Nothing wrong with competition. It provides a visceral pressure to innovate or die, which in the grander scheme of complex systems produces a gradient or flow.Codestation wrote: That said, predation... (even economic) is currently unavoidable - unless you've got some magic you can whip up.
RE: releasing a product: how to do it (produce and release) without engaging in some form of predation, however polite?
How do you release a product?
- KVRist
- 251 posts since 7 Feb, 2017
- KVRAF
- 1724 posts since 31 Dec, 2004 from betwixt
nonnaci wrote:Nothing wrong with competition. It provides a visceral pressure to innovate or die, which in the grander scheme of complex systems produces a gradient or flow.Codestation wrote: That said, predation... (even economic) is currently unavoidable - unless you've got some magic you can whip up.
RE: releasing a product: how to do it (produce and release) without engaging in some form of predation, however polite?
Like I said, argumentum ad baculum and naturalistic fallacy... That's all we can have for "big picture" rationalizations of "trivial little harms"...
- KVRist
- 251 posts since 7 Feb, 2017
It's wasn't meant as a proof of necessity or even something to be desired, only that competition serves as a efficient mechanism for the movement between state spaces. If there's a more efficient mechanism, I'm all ears.Codestation wrote:nonnaci wrote:Nothing wrong with competition. It provides a visceral pressure to innovate or die, which in the grander scheme of complex systems produces a gradient or flow.Codestation wrote: That said, predation... (even economic) is currently unavoidable - unless you've got some magic you can whip up.
RE: releasing a product: how to do it (produce and release) without engaging in some form of predation, however polite?
Like I said, argumentum ad baculum and naturalistic fallacy... That's all we can have for "big picture" rationalizations of "trivial little harms"...
-
- Banned
- 12368 posts since 30 Apr, 2002 from i might peeramid
since the thread's gone wrong already,
that's the fallacy of the weedwhacker a man with a weedwhacker approaches every fallacy on the golf course like a weed. for hours man.
bloody movement. the more efficient mechanism is revising intent.
watch this - (we seem to have forgotten how to just do the link)
DBFS voice generation
then listen to some of this. try a few seconds of #2, #9, or #11 (anything but #7 which is an exception)
https://xoxos.bandcamp.com/album/dope-beats-for-suckers
if you do this, then you will understand the best of what i can tell you about the industry.
that's the fallacy of the weedwhacker a man with a weedwhacker approaches every fallacy on the golf course like a weed. for hours man.
bloody movement. the more efficient mechanism is revising intent.
watch this - (we seem to have forgotten how to just do the link)
DBFS voice generation
then listen to some of this. try a few seconds of #2, #9, or #11 (anything but #7 which is an exception)
https://xoxos.bandcamp.com/album/dope-beats-for-suckers
if you do this, then you will understand the best of what i can tell you about the industry.
you come and go, you come and go. amitabha neither a follower nor a leader be tagore "where roads are made i lose my way" where there is certainty, consideration is absent.
- KVRAF
- 1724 posts since 31 Dec, 2004 from betwixt
I don't find conclusions all that interesting anymore. It's the a priori assumptions that are more interesting.nonnaci wrote: It's wasn't meant as a proof of necessity or even something to be desired, only that competition serves as a efficient mechanism for the movement between state spaces. If there's a more efficient mechanism, I'm all ears.
Do you ever wonder how it is that we don't sh!t in our pants or in our beds (typically )? I mean that's the most efficient mechanism for the movement between state spaces of sh!t being in our a$$ and then not in our a$$.
It's almost like someone observed an unnecessary harm and discovered a (temporary) solution.
My point isn't that predation and competition are immoral per se (though I can make that case ).
Rather, that it simply isn't a process of reasoning. And it is the basis of our society (all of them). So... bunch of f**king apes, really.
- KVRist
- 251 posts since 7 Feb, 2017
The assumption is that we move from states of high entropy to those with low entropy; achieving this requires work or energy of which a fraction is lost due to inefficiencies or are unaccounted for by externalities. That work, through history, has been human labor leveraged by creating rational contexts or consensus systems (e.g. a marketplace) where the more premordial human drives can be directed. The question then is why the choice of a marketplace over other types of consensus systems and will this change in future?Codestation wrote:I don't find conclusions all that interesting anymore. It's the a priori assumptions that are more interesting.nonnaci wrote: It's wasn't meant as a proof of necessity or even something to be desired, only that competition serves as a efficient mechanism for the movement between state spaces. If there's a more efficient mechanism, I'm all ears.
Do you ever wonder how it is that we don't sh!t in our pants or in our beds (typically )? I mean that's the most efficient mechanism for the movement between state spaces of sh!t being in our a$$ and then not in our a$$.
It's almost like someone observed an unnecessary harm and discovered a (temporary) solution.
My point isn't that predation and competition are immoral per se (though I can make that case ).
Rather, that it simply isn't a process of reasoning. And it is the basis of our society (all of them). So... bunch of f**king apes, really.
