It's nice that it's that easy to "opt out" of the default provided log subscriber and (if desired) swap in your own custom one that does whatever you want.

@18:52:

I wanna also dig a little more into the kind of... dynamism, ease-of-making-changes thing, because I think there's actually two ways to look at the ease of making changes when you solve a problem with software. One way is to make software sufficiency sophisticated so that you can swap any arbitrary part out and you can keep making changes. The other is to make the software so simple that it's easy to rewrite and you can just rewrite it when the constraints change.

Interesting that this is written by a BSD guy.

Ghavasieh, A., Nicolini, C., & De Domenico, M. (2020). Statistical physics of complex information dynamics. ArXiv:2010.04014 [Cond-Mat, Physics:Physics]. http://arxiv.org/abs/2010.04014

This sounds a bit like “send” and “receive” in some (visual) programming languages and modular synths. But the fact that it’s based on common connections sounds quite clever.

Only started playing with Bitwig’s HW/CV integration a few days ago but it’s easy to get inspired by this.

Thanks to training for Cycling ’74 Max, had a kind of micro-epiphany about encapsulation, a year or so ago. Nesting devices in one another sounds like a convenience but there’s a rather deep effect on workflow when you start arranging things in this way: you don’t have to worry about the internals of a box/patcher/module/device if you really know what you can expect out of it. Though some may take this for granted (after all, other modular systems have had it for quite a while), there’s something profound about getting modules that can include other modules. Especially when some of these are third-party plugins.

DAWs typically don’t mesh so well with prototyping culture. When Ableton brought clip launching through Live, its flagship DAW, it had some of this effect: experiment with clips then play with them instead of just playing them. Of course, Cycling ’74 has been all about prototyping, long before Ableton bought the company. But “Max for Live” devices are closer to plugins in that users expect to just be able to use them, not have to create them from scratch. What this marketing copy is emphasizing is that this really is about getting a box of LEGO blocks, not just about getting a DIY kit to create your own instance of something which somebody else designed. The framing sure is specific.

There was an interesting example of this during a short conference on digital textbooks, back in late 2014. Cindy Ives interim VP Academic at Athabasca (!) presented the etext pilot project in partnership with publishers. Ives’s approach was quite pragmatic and there’s nothing wrong with doing a pilot project on something like this. By that time, Ives was already involved in OER projects. It still struck a chord with those of us who care about OER, including Éric Francoeur who took an active part in the event and did work to create a free textbook through international and interlinguistic collaboration.

To me, a key notion from the ‘r’ in “OER” is the distinction with those content bundles we still call “textbooks”. Sure, it’s already in the 5-R model. But the “Remix” idea in music is to a large extent about unbundling.

Don't let it get big? Maybe.