Deep Thoughts

[W3H5]

At one point gloves didn’t exist, and somebody thought “I’m gonna make hand clothes” and gloves came about.

More of a drunken thought than a deep thought but it just occurred to me that gloves and socks are silly but practical things.

 

[Rallywagon]

At one point gloves didn’t exist, and somebody thought “I’m gonna make hand clothes” and gloves came about.

More of a drunken thought than a deep thought but it just occurred to me that gloves and socks are silly but practical things.

Same with hats and Inuit sun glasses

 

[W3H5]

Same with hats and Inuit sun glasses

Hats kind of make sense, some equatorial Neolithic man decided to tie a palm leaf to his head to avoid the sun.

Glasses would fall into the same category as gloves, even more so I guess, because eyes are much more prized than hands.

 

[Rallywagon]

Hats kind of make sense, some equatorial Neolithic man decided to tie a palm leaf to his head to avoid the sun.

Glasses would fall into the same category as gloves, even more so I guess, because eyes are much more prized than hands.

Not glasses, but Inuit style specifically. I mean, the brilliance of using a piece of string across your pupils to shade the sun, but the silly look of it on practice... and hats, I mean that in the opposite as I mean sun glasses. Sub goatees, even in the must ornamental, at least have a function. Hats on the other hand. Some are functional, some are only ornamental to the point of being awkward and obtuse. Some are even cakes!

 

[W3H5]

Like this? I wasn’t aware of them until now, but I’ve similar designs. Super practical, I’d imagine.

Hats that don’t serve a functional purpose are silly.

 

[kolio]

3-4 minutes for a song is just not nearly enough. My attention span is nowhere near that short. This was a phenomenon created by radio, to keep you tuned in past songs you didn't particularly care for, and I really don't like that it exists now. It seems like lots of music is that length at this point because we're just used to it, but how lazy is it that musicians can get away with making a hit song that lasts 3 minutes? That's like writing a best selling novel that lasts 15 pages. I want more product!

Deep thought... or just a complaint?

But if we're comparing musicians and novelists --- yeah, hit songs can be written in ten minutes and novels cannot. But let's not assume all hit songs take a day or less to write, record, produce and sell. Especially an hour long album. Some artists don't have success until late in their career. Same can be said for novelists too... blah blah. Career choices.

As the consumer, we don't have a right to complain. If you want change, protest. Right? Stop consuming what you don't like. (This probably comes off as serious and rant-like. It's not. Just my viewpoint )

Curious though... since w're on the topic. If a 3 minute song equates to a 15 page novel, how long short would a song have to be to equate the millions of dollars Buffer has made on "Lets get ready to rumble"...? Just a 🤬 phrase. Good for him though. Smart man, and talented (not to discredit the guy).

I think shorter songs are just fine, and dont think it a phenomena caused by the radio. Probably the attention span though.

Created/developed/evolved by humans, for the humans.

Sorry to say man, but... that's radio for you. Gotta maximize profits, get those adverts out there, play the top hits for the vapid masses.

Reinforced by radio, for profits.

 

[W3H5]

As the consumer, we don't have a right to complain. If you want change, protest.

You’re (not you specifically) only the consumer if you consume. Refusal to consume means you’re not the consumer, ergo, there is no right or need to protest if the product hasn’t been consumed and personal dissatisfaction has occurred.

I guess the right to protest a product could be relevant without having been a consumer but typically people wanting to complain/ protest and idea/ product will have consumed it first to be able to have grasp of what the complaint they have is about.

 

[kolio]

You’re (not you specifically) only the consumer if you consume. Refusal to consume means you’re not the consumer, ergo, there is no right or need to protest if the product hasn’t been consumed and personal dissatisfaction has occurred.

I guess the right to protest a product could be relevant without having been a consumer but typically people wanting to complain/ protest and idea/ product will have consumed it first to be able to have grasp of what the complaint they have is about.

By protest, I meant stop consuming. I should have said boycott.

But you make fair point.

