Looking at Ableton 11's feature set it seems they're running out of ideas; CLAP support would definitely be the kinda thing that could compel people to upgrade to a future version.
It being MIT licensed also gives it a much better chance of getting integrated into all sorts of smaller DAWs and cheaper ones too that might not have wanted to deal with all the nonsense that comes with VST.
>Looking at Ableton 11's feature set it seems they're running out of ideas
Ableton adds pragmatic stuff. They have tons they could add without running out of ideas for those for 50 years. A new format is not one of those (and will have small workflow impact on users anyway).
Examples: ARA support (somebody already mentioned), melodyne/flex/style vocal correction, soft track re-arragement (versions), and 50 other things besides...
Ableton is just slow at developing Live. I wonder what are the reasons behind this, perhaps they want to make sure they don't stray away from the core vision (which is what made it popular) or perhaps it's stability. Or perhaps everyone is just too busy working on their own music.
They can't even add ARA2 when every other major DAW has had it for years. Something is deeply wrong with Ableton, either they have trash product managers, SWE, or the 20+ year old codebase is too fragile. For example, why can't I have more than 7 collection folders?
Live 11 is becoming more of a cpu hog to my iMac Pro with each M1 update. It crashes the most often of all my DAW software. That said while I could go back to Logic or Cubase I still get 10x more music done with live vs the others. I remember about 10-12 years ago live version 7 or 8 was way behind schedule so much so that the CEO/Owner made a statement about it. This is all from memory though so some details may be wrong. I say that to say that is suspect that the code base is probably more fragile than the others.
I've been using Live for 15 years. The workflow is better in some ways—or at least it's extremely familiar—but I recently forced myself to learn Reaper. My mind is painstakingly slow to adjust, but Reaper's features make Ableton feel outrageously archaic. If I'm being honest with myself, I'll need another year or two to match my productivity with Live, but the bandaid had to be ripped off at some point, and I'm glad I did.
Note that Bitwig does not have ARA2 support either. Bitwig was developed by some folks who left Ableton to push in directions that Ableton did not want to go.
So ... consider the possibility that the fundamental data models in both Live and Bitwig make it hard to support ARA2, in an inverse of the way that Live (and later Bitwig) had clip launching for 16 years before any other DAW.
> Please don't complain about tangential annoyances—things like article or website formats, name collisions, or back-button breakage. They're too common to be interesting. [0]
e: in any case, there are a number of ways of telling this story I can think of that'd be far worse than Twitter, even if I do agree that a series of tweets doesn't feel like the best way of communincating a small blog post. Plus, I feel like you end up with more engagement between the author and commenters on Twitter, such as in [1]
This isn’t tangential annoyance. This is a social media post that was to be treated as an article. If there was a link to a single article that’s what should have been posted.
> It was scanned on a GE Revolution CT machine. The scan was performed using technique optimized for human extremities, and employed very thin slice thickness of 600 microns.
I was interested in this workflow, would be a big motivation to get an iPad pro when the time comes to get a compatible MacBook too. Are there any limitations you've found especially with modifier keys compared to a dedicated wacom tablet?
I'd disagree with that one, with Lightning the pins are in the connector. I've broken my iPhone before trying to get lint out of the charging port and bending the pins by accident.
USB C on the other hand has all the pins cable-side so there isn't anything to worry about ramming whatever you fancy into your phone or laptop since it's just a PCB with pads on rather than anything you can bend.
In my experience a sewing pin is just about the perfect thickness to get into an USB-C port. If you're even halfway careful you can dig out all the lint without damaging anything.
I do have to say that USB-C seems to be much more lint-prone than micro- or mini-USB. I have never needed to dig out any lint on my previous phones, but have had to do so a fair few times on my latest phone.
Thanks for sharing your anecdote. Mom & Dad didn't give me a call about your phones not charging yet, but knowing that it's doable is a relief.
I don't remember digging lint out of any previous USB generations either. Only a couple of USB-A connectors, which were integrated to some smaller MP3 players (yes, I remember them!).
