> The tension arises because the "Seventh" (A) is not a new addition, but a residue of the previous geometric state.
That residue in m.2 is common-tone voice leading. It's a technique that was used throughout the common-practice period to avoid tension, not introduce it. I'd bet the progression in m. 1-2 could be found in the figured bass at the beginning of a slow movement by Telemann or another Baroque composer.
Speaking of Baroque composers-- in the Coda of the 4th Ballade, Chopin has an exquisite passage of basso continuo plus accompaniment that would be right at home in a minor key aria by Handel. Except that:
1. There's no melody being accompanied.
2. It moves about 4x faster than it would have in the Baroque era.
I'd love to see a pianist play that passage by suddenly looking up and frantically nodding cues to an invisible, demonic singer.
> But, as other comments have said, there have been at this point a good slew of blind tests, and Strads are hardly ever recognized better than chance when compared to modern instruments, even when played by experts and judged by experts.
Others are also commenting about audiophiles. But there's a big difference: an audiophile's sentiment about their gold wires doesn't change the sound coming out of the speakers for the rest of the listening audience. On the other hand, a violinist's sentiment typically does.
Also, just to be clear-- are you saying there are blind tests where an expert tried playing multiple violins and couldn't guess better than chance which one was the Strad?
> Also, just to be clear-- are you saying there are blind tests where an expert tried playing multiple violins and couldn't guess better than chance which one was the Strad?
Now I'm curious-- what happens if the author adds a manual garbage collection call at the end of _audio_callback? Can it still Moog, or will that cause it to eternally miss deadlines?
In other words, the system is designed so that any learning the speaker attempts somehow ends up being scored wrong, forcing the speaker to conclude they will always be identified by the system as an error-prone, non-native speaker yearning for acceptance by ears trained from childhood to hear cracks in any facade the speaker slaps together, forever and ever...
Sounds like the author unwittingly taught you the first lesson. :)
That depends; it could be either redundant or contradictory. If I understand it correctly, "stochastic" only means that it's governed by a probability distribution but not which kind and there are lots of different kinds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_probability_distributi... . It's redundant for a continuous uniform distribution where all outcomes are equally probable but for other distributions with varying levels of predictability, "stochastic chaos" gets more and more contradictory.
Stochastic means that its a system whose probabilities don't evolve with multiple interactions/events. Mathematically, all chaotic systems are stochastic (I think) but not vise versa. Or another way to say it is that in a stochastic system, all events are probabilistically independent.
Yes, its a hard to define word. I spent 15 minutes trying to define it to someone (who had a poor understanding of statistics) at a conference once. Worst use of my time ever.
Not at all. It's an oxymoron like 'jumbo shrimp': chaos isn't deterministic but is very predictable on a larger conceptual level, following consistent rules even as a simple mathematical model. Chaos is hugely responsive to its internal energy state and can simplify into regularity if energy subsides, or break into wildly unpredictable forms that still maintain regularities. Think Jupiter's 'great red spot', or our climate.
jumbo shrimp are actually large shrimp. that the word shrimp is used to mean small elsewhere doesn't mean shrimp are small, they're simply just the right size for shrimp that aren't jumbo. (jumbo was an elephant's name)
I'm not sure if that put a dent in the finance bros' style. Finance bros can of course still buy a bunch of the vests and have a third party do the custom logo for them.
> Intelligent listeners then correctly infer what the doctor recommends and act accordingly.
I feel like if the author were really committed to this position, they would have stated it in the other direction. I.e., 6% to 20% of these intelligent listeners incorrectly infer that the doctor is conveying information through the framing of the question.
Something like the academic version of dogfooding. :)
Gell-Mann: 1) disbelieve a bogus story, then 2) turn the page and blithely believe the next story
You: 1) believe bona fide investigative journalism, then 0) ask what the point of journalism even is.
reply