Unlurker|Replay|About
Larry Page has moved to Florida (twitter.com)
•
Oh no, his assistant will be buying all his groceries at a Florida Whole Foods instead of a California one and he'll be topping up his private jet at the Miami Airport instead of Oakland oh noooo how will California survive
•
What a vomit-inducing billionaire fondling. It’s patently and provably false the taxing billionaires will make them flee and therefore society is worse off for that. It’s a disgusting narrative by greedy antisocial people who have lost every and any contact with the meaning of living in society. You wanna make things better for the world? Then fuck your disingenuous startups, pay more taxes. Fucking leeches, each and everyone of these scumbags. PG absolutely included.
•
Better dead in California than alive in Florida, to paraphrase.
•
HN rage bait
•
Does anything this dope post automatically make it to the front page?
•
This part from Paul Graham on his own move was eye opening: "After we'd been in England for several years, I asked the people who do our taxes to check, and they told me that I actually saved money by moving to England. That's how high California state taxes are already."
•
I wonder how he figures that. I'm well paid and my CA taxes are 1/3 as much as my Federal taxes. Especially in the current regime, CA taxes are not first my point of complaint. This just reinforces my opinion that we shouldn't listen to billionaires about anything.
•
Yeah sounds like he was really scrimping.
•
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eo-KmOd3i7s
•
> it has cost California both Larry's presence and all the tax revenue it made from him. 1. Google itself isn't moving. I don't think Larry is closely involved anymore, and a move out of state seems to prove that. 2. How much tax revenue did California even make from him? If he doesn't sell stock, then he has no capital gains to tax. That's the whole point of the wealth tax. The ultra-wealthy are infamous for tax avoidance schemes such as rotating loans against their stock to avoid capital gains.
•
he was freeloading in CA and now will be freeloading in FL
•
IMO capital gains taxes are bad as well, they discourage efficient investment allocation (you are stuck with what you have now). It would be better if we mainly taxed consumption directly. If you are a billionaire but spend $100k/yr I am fine with you paying the same taxes as anyone else spending $100k/yr.
•
NYC had a similar budgetary/fiscal issue too and they thought they'd manage it by assessing more taxes on companies and people. The result was corporate as well as individual flight. It's tough to slim down on spending. Be it individuals or governments and quasi-governmental organizations. Companies can swiftly implement spending cuts and RIFs --sometimes aggressively. Governments, though, there are threads throughout --elected officials often trade support for positions and favoritism and if they take those away, so do many of their fiercest people who get out the vote. Also, their voters are averse to having the services they've grown accustomed to getting cut. So sometimes you need that official who knows he or she is a one termer but will go in and cut and cut. People will hate them but it will allow the government a chance to make a turnaround.
•
The Page Family operates a number of philanthropic initiatives, non-profits, and other companies outside of Alphabet. All of which pay taxes, provide jobs, and benefits to Californians. It's short-sighted to think Page doesn't pay taxes nor contribute to California in significant, meaningful ways. California just traded what was supposed to be a one-time (lol) tax on total net worth - not liquid assets or even income - for generations of extracting value from the Page family. I get it's fashionable to hate on billionaires right now - but this is just plainly terrible government policy. California should be encouraging people like Page to move here - not push them away. It's also short-sighted to assume Google will remain in Mountain View just because it's there today. What makes SV so special today that Boston, Austin, Denver, Orlando, etc don't offer? What about the "Next Google"? Will it's founders even start a business in California? That's what we should be concerned about - create a climate where it's not even a question where to build your company; California should be the obvious right answer.
•
> philanthropic initiatives, non-profits > All of which pay taxes I think not. > It's short-sighted to think Page doesn't pay taxes nor contribute to California in significant, meaningful ways. Provide documentation and numbers, otherwise this alleged "significant" contribution is just hand-waving. > generations of extracting value from the Page family If Larry can just up and leave now, on very short notice, then there's absolutely zero guarantee of any future "generations" of value. > I get it's fashionable to hate on billionaires right now Fashionable? Why do you think it's fashionable now? For no reason? > California should be encouraging people like Page to move here It's a total perversion of the fundamental idea of capitalism that governments are competing for companies and wealthy people. That's not how capitalist competition is supposed to work. > What about the "Next Google"? Will it's founders even start a business in California? Larry and Sergey met at Stanford as students. They didn't choose a state because of tax policy.
