withdrawal and in long term health impact, not to mention social harm - recreational things that I or people-that-I-know-well have ever tried)

It may simply be that the intense disruption of a 5 hour long experience of chemically-induced novel pleasures - in people who'd long forgotten any form of enjoyment at all - while also being under special attention from caring professionals, is Very Nice Indeed. And that very nice experiences are the most direct salve that exists, when it comes to ameliorating a lifetime of unpleasant ones.

"I can say wth certainty that I became a very different person at some point in those early to mid twenties" - not to discount that, but I do suspect many developing adults (LSD or not) might make similar claims about distinct periods of mental change as they work their way into early adulthood.

We can certainly pick apart any given data point.

It doesn't change the overarching sentiment that guns are a subject that attracts considerably larger attention in the USA than in any other 'developed' nation.

Pick any number of metrics - frequency of incidents, size and power of advocacy groups, political debate, ownership levels, media coverage, constitutional significance - and that pattern is clear.

So my [here refined] point remains : there is no (developed nation) where guns are a greater part of public discourse than the USA. Therefore, when we find ourselves questioning "why are some USA citizens quite passionate about the debate?" (especially where their children are concerned), I don't think we need to look too far for the answer.

That is true for both sides of the debate.

It was a good discussion topic about why adults get so bothered by things that look like guns.

I think that's because parent-child is the strongest bond known to humanity, so anything symbolic of (or against) child safety evokes the strongest emotional responses we can ever have.

Guns, when loaded, are one of the extremely few consumer objects capable of being held in a child's hand and, with a physical ease similar to changing TV channel with a remote, destroy or end a life. (and, of course, one of the first rules of guns is "always assume it's loaded")

And so - especially in a country like the USA where guns are a prominent part of culture, and thus talked and thought about a lot - the conflation of the above means that for a significant cohort of parents, guns are one iconic symbol of their ultimate nightmare : losing their child somehow.

The fact that the USA needs separate Wikipedia pages per decade in order to make the summary list of school shootings manageable is illustrative of why some have developed such phobias. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_school_shootings_in_t...

Playing off different LLMs against one another in that kind of manner is a good way to expose some first order errors.

Interesting point. The prompts are the source, in a way.

This task has what I'd call asymmetrical reciprocity.

That is, it's probably easier for the development professional to code a pretend version of chopping wood, than it is for the professional axeman to chop out a pretend version of a computer.

However I do eagerly await being proven wrong.

As an interesting (and yes, a bit sad) twist on that notion - and, if I may say so, coincidentally a bit of a bridge between my comment-fellow SubiculumCode's two different areas of research - my personal empirical experience was that between ages 6-13 I had a stepfather who routinely dispensed physical punishment/discipline.

One of the harshest applications was around academic performance. If I had any bad marks, or a teacher reported sluggish work or improper behaviour, it wasn't good.

And whether as result of personal talent (ha!), or simply through being beaten and fear-driven into learned intensity, you'd better believe I was the top of my class or close to it most of the time.

But the stress part-destroyed my social abilities and integration (as opposed to academic learning), and along with other unusual childhood stressors and instability I suffered, is the biggest reason why later I spent most of my adulthood walking my own path - to the extent of being considered autistic.

I held the role of (land) surveying draftsman, during the early 2000s years when the surveying profession was partway through the transition between manual drawings and digital processes.

Being a young man then, I was our offices champion of new technology, but years of legacy projects still being tied off meant I had no choice but to learn and practice many of the manual skills.

So my job was a weird mix of pushing everybody into the cutting edge of tech, then having to go and do some 50-100+ year old processes using special pens and papers and even chemicals.

For example, the look up the 'diazo machine' -style of copier. Then imagine going into a small room with an armful of 30 x A1-sized engineering plans, and standing next to this machine for 2 hours slowly feeding in each page while surrounded by ammonia fumes. These days, the Wikipedia page says : "When making multiple copies of an original no more than four or five copies can typically be made at a time, due to the build-up of ammonia fumes, even with ventilation fans in the duplication room", but back then the working reality was more like "Junior staff member! I need four copies of these! <hands over armful of A1>".

Much cooler was the Houston Instruments pen plotter. A machine whose vacuum bed (think of air hockey) held the paper down while rollers ratcheted it back and forth at high speed, and a robotic pen arm 'printed' out a plan by physically drawing it with pens. It automatically changes to different pens when it needs different line thicknesses (or even colours). All done at such a whirlwind of organised precision, it was a joy to watch.

Another aspect of the manual age was the notion of Originals, or Master Copies. That is, for important documents, there'd be a master copy printed out on high grade stock - often archival grade, multi-layered Mylar or similar, for stability and durability. It could be hard work when a project made a late change, because at worst you might find yourself having to (e.g.) manually remove and extremely-carefully redraw an entire table of figures on a master plan. Sometimes just because row 1 of that table had changed such that the rest had to be moved down. The removal involved caaarrrefully buffing the ink off the page using a rotating electric eraser. If you put a hole in the plan by rubbing too hard on one spot, god help you. Doing that, then having to get 5 different signatures from high people in various offices redone on a new master copy, while a large project could be held up for weeks while delays and interest and costs accrue, would be considered a fairly notable faux pas.

One truth I've observed from decades of keen hobbyist involvement in guitar music and playing is that a lifetime of music is largely an individual journey.

The fact that some players learn by transcribing, while others learn by jamming, and yet others learn by rote theoretical study, or 10-hour practice sessions, etc, is a big part of the variety which results in the wonderfully varied tapestry of music styles and approaches that humanity creates and enjoys.

