I don't see why figure skating men don't wear dresses. They look cool when you twirl. One would think that would be a (possible) artistic aspect of the performance. It would definitely get noticed as well.
Yes, the problem is (i am someone who was put on a VLCD of 800 calories a day- and didn't lose that much weight from it) that your body has a set metabolism that keeps slowing down as you lower calories over the years. I had no problem going on the vlcd besides fatigue. The reason is I was already only consuming 1200 calories a day. These diets don't work over the long haul. I realize my case isn't the most common, but they are now looking into microbiome therapy as a possible solution. This resetting of metabolism plagued the biggest losers from "the biggest loser" as well. I do hope more research is done, because in my case, following diets (and perhaps other medical factors like igg)slowed my metabolism to a ridiculous level. And I don't have diabetes or high blood pressure, luckily.
It would be interesting if the cure for/long delay of cancers was in an early and vigorous exercising of our immune system with respect to viruses---if the solution was a kind of continual vaccine for colds and viruses that needed to be updated regularly. Like an immune system gym/daily workout. I wonder if there is any research being done on that end of things.
Apart from the wishing boomers to hurry up and die-- I don't want that-- (I'd rather we all learn from each other, but I hear you) I agree with your frustration here. But it isn't Boomers who are at fault, not really. They straddle eras in an uncomfortable way for vision. It is more the current structure of macro-economics. It just isn't set up for collaboration or organic evolution of the best ideas- it doesn't allow the diversity of input the best ideas require for design and implementation. We need to change the structure with distributed systems; we need to create empowering structures. We need to find ways to build in balance and incentive that are accessible to everyone, otherwise we are left with nihilism as a strategy. And that isn't the philosophy anyone enjoys going forward with.
Yes,perhaps it depends a lot who and where and the year it started to turn. Around 8 years ago, NYC was more open. The free and easy "hey, apply in whatever language you know, we will pay you while you learn ours", etc...this whole notion of "language agnostic" that applies to truly accomplished coders but not juniors. Not really open, just a lot more than it is now. 10 years ago, it was easy to get a junior dev job with basic coding skills. I graduated "several" years before you, friend, so I'll keep that actual number vague ;) I just think it is important that we notice what's happening and notice that they/we can't afford to work for free/very little for may years-- eventually, one can't afford to front anymore, and the bills are coming due, at least here in NYC. We are seeing it in salary demands, lowered enrollment in dev programs, new additions to the severely impoverished (PHD grads who live in their car and take interviews from there). It is important to be truthful about the economy and the state of tech within it and supportive of those who are going through this, and to understand what they are now up against. Because of course mainstream media and similar would have us believe that there really is a giant "skills gap"in tech. I don't think anyone can claim that so vaguely any longer. When "they" suffer, it just means "we" will suffer soon enough.
Molly, you are so right. And this is why internships are a bunch of hooey too. ("hooey" only in the supposedly merit-based on-ramp sense- of course they're valuable for teaching and learning and building a great team) The entire process toward getting tech job is ageist if all we have to offer "junior devs" is the internship role. (all the ads say that interns must be recent graduates or currently enrolled in an undergrad CS program) Nevermind if that's even legal. We know legality doesn't come into it until a whole movement and hashtag gets going. The ageism is sickening. It does seem that those who are the most ageist may suffer the consequences of their culture later. For example, it's interesting that Facebook is now officially the "old(er) person's social media" according to The Guardian and many other sources this week. Do note that "old" had to be changed in rewrite to "old(er)" in the paper, so as not to appear as fully insulting and ageist as the statement to address the data actually is.
They have fewer great candidates (if that is even true) because the hip candidates are looking for the ladder somewhere else-- they can now see they will never get hired based on skill alone, however well developed for a beginner.(and if they had golden personal connections to add to it, they were in the first wave and/or would not be desperate for work) They all have ambitious, skilled, motivated friends who recently spent money on these bootcamps and who didn't get work that was any better than the work they took the course to get out of in the first place. Many can't find work at all. This is getting out there now, from student to student. There is now enough of a din to finally hear above the denials. But I agree, the bootcamps need to demand more of themselves so they don't end up all being hucksters to the few people who are so far away from tech in their lives, they have not yet heard that the ladder has been pulled up long ago. I hope they can learn how to innovate on a grand scale.
