Other people no doubt have legitimate complaints, but using Spotify is barely registering as a problem compared to other applications I have to deal with.
120 karma · joined January 17, 2023
Hearing you say this is like hearing someone say that the United Nations is a commercial failure.
Its purpose is to regulate and administer international football on behalf of its member associations, enforce compliance with its regulations, organise international competitions to relieve the member associations of the hassle, administer anti-doping programmes and related integrity measures (lol), and, through its membership of IFAB, help determine and promote the consistent application of the Laws of the Game worldwide. Its revenues only exist to support those functions.
Is there a need for it to have profit motive? Would the world be better if it decided it should have one? I don't see how the answer could be yes to either question.
The mention of guardrails is a little Onion-esque given the organisation and people in question
I can't actually even think of any bugs. Nor do I have the same patience for tinkering with settings these days. For me, it just works, with the obvious exceptions of allowing it through the firewall, but that's unavoidable.
Jellyfin is an amazing project, and works almost exactly how I want it to. By listing and playing my media without autoplaying trailers and other such stuff.
I imagine many here who've never tried it will be of the same mindset
Now I often find it a frustrating experience, because, while I appreciate the attempt at organisation, settings are hidden behind so many sub-menus that it feels like a slog to click to deeper levels to find only a few settings, even if there are a lot of settings in total.
I think that starting off with easy songs, and with enough brute force as you scale up, you can become organically familiar with these concepts to make the educated guesses you're talking about.
Many renowned musicians were able to effectively create music utilising these concepts despite never formally learning music theory, and by just learning by ear.
"However, the association did not persist when using sibling controls, implying that this association is due to familial confounding by genetic and/or environmental factors." - https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/...
Windows isn't beating out Linux in the desktop space because Linux is awful. Network effects are much more significant.
The fact that we exist to discuss these odds means that whatever the probability distribution, at least one instance of life has occurred. Not only that, but life arose and eventually led to intelligence at our level - something that appears to be rare even on our own planet, but achieved relatively quickly all things concerned (only a few hundred million years).
While the anthropic principle guarantees that we observe intelligence as we're defining it (since we include ourselves), I agree that doesn’t mean intelligence is inevitable or common. A more likely modelling in my opinion is that worlds of microbial life are abundant, worlds with complex multicellular life is rarer, and intelligent civilizations are rarer still. Given the distribution of intelligence levels on Earth, it seems unlikely that we simply passed every constraint while no other planet gets close. Also, if we observed a planet with humans as they were 100,000 years ago, would we even consider them intelligent life? Probably just as intelligent as modern-day humans if raised the same, but literally nowhere near our technological level.
When scientists evaluate whether soil can support certaing thing, they don’t treat each factor (like pH, moisture, nutrients, microbial conditions) as independent hurdles that must be overcome one by one. Instead, they see that multiple factors interact in complex ways. A deficiency in one area (e.g., nutrient content) can be mitigated by another factor (e.g., microbial activity enhancing nutrient cycling). If you extend this to conditions in which life might it arise, it suggests to me that planetary habitability may be more like a network of contributing conditions rather than a checklist -- actually much more difficult to caclulate?
Also, mostly as an aside, we also have the advantage of knowing that life and then intelligence arose relatively quickly once conditions stabilized - only a few hundred million years. n=1 but I think this is a promising indication on where any variables might lie.
I often think about film reviewers, and how the sheer volume of film they've watched means that their experiences are likely further removed from an average person's potential experience, than basically anyone else.
Much like how if you're an average person who doesn't really go to magic shows, the opinion of another random person on a magic show is probably going to be more appropriate for you than that of Penn and Teller, who've seen it all before.
Historically, monetary inflation and consumer inflation coincided (Supply of X goes up -> X is devalued -> consumables are now charged at higher X), and so distinguishing between the two wasn't particularly pertinent.
The Roman Empire's observations that debasement of their coins resulted in the increase in prices, meant that the original conception of inflation really was as a monetary phenomenon, not just that prices are going up.
It's really only a relatively recent phenomenon, from the early 20th century, that you had dual definitions trying to occupy the same word, although the concept that price inflation could deviate from monetary inflation probably was starting to be understood with the establishment of price indices in the 19th century.
Keynes arguing that prices could rise independent of the monetary supply post-Great Depression increased the focus on consumer inflation. It was around the 1970s where inflation more commonly came to consumer inflation in academia. 'Stagflation' of the 1970s is probably the tipping point in usage.
To conclude: it's not really wrong to use inflation to refer to monetary inflation, as it's the original usage, but considering consumer inflation as 'inflation' is definitely more in fashion (especially in the US).
Growing up, a close relation of mine was an economist, and certainly not of the Austrian school. As a teenager, I was basically ganged up on by a teacher and some kids when inflation was brought up in class. They seemingly had no concept of monetary inflation, and I was forced to swallow that it referred solely to prices going up. I obviously questioned him on this incident, and he outlined that the "prices are going up" phenomenon is price/consumer inflation, and that increases to the money supply are monetary inflation.
Historically, monetary inflation and consumer inflation coincided (Supply of X goes up -> X is devalued -> consumables are now charged at higher X), and so distinguishing between the two wasn't particularly pertinent.
The Roman Empire's observations that debasement of their coins resulted in the increase in prices, meant that the original conception of inflation really was as a monetary phenomenon, not just that prices are going up.
It's really only a relatively recent phenomenon, from the early 20th century, that you had dual definitions trying to occupy the same word, although the concept that price inflation could deviate from monetary inflation probably was starting to be understood with the establishment of price indices in the 19th century.
Keynes arguing that prices could rise independent of the monetary supply post-Great Depression increased the focus on consumer inflation. It was around the 1970s where inflation more commonly came to consumer inflation in academia. 'Stagflation' of the 1970s is probably the tipping point in usage.
To conclude: it's not really wrong to use inflation to refer to monetary inflation, as it's the original usage, but considering consumer inflation as 'inflation' is definitely more in fashion (especially in the US).
The likelihood that more than one person used a poor or lazy shuffling technique on a brand new deck of cards seems significant.
Heroes, I agree with you, no question.
Many businesses don't bother even subscribing to a business package, because something like a static IP is unnecessary for them.
Further, the point regarding VPNs still stands -- think of the chaos it would cause for many people working from home (on residential connections). And that's just one example.
I don't find it plausible for an ISP to block this.
Similarly, we should keep investing in the prospect of commercially viable fusion reactors. The harnessing of fusion reactors would be instantly revolutionary as opposed to the incremental progress solar promises. Therein lies the difference. Once is not necessarily better than the other.
And it's not a zero-sum game.
An efficient system would make this integration easy, but I agree, for a lot of people to get anywhere, they have to "insert themselves".
Simultaneously, it's actually quite easy to be oblivious to this -- if you go to school, get good grades, get a graduate job, and do well enough at your job (but remain a normal employee), you'll never have the opportunity to have this realisation.
There are so many things that can fall under the IaaS bracket. Think anything 'cloud'. Maybe that's not how they'll apply it, but legally they are free to do so. It's a huge reach.
No one wants to send in selfies and their passport just to start a Digital Ocean droplet.
It also takes emotional regulation to refrain from correcting someone's factual errors. While someone with higher intelligence may be better at understanding and analysing emotions theoretically, this doesn't always translate into practical emotional management skills.
I'm not even necessarily blaming this on the performance difference, although that is a pertinent topic, but just the mental structure of something I'm using living in a browser tab rather than actually running on the computer.