You can access FIDO over NNTP at https://syncro.net (news://cvs.synchro.net to get the groups) and Usenet at https://eternal-september.org, with news://eternal-september.org (or snews:// for TLS, secure times) for the same group fetching.
On the ghosts towns, with FIDO/DOVE you get far less posts, but every group has some content. With Usenet, you either have loaded technical groups (and some less tech bound ones such as misc.internet.discuss) plus some niche hobbies (chess, classical music...) except modern PC gaming. The rest, as you said... shadows from better places.
For postmodern bullshiters, hauntology it's never a thing on open services. There's always some people having fun there. Former propietary or web bound services are dead, forgotten and lost. Such as MySpace, Digg, unpatched MSN-AOL-ICQ, the Spanish slashdot clone (Barrapunto), Libertonia (es.comp.os.linux related slashdot clone) and so on.
About a half of the amino acids used in proteins, i.e. ten of them, can form easily in abiotic conditions and they are widespread in some celestial bodies.
They are easily distinguished from terrestrial contaminants, because they are a mixture of left-handed and right-handed isomers.
When analyzing the genetic code in order to determine which amino acids have already been used in the earlier versions of the genetic code and which have been added more recently, the same simpler amino acids that are easy to synthesize even in the absence of life are also those that appear to have been the only amino acids used earlier.
The article contains the phrase "Given the fact that the current scenario is that life on Earth started with RNA".
This is a fact that it is too often repeated like if it were true, when in reality one of the few things that can be said with certainty about the origin of life is that it has not started with RNA.
What must be true is only that RNA had existed a very long time before DNA and DNA has been an innovation that has been the result of a long evolution of already existing life forms, long before the last ancestor of all living beings that still exist now on Earth.
On the other hand, proteins, or more correctly said peptides, must have existed before any RNA. Moreover, ATP must have existed long before any RNA.
RNA has two main functions based on its information-storage property: the replication of RNA using a template of RNA (which was the single form of nucleic acid replication before the existence of DNA) and the synthesis of proteins using RNA as a template.
Both processes require complex molecular machines, so it is impossible for both of them to have appeared simultaneously. One process must have appeared before the other and there can be no doubt that the replication of RNA must have appeared before the synthesis of proteins.
Had synthesis of proteins appeared first, it would have been instantly lost at the death of the host living being, because the RNA able to be used as a template for proteins could not have been replicated, therefore it could not have been transmitted to descendants.
So in the beginning RNA must have been only a molecule with the ability of self replication. All its other functions have evolved in living beings where abundant RNA existed, being produced by self replication.
The RNA replication process requires energy and monomers, in the form of ATP together with the other 3 phosphorylated nucleotides. Therefore all 4 nucleotides and their phosphorylated forms like ATP must have existed before RNA.
ATP must have been used long before RNA, like today, as a means of extracting water from organic molecules, causing the condensations of monomers like amino acids into polymers like peptides.
The chemical reactions in the early living forms were certainly regulated much less well than in the present living beings, so many secondary undesirable reactions must have happened concurrently with the useful chemical reactions.
So the existence of abundant ATP and other phosphorylated nucleotides must have had as a consequence the initially undesirable polymerization and co-polymerization of the nucleotides, forming random RNA molecules, until by chance a self-replicating RNA molecule was produced.
Because the first self-replicating RNA molecule did not perform any useful function for the host life form, but it diverted useful nucleotides from its metabolism, this first self-replicating RNA molecule must be considered as the first virus. Only much later, after these early viruses have evolved the ability to synthesize proteins, some of them must have become integrated with their hosts, becoming their genome.
The catalytic functions that are now performed mostly by proteins, i.e. amino acid polymers that are synthesized using an RNA template, must have been performed earlier by peptides, i.e. typically shorter amino acid polymers that are synthesized without the use of RNA templates.
Even today, all living beings contain many non-ribosomal peptides, which are made without RNA, using processes that are much less understood than those that involve nucleic acids.
The difference between a living being that would be able to make only non-ribosomal peptides and one that makes proteins using RNA templates is pretty much the same difference as between a CPU with hard-wired control and a CPU with micro-programmed control, with the same advantages and disadvantages.
