22/05/2026

A guy C served me. Autism was pretty obvious, so native behaviour circuity could be engaged. Breath of fresh air compared to that clusterfuck pile of garbage I have to run, a kind of "Microsoft Windows for the mind" kind of clusterfuck that one has to run to engage in polite conversations with numpties.

I looked at a DJ controller. It looked solid. Looks solid means contains meaning. First thought was friend could learn to DJ with it. Then calculated, what if not? Well it is good enough for me, at the east a DAW controller as one can use python and OSC to map it across. Then I realise the two-way:

either [ it works for M ] or [ it works for J ] thus:: it works [ either [ for M ] or [ for J ] ] the buying decision requires only that "it works", and thus the contents of the [ ♓ ] may be deferred. Conclusion: buy. The guy C who served loved the Autistic reasoning. Wonderful chat ensued. Gave business card. Value of conversation already exceeded cost of DJ controller. Thus effective cost of DJ controller is negative and accelerating. Negative effective cost means positive effective profit, regardless of what shows up on the spreadsheet. Thus, this is a win for The System. Up the Villa! Down the City! Happy Fry Day! ## S. E. C.

Note on Linear Devonish

The notation above

either [ it works for M ] or [ it works for J ] thus:: it works [ either [ for M ] or [ for J ] ]

is what I term Linear Devonish. Linear because it goes along a line. Devonish because the originator (i.e. me) is known to come from Devon.

Follow Up

I have one of these lying around.

I think we know where it's going. It came from the Brighthouse P**n Shop. I saw it with an HP monitor, very nice, £60 each. Bought. The Monitor was great, worth £120. But alas despite having an effective cost of £0, the poor numark didn't have the best quality of life. Hopefully if I sell it to Cex, it can find a better home.