Kinda? The biggest thing is that it's been done by so many other places already that it's sort of a waste of time to spend any time on it when there's already a number of other services. It doesn't really fit into the rest of the design and purpose of Bitwig, so it would really just be a gimmick, or at least seen as one by the core community.
Also, they're sort of an legal-ethics dilemma in that The only time you would really use stim separation is if you don't have the stems already, and therefore almost certainly don't have clearance and can't really use them for anything commercial. Probably not as big of a concern but definitely something to consider.
Really the big one is that a lot the creative online community and especially the kind of community around Bitwig has a pretty strong opinion against generative AI, which includes things like stem separation.
It wasn't advertised by the company. The post is a third party reporting news about Bitwig and inserted its own opinion.
I've never actually seen Bitwig the company refer to "AI" in any capacity, probably be cause it's not relevant to what they do or make, so no "virtue signalling".
I think it is, before it was built into Logic I had a little script setup that would use Meta Demucs. I would use it on my own tracks so I could remix (especially old ones which I had no stems for). It’s also great for sampling and experimentation
I'd expect most cases of stem separation to be handled well by applying specialized software to source music, exporting the stems as audio files, and importing them as individual tracks or samples in the DAW.
Are there workflows that benefit from integrating stem separation in a DAW?
It's like a lot of other feature; ease of use. Imagine your DAW only supports import of wav files, you could argue that there are already services / programs that convert * to .wav, so no need to implement that. But if it's build in not only is it one less program to install, it's also convenient.
Your question is massively generalized. A little bit in every bucket, but obviously I think I'm aiming for better.
One of my newish mantras is: "Apologizing is what we expect of 9-year-olds. Older children are expected to make compensations or repairs. Adults are expected to modify their own behavior in the future."
Edit: Perhaps it's the native danish that tricks me, but by "inclusion" I refer to the practice of forcing and keeping people together - no matter their behaviour. Especially in public schools. Consequences of bad behaviour is not felt on the person doing it, but the ones around having to accept it.
This is half the answer, though we'd also need those indicators to be plentiful and compelling.
> we know very well how personal behavior is distorted
This points to the other half: humans are irrational by default. We tend to believe what we "experience" - see, hear, etc. - even if we know it's a lie. Have you seen those videos of people in VR glasses panicking as if they're about to die because they've just fallen off a virtual cliff?
Consider also the Illusory Consensus Effect: mere repetition of information increases the estimates of group members that other group members believe or already know that information. Logically redundant, rhetorically effective.
We're apes with a souped up prefrontal cortex - critical thinking is expensive so applied selectively (see Tversky and Kahneman, System 1 vs System 2 thinking).
My doctor buddy told of a room in the hospital called the Cabbage Patch, full of braindead people who absolutely will die but can’t be let to die yet. Who is that room full of?
Consider that the fatality rate is roughly 30 times higher per mile for motorcycles vs cars.
I fully understand the freedom of the open road riding on a metal stallion - I’ve genuinely never felt anything else like it.
But it’s really god damn dangerous. Let’s not kid ourselves.
> Consider that the fatality rate is roughly 30 times higher per mile for motorcycles vs cars.
I guess it's worth asking, what country? In Spain, I think it's closer to ~10x, probably because we're very used to motorcycles driving all around us all the time. But still, riskier, no doubt.
I'm guessing that numbers come from the US in some way or similar? Watching dashcam footage sometimes, I keep seeing people riding motorbikes in the US without helmets, something I almost never seen in Spanish traffic, I can only recall seeing that once in my life, and it's really uncommon to ride a bike without a helmet here.
> But it’s really god damn dangerous. Let’s not kid ourselves.
Agree, I'm not trying to convince anyone of otherwise. But lets have nuance as well, riding a motorcycle isn't the same everywhere, especially where motorcycles are really, really commonplace in daily traffic.
"I keep seeing people riding motorbikes in the US without helmets, something I almost never seen in Spanish traffic, <…>, it's really uncommon to ride a bike without a helmet here."
In many countries it's illegal to ride without a helmet, where I am the cops would catch you in an instant.
I love motorcycles and it's years since I've been on one. Despite their convience and other virtues I won't own one as I reckon I'm not competent enough to drive one safety—despite having an excellent safety record with four-wheeled vehicles.
Agreed, they're 'god damn dangerous' but where does that '30 times' figure come from? Where I am the generally accepted figure is seven times (or it was when I heard the figure a while ago).