Life forms able to reproduce themselves must have existed before the appearance of the nucleic acids, but they must have been incapable of significant evolution, because any random change in the structure of the molecules that composed them would have been very likely to result in a defective organism that would have died without descendants. This is similar with a hard-wired control, where small random changes in the circuits are unlikely to result in a functional device.
On the other hand, once the structure of the enzymes was written in molecules of nucleic acids, the random copying errors could result in structures very different from the original structures, which could not have been obtained by gradual changes in the original structures without passing through non functional structures that could not have been inherited.
So the use of molecules that can store the structural information of a living being has enabled the evolution towards much more complex life forms, but it cannot have had any role in the apparition of the first life forms, because the replication of any such molecule requires energy that can be provided only by an already existing life form.
The problem is, you can create as many Mi accounts as you want. They can make it slightly harder by verifying your phone number, but that’s also pretty easy to circumvent.
The good news is that there is some LSP support now. I recommend PerlNavigator if this is something that interests you: https://github.com/bscan/PerlNavigator
They also didn't get why FM synthesis was so appealing, in spite of being difficult to understand for the common musician.
It's in the tone.
Acoustic instruments respond in a complex way to the variation in strength of input: when you strike the key in the piano faster, pluck a string harder, or blow air info the saxophone stronger, you don't merely get a louder sound: the harmonic content, the timbre of the sound changes as well.
Analogue synthesis struggled accomplishing this. The classic analog synth would have an envelope generator ("ADSR") controlling the loudness of the tone, and another, most commonly, controlling the filter (the thing that makes the synth do a wowowow sound on the same note), but responsive fading and evolution of the harmonics wasn't readily available.
On the Yamaha DX7, it was built into the core idea of FM synthesis.
You don't know it when you hear it, you know it when you play it: the way the keyboard responded to the touch was alive, magical.
You didn't need to rely on the modulation wheels and joysticks and knobs to vary the timbre as you play. You could simply play the keyboard.
On my Yamaha Reface DX (which overcomes the drawbacks of FM user interface), I can easily make a tone whose character (not loudness! - or not just loudness) changes when I simply play harder. It's like having several instruments at once at your disposal, blending between them on the fly.
It's that playability that makes FM make sense — and it was what other digital synthesis technologies went for, too. Roland's "linear arithmetic", vector synthesis, and M1's multisampling all explored that area — but they came after DX7.
What makes FM synthesis unique is the heavily non-linear response of the tone to the dynamics. At worst, it's unpredictable, but once you figure out where the sweet spots are in the parameter space, you get a tone like nothing else. A bell that's also a string orchestra. A guitar with a soul of the saxophone, but not mistaken for either; an identity all of its own.
Yamaha DX7 heavily leaned into this aspect in instrument's design, via providing additional parameters that controlled the sensitivity of operators to velocity depending on where on the keyboard you are, so that the lower tones would have a different character from higher ones.
The "diminished brilliance" the author writes about was likely that — i.e., the author not figuring out how FM sound design works, which they openly admitted. It was matter of taste of whoever made the presets; without programming those curves in, the higher notes can easily sound screeching.
The point, again, was that the instrument wasn't merely responsive in a way that analogue synths couldn't dream of, but that the way in which it was responsive, tone-wise, was programmable, and varied not just from patch to patch, but across the scale and velocity range.
Again, think about how plucking different strings on a guitar harder produces a different variation in tonal response. Each string has its own character.
This is the soul of the mathematical idea of FM synthesis: that the tone evolution should not merely be controlled by time passing (as it is on most analogue synths, via envelope generators and LFO's), and not by knob twiddling (modulation wheels, knobs, sliders, joysticks,...) — but by playing the instrument itself.
And on a keyboard, what you really play with is where on the keyboard you strike a key, and how fast.
Yamaha DX7 allowed the player to vary the timbre by playing the instrument, with both hands, by having all tone generators depend on these two variables in a programmable, non-linear, interesting way.
FM synthesis of Yamaha DX7 therefore can't be separated from the physical keyboard it shipped with. The way the tones felt as you played them were determined by the response curves which simply don't map in the same way to a different keyboard.
The fact that the DX7 was a digital synth obscured the fact that it was a very analog instrument in that way; that to get a truly good FM preset, you need to tune it to the keyboard response (i.e. velocity curves), and that involves the analog components.
