Quatity_Control

You mention your discover weekly. Do you know how that algorithm works? It suggests songs that you have not played, that other people who played songs that you played. It’s the same positive feedback loop. It’s songs already popular that it promotes to be played more. Which makes them more popular so it recommends them more. And thus you end up with the most steamed artists only making 15% of the content.

Does it work? Passably. For the majority, mostly generic listeners. Is it a fair way to structure a platform and to dispense payments? No. A great business model however.

If you make a great song, and Dua Lipa makes a crap song, which one would be featured and added into playlists by Spotify’s algorithms? It’s not a level playing field. It doesn’t promote content that isn’t already popular.

Which is mostly due to Spotify’s playlist and algorithms. Which fall victim to the positive feedback loop issue. Those popular artists are suggested, promoted, and played more frequently so more people hear them and thus play them more. It’s not a level playing ground. It’s a self generating walled garden of artists.

95% of the royalty pool goes to 200000 artists who generate 15% of the content. Sounding less fair the more you look at it.

Language is not disassociation.

Not really. The LLMs use tokens instead of actual words to understand the words. There’s a layer of disassociation. That’s different to taking pre existing knowledge, understanding it, and using it to divine more knowledge.

Some Australian stuff in the 90s was… Interesting https://youtu.be/CkpP8ElRfYk?si=Xz3-x6tjrv-pOI4P

https://youtu.be/NCA7--Qcp78?si=GQYCKcOqkDvUUC1Y

Yep. We do need more though.

I’d agree with you if we were already producing enough renewables. Since we need to triple the current renewable market just to hit 1.5, I don’t agree with resources going elsewhere until we are on track there.

To prevent exceeding the 1.5 celsius increase, we need to triple the current uptake of renewables. I can extinguish a candle and say its carbon negative, however it’s not really going to help. We can look at other carbon reducing technology after the immediate requirement for renewable installations. I’m all for that, but right now, it’s just taking money time and resources away from renewables when we can’t afford any delay.

Carbon capture has had trillions and decades and still can’t reach reasonable efficiency rates. Certainly real world performance is nowhere near what it would need to be to make a contribution to the environment.

The companies investing in CCS are the companies mining fossil fuels and natural gas. They are using CCS to divert funding away from renewables and to greenwash their current mining operations. In most cases the material captured is used in further mining operations. Like a 2xdmg to the environment bonus.

Yep, arresting a 47yo for smoking will be very on point for a broken clock.

Keep in mind, this will be policed only on poor ethnic minorities. Rich white guys in their private club s will still smoke with impunity.

A debate requires two reasonable points. Your dull comments lack a point. With no need to cry about it, why do you have the need to comment on it? Just keep on buying more air and thinking you are winning at life. The rest of us can enjoy the laugh.

The addition of more and more air has nothing to do with chip protection. It is shrinkflation. That has always been my point, regardless of whatever you’ve mistaken it for.

And you’re a magical level of dumb shit if you don’t see they are reducing weight and increasing the air to make bags appear more full. “Protects the chips” and “Weight not volume” are the literal marketing campaigns designed to cover up the shrinkflation. Which, since you read the order of amount of air per brand articles, varies from 17%-73% with ckearly no regard for the optimal chip protection amount and quite obviously “as much as we can get away with” amount.

As I’ve repeatedly said, you’re whiny disagreement is more about you than this actual situation in the market in the real world.

Ooh internet credentials! So awesome. And an unrelated field? Mmm very intimidated I’m sure. You’re an idiot if you don’t recognise the shrinkflation. Regardless of your claims.

I don’t have a condescending word for the kind of person who believes more = better without comprehending the basic concept of reality. Thankfully, I don’t need one as Darwinism ensures there aren’t many of you around.

Unfortunately, you’ve missed the point of my experiment, re earning my condescension. I’m demonstrating the terrible effect of air as a cushion against force. I’m not replicating shipping at all.

It’s also quite revealing that the brands you named are substantially different in manufacturing process, resulting chips with significant difference in tensile strength and edge thickness. Those figures are far more relevant to broken chips than air.

So here’s your next training course in chip packaging. Take ten chips and drop them onto various surfaces from waist height. Drop them vertically and horizontally. Then put individual chips on bags with varying amounts of air and replicate. Then multiple chips. Have your parents help you write up the results and share with all your {online} friends!

Have some savings in case of emergency. A few thousand at least.

Work out a budget. What you earn, minus your bills + 10%, is the money you have for fun. The 10% helps prevent bill shock. Personally, I record the amount of the last four bills and average them then add the 10%. Seems to work.

Inherit or buy quality cookware and learn how to cook. Quality isn’t necessarily expensive. And good cooking is cheaper and healthier than anything else. At the start doing meal prep recipes to cover a week would be good.

It’s not the size of the space that enables the chips to move at speed. So no, I don’t believe you have studied any science. Watching sci fi movies doesn’t count.

Here’s a practical example for you to try. Make sure you get your parent’s permission!

Take a sandwich bag and put ten corn chips in it. Remove as much air as you can and seal it. Now, shake vigorously. You’ll find that the chips are held almost motionless by the plastic and thus do not break.

Now add a little air to the bag. The chips can now move. As you shake the bag back and forth, they collide, rotate in the allowed space, reposition inside the bag. You’ll get a few broken chips.

Now add heaps of air to the bag. When you shake vigorously, the chips all move in different directions, pin wheeling, bouncing off the bag surface, rebounding into each other, rotating inside the bag to present their crisp faces to the hardend edges of other fast moving chips. You’ll notice that it’s not the moving of the bag that damages the chips. It’s the sharp and abrupt change in inertia. The extra air allows the chips more space to orient in dangerous ways before the change in inertia smashes all the chips together at one end of the bag.

Now that you’ve done the fun practical part of the lesson today, I’ll follow it up with a simple thought experiment. What brands do you think have more broken chips in them?

https://amzn.asia/d/hpk0kKF When you’ve done the background requirement for the conversation, we can continue.