Before doing any slowing down and looping I’d make sure that I know the chords for that section. It’s easier to hear if a certain note is in the key (harmony) or not (dissonance), thereby limiting the available choices. Also it might be easier to identify an interval than a single note.

Knowing some theory definitely helps. If you can find a transcription as sheets or tabs that’d be a good idea for reference, even if they’re not always correct.

Having this context, it’s usually enough to slow down the part in the YouTube player. I use New Pipe, no ads and speed/pitch are separate.

For a more detailed analysis, Audacity is great for loops and zooming. It’s quick and easy. However, looping a single note can sometimes be deceiving, so I’d also loop a few of the notes before and after just to get some context.

Getting the clip into a full DAW can also help for very tricky sounds. Running it through a pitch correction effect can show what it detects. This works best if the clip doesn’t have a lot of other things at the same time. Another method if you have a midi keyboard is to play along with a basic tone like an organ or just a sine wave. Program the melody into the midi sequencer and you’ll basically have it transcribed. This is also great for long weird sections where it’s difficult to remember everything. Might as well write it down as midi instead of on a paper.

Yelling is idiotic.

Like all aggression, resorting to yelling is an act of impotence.

When someone is attacked by aggression they will defend themselves. They will counter attack whatever it is you’re yelling about and make up reasoning to justify their own stance. Even if it’s wrong, because in their mind the actual topic is less relevant than fighting your aggression.

Yelling is only useful if you are trying to prevent an accident and you’re unsure if they can hear you.

public shaming is s powerful tool - which could lead to reflection

Have you ever seen this happen? In my experience, the idiot is more likely to double down.

Exactly how big’ve deal is it?

I don’t think free will can be dismissed just because the framework that it runs on is deterministic.

Let’s say you program a text editor. A computer runs the program, but the computer has no influence on what text the user is going to write.

I think that consciousness is a user like that. It runs on deterministic hardware but it’s not necessarily deterministic due to that. It might be for other reasons, but the laws of physics isn’t it, because physics doesn’t prohibit free will from existing.

Consciousness is wildly complex. It’s a self illusion and we really have no good idea about where decisions even come from.

If it is deterministic, it would have to involve every single atom in the universe that in one way or another have influenced the person. Wings of a butterfly and light from distant stars etc. Attempting to predict it would require a simulation of everything. That leads to other questions. If a simulation is a 1:1 replica of the real thing, which one is then real and what happens if we run it backwards, can we see what caused the big bang, etc.

So, even if this is about free will, the enquiry falls short on trying to figure out what even causes anything to happen at all.

If we are happy with accepting that the universe was caused by something before or outside the universe, then it’s really easy to point in that direction and say that free will also comes from there - somewhere outside the deterministic physics.

Of course the actual universe and the laws of physics are really not separate as data and functions. The data itself contains the instructions. Any system that can contain itself that way is incomplete as proved by Kurt Gödel’s incompleteness theorem. Truths do exist that can’t be proven so perhaps the concept of free will is an example of such a thing, or maybe it’s not. The point is that we can’t rule it out, just because it exists in a deterministic system.

Personally I don’t think it matters all that much. Similarly to how we can only ever experience things that exists inside of the universe,or see the light that hits our eye, we can also only ever hope to experience free will on the level of our own consciousness, even if we acknowledge that it is influenced by all kinds of other things from all levels from atoms to the big bang.

It can be difficult for coops to play on the capitalist market.

A company with a top-down hierarchy can make decisions much faster than an organization where the decisions are made ground up through internal democratic policies. The democratic process also very likely limits the co-op from doing shady stuff.

It’s possible though, but it requires a really good community backing.

This question is really wide. You’ll have to narrow down what the challenge really is.

Start by doing a mind map on a piece of paper.

You’ll need one for the product, but you’ll also need one for the business.

Once our have the entire idea spread out like that, you can start researching the things you don’t know or contact people who do know those specifics.

When Reddit changed the layout (new/old) some ten years ago, I started using a 3rd party app, because “new reddit” was everything that I hated about other sites. I stopped using it when they killed 3rd party apps, but that was really just the final nail in the coffin anyway. It was rotten to the core long before that.

Maybe n Roblox. I haven’t bothered trying the games, but I know Adopt Me started as something like that.

It has to be given, otherwise there would be infinitely many solutions.

You would need some other information to link the line segment X to the rest of the figure.

It’s always going to be more difficult challenging the “winning” strategy.

Democrats seem to be more open to change and internal democracy.

Whatever shed of ideology is left in either party is also pointed in different directions. Roughly described, the ideologies are (supposed to be) that left wing is taking ideas from the masses and sending them upwards through democratic elections, while right wing only accepts top down decision making. Seeing the many “Trump regret” clips, it’s pretty clear that his policies did not originate from his voter base.

Another case of point is when politicians flip flop and change party. Democrats allow right wing politicians to infiltrate their party dragging them to the right, whereas you don’t see someone like Bernie Sanders joining GOP to drag them towards social democracy.

… that is why you need to join and elect other politicians.

I’m not American but I will promise to support you if it comes to that.

The workers unionisation in my country against land owners in the 1800s would not have succeeded without international support. I’d gladly chip in for anyone attempting to do the same.

So…if that’s your only option… when are you going to start a revolution?

I’ve seen a lot of similar comments lately. People wanting to start 3rd parties etc, because the Democrats suck so bad.

Yes, it’s true. They suck, but if you’re going to beat the Republicans, you’ll need to look at what Trump did. He didn’t start a 3rd party. No, he took the existing party and changed it into whatever the fuck it is now.

You need to change the democratic party from within too, because 3rd parties will always lose because of the first past the post. 3rd parties also have a tendency to branch out, because quite frankly, not being Democrat or Republican isn’t enough of a politic in itself, and you guys don’t get along well on anything else. The Republicans had this issue for a long time until Trump came along providing them with something that united their voters more than the previous politic of simply being not Democrats.

The democratic party already has a framework for running politics and they actually have some kind of democracy within that allows people to change it. Yeah, it will require a lot of work to get enough people engaged in politics to make the change, but it is absolutely much less than what is required to start a successful 3rd party.

That’s basically the answer to the opposite question: what is something that someone thinks isn’t obsolete, but really is?

Do his farts smell the same as mine? Then no, sorry dude you’ve gotta go live somewhere else.

Never heard them before either, but as soon as I did, I immediately knew that this would be on the Nettwerk label. In my book that’s a mark of quality.

Math is off.

He makes 30% more than her. If she makes 100, he makes 130. The total income is 230.

Her income is 43% of that (100/230) and his is 57% (130/230).

Why does it have to be static in the first place? Why not just let them contribute what they can, when they can, since the money’s not tight?

Who is to decide when and what they can pay then?

It’s also as much about determining the disposable income. If she has a different opinion on what is reasonable to spend on other things that could easily become a can of worms.

“This is what you need to contribute to the household, whatever you do with the rest of your money is not my issue” is much better than: “Hey, I know you’re low on cash but maybe if you cut back on lattes, avocado toast, gambling, booze and cigarettes, we would be able to pay the bills.”

In reality, the fixed amount isn’t very fixed anyway. If one part can’t pay, it’s still unlikely that the partner would kick them out. But as long as money isn’t that tight, it’s simply better to allocate a fixed amount to the household, so the money isn’t disposable for random spending, so they don’t risk overspending or increasing expensive habits.

This isn’t just to curb the costs, but also to avoid the situation in which one part becomes financially dependent on the other, which is also a recipe for disaster for both parts.