The receptacle housing generally prevents you from bending the connector tongue, and even if you manage to do it somehow, AFAIK it's almost never FR4 in the receptacle (although USB-C receptacles printed directly on 0.8mm PCBs work great!). It'll generally be some sort of injection molded thermoplastic that's fairly flexible, so even if you manage to bend it, it'll spring back.
As for pins vs pads, you can make pads almost arbitrarily more durable by increasing the gold plating thickness, whereas it's really hard to make pins not bend.
There was one but it was taken off the market. It's a bit of a sad story because it worked but because of unfounded claims that it had side effects, it lost trust of the public:
"In clinical trials involving more than 10,000 people, the vaccine, called LYMErix, was found to confer protective immunity to Borrelia in 76% of adults and 100% of children with only mild or moderate and transient adverse effects. [...] Subsequently, hundreds of vaccine recipients reported they had developed autoimmune and other side effects. Supported by some advocacy groups, a number of class-action lawsuits were filed against GlaxoSmithKline, alleging the vaccine had caused these health problems. These claims were investigated by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control, which found no connection between the vaccine and the autoimmune complaints.
Despite the lack of evidence that the complaints were caused by the vaccine, sales plummeted and LYMErix was withdrawn from the U.S. market by GlaxoSmithKline in February 2002, in the setting of negative media coverage and fears of vaccine side effects.",
Unfounded claims from 100s of people developing imaginary autoimmune disorders?
Mind you people are still getting compensated in court for autoimmune disorders arising from the Hep-B vaccine, even though no causal link was found.
Just yesterday I had to accompany my sister to the phlebologist, because of severe side-effects from Pfizer, he told us he was seeing troves of patients for similar reasons even though officially no causal-link was established.
At some point you have to wonder if health-policy takes precedence over truthful reporting when it comes to vaccines. (I'm "pro-vax" btw, I was the one who convinced my sister to go take her dose even though she's quite young. Now I feel like a moron.)
> Just yesterday I had to accompany my sister to the phlebologist, because of severe side-effects from Pfizer, he told us he was seeing troves of patients for similar reasons even though officially no causal-link was established.
This is the issue with correlation vs causation. When you look at sufficiently large group, like tens of millions of people, some percentage of them are going to die for various reasons. Some will have medical emergencies. Some will get cancer. So, you can’t just say “these people got the vaccine and then had this effect”. You have to look at how many were effected and compare that with the “normal” rate.
For instance, venous thromboembolism (VTE) already effects 2 out of every thousand Americans (600,000 cases a year) [1]. So, many people that get a vaccine will also experience some form of VTE because they were going to anyway. However, preliminary information is showing that the mRNA vaccine does cause about a 3 times increase in the risk of VTE, while covid causes about a 15 times increase [2]. For reference, taking hormonal birth control causes a 1.5 to 7 times increase risk of VTE [3]. So just taking birth control can be far more “dangerous” than the vaccine, so I wouldn’t beat yourself up.
You compare the vaccine to birth control to dismiss the risks of the vaccine, however birth control is taken by sexually active and mature women.
That is people who have a real probability risk and want to avoid getting pregnant. You don't give birth control to 10 year old girls or to boys.
In the OP’s case his sister was in the low risk category (quite young). So its not obvious that a priori the vaccine outweighed the risks. Nor is it obvious that the young have a moral responsibility to to society to take on a personal risk to ameliorate a risk that doesn't affect them (this is unlike a defensive war where, presumably, the defending youth will also suffer devastation if their country is overrun)
>You compare the vaccine to birth control to dismiss the risks of the vaccine
Or I compare it as a reference to a commonly taken medication to contextualize the risk. I also included a comparison to the disease it is vaccinating against, again, to contextualize. It is also worth noting that the absolute risk amounts to about 4 additional cases of VTE per 100,000 people that are vaccinated.
>In the OP’s case his sister was in the low risk category (quite young). So its not obvious that a priori the vaccine outweighed the risks.
