Quatity_Control

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago

I think this will tie in with updates to the CDR legislation coming soon. These digital wallets hide a lot of data from the banks. Bringing them under banking legislation allows banks to pull CDR data from the wallets as a condition of use.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 9 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 9 months ago (9 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago

Language is not disassociation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yep. We do need more though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (3 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago (7 children)

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.

view more: next ›