Try and talk to the other seniors? Last time I joined (fully remote) I asked all the other seniors for a 1 to 1 - not all replied but I learnt a huge amount about past projects, what people would have done differently and where the pain points were. Meant I could get a jump on the issues rather than find out slowly. You also get a sense of the weather and who you can vibe with. Oh yeah, taking notes about everything!
When I was a kid I thought the future would obviously be more “Star trek” as it had such a compelling interior logic. Sad times. Makes me want to go back and review the Picard years.
If you're transcribing written music then it's fairly straight forward - you program the pitches in one round, press a button and input the note length values. If however you want to jam around like you might with any other seqencer driven synth I find it's too much to keep in your head so a pencil and paper with a 303 sequencer grid on it is pretty essential.
The Behringer lets you connect to an app via USB so you can program it that way too.
The sound engine is easy to use and the knobs encourage experimentation - the interaction of the filter, the envelope and the accent is where the fun is. And of course the slide!
"Never whistle while you're pissing. If you whistle while you're pissing, you have two minds where one is quite sufficient. A divided mind is easily conquered."
Interesting, this Gil Trythall piece is the tune in the Commodore C-64 game "Thing on a Spring", isn't it. I didn't know that was a pre-existing piece.
Maybe I'm hearing more into it than there is, and I'm not a musician. Still it's the piece closest to the Thing on a Spring tune that I've heard and I would be surprised if Rob Hubbard (who is said to have written the latter) didn't hear this one before composing his. But who knows. Maybe they are just both in the line of some classical country music pieces including rhythms (I don't know much about country music), and share the use of synthesizers for it, but also the daring attitude, change of sound from part to part, and the pitch up (however you would call that) bits.
In your case, a Tern HSD/GSD longtail may be a better option. It’s not quite as convenient as a long John, but much more compact and parks upright, so it fits even a small apartment.
Transport capacity is still great and the bigger version can seat two passengers, but the kids need to be old enough to sit and hold on themselves.
I got an e-Muli, which is a sorta “short john” but where the front basket folds and handlebars pivot 90° so parking it is a bit more slim, more or less the footprint of a normal bike. It’s amazing — a little heavy so probably not luggable up stairs, but small enough when basket is folded that I prefer it even on errands where I don’t need the cargo space, just cause it’s electric (nice to throw a backpack in the front basket and close it, too. A little pricey since it’s made in Germany, but absolutely worth it:
https://muli-cycles.de/en
For what it's worth I didn't read the article and come away thinking well of Chevron. I'm sure it's biased, but I read it and was shocked by his treatment, came here to read more.
What I don't get in these conversations is why no one mentions the role of the editorial team?
Expecting even a great journalist to write consistently interesting and clear pieces on their own is like letting a musician record without a producer. It might be good for a while but the chances are a great producer is going to even out the output and make a tremendous difference in depth, quality and accessibility. To say nothing of checking the wilder excesses.
These discussions which focus on the stars ignore the team so necessary for consistent and readable articles. I suppose the lone genius idea has an inexorable fascination.
Most people don't understand what editors do. Or what they used to do. These days editors in major publications seem to be preoccupied mostly with ideology enforcement. But when editors do their job properly, they are part quality control, part coordinators, part peer review. The notion that all of that is just a waste of time is quite misguided, since it's the lack of those exact things that caused modern corporate media to go to shit. But in the short tem fleeing traditional publications to something like Substack does make sense right now, precisely because editors of traditional publications became parasitic.
> These days editors in major publications seem to be preoccupied mostly with ideology enforcement.
> ... precisely because editors of traditional publications became parasitic
Could you provide some evidence about what you mean? In these two sentences, you seem to be implying that there's some observable trend where editors have gone from:
1a. Not enforcing the political stance of their paper and
2a. Being indispensable to the writing process
to:
1b. Enforcing the political stance of their paper and
2b. Becoming adversarial to the writing process
This is very interesting. Could you provide some examples?