Edit: for years I've thought that if motorcycles were a new invention they'd never be licensed these days. That they still are is historical legacy upheld by riders and the industry that makes the machines.
Underestimating your abilities in any vehicle is a good way to stay safe. In my encounters with motorcycles in traffic, as pedestrian, cyclist, or driver, even in those short few seconds while our paths cross, the motorcyclists almost always put themselves in some dangerous situation (cyclists do it even more often I'd say, but at lower speeds).
Every time I talk about this to acquaintances who ride they explain that "I do this all the time but it's fine because I know what I'm doing". Everyone is an above average driver or rider but drivers have a metal box filled with airbags. Motorcycle riders often play Russian roulette with 5 bullets in. Blaming another for when your luck finally runs out in on par with the belief most hold that they are above average.
"(cyclists do it even more often I'd say, but at lower speeds)."
The behavior of cyclists where I am is a particular problem. Unlike motorcyclists, they're unlicensed and don't even have to know the rules of the road, and it shows.
Trouble is, during an incident between a cyclist and a car driver the sympathy vote is in the cyclist's favor. Especially so in recent times where cycling is seen as 'green' and environmentally friendly and with many cities making car drivers feel as if they're guilty pariahs.
To give you some idea how bad this problem has become where I am (Sydney, Australia) is to consider the street where I live.
It's a one-way street (as it's narrow) but recently the Council has made it two-way for cyclists and painted bicycles on the street to indicate thus—for motorists it's still one-way.
The lunacy of this decision is obvious even to those with a room-temperature IQ. For starters, drivers (usually visitors) often mistakenly drive the wrong way down this street and it's been the situation for years (from street arrangements and local geography it seems the logical way to go, and the sineage is poor and hard to see).
It gets worse, there's a sharp bend in the road so two vehicles approaching from either side cannot see each other and there's nowhere to pull off in an emergency!
Oh, I also must point out that when the Council painted bicycles on the street to indicate their right to two-way usage it also upgraded the far-from-obvious street sign indicating one-way by adding "bicycles excepted" but did nothing to make the sign more obvious. (Words fail me!)
Lunacy has no limits, now consider the same head-on situation between a cyclist and a vehicle, it's a miracle no one has been killed to date (but the change is recent—there's much time to go).
Right, the trendy and electorally savvy, many-term Council has the ear of cyclists and no doubt this dangerous change was the result of cyclists' lobbying.
Not if but when someone is killed then who's to blame? Even if a motorist is found not to be at fault (i.e. driving in the right direction) and is completely exonerated then he/she will have to live with the knowledge that he/she was the driver of a vehicle that killed a cyclist.
What amazes me is that cyclists want this dangerous situation to continue to exist, it seems that sheer convenience takes precedence over their safety in both their minds and that of the Council. More to the point, cyclists seem to have overwhelming confidence in their ability to avoid an accident.
Even more amazing is that this situation can exist in this overly safety conscious, horribly risk averse society.
From my perspective it's high time this nonsense stopped. The first thing would be license cyclists—if nothing else, they'd at least know the road rules.
To verify any of the words of your long comment, one would simply need to compare deaths caused to others by cars vs deaths caused to others by bicycles (could even add in motorised bikes) and see how many order of magnitude of difference we would find.
Once we have established the danger level of each vehicle then we can go into detail on how to decrease the fatalities of the most deadly one. I'm pretty sure, requiring a license for bicycles is not going to change a thing.
By simply doing that you'd just fuel the belief in the saying "there are damned lies and statistics". It does not make sense to compare the killing potential of a motor powered vehicle with one powered by a human.
The issue is simple and straightforward. As I've mentioned elsewhere, many cyclists have unpredictable riding habits and a high propensity to violate traffic law at the drop of a hat—which, on a per capita basis, is much more frequent than that of licenced drivers. There's no disputing the accuracy of that statement although there's argument over the actual numbers.
By their unpredictable riding habits and regular violations of the road rules, cyclists put motorists into invidious situations where they are more likely to have an accident with a cyclist (or pedestrian, or other vehicle or thing whilst desperately trying to avoid the cyclist).
Licensing cyclists won't solve everything but it'd sure improve their safety. If cyclists knew they could lose their license thus not be allowed to drive on public roads then their riding behavior would be more predictable and we would see many fewer traffic violations (such as running red lights which I see happen regularly). Moreover, motorists' behavior would be more predictable with licenced cyclists on the road because their behavior has become more predictable through them being licensed. All up, licensing cyclists would mean fewer accidents.
