> If you dont want to follow the constraints of service XYZ, you dont have to consume its content.
I am 100% okay with this. I don't want what Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook offer, so I no longer have an account these platforms. But I do have an account with my local electric utility. It's my only option. And if I want to find information about an outage, it's posted on their Facebook page. I'm 0% okay with this.
I wonder if we will get to the point where this is all so easy that we'll need something like Flickr to organize all the random things one has vibe-coded.
It's already starting to feel like the days when your uncle would make you sit in a dark room and look at his vacation slide show. Sure, they're fine photos, but we quickly got to the point where a photograph was so easy to create that it needed to be extraordinary not just in execution, but in vision, timeliness, originality, etc. And even then, if you couldn't get it in front of the right editor, it just sat in a pile.
It is amazing, that just a few years ago this would have been a pretty amazing, portfolio-worthy project and today it's "pretty cool", said with a shrug.
It has to do with prompter. If you goal is just the result, make more sense for the AI to do that better. If you structured your prompts, then the resulting code is closer to how senior engineers will write it. Decades ago, probably before you're born, a lot of shareware codes are written way messier than what you see with AI.
Some people are clearly doing less nothing: there are activists protesting, formal political action groups, scientists doing research, etc. What isn't as clear is whether any this can actually overcome the huge social and economic structural issues to actually make a dent.
When I was initially thinking about my personal impact to this, the first thing that came to mind is air-travel. I don't travel much, maybe once a year to see family. I have some friends who fly several times a year to "see the world", being well-traveled is a part of their personality.
But I think I may be wrong on flight being a significant contribution.
My guess is that we probably all contribute to this mainly through our SP500 index investments, which financially supports a number of companies that directly contribute to global warming. We're "voting with our dollars" as they say. Maybe we can all start picking individual stocks based on environmental values/promises, and less short-term gain. Somehow, I don't think it'll happen.
A flight can be a few tonnes of carbon. A European might emit ten tonnes a year. It’s pretty significant. For ourselves ( electric heating, well insulated house, no beef and low meat, no car )a flight can be half the year’s emissions.
This does seem to be the result of human activity. But I'm not really sure how the words 'we' and 'choose' work in a sentence like that. The collective of humanity doesn't really make choices the way I understand that word. And, while individual citizens make choices that contribute to this, and business people and politicians make choices that prioritize the short-term over the long term, it's not really correct to say they prefer and therefor choose the climate change. It seems like we don't have a good vocabulary for talking about the cumulative results of small choices.
I get what you’re saying, but that doesn’t seem helpful. We don’t need to discuss better words to describe the intricacies of the situation, we need to do something about it.
It also doesn’t help to keep saying “this does seem to be the result of human activity”. “Seems to be”? It is, the science has been clear on that for a long time. But even if it wasn’t our fault, it would still be our responsibility to fix it. Because, you know, we live on the planet.
If I’m inside a house and it catches on fire, I’m not going to kick back on the sofa and not do anything because I didn’t start the fire. If it started because a group of idiots decided to launch fireworks inside, I’m not going to argue semantics about who exactly thought it was a good idea and who didn’t—the fucking house is on fire—what we need is for everyone to work together right now to put it out.
The problem is that saying "we need to do something" is equally unhelpful because "we" isn't a thing that takes action in any ordinary sense of the word. You are just putting words together in a syntactically correct order that are devoid of actionable meaning. The way this sentence is normally interpreted is, somebody needs to do something, but it's not clear who that somebody is, or what power they need in order to act on a large enough scale to be effective.
If you can't say with any clarity what action needs to take place and by whom, then you aren't really contributing to a solution. Reacting to a fire in a house is much easier because it is clear how individual action can help. For example: you can call the fire department, I can get a fire extinguisher. Notice the word "we" is not in those sentences.
A very significant change everyone can make is to consume more plants and less animal products. Diet is one the most impactful changes one can make individually.
Second, if you live in a cold country, improve your house heating efficiency and/or switch to heat pumps.
Third, consider a more efficient method of transportation, like bikes, walking, eletric vehicles, public transit, etc.. (bikes, walking and transit have the benefit of also being very good for our health)
Fourth, vote for politicians aware of the issues and enacting changes.
There's a lot everyone can make individually and collectively :)
---
Important to mention: if you're going to adopt a plant-based diet, there are a few things you need to supplement, for the most part vitamin B12, maybe Omega-3 and others, and you do need to make sure you're getting necessary nutrients from a variety of plants (for example, walnuts and chia seeds also contain Omega-3). There are many resources online with dietary guides.
>Second, if you live in a cold country, improve your house heating efficiency and/or switch to heat pumps.
Almost everything is inconsequential compared to living in a (detached) house. The detached house increases consumption of all kinds by orders of magnitude due to greatly increasing the distance everything moves to and around the house.
