tumult

There are issues for ones that don't use iLok or any bad DRM system at all. Kilohearts plugins, for example. 14.4 is bad, Apple makes it harder and harder to not have your computer updated (including forcing major OS upgrades on users back in January and bypassing password authentication to do it, linked to multiple times here) and their software quality is not so good these days.

I also agree with this.

Even if the US and other car-centric countries started a serious effort on that today, it would take decades. During which people continue to use gasoline cars, and emitting more CO2 we will need to undo in the future. Electric cars make sense right now regardless of your perspective on trains (I like trains, and dislike cars, and I am sympathetic)

Yeah, it happens on two of the 970 EVO Plus models. One on the older revision, and one on the newer. (I think there are only two?) It happens on both Linux and Windows. Uhh, I'm not sure about the kernel versions. I don't remember what I had booted at the time. On Windows I've seen it happen as far back as 1607 and as recently as 21H2. I've also seen it happen on someone else's computer (laptop.)

It's really easy to reproduce (at least for me?) and I'm pretty sure anyone can do it if they try to on purpose.

Yep.

I can get it to happen easily. 970 Evo Plus. Write a text file and kill the power within 20 seconds or so, assuming not much other write activity. File will be zeroes or garbage, or not present on the filesystem, after reboot.

My experience lately is that consumer drives will also lie and use a cache, but then drop your data on the floor if the power is lost or there’s a kernel panic / BSOD. (Samsung and others.)

I don't know any non-programmers who can successfully use it to make anything that isn't a glitchy mess. It's not really a low code environment. It's a "code but it's in squares with lines connecting them" environment. You're still writing code, but unlike some systems which can successfully use this model to try to make some parts easier, it's made much harder because of how much hidden, weird, and counterproductive stuff Max does. I had a much easier time teaching people to use ChucK or just C. Of the people I've showed Max and something else, everyone preferred whatever the other thing was.

Your thing sounds cool, though.

What? I never disagreed with you, except for your opening statement of "Max and Max for Live are great," which you provide no further reasoning for in your comment. And I agree with most of the rest of your comment.

Which post? Is the original articles yours? It doesn't mention anything I complained about. I don't see anything about the crashes, the bad performance, the bugs, the incomplete documentation, the design problems with the significant whitespace and unnamed values stored on output ports. I'm confused by what you've said.

Edit: I think you just meant your comment. I don't really see those things mentioned there, either.

Is it great? I've never liked it. It has downsides of assembly programming, like unnamed (but persistent) values stored in temporary "register" slot output pins, some additional own-goal downsides like "significant whitespace" of the positioning of wires and port output ordering, and all of the downsides of an oldschool scripting language like TCL, with terrible performance characteristics, buggy implementation, an editor that crashes pretty regularly in normal use, and incomplete documentation.

In the long history of Max, I can only think of a couple of things I've liked that were made with it, and they were both for Max for Live. I think the fact that they were made with Max was just incidental — it's the easiest way to add MIDI effects to Live.

(For anyone who answers with "but you can just write JavaScript now to do everything in it" — running MIDI events through its JS nodes defers the events to the non-timing-critical thread, ruining the timing of the MIDI events.)

I don't know about that. They've grown more and more pushy over time, including upgrade badges you can't get rid of normally, notifications to upgrade at random times, requiring clicks on underlined small blue text to install security updates instead of upgrading to the newest major release, and more.

From what you've said, Microsoft also has no reason to force or trick users into upgrading. Yet, they clearly do trick and force users into upgrading.

This also happened to people on Monterey. Knowing how it skips password authorization, and also treats an 'X' click on the notification as "accept" (basically, there is no way to deny it, since the only other option in the dialog is to accept it) I would be surprised if it's a bug.

This happened to me and I definitely had not authorized anything recently. I also looked at the logs on my machine and saw similar stuff. Even if I had, it still shouldn't have tried to upgrade me, because installing security point release updates requires a password authorization prompt every time. (It won't even accept Touch ID for it!) I ranted about it on Mastodon. Infuriating.

There are a bunch of ways to do it. If you have a standard version of Windows like Home or Pro, there are scripts and config files on GitHub repos, with directions.

Considering it's somehow skipping the password authorization prompt for this... "special" upgrade in particular, even though it requires password authorization to update Safari or the normal security releases (including today's macOS 12.7.3 security and Safari updates) it seems less likely to me that this is a bug. My guess is it's meant to make a bunch of users get on the newest version, even though they didn't want to, and make them second-guess themselves about whether they made a mistake and brought it upon themselves.

It happened to me.