 

[Danoff]

As the consumer, we don't have a right to complain. If you want change, protest. Right? Stop consuming what you don't like.

I think this is self-correcting. Radio drove it, and radio is dying. Eventually we may break the confines of the billboard single length, but not yet. It's more "tradition" at this point.

 

[Northstar]

Radio drove it

Just a little correction here as this is only partially correct. The reason songs were around 3-minutes for the longest time is because that is what a side of a 78/45rpm record holds. Radio is largely the reason the limit has persisted even though there are no longer technical limitations though.

Eventually we may break the confines of the billboard single length, but not yet. It's more "tradition" at this point.

This I'm not so sure of since while radio itself is dying, it's being replaced by streaming which more-or-less follows the same business model of an advertising break after a certain number of songs.

 

[TexRex]

I think this is self-correcting. Radio drove it, and radio is dying. Eventually we may break the confines of the billboard single length, but not yet. It's more "tradition" at this point.

I think the idea that it may change is a bit of wishful thinking because it really has become tradition. I don't believe music crafted with charting in mind will ever deviate because that involves a gamble. But then that's the cynic in me.

I think one's best bet is to periodically (or permanently, if that's what ultimately happens) take a step back from "top 40" if they desire something that's not being offered now, because I don't believe that will ever be meaningfully different...even long ofter the concept of "radio" has passed.

Just a little correction here as this is only partially correct. The reason songs were around 3-minutes for the longest time is because that is what a side of a 78/45rpm record holds. Radio is largely the reason the limit has persisted even though there are no longer technical limitations though.

I don't think you're at all wrong here, but I think it should be added that station runners have absolutely dictated what is played and have chosen to stick to the short play singles though longer recordings exist.

A 13:30 live version of "Free Bird" charted in 1976--38th on Billboard's Hot 100 if I recall correctly--and radio play deserves some of the credit for that. What's more, I don't recall ever having heard the single on the radio; only the aforementioned One More from the Road version and the nine-minute original studio recording.

The issue here is the top 40 (or whatever specific format along these lines it may be) radio format.

 

[MIE1992]

Here's my deep thought:

When a company acquires more assets, such as with Disney, is it really a consolidation of power? Or is it more of an act of desperation in the business world? That a company can't meet its financial goals on its own merits, using its own properties, and so it buys up something else as part of a broader attempt to meet unsustainable financial goals until the company implodes.

It reminds me of how a large part of a nation's debt may be owed towards its own citizens, with bonds and whatnot. I'm not saying that Disney buying whatever media isn't nailed to the ground is a good thing, but maybe it's not as bad as one may think - that maybe it's an attempt to patch up business-related vulnerabilities within Disney. Almost like an act of projection, I suppose?

 

[Danoff]

Here's my deep thought:

When a company acquires more assets, such as with Disney, is it really a consolidation of power? Or is it more of an act of desperation in the business world? That a company can't meet its financial goals on its own merits, using its own properties, and so it buys up something else as part of a broader attempt to meet unsustainable financial goals until the company implodes.

It reminds me of how a large part of a nation's debt may be owed towards its own citizens, with bonds and whatnot. I'm not saying that Disney buying whatever media isn't nailed to the ground is a good thing, but maybe it's not as bad as one may think - that maybe it's an attempt to patch up business-related vulnerabilities within Disney. Almost like an act of projection, I suppose?

I have a little bit of insight into this one.

Large companies aren't very efficient at innovating. Companies build red-tape, take on unproductive employees, insulate with middle-management that stifles creativity, encourages group think, and spends gobs of time and money developing nebulous quarterly strategic goals that they can build powerpoint charts on. They bloat, and they slow, and they stifle. It's somewhat inevitable. It's a wonder that governments are able to function even as well as they do (which is not well), because they suffer from that same stuff.

Big companies also don't like to take a lot of risk (this also stifles innovation). There are always a few managers that will analyze every downside and find a reason not to do something. They become protectionist over their assets rather than hungrily changing the market in search of new revenue.