Are these just basic junior devs, or are they specialists in another field with multiple advanced degrees from top tier schools ($$$) and professional experience in that other field? (law, medicine, the arts) and (Yale, Princeton, Juilliard) If so, I'd say they are well worth $120,000, probably have a giant body of work in another field, and are motivated to make back their investment in a mountain of education that has led them over and over again to unemployment or low wage work. If not, my guess is that the math of buying so much schooling over so many years (even mid-tier) and then having to buy tuition at a coding school because the competition is so tight they have no time to waste teaching themselves just doesn't work out, especially when they have to pay $2000 a month in rent plus a 5 month security deposit in NYC, just to attend the "free", "scholarship-supported",or "tuition deferred" bootcamp, that is, if they are new to the city. If they are already New Yorkers, they are probably about to be evicted due to non-payment of same. No one is really talking openly about this with respect to this group of people; the affected must hide their ivy league scholarship homelessness at all costs if they want to ever get a job. It leads to a whole new breed of homeless: living as a homeless person/person-on-the-brink-of-homelessness, well educated, loans to pay, healthcare to pay because they aren't young anymore and really have to get root canals and cancer screenings, middle class props, lunches, and clothes to pay for so they can "pass" as middle class at interviews. It is not sustainable. This wave of unemployed people is exceptionally educated and professionally seasoned (in other fields) in a way that most in previous waves of new job seekers didn't have to be. And on top of all of this, they aren't good at the business of being poor-- they don't know how to get support because they were raised to behave like the middle class. Their families don't understand why they can't get jobs. I remember how little a junior dev had to know just 8 years ago in order to get work. The bootcamps aren't being honest about the lack of interest in bootcamp grads. The online programs aren't getting completed by students. Just a year ago on HN, very few would even recognize the lack of interest in junior devs. Now, we can't ignore it anymore. The tech ecosystem is unhealthy and dishonest with itself about its addictions to certain cultures and practices. It needs to take responsibility for educating newcomers (of all ages and backgrounds) because it is responsible for the fact that these highly skilled people are now useless in this increasingly tech-based society. Mentoring should be a natural part of prepping the soil. It should not matter if devs stay at the company that mentored them. The only reason this is a problem right now is because tech behaves like warring nations not like collaborating artists.
Not sure what the better argument is- just saying that first- but "specialist" mentioned "higher moral authorities" than the bill of rights. Since the US uses these higher authorities to sell patriotism, I get why someone might think it's a good idea to fold cryptography in with that. Yet I can't imagine how that would be done. In any case, it is important how this battle is won - its justification will shape our future battles. If someone can be called anti-American or "not a patriot" if they bring up legit critique (Chomsky) or if they are an atheist or a Muslim---then it's a sign that observing basic human rights is exactly NOT what a government (the US especially) wants to do, no matter HOW they "sell" authoritarianism to the public. So far, in order to be elected president here, it seems one needs to at least pretend to be Christian. We need to move to arguments that are implicit in our engagement with new ideas. It seems that the basic right to cryptography must be philosophically designed into systems as a feature of their existance, unapologetically. For example:blockchain. Let the idea of cryptography be nationless-- a feauture of globalization. In that way, you tie it to something those in power hold dear and it becomes difficult for them to hold one view without admitting the other. That said, we have been experiencing a troubling complete breakdownn of all reason and consistency in these philosophies and govt. policies. example: the increase in arrests of black people in posession of small amounts of marijuana especially in cities where posession has been decriminalized. (The Intercept, yesterday)
As to your #8: Murakami and Nabokov do/did well with their wives as "most important reader/editor" And before Michael Pietsch came on the scene (and after!) David Foster Wallace gave his drafts to his sister and Mom, which seemed to work well for him.
Good point. Classical training aims to make the player as invisible as possible-- jazz training (one hopes, anyway)aims to train a player to value and enhance their personal idiosyncracies. It is difficult for a classically trained player to value all sound as texture and color and to feel free to play with less than "perfectly efficient" technique. A jazz player is making something of their own- while a classical player aims to channel the composer more-- and then make their own bold statement on whatever they are playing. It is unfortunate that classical evolved that way- to value a kind of technical arms race-- and then jazz education began to follow that too-- and as someone who switched, I can say that it was a difficult transition- my brain certainly felt like it had to change first before I could physically do the playing on call.
It's "elevatorized" Stevie don't you think? I blame Seinfeld for making everyone so cracked out on the slap bass back then. I feel like people would re-record tunes just to throw slap bass in there. It felt like popular music had rubber bands in it all the time. Oh, and wall to wall alto sax solos (thanks 80s and George Michael!) Also: note the period-accurate very smooth jazz aiming for a glam jazz feel. This was everywhere back then too. But the cool thing was NYC was much more of a jazz city throughout- I'll never forget one of the first times I took the subway- a guitarist was playing and singing "Ribbon In The Sky" - he was incredible, and I thought... I guess I'm in the right place.