•
What philanthropic initiatives or non-profits? Regarding philanthropy, this Forbes estimate [0] suggests Page is not particularly engaged in philanthropy compared to others in his wealth class. [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbeswealthteam/2026/02/09/americas-top-25-philanthropists---and-why-musk-page-and-ellison-arent-on-the-list/
•
I hope he sees this, bro.
•
#2 is a problem with California’s tax laws. A marginal land value tax would easily tax wealth without wealthy people having to sell assets. Also, more economic activity, such as rich people buying products and services, results in sales tax and income for other Californians.
•
Take that up with the CA voters circa 1979.
•
If you think wealth inequality is a societal problem, billionaires leaving to avoid taxes is a feature, not a bug.
•
This is a correct observation. The question is whether it’s meaningful to pursue local coherence when locality is vague. E.g. can someone at that level just declare permanent residence in a place but maintain their lifestyle in another? At country level they cover that with tax residence, I am not sure whether that’s the case between states in the US. Even as such, people who get on their plane as frequently as I get in my car are not subject to the same residence considerations.
•
Not really, so long as they influence affairs on planet earth, their wealth and influence will continue to cause compounding problems.
From elsewhere: Google co-founder Larry Page moved to Florida from California in early 2026, purchasing over $188 million in Miami property. He left California to avoid a proposed 5% state wealth tax targeting billionaires, shifting his primary residence and assets to Florida, which has no state income tax. Makes sense to me. Several businesses and individuals from NYC have also moved to Florida for similar reasons. If I were hard working or creative as them to be as wealthy I would do the same and I know others here would too, they just wouldn't likely admit or say it. None of that prevents one from having a satellite office in the former state.
•
If I were as wealthy as them I would not mind paying a 5% tax after years of tax avoidance. But that’s just one of the many reasons why I am not as wealthy as they are.
•
Something needs to be done about the historic inequality in this country. It will undue all the “innovation” (ie selling ads and addicting people to the internet) that these tech billionaires have contributed.
>"He wasn't just pretending to move to Florida." Do people often pretend that they're going to move? Seems like a weird thing to say.
•
There are two pretend types: - they move their official residence and happen to stay most of the time at the "totally just rented" place in the same state anyway - or keep telling everyone how they're going to move, but don't actually do. Because let's be honest - if there wasn't a big reason to live where they do, and it wasn't a pain to work from another state, they wouldn't be there to begin with. They're paying the higher taxes because they benefit(ed) in some way. They also benefit from being famous and threatening to leave.
•
They threaten to do this every single time there is an election in NYC. And studies have shown that they are lying. To try and manipulate people. The rich are actually far less likely to move. [1] https://fiscalpolicy.org/migration
•
> Do people often pretend that they're going to move? It isn't unheard of. Adam Carolla has been threatening to move out of California for like at least a decade at this point.
•
Every election you have celebrities and wealthy individuals threaten to leave the country, etc. Nearly none of them follow-through, and of the ones that do, many ultimately move back. Page left California specifically because of the so-called "Billionaire Tax", and is taking with him his family (which will inherit his vast riches), his philanthropy, his non-profits, many jobs, taxes and more. The effect will be generations of lost benefits to California.
•
Yeah; there's absolutely no way he could possibly support philanthropic efforts in one state from another. Nope; everyone now loses out because of it! There is absolutely 0 reason that someone worth $270 billion needs to worry about the 5% tax. The 5% tax will reduce his estimated worth by $13.5B bringing him to a paltry $256.5B. To put $256.5B in perspective: over two /lifetimes/, he would need to spend around $4.5MM a day to exhaust that number, assuming it did not grow exponentially over that same time.