Between 12 and 115 children end up hospitalized with covid per 100,000 total child population, not per 100,000 that catch covid (which is 1,900 per 100,000 infected children) [1]. So the risk of catching covid, and having a case severe enough to end up hospitalized, is far higher than your chance of VTE from the vaccination. So I find it odd that you would describe those odds as “low risk” for covid. And yes, its pretty obvious the vaccine outweighs the risk.
I'd imagine a phlebologist is in a good position to know the difference between correlation and causation with regards to their practice and their patient population.
Thanks for the links about VTE, that's interesting, I don't know if it's precisely what my sister has. Though I don't remember reading about it on any of the official websites I consulted regarding possible side-effects.
I'm mostly feeling dumb about convincing her using incomplete data at an age at which I'm not sure the vaccine is critical, the doctor having told me these side-effects are common and not being reported.
>I'd imagine a phlebologist is in a good position to know the difference between correlation and causation with regards to their practice and their patient population.
Well, you would be wrong. Someone’s intuitive estimation of a section biased sample from an unknown total sample size compared to their memory from years ago is basically guessing. That is exactly why studies need to be conducted, with literally millions of people, and differences measured in a handful of people per 100,000, it is the only way to get any sort of useful data.
>the doctor having told me these side-effects are common and not being reported.
I don’t even understand what they mean. They or you can and should report it to VAERS. Its entire function is to collect data on these things so scientists can look into possible causations.
You're overly confident for an assertion that relies on your belief that someone with decades of medical experience would be ignorant of these basic statistical pitfalls. Not that all doctors do research but I learned that stuff in my first year in the health industry and I can assure you that doctors are in general very knowledgeable about their patient base and the diseases they treat.
A symptom with a 1 in 100 000 occurrences would result in about 800 cases in my country. Arranged according to demographics, divided by the number of phlebologists in these areas, and the baseline prevalence of these symptoms you can start to make an informed guess as to what amount is "normal".
I don't know if we use VAERS at all being in Europe. I know there was some talk of our reporting system not being interested in non-severe symptoms because of the labour cost of evaluating reports. In truth I don't know exactly what they meant, drugs aren't my domain of expertise and they didn't elaborate. But assuming this doctor is trustworthy in their assessment and intent when they speak of troves of patients with these symptoms and complain of this lack of reporting, it's evidence of a dysfunction somewhere seeing as those side-effects aren't advertised on official channels.
>A symptom with a 1 in 100 000 occurrences would result in about 800 cases in my country. Arranged according to demographics, divided by the number of phlebologists in these areas, and the baseline prevalence of these symptoms you can start to make an informed guess as to what amount is "normal".
But things aren’t normal. Travel patterns have completely changed due to covid, so less or more people might be visiting a clinic than previously. People have been far more sedentary compared to previous years, a key risk factor for VTE, which could increase individual risk by as much as 30%. Covid itself causes VTE, so people with diagnosed and undiagnosed earlier cases of covid would increase the numbers.
> You're overly confident for an assertion that relies on your belief that someone with decades of medical experience would be ignorant of these basic statistical pitfalls.
Even in well thought out, carefully conducted studies, biases and confounding factors can cause serious issues. These aren’t “basic statistical pitfalls”. These are things that even the smartest people cannot account for without conducting an actual study with actual controls and randomization, actual statistical analysis, actual identification of confounding factors, actual reanalysis accounting for those, and actual peer review to make sure there were not issues you did not think of. I’m confident because I know that we do medical studies because we know that even the smartest people cannot just eyeball changes in incidence rates and cannot know which of many factors is likely causing the change. Even experts have human biases and we require the structure and rigor of studies to help mitigate them. I’m not confident that I am more knowledgeable than a doctor, I’m confident that the people much smarter than me developed evidence based medicine because they understood that no one is above bias, even your doctor.
>I don't know if we use VAERS at all being in Europe.
