I read in our fine print media, that according to many people, the minimum age for social media use should be 16.
I beg to differ.
The minimum age for using social media should be 45.
Up to then, people should be...
doing homework, passing A-levels, going to university to make friends, read books (and online lecture notes) and get a degree, finding a job afterwards (good luck with that), finding somewhere to live that isn't at your parents (good luck with that as well), finding someone with whom to share your life (because that's the way I've always heard it should be, and really good luck with that), getting new jobs because promotions don't come with pay rises anymore (more good luck), having and raising children, and all that stuff. Which defeats most people even if they aren't wasting their time scrolling through the carefully-edited posts of their Facebook friends.
Social media is for professionals to advertise their services. It always only ever was about advertising.
Better living through less exposure to advertising.
And after 45 you won't give a toss who is selling what.
Friday, 31 January 2025
Tuesday, 28 January 2025
The Great Tone Journey (Cont)
It's been a long time since I've written about my Hunt For Tone. I know, you've been missing it.
I'm after tones that make me want to play more notes because the sound is pleasing. I'm not after the Beano tone (really). I have no desire to sound like Dave Gilmour (honestly Guv). I have accepted that in my bedroom, I must temper my ambitions. Also the one benefit of being an amateur is that one can sound like oneself. It's the pros who need to be able to sound like other people.
None of this applies to using a DAW and its effects and plug-ins. I'm still using old-school things like amplifiers and digital pedals. And guitars. With strings.
None of the Guitar Tubers who talk about tone come right out and say that at bedroom volumes (less than around 75dB at one metre from the speaker) it is simply not possible to get full-bodied crunchy, drive-y, distortion-y tones. Those come from valve amps, the valves need to be driven, and that requires serious amounts of dB's.
Pedals will not do the trick. I have tried every effect in my trusty Helix HX Effects, and while they get close if the humidity and air temperature is just right, none quite get the full-bodied sound we are looking for.
My Paranormal Telecaster has been the single most significant learning experience in the whole search. Single coils don't lose tone as the volume goes down, and don't gain it appreciably as the volume goes up. There's a change, but it's not from WOW to OH-UH. That's what happens with the humbuckers on my McCarty 594 SE. At 8 and above, the sound is all there. At 7 or below it goes flubby, rubbery - the strings feel like rubber bands under my fingers, which is totally a psychological effect, but we're talking about psychology here. Unless I use a fuzz pedal, when it's all just fine at 5 - and that's with the fuzz level control turned down a lot.
So I've learned to separate the effects of twiddling the humbucker volumes from twiddling the effect controls. I set the effect up with the Tele (single coils), and then check it on the McCarty (humbuckers). As long as the humbuckers are 8 or more, it usually works.
The EQ is the final part of the chain, and that is there to correct for the Katana, not the guitars. On a 10-band EQ pedal, this is +15dB on 62 and 125Hz, +21dB on 2k and 4k Hz, and -20dB on 8kHz and 16kHz. This requires two EQ blocks in the HX Effects, and the second one makes the difference.
The signal chain is now: guitar -> HX Effects -> Katana Power Amp In, and HX Effects -> Scarlett 2i2 -> DAW.
The basic clean chain is: LA Compressor -> '63 Spring reverb -> EQ1 + EQ2.
I'm after tones that make me want to play more notes because the sound is pleasing. I'm not after the Beano tone (really). I have no desire to sound like Dave Gilmour (honestly Guv). I have accepted that in my bedroom, I must temper my ambitions. Also the one benefit of being an amateur is that one can sound like oneself. It's the pros who need to be able to sound like other people.
None of this applies to using a DAW and its effects and plug-ins. I'm still using old-school things like amplifiers and digital pedals. And guitars. With strings.
None of the Guitar Tubers who talk about tone come right out and say that at bedroom volumes (less than around 75dB at one metre from the speaker) it is simply not possible to get full-bodied crunchy, drive-y, distortion-y tones. Those come from valve amps, the valves need to be driven, and that requires serious amounts of dB's.