Ironically I live in a model of suburban bliss with tons of green space and it works because the houses are mostly row houses (terrace houses, tussenwoning, etc). It’s even easy to be car free here. Houten, NL
Right (I grew up in US suburbia) but to people who visit us it feels suburban. Which I hope can help sell the idea that you can have the upsides of suburban life without living in a sea of asphalt.
People who say which specific, effective actions should be taken by the common person have a tendency to get their accounts deleted. That is why they don't.
Ok, so what are YOU doing about it? If YOU are apart of WE, then please tell me how you’re fixing climate change? To the other posters points, this language does make it more difficult to process.
If I’m a carpenter ant eating away at this house, just like all other carpenter ants in the group, and I recognize that continued eating will collapse the house and kill all of us, what can I, a singular ant, do to stop everyone from munching away? I can say “we the ants must stop eating this house.” They just keep on eating. It’s not helpful.
I do all those and more. For example (relevant to your analogy), I speak with the people around me (never preachy, that’s no way to change someone’s mind) about why I do what I do, and adjust myself to be reasonable to the situation. It has instilled change in others, who in turn change others themselves. You the single ant are not alone. Motivate the people around you, there are other single ants in other parts doing the same. Expand your area until you meet, then keep going. If you look online in your area, you may be able to find other like minded people and groups with whom you can take collective action.
Maybe it's just a general fatigue from AI, notifications, microphones, and cameras everywhere, but I'm pretty sure my next watch will be something from Germany or Switzerland containing springs and gears.
I can really recommend an automatic watch. Go to a jewelry store, try some on in the below 300 euro category (like, 10 euro to 300 euro range), and get one. Suddenly you can leave your phone somewhere, and not panic-check the time on it and get distracted.
And they look nice, feel nice. Some of them even have a glass/crystal back, so you can watch the mechanism, relentlessly ticking on.
Get an analog automatic watch. It doesn't need to be second-accurate. Everyone else is keeping track of nanoseconds, you'll be okay not knowing.
I think the times someone has something to say that is so sensitive they don't want a record of any kind kept, are rare unless you are a clandestine agent or military - and it's probably worth just asking those in literal earshot "Hey, I need to tell you something off the record, please make sure to turn off any AI transcription or similar."
IDK about you but most of the shit I say, I'd be happy for the hearer's assistant to be listening and potentially adding the things we agreed on to their to-do lists or calendars.
hmm. You talk to your coworker about some juicy gossip in cafe next to me. I have to put lead in my ears? and who cares about people with different languages, hearing difficulties etc etc...
> Even the first-chair musicians and conductors have side gigs.
A principal player (I don't think anyone beyond high school band calls them 'first-chair') in a major symphony orchestra in the United States makes $250k-400k a year. These are extremely competitive jobs and they are paid well. Certainly enough to live on if you wanted to.
These people often teach, but not really because they need a "side-gig." If you ask them, they will likely tell you they feel a certain duty to prepare the next generation, they like teaching, and their rehearsal/performance schedule affords them the time.
At a first approximation, no musician who does it for money makes a living out of it. Classical, pop, rock, whatever.
Nobody in music, basically, makes real money. Fifty, maybe a hundred violinists in the entire world do earn a pure living. Perhaps another twenty five of each other instrument. A few international soloists in other instruments. But musicians in those jobs are often burning as much money as they are making. (Even Anouskha Shankar has a portfolio career).
This is essentially nobody. Everyone else in classical music is earning just the same way as popular musicians — and society doesn't "support" popular musicians at all! The perception that rock musicians make money touring, for example, is just that: perception. The vast majority of tours either just break even or lose money. Working in music production and staging makes better money than musicians make.
Everyone else, essentially, has another job.
> (I don't think anyone beyond high school band calls them 'first-chair')
Snark noted, though I have no earthly idea why you felt it necessary
Most of the major orchestras have a union and they negotiate salaries in the $100-200k range for everyone. It’s a lot more people than you might think (70-150 people on payroll in each orchestra). There are also a lot of touring soloists in the world compared to what you expect. It’s a very stressful life, but it yields somewhere between $100k and $1M per year, and many of your living expenses are fully paid for on top of that.
There are at least 20 such orchestras in the US alone, not to mention all the orchestras in Europe and Asia. There’s also a very long tail with compensation down to $50k for players.
The US BLS has 35,000 paid musicians listed, with another 10,000 music directors (a lot of church organists are in this category). Median wage of $40/hour, mean of around $52.
> The US BLS has 35,000 paid musicians listed, with another 10,000 music directors (a lot of church organists are in this category). Median wage of $40/hour, mean of around $52.
$40/hour is not bad. Aside from the few thousand tenured orchestra/chorus musicians, none of them are going to be making 6 figures from one job, but a number of musician-musician households pull in over $100k between two incomes built around relatively unstable gig work without either one having a high-prestige job.