Thank you for taking the time to provide links! I read through the Weiss article, and I'd already read the Greenwald one. However I don't believe either can credibly used to point to any kind of historical trend.
The Weiss article isn't even about any local editorial change: the paper found someone to provide a contrarian voice; that contrarian met frequent disagreement with the editors; that contrarian resigned--regression to the mean.
The case of the Greenwald and Reality Winner is much worse. But at the end, it's just a case of an editorial board taking control of story, nothing historically unprecedented.
I've been politically conscious since 1996 or so, and I don't think I can ever recall a single time where editorial boards didn't work to push through the position of their publication. I think I became acutely aware of "position" in 2003, with "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and Fox news, etc. But using the media to hype up war on false pretenses is a venerable tradition in the history of journalism, which, at least in the US, is a business and a political enterprise.
Everything I've described in the last paragraph is socially harmful, and I think it's very important to have underground media and alt media as a counterweight to the mainstream. But there is also a strong need for professional, organized journalism, and I'm sure it still exists in at least some pages the New Yorker, The Wall Street Journal, the Economist, etc, and even local Tribunes throughout the country.
I don't think the proportion of quality fact checkers and editors has somehow degraded in the last x* years. The only things that I think have changed are the _widely-held perception_ that journalism is somehow terrible now, and the explosion of news being distributed in social media. The first is just standard tongue-clucking about the decline of democratic society; the second is about information being distributed at a totally new velocity and availability. I have no idea how the future will deal with that, the effect is only just beginning.
* I'm not sure over what time period your proposed decline is supposed to have taken place.
I provided examples of high-level resignations with detailed explanations as to their reasons. A famed founder of the paper leaves it because he's stopped from publishing a major election story. A decidedly left-wing opinion writer is attacked by peers as if she's some sort of right-wing extremist and decides to resign. Both say this sort of thing couldn't happen just a few years ago. If you claim that this was commonplace since 1996, where are your examples of such occurrences?
A lot of these examples have nothing to do with political ideology. Some that do point in the direction of the problem I was talking about.
2014: Sharyl Attkisson worked for CBS for two decades, heavily criticized Obama administration and yet left on "amicable" terms (according to that article).
2020: Bari Weiss (who isn't exactly a pro-Trump Republican) faced "constant bullying" from colleagues at NYT, attacks from them on Twitter and on internal Slack. Less you think it's her personal problem, James Bennet was forced to resign from NYT for allowing a republican senator to publish an OP-ED.
Does it not seem like there was a shift of some sort? Well, apparently Attkisson herself published several books claiming that things have changed:
In addition to this: traditional media organizations provide a training space for new writers, journalists etc. You can argue that that strengthens the status quo, but Substack provides nothing to promote new talent.
Isn’t escaping editorial teams exactly the reason that many migrated to Substack?
A big reason people are on the platform is because they want to read Glenn Greenwald or Andrew Sullivan or Matt Yglesias in a way that’s not filtered by their previous editorial teams.
I take the point for sure, and escaping constraints can be valuable - but we must all be familiar with the 'great wo/man' syndrome where everything they say is right and doesn't need editing or even questioning...
If you're reading an article with a title "Much more than you ever wanted to know about..." then you can't claim you haven't been warned. For people that can't deal with it there's always twitter (and insane people that publish a full-size article as a thread of 285 tweets, God bless thread aggregators).
It seems weird to me that people would disregard the input of the artist and producer who will have painstakingly mixed the original - surely that is as much a part of the art form as the music in many cases? I'm thinking of records like "Bitches Brew" where you couldn't just go back to the master recordings and recreate them without Miles in the room.
Though I guess the early stereo mixes for e.g. The Beatles were often done without the band's input simply because no one was interested in the stereo mix - it was all about the mono mix. 2nd Engineer Richard Lush said “The only real version of Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band is the mono version.
im not sure what a good analogy might be... a gallery displaying a replica of some famous painting but deciding that part of it needs to be brightened up? i think most people would find that really odd