This is where small business comes in. Small businesses are often quite good at innovation, and are willing to take big risks to get it. They develop new products, but then many times get stifled by more mundane elements like complying with government regulations in the 16 countries the new product would be profitable in, and building up the tooling and production facilities needed to crank out 100,000 units. The economy of scale is what big businesses are good at, and the product itself is what small businesses are good at.

Big business offers a lovely short-term massive payout to small business with the prospect of acquisition. So the large corporation atrophies while looking for a smaller business to bring an influx of new thinking. Meanwhile the small business fail left and right hoping for that big paycheck from the big business. When the two meet, you take a great idea and marry it to a well-honed infrastructure and years of institutional knowledge for how to make a good product, and you get a new fantastic product in the market.

Obviously it can work differently. But you are right that acquisition is a way of staying afloat for big businesses, it's an important part of the corporate ecosystem.

 

[MatskiMonk]

Obviously it can work differently

I've seen all sorts over the years, it's hard not to be bitter when we've been ripped off, but at the same time if some of our customers were more dynamic they wouldn't need us in the first place.

 

[Skython]

3-4 minutes for a song is just not nearly enough. My attention span is nowhere near that short. This was a phenomenon created by radio, to keep you tuned in past songs you didn't particularly care for, and I really don't like that it exists now. It seems like lots of music is that length at this point because we're just used to it, but how lazy is it that musicians can get away with making a hit song that lasts 3 minutes? That's like writing a best selling novel that lasts 15 pages. I want more product!

Radio listening is just advertisement that got out of hand, really; a snippet of a product. You're right in that it has made the framework most make music by quite formulaic. I prefer listening to full albums as one coherent piece because it gives you a far better picture of the artist beyond what the record company said might shift units in the shouting match that is radio. But that's not to say that I think 3-4 minutes for a song isn't enough as creating a great song without throwing too much at the wall has its own artistry. Though admittedly, I tend to find the songs that grab my heart the most are longer tracks that are fairly dynamic in nature.

I think as long as the artist's vision is in tact, making shorter songs is fine. And fortunately there's a lot of music nowadays that isn't trying to hit the charts, so artists can just do what they want to. Just treat radio as the plague, and you should be alright. I'm amazed that people still even use the radio. This whole thing reminds me of a conversation I had with someone who just listens to radio. "Oh, you like x band? So you like x song?" "Yeah, but the good stuff isn't what they play on the radio." "It must be because they play it on the radio." ...

 

[Danoff]

Tracheostomy tubes sound amazing. Hear me out, hear me out... I know you're bailing on me...

There are adaptations of tracheostomy tubes that allow the patient to speak through a speaking tube, which enables some air to pass over your vocal chords. Now, imagine the end result of this apparatus perfected for a moment.

You can breathe through your mouth... if you want, but most of the time you might opt to keep your airway to your mouth closed (when not speaking for example) and breathe instead through the trach. You're thinking... uh... why would I want a plastic tube sticking out my neck. Ok think more along the lines of iron man. Something that look almost like a necklace pendant sitting at your neck, potentially covered by your shirt, or not, with a filter on it to keep allergens, disease, and other contaminates out of your lungs. With a sensor on it to indicate whether you're breathing something you shouldn't be (carbon monoxide maybe), and with a neurological sensor which enables you to bypass directly to mouth or nose intake when you want based on brain signal.

Bad smells? Gone.
Illness transmission? Much more difficult.
Food choking? Thing of the past.
Coughing due to congestion? No way, block it off.
Snoring? Nope
Night time mouth breathing? Nope.

A couple of tricky things I'm thinking about though... swimming for one. You'd need to be able to block off the trach or have a super intelligent water management interface. Scuba could actually be improved with an airtight seal (multiple?) for input and outlet with your scuba gear. Also I'm wondering if you'd prefer not to block off mouth breathing while eating so that you could smell your food (to improve taste). Still... if you start choking, you can switch back to the trach until you get clog cleared.

