krick

That's super curious. No offense, the noise didn't make it sound more amateurish to me personally, so I wouldn't go as far as to immediately conclude that this was intentional by TikTok, let alone that it is because it didn't like the lyrics, but I'm very curious what is it anyway.

Reminds me of how someone lately was going crazy about weird video-artifacts on Youtube. It was fixed (for his videos) after contacting somebody on the technical side of Youtube, but there was never an explanation AFAIK of what actually went wrong, so I was left pondering if that could be a result of some more ambitious ML-experiments in attempt to improve compression rates or something, but never found out conclusively.

I'm not sure what they mean by "in the region", but my case is even more extreme, as pretty much the only time I'm forced to use whatsapp is when I'm travelling and need to communicate with all sorts of hosts who annoyingly expect me to have whatsapp. After returning home I always delete it.

So I am usually "in the region" with those guys, but since "region" probably means "similar phone number" it will be useless to me too.

They are not in the same bucket, and I'm being intentionally provocative, if this confession makes things easier for you, but I really don't think you should mind that much if somebody is jerking off in public unless it harms you in some way (in broad sense, e.g. being intentionally annoying, loud and doing it right into your face). The point is that you should do whatever you want unless it harms others, and shouldn't mind other people doing whatever they want unless it actually harms you. I would say a guy watching tiktok without a headset right next to you in the airport harms you waaay more than a guy jerking off in the same airport standing 10 m away from you or anyone else. I mean, it's disconcerning, because you'd rightfully assume he must be crazy, but the activity itself really shouldn't bother you.

And surely anyone mentioned is a hundred times less harmful than a guy smoking on the street. That should be illegal. Yet people for some reason act as if it's ok, and it is broadly legal in most places (unlike jerking off in public).

Even that I'd call somewhat petty, but it is more defensible if it's insulting to you when you hear toilet noises from your phone, and you are totally in your right to tell it straight to the person who is calling you, that it's hard to hear him behind all farts and flushes. That's ok. People here seem to be complaining that somebody else is talking to somebody else on a phone while being in the public (office) toilet. I mean, I kinda understand if it distracts them from their business due to some psychological difficulties they may have, but that's the public toilet design fault when you cannot feel isolated enough, not the guy's talking.

As a matter of fact, I do NOT understand the overwhelming opposition to this. What's your deal if a guy is good at multitasking and people on the other end of the wire don't mind it? It isn't like he is desecrating a temple, or intruding into your home and using your toilet, or jerking off in the public... Wait, actually I'd say even the latter shouldn't be your business, unless he stains something. Why cannot people mind their own business?

You probably meant "doesn't make sense".

As others pointed out, this isn't a very strong offer, but I'm wondering, if it would be competitive (price/performance wise), does anyone have a use-case for this? I mean, I can name quite a few if it would offer me some hardware that my laptop I'm using to access it just doesn't have, like some A100-level GPUs and stuff, then it would be fantastic: login, do your job, forget about it until the next time you need it. But for anything else it feels like I'd just prefer something more… traditional? Like, DigitalOcean droplet, AWS instance, Linode VPS, you get the idea. At least a managed Docker container. Even if it's technically more expensive and less performant, we are talking like $5/mo, and you can pretty much always easily scale-up or buy additional storage volume, all these things. And it's all yours, for pretty much all practical intents and purposes.

Does anyone have a legit use-case when it would be actually nicer to use this on-demand type of service? (Once more, unless we are talking some serious on-demand hardware.)

Does it handle languages other than English? I remember trying out some APIs like that for some tasks, and while I managed to find titles in English somewhat successfully, any other languages (be it the original title, or a translation of some fairly well-known book) were basically inaccessible.

Are you sure? See, my point is a conjecture (based on a reasonable assumption that I cannot be that special), that there must be really a lot of us "outliers" out there (so I'm not even sure it's reasonable to call us that).