Not to take away from the age-old, valid advice in the link about the value of ear-to-fretboard work.

Don't feel too bad - I had to Google what CRUD means. :D

That frugal, creative mindset is also the default for people of modest income everywhere in the world - borne of necessity.

Humanity?

Growing up in northern Queensland (Australia) in the 1980's, our primary school boy's version was :

"Jingle Bells, Batman smells, Robin flew away, Wonder Woman lost her boobs - flying TAA."

Context note : TAA or Trans Australia Airlines was a major Australian domestic airline of the time, later merged into Qantas.

Not to suggest that analogies solve anything, but perhaps it adds large-scale context to mention that throughout history various (and frequent!) events of technological disruption have had similar effect upon particular fields of work.

I used to work in land surveying, entering that field around the turn of the millennium just as digitalisation was hitting the industry in a big way. A common feeling among existing journeymen was one of confusion. Fear and dislike of these threatening changes, which seemed to neutralise all the hard-won professional skills. Expertise with the old equipment. Understanding of how to do things closer to first-principles. Ability to draw plans by hand. To assemble the datasets in the complex and particular old ways. And of course, to mentor juniors in the same.

Suddenly, some juniors coming in were young computer whizzes. Speeding past their seniors in these new ways. But still only juniors, for all that - still green, no matter what the tech. With years and decades yet, to earn their stripes, their professionalism in all it's myriad aspects. And for the seniors, their human aptitudes (which got them there in the first place) didn't vanish. They absorbed the changes, stuck with their smart peers, and evolved to match the environment. Would they have rathered that everything in the world had stayed the same as before? Of course. But is that a valid choice, professionally speaking? or in life itself? Not really.

Likewise, a lot of what we learn at school or university is superceded by new knowledge or technology (who needs arithmetic, when we all have a calculator in our pocket??), but having an intimate knowledge of those building blocks is still key to having a deeper and more valuable aptitude in your field.

For many years, local maps were my day-to-day work.

Regulations dictated that north should be at the page top, but exceptions were made so that the relevant land mass would efficiently fit on standard paper sizes. For example, you could fit a lot more detail onto a printed map of Japan with the paper as Portrait, rather than Landscape. So the practical aspects of the printed paper age have long been a side factor in map orientation.

And there was no doubt that the exceptions, where maps had north other-than-up, proved mentally more difficult for everybody to deal with. People not used to working with maps would struggle because it didn't align with other maps, and people used to working with maps would struggle because our minds were locked into the convention that came from 95% working with north-up maps!

The principle of fines being made proportional to income - and set at a % level that hurts - is one of the few possible paths to fairness in this area.

Like some European country(s) do with personal fines, afaik.

Perhaps they have not been given the credence that you assume. It is typically not the NIMBY complainers who have the capacity to hire powerful experts to argue their cases in Councils and courtrooms ad nauseam. That is heavily weighted towards the developer side. I say that having worked for such developers, to further their cases in great detail.

Factors like failing or under-capacity infrastructure are coming to the fore a lot more in recent years. I've been in land development for about 25 years, and an increasingly common theme in my region is that a landowner wants a new suburb, but is not willing to upgrade all the necessary pipes and roads in order to not overwhelm existing upstream/downstream systems, and conversely the public are literally not able to subsidise that for them - public money is almost always stretched very thin already.

It's a disturbing trend that extremely complex issues are framed as a 'symptom' of broad political leanings. At the very least, it's a distraction and disservice to their own good argument, when an otherwise-intelligent narrative constantly reverts back to the polarisation "it's mostly those Others, from the Other Side".

Just let arguments stand on their own merits. The minute an article includes the term "lefties" or "righties", it's gone wrong imo.

While your statement is perfectly accurate, I just wanted to blithely add that it's not the velocity that hurts you, it's the change in velocity :))

That argument still relies upon the debatable premise that less formal employment means less human productivity.

For example, those "bridging the gap until their pension" are as likely to be reducing childcare costs (which are otherwise often subsidised by government/tax) for their descendants, spending more time on their own health, reducing the $health burden upon government, and any number of other potential reductions of the need for government spending. In equal proportion to the reduction in formal employment load upon the individual.

Most UBI proposals I've heard of are the equivalent of $5.00-7.50 per hour wage. If what you imply were true - that upon achieving that level, people simply said "goal reached" and ceased to be further productive - then the USA median hourly wage would not be $22.

You quit working in the conventional, modern, hierarchical contract employment system - a very tight and specific definition of "work".

But I'd be very surprised if you didn't still spend a goodly proportion of your time beavering away at endeavours that were productive to yourself or others in your family and community.

It's actually interesting what underlying prejudices readers project upon the anecdotes of others.

In actual fact, I was merely offering a data point. I have no agenda, I am not in the slightest anti-abortion, I am not against 100% female bodily autonomy, I do not consider past generations to be "the good old days" - the events I described were traumatic for everybody involved - and I do not profess to be qualified to draw any conclusions, or to claim that what happened to me is why the world has changed.

I can only see certain cause and effect chains relating to my own generational situation, and suggested that such changing norms may be one factor in the mix. May.

I would call this study a limited data-point, rather than a conclusion.

Personally I'm more concerned with the definition of autism itself, which is so incredibly broad that it actually defies most generalisations. For any given symptom or characteristic there may be an autistic cohort in a vastly different part of the spectrum to whom it patently does not apply.

Thank you! I have taken any off-tone responses in stride, on the understanding that child-bearing is a very contentious and emotional issue for many.