I hear what you are saying. But isn't it interesting... If I play a solo over "Ask Me Now", the Monk estate doesn't own it, but I don't think I "own" it either. But if I did it on a recording made by Monk, with his group, I think then he owns it, depending on the recording contract I sign (which is usually like a gig - I get paid for the recording once, like a gig, but I don't own it) But if I play in his band one night at a club and he hears my solo and digs some section of it and makes a tune out of that, note for note-- I can make no claim against him, because it was an improvised solo. But what I'm wondering, and it is really strange, is it different in John Cage's work because he's claiming to own the idea of framing what sounds randomly occur in that space in his composition as music? (I mean, if he made a recording of the concert)If this is true, then there's an interesting article to be written about you-know-what as it relates to classical and jazz and what each represents and the kinds of entitlements offered by our culture as a result of these pervasive race issues. Thank you! I'd never thought of this idea before as it relates to John Cage and jazz improv and ownership. It is certainly something to think about. Cheers!
no, it isn't, because that piece is unconscious- it is meant to be what happens without any intention. A crank up to noise is a definite intention of the performer. In 4'33", the performer does nothing but open the score and the keyboard, mark movements, and bow at the end.
no, it would not be silence. I don't mean to be all snooty here-- but since we are talking about it-- it would be whatever sounds occur during that time. He was inspired by those Rauschenberg paintings ( that appear to be blank canvasses, and are but are functioning as shadow catchers- real-time spontaneous art framers, if you will)- same with 4'33". It's about whatever happens in that space in that particular moment. It is a kind of unconscious spontaneous group improv, sort of. Interestingly, improvised solos over tunes aren't copyrightable- bandleaders ripped them off players all the time.
I'm pretty sure John Cage's works are under copyright, which is interesting since he made such a big show of erasing himself from the work and embracing the random. It never occured to me how obtuse that was. I'm thinking particularly of 4'33". So, I guess the 'him' part of that composition is the fact that someone sits at a piano in particular, rather than say... bagpipes or even pipe organ. I wonder if it would be considered satire or a derrivative work on ukelele choir...I wish he was alive to ask him his thoughts on this.
This is an excellent point. I've been looking into blockchain as used in supply chain integrity. Here is a company currently doing it: https://www.provenance.org/whitepaper I have been wondering about how this will circumvent the diminishing scope of regulations in the US food and textile industries, and how this will present much better provenance data for the principled consumer and how this might disrupt current interests of US corporations. This would be great for the consumer, but bad for the corporations' bottom line. I can see it somehow being legally derailed via what you just outlined since it could direct consumers to better options hurting the profits of corporations who paid hefty lobbying sums. I hope this won't be the case, because I like the use of blockchain to help with supply chain integrity. It is a path toward sustainability in an increasingly hostile-to-sustainability market.
there is a lot that isn't about "the earnest citizen" in the US. Yes, we taxpayers aren't pleased about it. Canada is lovely-- you will get good healthcare there even if you lose your job. A lot of us Americans wish the US could learn from Canada. Menwhile, be thrilled you are there!
Ok! I put the clip out to my many professional musician friends, and we discussed it. Everyone agrees that it's probably a clip from a Dvorak imitating composer or a wedding gig book. None of us has played it. Everyone was stumped. We all thought it sounded like a cross between the Glazunov you mentioned and Dvorak. Since your cellist plays a ton of weddings and parties (from his website) I'm going to guess it is from a gig book. If it were an actual Dvorak or Glazunov, he'd remember it, or at least one of my string playing friend would recognize it. Shoot- I really thought we were going to solve this for you. Oh well- I guess you should dig into some Dvorak. I can recommend Goldmark- he wrote some beautiful quartets and work in film scoring in Hollywood for a long time. I think you'd love his string pieces. Cheerio!
Glazunov is an excellent guess! I remember playing a student quartet by him when I was a student, and it totally had that modal parallel melodic/harmonic movement in 4ths and 5ths. It is so Dvorak though, minus his noodly viola jamz under the melody. Hint of Ravel, but not French enough- maybe Chopin too. Will be thinking on it this week. I'd like to hear the whole piece too now!Update: I just watched the first few seconds of your clip- and that is the exact piece I played as a student that reminded me of it as I mentioned above. Listening now.
I'm now thinking early Shostakovitch-ish. Very "inside" for him though. Why do you want to know? You could probably transcribe the passage... but if you like it, you know who else you'd like too now. ?
wait... you contacted the cellist???? wow, ok. I'm impressed with your research! Who was the cellist? That might help me. If it was something he had with him, it was more likely for a gig or a student. I did a quick check of all Dvorak Quartets- but didn't hit upon the passage. I chose Dvorak because of the pre-copland what would become the American vibe. Don't you think? The reason I don't think it's by Ry Cooder is because not in his composing purview- also not by a film composer there probably because would not want to be caught bringing in something from another gig, no? I'm sticking w Dvorak for the moment- I must have just missed the passage- major key at least...
