This is exactly the remedy to the PR issue. I've "lucked" into owning a Prettier formatting pass at two different places now, and did the same process at each - full pass on master, simple step-by-step process to follow to update any PR by running the format script.

Can I ask what the specific markers / qualifiers are for you to consider (let's call them) 'classical' generative and algorithmic techniques fair game in creative composition, but LLM agent based techniques not so?

To me, it seems like the "do it for me" aspect is similar, just at different levels of abstraction.

Firstly, they all came to the use of those techniques after having been through years of work the 'hard way', often being able to play to a conservatoire standard, and had a very extensive grounding in the tradition that came with that. Then they owned* or designed the thing they were asking to 'do it for me' and could modify it at their discretion, effectively making it an integral element of the composition. The prior training was crucial in getting anything good out of any of it IMO (high level reflection based on canon knowledge and deeply considered personal sensibility, etc.)

* I suppose in the early days, running on an mainframe would belie the definition of ownership per se, as it required access and was limited to that specific machine/institution, but then we are talking about a time where personal computing wasn't available.

Thanks for your well considered response. I disagree with the notion that extensive classical training is required in order to make beautiful, noteworthy music. There are innumerable counterproofs of this in every era of music. I also disagree that fully and deeply owning/designing one's tools is required - though I understand that we are more specifically talking about generative tools, I personally argue there's not enough meaningful distinction. One chooses to exercise intent, whether the tool is acoustic or digital, general or hyper-focused. And fully understanding the workings of every tool is a fool's errand in this modern age.

Whether these then extend to AI and LLMs I still can't fully say. There is, obviously, some kind of qualitative leap here. I'm not fully settled.

But I guess I lean more towards - it is a tool, let people use it to make their own beauty.

I didn't specify that the training had to be a classical, conservatory, background. It was only mentioned with regard to the background many of the original computer musicians came from, and which is understandable considering the era and situation of computing back then. Autechre are a good counter-example of that, which I have noted above. Two hip hop heads from the north of England, who have made some of the best contributions to electronic/computer music in recent decades. As you point out, there are loads more, not worth making a list here. Though I will still assert that I am yet to hear any good music come from someone who has anything less than a developed knowledge and passion (obsession?) for their area of interest, be that classical repertoire or drum and bass.

I wonder how one is supposed to exercise intent when the tool in question is specifically designed with the purpose of removing your ability to have direct influence on the result it produces. At best we get curation/collage, which in itself is no big change from the way things have been for decades (sample packs, premade loops, and going back further, sample CDs, for instance), but what goes away is the human touch.

The main difference is tweakability: With classical generative and algorithmic composition, the human can change parameters in real time and more closely guide the shape of the piece.

This as well. Most 'classical' algorithmic music had an element of expressiveness allowed to the composer in the moment.

I guess the guidelines don't apply to you, as long as you disagree vehemently enough with the OP's basic intent.

No amount of guidelines will make me lie in my replies.

It's not _completely_ shrouded in mystery - it started after Facebook got slapped by the EU for irresponsible handling of underage users, and since began a heavily funded lobbying push to drag competitors down with them. https://github.com/upper-up/meta-lobbying-and-other-findings...

Of course, it's probably also been coopted by the neverending stream of nanny-state political power grabs in both the US and EU.

I asked META itself:

The push for online age verification started gaining momentum globally, with several countries implementing regulations. Here's a brief timeline:

- 2022: The European Union introduced the Digital Services Act (DSA), establishing a framework for digital services accountability and content moderation.

- 2023:

    - *France*: Passed a law requiring age verification for social media and porn websites.

    - *UK*: Enacted the Online Safety Act, requiring "highly effective" age assurance for platforms accessible to children.

- 2024:

    - *Australia*: Announced plans to ban social media for under-16s.

    - *Italy*: Implemented mandatory age verification for sensitive content websites.

- 2025:

    - *Denmark*: Proposed banning social media for under-15s.

    - *Malaysia*: Required social media platforms to ban users under 16.

- 2026:

    - *EU*: Rolling out digital age verification across member states.

    - *Norway*: Proposed banning social media for under-15s.

    - *Spain*: Announced plans to ban social media access for under-16s.

This is almost verbatim the same argument that people make in support of allowing child labor in factories.

Children do not need, nor are they entitled to, any kind of "freedom" to work for a living.

Only one of the individuals in this comparison has a Wikipedia page dedicated to the event and coverage of it.

Why is Safari as bad as Chrome?

I daily drove Zen for months. The design and implementation are overall fantastic. Unfortunately it still has chronic performance issues, gobbling up CPU randomly - and they don't seem to be too focused on despite it being a commonly reported issue.

I don't want to burn out my battery quicker than usual, so I was forced to switch off. I'm currently trying Orion instead and have been loving it - aside from several poorly implemented websites just not working on it. And the Cloudflare false positives, but that's as much or more an issue on Zen.