 

[TexRex]

I suspect @Danoff had a craving for Funyuns yesterday and it either was or wasn't satisfied.

Radio listening is just advertisement that got out of hand, really; a snippet of a product. You're right in that it has made the framework most make music by quite formulaic. I prefer listening to full albums as one coherent piece because it gives you a far better picture of the artist beyond what the record company said might shift units in the shouting match that is radio. But that's not to say that I think 3-4 minutes for a song isn't enough as creating a great song without throwing too much at the wall has its own artistry. Though admittedly, I tend to find the songs that grab my heart the most are longer tracks that are fairly dynamic in nature.

I think as long as the artist's vision is in tact, making shorter songs is fine. And fortunately there's a lot of music nowadays that isn't trying to hit the charts, so artists can just do what they want to. Just treat radio as the plague, and you should be alright. I'm amazed that people still even use the radio. This whole thing reminds me of a conversation I had with someone who just listens to radio. "Oh, you like x band? So you like x song?" "Yeah, but the good stuff isn't what they play on the radio." "It must be because they play it on the radio." ...

Radio = money. When radio ≠ money, radio isn't.

 

[Rallywagon]

Ok, I just had two "deep" thoughts.
First. I find it interesting that a good deal of kids (I'm old, so think 10-19 age range) would only begrudgingly (if at all) pick up something like an axe to split some logs or chop down some trees. But, make it a mechanic in a video game and they will spends hours for days on end chopping down trees and digging holes. I think industries are really missing out on a whole generation of workers by dragging their feet on mechinising... mechanising... mechanizing? the more labor intensive portions of their jobs.


Ok, second thought:
So, I havent kept up for the last few hours so I may not have the latest info, but dont recall having heard and cases of the Wuhan flu making it to the UK yet. How ironic would it be that the whole rest of the world is completely decimated by this flu, and the whole of the UK is spared by physical separation and westerly blowing trade winds, only to emerge as the sole super power, finally achieving the global domination they sought for so many centuries.

 

[TB]

How ironic would it be that the whole rest of the world is completely decimated by this flu, and the whole of the UK is spared by physical separation and westerly blowing trade winds, only to emerge as the sole super power, finally achieving the global domination they sought for so many centuries.

Winning because everyone else is dead?

 

[TexRex]

mechinising

No.

mechanising

mechanizing

Yes, though usage is dictated largely by geography; the former is primarily British English and the latter is American English. Two peoples divided by a common language.

I know that wasn't the thrust of your thought, but I thought I'd chime in.

Edit: "Machinis[/z]ing" would also be acceptable in the appropriate context, as it relates to "machinis[/z]e; to make into a machine".

I'm not sure about "machinese" being acceptable when referring to machine language, however. It seems unlikely.

 

[W3H5]

Britain isn’t some archaic power that wants to achieve global domination by surviving the apocalypse, as far as I can tell.

Brexit isn’t isolationist. We aren’t Edo period Japan.

There are 4 cases of this Corona virus in my city. Once it’s quarantined it’s not an issue. (Plus I live out in the sticks)

Why do you assume the UK desires global domination? Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Who do you presume is wanting a second empire? Not me or mine, that’s for sure.

 

[Rallywagon]

Britain isn’t some archaic power that wants to achieve global domination by surviving the apocalypse, as far as I can tell.

Brexit isn’t isolationist. We aren’t Edo period Japan.

There are 4 cases of this Corona virus in my city. Once it’s quarantined it’s not an issue. (Plus I live out in the sticks)

Why do you assume the UK desires global domination? Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. Who do you presume is wanting a second empire? Not me or mine, that’s for sure.

It was a thought, not something I see as an actuality. Note the thread title.

 

[Touring Mars]

Arguably two of the greatest albums in rock history both suffer from the same bizarrely historical problem in that they don’t have their best songs on them.

The Beatles magnum opus “Sgt. Rutter’s Only Darts Club Band” and Pink Floyd’s debut album “Piper At The Gates Of Dawn” were both recorded and released in 1967, and both albums were published by EMI. As such, they both had 'hit' songs that were released as singles, but in order to not 'con' the public into paying for the singles twice, they didn't put the singles on the albums.