Let's reiterate. I am well aware that more people listen to that Bad Rabbit, Taylor Swift or Justin Bieber than they listen to <random name from my playilist>, it's not really a surprise. There even is a special name for people like that, it's "celebrity". In fact, that's probably how most people who are into music (including myself, I might say) would categorize them, as "celebrities", not as "musicians" (though, mind you, of course they are musicians, as everyone who ever sang a song is, it's just that when I hear the word "musician" I don't necessarily think of Taylor Swift). Hence these people indulge themselves for not knowing who these guys are, explaining it that "they are not into celebrities".

And it's no surprise that a lot of people listen to celebrities. I mean, if Trump would release a song right now, it would become #1 on Spotify in no time (for a very short time, but still). Well, maybe not #1, but close.

But I also suppose there are a lot of people who are into music. Maybe not so many, as there are people who are into celebrities, but it's still a lot. And after seeing that top-10 000 I suddenly find it very plausible, that a lot of tracks these people call "massive hits" may turn out to be "virtually unplayed". And hence not in those "97% of Spotify (by # of plays)" that AA archived. I am not even claiming it, I'm just saying that this doesn't seem to be impossible.

For instance, any DnB fan would say that "everyone knows Noisia and Black Sun Empire". It would be absolutely laughable attempt at "preserving human culture" not to include them. Surely all of their tracks must be at least in top-5M, right? Well, after seeing top 10K I'm not so sure anymore.

Maybe you've never heard of them, but surely you've heard of Prodigy. Not a single track from Prodigy on top-10K. Or Chemical Brothers. Or Burial, or Placebo, or Nighwish, or King Crimson. These are very famous names in respective circles. There are 2 tracks from Massive Attack — both featured in super-famous movies and trending on TikTok right now. For God's sake, there are only 8 tracks from Madonna in top 10K. Versus 26 from Imagine Dragons and 124 from "Bad Bunny", whatever it is. How do you like Madonna for an obscure artist?

So, my point is that there may be a lot of people listening almost exclusively to "virtually unplayed" music. Entire discographies of (niche) cult-artists may turn out to be buried in these 66% of "virtually unplayed" tracks.

I guess I should just get the metadata and check, but I'm pretty sure that would be outside of capabilities of the hardware I have on hand, so I'm not sure how to go about that.

First off, this is not the top we are talking about, since there is one that AA provided[0]. I am not sure what it matters which names exactly I've heard of, but if you are that curious: I don't know what is Ed Sheeran and Wham (but cannot vouch I've never heard their music in a supermarket), but I definitely remember "Coldplay" being mentioned in a joke onstage by a NIN member[1], but I didn't bother to check out what they are. I can imagine the faces of Taylor Swift & Justin Bieber, but cannot name any song, and I'm sure I've heard Mariah Carey somewhere, since that name is around longer than Rihanna. I have a song or two of Ariana Grande in my playlist though.

Edit: Ok, I've finally googled "Coldplay". Yeah, definitely heard "Clocks" somewhere.

[0] https://annas-archive.li/blog/spotify/spotify-top-10k-songs-...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qboe5CebixA

In UK there is simply no such status as "non-profit", so technically none of what you listed are "non-profit" organizations. These are unincorporated associations, that, by the way, can be making profit (but that would be on shaky grounds, since common law makes it hard not to fuck up, being as vague as it always is). However, there is a "charity" status in UK, and you'd have be a registered organization to obtain it.

Anyway, "non-profit" is (i.e. "only makes sense defined as...") a legal status, it isn't just a way to say "not making money" (after all, we wouldn't call any failing business a non-profit, right?), so it really doesn't make any sense to ask if an illegal underground gang is "non-profit". GP is correct to point that out.

To be completely fair, I am not certain what it means for a track to be "virtually unplayed".

