People, especially enthusiasts of classical music, sometimes criticize John Williams for being a bit repetitive and over-bombastic. But, well, he's first and foremost a film compose, and that's sort of the nature of the genre. People tend to select film composers because they liked their previous work and want something very similar, so they tend to have a pretty consistent style. You see the same with other prominent film composers like Hans Zimmer. I guess what's notable about John Williams is that he was such a prolific and popular film composer for such a long period that his style was the style of film scores for a generation. It's hard to imagine an era of film, hits like Star Wars and Indiana Jones and Jurassic Park, without his bombast. His tendency to "go big" is part of what defined these epics.

All that said, my favorite John Williams composition strays a little bit from film. It's "The Mission," better known as the theme for the NBC nightly news. The short theme is instantly recognizable to probably most Americans, but not so many have heard the full composition. NBC used to play it over credits at the end of the last news segment but I don't think they do any more. Fortunately there's a (potato quality) YouTube video of John Williams himself directing a Sony studio orchestra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7kIgcYgIQk

Increasingly I find it depending mostly on what the game was built for... I was raised, if you will, on PC point and shoots, and so my preference is for mouse and keyboard. But even a lot of AAA games these days that are console ports have noticeable pointer lag and aggressive reticule gravity or other aids. I find these really frustrating since they interfere with the 1:1 sense you get with motion on a mouse, so I'll switch to a controller instead.

Hogwarts Legacy is an example of a recent AAA release that has such heavy reticule gravity that sometimes the best strategy is to just hold an analog stick forward and not move it (e.g. in the broom races)... I hate this kind of thing but I feel like it's something you put up with as a PC gamer due to the popularity edge the consoles have. At least it tends to be games where fast aiming isn't a huge factor.

An interesting article. I have some experience with colonias as there's one near me and I have been through and near others. What's a bit confusing to me is that this doesn't sound like a colonia at all (although it is referred to as "formerly" a colonia, perhaps confusing me further). Colonias are typically areas with no incorporated entity at all and often on land not platted for residential development. This leads to a near complete lack of infrastructure. Without water, sewer, paved roads, or even street addressing, colonias tend to have significant safety and health problems just due to the realities of exurban population concentration without the infrastructure to support it.

That's not the case here, though---the area is apparently a planned residential development with an active developer and property owner's association. To the extent there are infrastructure issues it's probably a result of underregulation of residential development, a widespread problem in Texas that the article nods to. But that's a whole issue aside from the "haven for illegality" accusation which feels like far more of a scare story than a reality. Still, crime in areas like this can become a significant problem... impoverished people in marginal living situations (e.g. RVs parked on rural lots) tend to be very attractive targets for theft, and that starts a feedback loop of escalating violence and worsening conditions as residents feel forced to defend their livelihood and shelter---and therefore get trigger happy with firearms and aren't able to hold down jobs due to the time they'd be away. This has visibly played out in the San Luis Valley in Colorado, for example.

The situation here seems fairly optimistic, though, doesn't it? The school district seems responsive, the POA is funding law enforcement. It looks like a community that's maybe on the edge of this downwards trend starting, but that's taking active measures to stop it. What they need from the state legislature is probably more funding and perhaps authority to incorporate, I'm not sure how that works in Texas. But that doesn't look like what they're going to get, because the legislature's dominant party has decided to make it an illegal immigration story.

The detail that this is playing out in "Liberty County" is, of course, a wonderful one. It invites a comparison to libertarian/anarchist development efforts that have often failed in interesting ways, but then this doesn't seem to be one. The leg seems invested in it not coming off that way, either.

It's sort of hard to know what happened in more detail without really good-quality reporting from in the courtroom, that might inform as to why the jury found the way they did. We know that the judge issued a majority instruction, a not very uncommon process where, if the jury deliberates for too long, the judge tells them that a ruling can now be accepted with one or two dissenters. I don't think the jury says what the vote was, just that it was enough, so it could have been unanimous, we don't know. In the US journalists often try to track down jury members and interview them to get those kinds of details but jurors don't always want the media circus around them and I don't know if that's common practice in the UK.

The dropped charges were apparently alternative counts covering the same crime as the other charges and were probably dropped for that reason, although it's interesting that no reporters seem to have really given a reason why. I don't know enough about the UK legal opinion to give much of a guess as to why except that I see the crown prosecution manual does discourage using alternative counts (of a lower crime) in rape cases. Some context in, of all things, Yahoo News, suggests the judge may have been concerned that the alternative counts were making things more complicated for the jury. In the US, some states prohibit charging the same crime as multiple alternative counts for this reason, or have a special procedure for the jury to make it easier, it's sort of a known issue that it's hard for a jury to come to a verdict when they're having to choose guilty/innocent for multiple counts of different exact allegations over one event.

