Limitations of Brushstrokes:

1. Lack of Tactility: No physical brushstrokes, no satisfying texture, no happy accidents.
2. Limited Brush Variety: Preset digital brushes lack the organic feel and variety of real brushes.
3. Imperfect Blending: Achieving natural blending can be difficult compared to the nuanced control of physical paint.

Color and Light:

4. Inaccurate Color Gamut: Digital screens cannot fully replicate the richness and vibrancy of physical paints.
5. Limited Lighting Effects: Simulating natural light and subtle shadows can be challenging digitally.
6. Uniformity of Texture: Flatness and lack of texture can make digital paintings feel sterile compared to traditional mediums.

Control and Expression:

7. Undo Button Dependency: Reworking mistakes digitally lacks the commitment and spontaneity of physical painting.
8. Algorithmic Reliance: Feeling of being limited by pre-programmed tools and filters, hindering creative freedom.
9. Loss of Happy Accidents: Digital painting eliminates the serendipitous effects that can spark new ideas in traditional mediums.

Uniqueness and Authenticity:

10. Reproducibility: Digital paintings are easily copied and replicated, diminishing their perceived value and uniqueness.
11. Generative AI Art: Feeling that AI-generated art lacks the soul and personal expression of a human artist.
12. Concern about Authenticity: Difficulty in verifying the creator and originality of digital art.

Technical Challenges:

13. Hardware Limitations: Expensive tablets and powerful computers needed, not readily accessible to all artists.
14. Learning Curve: Mastering digital tools requires significant time and effort, compared to traditional techniques.
15. Software Dependence: Reliance on specific software and updates, creating potential compatibility issues and workflow disruptions.

Sustainability and Preservation:

16. Digital Obsolescence: Digital files can become inaccessible or corrupted over time, unlike physical paintings.
17. Environmental Impact: The energy consumption of digital tools and cloud storage raises ethical concerns.
18. Loss of Tangibility: No physical object to hold, display, and appreciate like a traditional painting.

Overall Experience:

19. Disconnection from Materials: The physical interaction with paint, canvas, and light is irreplaceable for some artists.
20. Loss of the Personal Touch: The feeling of pouring emotion and intention onto a canvas is absent in purely digital creation.

^{Takes two full cycles to grok a cyclical phenomenon}

^{0.25 cycle: “It’s a secular trend!”}

^{0.5c: “the fad has passed”}

^{0.75c: “overcompensation”}

^{1c: “Ok it’s over, what’s next?”}

^{1.25c: “This time it’s different”}

^{1.5c: “Deja vu”}

^{1.75c: “We learned nothing”}

^{2c: “It’s cyclic”}

@vgr

This statement humorously illustrates the typical progression of reactions to cyclical phenomena over two full cycles, highlighting how perceptions and responses evolve over time:

– At 0.25 cycles, there’s a tendency to view the phenomenon as a long-term, secular trend, attributing significance to its perceived permanence.

– By 0.5 cycles, as the phenomenon reaches its peak and begins to decline, some may dismiss it as a passing fad, underestimating its lasting impact.

– At 0.75 cycles, there’s often an overcompensation in response to the decline, with efforts to counteract or reverse the trend.

– By 1 cycle, as the phenomenon fades into obscurity, attention shifts to the next big thing, signaling a readiness to move on.

– At 1.25 cycles, when the phenomenon unexpectedly resurfaces, there’s a tendency to believe that “this time it’s different,” ignoring historical patterns.

– By 1.5 cycles, as the cycle repeats, there’s a sense of deja vu, with recognition of familiar patterns.

– At 1.75 cycles, despite experiencing the cycle multiple times, there’s a realization that lessons have not been learned, and mistakes are repeated.

– Finally, at 2 cycles, the cyclical nature of the phenomenon becomes apparent, leading to an acknowledgment of its inherent cyclicality.

Here’s an expanded proposition

2.25c: “We’re in the rinse and repeat phase.” – At this stage, we’ve recognized the familiar pattern of the cycle and find ourselves going through the motions once again, as if caught in a never-ending loop of repetition.

2.50c: “Same song, different verse, but we’re starting to catch on.” – While the cycle continues, there’s a growing awareness and understanding of its dynamics. We’re beginning to notice subtle variations and nuances, signaling a deeper insight into the cyclical nature of the phenomenon.

2.75c: “Realizing it’s not just the cycle, but the system.” – Beyond simply acknowledging the repetition, we’re starting to grasp the broader systemic factors at play. We understand that the cycle is not isolated but interconnected with larger structures and forces shaping our environment.

3c: “Finally grasping that we’re the ones spinning the wheel.” – With a newfound understanding, we come to realize our agency in perpetuating the cycle. We acknowledge our role in shaping and influencing the trajectory of events, rather than being mere passengers on the ride.