•
1. The tax could cause him to sell equity he doesn't want to. It's not like he has $270B in a checking account. 2. If they do it once then why not again next year? Maybe next time it's for only $100 million or $10 million or $1 million. Eventually everyone is paying 5% of their wealth every year. Why not? That's how we got the current income tax. 3. It's the principle. Resisting these efforts sends a signal that they aren't a good idea. 4. Do we really think the money is better off in control of the incompetent CA government than invested in private enterprise or donated to charity? I don't see how it's better for it to line Newsom's Swiss bank account.
•
It’s supposedly a one-time tax; but, you’re right; who knows what they’ll do. But his net worth has effectively more than doubled in 1y. I think he’ll be just fine.
its a luxury of the ultra-rich. they threaten to move to push legislation which way they want.
•
A number of my friends who belong in these very high upper brackets have suggested to me, more in sorrow than in anger, that if I am reelected they will have to move to some other Nation because of high taxes here. I shall miss them very much but if they go they will soon come back. For a year or two of paying taxes in almost any other country in the world will make them yearn once more for the good old taxes of the U.S.A. President Franklin D. Roosevelt Address at Worcester, Massachusetts October 21, 1936 It's always a bluff like a kid throwing a temper tantrum going to "hold their breath".
Banned in California (bannedincalifornia.org)
I'm not sure I agree. Unless you believe there needs to be a plan for CA to secede in the future and thus it needs to be self-sufficient, why does manufacturing need to be in CA? As you stated, the Impulse stove makes heavy use of outsourced manufacturing to other parties; as long as those parties are within the US (which I'm not claiming they are, but there are states like TX that are far less concerned about environmental impact than CA is and thus could pick up any such slack), why is there a security concern here? As for the economic concern, it seems like this is backwards: I'd argue it's the HCOL that drives industry with the need for low-wage labor away to non-CA locations. There's nothing stopping non-polluting corporations from working and hiring large numbers of people in CA.
•
I am sure the 5th largest economy in the world is truly suffering under their draconian regulations. Everyone in California making the 5th highest median income in the country wishes they were working at a local oil refinery. To your last point, I am somewhat doubtful that this website is being honest about automotive paint shops being banned in California. Am I to believe that the 3,000 auto body shops sit on their hands all day? Was West Coast Customs just a fake TV show filmed in Texas? https://www.autobodynews.com/news/new-paint-voc-regulations-in-southern-california-likely-to-expand-to-other-markets If this website’s author is correct I’m supposed to believe that no paint gets applied to cars in Canada.
I assume you use semiconductors yourself, since you are posting here. But you want their manufacture to be banned in your state. So the right thing is to outsource the dirty jobs to countries that can’t afford to be picky? Wouldn’t it be better for the world if we used our wealth to develop methods of safe semiconductor manufacturing with low environmental impact, and proudly built those facilities in California?
•
When an industry leaves this many superfund sites in an area, that industry can expect some blowback from that area. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_sites_in_California
Well that's the whole problem isn't it? It's not like the laws are simply "you can't make semiconductors here". The laws ban the harmful externalities of the process. The companies that want to make semiconductors don't want to find a way to make the processes less harmful: it's cheaper and easier to just go somewhere where they can pollute instead.
•
In many cases, California’s environmental regulations don’t make an earnest attempt to permit safe ways to do things.
Really? Since it’s lacking any comparison to other states and because many of these complaints single out metropolitan areas comparison to nationwide census of metro areas, what actual conclusions are you drawing that are valid? Context matters a lot. We haven’t built a lot of mercury based hat felting shops lately in California. What conclusion do you draw from that?
•
I assume you're being a little obtuse. The comparison to wherever manufacturers phones and EVs is implicit. They are manufactured somewhere with looser environmental regulation than California, where they are purchased en masse. You can draw your own conclusions from that.
•
I saw complaints that amounted to “it’s more expensive to build out large industrial facilities in bay area than in Reno” okay what’s different in Reno hmmm I could be like the website and try to imply it’s only environmental regulations… or I could acknowledge that land price and availability is drastically different and also labor costs…. But then that wouldn’t help my contrived argument that it’s all the pesky regulations. Again, without apples to apples comparisons to other areas, wha are you actually able to conclude from the website other than stoking confirmation bias?