First off, it was striking to me how little of the "top 10 000" they published back on Christmas I recognize. I'm not sure what I expected, but 10 000 sounds like a big number, so it seemed likely to me, that if I get a random song from my playlist I could find it there. It turned out I hardly can find an artist I recognize. Ok, I can recall a song from Lady Gaga and even Billie Eilish, I've heard of Bruno Mars (cannot recall any song), but I have no idea what is "Bad Bunny", "Doechii", "Drake". I mean, I think I do have a pretty good idea what these things are (abstractly), and I probably wouldn't want to listen that. And while I knew that all this stuff is very popular, I didn't quite realize how little place in the top-10000 it leaves for the music I (and everyone I know) actually listen to.

I didn't download the metadata they released (it would be hard to process it on my laptop anyway), but now I wonder how much of my 3 TB music collection is in top 100 000, or heck, even top 1M Spotify, or on Spotify at all.

I also am sometimes surprised how little scrobbles some tracks get. I didn't bother to find out what this means, how many people still scrobble to Last.fm or ListenBrainz, but it is just surprising when I see that a track that I didn't consider to be obscure was scrobbled like 50 times this year.

So I'm saying that music worlds seems to be terribly fragmented, even more than I imagined. So the very premise of AA backing-up 97% of Spotify (by the number of plays) may be much lesser achievement at "preserving culture" than it may sound. And of course we are about 8 years too late to backup everything, since by now half of it must be generative NN bullshit. And I'm not even sure it's in those leftover 3% (bots listen to bot-generated music too, right)?

Yeah, obviously I don't know if it is actually related, but my first thought when I couldn't open it today was "Told you so"...

What about compression rates?

Thank you. My bad.

Sure, but I am totally willing to make that tradeoff, and when my earbuds die, I buy new wireless earbuds, not permanently switch to some wired headphones I have lying around (mostly just in case, to not be left hanging if my earbuds suddenly die). I didn't know that before I started using wireless stuff, but now I do. Because, you know, I can change my T-shirt, maybe even take a shower, and start cooking something in the kitchen without pausing that audiobook, all while my phone is charging in another room.

I am even cautiously aware that people have lost their hearing, because damn LiOH exploded in their ear. That's much scarier than knowing I will have to buy new earbuds in a couple of years. Didn't stop me using them either.

I'm not even sure people think that. Apple's marketing department thinks that, and other company marketing departments seem to be implementing some kind of master-slave architecture, where they are slave instances to Apple's master server. Does anybody really check specs and deliberately choose the thinner phone? Or do people just buy new iPhone regardless of whatever decisions they make just because having the last iPhone is cooler? Of course, I don't know, but I somehow really doubt it's the former.

WH-1000XM4 isn't on the list of affected devices though, does it have the same chip?

Ok, so TL;DR: there's nothing that can be done about it? Just hoping that nobody (like not a single random person, eh) around me knows about that?

Was going to ask what's the data, but

> Compromised Data: Source Codes, CI/CD Pipelines, API Tokens, Access Tokens, Confidential Documents, Configuration Files, Terraform Files, SQL Files, Hardcoded Credentials and more!

Yeah, right. No wonder nobody bothered to buy and take a look. More of an insult to ESA, than a "data breach".

Not sure why it gets attention here. The "finding" is the long standing assumption as it is, absolutely nothing new discovered here. It could be notable if it was of some particularly high quality, but here it is 20 untrained individuals doing some dubious exercise regime for 10 weeks and finding out that on average one dubious exercise pattern wasn't particularly better than the other, and overall exercising seemed to be good for all of them, although inter-personal coefficient of variation is up to 28.3%… Like, really? That was the study that impressed 211 upvoters?

These journals keep publishing such studies, because there is nothing better to publish in this branch of, uhm, "science", and I would even argue it's not a bad thing, because something is better than nothing, and it's basically impossible today to do more impressive research in this field (because testing humans is far costlier and logistically more complicated than writing equations and running simulations on your PC). But it's funny that it gets someone's attention.

