I'm very much in that boat myself! Zero synth or really even musical experience, picked up a Korg Prologue on a lark from a local CL seller. Do you have any recommended introductory resources? Right now I'm focusing on learning the basic modulation the synth offers alongside some very basic music theory to get a grasp on chords/melodies/etc.
That's awesome! I'd recommend all first-step beginners check out Ableton's Learning Music[0] and Learning Synths[1] resources to start. They're both great sites for getting to grips with the basics, and should take ~2 hours each. They're also super accessible, anyone aged middle-school or older should be able to get something valuable from these guides. Learning Synths is particularly salient because it teaches subtractive synthesis, so (almost) all of the parameters it shows you how to use will also exist on the Prologue.
After that, it's mostly up to you. There are hundreds of niches in both sound design and music theory, all of them with their own unique quirks to learn. Let your sense of curiosity guide you, and you'll definitely find something interesting. You should probably look into getting some DAW software if you want to compose full tracks, and a DAC would allow you to record off the Prologue into your computer. It really is an open-ended hobby besides that.
The only other piece of advice I like to give is to temper your expectations. The process of learning music theory and sound design is long, and everyone makes a lot of garbage when they're starting (much like programming). Unlike programming, I find the process of sound design to be pretty therapeutic, and many nights I'd find myself sitting in front of my modular rack instead of watching TV or playing games with friends. Everyone's relationship with it will be a little different, but nobody should be overly critical of their own work. Do whatever is fun to you, and let the inspiration follow.
The way I've heard it, they don't bother arresting people who are not almost definitely guilty. After all, if someone is proven innocent, that's a black mark on the judge, the prosecution and the entire police department.
I don't know why the downvotes, this is the correct perspective. You need to take the base rate of criminality into account, and comparing Japanese in Japan to Japanese in America isn't unreasonable.
You could also look at the rate of crimes per capita in each country. For instance, murders per capita: 4.96 in the U.S. vs 0.26 in Japan [0]. If we take this to represent base-rate criminality in that population, then we have a 19:1 US:Japan murder ratio, with only a 16:1 US: Japan incarceration ratio. Japan incarcerates more per unit murder.
Of course this is a toy model, it's all a big feedback loop, etc., but I hope it serves to illustrate the point.
I'm making the point that the base rate of criminality needs to be taken into account if you want to compare incarceration rates. For many different reasons people in one society might commit more crime than people in another society.
Though I do not use the example myself, preferring the murder rate example, the parent's suggestion is a reasonable way to control for this inter-society difference. I would bet that Japanese in the U.S. evince rates of criminality more similar to those of Japanese in Japan than to the rest of American society. It's an empirical question; whether merely asking the question is racist or not given your particular sentiments about what's racist is beside the point.
I've realized we're probably confused about whether we're talking about Japanese in America vs. Japanese-Americans. I was talking about Japanese in America (the article is about a foreigner in Japan), but I'd make roughly the same claims in either case. Empirically, I would bet that both Japanese in America and Japanese-Americans both show rates of criminality more similar to Japan's than to the remainder of the U.S. population's. In the case of Japanese-Americans, I'd bet it's higher than Japan's. I haven't looked any numbers up or attempted to figure it out in detail.
As for why, there are a few reasons. One interesting one is selection effects (immigrants to a new country are not a random sample of the old country's population). There is culture, of course, probably the biggest factor, as well as other inheritances (material goods / wealth, genes, disease burden...).
I'm genuinely curious to know how you think about that line. What is the transgression here in your mind? Merely mentioning that genes affect behavior is not allowed (even though it's true, or maybe it doesn't matter if it's true), or you actually believe the claim "genes affect behavior within the human species" is false?
I agree with you that we can't tell from a single gene whether someone is likely to be a criminal or not. I'd like you to consider this example, where hopefully I only use premises you already believe:
Some people are predisposed to becoming addicted to drugs. We can make better-than-chance bets about who these people are based on their genomes. We also know that people who are addicted to drugs are more likely to be on the wrong side of the law (and, sadly, are often by definition on the wrong side of the law). So, we conclude that, given someone's genome, we can make better-than-chance bets about that person's likelihood of being on the wrong side of the law.