Allegations of cherry-picking scant bits of evidence to support a claim are less effective when that claim is held up by vast quantities of distinct, high-quality evidence.

my wife is an actuary, and we always joke that you know climate change has real cause and effect because the actuaries are specifically monitoring and modeling for it lol

Hell the US military takes it into account

> This is more like “optimal wage to live alone in my own apartment with a car.” Which of course, people would like to have but certainly isn’t required to be comfortable.

This is a debatable goalpost. It seems more reasonable to me to assume that meeting basic shelter needs includes having a private room to oneself. The only reason to argue otherwise is to try to drive down the wage further, and is that at all necessary? Renting a private room was possible on nearly any wage 50 years ago, and the only reason it seems out of reach for many now is because purchasing power has been slowly stagnating for decades, while housing costs have soared in recent times. Yet this whole time, GDP continues to rise. It seems that our society can easily support much higher minimum wages (and this would likely have only a positive effect of stimulating the economy), but simply chooses not to.

> Renting a private room was possible on nearly any wage 50 years ago, and the only reason it seems out of reach for many now is because purchasing power has been slowly stagnating for decades

50 years ago, in high cost of living areas, you could rent an SRO, but now they're either banned or practically banned because they're strongly disincentivized against. Combine this with not building enough new housing and you get a recipe for rent increases. Even if a minimum wage works as intended, it can only subsidize demand, which would do nothing when the bottleneck is the supply.

Yes the decline of the SRO (or boarding houses in general) is a terrible thing. That said, a living wage should probably afford more than that.

Having a private room is not the same as living alone (having a private apartment/house).

I think it's reasonable for young people to have flatmates and share an apartment, for example.

If a person is working 40 hours a week to contribute to society, then they should be able to afford housing from that society. If a person on minimum wage needs to have a roommate to get by, then that means that their 40 hours a week is not enough to afford their own shelter. Without that roommate, the person goes without a home despite having done their time for society. This is not reasonable.

If it is reasonable for a young person to have flatmates, then that should be because they are a student or an artist and are working only part-time while devoting the rest of their time to their studies or their art.

But a person working full-time? Who may be a single mother or father with a child to support? They should be able to afford a place to live, without roommates.

I would only add that young people or anyone should be able to afford to live alone as you say OR opt to live with roommates to share expenses and save and build wealth. It shouldn't be necessary for anyone working 40 hours a week to pool their resources with other people in similar situations simply to survive.

A minimum wage should not necessarily afford you a median home, that's why it's called a minimum. But for a functional developed nation I argue it should afford you a private room or a very small apartment. Ideally the cost between the two wouldn't be that different, but due to decades of building restrictions the latter does not really exist. This isn't true in Japan for example, where you can find arbitrarily small apartments at correspondingly low prices.

A living wage is for living indefinitely, not just surviving. That should afford more comforts like a reasonable amount of space, a car if needed, and saving for retirement or emergencies.

A living wage shouldn't be based upon what wages a student could be comfortably living on for a couple years before they get their $500k/yr new grad quant job. It should be based upon what people could live on comfortably indefinitely.

It's not "student wage". It's not "struggling young person" wage. It's "living" wage. It's for living - at any age.

Does this then imply some jobs are not intended to supply a living wage?

Eg does that quants internship get a lower pay because they are expected to graduate beyond it? If so, how do we define what jobs are stepping stones and which are long-term careers?

I think all full time jobs should at a minimum pay a true living wage where one can live comfortably, save for emergencies, etc. If the job cannot pay that then it shouldn't exist.

There are many ways to accomplish this beyond simply raising wages. Better government programs, lower the cost of housing/medical/transportation/food/etc. (these are surprisingly simple but many vested interests don't want this to happen), better retirement programs, etc. etc. etc. You see more of this in more socially democratic countries.

In that case none of the unprofitable tech companies should exist. It’s really easy for people in the tech industry who live off of the tits of VC funding say that mom and pop convenience store who can’t depend on the same largess shouldn’t exist.

I’m not against that idea but there are some knock-on effects we should be careful of. For example, it will make it hard for younger people to get a job. If I have to pay a teenager the same as someone with a decade or more of work experience, that teenager probably won’t get a job.

With a lot of these discussions, we need to be careful about the seductively simple solutions.

If the minimum was the actual minimum, then why would the person with a decade of experience ever work for it?

Because sometimes people have other goals or are just not an industrious personality.

I remember a radio interview with a fast food worker who’s response was basically “I like my job and don’t want to do something else, but I just want it to be a higher wage”

I guess P.T. Barnum was spitting facts when he said, "There's a sucker born every minute".

Not sure what your point is. Are you saying people don’t act in a multi-objective way? Do you think people join the Marines because it’s the easiest way to make a buck? Or is it possible people aren’t just simple homo-economicus types trying to maximize their income with the lowest effort?

Is it reasonable for two people who are dating to have to keep their shared apartment when they break up? What should happen if a roommate becomes flaky or moves out?