Pedals will not do the trick. I have tried every effect in my trusty Helix HX Effects, and while they get close if the humidity and air temperature is just right, none quite get the full-bodied sound we are looking for.
My Paranormal Telecaster has been the single most significant learning experience in the whole search. Single coils don't lose tone as the volume goes down, and don't gain it appreciably as the volume goes up. There's a change, but it's not from WOW to OH-UH. That's what happens with the humbuckers on my McCarty 594 SE. At 8 and above, the sound is all there. At 7 or below it goes flubby, rubbery - the strings feel like rubber bands under my fingers, which is totally a psychological effect, but we're talking about psychology here. Unless I use a fuzz pedal, when it's all just fine at 5 - and that's with the fuzz level control turned down a lot.
So I've learned to separate the effects of twiddling the humbucker volumes from twiddling the effect controls. I set the effect up with the Tele (single coils), and then check it on the McCarty (humbuckers). As long as the humbuckers are 8 or more, it usually works.
The EQ is the final part of the chain, and that is there to correct for the Katana, not the guitars. On a 10-band EQ pedal, this is +15dB on 62 and 125Hz, +21dB on 2k and 4k Hz, and -20dB on 8kHz and 16kHz. This requires two EQ blocks in the HX Effects, and the second one makes the difference.
The signal chain is now: guitar -> HX Effects -> Katana Power Amp In, and HX Effects -> Scarlett 2i2 -> DAW.
The basic clean chain is: LA Compressor -> '63 Spring reverb -> EQ1 + EQ2.
Distortion pedals work better in <i>parallel</i> with the main signal chain. I put a Y-split after the compressor, place the Y-join before the Reverb and EQ pedals, put the distortion in the B-channel, set it up so it sounds good, then take some dB out at the Y-join. The Helix Y-connectors provide that functionality. I've got three drive pedals, each in its own panel.
The settings work for both guitars, though the ODs sound different when hit by humbuckers or by single-coils. Which is the way it should be.
(edited 20/2/2025)
Friday, 24 January 2025
The Good Life Treadmill
Since people had time to sit around and think about stuff, they have wondered how they should live, and what a "good life" is. Not a fun life, or an exciting life, or a boring life, or a safe life, all of which are very easy to define in any given society at any given time, but the far more elusive "good life". Whatever that is. Kudos in funeral orations or obituaries? Nobel Prizes? A life lived without once appearing before the magistrates on some sordid or serious charge? What feels worthy, or righteous, or proper, or grown-up, or spiritual, or, well, anything that lets us claim virtue-status over the mere hedonists?
The psychologists have come up with just such a description. Not for what you or I would call a good life if we lived it, but what liberal, middle-class, postgraduate-degree-holding, urban-living, people familiar with the pop-culture would think they should say if asked what makes people feel as if they are living a good life.
Invariably it looks something like this (taken with minor edits from an actual source):
1. Healthy living and functioning
Seriously. This is what they came up with. Word for word. My heart sinks every time I look at it. It's so darn... icky-sweet-nice. Like those articles about Ten Things Dying Patients Say - Number Seven Will Surprise You. I seriously doubt anyone ever said they regretted working too hard. Everyone I've ever seen working long hours has been doing so to avoid going back to the Divorce Flat, or a housemates-marriage. But I digress...
There are no qualifications, no conditions. It's mind-snappingly obvious (I will feel better if I'm not exposed to emotional turmoil and stress, and if I feel good in the here and now? Gee, who knew?), and also highly non-specific (what the hey is "healthy living and functioning" in a world where there is research to condemn or praise any darn diet or exercise regime under the sun?). Which is intentional. It is supposed to get us arguing about what it means, rather than whether it should be there at all.