Pink Floyd hit the charts with 'See Emily Play' and 'Arnold Layne', and the album went on the cement their place in rock history, despite being the only album showcasing the unique talent of Syd Barrett.

The Beatles released 'Strawberry Fields Forever' and 'Penny Lane' as a Double-A side, but neither song made it onto the album - arguably the most critically acclaimed of all time.

The really crazy thing is, however, that both albums were recorded in the same building... at the same time. EMI's legendary Abbey Road studios played host to both bands in early 1967. There is also little doubt that both bands had the same £.s.d supplier as each other too.

 

[TexRex]

How would I know if the colors I see are the same colors that others see? The general consensus is that the sky appears to be blue on a clear day, but what if the "blue" that I see is drastically different than the "blue" that someone else sees, where I may think of that as teal, mauve...or even goldenrod?

I swear I'm not high.

 

[W3H5]

How would I know if the colors I see are the same colors that others see? The general consensus is that the sky appears to be blue on a clear day, but what if the "blue" that I see is drastically different than the "blue" that someone else sees, where I may think of that as teal, mauve...or even goldenrod?

I swear I'm not high.

I had a similar thought when I first heard of colour blindness.
It seemed odd to me that people could be misinterpreting colours. Then I discovered there is a tiny fraction of people who can see 100 times more colour hues than the average person.

My body is pretty knackered but my optics are stellar and I’ve always wondered if what I see is somehow different to what somebody else sees, like comparing 4K to standard definition.

 

[TexRex]

I had a similar thought when I first heard of colour blindness.
It seemed odd to me that people could be misinterpreting colours. Then I discovered there is a tiny fraction of people who can see 100 times more colour hues than the average person.

My body is pretty knackered but my optics are stellar and I’ve always wondered if what I see is somehow different to what somebody else sees, like comparing 4K to standard definition.

This is precisely my line of thinking. If one doesn't experience degradation of color vision, how does one determine they have a deficiency? Can there be an "I must be color blind" moment if everything is as it has always been?

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

I've thought about it before and it would probably be known if that's the case. We would be seeing some weird color usage in everyday things. Plus we've got the baseline of black and white. If we can distinguish a pure white from a not so pure white, then I think we should be on about the same page. Not sure how that whole RGB scheme would be altered. Could my RGB be somebody else's CMYK?

 

[CTznOfTime]

What color is the dress

How would I know if the colors I see are the same colors that others see? The general consensus is that the sky appears to be blue on a clear day, but what if the "blue" that I see is drastically different than the "blue" that someone else sees, where I may think of that as teal, mauve...or even goldenrod?

I swear I'm not high.

Growing up, if you take a sample of 100 kids around 8 year old, and one of them is color blind, but doesn't know it...

You point at the sky, and it is clearly blue.
They all answer blue! Without exception, including the kid who doesn't know she/he is color blind.

Why do you think so ?


It's because even tho the kid who is color blind doesn't see the color the same way as the other kids, but none of them knows it... They all grew up associating whatever color or shade they are looking at right now to be called "blue"!

We all could be seeing totally different shades from each other for the same absolute color, but since we have been associating all of our lives that color to be named one way... It is the same for every other colors...

As far as I am concerned, Everytime I have a deep thought, when I close my eyes, I always see one small section of a huge gigantic metallic sphere, right next to and touching the tiny itty bitty small sphere that is by many orders of magnitude smaller...

It's a weird vision that puts me into sleep quite fast....

 

[UnkaD]

As a little kid I used to always wonder when a person left our house, hopped in their car, and drove away whether or not they still existed, or if everything that is currently real is only the extent of my own instantaneous perception.

 

[W3H5]

As a little kid I used to always wonder when a person left our house, hopped in their car, and drove away whether or not they still existed, or if everything that is currently real is only the extent of my own instantaneous perception.

Do you mean solipsism?