It's a simplistic example, but hopefully that helps get the idea across. Doing this sort of thing isn't super practical right now, but it will be soon! [oh boy.]
Genes are certainly affecting the behavior somehow. That doesn't mean they are relevant. Cultural and educational factors have certainly a much bigger impact on behavior than any gene related effects.
Example of flawed reasoning similar to yours: genes have probably an impact on the way we speak (it's impacting the shape of our tongue somehow, etc etc). So maybe the French have their accent due to some genetic factors, and we could predict someone's accent looking at their genes. Well it turns out in practice, if you have "French genes" and are born and raised in a US environment, you'll have an American accent indistinguishable from someone with "US genes"
If genes are affecting behavior [I assume you mean variation within the species], then why wouldn't they be relevant? Relevant to what?
I agree culture is the biggie (education is part of culture).
Your example gets at a correlation that can be used to make good predictions. Better-than-chance bets. The example I gave with drug addiction supposes the reader already believes that genes have a causal relationship with drug addiction. That is, a propensity to be, say, an alcoholic can be in your genome and not a result of environmental factors.
Given this logic if America had a policy of throwing everyone with blond hair in jail for "hair crimes" you would conclude it is a fairer system than Japan's if Japanese-Americans had a lower incarceration rate than Japanese people in Japan.
That's some heroic effort in defense of America's high incarceration rate.
Further up on this thread someone wrote "If you ever thought the American justice system is bad...".
Someone else wrote wrote " Not trying to handwave away issues with the Japanese system, but scale seems relevant here. Japan: 40 incarcerated per 100k population [1] USA: 655 incarcerated per 100k population [2]"
So I read your post in that context. The conversation seemed to me to be about whether the American or Japanese justice system is "bad". Fairness would seem to be an aspect of "good" or "bad"... if you weren't trying to argue the American justice system was "good" I've lost the context of what you were trying to say.
Or rather economic reasons, the difference between the median income for Asian Americans is about the same as the difference between white people and African Americans.
No, it is the question that is racist. The assumption that because of your ethnicity, you would have some kind of specific level of criminality. That is extremely racist.
You're assuming a causal relationship when the claim is correlational. The claim is not that because of a person's ethnicity that person will commit crimes at a certain rate, the claim is that you can make a good guess about criminality based on ethnicity. That is to say, there is a correlation. Which is unambiguously true--just look up the numbers. Only takes a moment.
In either case, whether it's racist or not is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
My honest read here, and I really wish to emphasize that this is honest feedback and not an attempt to put you down, is that you don't have a solid grasp of causation vs. correlation.
I appreciate you engaging. It's fun and important to talk about stuff like this.
Japanese Americans are a group that has a sizable population of people who have lived their entire lives in the US. If you think that they would be more likely to behave similarly to people who have spent their whole lives in Japan, the burden of proof is on you, because that certainly is not a mainstream view.
1) Confusion between Japanese in America and Japanese-Americans
2) "More likely to behave similarly" is a considerably wider net than just crime rates
3) I think the mainstream view is that East Asians of all stripes commit considerably less crime than average. It's certainly true of violent crime, which is something I've looked in to.
The implication of pointing out the US' high incarceration rate is that the US justice system and society are particularly malevolent.
This point was used to defend Japan's justice system as being far more benign than the US.
However, Japan's justice system may in fact be far more unforgiving that the US' if Americans are, in general, more likely to commit crime. Which is perfectly fair point to make (although inconclusive for various reasons).
If (for whatever reason) Americans are more likely to commit more crimes, they are, all else being equal, more likely to be in jail.
Of course many things can be true at the same time. Japan can have a brutal justice system and have a very docile, law abiding population. Maybe the brutality caused them to be docile. Or, America can have an abusive justice system, and a population that needs to be more incarcerated than others.
Either way, the criminality of the Japanese is a relevant factor if America's incarceration rate is made relevant
Yeah, but the parent comment is talking about Japanese Americans, not Japanese in America. The experience of Japanese Americans is not related to Japanese people (especially if raised in Japan).
Twitch's TOS bans 'solicitation' of sexually explicit content, and from a quick anecdotal sampling of streamers in this category 8/10 of them have direct links to or aggregate link pages to OnlyFans profiles where they do sell explicit content. Guess it depends on your definition of 'solicitation'?
