HN user

hsartoris

110 karma
Posts1
Comments10
View on HN

Using your reasoning

Clearly not, the point being made was that you owned a thing, e.g. a Pokemon card. To own an NFT is to, bafflingly, claim to hold a token of ownership of some asset represented by the NFT - where that representation is indicated by the NFT immutably containing, typically, a thoroughly mutable Google Drive link to a picture. The whole thing was always farcical.

Again, at least you actually own the Pokemon card at the end of the day.

This is a pretty serious allegation, but cursory searching didn’t yield anything. Do you have any sources you can point to? Being as it’s very difficult to actually ‘whitewash’ things from the internet, I would expect there is something to point to. Thanks!

It is clear based on the following study that even exclusive pipe smoking causes a variety of cancers: https://academic.oup.com/jnci/article/96/11/853/2520796

It is certainly true that cigarettes are generally more carcinogenic. However, your statement that "actual tobacco can cause emphysema, not cancer" is emphatically false.

I would suggest being somewhat less confrontational when your primary source on an actively researched topic is from 1964. In your words, "[j]ust love how everyone insists they know absolutely everything and are never wrong. Guess what?"

Edit: don't look at this reply, look at the answer with a direct citation from the article.

Almost certainly Fahrenheit. 32F is only the freezing point for pure water; most impurities reduce that. Now 27F is still pretty low, as most seawater freezes around 28F, but could be done no problem with the right chemicals. The key is making sure no areas have pure enough water to crystallize and expand, which is what destroys cells and other small structures.

Fellow ADHD sufferer here to second this. Thinking about ADHD as a deficit of motivation, which is much more accurate than an attention-oriented view, tends to clarify this sort of situation.

I have a much longer comment above that addresses your point, I think. The gist is this: programming music, as compared to using a graphical DAW, is highly tedious. Unless you know exactly what you want, down to the note, writing music in code would take far longer to produce results.

I think the relative lack of a strong community around programmable music generation probably originates from a lack of a particularly good use case. To me, as both a programmer and an electronic music producer, applications like Sonic Pi and Supercollider are not all that appealing, and actually come off as downright tedious.

First of all, music creation is too chaotic a process to allow for simply getting things right on the first try. Single notes in arpeggios are changed, entire progressions are taken up and down steps, parameters are continuously played with until you find the right levels, and all of these and more are much better suited to graphical abstraction purely for ease of use. I'd much rather spin a virtual knob to find appropriate levels than type and re-type a variable quantity, especially if I have to wait for that quantity to update every time.

Second, music is all about edge cases. Using control flows to automatically change a piece is nice, but not as nice as quickly rearranging tracks in a visual playlist. Deciding that a particular loop should end in a different way is simple in a visual editor: cut off the tail and put something else in, or make one instance of the loop separate from the others and edit in place. These are processes that take less than a second for me, but would involve careful crafting of conditionals to achieve in Sonic Pi or the like.

All of that said, I think this approach probably has its merits. I've been wishing for scripting in DAWs for a long time, and having a synthesizer that supports writing code to modify waveforms or change how parameters link would be awesome (if this exists, someone please tell me). Projects like Sonic Pi, though, seem to take this past the point of usability.