These are all real situations that make me think that pinning "living wage" to a level where you have to have roommates is not a good goal. You're basically asking people to survive by accepting unstable living conditions and potentially taking strangers into their homes, which isn't exactly "having your needs met."

Seriously. Lots of people have roommates to save money. But they often meet those people socially, and sometimes those people flake on rent or just straight up dip out on the lease. And living with strangers an even tougher ask.

When did a 450 sqft studio apt become a luxury? Why should it? That's a tiny amount of space. People should be able to afford that.

Its reasonable, but as we've advanced humanity in so many other fields (medical, technical, agricultural) why shouldn't the base standard of living also be increasing.

I agree with the sentiment, but the premise of capitalism is that those advances also become cheaper due to market efficiencies. In other words, people should be able to have a higher quality of life for relatively lower cost. If/where that actually occurs is a whole different discussion.

Historically it's reasonable for anybody to have roommates. It's a modern scenario where having your own place is supposed to be the standard.

Historically housing was much smaller. And people lived with their families for a lot longer commonly. A lot less was also spent on domestic appliances (not just washer & dryers) and at-home entertainment (a lot less was spent on entertainment in general).

Any adult with a full-time job should be able to afford a studio or small apartment. Probably making concessions on the location depending on where they want to live. It's not a matter of being young or not

In the US, this is trivial to do. Theres plenty of states where unskilled entry lever wages easily allows this life, for most of the locations, with the exception of extremely high cost city centers.

Pick IL for example. Min wage $15, so $30k a year income fulltime. Most every adult that’s worked even a little should be able to earn decently more than min, which is for completely unskilled, new workers. Median il wage is 66k.

Even at $30k, the rough 30% rule on housing is $750/mo. At 66k it’s over $1500/mo.

Dig through smaller cities, and you’ll find apartments to rent in either end of this range. This works in any state.

Part of the issue is those smaller cities don’t offer a large supply of job opportunities. So people are often not able to pick and choose their location.

This is an underappreciated argument for basic income/UBI: you need a lot less of it since its very existence enables recipients to move to lower cost of living locations.

(Which in turn opens up opportunities for others to move in to the higher-cost places and boost their own productivity.)

Plenty of cities outside the top 100 have massive amounts of jobs. And the person I replied to specifically stated willing to vary location as an option.

Fair enough, but I think we’re talking different scale. Top 100 cities is still a population of >200k. I was thinking of the small dying rust-belt type of <10k or so

> Renting a private room was possible on nearly any wage 50 years ago

I think others pointed this out but I don't think you can find any data to prove this because its not true.

I'm not a historian but I have seen a number of old movies and in those movies it was very common for the characters to be some poor schlub with a full time job at the factory living in some sort of group home/flophouse situation. Movies tend to reflect stories that resonate with the public at the time so I suspect that is because this was a common situation. I'd much prefer a single roommate in an apartment to a flophouse.

50 years ago was 1976. I would be surprised if large numbers of adults in 1976 in the US were living in the same room as other adults, unless they were romantically involved.

> It seems more reasonable to me to assume that meeting basic shelter needs includes having a private room to oneself

Why would that be reasonable? College students and young adults usually have roommates. I don't feel it's inhumane.

> The only reason to argue otherwise is to try to drive down the wage further

Another reason to argue otherwise is because you care about the truth. Even if you and I agree on the ends, if you use the means of exaggerating or stretching the truth to get there, you are never on my side. Saying that you need to not have roommates to live is an exaggeration.

> Renting a private room was possible on nearly any wage 50 years ago

You will never find any data to support that because it isn't true. 50 years ago, flophouses were common. You would share a bedroom room with others, with shared kitchen and bathroom between multiple bedrooms. In college, I lived in a housing-coop network where we slept two to a room. 50 years ago, they slept 4 or 6 to a room in my exact house.

> and the only reason it seems out of reach for many now is because purchasing power has been slowly stagnating for decades, while housing costs have soared in recent times

This is true. But there is a very natural reason why. Look at nearly any US city, and see how many more jobs there are in that city than there were 50 years ago. Then look at how many more homes there are in that city than there were 50 years ago. You will see that the number of new jobs far exceeds the number of new homes. The result is that wealthier people bid up the housing, while poor people are forced to live outside the city and commute. So why have no new houses been built? It can't be helped by the fact that building new homes is illegal. (e.g. buildings with 3 or more apartments are illegal in 70% of san francisco.)

Please direct your anger in the right direction! It's not generally the case that billionaires own thousands of homes, hoarding them while the poor live on the street. It's more often the case that the population has increased while the number of homes in places people want to live has stayed the same. The *only* solution is to increase the number of homes in places people want to live. Raising the minimum wage, taxing the rich, fighting corporations, adding rent control laws, none of that will help solve the root of the problem, the growth rate of homes in cities is far slower than the rate of people wanting to live there!