cordellwren

Most apps widely used in Korea are homegrown. They have enough content to dominate the market.

You're plainly uninformed. The Korean equivalent of FAANG (네카라쿠배당토) are all completely different corporate entities, and the biggest apps outside of that are mostly startups. Also, what government support? Like specifically? Why on earth would you feel confident enough to make such claims when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about?

Korean "homegrown" apps are usually more successful domestically. They don't need help from the government when US-based apps are years late to the game, not well localized, and not competitive feature-wise. The Youtubes and Instagrams that manage to penetrate the market are exceptions rather than the rule.

Audiation is a basic skill for any instrument. Accomplished musicians are trivially able to improvise complex melodies that they can play and sing simultaneously.

The Spanish flu didn't originate in Spain -- its origins are disputed, but it was first observed in the US.

I'm surprised you didn't get this memo by now, but Spain gained that ignominy only by being the sole country to not apply censorship regarding the topic at the time ("Land of the Free" included).

It's utter nonsensical bullshit like this that made us collectively move away from naming diseases after countries.

It's no longer musical notation, but audio recordings that are the "text," or primary source for popular music. This principle applies even only from a practical perspective, as the pedagogy of popular music has a heavy emphasis on listening to and replicating or transcribing audio recordings.

But more fundamentally, you're approaching from an outdated common practice-period perspective what should be understood from a (post)modernist, electronic framework. Transcribing Stockhausen or Xenakis into notation would be a worthy endeavor, but the output of such an effort is secondary to the recording itself. Not just in terms of importance, but in that the recording represents the ultimate creative decisions and expressions made by the musician, whereas the notation is a mere reduction produced for convenience. This was certainly not the case for classical music, but music has changed since then.

And so the same goes for jazz, rock, or any other popular genre. Our music has evolved in such a way that those musical elements that do not lend themselves easily to being written down in standard Western musical notation have become central to the expression and stylistic idiom thereof.

Finally, if you're interested in what I've had to say, look up a concept called "notational centricity" by musicologist Richard Middleton, and a book called "Everyday Tonality" by Philip Tagg.

Having such freedom available is of no use if people won't make use of it. You assume a "nanny web" is about taking away these freedoms, when in fact it's about incentivizing people to actually utilize them.

I agree with you insofar as Mill's free market of ideas is the best remedy against bigotry and extremism, but you have the wrong idea about how to achieve that -- unregulated laissez-faire "freedom" on the web does not result in actual free discourse. On the contrary, that's just a recipe for a web overrun by all manner of adware, malware, spyware, propagation of unconscious self-censorship by means of universal targeted and mass surveillance, and straight-up disinformation ops and public opinion manipulation from hostile actors. How are you going to have sincere exchanges of ideas at scale over all that noise?

Just like people, not markets, create deadweight loss, rent, and negative externalities, and people, not institutions, cause systemic racism? /s

The web is a complex system that is more than capable of producing outcomes that are drastically different from the sum of its inputs (i.e. "people"). Based on what kinds of mechanism design and incentive structures are put in place, it is not only probable, but more mathematically likely that even a web filled only with rational correspondents will eventually devolve into a mess filled with falsehoods and echo chambers.

The important corollary to this insight? There's an entire class of structural remedies we can take that you're not even considering, before we even approach anything remotely resembling censorship on the individual.

No, anticompetitive behavior is not determined with a single question. It's a whole field of study. You may as well say companies evaluate their code by the single criteria of "how fast does it run?"

With a price artifically approaching zero in a product with high margnial cost and higher long run average cost, product tying with android and google search at the least, dominant and uncontestable market power, there's a lot of bells ringing here, and more than enough to suspect significant deadweight loss to society and, yes, "harm" to consumers.

All of these terms have specific definitions, by the way. They don't just mean good or bad. And that list is far from exhaustive.

Your argument presumes that the natural tendency of the web is to foster a free and open market of ideas, rather than a system of closed echo chambers each inhabiting distinct realities in a post-truth landscape.

That by no means seems to be a sure assumption today. If anything, the question now is whether the latter state of affairs might not be the default, and if so, whether it is reversible at all.

Predatory pricing is the issue here, not high cost of entry. Anti-competitive activities have specific definitions rooted in the study of industrial organization. You can't go around making judgment calls based on what seems intuitively good or bad to you.

The exact same could be said about Freedom of Speech itself. Or any other fundamental freedom/privilege for that matter. Potential for abuse is grounds for mitigation, not wholesale curtailment.

