You don't need every programmer to leverage the architecture for the market to accept it, just a few that hyper-optimize an implementation to a highly valuable problem (e.g., ads or something like that).

I was running i3 on Arch before. Then, I moved to Gnome Shell and have been daily driving COSMIC for a couple months. I think you will like it. At least on Alpha there were a couple rough edges here and there, but no deal breakers for me.

> the jump would be similar to the one from hand-written punchcards/assembly to higher level compilers

I wouldn't. Compilers are not stochastic text models and they can be verified and reasoned about to a great extent.

AntennaPod is so great. I have hundreds of hours.

It's even available on F-Droid.

Some of mine include Bach's violin partita 3, Beethoven's 9, and Mahler 1.

What's the name of the tool where you can specify the structure of the song?

suno.ai is the generator I used, structure is mostly implied through the lyrics rather than directly controlled though. But given that you can break down the generated audio into it's constituent elements with something like moises.ai or RipX DAW, you can rebuild it into any structure you want.

> > You have to be bad in order to discover what kind of good you want to be (or are able to be). > > Sounds like one of those pseudo-profound woo statements. > > Many people manage being perfect good, well-adjusted humans without going through a bout of "being bad".

The way I read it, that paragraph is not about whether anyone can be a well-adjusted human or not. Rather, it is about how specifically some people discover what kind of good they want to be by being bad.

In that sense, "you have to be bad" talks to those people specifically, and uses "have" to refer to that causal process.

(English is not my first language, so my interpretation may be very wrong.)

FYI you don’t have to include a quote of the entire parent post in your reply. People typically just include quotes when they are responding to a piece of the parent comment, and want to make it clear what they’re responding to.

Thanks for the downvotes — mind explaining why? I have literally never seen anyone do this in the decade-plus I've been here, and thought it would be helpful to mention.

I didn't downvote you, but it's probably because your comment added nothing to the conversation. We're already down here at the bottom of the page, we already slogged through the gratuitous inline quote, and then there's you telling us something irrelevant we already know. And now I'm here making it even worse. Sorry.

If you already knew, the comment wasn’t for you!

They too could --and should-- have said no.

Take a look at language tool. It's pretty good in my experience. I'm not a native speaker, though.

(this post was not checked with languagetool)

In that case they wouldn't be a viable alternative, would they. A train can go 500+ km/h, and with good planning they don't have to cost 10x, so you're premise does not stand.

Can you give examples where they are “viable”?

In Japan they are still several times more expensive and slower (over long distance, as OP suggested).