sircac

ICE is objectionable… did they got “confused”?

Mostly for random song discovery considering my previously liked songs, I regularly download/obtain those songs I like for offline reproduction and preservation… online stuff has short lifes

Currently, for free users, only PC or tablet allows to control what you listen (caveat occasional ads) but mobile constraints to a shuffle reproduction of albums, and if you dare to do a short album they spice it with additional related tracks, so you are never in control of what is likely to play…

EDIT: well, apparently I can do that also on my mobile app, I remember in the past some glitched occasions bit it seems is real now…

I still let spotify to discover me things from time to time… but regularly I download/obtain those that I like, I never abandoned my offline library, I am old enough to know that nothing online perdures…

Well, on PC or tablet you always could, but on mobile it was always album random shuffle… and if you created an album of less than N songs, in mobile they added related tracks in the reproduction (radio-spotify like) so it remained not possible to control what you listen…

EDIT: I updated the verb tenses to the fact that now you can in the mobile app chose the song to play

Every step towards the next generation of colliders needs to be deeply justified about the falsifiables it will check and their interest to the current knowledge before being able to see a cent for it, and the expected energies of the TOE are well known to not be reachable with current means and technology, that’s not what they are promising ever, but what they do they fulfill, often, beyond predictions, to not mention the huge return basic research has always had in the long term to humanity… nope, I am afraid that I do not find it a good analogy at all. EDIT: but, yes, such strategy of making it bigger does not work anymore, so collider proposals go usually in other directions…

This is not the Europe I remember…

Why would they be right beyond word sequence frecuencies?

You are right, thanks! I misread the graph and thought it was a 4 cycles per day, which was puzzling me, but is indeed just a daily oscillation

Intrigued by the quarter a day oscillation in that graph… 🤔

Not to mention that plan and engagement of the NYT story is purely based on writers and potential readers relating to such fact, behave as if it is something worth of mentioning in a story in the first place borders hypocrisy… they forgot their first time got access to unlimited internet

Hate and Love, sure…

Well, there is probably some survival/confirmation bias on that statistics, those answers are the funny ones… in any case probably is not necessary a LLM to state such statements

A LLM can “reveal” also that water ice melts into mapple syrup given the proper prompts, if people already can (consciously and not) lie proportionally to their biases I don’t understand why would somebody treat a LLM output as a fact…

I would prefer any ActivityPub instance, but press media (and in general private entities), to which scientific institutes intend diffusion, is moving to bluesky…

It was already soooooo dead out there that I doubt they considered this systematic properly in the study…

When reading the title I accidentally placed an ‘i’ in ‘ads’…

…at the moment

The wrong migration to IMHO…