Agree with everything you said except for the fact that you seem to be using "communist" to mean "authoritarian/fascist."

Nobody's looking for "less clicks" when choosing social media platforms. The product sold by a social media platform is its network of users. There are many alternative services out there that may be functionally equivalent or superior to the most popular platforms, but absent the powerful network externality that Facebook and the like provides, those competitors can't be counted as replacement goods at all.

I see. I took "extremely regular" to mean conforming to an equidistant grid structure, while you seem to have been talking about the consistency in repetition that makes it a groove.

Regardless, the context of this discussion was determining whether MIDI data can hold "extra information" that the score does not, and I can't agree with most of your statements about that.

> technically, that would be a case of the MIDI data having noise in it, not extra information.

> and yet ... in almost all the musical forms where this happens, it isn't notated.

There's a term for this type of thinking, and it's called "notational centricity."

> "musicological methods tend to foreground those musical parameters which can be easily notated" such as pitch relationships or the relationship between words and music. On the other hand, historical musicology tends to "neglect or have difficulty with parameters which are not easily notated", such as tone colour or non-Western rhythms.

So any given parameter not being notated with ease or in detail doesn't prove anything about its role as an intentional, stylistic element of the music. That is, not being notated doesn't make a parameter any more likely to be "noise," because what does get notated is not a "core representation" of the musical text. In fact, the distinction between the two mostly comes down to historical coincidence or other non-musical factors.

MIDI or other more granulous performance capture standards have plenty of "extra information" to offer that is not noise, and I'd even say it's mostly the case that you'll see a robust SNR there.

I was remarking on your comment that timing variation is noise, as you're relegating far too much into that category due to your narrow view on what counts as musical intent. Rhythmic variations can be highly irregular and even seemingly random, yet follow an underlying logic and be stylistically essential to the performance, which means they would merit notation in some form.

And I'm sorry, but regarding samba, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I assume you're referring only to the surdo's backbeat, but the essence of the samba rhythm is the sixteenth-note groove played by the pandeiro, and that sound is pretty much as far from "extremely regular" as you can get while still maintaining a consistent pulse. I found the style relevant to bring up, as it's a commonly given basic example of a groove featuring microrhythmic variation.

Consistent microtiming deviations or other forms of "expressive timing" are an essential element to "groove" or rhythmic "feel" in almost all modern popular styles of music. Things can get even crazier with world music styles like Samba, and let's not even get started with classical rubato.

And yet notating any of that information in every bar as, say, three-quarters to one-and-a-half hemidemisemiquavers early or late to each offbeat defeats the purpose of having a readable score.

The score is a reduction that's intentionally lacking tons of information that defines the essence of a performance. That's not a bug, but a feature.

Except self-sufficiency in critical industries like food and fuel ARE prime examples of things that any sane country fights tooth and nail for even today. The US has been pushing for increased rice exports to South Korea and Japan for decades now, but they've always pushed back successfully with the argument that protecting their agricultural industry is a matter of national security. This is from two countries that literally depend on the US for their military defense, and are among the closest allies the US could ever hope to have.

I've edited the comment to clarify, but you're right that they're functionally similar. I was talking mainly in terms of user experience, though. Setting up multiple separate profiles with much the same options and extensions, and then having to actively fire them up for every time you want to use a major site that also employs trackers seems massively inconvenient and redundant to me. With containers, mapping specific sites to specific containers that first time is all you have to do. Containers also share local storage, history, and extensions with the rest of the browser, which is a blessing, as there's no need to install the same set of extensions five different times for as many different profiles, for no added security or privacy benefit whatsoever, and you can access local data in consolidated form, without having to deal with them being fragmented across multiple profiles.

No, Profiles are an entirely separate feature that Firefox also has. Setting up separate profiles for every major site could achieve something similar, but that would obviously be unimaginably inconvenient. Containers are like sandboxed virtual browser instances that nullify most methods of cross-site tracking, while also enabling you to conveniently stay logged in to all of your sites. Switching between the containers is seamless, and does not require any conscious user action apart from initially setting them up. Plus, the real kicker is using Temporary Containers as the default setting for new tabs, which can make it as if every Google search or inconsequential browsing session is done in a Private Window instance. This means there's no way in terms of cookies and trackers for Google to obtain cumulative data about your searches and browsing habits, but you can safely keep local records of your history if you want. There's no way to achieve any of this in Chrome with anything approaching the same level of simplicity or convenience.