Reminds me of my comment of 6 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21581390

What phone it was? I am sure that there is a lot of ML involved to figure out how to denoise photos in the dark, etc., but I never noticed anything that I'd want to describe as "AI filter" on my photos.

I removed it with devtools, so surely there is a dozen of work-arounds, but, still, it just weird that a page that is supposed to show a calendar, doesn't show a calendar.

Not sure what do you mean. I.e., what exactly is supposed to be the tricky part. Yes, I've dealt with quite a few processes like that, but I never tried, or would ever want to to put this into crontab. In fact, I don't know how the author intended his article, but if you consider doing that for production, I strongly advice you not.

What you do instead, is you schedule the cronjob for the most generic case, e.g. each day. And if it does not need to run 3 days before holidays with crescent moon when wind is blowing from the south, it is just the part of business logic of the process, which you write in the any proper programming language that you prefer (or that the system is written in anyway).

Now, how do you manage the list itself depends on the details and I've done all sorts dirty things that one probably shouldn't do (cutting corners), but in the most flexible case it is just some CRUD-type page in your back-office system, with a real UI, and there is a person (usually in the bookkeeping department of the company) who has it among his responsibilities to maintain the schedule. You store it in some proper SQL database and cache it aggressively, so the the myriads of cronjobs don't bother it more than necessary.

To be fair, the whole post isn't very good IMO, regardless of ChatGPT involvement, and it's weird how some people seem to treat it like some kind of revelation.

I mean, of course it wasn't specifically Rust that made it fast, it's really a banal statement: you need only very moderate serious programming experience to know, that rewriting legacy system from scratch can make it faster even if you rewrite it in a "slower" language. There have been C++ systems that became faster when rewritten in Python, for god's sake. That's what makes system a "legacy" system: it does a ton of things and nobody really knows what it does anymore.

But when listing things that made uv faster it really mentions some silly things, among others. Like, it doesn't parse pip.conf. Right, sure, the secret of uv's speed lies in not-parsing other package manager's config files. Great.

So all in all, yes, no doubt that hundreds of little things contributed into making uv faster, but listing a few dozens of them (surely a non-exhaustive lists) doesn't really enable you to make any conclusions about the relative importance of different improvements whatsoever. I suppose the mentioned talk[0] (even though it's more than a year old now) would serve as a better technical report.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSKTfG1GXYQ

We don't. To be fair, it was a "science and math competition for high school seniors". If it wasn't, it would be just some paper on arxiv, and nobody would be reporting it. And for sure the guy who did this kind of research wouldn't be awarded $250K for it.

So, uh… yeah. That's it. A guy was chosen by the jury as the winner of highschool-talent competition and won $250K. Good for him.

The 3rd place is a proof for some Ramsey-like problem it seems, though.

I this this is the irony: mattermost probably is the right choice anyway, but you wouldn't want to be the guy who convinced others they should switch, because after something like this, it's him who will be blamed by everyone who he managed to convince.

That's exactly what I was wondering, since I vaguely remember that all this "copyrighted fonts" silly business boils down to the exact source code, and the same shape can be represented a hundred ways. So, what's the big deal, anyway? I never tried to do it, but I'd assume that to make a "different" copy of a font with minimal human intervention must be a trivial computing task by now. Sure, in theory there are subtleties like many possible ligatures and kerning, but I doubt it's really that critical. And it only matters if you only have a picture with so many latter combinations. If you have the actual font file, you have full information anyway.

And if so, why people still even bother with all that "font licenses" stuff and such? I'd think the only reason to buy a font by now must be when design studio actually does custom work for you. And the emphasis is on "custom", because it isn't truly "for you": anyone will be effectively free to use it after you use it once anywhere.

Yeah, I thought that as well. So I was wondering if that's some kind of a joke, or maybe modern html is so fucked up that all usual solutions became obsolete since the last time I did that.