Texans seem more than happy to host these industries. Let them, they have no public land left to protect anyway. The environment is arguably California’s most valuable asset. May as well preserve it so people continue to want to actually live here.
•
Texans often try to regulate these industries at the local level. The state government has tried to put a stop to most of that by passing the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act which took away the ability of local communities to protect themselves. The state has ruled that Texans will be exploited by industry in order to protect profits and the citizens aren't allowed to vote to save themselves.
Some of these items actually net improve clean air and clean water, but you’re instead happy to export those pollutants to another country to feel better yourself
•
the plurality of this website are californians so this whole discourse is about as predictable as can be
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
The Hydrogen Truck Problem Isn't the Truck (mikeayles.com)
•
This is a very poor analysis, since it doesn’t account for the capital costs. Even if hydrogen is inefficient compared to batteries, it could win if the upfront investment was low enough to offset the additional fuel cost. This is quite obvious, since that’s why diesel trucks are winning today — the upfront cost of a diesel engine is cheap enough that it offsets the higher lifetime fuel costs. I do think that batteries will win, but the correct argument is one that shows that capital costs of batteries are going down faster than the cost of hydrogen production.
•
Or -hear me out- we can put these long I beams on the ground and put some cables above. Then tie 50 trucks to each other and they can get whatever kind of electricity from anything you can make electricity out of.
•
Truely rail-fans are transportation equivalent to vegans in food or cross-fit in exercise. I've spent many an hour on the Isle of Sodor and appreciate how useful those engines are in so many contexts. Yet still, there are buses that move alongside Percy, and pick up stranded passengers, and the Fat Controller (aka Sir Topham Hat) still has a sedan. It's a multi-modal world out there and the tractor trailer still has a place in it.
•
Any sufficiently method of ground transportation contains an ad hoc, informally-specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of a rail network.
•
Hydrogen has been the future as long as I have been paying attention to electric cars. There are many problems with it, including Hydrogen is the smallest molecule. It leaks through seals, embrittles metals, and has terrible energy density by volume. You either compress it to 700 bar (heavy tanks), liquefy it at -253°C (energy-intensive), or store it in metal hydrides (heavy, slow release). Solid state batteries are much more interesting. They extend EV range to 600-1000 miles and enable 10-minute charging. If they work at scale, they kill hydrogen for cars, trucks, and probably short-haul aviation too.
•
Compressed hydrogen and cryogenic liquefaction also present explosive/BLEVE risks. Metal-hydride is probably the only reasonably safe-ish option. Other issues (like hydrogen embrittlement, leaking, slower flow-rate) are all very real challenges, but 'solvable'. Solving all of them at a price that consumers/businesses can stomach is quite debatable. Batteries are just too good nowadays to expect hydrogen to receive the level of R&D and infrastructure investment to become at all competitive.
This has been tried a few times. The sticking point has always been twofold 0- this is a massive upfront investment for what amounts to a small time savings (having extra batteries on hand, charging them and the equipment to remove / move / install the heavy units 1- unless manufacturers agree to share a specification, you're tied to a single brand and risk being shut out of replacements when that inevitably goes away because it didn't catch on or got deprecated 2- for individual consumers, the battery is the most expensive component of their vehicle, and trading it for a used one of unspecified origen to save a few minutes instead of charging is not appealing. Given one and two, overcoming the expense of 0 is not at all economical for many situations. The ones that most need it can't afford it, or could be satisfied with relatively short high voltage charging.
•
The point of the Edison motors approach is that you can just drop in a diesel engine - their initial goal is to electrify trucks used for industrial work in Canada by making them series hybrids. It will work great for them because these trucks are designed to be modular and easily repairable (they are driven hard and WILL break when their owners need them). I would not be surprised at all if it develops into an impromptu standard just because so many eyes are on the system all the time. Battery swaps are not practical, but the guy you're replying to is making the point that an electric vehicle could be built with a modular, removable power source, and converted between gas/hybrid/battery/hydrogen/natural gas/whatever later in life depending on the needs. That's just not possible with a vehicle which directly connects the powerplant with the wheels - there's too much nonsense like transmissions and differentials to deal with when you do that. I think it makes a ton of sense for trucks, much less sense for cars.