For Germany, you can report possible side effects here [1] which goes to the Bundesinstitut für Arzneimittel und Medizinprodukte (Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices) and The Paul-Ehrlich-Institut (Federal Institute for Vaccines and Biomedicines). If I was incorrect and you are in another European country, you can find your reporting agency from the EU website here [2].
What I find interesting in the replies to your comment is that you are not taken at your word. I find we have lost our ability to do that.
You’re point is a strong one: shortly after preforming a very novel and rare action, your sister got ill with a rare disease. Her Dr. also mentioned that he had seen multiple patients who shortly after preforming a novel and novel action they got ill with a rare disease.
instead the replies boil down to:
1. Correlation doesn't imply causation
2. its psychosomatic.
Both annoy me.
1. People forget that the inverse is also true - causation doesn't imply correlation. For example, a quadratic relationship between independent and dependent variable will show zero correlation.
So why bother with correlation at all?
Because we need something to tell us where to start looking
Take the famous ice cream sales vs. robberies example. A lot is learned explaining the strong correlation between the two, even though there is no causation.
Of course, all the AI fanboys have no problem with flaky correlation as long as they predict well and they don't have to explain them.
2. This one really annoys me. While I believe that psychosomatic reactions are real and understudied (my great uncle - head Dr. at the largest hospital in a large city once told my dad that half of all ailments are cured with placeboes) this explanation is far less mechanistic and unscientific than blaming the vaccine itself.
The explanation boils down to “i don't want to believe its something I cherish, so Ill blame your hysterical sister instead”.
Psychosomatic digestive, blood pressure and heart problems are hardly surprising. All those systems are tightly connected and controlled by the mind. But vein issues? What is the mechanistic link between the mind and veins?
> Mind you people are still getting compensated in court for autoimmune disorders arising from the Hep-B vaccine, even though no causal link was found.
That's because the standards for being compensated in vaccine court are very, very low, by design, and there is indeed a vaccine court of sorts in the US. It was set up specifically to address the fact herd immunity is so extremely valuable to society as a whole that it's worth having some people be harmed by the vaccine to achieve it because many more people will be saved by it, but not necessarily the same people. Anyone who suffers basically anything that could possibly be linked to a vaccine is then indemnified by that court, even though the vast majority of those who are were probably not indeed suffering because of the vaccine.
Don't take it as a proof that the vaccine is at fault, it's fallacious and is just one in the long list of completely idiotic arguments antivax cultists use. It makes barely more sense than calling ARNm "gene therapy" or complaining about non-existent mercury.
I wish they had put mercury into the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. At least you could use a vial for more than a few hours if they did that. Currently you have to throw away doses because bacteria may have started growing in them. The type of mercury they use in vaccines kills bacteria very well.
"These claims were investigated by the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control, which found no connection between the vaccine and the autoimmune complaints."
Yes, of course, but you then appeared to query the "unfounded" nature of the claims. I thought you had missed the part where they turned out to be indeed unfounded.
You should assume the strongest interpretation of the comments you reply to, it leads to better conversations and is part of the site's guidelines.
I disagree about the fact that they're unfounded having read the comment I replied to, therefore it follows I do not believe the results of the FDA's investigation are conclusive. I illustrate this with the Hep-B vaccine for which the health-autorities have not found a causal link, yet the legal system implicitly acknowledges one. There's also my personal experience with the Pfizer vaccine of which some side-effects are not being reported, putting into question any scientific conclusion that'd be reached from the incomplete data that is being gathered.
Wait. You quoting the site's guidelines because the poster assumed you were questioning the unfounded claim but now you are stating you disagree with the unfounded claim?
Assuming I'm questioning the unfounded claim is not the issue. I'm quoting the site's guidelines because the poster copied verbatim the message I was responding to. This is either quite snarky or assumes very low reading ability on my part.
In short the exchange was:
A: "The claims are unfounded because the FDA found no causal link."
B: "The claims might not be unfounded because the absence of evidence of a causal link is not sufficient to qualify them as such, as is evident by this legal precedent and my personal experience."
