That's an interesting thought. I wonder if you can quantify this belief? That Weibull (presumably) distribution would be an interesting and useful thing to know.
Quantify the belief that humans are biased toward sensationalism? No, I have no idea how to do that. Actually you could make an argument that it's a bit circular, that "sensationalism" is defined as the kind of ideas that humans are biased towards and which are therefore more able to cause a "sensation".
But if you don't see how people yearn to believe in big dramatic things like conspiracies, aliens, bigfoot, or even simple narratives about single people changing the course of history, and how they only accept the complicated and/or boring reality with conscious effort, then, well, you seem to be living in a better universe than I am.
Valid concern! But you can choose to donate to any charity you want. What you see is just a recommendation that matches the week's challenge. Once you commit to it, you can click and type in any charity (or amount) you prefer.
You can film them, just not obstruct with them executing their official duties.
Personally, I'd wait another 3 years to visit until this brainless ass clown is out of office (or maybe 10 years later after our society recovers a bit from completely melting down because we have a civil war when said ass clown refuses to peacefully leave office and the large number of ass clown citizens back him up because they are afraid to truly live freely)
I make this recommendation as a very reluctant republican (who proudly has never voted for president ass clown).
But what you are legally allowed to do and what you can do without the cops retaliating are two different things. If I were a tourist in the US just looking to enjoy a vacation with a minimum of risk, I'd avoid recording the police, or near the police.
Nice - right? How annoying is that. If a public human can read content, why can't an LLM? ChatGPT/Claude also (at least the for me, also don't consistently fully review the content I upload for review. Sometimes it's full, but most of the time (especially if it's a larger document, say 100pg pdf or 15 python scripts), I have to continually push them to go through everything.
Really annoying - thank you for this! Now, am I too lazy to apply it, that's the question.
lol! no problem. Its such an annoying problem. One time and LLM said "I can't directly access URLs" and I replied with "yes you can" and then it did it! WTF!?
First, I applaud what you're doing. Second, if you've already pondered these ideas, please disregard.
Third, I'm 49 years old and I was heavily into the "payola is evil, liberate music back to the ears of the listeners" movement, that spawned projects like muxtape, Napster, jamendo, and ultimately Spotify and the like (my involvement was nowhere near the scale of any of these players, but I knew the space well).
Now, I miss the Clive Davis's of the world. Go figure. I also miss trading cassette tapes with my friends, but today, to some degree, I do that through Spotify, but it's not the same. Of course, am not the same as the kid that was trading tapes. I'm a different person, no longer pedaling down the street to buy the latest Bad Religion album to listen to at a sleep over. Today I'd be more inclined towards Theloneous Monk. Nevertheless, I still LOVE listenng to, discovering and sharing music. I could be wrong, but given the trend, I don't really feel like that will change until I die.
With the context, I offer the following thoughts, to take or leave:
1. Maybe reconsider whether algorithms are indeed the enemy. The world of music is vast. Algorithms are powerful in helping me find new music in that ocean. However, the current Algorithms do seem quite myopic to me, functioning more like a echo chamber, vice expanding my musical aperture. So, maybe consider an algorithm, but one that functions more like the legacy music industry system network comprising scouts, producers, agents, managers and labels. Maybe even with some humans in the loop. The discovery and sharing go hand-in-hand. You want to share what you discover and love. Algorithms, I believe, can still help listeners discover.
2. Maybe consider radio. I don't fully understand why it seems as though people are forgetting the amazing network that is FM/AM radio (not internet radio). It's a one-way, open and persistent broadcast of information to subscribers - in a geographical vicinity that is. That latter piece is key. If I'm dialed-into a station, I know that others listening are in my local proximity and so are experiencing the same local issues as me (e.g. politics, crime, weather, natural disasters, war, etc). The other people listening aren't necessarily your friends, or family or colleagues (though some may be of course), but rather just people in this geolocal bubble you happen to be in together. The structure of our radio network is constrained geographically, which I believe is a massive strongsuit, vice a weakness. Bottom line, I suspect there is a benefit to the listener in music sharing mediums that are, perhaps at least in part, geographically constrained.
Some really interesting perspectives here and I agree with you I believe most if not all people will still love to be discovering and sharing music until they die. There really is such a thrill in knowing you got someone onto a certain song or artist that they now love.
You're right we definitely won't eliminate algorithms as they definitely do play a great role in everything nowadays, not just music discovery, but we want to alleviate a lot of that reliance that is currently placed on them, and provide another avenue for discovering music through humans, rather than machines.
Radio is definitely a great one, my only issue is that people of today, specifically younger people, want to consume as much content as they can in the shortest period of time as they can (not all but a large portion), and radio doesn't do well for these types of people, where you can't quickly change songs, and have to sit through lengthy ads. However, I do agree the radio is a powerful thing and for those who still have the patience for it, it's a forgotten gem for most.
"Take a chilly window sheeting over with ice: even one oddly shaped snowflake can exert an influence on the final frosty pattern."
I wish writers would do a better job of conveying chaos. Yes, the butterfly flapping it's wings in Brazil (or whatever) can drastically influence the weather a continent away. But I think the true wonder of chaos needs to consider that if that butterfly were turned a few degrees in another direction, the resultant weather can be completely different. It's these infinitesmally small changes in parameters resulting in widely different outcomes that really brings the idea of chaos to life I think.
> Yes, the butterfly flapping it's wings in Brazil (or whatever) can drastically influence the weather a continent away.
> But I think the true wonder of chaos needs to consider that if that butterfly were turned a few degrees in another direction, the resultant weather can be completely different.
The former is simply a different way of saying the latter.
For balance it’s worth say that chaos can greatly magnify the impact of small variables, while greatly suppressing the impact of others. Which are two reasons that make specific predictions in chaotic systems difficult or impossible.
The productive response is to look for behaviors of a given chaotic system. Which can provide a lot of insight, despite specific unpredictability. (I.e. “this heat is going to generate more storms, even if we can’t place those storms on a calendar.”)
reply