Mate you’re not gonna convince me that “tracker music” is anything but a vague term. You might have a point in it describing music made wth a tracker, but with Renoise existing these days, that isn’t exactly very specific is it? We call these pieces “scene music”, or even “keygen music” if you’re new to it. It’s as useful as saying “DAW music”. The music made in the style of old retro games is more specific than just “it was made with a tracker”. That is exactly why the term “chiptune” exists; it’s music that is made with those old sound chips, or emulations of them. That gets to the heart of the issue.

I suppose you never discovered that MIDI can trigger samples, too.

You’re telling me shit I already know and trying to twist the facts. Whether the NES and SNES used synth or samples is immaterial to how the music was programmed. Trackers are literally made for programming MIDI instructions, just as those old games had their music programmed.

The number of voices and voice type changes nothing. You’re just trying to add in immaterial facts to add false weight to your assertion.

Trackers are direct replications of the software used to make retro game music; specifically NES and SNES.

Chiptune only “specifically” means music produced the same way as retro games, which necessitates a tracker. If they’re using a standard DAW, then it’s basically “cheating” lmao.

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.

No! Really! It’s not mine!

Rod Serling

Drinking just isn’t my sort of thing

You changed your tune pretty fucking quick. What happened to his terminal illness being used as an excuse?

Not when they are terminally ill, elderly and on a pension.

Not… what?

Other people are allowed to have illnesses and conditions

Ok?

one person with an illness is not an excuse to take advantage of the vulnerable.

Then… stop letting them take advantage of you?

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.

Still more focused on results than profits tho, and more accountable