The outcome is dissatisfying, but it's sort of the outcome the criminal justice system is designed to produce. All the jury found is that there was not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Spacey was guilty. There could still be evidence making it most likely that Spacey was guilty, but criminal prosecutions require the higher standard because of the severe impacts of criminal charges. The crown prosecution service put out a statement that they accept the ruling and were just doing their job, which in the US would look more like a prosecutor trying to save face over pursuing what wasn't the strongest case, but I have no idea about the UK, it might be totally routine to make a statement like that.

The Spacey thing is interesting if you like to follow the legal details. The US cases against him (criminal and civil) were both dropped after the accuser stopped cooperating with the prosecution, at one point pleading the fifth when testifying. That tends to be taken as a sign that the accuser was lying about at least something substantial, thus the prosecutor dropping the charges, but that wasn't determined by the court or anything. It's possible, although maybe not so likely, that the accuser was acting in good faith and lost interest in pursuing the case for some other reason. That's probably more likely when a celebrity is involved, these celebrity prosecutions are all the more complex when it comes to people's motivations.

The whole culture around sexual harassment/assault allegations has changed a lot over recent years (since "MeToo" if you will), for the better in many ways, but I think there's still a lot of unsettled issues. It seems like in celebrity cases it's a lot more likely that "hangers on" will show up with claims that are maybe not untrue but at least stretch the truth. At the same time we obviously have to take accusers very seriously or we risk ignoring criminality because the accused is a popular celebrity. The justice system produces a lot of these unclear outcomes where maybe there were multiple accusers and things look really sketchy for the accused, but it's not clear enough for a prosecution. That situation has always ended up going to the court of public opinion for a final verdict, but in the case of a big celebrity like Spacey that's sort of a huge deal. Will studios keep working with Spacey? I suspect the answer is yes, because he's a huge celebrity, not because of anything about the merits of the case against him. In corporate environments the company will sometimes hire a private investigator to make a decision about the accusation and fire based on that (this is in the US where there are no employment protections), which kind of has its own sketchiness, but the media industry isn't known for caring that much.

There's an interesting aspect of this issue that I think the post summary really dismisses. Photos coming from phones these days sort of are AI, and in an annoyingly pervasive way.

I've actually gone back from using my phone to using a proper camera again over the last year or so because I'm getting so irritated by the amount of ML-based post-processing my phone does. It results in a lot of photos looking bad, and there's no easy way to bypass it besides setting the phone to save raw which sort of defeats the point of using the phone in a lot of ways (ability to go from taking the photo to posting on the device). A really common situation for me is when I take a photo with my phone that is blurry because of bad focus/shake/low light/some combination. The phone does really aggressive ML "sharpening" of the image that makes it look extremely artificial and, frankly, a lot worse than if the postprocessing had been omitted. I've had sets of photos I took totally ruined by this kind of "helpfulness."

It's a tricky issue, there absolutely are benefits to cameras using the best technology available to create the best photograph available. I'm not meaning to appeal to some sense of artistic integrity or "real photography" here. I just hate the lack of control over the product. I used to be really into photography as a hobby and had a lot of opinions about lenses and mostly set up exposures manually. Nowadays I use my Sony Alpha with the kit lens and rarely take it off of its "smart" auto mode, which does have some ML-driven features like subject detection. But it feels like I have so much more control over the output than I do with my phone, because the Sony doesn't run the image through ten layers of AI processing that's not a whole lot better than the state of the art in Instagram filters before saving it. If I don't hold the camera steady it'll just come out motion blurred, not like someone new to photoshop has just discovered the posterize button.

As I understand Apple is better than most of the Android vendors about this kind of thing and the iPhone processing probably produces better output - but it's still frustrating to me feeling like photos are changing from "capturing the scene" to "recreating the scene." I did graduate work on forensics of digital images, learned a lot of theory and methods for analyzing and reversing in-camera processing. But that was for "normal" cameras... debayering for example, the kind of things that really need to be done to turn sensor data into a useful image because of the properties of the sensor. But phones, the dominant photographic tool today, are taking it to this whole new level where they do what would have been very complex postprocessing on every image, as it's taken.

As with so many things, I guess it's good when it works, but endlessly frustrating when it doesn't. At least it feels like the phone vendors are doing their part to preserve "traditional" photographic technology, if that's what you'd call a Sony mirrorless, by really nerfing phones as tools for people who want much control over the result. I do understand there are third-party apps for iPhone that expose a lot more user control but it seems like they also have some limitations with how much of the camera stack they can control/bypass.

I still miss my old iRiver with Rockbox... definitely been thinking about getting a proper PMP again.

I got to see the Alan Parsons Project live about a year ago! It was a great show but Alan Parsons is definitely showing his age. It was an anniversary tour for "Eye in the Sky" delayed a couple years by COVID. I guess I feel bad that I'm hoping he lives long enough to get to a Stereotomy anniversary...

