Alright, I'll do that. Although, sadly, I already posted it here, so I won't be able to post it again — I'll be stuck with this trash comments section that doesn't deal with any of the actual claims, just the aesthetics.
Their terminology is odd. The thing you move while playing is generally called the hand slide. There's nearly always a separate tuning slide located in the crook of the bell section.
(Some relatively rare instruments like the Shires Alto do "tuning in slide" with a mechanism for fine adjustment in the hand slide).
If you're also moving the tuning slide in the middle of a piece you're probably a bass trombonist doing the now-impossible glissando (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWJPeA_1g48) in the Bartok concerto for orchestra.
I was thinking the same thing. The tuning slide is not what you use while playing, it's the separate slide on the bell side of the trombone for fine adjustment to ensure you're in tune with the rest of the band.
Do you mainly control pitch with the tuning slide or the valves on those instruments? I think you mainly control pitch with the valves and only supplement with a tuning slide for certain notes, depending on the instrument, and therefore the statement is accurate.
Mainly the valves. The tuning slides help with a number of things, including the fact that the harmonics (notes above the first ocatave) are not precisely in tune with the fundamentals. A trumpet typically has a trigger lever or a loop for your finger on one or two of the tuning slides.
You use it as needed. If you're playing a really fast passage, you'll likely skip it, but shorter notes are harder to place the precise pitch anyway.
If you really want to see tuning slides in action, find a video of a good tuba soloist.
Interesting. A student horn I guess? I've never owned one that didn't have at least a third valve slide ring. I think they were widespread around the time that the trumpet really took over from the cornet, around 1900-1920. My pre-War Olds has moving slides.
The interrupting parenthetical was so disruptive to the sentence that I thought it said, essentially, "The trombone is the only brass instrument. Parenthetical. The trombone is played by moving the slide."
Typotheque’s Dash has a very similar variable axis, though they call it ‘Speed’: https://www.typotheque.com/fonts/dash-casual. (For some reason you need to click on the ‘Variable’ box in order to see the full variable range.)
Odd, I’ve had the opposite experience… back home in Australia the boxes came with metal edges, but here in the UK (Scotland) they all seem to be plain cardboard. If the metal ones are sold somewhere I’d be very interested to know where I could find them!
It looks like that never occurs for Helvetica (A316600) due to the absence of kerning. However, with Arial (A316599) the description notes:
> a(29368) = 111111 is a first notable anomaly, because its bounding box width of 2675 lies between those of a(29367) = 49115, with bounding box width 2655, and a(29369) = 70002, with bounding box width 2681.
It’s my biggest frustration with so many expressing progressive beliefs. I’ve lost count of the times a progressive expresses unwillingness to address problems at a smaller, local or personal level. Instead there is a demand to fix everything forever and at once at the highest levels, or do nothing at all.
But how do you judge the consequences? Either you have an infinite regress, or you end up declaring by fiat that some things are good and others are bad, just because. Which is...deontology--what "consequentialism" was supposed to be opposed to and an improvement on.
The concept that I think the world would be a better place if people of all political stripes could internalize is that nobody knows for sure what is good. We all have to make moral and ethical choices with incomplete knowledge. So when people make choices that you disagree with, the default presumption, at least, should not be that they're evil, but that they have different information than you do. That information can include different judgments about what is good and what is not. There is no single moral or ethical system that has all the right answers--including "consequentialism".
Neither Deontology, Virtue Ethics, nor Consequentialism describe the ends; only the tradeoffs.
You could have a deontological commitment to never giving a sucker an even break.
You could have a virtue ethicist who considers the Joker a paragon--I think some of them are in politics.
Consequentialism just says that deontology is too myopic, and locally following the correct rules is sometimes less good than maximizing long-term gains.
Consequentialism is ceteris paribus correct; but ceteris is often not paribus for humans, so pure consequentialism has a lot of footguns in it.
> Neither Deontology, Virtue Ethics, nor Consequentialism describe the ends
If you insist on just looking at the general, abstract terms as categories, instead of the actual ethical systems that are usually described as falling into those categories, I suppose that's true. But I don't see why it's relevant. In order to actually make ethical choices in the real world, you have to specify ends--your ethical choices have to bottom out at some point in saying that some things are good and some things are bad, just because. That's true whether you think you're doing Deontology, Virtue Ethics, Consequentialism, or what have you.
> Consequentialism just says that deontology is too myopic, and locally following the correct rules is sometimes less good than maximizing long-term gains.
And in making such claims, Consequentialism is both misdescribing Deontology and avoiding the actual issue.
First, there is nothing that restricts Deontology to "locally following correct rules". More generally, there is nothing that forbids Deontology from looking at consequences! Indeed, Deontology often requires you to look at consequences, since actions that might be innocuous taken in isolation can have serious ethical implications when put in context.