3.25c: “Recognizing the pattern, but still getting dizzy.” – Despite our growing awareness, the cycle can still induce a sense of disorientation or confusion. We may find ourselves navigating the familiar pattern with a mix of certainty and uncertainty, as we strive to maintain our bearings amidst the repetition.

3.50c: “Starting to see the carousel from above.” – As our perspective expands, we gain a clearer view of the cycle from a higher vantage point. We’re able to step back and observe the pattern with a greater sense of detachment and understanding.

3.75c: “Adjusting our seat on the merry-go-round.” – Armed with insights gained from our elevated perspective, we begin to make strategic adjustments. We adapt our approach and position ourselves more strategically within the cycle, aiming to optimize our experience and outcomes.

4c: “Accepting that the merry-go-round is the ride, not the destination.” – At this stage, we come to terms with the cyclical nature of the journey. We embrace the idea that life itself is a series of cycles and that the process of growth and evolution occurs within the repetition.

4.25c: “Riding the loop with a knowing grin.” – With acceptance comes a sense of peace and contentment. We navigate the cycle with confidence and equanimity, knowing that each revolution brings new opportunities for learning and growth.

4.50c: “Weaving through the cycles like a seasoned pro.” – Having mastered the art of cyclical navigation, we move through the pattern with grace and skill. We’re able to anticipate twists and turns, making deliberate choices that align with our goals and values.

4.75c: “Circling back with a sense of déjà vu.” – As we near the completion of another cycle, we experience a sense of familiarity tinged with nostalgia. We recognize echoes of past experiences and lessons, reinforcing our understanding of the cyclical nature of life.

5.00c: “Round and round, but we’re calling the shots.” – Despite the repetitive nature of the cycle, we assert our agency and autonomy. We make conscious decisions and take intentional actions, knowing that we have the power to shape our own destiny within the cycle.

5.25c: “Embracing the loop, because the view changes every turn.” – With a mindset of openness and curiosity, we find joy in the cyclical journey. We appreciate the ever-changing landscape and embrace the diversity of experiences that each revolution brings.

5.50c: “Finding beauty in the perpetual motion.” – Instead of resisting or resenting the cycle, we find beauty and meaning in its continuous motion. We marvel at the rhythm and flow of life, recognizing the inherent harmony and balance within the repetition.

5.75c: “Looping back, but the scenery has changed.” – As we come full circle once again, we’re struck by how much has changed since the last revolution. We marvel at the evolution and transformation that has taken place, realizing that each cycle brings new opportunities for growth and renewal.

6c: “Realizing that the cycle is the journey, not the destination.” – At this stage of profound insight, we transcend the notion of linear progress and destination-oriented thinking. We understand that the true essence of life lies not in reaching a final destination, but in embracing the cyclical journey itself.

The evolution of technology, particularly artificial intelligence (AI), has sparked discussions about the future of work and the impact on various job sectors. A poignant observation is that many of the jobs AI is poised to take over were non-existent during significant historical moments. For instance, when The Beatles recorded their iconic album “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,” professions like social media manager, app developer, data scientist, and genetic counselor were unimaginable. However, as technology advances, these once-novel jobs are now at risk of being automated by AI.

It’s a testament to the dynamic nature of the job market—technology gives rise to new opportunities, but it also has the capacity to render certain occupations obsolete. The phrase “tech gaveth and tech taketh away” encapsulates this phenomenon succinctly. While technological advancements have created numerous new roles and industries, they also pose a threat to traditional job sectors.

Conversely, there are what can be termed “anti-fragile” jobs—roles that have endured across centuries, adapting to changes in technology, society, and the economy. These jobs have demonstrated resilience, evolving alongside advancements while maintaining their fundamental purpose and nature. Tasks and tools may have evolved over time, but the core essence of these occupations remains intact.

However, there’s a caveat to the stability of anti-fragile jobs. Despite their resilience, there’s always a numerus clausus—a limited number—associated with them. These roles often have barriers to entry, whether it’s through formal education, licensure requirements, or access to resources. This limitation creates a competitive landscape where individuals vie for these stable positions, contributing to societal tensions and conflicts—what some might call the “culture war.”

The paradox where individuals on both ends of the political spectrum can simultaneously express support for and skepticism towards technology, all while lacking a deep understanding of its complexities and implications.

Indeed, it’s not uncommon for both liberals and conservatives to exhibit contradictory attitudes towards technology. For example, a liberal might champion the use of renewable energy and advocate for greater regulation of big tech companies to protect privacy, while also expressing concerns about the impact of automation on jobs and the widening digital divide. Similarly, a conservative might embrace free-market principles and celebrate technological innovation as drivers of economic growth, while also expressing reservations about the cultural impact of social media and the influence of tech giants on political discourse.