Origin of the rule that swap size should be 2x of the physical memory (retrocomputing.stackexchange.com)
•
Managed over 50k servers with zero swap. Simply set overcommit ratio to 0, min_free configured based on a Redhat formula and had application teams keep some memory free. Servers ranged from 144GB ram to 3TB ram. On servers meant to be stateless app and web servers panic was set to 2 to reboot on oom which mostly occurred in the performance team that were constantly load testing hardware and apps and a few dev machines were developers were not sharing nicely. Engineered correctly OOM will be very rare and this only gets better with time as applications have more controls over memory allocation. Java will always leak, just leave more room for it.
Nope. Those are not the only answers I am seeing. I’m still curious though. 2x was nice because nobody really questioned it. Now that we have there doesn’t seem to be one “answer”. This is a fun/interesting question that comes up every now and then here and elsewhere :-) I suspect someone smarter than me about system tuning will have a much smarter and nuanced answer than “just use 2x”
•
I thought the modern advice was you don't need it at all. No more spinning disks, so the there's no speed gain using the inner-most ring, and modern OSes manage memory in more advanced, and dynamic ways. That's what I choose to believe anyway, I don't need anymore hard choices when setting up Linux :)
Curious, How much swap have you personally allocated on your personal setup?
•
On systems with 32/64/128 GB of ram, I'll typically have a 1GB or 2GB swap. Just so that the system can page out here and there to run optimally. Depending on the system, swap is typically either empty or just has a couple hundred MB kicking around.
•
On what OS are you using these settings? I found that Windows will refuse to allocate more virtual memory when the commit charge hit the max RAM size even if there is plenty of physical memory left to allocate on. I have 64 GiB of RAM and programs would start to crash at only 25 GiB of physical memory usage in some workloads because of high commit charge. I had to re-enable a 64 GiB SWAP file again just to be able to actually use my RAM. My understanding is that Linux will not crash on the allocation and instead crash when too much virtual memory becomes active instead. Not sure how Mac handles it.
It's funny how people think they're disabling swapping just because they don't have a swap file. Where do you think mmap()-ed file pages go? Your machine can still reclaim resident file-backed pages (either by discarding them if they're clear or writing them to their backing file if dirty) and reload them later. That's.... swap. Instead of achieving responsiveness by disabling swap entirely (which is silly, because everyone has some very cold pages that don't deserve to be stuck in memory), people should mlockall essential processes, adjust the kernel's VM swap propensity, and so on. Also, I wish we'd just do away with the separation between the anonymous-memory and file-backed memory subsystems entirely. The only special about MAP_ANONYMOUS should be that its backing file is the swap file.
•
The ghost of Multics walks yet the page tables awaiting recorporealization.
First Website (info.cern.ch)
•
This is great. I particularly enjoyed this entry in the FAQ about how to find web pages: https://info.cern.ch/hypertext/WWW/FAQ/KeepingTrack.html > When (s)he has found an overview page which (s)he feels ought to refer to the new data, (s)he can ask the author of that document (who ought to have signed it with a link to his or her mail address) to put in a link. > By the way, it would be easy in principle for a third party to run over these trees and make indexes of what they find. Its just that noone has done it as far as I know
When this was first created, how did people usually navigate back to the previous page? I notice there are no "previous" or "home" links here. Was there a "back" button/key, or would you have to edit the URL directly? Edit: Answered my own question I think. If you choose the option to browse "using the line-mode browser simulator", you can literally type in "Back" to go back.
•
We used telnet. There were no graphics per se. Before www the "interactive" internet was gopher and wais and co. Navigation was moving a cursor around to highlight points of interest, some of which would be links to further stuff or controls to do something like go back or forwards. Install lynx or links2 (ie text mode browsers) and you'll get the idea. The vaguely graphic efforts with browsable content that you might recognise before www were the likes of Compuserve. That got you a sort of forum style interface. It's quite hard to explain just how fast things have moved over the last 40 odd years (I'm 1970 to date - 55). I should also point out that my granddad saw rather a lot of change from 1901 to 1989. To be honest the last 15 odd years are even madder than the previous 25 and that's just my own personal recollection.
