Try reading the entire context of the thread this time.

I would argue that “AI-generated” posters are, by definition, horrible. They can’t not be horrible because of the very nature of how they're made.

I’d rather look at the most amateurish indie posters plastered all over a wall than waste even a second looking at machine-generated nonsense.

I mean they did claim that pointing to science to support your position in an argument is tantamount to dogmatic faith, so I don’t think you need to worry about impugning what isn’t there

pointing to a "consensus" which is antithetical to science method.

but ye, who I am to persecute people based on their beliefs, this is for religious people to do.

This is the last reply you get because you’re already convinced you’re smarter than I am. Who knows, maybe you are, but disbelieving scientists sounds pretty stupid to me.

Science is peer reviewed by field experts who constantly test and develop said expertise in order to defeat their own biases, and their work backed by data. Scientists openly invite criticism and deconstruction of their work. That, nominally, is the whole point of getting your work published.

That’s a far cry from the dogmatic acceptance of faith that you’re pretending it is

^^ Behold the religious belief in "peer review" "field experts" and the attempt at argument reversal at the end.

This is what middle ages were famous for, and it took Renaissance to get rid of this.

edit: Giordano Bruno was burned at stake for challengin people like you.

Why would you have a friend that does that

How do I make friends like this?

I’m not sure, but I bet you could find some helpful referrals here https://www.justice.gov/epstein

This is a bad faith argument and the commenter knows it

My favorite genre of hacker news comment is when someone lacks sufficient imagination to wonder why something that’s commonly used by many people is still in use

FWIW, there's no real need for imagination here. The comment says "mostly", and added a parenthetical comment that was simply meant to name the viola as a prominent remaining use.

In particular, trombones have almost entirely stopped using the tenor clef in jazz.

It's true that jazz charts are unlikely to use tenor clef. Nonetheless, it remains career limiting for a trombonist to be unable to read clefs.

Commercial players are likely to use the skill for transposing Bb treble lead sheets, or playing in a pit. Tenor clef shows up in modern musicals regularly.

Not to mention being shunned from quartet or choir opportunities that are the basis of networking in the industry.

Transposing is an important skill for all instruments. It's true that trombonists get some cases for free if they learn the tenor and alto clefs, but it's possible to learn it without knowing the C clefs.

And even trombonists have to learn how to handle sharps and flats in chromatic passages, so there's a lot more to transposing than using a different clef.

> Tenor clef shows up in modern musicals regularly.

This I didn't know, thanks!

Not a piano, and not relevant to the parent remark.

And that isn't a nuanced opinion; a common one among rigid materialists. Its not the best piano for a stage, but I am sure it could fool your ears in a recording. Morpheus would think it was a piano too. "What is real? ..."

You were responding to a comment about how difficult it is to achieve an arbitrary tuning in a piano by bringing up a software piano. It’s a non-sequitur.

Alice: “I have this piano that I need to tune, but tuning pianos is very difficult and I don’t know how”

Bob: “my computer can make any note”