It misses the point entirely. A good life does not consist of doing a whole bunch of things so that you can do a whole bunch of other things so you can do the whole bunch of things again. That's a treadmill, and Marty Augustine, the gangster in Chandler's The Long Goodbye, knew it: I gotta make a lot of money. I gotta make a lot of money, so I can juice the guys I gotta juice, so I can make a lot of money, so I can juice the guys I gotta juice.
When we do something so we can do something else later, that's called "work". And too often 'later' never comes. Everything is work, from the moment we wake up to the moment we go to sleep, and even sleep is about productivity and health, so that makes it work as well. The psychologist's 11-point good life is work: we are not advised to have friends because hanging with the bros is a neat way to waste the time, but because it gives us a feeling of connection that forestalls loneliness. We even need to "feel good in the here and now" because then we might not take drugs, get drunk, eat too much, or spend time in dark corners of the Internet. Everything we do is always about something else.
When everything we do is about something else we're going to do, or not going to do, or something that might happen, or that might not happen, that's not actual living. It's not even training. It's prep-work - but without ever getting to the actual decorating, let alone having a pleasant room to live in.
Which is a problem, because the things we enjoy doing are the things we do for the sake of the process, not the result. So if everything we do is about something else, we're not enjoying anything we do. Because it's something we are doing for some other reason other than doing it. (See Gilbert Ryle's The Concept of Mind, the chapter on Emotion, for details.)
I'd suggest that a good life is one in which a sizeable chunk of what we do is about itself. It prepares us for nothing, and prevents us from nothing. It is not something we do so we can do something else. It might be something we do so we can get something done: ironing, taking photographs, writing blog posts, hanging with the bros, watching a movie, putting the world to rights, fixing the roof, washing the car, reading a history book, lifting weights... as long as we are doing it because it is what we want to do, and we don't want to be doing anything else in that time, and it's not being done because then we can do something else, or then we will have a tick against some To-Do List.
(Edited - a lot - 15/3/2025)
The psychologists have come up with just such a description. Not for what you or I would call a good life if we lived it, but what liberal, middle-class, postgraduate-degree-holding, urban-living, people familiar with the pop-culture would think they should say if asked what makes people feel as if they are living a good life.
Invariably it looks something like this (taken with minor edits from an actual source):
1. Healthy living and functioning
2. Having hobbies and recreational pursuits we enjoy
3. Doing work that allows us to feel, from time to time, as if we are highly competent at the job
4. Relatedness - intimate, romantic, and familial relationships
5. Connection to wider social groups
6. Feeling good in the here and now
7. Inner peace - freedom from emotional turmoil and stress
8. Feeling well informed about things that are important to us
9. A sense of autonomy, power and self-directedness
10. Finding meaning and purpose in life
11. Creativity allowing self-expression
Seriously. This is what they came up with. Word for word. My heart sinks every time I look at it. It's so darn... icky-sweet-nice. Like those articles about Ten Things Dying Patients Say - Number Seven Will Surprise You. I seriously doubt anyone ever said they regretted working too hard. Everyone I've ever seen working long hours has been doing so to avoid going back to the Divorce Flat, or a housemates-marriage. But I digress...
There are no qualifications, no conditions. It's mind-snappingly obvious (I will feel better if I'm not exposed to emotional turmoil and stress, and if I feel good in the here and now? Gee, who knew?), and also highly non-specific (what the hey is "healthy living and functioning" in a world where there is research to condemn or praise any darn diet or exercise regime under the sun?). Which is intentional. It is supposed to get us arguing about what it means, rather than whether it should be there at all.
It misses the point entirely. A good life does not consist of doing a whole bunch of things so that you can do a whole bunch of other things so you can do the whole bunch of things again. That's a treadmill, and Marty Augustine, the gangster in Chandler's The Long Goodbye, knew it: I gotta make a lot of money. I gotta make a lot of money, so I can juice the guys I gotta juice, so I can make a lot of money, so I can juice the guys I gotta juice.