•
This site has a way to experience as it once was. I’m on mobile now, but from what I remember when I tried it, each link opened up a new document window. So the idea of going back wasn’t relevant. You’d simply close the window. https://worldwideweb.cern.ch/
•
Yeah, I just wrote an edit to my comment actually after I noticed that. It in fact has an explicit Back command you can run; one of the few commands it supports.
declaring a website to be "first" introduces a definitional problem. to put it in terms of a simple example, you need several HTML pages before one of them can link to another, but so far that's just hypertext. then you need pages spread out across plural sites to be able to create a web.
•
I found it via gopher and wais - I can't remember which one did what, it was a fair few years ago. I telnetted from my PC to a VAX, then to a X.25 PAD, then onto a Janet system, then to somewhere in the US and then to CERN. Eventually I'd get a menu with a link to the www. I'd then navigate the www with different keystrokes. www was/is free form links to stuff instead of hierarchical menus. It was an evolution not a revolution and there is no need to invoke "chicken or egg".
Banned in UAE (at least on DU)
•
That's rather sad, its just a museum exhibit about the www, so prohibition might look like a pathetic attempt at revisionism. What is DU?
Making MCP cheaper via CLI (kanyilmaz.me)
•
I'm looking at this from a slightly different level of abstraction. The CLI approach definitely has practical benefits for token reduction. Not stuffing the entire schema into the runtime context is a clear win. But my main interest lies less in "token cost" and more in "how we structure the semantic space." MCP is fundamentally a tool-level protocol. Existing paradigms like Skills already mitigate context bloat and selection overhead pretty well via tool discovery and progressive disclosure. So framing this purely as "MCP vs CLI" feels more like shifting the execution surface rather than a fundamental architectural shift. The direction I'm exploring is a bit different. Instead of treating tools as the primary unit, what if we normalize the semantic primitives above them (e.g., "search," "read," "create")? Services would then just provide a projection of those semantics. This lets you compress the semantic space itself, expose it lazily, and only pull in the concrete tool/CLI/MCP adapters right at execution time. You can arguably approximate this with Skills, but the current mental model is still heavily anchored to "tool descriptions"—it doesn't treat normalized semantics as first-class citizens. So while the CLI approach is an interesting optimization, I'm still on the fence about whether it's a real structural paradigm shift beyond just saving tokens. Ultimately, shouldn't the core question be less about "how do we expose fewer tools," and more about "how do we layer and compress the semantic space the agent has to navigate?"
•
ports & adapters :)
•
Haha I agree that my opinion is kind of that But more like ports & adapters for semantic space, not just IO boundaries. If we can abstract the tools one layer further for ai, it might reduce the attention it needs to spend navigating them and leave more context window for actual reasoning
So much incorrect and misinformation in these comments. As someone who is building an agent[0] with MCP tools, neither the MCP tool description nor the response is the problem. Both of those are easily solved by not bloating them. The real killer is the input tokens on each step. If you have 100k tokens in the conversation, and the LLM calls an MCP tool, the output and the existing conversation is sent back. So now you've input 200k tokens to the LLM. Now imagine 10 tool calls per user message - or 50. You're sending 1-5M input tokens, not because the MCP definitions or tool responses are large, but because at each step, you have to send the whole conversation again. "what about caching" - Only 90% savings, also cache misses are surprisingly common (we see as low as 40% cache hit rate) "MCP definitions are still large" - not compared to any normal conversation. Also these get cached We've seen the biggest savings by batching/parallelizing tool calls. I suspect the future of LLM tool usage will have a different architecture, but CLI doesn't solve the problems either. [0] https://ziva.sh , it's an agent specialized for Godot[1] [1] https://godotengine.org
•
a 90% saving is huge isn't it? for long agent sessions, I would expect a very high cache hit rate unless you're editing the system prompt, tools, or history between turns, or some turns take longer than the cache timeout
