In order, the most popular ones of these are probably

* Max. It's built into a popular DAW, and is shockingly capable as an actual programming language too. The entire editor for the Haken line of products is written in Max.

* Pure Data or Supercollider.

* Csound.

Not ordering things like Scala or LilyPond that are much more domain-specific.

When I was first introduced to Max it was on a Mac SE in 1989, and I really only used it for saving & restoring patches (on my SY77 and U110) until someone walked me through how it really worked. I didn't understand what it could do, and I rejected it at first because it was too open-ended for me to see utility. Lol. How things changed after that.

What really blows my mind is that I wasn't at all put off by the tiny little Mac monitor, it just seemed normal. No way I could work with such a small b&w screen today I'd go mad. (weirdly I feel less creative than i did in the 1980's and NOW i have near infinite recording & mixing options. The irony.)

Which one invented "ask me again later" dialogs?

Sales people, and that shit rolled downhill to the devs. The days of devs writing dialog text in something like Windows are long gone.

Libraries should log in a way that is convenient to the developer rather than a way that is ideologically consistent. Oftentimes, that means logging as we know it.

There is artistically no equivalent to Flash ever since it died. Nothing else has allowed someone with artistic skills but no programming skills to create animations and games to the same degree and with the same ease.

what is missing was a replacement for the flash editor itself, not the format.

I'd say Roblox is absolutely filling that market need. And as mentioned elsewhere, the "animations and games" demographic has moved on in the intervening decades to social media, and tools like CapCut make creating online content easier than it ever has been.

Honestly I think a lot of the Flash mania is just middle aged nerds fondly remembering their youth. The actual tool was a flash in the pan, and part of a much more complicated history of online content production. And the world is doing just fine without it.

Most renderers don't implement the full spec.

Where is the archive available for use?

In that link. "Uploaded" column in table is archive links. Or scroll to "archive efforts" for links to torrents.

There's nothing in the uploaded column, and the torrent link does not exist.

Edit: interestingly, refreshing the page filled out the uploaded column.

There was a set of three "legacy" courses on something called Saylor Academy back in the day by an instructor named Kenneth Manning. Statics, Dynamics, and Mechanics of Materials. They were all basically just filmed classroom lectures, but the filming was done well. Great instructor.

Dead end for what? Quality recordings of real lectures have been amazing for self improvement. I've never gone into it expecting a meaningful certificate, just meaning for me living my life.

You're probably in the small minority at least when it comes to forking over material dollars. Most people spending money, at least beyond trade paperback range, are probably looking for something that has at least a plausible connection to real income.

If that was true, no music teacher selling independent lessons would be able to survive.

It's not clear to me that independent tutors are generally getting rich. But there clearly are activities that benefit from individual training. I imagine music is one of those. But that mostly probably falls into the luxury goods category.

"Getting rich" is a substantial movement of the goalposts. The point is that people are spending money outside the trade paperback range on education, either for themselves or for their children (I've seen quite a wide distribution while in the waiting room), that has nothing to do with income.

The platforms lost because they enshittified and everyone left because of it, not because YouTube existed (it already did when they started). Compare the ancient "legacy" stuff that Coursera had to the stuff it has today. Little wonder nobody actually wants what they're selling.

As another comment here said:

> Those courses that were basically “we’re a top university and we let someone record the class from the back” were a literal life changer. Honestly, that was all I wanted.

The moment they stopped doing that, everything went to shit and this is the natural end result.

We could ban the firms.

Honestly how? What law could be written that would ban PE firms and lookalike businesses that would hold up to scrutiny.

No one with a brain likes what PE does, but really, what do they do that's illegal as opposed to people finally realizing that capitalism is essentially evil?

PE depends on favorable tax loopholes and a lot of acquisitions depend on them being able to do things like buying a company with a ton of loans which they then saddle the acquired company with or stripping assets before going bankrupt. All of that depends on arbitrary legal structures and protections which could be rebalanced to favor more productive business models.

Right. Either you directly regulate activity, or you adjust incentives. If you suggest one, detractors say you can't do that, you have to do the other thing, and then work as hard as possible to block your efforts to do the very thing they suggested you do. That's because they don't want things to change at all. But that's obviously not an option, so I tend to suggest trying both and seeing what sticks.

This isn’t really true. A lot of the laws that exist now are written to encourage private equity.

For example, you could start with fixing the privileged tax status from carry.

> capitalism is essentially evil

even though nearly every post on this website makes this point, the commenters here really do not like it when you state this explicitly.

This argument seems to be a) intentionally provocative and intending only really to ruffle feathers, not actually put a coherent argument forward

And b) about on par with saying "water is evil" because if you drink too much of it you'll die.

they do not.

what gets me is trying to make the argument that market economies are not necessarily capitalist economies. it seems plain over time that capitalism works to destroy markets. As an American I'm pretty pro market, but that means at this point I'm an enemy of capitalism.

Which seems wild to what I was taught growing up.

It doesn't help that the people who say that prove an understanding of capitalism is about as thin as a single layer of varnish and their collective ideas for workable alterations would fit on a single index card after it was already ripped up by hand.

Painfully true and somehow it's everywhere on this forum. To these people, capitalism and markets and money are all the same thing, and the only finite resources in the universe are those whose distribution is gatekept by the evil, evil capitalist overlords.

> To these people, capitalism and markets and money are all the same thing

Many more capitalists than anti capitalists claimed this in my experience.

Everybody's experience is different. I've found experientially that anybody who can actually define and describe these things with any degree of seriousness is, at least, aware of the resource constraints that make up the real world and have opinions that at least run in approximate sync with reality, which definitionally excludes them espousing real Redditor crap. I'm willing to engage with anti-capitalists who have at least put in the work to understand capitalism, but it seems like there's not much overlap between "understands" and "disagrees" for that segment.

> anybody who can actually define and describe these things with any degree of seriousness

You meant true Scotsmen?

No, and in case you stopped reading partway into my comment, this type of useless gotcha counts under Redditor crap. I don't think it's controversial that understanding something is a pathway to criticizing it appropriately. The average anti-capitalist cannot begin to describe exactly what it is they hate, which is in my opinion one of the defining valuable features of capitalism - that many people can benefit from it without understanding it one lick, and can in fact ineffectually hate it while benefiting from it.

This is the website of a bunch of rich capitalists who got rich by doing capitalism. Of course you can't call the owners of the website evil on that website.

Of course you can. They just get really mad about it.

You actually can't. They hide your post and ban your account.

Practically-speaking, there are limitations to even the most despotic of modtocracies.