Second, when you say "maximizing long-term gains", what counts as "long-term" and what counts as "gains"? Any answer to such questions is going to bottom out, as I said, in claims that some things are good, and some things are bad, just because. There is no way to avoid that. But Consequentialism bills itself as avoiding that--as avoiding "just following rules" and looking at things rationally instead. And it doesn't and can't deliver on that promise. It just obfuscates what it's actually doing.
If you want to talk about ends, you're talking Axiology, not strictly Ethics.
By "ceteris paribus correct," I mean that if you were programming a superintelligent AI--and you knew exactly what you were doing, rather than structuring a learning schedule and feeding that a corpus--you would want a consequentialist.
Deontology and Virtue Ethics are patches for flaws in human morality. For example, the deontological rule "never kill the leader of the group and take over, even for the good of the group" is there because power is instrumentally useful enough that evolved social animals will deceive themselves about why they want power, so naive consequentialism doesn't work for them.
> If you want to talk about ends, you're talking Axiology, not strictly Ethics.
Even if I accept this quibbling over definitions, I don't see how it's relevant. We're talking about how to actually make choices. That's ethics.
> if you were programming a superintelligent AI--and you knew exactly what you were doing, rather than structuring a learning schedule and feeding that a corpus--you would want a consequentialist.
That if that you're glossing over is actually impossible, so I don't see how this is relevant either.
> Deontology and Virtue Ethics are patches for flaws in human morality.
No, they're recognitions of the fact that it's impossible for any finite being to compute and judge all of the consequences in real time, even if we assume there is some universally agreed on system for judging the consequences, which there isn't.
> power is instrumentally useful enough that evolved social animals will deceive themselves about why they want power, so naive consequentialism doesn't work for them.
Power is instrumentally useful for a superintelligent AI too, so "naive consequentialism" doesn't work for it either, at least not if you want us humans to survive in a world that has it.
The fact that you call them progressives hints at a more general frustration that I doubt has anything to do with the problem.
There is nothing wrong with some people working on a regional or global fix while others work on a local one. The important thing is that they’re working for it.
I think there's more nuance to it. The big failing of progressive movements is that they seek, often from a position of disadvantage, to impose power over society too, but in the ways they feel are more just. The vast majority of progressives I know aren't very interested in listening to the other side, or implicitly believe that the other side is wrong and it's just a matter of making them see that.
But this ignores the humanity of people on the other side of the issue--people who may have legitimate moral and philosophical questions about very difficult and complex issues.
It does seem that acting locally, within the realm of actual human relationships rather than alienating impositions of authority, would likely result in much greater good in the long term.
Even if you do think the other side is evil in many of their beliefs and actions, you still may need to work with them on issues where you find agreement.
Like diplomacy with regimes you find reprehensible may still be preferable to war.
Those people are not progressives. They are brainwashed wokes riled up using anger and cynicism; a mob in the making to counter a government; a transient missile fired at an opponent existing while it fires through and fleeting after it hits a target.
A formative moment for me was reading Richard Stallman's writing on the GNU website and seeing him quote [0] Rabbi Hillel [1]:
"If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?"
This inspired me to seek out more about Rabbinic Judaism and its theology more deeply, and I found the language and analogies concerning the idea of "repairing the world" (which you referenced, but which I think at first glance aren't necessarily something most people would identify as a specific core doctrinal theme) particularly inspiring [2]. To me it's frankly beautiful and something I recommend anybody interested in metaphysics or ethics/morality looking into; it also ties into the Kabbalah. IMO this aspect of Jewish theology deserves to be more widely known because it's something all of us can learn from.
>Therefore man was created single in the world to teach that for anybody who destroys a single life it is counted as if he destroyed an entire world, and for anybody who preserves a single life it is counted as if he preserved an entire world.
(Directly from the Mishna in the Talmud Yerushalmi)
To me that never made sense. If the world is really ending, there is no point in planting a tree.
It only made sense as in, you never know if the world is really ending. So assume it is not and do the right thing, even if things seem dark. Everything we do matters. Always.
maybe but its not like people don't also do these things (erroneous sentences, weird fluff). I mean editors exist specifically to slap that shit out of writers.
That said, it's mildly compelling. I just fear that our future is gonna be full of this and the idea of the false positive is so brutal that I'd rather give the benefit of the doubt.
Perhaps we end up demanding no doubt. Human only community meet ups to discuss and share ideas, music and art. No recording allowed.
The Internet becomes primarily a passive stream of information vetted by government and Mega Corps, just like the TVs of old. Except for the nifty buy with one click button of course
There have been mail spam, link farming, non-AI slop content sites, and other forms of scamming looking to take advantage of people on the Internet for something like a quarter century by now. Even HN's /new submissions queue is filled with such rubbish. There is zero reason to give any benefit of the doubt on the Internet for anything and there hasn't been for years, absolutely zero.
> There is zero reason to give any benefit of the doubt on the Internet for anything and there hasn't been for years, absolutely zero.
I feel like that's just an argument for cruelty. The issue is that generative content makes it hard to tell and people confidently call borderline issues now, more than they used to.
reply