So basically the best way to use MCP is not to use it at all and just call the APIs directly or through a CLI. If those dont exist then wrapping the MCP into a CLI is the second best thing. Makes you wonder whats the point of MCP
•
This was my initial understanding but if you want ai agents to do complex multi step workflows I.e. making data pipelines they just do so much better with MCP. After I got the MCP working my case the performance difference was dramatic
Jimi Hendrix was a systems engineer (spectrum.ieee.org)
•
> Electric guitars attack hard, decay fast, and don’t sustain like bowed strings or organs. Since the 1980s, we have had the "Sustainiac": an active circuit installed in the electric guitar along with a "reverse pickup" which is energized in order to excite vibration in the strings. With this device, at the flip of a switch, you get indefinite sustain on any note on the neck, at any volume, distortion or not --- even if the electric guitar is not plugged into an amplifier at all, and just heard acoustically. The best implementations of this have a three way harmonic switch. You can choose between excite the fretted (or open) note itself (fundamenta a.k.a first harmonic), an octave above it (second harmonic) or a higher harmonic still. You can be sustaning the given note, and then at the flip of a switch, it will fade over to the higher harmonic. YouTube videos of this in action are worth checking out. Here is one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZwPPGsxY6g
If you can track it down, Hendrix's home recordings are a gem. https://jimihendrixrecordguide.com/home-recordings/ (edit: syntax)
•
https://archive.org/details/05-voodoo-chile-cherokee-mist
The reverse example of this is musicians who play techno with analog instruments, like Pipe Guy, Basstong, and Meute[0][1][2]. There are always some people who get extremely defensive whenever I say that techno didn't click for me until I heard this kind of "techlow" music. Specifically about the part where I think that the reason is also a human expression problem, because of limitations imposed by the electronic media used. EDIT: having said that, I don't think I would agree with your premise, because it is colored by a subtle form of survivor bias. None of us remember what it's like to not know electronic guitars or what they sound like, so claiming "the audience intuitively understands what Jimmy Hendrix is doing" is like saying everyone "intuitively understands" their native language. On top of that there's nothing about the workings of an electronic guitar that wouldn't in principle work for something like an electronic violin or whatever. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0gED3rn2Tc [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mn52b-bWfFM [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYtjttnp1Rs
•
[delayed]
You might also enjoy Beardyman, if you haven't run across him yet. Does techno and other genres with nothing but his own voice and a shedload of ipads: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYVUlx7BhhI
•
Nathan Flutebox Lee and Beardyman @ Google, London [1] is one of my favs. At the time it was available on 'Google Video' before they acquired YouTube. So I don't have a link to the orig. post. SPOILER: especially that theme with the Godfather when he says Google is just epic and balls. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfXaL9omQPs
Ahem, just two words. Yamaha DX-7. Synth music elevated electric bound tones to anything ever heard. I remidn you that most of the rock and roll and rock music was about speed and mimicking the sound of a rumbling car engine, as it was a symbol of the freedom in America, being able to run away from your toxic communities to find yourself better anywhere else. That was the message for the young with rock and roll: a speedy engine for your ears. Electronic music was like replacing a car with UFO evoking you a space travel. With the progressive subgenre of techno music you got the same feeling, but with no subtle hints. Heck, one of the most known songs in Spain ever, "Flying Free", literally remixes the sounds of drifting cars between the melodies, making the listener really happy in a very direct way as tons of youngs in the 90's got into the outskirt night clubs... by car. So they felt as driving an infinite highway rave with no end for days.
•
The DX-7 FM synthesis opened the door to a pretty narrow but interesting range of sounds, bells and brass, which people loved and it was a ripsnorting success for a time, but it didn't displace subtractive analog synths and people aren't exactly playing FM synthesizers any more, while they are now heavily back into analog subtractive. of course there are also romplers and samplers etc. and those can achieve sounds that FM did, but it's hard to call the DX-7 any type of be-all end-all.
 Top