Oh, don't worry about that. The inflated egos are distributed across all the musicians too. It takes a special kind of personality to achieve that level of singular proficiency.
I think it's one other reason to HAVE a conductor, is to have an ultimate authority on some matters where musicians egos get involved.
In many (most?) compositions, there are going to be some banger little licks in many different sections. It honestly kinda sucks sometimes when you've got one... but you gotta hold it back because it's still just a supporting component. To you, as the musician... you might fall in love with it, wanna push it, take the opportunity to shine and generate some goosebumps. And, obviously, since you're God's gift to the world, you SHOULD. The composer was WRONG to hit you with a mp. Maybe the composer's French Horns couldn't lead with it, but they never envisioned your talent.
The trumpets shoot you a look to calm down? Fuck 'em. They always get the spotlight.
Having a structure with an ego to rule all egos helps (does NOT eliminate) these kinds of things.
At the highest levels of proficiency, knowing "when to play" doesn't rreeaallyy require a conductor.
An orchestra of professionals mutates into this crazy combined organism. A hive mind, with thousands of signals being generated and consumed among the members. Negotiations all over the place.
The conductor stands in the front not just because it's convenient, but because they're in the best relative position to understand what the audience will ultimately hear. If I'm in percussion, positionally I'm getting a skewed take on the relative dynamics of the piccolos. As a professional, they'd have a good "gut feel", but thier ears are simply not in the right spot to know for sure. The conductors are.
The acoustics of a performance space are drastically different when the seats are full of meat, too.
The conductor is acting as the source of truth and feedback for that hive mind, from a physical position which gives them the best understanding of the complete sound being produced. While professionals CAN do a very passable job of distributing that work, it's an additional burden and with an imperfect set of inputs. Having one person set the tone and act as that authority frees up capacity on the individuals to do thier best work.
Always struck me as a rich command interface with a natural language processor slapped on the front.
And, taking the technobabble for what it's worth, it's always described as having deterministic outputs. I don't think it's fair to say it's ever evidenced as having "thought for itself". Any time one might be tempted to suggest it had, I'd argue it was still following a deterministic algorithm, written and designed for whatever it was doing... rather than relying on a black-box model to generate outputs for an unanticipated input.
You can have generative algorithms without things like LLMs or difussion models.
Categorizing it as "lesser" is extremely subjective. Lesser in what way? Do I think that it's functionally superior as a source of information than an LLM? Yes. As an operational interface for a machine (the ship)? Yes. Do I think it has the flexibility of an LLM? No.
You don't see the trend? You mean you haven't seen the aggregate survey data showing the trend? Or are you saying in your personal encounters, you haven't observed any change?
50/50 is actually comparatively huge. Considering everything else has been 90/10.
The first departure from your god-king is always the hardest. I expect for many, this is the first break, and will make any subsequent break mentally easier.
Also keep in mind that people who identify/lean Republican has taken a little more than a 10% haircut since January 2025. Any "republicans say" is an increasingly smaller subset of the total voting population... getting more concentratedly nuts as they boil off the more rational ones. Even with this more concentrated version of Republicans, it's STILL not popular.
Don't get me wrong, it's not GREAT... but there is a trend line. It's not moving as fast as it should, but it IS moving.
On the flip side, imo there are some brilliant people with good ideas, and thier persuasiveness is hamstrung because they just can't stick to a word count that appeals to thier audience.
If you know that your audience has a 6th grade reading level... avoid a long form essay.
"When did neighborhoods become full of strangers?! We gotta get off our phones and get to know each other in our communities. We should be able to borrow a cup of sugar!"
Check it out, you can pitch socialism in a way that'll amp people up in like 3 simple sentences.
If you can't or won't do it yourself, by all means ask AI to help you lower your barrier for entry.
Basically all left (or even neoliberal) discourse happens in such an echo chamber people have forgotten how to talk irl.
The very first line. You are asserting that if you throw away a genetic argument (which in every single post I've made, you'll see that I am encouraging everyone to do) that "all that is left" is hating poor people. This dichotomy that you introduced leaves no third option of behaviors being transferred via concious or unconscious emulation of parental figures.
It's incredibly one dimensional to say that people wanting to shop in a place where patrons extend basic human decency to one another would be only be popular because people want to ... crush the poor.
If your only cognitive tool is a hammer, ever idea is going to sound like a nail.
I feel like you think I'm not understanding your position. I am. I hear it ad nauseum.
I'm challenging you to consider if your approach is so narrow that you can't even comprehend the premise. "I don't want to get mashed up by a cart" necessarily translating to "I want to suppress the poor" should be setting off warning alarms that you're not engaging in the idea or discussion with a full toolset.
I could get behind you on this if the post was saying that all grocery stores must have that limitation. In the subway example, it'd be like saying that the only labour that exists is being a subway driver. The calculus changes when, like you said, it's mandatory.
But that's still a double-edged sword we're playing with.
If you want to run towards a an "inevitable conclusion" in the one direction (resegregation... undesirable... are you even alluding to genocide?)
I think it's fair to do the same in the opposite direction too. Is there no lower bound for human interaction and behavior? Is it wrong to set boundaries for how people treat you?
I like how hyper aware people are for things that could be turned into an avenue for bad things. I think that's actually more than half the battle. Doesn't always mean you toss the idea outright, you just know that you gotta watch out.
I, for one, am in favor of a minimal demonstrated set of awareness and capacity to operate a motor vehicle. I also am in favor of not letting people drive drunk. Someone might say this will inevitably turn into a tool of racism. And guess what, THEY'D BE RIGHT! But, the solution probably isn't to ban cars, or to let anyone drive with no rules of the road and drive drunk.
Make sure your lemmy settings are set to show the instances of users. If you see a braindead take from an .ml, you're not talking with a good faith actor. Don't take the bait.
This is exactly why I explicitly said you should reject the explanation of genetics, even if learned behaviors have a tendency to be passed from primary caregivers to children.
I'm maybe being unfair to say idiots are having more kids.
It is a growing case where people who score relatively higher in awareness of world events to choose not to have kids at all. Between the environment and, well, gestures broadly that group of people is choosing to not have kids.
Calling people idiots or not, that's overly broad. I understand that. There are material negative pressures felt by people who value understanding the state of the world, that are not felt by those who don't.
Oh, don't worry about that. The inflated egos are distributed across all the musicians too. It takes a special kind of personality to achieve that level of singular proficiency.
I think it's one other reason to HAVE a conductor, is to have an ultimate authority on some matters where musicians egos get involved.
In many (most?) compositions, there are going to be some banger little licks in many different sections. It honestly kinda sucks sometimes when you've got one... but you gotta hold it back because it's still just a supporting component. To you, as the musician... you might fall in love with it, wanna push it, take the opportunity to shine and generate some goosebumps. And, obviously, since you're God's gift to the world, you SHOULD. The composer was WRONG to hit you with a mp. Maybe the composer's French Horns couldn't lead with it, but they never envisioned your talent.
The trumpets shoot you a look to calm down? Fuck 'em. They always get the spotlight.
Having a structure with an ego to rule all egos helps (does NOT eliminate) these kinds of things.