I love Igorrr, but still have mixed feelings about the AI-assisted video. They were capable of making videos weird and unhinged in the past without its use.
It’s safe at this point to always assume the opposite of what he claims. Seems pretty clear he and his cohorts are going to cancel everything, funnel money into their pockets, then buy up everything for pennies on the dollar. Everyone in the US, and perhaps globally, will suffer while they create an ultra-corrupt New Gilded Age that makes the first one look like amateur hour.
While I also dislike the ghost runner, I can't deny that it's been a net positive for the game. By mostly eliminating marathon extra-inning slogs, not only does it speed up the game, but it also makes it much harder for teams to run out of pitchers they can safely use, which reduces injuries and ensures that we are not subjected to watching two backup catchers throw 48mph Eephus pitches in the 17th inning, long after they stopped selling beer.
Long extra inning games are pretty rare. I too hate the “Manfred Man” but the players and coaches overwhelmingly approve of it. I think that using the ghost runner at the start of the 12th inning would be a good compromise.
I'm in favor of compromise, but why the 12th inning? Haven't looked at the data but from memory it does kind of feel like games that get to the 12th inning tend to last into, say, the 15th or later.
I think 12th based on (and I cannot emphasize this enough) vibes instead of data would be fine.
10th definitely feels too soon (it's basically the 9th), and the 11th still kinda feels too soon too.
If anything, I'd argue it should be fine to ask your closer/reliever to pitch an extra inning (the 10th) "as-is". The 11th makes you burn an extra reliever, and that should be okay.
The 12th is where I'd start to say "okay, wind it down, we're all losing now".
Reminding me of the Mariners playoffs game a couple seasons ago that lasted 18 innings. That was bizarre to watch. I forget who they were facing. Astros I think?
I see it as a negative. Too many games are lost because a reliever gives up a couple fly ball outs and the Manfred Man comes round to score. I’d rather see ties than these fake wins.
Ties are allowed, but only in very special circumstances. If for some reason they can’t keep playing, the game is supposed to be suspended and then restarted at a later date. But if it’s the last time the two teams play each other in the season and the playoff tiebreaker rules aren’t an issue, they just end the game in a tie. It doesn’t show up in the standings, so you probably didn’t even realize it happens! The player stats count, however.
The last tie in baseball was in 2016 - Cubs vs Pirates. The game ended in the 6th inning due to rain.
If you look at the article, you can see that games have been getting progressively slower since records started being kept back in the 1920s. The recent rule changes have managed to cut the duration back to what they were in the early 80s.
By your logic, the games my mom grew up watching weren't slow enough, and the games my grandma watched were true blasphemy at around 2 hours flat.
Meanwhile, from my wife's perspective, I spend all afternoon watching even these sped-up games.
Does watching or listening to baseball feel too fast-paced? I haven't played much attention to baseball in many years, but I agree with you, baseball is supposed to be slow.
The ghost runner rule is by far the most ridiculous. A pitcher can give up no hits, and get an ER and the L in extra innings. Make it make sense. Baseball is also telling on itself here because that rule does not apply in the playoffs.
Baseball games are way too long even before they get to extra innings. The two hour limit is the most important rule change that makes bananaball superior (but their other changes are also universally positive).
Pandering to the few diehards who can pay attention to more than 100 games a year on every day of the week including weekdays for 4+ hours at a time is not a sustainable way to build or maintain interest in your sport in newer generations.
The people who watch baseball and care about baseball don't like the Manfred runner. The people who complain that "baseball games are way too long even before they get to extra innings" aren't people who watch baseball and care about baseball. I don't care about the options baseball haters have about baseball rules.
I hate the removal of the shift. I thought it was such an interesting innovation to the game, and the fact that baseball allowed for such things part of its magic.
I'm with you. I think it should only apply to games that have fairly clearly gotten "stuck" and things are just dragging - like others have suggested, 12th inning seems like a reasonable start.
I've always felt a lot of intensity going into the 9th inning in any sort of lose came, even moreso if it's tied. And before the manfred man, that carried through if we went to the 10th or 11th.
