irmoz

Only much later did “chiptune” become a catch-all for all old computer music

It's much later now m8

If you wanna be pedantic, it's chiptune. You use trackers to make chiptune. And scene music is a niche within a niche.

You're making a stretch here. Language is not a representation - it is the thing being communicated. If you really want to get down to it, there's some debate as to whether we communicate the exact same thing - qualia being what it is - but there is nothing shared beneath language for it to be a representation of (partly because of qualia, in fact).

This "different representation" is not an actual layer of meaning - it is just the mere act of recognising the language.

Firstly, written language can be represented in binary without any loss of information.

It's still not language, though. It's just binary.

Secondly, audio of spoken language can be represented in binary with so little loss it's indistinguishable to humans.

Still not language.

written and spoken language are also just representations.

Of what? What does this need to be translated to for humans to understand it?

01001000 01110101 01101101 01100001 01101110 01110011 00100000 01110111 01101111 01110010 01101011 00100000 01110111 01101001 01110100 01101000 00100000 01101100 01100001 01101110 01100111 01110101 01100001 01100111 01100101 00100000 01101001 01110100 01110011 01100101 01101100 01100110 00111010 00100000 01101100 01100101 01110100 01110100 01100101 01110010 01110011 00101100 00100000 01110111 01101111 01110010 01100100 01110011 00101100 00100000 01110011 01110000 01100101 01100101 01100011 01101000 00101110 00100000 01000011 01101111 01101101 01110000 01110101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01110011 00100000 01110111 01101111 01110010 01101011 00100000 01110111 01101001 01110100 01101000 00100000 01100010 01101001 01101110 01100001 01110010 01111001 00100000 01110010 01100101 01110000 01110010 01100101 01110011 01100101 01101110 01110100 01100001 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 01110011 00100000 01101111 01100110 00100000 01101100 01100001 01101110 01100111 01110101 01100001 01100111 01100101 00111010 00100000 01101010 01110101 01110011 01110100 00100000 00110000 01110011 00100000 01100001 01101110 01100100 00100000 00110001 01110011 00101110

Humans work with language itself: letters, words, speech. Computers work with binary representations of language: just 0s and 1s.

Still not an answer. You can say all you like, but until you answer you are only continuing to deflect.

Dude. It was entirely a deflection. Answer my fucking comment. I have literally no need whatsoever to respect your "recommendation". It was an attempt to avoid answering my statements and nothing more than that. So go ahead, answer. Or are you too scared?

Also, I have Cowbee's statements to lean on, which you yourself conceded to, to know what the book is like.

The very first thing they said was "what history? What economics?" - so yeah, they've asked for information.

fosforus uses deflection!

It's not very effective!

Answer me instead of making bad jokes, coward.

By the way - are you unaware of the incredible self own inherent in this? In your attempt to "recommend" a book for more information on these issues, you recommend "basic economics". Well...

Try and think a little more deeply. An accident in itself is not a financial risk. Even flooding isn't inherently a financial risk. Do you know what is?

Also, "market changes" is a part of what I'm pointing at ;)

It's capitalism!

there’s always a significant additional bureaucratic cost when selling a house and buying another one.

This really only affects landlords and estate agents. Most people looking for a home are looking for a place to stay for life, and any "bureaucratic cost", if you're purely talking about red tape, form-filling, phone calls etc, is more than worth it for a lifetime home. Again, citation needed. If you're talking about a literal monetary cost... whoa, look at that - capitalism!

renting has at least a single clear benefit beyond just being able to afford it: greater flexibility

"Flexibility" is a daft measure, only useful for people who plan to move often, which, again, is not common, except in the case of people needing to move often for work, which - hey, it's capitalism again!

Also, the financial risk is almost zero when you rent.

"Almost" is doing a lot of work in this sentence. The risk of being made homeless by your landlord for petty reasons is a pretty clear risk. Having your rent hiked is a financial risk. Having to bite the bullet and choose an expensive place to rent because it's the only one reasonably close to work is a financial risk. Being under someone's thumb to provide them income is itself an inherent financial risk.

And by the way - what do you think causes the financial risk of home ownership, since you're so intent on proving my point for me?

some of those 30% choose to not own a house

[citation needed]

And even if true, what do you think is driving that decision? Decisions aren't made in a vacuum. I posit - it's the financial burden.