I'm lucky enough to have a Kobol Helios64, but unfortunately the small company that made these shut down. It's fine for the time being but I'm going to have to pay attention to the NAS market to be ready to replace it one day... my main goal is low power, so I'm not sure if it's worth it to go to a more commercial option like Synology or if I should be building something.

As appliance NAS tend to be, the actual SBC in the Helios64 is pretty slow so I minimize what I run on it. It does have Plex server, but most everything else runs on another ARM machine that mounts from it by SMB.

"Tales of Mystery and Imagination," by the Alan Parsons Project, is a near-perfect concept album in my mind. It's cross-genre while still feeling being interconnected.

I also love John Mellencamp's "Mr. Happy Go Lucky." To my frustration, though, the version of it on the streaming services I know of is missing the interstitial tracks on the CD. I think that actually takes a lot away from it as they had provided transitions that made it feel more like a complete work.

"Glaciers," Blue Sky Black Death, follows the annoying trend of titling tracks with roman numerals but feels like an hour-long DJ set that flows very naturally. A very different album with a similar trait in my mind is F#A#Infinity, Godspeed(!) You(!) Black Emperor(!).

A more ambient choice, Jon Hopkins "Immunity." "Psychic" from Darkside (Nicolaas Jaar with Dave Harrington) also comes to mind.

I'm having trouble thinking of really new examples right now... I kind of feel like the album has faded out as an art form and a lot more releases today seem more like just grab-bags of tracks, probably because of the streaming delivery model. There's definitely some counterexamples out there, though.

Although I oppose corporate sponsorship, I would encourage you to strongly consider incorporating (probably as a nonprofit incorporation, options vary by state) as you scale upwards. This offers legal protection not only to the operators of the service but also to the users, since it allows for appropriate controls on governance and finances. Unincorporated community services that take donations are, unfortunately, notorious for corruption and self-dealing since there are few legal and organizational measures in place to prevent it.

Beehaw would most likely not qualify for federal tax exemption (but you could get an attorney's opinion). In a way that's a good thing, as the typical cost of getting an IRS letter of status runs over $1k while the typical cost of incorporating a nonprofit in most states is around $100. This is all US-centric of course, in other countries I have no idea!

Definitely. There's the old line about being indistinguishable from magic, and I think it very much applies here. Fly-by-wire and algorithmic control of aircraft allows for some incredible feats of aerobatics that are hard for humans to imagine performing. We knew this I think over a decade ago now with MIT's demonstrations of quadcopters performing sweet tricks, but for various reasons (that, personal opinion here, come down mostly to the near complete capture of military R&D by a small group of defense contractors with little motivation to perform actual R&D) we haven't really tried that hard to apply this sort of technology to military aircraft. Some of the UAP documents from ODNI have, in my reading, supported this type of hypothesis. The key phrase "unusual flight characteristics or performance capabilities" in one ODNI report sounds to me like ODNI thinks they're seeing behavior that is inconsistent with our current aerospace technology but not inconsistent with physics---in other words, someone knows how to do things that we don't. It could be aliens, but...

If we assume that these orbs and other military UAP reports reflect genuine flying objects (and on the balance of the evidence I think they do), my money would be on China or Russia having invested a lot of time and effort into computational control of unmanned aircraft, probably integrating hypersonic aerodynamic research we know both countries have been performing (and have almost certainly surpassed the US on). The result, I think it's pretty reasonable to imagine, could be compact unmanned aircraft capable of some really extreme maneuvers. There are plenty of open questions with this theory, like power sources, but I feel like it's in the right balance of pushing the bounds of the possible without requiring off-planet intervention. Remember that the US fielded both low-radar-profile aircraft and extremely high altitude aircraft with a great deal of secrecy. These would have been quite UFO-like to the Soviet Union, but had perfectly rational explanations... just explanations that involved at least a decade of advanced R&D performed in secret.

More to the point, though, I think we have to be really careful with this "extreme flight characteristics means aliens" line of thinking. It's exactly what got us into the situation where claims of UAPs were viewed with such skepticism that they were suppressed within the military. We have to admit aliens as a possibility, but China is a whole lot closer, and we know that she has a sophisticated and well-supplied military R&D program. Decades of research ought to have gotten them something, and it would probably look pretty weird to those of us not in the loop.

I have sort of a particular skeptical opinion on recent UFO disclosures. I've published it here:

• https://computer.rip/2023-02-14-something-up-there-pt-I.html
• https://computer.rip/2023-02-17-something-up-there-pt-II.html

It's important to understand that we managed to get into a situation where the military performed essentially no collection or analysis of reports of unusual aircraft for nearly 40 years. I don't think we should be too surprised by a significant revelation about advanced technology possessed by foreign governments after this period of time. At the same time, it remains very possible that these reports are mistaken. I expect that recent investment in UAS-detection technology will lead to a lot more empirical evidence in these kinds of situations, and then we'll have a lot more to go on.