C: "`the FDA found no causal link.`"
I hope this clarifies things, I'm afraid we're getting very meta.
id like to read up on it, if there were any articles etc i was thinking it would be great to reference (for myself) since ive been googling and haven't really found anything much...
I'm not confident one way or another. But I'm not ready to take this story at face value as a sad story of a vaccine being recalled because of a few loud-mouthed anti-science idiots just because "no causal-link was established by the FDA".
Health-policy and politics in general have a perverse effect on the science. What was the official stance of the government one day becomes misinformation the next, and vice-versa. I think it's important to recognize that going with the narrative of the government is a political stance rather than a scientific one and that it reflects trust in the system rather than anything else.
Over the years my government has given me many reasons not to trust it blindly when it comes to medical issues. Our legal system recognizes that finding a causal link is not the end-all be-all of medical responsiblity and my personal experience reflects it as well having just done a risk-benefit analysis to convince my sister to get vaccinated, using the information provided by the health-authorities of my country, and discovering afterward that some serious side-effects are not being reported.
I don't disagree with the principle behind what you say. But the application to where you are acting under the assumption that Pfizer caused your sister's side effects seems unwarranted. It's certainly worth investigating, but it is far from a certainty.
The side effects were real and occurred frequently enough to make vaccinating the entire population a net-negative. Lyme disease is still extremely rare in most areas.
What should have happened is the vaccine should've been made prescribable by doctors to patients who live in areas where Lyme disease is common. Despite its side effects, the vaccine would have been hugely beneficial to specific areas of the U.S., but IIRC there wasn't a regulatory pathway at the time for this sort of limited approval based on geography.
It was, and was about 80% effective IIRC. The problem is most tests look for antibodies. So how do you know you're not in the 20%? I believe many people were still beeing treated regardless of the vaccine. I believe the manufacturer also had some legal issues due to adverse events.
Just an FYI to the Brits on this post - I've found US startups are happy to hire remote engineers from the UK. Might take a little bit of effort but it's surprisingly possible to get a six figure job quickly.
Make a UK company and they pay that as a contractor, you sort it out with HMRC yourself.
The Americans seem to be much higher paying, greater variety of roles, happy to let you remote.
Now is the time by the way, I was blown away by how hot the market is. Maybe jump in there before WFH starts to get retracted, you can do more interviews before you're back in the office.
Yeah America seems to have the nice combo of reasonably price places to live and high tech salaries. Since “remote, but US” is common I do t see why you can’t take your $150k and live off a quarter of that somewhere and save most!
I recently got an offer that was $175k base, full remote and felt comfortable enough declining it (though most of that is because Im optimizing for liquid total compensation so….) $200k total compensation liquid is still mediocre for a mid level engineer but at least I don’t pay London real estate prices.
It's because some areas where you can get a house for $1,500 per month instead of $4,000 come with caveats like neighbors with guns and hellish weather
Isn't it deadly ironic that the country that has such terrible health care is also the same country where people get shot all the time?
I love it that San Jose is going to require gun owners to carry liability insurance if they want to carry weapons. It's about time they started paying for the health care and rehabilitation and funerals of all the people they shoot, and stopped whining that they're victims of government is oppression, when they're perfectly complacent with everyone paying for licensing and registration and insurance of cars.
>San Jose to Require Gun Owners to Carry Liability Insurance
>San Jose officials have passed the first law in the country that requires gun owners to carry liability insurance and pay a fee to cover taxpayers’ costs associated with gun violence.
Bearing in mind that 30k a year goes a lot further given that there's no need for health insurance and student loans are effectively just a 6% tax on earnings above 27k until either your loan is repaid or it's been 30 years since graduating.
While it's true that UK salaries are quite a bit lower than other countries if I'm honest if I earned £150k a year the only difference in how I live my life would be that I'd be driving a Tesla. 30k is more than enough to live comfortably on, even in areas with a fairly high cost of living.