Also note that churches, which are a hub for working-class musicians, are exempt from BLS reporting.
$40/hour is $83,000 per year, that is more then livable in the US, and by definition of the median half make more. So I can't agree that it's not a living wage for most.
it's nowhere close. Most orchestras are playing 1-2 nights a week (max) and each performance has 0 or 1 rehearsal (1 if it's a new program, 0 otherwise). Average when performing is maybe 20hr a week
I understand your point. Music is one of those careers, like professional athlete, that make parents cringe when optimistic children announce an intention to pursue it. Your numbers are off (the base pay of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra last time I checked was around $200k) and there ~30 violinists in that orchestra alone. But it's not an order of magnitude.
But just because the numbers are small doesn't mean society does not support them. There just isn't a need for a lot of them. It would be like saying society does not support professional athletes. Clearly it does, but only at the highest level. And at that level, it supports the very well.
> Snark noted, though I have no earthly idea why you felt it necessary
I apologize. I come from this world, have close friends in major orchestras and experience on the world's opera stages. This culture is full of shibboleths: referring to works as "songs", clapping in the wrong place, hell, even pronouncing 'Don Giovanni' the same way you pronounce "Don Draper" lets people know you are not from around here.
Oddly enough I'm one of those parents. Yes, I cringed, but at the same time I would also have cringed at watching them go into something they hate just for the money. I've seen that too.
An observation I made is that the tournament career system is supported by the entire cadre of players and families, of the kids who won't win one of the prize jobs. One reason is we just don't know which 18 year olds will rise to the level needed to win a symphonic audition a decade later. I've always been ambivalent about this, but don't have a good idea for how to reform it.
I majored in math and physics. My parents didn't cringe, at least quite so much. I became, quite honestly, a mediocre physicist at a time when you had to be a research superstar to apply for a tenure track job at a third rate college. The consolation for me was that a mediocre physicist could still earn a decent living doing something in industry, and I'm now at a late stage of a satisfying career.
Conservatory kid parent reporting here too. At least I live in a country where there is likely a job for him, even if he shouldn't win out against all the other extremely determined classical piano students.
But society in general does not really support professional athletes in any directed “conservatory” sense, beyond the weird obsession with college sports in the USA.
Corporate sponsorship pays the bigger amounts: that is a side job with its own commitments. Prize money: by definition not available to most.
Directed pay is a tiny fraction of it (stipend level), even at the highest levels.
Athletes have other jobs.
Again: a bad model for mathematicians. None of them are going to be signing merch deals. Most aren’t winning prizes. I am afraid that mathematicians are just going to have to keep doing all the other jobs they already do.
> But society in general does not really support professional athletes in any directed “conservatory” sense, beyond the weird obsession with college sports in the USA.
At least some countries have programs where (candidate) Olympians get professional support and a stipend.
A country like Spain has a formal system of grants and awards for athletes designated as "elite" and supports them roughly at the same pay as it supports junior university professors.
In Germany every small town has a (state-funded) orchestra. I know someone who plays the violin in such an orchestra, he has a solid salary, big house etc.
He has a side gig, he has a quartet with some friends of his, but it's for fun, not for money.
>Fifty, maybe a hundred violinists in the entire world do earn a pure living.
This has to be off by at least two orders of magnitude.
The Reykjavik symphonic orchestra in Iceland alone employs some 30 full time violinists. The nation's population is less than El Paso, tx - which also employs some 80 musicians in their symphonic orchestra.
Your main point might still have merit, but this forum is one where missing the numbers by so much will distract many readers. It distracted me, at least. :)
Pop musicians have fewer options and need to chase gigs, but the payoffs are also larger if they make it. One-hit wonders drive Ferraris.
This is confidently presented, but seems incorrect based on other commenters.
> Snark noted, though I have no earthly idea why you felt it necessary
I think it's useful if you are, in fact, talking out your ass. It's hard to tell given your confident phrasing, but saying something which gives away that you don't actually have meaningful experience in the subject is worth calling out. It sounds like your interlocutor has a better sense of the state of the music world, and that was a way for them to indicate it.
The video makes claims about how much easier it is to learn to play with this keyboard layout vs, the traditional piano layout. But learning the chords has never been the difficult part of playing the piano. Learning arpeggios, scales, repertoire, all while being relaxed and expressive is the hard part. I wonder if this makes any of that easier?
It seems like this can get you from zero to the equivalent of picking up a few chords and how to strum on guitar fairly quickly. But I would be curious what mastery of this instrument looks like? If you were the Oscar Peterson or Franz Liszt of this thing, how would the layout limit or enable you?
I am 100% okay with this. I don't want what Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook offer, so I no longer have an account these platforms. But I do have an account with my local electric utility. It's my only option. And if I want to find information about an outage, it's posted on their Facebook page. I'm 0% okay with this.
reply