When we do something so we can do something else later, that's called "work". And too often 'later' never comes. Everything is work, from the moment we wake up to the moment we go to sleep, and even sleep is about productivity and health, so that makes it work as well. The psychologist's 11-point good life is work: we are not advised to have friends because hanging with the bros is a neat way to waste the time, but because it gives us a feeling of connection that forestalls loneliness. We even need to "feel good in the here and now" because then we might not take drugs, get drunk, eat too much, or spend time in dark corners of the Internet. Everything we do is always about something else.
When everything we do is about something else we're going to do, or not going to do, or something that might happen, or that might not happen, that's not actual living. It's not even training. It's prep-work - but without ever getting to the actual decorating, let alone having a pleasant room to live in.
Which is a problem, because the things we enjoy doing are the things we do for the sake of the process, not the result. So if everything we do is about something else, we're not enjoying anything we do. Because it's something we are doing for some other reason other than doing it. (See Gilbert Ryle's The Concept of Mind, the chapter on Emotion, for details.)
I'd suggest that a good life is one in which a sizeable chunk of what we do is about itself. It prepares us for nothing, and prevents us from nothing. It is not something we do so we can do something else. It might be something we do so we can get something done: ironing, taking photographs, writing blog posts, hanging with the bros, watching a movie, putting the world to rights, fixing the roof, washing the car, reading a history book, lifting weights... as long as we are doing it because it is what we want to do, and we don't want to be doing anything else in that time, and it's not being done because then we can do something else, or then we will have a tick against some To-Do List.
(Edited - a lot - 15/3/2025)
Tuesday, 21 January 2025
Who's The Customer?
Sounds like an obvious question with an obvious answer.
The customer is whoever buys it and uses it.
That works in Tesco.
No, wait. You got that shopping list from your partner. You're the errand boy, and you're paying, but it's your partner who will be using that stuff and expressing disappointment if you forgot the radishes and got the wrong brand of pasta. (You didn't know there was a wrong brand of pasta?) You are Tesco's customer, and your partner is your customer.
How about the NHS? You don't pay for NHS treatment, so you can't be the customer. Patients are just raw material for the process. Who pays? The Government does. Whose complaints get attention? Um. The staff, especially the consultants and surgeons. Maybe the managers listen to the politicians, but mostly not. The NHS does not have a customer. Which is why it is a self-contained, unaccountable, uncontrollable organisation. They are all going to get paid no matter how long the queues.
By contrast, Harley Street has customers. They're called "clients" because Harley Street is posh.
Who are the customers for universities? Foreign students actually pay with their (parents') own money. UK students "borrow" money from the Government to pay, but the debt is not distrainable and does not count against the credit score. UK students also borrow money from the bank, and get some from their parents. Sounds to me like they are just the means by which that money gets to the Bursar. Like NHS patients, undergraduates are raw material for the process. The Government is paying for the universities to provide an illusion of employability and education. The parents are paying in the hope that it's not all an illusion. The one group we have overlooked are the academics: they are expected to bring in research grants. Those are handed out by the Government. So that makes the State the customer, and it dictates what gets researched. (Yes, all that junk soft science is actually commissioned by people who know it is junk. You wouldn't want the money spent on real research would you?)
Who are the customers for airports? Not passengers. Airlines.
Who are the customers for airlines? Some of the customers are the actual passengers. But then Ryanair gets a chunk of money from provinces for flying into their regional airport. So that's Government again.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out who is the customer for Social Services? And who is just raw material for the process.
It's a wonderfully clarifying question.
The customer is whoever buys it and uses it.
That works in Tesco.
No, wait. You got that shopping list from your partner. You're the errand boy, and you're paying, but it's your partner who will be using that stuff and expressing disappointment if you forgot the radishes and got the wrong brand of pasta. (You didn't know there was a wrong brand of pasta?) You are Tesco's customer, and your partner is your customer.