I am in the same situation as you, including disabling Wifi when putting the machine to sleep. I only noticed the automatic upgrade was happening when I woke the machine up and it suddenly started slurping down lots of bandwidth, and I could see it in my network activity indicator blinker. I was able to stop it before the download finished. Really unsettling.

I had every update option available turned off, including the supposedly-all-powerful "Check for updates".

I'm very familiar with all 3. I have computers with all 3 OSs (and Haiku!) and I've used all 3 of these OSs since the 90s.

Windows is the worst offender for not having control. Linux is not great for media production, though through lots of time and effort you can get it to work, until some desktop userland upheaval forces you to relearn and change a bunch of things.

Yeah. I have a special installation of Windows that I keep locked down and prevent automatic upgrades. I don't recommend it unless you really need Windows. I also boot Linux and prefer it overall, but some things are not good experiences there (game graphics development)

I've used all 3 OSs since the 90s.

It didn’t ask me for my password and it somehow was able to try to do it, anyway. I managed to stop it in time through sheer luck.

This also happened to me. Except I got lucky and noticed it was happening due to sudden inexplicable increase in local network traffic (thank you blinkenlights) and managed to stop it in time.

Here’s my story: https://merveilles.town/@cancel/111746895947244237

I only use my Mac for music production and compatibility testing, but honestly, between this and the overall shoddy and janky state of macOS, I’m reconsidering my future use of Macs at all.

I've replied consistently to everyone in this thread, to the point of monotony. I haven't switched anything. I've replied so consistently and repetitively, with the same statements, that it's actually grating. This is the second time someone has tried the "you switched what you've said" argument tactic, even though it's very clear the only thing I've talked about is liability of the creators of the software, not the software itself. You have either not fully read my comment that you are replying to, or are misunderstanding it thoroughly enough in order to pretend that I've said the opposite of what I've said.

I don't owe you any further replies, but I wanted to make this clear to anyone else skimming the thread.

No. They would sue Adobe if Adobe put images that violate copyright into Photoshop and let users insert them from a dropdown menu. Your comparison is incorrect and bad.

The way your comment was phrased made it seem, to me, like you were rebutting what I was saying and that regular human things are all irrelevant for whether or not something is a person.

There is one other way I have figured out to read your comment. Which is that it doesn't matter how software or a brain functions since it's only the action of the outcome that matters. But this is not really a relevant statement regardless of whether or not you agree with it, because the article is about a lawsuit and liability. A group of people, acting as a company, is suing other groups of people as companies. And software is not a person, and can't be held liable. So for that to be the case, the software would need to be made into a person, or equivalent. The fact that software and brains are or are not similar is irrelevant, because software is not a person and cannot be held liable.

You're saying that the software itself should be held liable, instead of the people that created it. Meaning that the software would need legal status as a person (or equivalent) so that it can be taken to court, instead of the people that created it.

There is a possibility that you're not saying that, but it's the only interpretation of your comment I could come up with. Because your comment consists entirely of comparisons of software to human brains about whether or not something should be considered legal, and this only makes sense if the software itself can be held liable.

> I simply don't think that basing our judgement about what's acceptable for software around what's acceptable for humans necessarily implies anything about software personhood like you are saying it does.

It doesn't. And all of my comments are about that. Like I just said in the previous reply. You're replying to my comment where I also just said this. Please stop replying to me saying that I'm saying that.

The article is about people (well, companies) being sued. Not about software being sued. Software can't be sued.

Whether or not there are additional laws written about what's acceptable behavior for software (whatever that means? It's assuming software can make decisions) is irrelevant. You can't sue software. People are being sued because the plaintiffs think that people broke people laws and are liable for damages. Software can't break laws and can't be held liable.

I'm having to reword this over and over because you keep replying to me. I think you might be replying to me repeatedly just to have the last word.

No. They are suing the people who made the software. They are not suing the software. You can't sue software. Software isn't a person.

> I don't see why software personhood is the only resolution here.

It's not. That was the point of my replies. That it's time to assert software personhood is crazy.

> If we decide that a certain kind of usage of software shouldn't be considered acceptable, then we could sue the user who used it, or the developers who created it, or something.

We can already do that. That's what this article is about. The people are being sued. That's what all of my replies are about. I don't understand why you are replying to my comment with a re-summary of my comments as if it's a rebuttal to them.

The article is about people (as a corporate legal entity) being sued for things people did when creating something. ChatGPT, the software, is not being sued. It can't be sued. It's software. It's not a person that can be taken to court. It can't be held liable.

(I heavily edited this comment after realizing I could make the point in far fewer words. Sorry.)