> compare deaths caused to others by cars vs deaths caused to others by bicycles (could even add in motorised bikes)
Not the commenter you were answering to, but this is exactly the kind of thinking I was highlighting earlier myself. People constantly put themselves in dangerous situations that they rationalize to be fine just because the law doesn't explicitly incriminate that behavior. So being the ones who planted the seeds of that dangerous situation just doesn't register. Not trying to generalize but there are many, many situations where disaster could have been avoided if either side bothered to do better.
Too many people live as if the epitaph "but I was technically correct" will keep someone warm. Let me put it another way, if one of these "above average" people chooses to always floor it on the Autobahn at 300+km/h because it's technically legal, when they eventually crash and die even because someone else made a mistake you know you'll think "well, he had it coming". Same if a cyclist crashes due to someone else's mistake while riding a barely road-worthy bike or because they banged their head and weren't wearing a helmet. Sure, it wasn't legally their fault but welcome to the statistic. It's like dying from the perfectly legal smoking.
Everybody should try to do their best in potentially dangerous situations. But too many people on the road expect only others have to do it because [insert rationalization here]. And people without an airbag filled metal cage around them are the ones least able to justify the relaxed "it's their responsibility" attitude. Nobody else on the road will care about your life more than you. If even you keep putting yourself in situations where any minor mistake from anyone has no chance to be corrected, you're writing your place in a statistic. But of course, if you know what you're doing that will never happen...
I'm not aware of any country where that is true, unless you're being pedantic and making a distinction between having to know the rules vs having to follow them. Every road user in every country I know of has to follow the rules of the road, no matter if they're a cyclist or a pedestrian or anyone else.
> Trouble is, during an incident between a cyclist and a car driver the sympathy vote is in the cyclist's favor.
What do you mean by "trouble"? This is perfectly logical. The cyclist presents precisely zero danger to the car driver, but the car presents deadly danger to the cyclist.
> It's a one-way street (as it's narrow) but recently the Council has made it two-way for cyclists
Yeah, all one-way streets should be like that. Streets are designated to be one-way for a reason. Either they're too narrow for two vehicles to pass each other safely or making them two way would increase traffic too much. None of this applies to bicycles.
> drivers (usually visitors) often mistakenly drive the wrong way down this street and it's been the situation for years (from street arrangements and local geography it seems the logical way to go, and the sineage is poor and hard to see)
Go ahead and complain about the poor signage then? What's this have to do with cyclists?
> From my perspective it's high time this nonsense stopped.
You haven't really provided any arguments here besides the rather incoherent example.
> The first thing would be license cyclists
Sigh. How many times are we going to have to listen to such poorly thought-out suggestions? Do you know just how many bicycles there are out there? Do you understand the risk a driver poses to others? Do you understand the risk a cyclist poses?
I am pretty sure in most countries riding a bike on a normal street requires absolutely no license, verification or anything. Even a 5 year old could and would be able to ride there (if their parents permitted or for whatever reason).
So this means that bike riders do not need to know exactly what all signs mean, what are the rules of giving way (or receiving it), etc.
So, that point is absolutely valid.
I have a friend who doesn't have a car licence and cannot distinguish many signs (for instance the circular one with red border and full white inside) or when to expect to have the priority.
Not supporting the rest of the comment, just that specific statement which is a valid one.
Thanks, you've just clearly illustrated the unresolved (and seemingly unresolvable) dichotomy between cyclists and four-wheel vehicle drivers.
It's unresolvable because of political ideology, like the chasm between right-wing conservatives and liberals, views seem almost genetic and immutable (it's been so ever since bicycles took to the roads—even in the days of horse drawn vehicles).
"I'm not aware of any country where that is true, unless you're being pedantic"
Pedantic? Rubbish, unless cyclists are licensed by way of a thorough examination of the road rules, etc. then there's no way to know if a cyclist knows the rules or not. Going on the many violations I see cyclists commit every day it's clear many do not. Licensing cyclists would bring them into line with other road users, for starters, they'd also be vulnerable to losing their licenses for violations.
Fact is, as a motor vehicle driver I do not feel safe on the roads with unpredictable unlicensed cyclists about. If you do not believe cyclists are an undisciplined and unpredictable lot that worry the shit out of many licenced drivers because of the way they ride and regularly violate traffic rules (like jumping red lights at intersections) then you live in fantasyland.
For every violation I witness car drivers make I reckon I see about a dozen from cyclists. By your views you'd have to condone this alacrity or they'd be contradiction with each other. Alternatively, it's cognitive dissonance so you've not noticed the fact.
