I actually googled it since the last time this came up. Both are acceptable and the lede spelling is so that 19th century typesetters didnt confuse lead with the metall. I am not a journalist and I am not a typesetter so in the same way I don't use specialist medical language in daily conversation, I will use the normal spelling of lead that makes sense.
You do it like they did in the actual article. You dont include the quote in the headline and lets people approach the horrible details at their own pace.
The only problem with the chart is that it doesn't account for stuff like independence. If a 19 year old has a stable job and is living on their own I would be a lot more forgiving than if the 19 year old was still in college and living with their parent.
Well, I did bring up points like the importance of regulations to protects artists owned works and you ignored that part completely in favor of comparing it to electronica. In those cases bullying is the answer.
You say that you are not but I can see both the tears and piss in your 20 different comments across several different people. I even think there is some shit in there. You know AI is different from electronica, I know it's different. Why should I pretend that it isn't for the sake of your pissy little tantrum?
That is a different set of arguments than the ones you started with.
This is more about wether it's good or not for music to ban AI from the Grammies.
I think it's good. I don't think AI is art and I think it's theft. The only reason AI music is able to exist is because it is stealing other people's hard work.
Artists work their entire life to develop unique sounds that are influenced by their personal experiences and tastes.
Then a AI techbro (but more likely a multi billion dollar corporation) steals it without the artists permission and without compensation.
The goal of AI enthusiasts is to break down artists rights fast enough so that proper regulation don't have time to set in. Because people like you despise art and artist. Every time I get involved in these discussion you can feel the pure contempt and the ones that can't keep the mask on properly gloat at the brazen theft they are doing.
In order for AI to be good for art it needs to be regulated and since it is not regulated organizations like the Grammies need to step in and protect the artists they have represented for decades.
But feel free to cry and piss about how unfair it is to have rules for things.
If they make an AI song they are allowed to sell it and people are allowed to listen to it but, that particular song just isn't eligible for the competition that is The Grammy.
When artist make music they WANT to win a Grammy but it is not a REQUIRED part of business model. Most music produced in the world do not win Grammies and still able to make money.
Cycling is a different sport than running because we banned bikes in one of them. Both sports have lists of things you are and are not allowed to do in order to maintain the spirit of the sport. As shoes become more advanced hundreds of jurys look at the new shoes and decide if they are allowed or not. Most shoes pass but some are banned.
In the engineering example they are allowed to use calculators in their job but they are not allowed to use them in math competitions that don't allow them.
Grammy is a competition and not part of their real job. If you don't want to participate you don't need to.
Sorry, humans still set the rules for competitions and we are allowed to set arbitrary lines to keep the competitions fair and relevant. That's why we allow shoes but not bikes when people run the marathon.
Yes, that is the reasonable and intelligent interpretation of what I said.