Earlier quoted context omitted.
And the Perl programmer has disposable income and a girlfriend.
Wait, in what part of the world is a programmer more likely than an artist to have a girlfriend?
Ones where girls like the guy to buy them food?
Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
141–147 of 147 posts
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't notice. In case you didn't notice, I'm the one arguing on behalf of art here. We're on the same team! High-five.
I'm not arguing against art, just against bad art.
And you, of course, are able to perfectly identify which art is bad.
You can look at a piece of art and determine that nobody anywhere will ever gain anything from it's existence.
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why hypothesize? Create a directory. Copy your favorite MP3 into it as both "source.mp3" and "orig.mp3". (orig.mp3 is just for convenient comparison later.) Then: for i in {1..100}; do lame source.mp3 dest.mp3; mv -f dest.mp3 source.mp3; done Then listen to the resulting "source.mp3" at the end. Send whatever params to lame you want in that command line, though the defaults strike me as pretty good for this test. BTW…
So I tried it. The biggest problem is that it gets quieter each pass. Not sure why. I tried adding --noreplaygain but it didn't help. The quality seemed to preserve OK, but as the signal get quieter and quieter the noise started becoming more obvious.
I got silence after about 400 generations. Maybe throw a gain balancing step in there somewhere?
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not arguing against art, just against bad art.
And you, of course, are able to perfectly identify which art is bad. You can look at a piece of art and determine that nobody anywhere will ever gain anything from it's existence.
I can't determine with perfect certainty, no. But there are truly very few rare things in this world we can determine with perfect certainty.
The alternate position--which you seem to espouse--is that it's fundamentally impossible to judge art, hence we have to accept all purported attempts at art as "good art". I'm arguing that we can make imperfect judgments; you're arguing we can make no judgments. The very notion of "good art" loses its meaning if the term "good" can no longer distinguish some art from other art, hence your position is completely nihilistic and far more denigrating of art than mine is, because you condemn all art to an indistinguishable morass.
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
And you, of course, are able to perfectly identify which art is bad. You can look at a piece of art and determine that nobody anywhere will ever gain anything from it's existence.
I can't determine with perfect certainty, no. But there are truly very few rare things in this world we can determine with perfect certainty. The alternate position--which you seem to espouse--is that it's fundamentally impossible to judge art, hence we have to accept all purported attempts at art as "good art". I'm arguing that we can make imperfect judgments; you're arguing we can make no judgments. The very notion…
Don't put words in my mouth.
My original point, long ago, was that criticizing art is separate from criticizing the artist personally, and that it's absurd to "look down on" the artist simply because you don't like some or all of their art. Even if you hate their art, you're not necessarily better than the artist.
As for the critiquing of art, I don't say that nobody should say their thoughts on it. But your thoughts are not the final word on anything. If you say 'that is horrible' and I say 'it moves me', then it has value to me and none to you. For one of us it is bad art, for the other it is important.
From a society standpoint, we tend to value works of art that have some sort of influence. This is exceptionally hard to measure real-time, and is the reason so many great artists made little money during their lifetime.
As such, I don't say that all art is "good art", even though you dishonestly put those words into my mouth. I simply say that criticism is personal, and that real-time, societal criticism has large error (particularly when done by people who aren't familiar with what else has been tried before), because you're predicting the results of the art rather than waiting and observing the effects.
But mostly, my point has always been that it's absurd to "look down on" the artist because you don't like a particular piece of work.
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't determine with perfect certainty, no. But there are truly very few rare things in this world we can determine with perfect certainty. The alternate position--which you seem to espouse--is that it's fundamentally impossible to judge art, hence we have to accept all purported attempts at art as "good art". I'm arguing that we can make imperfect judgments; you're arguing we can make no judgments. The very notion…
Don't put words in my mouth. My original point, long ago, was that criticizing art is separate from criticizing the artist personally, and that it's absurd to "look down on" the artist simply because you don't like some or all of their art. Even if you hate their art, you're not necessarily better than the artist. As for the critiquing of art, I don't say that nobody should say their thoughts on it. But your thoughts…
"My original point, long ago, was that ... it's absurd to "look down on" the artist"
Fine, granted. In the general case, judging personalities is boring. That's not the point I've been arguing.
"As for the critiquing of art, I don't say that nobody should say their thoughts on it. But your thoughts are not the final word on anything. If you say 'that is horrible' and I say 'it moves me', then it has value to me and none to you. For one of us it is bad art, for the other it is important."
So you think it's impossible to make objective judgments of art. I disagree.
"As such, I don't say that all art is "good art", even though you dishonestly put those words into my mouth."
Like art, your comments are difficult to correctly interpret. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Re: Guy uploads, downloads, then re-uploads the same video to YouTube 1,000 times
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't put words in my mouth. My original point, long ago, was that criticizing art is separate from criticizing the artist personally, and that it's absurd to "look down on" the artist simply because you don't like some or all of their art. Even if you hate their art, you're not necessarily better than the artist. As for the critiquing of art, I don't say that nobody should say their thoughts on it. But your thoughts…
"My original point, long ago, was that ... it's absurd to "look down on" the artist" Fine, granted. In the general case, judging personalities is boring. That's not the point I've been arguing. "As for the critiquing of art, I don't say that nobody should say their thoughts on it. But your thoughts are not the final word on anything. If you say 'that is horrible' and I say 'it moves me', then it has value to me and n…
Fine, granted. In the general case, judging personalities is boring. That's not the point I've been arguing.
It's exactly what you said.
If it's not what you meant to say, please kindly learn ENGLISH.
So you think it's impossible to make objective judgments of art. I disagree.
I NEVER SAID THIS. I've made clear I never said this. STOP SAYING I SAID IT.
I said that you are not capable of making an absolutist determination of the value of an ARTIST by looking at his art.
If you were literate or intelligent this would've been really obvious to you. Sadly, you are neither. You're just some fucking moron who thinks he's better than other people, based on their art.