https://jasonparent.bandcamp.com/album/period-1
Wednesday, August 31, 2016
that's right, leafy. gay people exist. you seem a little curious about it. that's ok.
at
18:18
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
there's actually no reason that you couldn't have a 20th note, you just couldn't express it in terms of quarter notes because you get an infinite series. it's convergent. but it doesn't help the notation.
you couldn't count it, but you could feel it.
i flipped my fraction over and thought i had an answer (i do this, flip the fraction over, to myself all the time), because i'm actually used to dealing with these kinds of weird conversions as a relic of writing drum sequences in a scorewriter. there's lots of ways to convert weird signatures. the series just has to terminate. it doesn't here, but that's just bad luck.
if you split the bar into five equal temporal spaces, each one will be four fifths of a quarter note. .8/4 = 0.2. so, a 20th note would be 20% of a quarter note - which is 40% of an eighth note and 80% of a sixteenth note. indeed, .8*(1/16) = 1/20. you can't notate this using western music theory (because the series happens not to terminate....), but that doesn't mean it's undefined or unplayable
80%(1/16th) =
160% (1/32nd) =
1/32nd + 60%(32nd) =
1/32nd + 1.2(64th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + .2(64th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + .4(128th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + .8(256th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + epsilon =
3/64th + epsilon
you simply couldn't hear 80% of a 256th note. that's indistiguishable from human error.
so, a 20th note would be indistinguishable from a triplet of 64th notes. that means that 4/20 would be four triplets of 64th notes.
....which is a blast beat.
http://thehardtimes.net/2016/08/29/stoner-tech-metal-band-trying-really-hard-write-song-420-time/?fb_comment_id=1161463340592034_1163796750358693
you couldn't count it, but you could feel it.
i flipped my fraction over and thought i had an answer (i do this, flip the fraction over, to myself all the time), because i'm actually used to dealing with these kinds of weird conversions as a relic of writing drum sequences in a scorewriter. there's lots of ways to convert weird signatures. the series just has to terminate. it doesn't here, but that's just bad luck.
if you split the bar into five equal temporal spaces, each one will be four fifths of a quarter note. .8/4 = 0.2. so, a 20th note would be 20% of a quarter note - which is 40% of an eighth note and 80% of a sixteenth note. indeed, .8*(1/16) = 1/20. you can't notate this using western music theory (because the series happens not to terminate....), but that doesn't mean it's undefined or unplayable
80%(1/16th) =
160% (1/32nd) =
1/32nd + 60%(32nd) =
1/32nd + 1.2(64th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + .2(64th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + .4(128th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + .8(256th) =
1/32nd + 1/64th + epsilon =
3/64th + epsilon
you simply couldn't hear 80% of a 256th note. that's indistiguishable from human error.
so, a 20th note would be indistinguishable from a triplet of 64th notes. that means that 4/20 would be four triplets of 64th notes.
....which is a blast beat.
http://thehardtimes.net/2016/08/29/stoner-tech-metal-band-trying-really-hard-write-song-420-time/?fb_comment_id=1161463340592034_1163796750358693
at
09:17
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
you know, i walk around with headphones on all of the time and it doesn't mean "leave me alone" so much as it means "i like to listen to music when i'm transiting by myself.". the idea that my headphones may or may not act as a disincentive to approach me has truly never even crossed my mind. not everything i do is meant to be interpreted in the filter of whether it is or is not ok to hit on me. i mean, does it logically imply that if i'm not wearing headphones then i'm inviting a conversation? this is a stupid discussion all around....
http://www.upworthy.com/advice-for-talking-to-women-wearing-headphones-ignores-why-women-wear-headphones
http://www.upworthy.com/advice-for-talking-to-women-wearing-headphones-ignores-why-women-wear-headphones
at
08:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to clinton criticizing trump for not accepting manifest destiny
this is the moderate candidate, folks.
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293964-clinton-trump-doesnt-believe-in-american-exceptionalism
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/293964-clinton-trump-doesnt-believe-in-american-exceptionalism
at
08:17
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
j reacts to how interpolating undecideds for '16 leads to a choice between '92 and '96
i'm going to do something i consistently criticize people for. but, we do not currently have data that contradicts it.
in the last election in canada, we had consistent polling that undecideds were substantial and they would not pick stephen harper. this created polls that exaggerated his position through most of the race, until the undecideds came down. i don't see any polling like that right now - both candidates are very unpopular.
you can read that two ways.
1) all of the undecideds will vote for johnson. it's a lot harder to assign all of the undecideds to a third party candidate in a two-party system than it is to assign them to the natural governing party (the liberals) in a multi-party system. it could happen. bad assumption.
2) the undecideds might distribute.
now, i hate this. you do this when you don't have any other data. it's a vanilla assumption - usually wrong. i'm going to do it anyways...
the rcp average is pinning 9% undecided. distributing...
clinton: 42.2/91 = 46.3.
trump: 37.8/91 = 41.5
johnson: 7.9/91 = 8.6
stein: 3.1/91 = 3.4
this most closely matches the 1996 results for johnson/perot...
clinton - 49.2
dole - 40.7
perot - 8.4
so, if you assume that the undecideds will distribute then the wild card in using 1996 to predict 2016 is stein. if you deliver stein to clinton, it's very close to 1992. if you don't, it could hinder her in close races.
but, what if they all go third party? then the adjusted rcp average is:
clinton: 42.2
trump: 37.8
other: 20
look at 1992:
clinton: 43.0
bush: 37.4
perot + other: 18.9 + .7 = 19.6
whether you're looking at '92 or '96 as the better predictor is going to depend on how you interpolate undecideds. so, go get me more data on undecideds.
this is not yet predictive though, either. there's too much volatility, which is very different than the last election in canada, where the conservatives had flatlined for months and nothing moved them. clinton's graph could still careen out of control, producing a landslide.
but, it's what we've got right now.
as mentioned previously, you also have to make some smart adjustments. these are national polls. so you have to distribute them, too.
but it should give an idea about which states are in play and which aren't.