If you factor in rider error and rider behaviour the rates are much closer.
It's just that most riders can't ride worth a damn, 95% of the riding information on the internet is dangerously wrong, and most of us also often ride recklessly because we're on a motorcycle to have fun in the first place.
Let's get our assumptions straight. Are you talking about riding or "riding"? What's "the freedom of the open road" an euphemism for? Doing 100 mph? Lane splitting? Racing on public roads? Yeah, that is dangerous.
Where do you see anything remotely comparable to the Little Rock 9 at UCLA?
Edit: Incidentally, Trump absolutely gutted the Department of Education, including the Office of Civil Rights, appointing loyalists who explicitly don’t believe it should exist. Are these the actions of a president concerned with civil rights?
Also, indulge us in a wild guess as to what Trump would’ve done to the Little Rock 9. Consider that he signed a full-page newspaper ad calling for the death of the Central Park 5, a wrongfully convicted group of Black and Latino teenagers.
Invoking our civil rights legacy here is perverse.
Allowing people to speak out against overt genocide committed by a foreign government = anti-semitism. Isn’t that self-evident? /s
Tbh, this standard argument is itself anti-Jewish as it implies this behavior is inherent to being Jewish, which of course is grotesque and inaccurate.
* Jewish /= Zionist
* Zionist /= Imperialist
* Imperialist /= Genocidal
What we have really imo is an extreme colonist policy that is only superficially Jewish. That doesn’t absolve Jews in Israel supporting it, it rather absolves all those who don’t and makes genocidal colonists take responsibility for their own actions.
Nice strawman. So how about the actual question which is hostile environment for students? I was downvoted for asking a question and this did not answer it.
Edit to reply: what I remember reading was not about saying "end genocide", it was about saying "you are a jew so go die" kind of stuff. It seemed pretty crazy but I didn't save any sources
If I make a sign that says "Nazis are Evil", and a guy gets upset and says "you can't say that about me" - what do you call that guy? A Nazi.
If I make a sign that says "End the Zionist Genocide", and a Jewish person says "you can't say that about me", they don't feel uncomfortable because they're Jewish.
I'm not native English but even I know. For example when we say Ukrainian genocide we mean genocide that kills Ukrainian people. This guy said "Zionist genocide" so what does that mean? That genocide ended decades ago. Who is decepting who and how? Go ahead and unpack for us
Ah right. Well if your not a native speaker - this isn't exactly a formal rule as far as I know, but as a native speaker...
Zionists are ideological people and "<Idological People> Genocide" reads like the ideologues own and are committing the genocide.
Whereas Ukrainian is a denonym and "<Denonym> Genocide" reads like a genocide done to the denonym. Nazi Genocide -> Nazis did it. Jewish Genocide -> Genocide happened to the Jews.
I'm not sure if that is technically how it would work in a formal linguistic sense, but that would be how I'd expect the terms to be read. Zionists can't really be genocided because Zionism isn't a race, so reading "Zionist Genocide" as happening to the Zionists is difficult. Not a reliable rule though, someone could use "genocide" that way I suppose.
What I see in dictionary is "rational or national group". I guess Zionism does not fall under "national group". I still think the usage is still wrong, unless you can find an example where it is used that way.
In any case this thread justification of how it is okay to attack jews or israelis (or tell me it didn't happen if you have better information than me) for being jews after oct 7 and israeli government response is crazy. Like I'm Russian and I don't support Ukrainian war (by the way not the only shitty thing russian government does, see criminalization of LGBT people etc) so what now, should I be targeted and shouted at by people with signs because of something I can't change? Should I hide my rusianness? At a place I live and study at? Sure it's probably wrong/illegal to take away grants for this but if I was a student at a uni would that be a hostile environment? I kind of think so.
I would say free speech must have some standard in civilized community, but since someone said that hate speech is protected on public uni campuses in US then I can say nothing.
Again tell me if I am wrong and Jews were not personally attacked for being Jews after oct 7. I have a vague understanding of what happened.
If you’re genuinely interested in truth, I can tell you that I personally visited the protest site at UCLA in order to get an unfiltered view or what was happening. The signage I saw was largely of the form “End Genocide” or “Divest”. There were also signs criticizing e.g. the border wall with Mexico. A lot of it was critical of Israel, as well as the United States and even the University of California, but none of it was anti-Jewish. In fact there were a few signs of the form “Jews Against Genocide”.