Despite these conflicting perspectives, what unites them is a shared tendency to overlook the intricacies of technology and its broader societal implications. This lack of understanding can lead to inconsistent policy positions, misguided interventions, and missed opportunities for constructive dialogue and collaboration.

The Paradox of Music as a Cixin Good: Navigating the Predatory Landscape of Attention Economy

In the digital age, music has undergone a profound transformation, evolving from a tangible product into a complex entity deeply embedded within the fabric of the attention economy. However, as music becomes increasingly abundant and easily accessible, it has also become ensnared in the paradox of being a Cixin good—a commodity for which the mere act of drawing attention to it can provoke predatory or parasitic responses rather than fostering mutually beneficial transactions. This essay delves into the intricacies of music as a Cixin good, exploring the implications for both creators and consumers in navigating the predatory landscape of the attention economy.

At its core, the concept of a Cixin good challenges conventional economic wisdom by highlighting the detrimental consequences of drawing attention to certain commodities. In the case of music, the sheer abundance of available content, coupled with the democratization of production and distribution channels, has led to a saturated marketplace where standing out amidst the noise is increasingly challenging. As a result, musicians and artists often find themselves in a precarious position, where promoting their work risks attracting predatory behaviors from opportunistic actors seeking to exploit their creative output for their own gain.

For musicians, the struggle to navigate the attention economy as a Cixin good is multifaceted. On one hand, visibility and exposure are crucial for building a fanbase and garnering support for their work. However, the very act of promoting oneself can inadvertently invite unwanted attention from predatory entities such as algorithmic playlist curators, streaming platforms, or even unscrupulous individuals seeking to profit from their intellectual property without fair compensation. Thus, the expected value of any transaction, whether it be in the form of streaming royalties, merchandise sales, or live performances, is often skewed against the artist, perpetuating a cycle of exploitation and disenchantment.

Similarly, consumers of music also face challenges in navigating the predatory landscape of the attention economy. The abundance of choices and the prevalence of algorithmic recommendation systems can lead to a paradox of choice, where the sheer volume of options becomes overwhelming, making it difficult to discern quality from noise. Moreover, the commodification of attention has led to a culture of passive consumption, where music is often treated as background noise rather than a form of meaningful engagement. In this environment, consumers risk being subjected to predatory marketing tactics designed to manipulate their preferences and behaviors, further eroding trust and diminishing the intrinsic value of music as an art form.

In light of these challenges, both creators and consumers must adopt a nuanced approach to navigating the attention economy and reclaiming the value of music as a cultural and artistic expression. For creators, this may involve cultivating authentic connections with their audience, fostering community-driven initiatives, and exploring alternative revenue streams beyond traditional distribution channels. By prioritizing transparency, fairness, and creative autonomy, artists can mitigate the risks associated with being a Cixin good and forge symbiotic relationships with their supporters based on mutual respect and appreciation.

Similarly, consumers play a pivotal role in reshaping the dynamics of the attention economy by actively seeking out and supporting artists whose values align with their own. By engaging with music in a more intentional and mindful manner, listeners can resist the allure of passive consumption and contribute to the cultivation of a more equitable and sustainable music ecosystem. This may involve patronizing independent musicians, participating in crowdfunding campaigns, or advocating for reforms within the music industry to ensure fair compensation and recognition for creative labor.

In conclusion, the phenomenon of music as a Cixin good underscores the complex interplay between attention, commerce, and creativity in the digital age. As the boundaries between art and commerce continue to blur, it is imperative for both creators and consumers to critically examine their roles within the attention economy and actively work towards reclaiming the intrinsic value of music as a cultural heritage and artistic expression. By fostering a culture of integrity, reciprocity, and empowerment, we can strive to transcend the predatory dynamics of the attention economy and reaffirm the transformative power of music in enriching our lives and shaping our collective consciousness.

“It’s sort of homeostasis by stealth,” a phrase that captures the subtle yet profound nature of cultural adaptation. The recalibration, akin to a clandestine force, emerges as culture’s clandestine route to ascendancy, orchestrating a symphony of cultural evolution. In its orchestration, it deftly accommodates the emergence of novel expressions and habits, all while subtly positioning itself as the definitive strategy for cultural dominance. Much like a master strategist, it maneuvers through the intricate terrain of societal tastes and preferences, shaping the very fabric of cultural discourse. Thus, as the recalibration unfolds, it not only nurtures the growth of new artistic expressions but also solidifies its own position as the driving force behind cultural transformation.

Every time I choose to feel bad about the Russian leader I remember that he was Larry Summers choice