Health insurance is generally covered by your company as a benefit, and if it’s not when you’re in your early 20s it’s generally only a few hundred dollars a month. On a salary of $150k it’s pretty insignificant. Average student loan debt in the US for a bachelors degree is $30k (too high of course) but when paid out over decades is also insignificant against $150k.
I’m not making a value judgement about whether health insurance or student loans should exist but just pointing out that your comment seems like a false rationalization about why a much lower salary in a different country is okay.
Outside London, sure, but a London one-bed apartment 40 minutes away from city will run you ~1300/montn, that £18,000 a year with councill tax and bills.
I didn’t have student loans because state schools are cheap. I pay like $75 out of pocket for my health insurance per month and most of that is my HSA contribution.
For what it’s worth I can’t afford a Tesla either making $200k now and live in a 450sqft studio.
>which is on the upper end of graduate starting salaries even for today
Do you have a source for this? Anecdotally, my impression is that graduates in any degree can reach £30k with reasonable effort. Specifically for graduates in tech, the top end is something like £100k nowadays, and the average would be more like £45k.
I spent four years on a government-funded binge at university, and am now paying my taxes like a dutiful citizen. IMO anyone who wants to deny young adults the opportunity to make a load of friends and go off the rails before they mature a little and start contributing to society has forgotten what it's like to be an 18 year old!
This is not aimed at you; you just happened to be the comment that crystallize this thought I’ve been having for awhile.
I think this is one of the major problems with everything nowadays. Everything is so bloated and removed from its original purpose.
If we want a space for young adults to let loose and party before having to conform to adulthood, then let’s build that separate from education so my tuition isn’t paying for the frat parties that I don’t go to.
If we want diversity and inclusion, then let that be a separate nonprofit that works with schools so that my tuition isn’t paying for my college to have more administrators than professors.
Furthermore, college sports:
“SHAPIRO: The principles that underlay the NCAA's philosophy seem like reasonable principles. Students should be amateurs. They should be college students. They should not be paid millions of dollars. But so many of the stories you tell seem like distortions of those reasonable principles, like people are just divorced from reality or out to get a student for no good reason. Did you get a sense of what is actually going on (laughter) in people's heads in all of these stories that you retell?
NOCERA: I think I do have a pretty good sense of it. Amateurism, which is the core principle of the NCAA, may have started out as a good idea, but with so much money now flowing into college sports, it's become a sham. And it's become kind of an excuse not to pay the labor force who are brining in the billions of dollars that are enriching everybody else. The NCAA itself is a kind of bureaucratic, rules-oriented organization…” (https://www.npr.org/2016/02/15/466848768/indentured-explores...)
“The solution in my opinion is to do away with college athletic scholarships and preferred admission for athletes. Let school's field their sports teams from their normal student bodies and ensure that those teams are truly amateur and the participants really are "student-athletes". Let the NBA and the NFL field their own semi-professional minor leagues like baseball does.”
(https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27581613)
Admittedly, I am bitter about my college experience and probably wouldn’t have such a harsh opinion if it had been better. Like the other comments here mentioned, I found a CS degree to be a sham and I learned more and better on my own than I ever did listening to professors all of whom were worse at teaching than YouTube (especially considering that high quality channels like 3Blue1Brown exist) and some of whom can’t actually speak or write English well. A CS degree didn’t help me get a job but starting a hardware club did which is where my gripe comes from. There was never funding for clubs (that actually get students doing things they would do at their future job) or for professors to do research projects that students (like me) get to help with and build job experience. But somehow the activities and recreations always got an expansion.
100% agree on just making it a tax at this point. We're basically at a point where it is a tax, except:
1. The very rich can stop paying it, and
2. People who end up wanting to change degrees too late down the line end up falling through the cracks and aren't given the option to try another degree (again, unless they're very rich)
It being MIT licensed also gives it a much better chance of getting integrated into all sorts of smaller DAWs and cheaper ones too that might not have wanted to deal with all the nonsense that comes with VST.