How about the NHS? You don't pay for NHS treatment, so you can't be the customer. Patients are just raw material for the process. Who pays? The Government does. Whose complaints get attention? Um. The staff, especially the consultants and surgeons. Maybe the managers listen to the politicians, but mostly not. The NHS does not have a customer. Which is why it is a self-contained, unaccountable, uncontrollable organisation. They are all going to get paid no matter how long the queues.
By contrast, Harley Street has customers. They're called "clients" because Harley Street is posh.
Who are the customers for universities? Foreign students actually pay with their (parents') own money. UK students "borrow" money from the Government to pay, but the debt is not distrainable and does not count against the credit score. UK students also borrow money from the bank, and get some from their parents. Sounds to me like they are just the means by which that money gets to the Bursar. Like NHS patients, undergraduates are raw material for the process. The Government is paying for the universities to provide an illusion of employability and education. The parents are paying in the hope that it's not all an illusion. The one group we have overlooked are the academics: they are expected to bring in research grants. Those are handed out by the Government. So that makes the State the customer, and it dictates what gets researched. (Yes, all that junk soft science is actually commissioned by people who know it is junk. You wouldn't want the money spent on real research would you?)
Who are the customers for airports? Not passengers. Airlines.
Who are the customers for airlines? Some of the customers are the actual passengers. But then Ryanair gets a chunk of money from provinces for flying into their regional airport. So that's Government again.
I leave it as an exercise for the reader to work out who is the customer for Social Services? And who is just raw material for the process.
It's a wonderfully clarifying question.
Friday, 17 January 2025
The Sophons Arrived in 1995
In Cixin Liu's The Three-Body Problem trilogy, sophons are neutron-sized supercomputers with a propulsion system that can whizz around the solar system in no time and mess up any experiments we do that might advance our understanding of fundamental physics.
(Yes, I know, but it makes for an interesting read.)
That has to be the best explanation of why, all of a sudden in the mid-1990's, everything stopped developing: physics, music, politics, fashion, art, literature, mathematics, movies, name it. There have been engineering advances in computing, but no fundamental breakthroughs, and look at what that got us. TikTok, dating apps, Facebook, the Lockdowns, working from home, mass-scale social flaking, and Netflix. Yep, real progress.
I think the Sophons are distracting us with that stuff.
The essence of Sophon intervention is that it should look as if it's a neat idea and will make our lives better, easier or more fun; absorbs a huge amount of effort and smart people in its implementation; but after a while turns out not to be such a good idea after all.
I hereby suggest that the adjective 'Sophonic' be used to describe anything that meets these criteria, and those who devise and push be described as 'Sophons'.
Not all distractions are Sophonic, we do quite enough on our own to distract ourselves. Celebrity and royal gossip is just plain ordinary stuff, as is corporate PR. Political BS has always been with us. Bogus research in psychology, social "sciences", behavioural "sciences", not to mention anything prefaced by "Evolutionary", are just plain old-fashioned academic BS.
The Green agenda and Climate Change were taken over and exploited by the Sophons. I demur from suggesting what research in maths is Sophonic, but String Theory and Supersymmetry are both clearly Sophonic. Facebook, Instgram, Pinterest, TikTok, You Tube, and the rest... all Sophonic media.
(Yes, I know, but it makes for an interesting read.)
That has to be the best explanation of why, all of a sudden in the mid-1990's, everything stopped developing: physics, music, politics, fashion, art, literature, mathematics, movies, name it. There have been engineering advances in computing, but no fundamental breakthroughs, and look at what that got us. TikTok, dating apps, Facebook, the Lockdowns, working from home, mass-scale social flaking, and Netflix. Yep, real progress.
I think the Sophons are distracting us with that stuff.
The essence of Sophon intervention is that it should look as if it's a neat idea and will make our lives better, easier or more fun; absorbs a huge amount of effort and smart people in its implementation; but after a while turns out not to be such a good idea after all.
I hereby suggest that the adjective 'Sophonic' be used to describe anything that meets these criteria, and those who devise and push be described as 'Sophons'.