It's also for this reason that DX7 only has membrane buttons, and no knobs or sliders. It didn't need them. The 60 keys were your knobs and sliders, the means to control the tone.
That's why the ePiano on the DX-7 was on 60% of the new releases. It didn't merely emulate the Rhodes (which, by all means, wasn't a rare instrument).
What it did was it gave keyboard players a way to play with the tone of their instrument while playing the instrument, something the Rhodes would have a more limited range for, as the variation in tone response was constrained by how similar the actual metallic forks that made the sound were to each other, and how similar the hammers are across the octaves — and the digital DX7 didn't have that limitation.
It also gave the people used to playing the synth with one hand (to be able to tweak the sound with the other) the freedom to play truly polyphonically, and use the keyboard itself to control the tone dynamics.
Playing it was a liberating experience, and it still is, because while intricate multi-sampling can also give you that effect (at no less difficulty, mind you, even if you have the samples!), FM does it differently.
The musicians didn't need to be mindful of all that; the absolute majority (Brian Eno expected) were outright oblivious to why and what made DX7 the instrument that you had to have.
You just felt it.
And yes, new FM synthesizers keep coming. Because emulating acoustic instruments is not just easy with sampling these days, it also isn't enough. You can just hire someone to play the real instrument, after all.
You need a bit more than that to craft a distinctive sound — especially a new one.
Liven XFM, Korg Opsix, Arturia Minifreak all go boldly where manmade sound didn't go before, and these are just three novel FM synthesizers from this decade.
Reface DX came out less than 10 years ago; and its FM engine is different from DX7 (as is the UX — you can finally change the tone while playing it with live controls).
And for all the talk of how FM is old, I've yet to see someone not be captivated by the ePiano patch that comes stock on the Reface DX when I let them play it when I bring the instrument around with me on trips (which I often do).
Current developments in the controllers (like what ROLI is doing) will allow all the existing sound generation techniques to shine in new ways, including FM.
But I think it's the physical package of the keyboard, the algorithm, and the presets tuned to the combination of the two is what made the DX7 such a success.
A new FM instrument could easily be a hit with these factors, particularly if they don't skimp on including built-in speakers and making the presets sound great on them. FM truly shines when all the pieces are aligned in a performer's instrument.
Reface DX comes close to that point, but the presets it ships with are more of an engine demo than sounds to make music with, the speakers are not loud, and the mini-keys (which I love!) were a turn-off for many people — because in the Internet age, people would judge a machine without actually playing it, and that's the only way to understand what's so damn special about FM synthesis.
Framework's AMD laptops open sourced their Embedded Controller, which is neat as hell on its own. The ability to significantly modify your platform is sooo enticing & interesting, is such a system-below-all-systems to really enable some amazing tinkering. https://community.frame.work/t/open-source-ec-for-amd-based-...
Wish it had Bluetooth or wifi of it's own. It'd be awesome to build a remote controlled laptop!
Super notable, the Embedded Controller runs Linux Project's Zephyr. Love to see it! Not just an open source platform, an open source platform based around an absolutely top of class embedded OS.
And it's not the same, so sometimes there is just "transit", although transit here should I guess be understood very loosely. I also assume they just know who paid for what.
Edit: although upon re-reading I think you probably asked something else. Sorry in that case.
Virgil Dupras, the author of the Tumble Forth series there, also authors DuskOS, an OS written entirely in a custom Forth. His consistent and prodigious output really is quite impressive. I don't really hold to the collapse philosophy, but the DuskOS mailing list has just the right amount of volume that it's perfect for lurking.
Virgil's work inspired me to give Forth a bit of a go, and last year I spent some time hand decompiling SmithForth[1]. It really is remarkable how little assembler is required to bootstrap the language. I can totally see how Forth could give you a repl in embedded environments, which sounds way more fun than the typical dev cycle I hear about.
I like Lua, but after going all in on Gambit-C^1 for a bit, I'm not sure anything can top its level of integration. Besides compiling to C, it just lets you straight up write C inside of a .scm file.
Vector tiles are generated and served on-demand by https://github.com/styluslabs/geodesk-tiles so there's no need to download an entire country or region first.