-
- Banned
- 12368 posts since 30 Apr, 2002 from i might peeramid
"externalities" being ?? half the world are epistemological solipsists, and are therefore more capable of reason than scientists/adherents of dogma.
if you'll forgive me for saying so, you have demonstrated intellect and interest for dsp,
reviewing and confronting the material in my previous post would do much to satisfy the questions in yours.
excuse me running my mouth as if i had some pertinence to the thread, when i joined kvr there were under a score of free vst available. with the advent of SE, i enjoyed a short period of being one of many working to facilitate the public with audio routines, temporarily reducing the pertinence of economics to the field. of course, this was a finite period. what i wish to impart is that it was, in so many ways, different. much of what was gained then has been gradually lost, to the point where the public is incapable of discerning the truth of the matter about eg. comb filters and delays.
i've never desired to live in a culture with stupider, more destructive people, and i can't imagine how anyone thinks that would be profitable or even comfortable.
i suppose, it's higher order criteria to the issues of product release and capital gain. as long as you are down there, we don't have concern for one another.
on the matter of movement,
william burroughs put it, once the die have been cast, the industrialist is no longer interested in revision, only production. any process that one engages in ough(excuse typing, being keytracked) to include some practice of cessation. anything you learn how to do, it is helpful to learn how to not do it as soon as you learn how to do it. keeping consideration of emptiness with consideration of fullness is balance. if you learn to drive, learn to brake. learn to get out of the car, and not drive, or do anything with the car whatsoever. i'm certain you can see this principle and the deficit of it at work all around you in life.
bloody keytracking.
if you'll forgive me for saying so, you have demonstrated intellect and interest for dsp,
reviewing and confronting the material in my previous post would do much to satisfy the questions in yours.
excuse me running my mouth as if i had some pertinence to the thread, when i joined kvr there were under a score of free vst available. with the advent of SE, i enjoyed a short period of being one of many working to facilitate the public with audio routines, temporarily reducing the pertinence of economics to the field. of course, this was a finite period. what i wish to impart is that it was, in so many ways, different. much of what was gained then has been gradually lost, to the point where the public is incapable of discerning the truth of the matter about eg. comb filters and delays.
i've never desired to live in a culture with stupider, more destructive people, and i can't imagine how anyone thinks that would be profitable or even comfortable.
i suppose, it's higher order criteria to the issues of product release and capital gain. as long as you are down there, we don't have concern for one another.
on the matter of movement,
william burroughs put it, once the die have been cast, the industrialist is no longer interested in revision, only production. any process that one engages in ough(excuse typing, being keytracked) to include some practice of cessation. anything you learn how to do, it is helpful to learn how to not do it as soon as you learn how to do it. keeping consideration of emptiness with consideration of fullness is balance. if you learn to drive, learn to brake. learn to get out of the car, and not drive, or do anything with the car whatsoever. i'm certain you can see this principle and the deficit of it at work all around you in life.
bloody keytracking.
you come and go, you come and go. amitabha neither a follower nor a leader be tagore "where roads are made i lose my way" where there is certainty, consideration is absent.
- KVRist
- 251 posts since 7 Feb, 2017
Not opposed to skepticism and more byzantine thought-processes but to make progress along any vector requires at least a temporary suspension of uncertainty. Also, satire and deconstruction will only go so-far; the end is pretty dark pit from which you'll still need to dig yourself out of.xoxos wrote:"externalities" being ?? half the world are epistemological solipsists, and are therefore more capable of reason than scientists/adherents of dogma.
if you'll forgive me for saying so, you have demonstrated intellect and interest for dsp,
reviewing and confronting the material in my previous post would do much to satisfy the questions in yours.
There have been attempts to offset the interests of capital vs truth via the patent system which understandably has its problems with regards to software and scope. Still, one can consider monopolistic entities such as google which due to lack of real competition has chose to open-source much of their material. On the other side, there's academia publishing which has converted grant dollars into the production and dissemination of knowledge to the public. The point is that one shouldn't discard the possibility of consensus systems that may serve both interests down the road.excuse me running my mouth as if i had some pertinence to the thread, when i joined kvr there were under a score of free vst available. with the advent of SE, i enjoyed a short period of being one of many working to facilitate the public with audio routines, temporarily reducing the pertinence of economics to the field. of course, this was a finite period. what i wish to impart is that it was, in so many ways, different. much of what was gained then has been gradually lost, to the point where the public is incapable of discerning the truth of the matter about eg. comb filters and delays.
i've never desired to live in a culture with stupider, more destructive people, and i can't imagine how anyone thinks that would be profitable or even comfortable.
i suppose, it's higher order criteria to the issues of product release and capital gain. as long as you are down there, we don't have concern for one another.
I think software or all digital media for that matter is a different beast as the marginal cost of production (discounting support) is near zero. i.e. one can still advance the science instead of over-optimizing for production and marketing. In any other case, I do see the point from a game-theory pov; optimize for that reward if you encounter it but don't over-optimize for there may be greener pastures elsewhere.on the matter of movement,
william burroughs put it, once the die have been cast, the industrialist is no longer interested in revision, only production. any process that one engages in ough(excuse typing, being keytracked) to include some practice of cessation. anything you learn how to do, it is helpful to learn how to not do it as soon as you learn how to do it. keeping consideration of emptiness with consideration of fullness is balance. if you learn to drive, learn to brake. learn to get out of the car, and not drive, or do anything with the car whatsoever. i'm certain you can see this principle and the deficit of it at work all around you in life.
bloody keytracking.
- KVRAF
- 1724 posts since 31 Dec, 2004 from betwixt
Ah, the "Double Morton"
Effectively: in a population dominated by stupidity, rational persons are forced to behave stupidly.
As xoxos says... to the OP - watch what the "sellfishes" do
Effectively: in a population dominated by stupidity, rational persons are forced to behave stupidly.
As xoxos says... to the OP - watch what the "sellfishes" do
- KVRAF
- 2206 posts since 25 Sep, 2014 from Specific Northwest
This is like one long Benny Hill sketch...
<cue Yackety Sax>
<cue Yackety Sax>
I started on Logic 5 with a PowerBook G4 550Mhz. I now have a MacBook Air M1 and it's ~165x faster! So, why is my music not proportionally better?