Costco and similar do have them at a decent price, currently see them 20$ for 10. I think most people just look at the 2 packs, which are more expensive.
I play with generally lighter strings. 8.5-40 mighty slinky fender scale. I noticed when I switched my fingers pay much more attention to pressure, and being in tune with microbends.
Been thinking of going a bit lighter recently, and also getting a classical.
I have been building music theory/midi related vst plugins in JUCE.
It's mostly targeted at me, or others that make music, but are not piano players.
There isn't much to show currently, but I have a rhythm generator, and have been
working on a chord builder. The main thing that has taken time has been trying
to decide which things to add to a user interface to make it worth actually building.
I think in the western world, Art, and music are both long term projects. So much so that
we seem to have "reinvented" music at least twice. Once after the Greeks into classical western music, then again when jazz went into tonal harmony.
This is a really important point that I think a lot
of people who aren't vegan don't get. There might
be an understanding that food is culture (lets order chinese,
or italian), but realizing that's not a culture you
experience but a culture you live.
The first thing many new vegans ask is "what do I eat
now?" The replacement food comes first, and beyond
hits the mark a lot more than seitan does because
we don't culturally eat seitan.
And even more so, I think beyond has made it so an
entire generation realized they could go vegan.
A black bean burger just never hit the same way.
I think Lisp is more on the liberal arts side of programming languages.
That the "enlightenment" of Lisp is that you can use functions everywhere. Write macros that look like functions and modify behavior, and build your code as a language.
Things like monads are more on the evolution of functional languages, and I also fall off the bike. It's as difficult as you want it to be, and I find scheme and lisp to be easier high level languages than javascript or python and makes more sense.
The Dan Friedman books are pretty good in general: "The Little Schemer,"
and the sequel "The Seasoned Schemer" which are both more "recursion" books. He also has another book "Scheme and the Art of Programming." Which I think is a great comp sci book that's not too difficult and doesn't seem too well known.
How to Design Programs is supposed to be a pretty good comp sci intro:
A few weeks ago I was looking into `XReparentWindow` because certain things use it
(DAW Plugins). I don't think Wayland can do something similar (but I guess XWayland works), GTK and Qt both seem to have their own version.
Looking more into plugin libraries, a lot of it is based specifically on X,
I don't think that's going to be rewritten anytime soon.
I've felt for a while stuck between X and Wayland. Same with Pipewire and Jack/Pulse.
One of my goals for this years was to get a jazz teacher, specifically for guitar.
A layoff killed that goal for the foreseeable future.
Theory has helped me practice like I think you're supposed to. More structured,
more analysis. It also tickles the same part of the brain the certain comp sci topics do.
I think it came from wanting to learn how to improv, and then wanting to make my own songs. So I make a few tracks a week, of different genres, depending on what I'm interested in at the time. I've seen improvement, and I take notes about what I learned/what works.
A midi sequencer, which does or is supposed to do what you expect.
In the process of adding stuff like euclydian sequences, and trying to figure out
how to generate melodies. Been considering using something like a simple markov probability from a bunch of jazz standards, but also starting to read more music theory
behind it.
It's a programming project but it's directly related to me trying to figure out music. So not a random sequence of notes in scale or not. The idea is more to generate backing tracks or song starters.
Yes this is pretty much it and it's obvious to me.
There's a big corollary to FOSS and gpl, but a lot of people seem to miss it.
This future isn't for our culture, it's for business. And since our culture
requires making money to make things adjacent to art, less culture will be made.
A lot of generated music is good enough to wind up in playlists. Lots of live bands
already fake it, and lots of music venues have already replaced live music. That doesn't mean music will die, it just means it's harder to discover new music and go see a show.
I think there's some European countries that have some kind of basic income/stipend for artists. If this is the direction of the future we need to ensure something like this exists.
I really hate that companies are allowed to use "natural flavors" and I refuse to buy any products that say that unless they are able to specifically tell me what's not in it.
Lots of people don't realize that "natural" can mean pretty much anything that's not produced in a lab.
There is a trend though where some companies include in the nutrition facts the sources of their ingredients. That's how it should be.
In the US you can write "modified food starch" and that can mean a million different things. In Europe they have specific numbers for different types of "modified food starch."
Funny enough I was just looking at the Erica Synths github the other day. There's been a few synth and audio posts on HN the past few months. Pretty cool to see it.
> This is why learning guitar when I was younger was so difficult to me
I agree. The downvoted op is right in a way. Guitarists have a way to make things difficult. Just learn to play the 1 octave major scale/arpeggio, and triads, then 7th shells. The guitar is relative, a 1 octave scale on a guitar is the same, on keyboard it's positional.
However it's worth mentioning that I think Berklee does teach patterns, and a few jazz guitarists say to learn it too. It almost seems like learning guitar is not as worked out as other instruments. Everybody that gets good winds up having to learn all the things other guitarists have had to figure out over years after they rote learned it.
A symbol being arbitrary doesn't influence the reality of the meaning behind a thing. I've always thought about `zero` while counting, it never was about `0`.
I observe zero.
I don't think zero is an absence of quantity. I don't think zero is the null set.
You can write types in a programming language, but there are other type theory books that do include zero in the natural numbers. And type theory comes from number/set theory. So it's ok if you decide to exclude it, but this is just as arbitrary.
In fact I'd be happy to write `>=0` or `>0` or `=0` any day instead of mangling the idea of zero representing 0 and zero representing something like `None`, `null` or any other tag of that sort. I don't think the natural world has anything like "nothing" it just has logical fallacies.
I never realized it was controversial. I think I've always included 0 in the nat numbers since learning to count.
But there are some programming books I've read, I want to say the Little Typer, or similar, that say "natural number" or "zero". Which makes actually confuses me.
I've moved to running Bitwig in an Ubuntu distrobox container. Hope you're enjoying 6, it seems they fixed a lot with the piano roll.
I had to set mouse warping off in my tiling manager for yabridge/wine plugins.