Not all distractions are Sophonic, we do quite enough on our own to distract ourselves. Celebrity and royal gossip is just plain ordinary stuff, as is corporate PR. Political BS has always been with us. Bogus research in psychology, social "sciences", behavioural "sciences", not to mention anything prefaced by "Evolutionary", are just plain old-fashioned academic BS.
The Green agenda and Climate Change were taken over and exploited by the Sophons. I demur from suggesting what research in maths is Sophonic, but String Theory and Supersymmetry are both clearly Sophonic. Facebook, Instgram, Pinterest, TikTok, You Tube, and the rest... all Sophonic media.
Tuesday, 14 January 2025
Go Paula, Go Paula
I spent quite a bit of one trip in and out of town recently with a silly grin on my face because this track is a DOOZY!
Friday, 10 January 2025
Death's End - The Dark Forest Attack on the Solar System
Towards the end of Cixin Liu's Death's End, someone in a planet far, far, away sees that the Trisolarian system was destroyed, and works out that our Solar system probably did it. This person is about as low in the organisation as anyone can get without actually being a cleaner. He goes to his boss to ask for the relevant weapon, and having been authorised, flips it carelessly in the direction of our Sun. It's a small two-dimensional thing, and is observed with curiosity as it makes its way towards us. Then it is activated, and... squish squash squwash... the space around it loses the third dimension. Everything is crushed down to two dimensions and destroyed in the process. The effect expands outwards at light speed, and nothing can stop it. We now understand the episode where our heroes encountered a four-dimensional world that seemed to be shrinking to three-dimensions. Our solar system, and in fact ultimately the whole universe, is going to be rendered two-dimensional. Which, as one of the characters says, is only not a problem for the aggressor, if they are actually two-dimensional in the first place.
This kept coming back to me. Such Dark Forest attacks, we have earlier had suggested, would only happen when the cost and risks of doing so were minimal and did not give away the attackers location away. Which is exactly what happens. The casual destruction by a lowly employee. The fact that destroying a solar system and then a galaxy is not something anyone needs to debate or get clearance for. The sheer off-handedness of it all.
Before you worry, the physics of the device - along with most of the physics in the series - is utter nonsense, but we go along with it because the story it enables is so interesting.
After a week of this sticking in my mind (I really am not that preceptive) I got what Cixin was up to. It's an analogy with the legal bureaucracy. Where public employees can reach out and destroy careers, marriages, and lives with a charge here, an investigation there, a court case, and the sentence, tossed as it were at the offender with a flip of the wrist. They only penalise what comes to their attention, investigate as little as possible, spend as little effort as possible running the process, and hand out the penalty with no thought for its effects or consequences.
I suspect it may be possible to read a lot of the book like that. In fact, there's a passage in it where he tells us that's what he's doing. But I'll leave that for you. And I could be reading far too much into it.
This kept coming back to me. Such Dark Forest attacks, we have earlier had suggested, would only happen when the cost and risks of doing so were minimal and did not give away the attackers location away. Which is exactly what happens. The casual destruction by a lowly employee. The fact that destroying a solar system and then a galaxy is not something anyone needs to debate or get clearance for. The sheer off-handedness of it all.
Before you worry, the physics of the device - along with most of the physics in the series - is utter nonsense, but we go along with it because the story it enables is so interesting.
After a week of this sticking in my mind (I really am not that preceptive) I got what Cixin was up to. It's an analogy with the legal bureaucracy. Where public employees can reach out and destroy careers, marriages, and lives with a charge here, an investigation there, a court case, and the sentence, tossed as it were at the offender with a flip of the wrist. They only penalise what comes to their attention, investigate as little as possible, spend as little effort as possible running the process, and hand out the penalty with no thought for its effects or consequences.
I suspect it may be possible to read a lot of the book like that. In fact, there's a passage in it where he tells us that's what he's doing. But I'll leave that for you. And I could be reading far too much into it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)