1996..
States where the margin of victory was under 7% :
Kentucky, 0.96%
Nevada, 1.02%
Georgia, 1.17%
Arizona, 2.22%
Tennessee, 2.41%
Montana, 2.88%
South Dakota, 3.46%
North Carolina, 4.69%
Texas, 4.93%
Mississippi, 5.13%
Indiana, 5.58%
Florida, 5.70%
South Carolina, 6.04%
Missouri, 6.30%
Ohio, 6.36%
North Dakota, 6.81%
Alabama, 6.96%
1992...
States with margin of victory less than 7%
Georgia – 0.59%
North Carolina – 0.79%
Ohio – 1.83%
Florida – 1.89%
Arizona – 1.95%
Montana – 2.51%
Nevada – 2.63%
Kentucky – 3.21%
Texas – 3.48%
South Dakota – 3.52%
Louisiana – 4.61%
Tennessee – 4.65%
Kansas – 5.14%
Iowa – 6.02%
Indiana – 6.12%
Alabama – 6.77%
in the last election in canada, we had consistent polling that undecideds were substantial and they would not pick stephen harper. this created polls that exaggerated his position through most of the race, until the undecideds came down. i don't see any polling like that right now - both candidates are very unpopular.
you can read that two ways.
1) all of the undecideds will vote for johnson. it's a lot harder to assign all of the undecideds to a third party candidate in a two-party system than it is to assign them to the natural governing party (the liberals) in a multi-party system. it could happen. bad assumption.
2) the undecideds might distribute.
now, i hate this. you do this when you don't have any other data. it's a vanilla assumption - usually wrong. i'm going to do it anyways...
the rcp average is pinning 9% undecided. distributing...
clinton: 42.2/91 = 46.3.
trump: 37.8/91 = 41.5
johnson: 7.9/91 = 8.6
stein: 3.1/91 = 3.4
this most closely matches the 1996 results for johnson/perot...
clinton - 49.2
dole - 40.7
perot - 8.4
so, if you assume that the undecideds will distribute then the wild card in using 1996 to predict 2016 is stein. if you deliver stein to clinton, it's very close to 1992. if you don't, it could hinder her in close races.
but, what if they all go third party? then the adjusted rcp average is:
clinton: 42.2
trump: 37.8
other: 20
look at 1992:
clinton: 43.0
bush: 37.4
perot + other: 18.9 + .7 = 19.6
whether you're looking at '92 or '96 as the better predictor is going to depend on how you interpolate undecideds. so, go get me more data on undecideds.
this is not yet predictive though, either. there's too much volatility, which is very different than the last election in canada, where the conservatives had flatlined for months and nothing moved them. clinton's graph could still careen out of control, producing a landslide.
but, it's what we've got right now.
as mentioned previously, you also have to make some smart adjustments. these are national polls. so you have to distribute them, too.
but it should give an idea about which states are in play and which aren't.
1996..
States where the margin of victory was under 7% :
Kentucky, 0.96%
Nevada, 1.02%
Georgia, 1.17%
Arizona, 2.22%
Tennessee, 2.41%
Montana, 2.88%
South Dakota, 3.46%
North Carolina, 4.69%
Texas, 4.93%
Mississippi, 5.13%
Indiana, 5.58%
Florida, 5.70%
South Carolina, 6.04%
Missouri, 6.30%
Ohio, 6.36%
North Dakota, 6.81%
Alabama, 6.96%
1992...
States with margin of victory less than 7%
Georgia – 0.59%
North Carolina – 0.79%
Ohio – 1.83%
Florida – 1.89%
Arizona – 1.95%
Montana – 2.51%
Nevada – 2.63%
Kentucky – 3.21%
Texas – 3.48%
South Dakota – 3.52%
Louisiana – 4.61%
Tennessee – 4.65%
Kansas – 5.14%
Iowa – 6.02%
Indiana – 6.12%
Alabama – 6.77%
at
08:03
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
if you want to watch or take part in pornography, go ahead. what do i care? and, you don't need my permission, either. just don't insult my intelligence by referring to your pornography as 'art'.
if you want to go to a strip club, go ahead. just don't pretend that you're going to a 'concert'.
...and if you want to let your kids watch strippers on tv, that's your choice. well, at least it is in the sense that you own the tv. your kids aren't your property. just, stop fooling yourself into thinking it's a 'music video'. it's not. they're strippers. and it's porn.
if you want to go to a strip club, go ahead. just don't pretend that you're going to a 'concert'.
...and if you want to let your kids watch strippers on tv, that's your choice. well, at least it is in the sense that you own the tv. your kids aren't your property. just, stop fooling yourself into thinking it's a 'music video'. it's not. they're strippers. and it's porn.
at
00:33
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)