It sounds like a Dvorak or Martinu trio or quartet. I'll look into it today. Brings up a pet peve for musicians-- why aren't musicians often credited in other media that uses their work? Sheesh!
Actually, the probation period I mentioned that all major professional orchestras require of audition winners regardless of their accumulated fame or lack thereof, deals very thoroughly in the mysician's ability to collaborate. They are paid the standard salary and benefits for this period, just like every other player. Obviously, they can't rehearse or perform from within a Faraday cage, so this period is not "blind".It is the "at will" part of the orchestral contract- but a committee decides if they have collaborated well- a committee made up of the conductor, their section leader, section members and players of other instruments and administration. They get canned if they aren't consumate collaborative professionals. Like I said, they do get canned... it just happens very rarely. This period can last for six months to a year depending on the position and the orchestra. So it isn't part of the blind part, but unlike in engineering, if they pass this period, they have a solid contract. It then necomes much more difficult to fire them,although it still happens when there is good reason. As for the software interview-- man is that just kind of squishy and often poorly structured (not to the job- more like a hazing situation). And not blind, not usually inclusive, and downright structurally discriminatory in many cases. Why not structure these with the job in mind, toss the whiteboard in favor of their actual laptop and IDE (musicians audition on their own instruments, not on soundless replicas, and not with just any example of music from the entire repitoire- an set of excerpts and sightreading that directly apply to the job they will do)-keep it blind and pay them the usual salary for a probation period during which everyone on the team makes the effort to build a great collaborative relationship. Why not? Having been a pro orchestral musician and now software craftsperson, I can tell you these two gigs have a lot in common. The diversity people in music finally revolted back in the late 60s and got some positive change, just as diversity people are finally aiming to do battle with tech's ironically inflexible hiring culture and its general culture right now. It would be most helpful if more people got hip to diversity and inclusion being a more productive, stronger, and fulfilling way to go. Bit it needs to be met with eager interest rather than skepticism and pushback on experimental efforts to help it flourish.
Well, there's this data: http://som.yale.edu/news/2017/04/in-new-york-times-prof-jaso...
but it doesn't seem to be reaching the right ears. The thing is that a staggering lack of every kind of diversity persists within the tech sector. It is a much bigger problem than the occasional "wrong hire". There will always be some error... some bad hire that slips through any process as we perfect our hiring systems. The data from this study and the positive and highly effective blind orchstral auditions clearly show that we can still improve our strategies in finding the most skilled professional for the job. Perhaps we also need to work on expanding our notions of culture on the job and working toward becoming better engineers who can work with all types of people who want to produce great work. Perhaps you aren't aware of the closeness with wich orchestral musicians must work with stand partners, section members and the whole team and just how detrimental it can be for one person to have a problem so small as "plays great but moves around too much when playing" or "plays great but is an arrogant jerk during rehearsal creating bad morale"... and the thing is, we know there is probation review. It is an integral part of the hiring process. It isn't considered an error. We accept it as a phase. So why must software teams at companies with lots more wealth than a symphony orchestra expect to get it exactly right with a few wonky culture fit interviews and a relatively small whiteboarding section with the occasional take home project? They can and should find the funds to get serious about diversity in their industry. And frankly, with at-will contracts being the norm, every candidate is always "on probation".
Perhaps a blind audition would to for tech what it did for music: there aren't any "junior" orchestral musicians. If a musician makes it through to win the job (no matter their age or time spent as a professional) they don't need any mentoring. Winning a blind audition against 200 highly qualified players who are desperate for paid work and who went to Juilliard too (or the comparable) affords the winner instant respect on the job. It's only the "Michael Phelps" who make it through in orchestral music and everyone knows this. No intelligent musician already employed by that orchestra would ever think they could count on winning another audition in that orchestra or any other. With every passing year, employed players fear having to win their gig again against those who have spent months doing 7 hours of orchestral rep practice and nothing but. It is similar to whiteboarding but allows for no errors in a winning candidate. It is just too competitive. I suspect those who fear a blind audition in tech fear that their main/only real qualification is culture fit. Perhaps they fear they would not win in a skill-based audition. Every player does need to adjust to a new band though. It doesn't take long for a musician at that level. This isn't remotely the same as mentoring. Musicians don't get paid when they need mentoring like swes do. That happens in the practice room and at school and in apprentice programs which the musician pays for.