Now it feels like as soon as we get to extra innings it's a shitshow. It's one thing if a pitcher has made a series of mistakes (or the fielders behind him) and you end up with someone on second and you throw a passed ball and someone scores. It's another when the first pitch of the half inning is a passed ball and this bizarro zombie runner scores on you.
I want to watch teams have to put together a string of "good baseball" moments to win, or at the very least watch a trainwreck in action if one team loses the game more than the other team won it. Or the majesty of a well-hit long ball, ideally with an excellent bat flip. The only thing that should be able to walk off the game in the very first at-bat of the bottom half of the inning is a home run.
Oh Jesus. Yes, every person that cares about children not getting life altering surgery is a pedofile.. makes sense. They ran out of normal obvious kids of the gender they like, and now they're worried they might accidentally fall for a freak of modern medicine. You caught me.
What they're doing to children is some of the worst things you could imagine doing to a child. The children don't know better, and the adults the allow it all seem to basically be borderline insane/gay themselves too.
I'm from the San Francisco Bay area. I really do have this neighbor. And do I have concern for them? No. I believe that child has already been harmed and is too far gone. I have concern for all the children that can be saved still, and I have concern for all the people that know doing that to children is terrible but can't understand why they're being called bigots.
A father of a trans kid responded to you in the other subthread. By your own reckoning, this person is a monster and the type of person kids need to be saved from.
But instead of arguing with him, getting angry with him, expressing sorrow for his kid, or even acknowledging him and agreeing to disagree about their parenting methods, you keep talking about your imaginary neighbor.
You are getting so wrapped up in your talking points that you're forgetting to tell a believable story or have believable reactions.
Once again, how hard is it to believe someone from SF has this neighbor. And why would me having this neighbor or not even matter to my point really? Why would I make this up? And EVEN IF I did, would that matter since we know there are several of these kids in most bay area towns??
And no, I didn't respond to that guy. Because you're right, I do think he's doing/did a terrible thing. So instead of harping on him for something it's too late to even change, I let it go. Just like I do/did for my neighbor. I've helped that guy with his car twice over the last two years (tire rope plug, battery, small fluid checks), and didn't mention that evil stupid shit he did/allowed his kid to do or go through.
I rather argue this shit out with people that can change, not with the few specific people so deep you'll never change their mind.
Funny thing only yesterday I saw a great thread on reddit where people shared stories of their older relatives becoming obsessed about trans people (not in a healthy way) alike to how some became obsessed with the qanon conspiracy before.
I actually have a neighbor who now has a trans girl at 13 years old, since about 10. I knew the child from infancy. So as conspiratorial as it could be, I am literally watching a neighbor destroy their child month by month. It's not a conspiracy.
I have a trans kid at 15. Living their best life. Knew the kid from day one (today’s their 15th birthday).
Guess what? It’s all their choice, suggestion, etc. While I’d prefer their original name (I mean, I chose that for a reason), everything else is obvious and right in retrospect.
Instead of just /watching/ a neighbor, you could /be/ a neighbor and get to know them. You might feel differently about your preconceptions when you actually know the human.
I do actually know them. I'm nice as can be and help the family with their cars. But what's being done to that kid is terrible and most likely permanent. I don't think a kid is old enough to know if this stuff should be done to them.
See, this is what I was going at above. You are not really concerned about wellbeing of the children. You are just obsessed about this single (manufactured) issue.
I use the insane, gross, evil thing they approve of to remind them that while they throw around the bigot word at normal people, they are the true gross evil in the world, but regardless of that, just their non approval of healthy sane normal people makes them the bigots.
Oh for sure, I'm the mad Men because I think children shouldn't be given surgery and life-altering hormones based on thoughts they have as children. Your position is so terrible that there's nothing you can say that will make it ever make any kind of sense.
I don't think you'll get anywhere arguing with these people, especially the ones who've bought into this cult to the extent that they've transed their own children.
They have to convince themselves they've done the right thing, because the alternative is horrifying.
No, my thing is free internet. Not bigot-loving or hardcore leftist sites. On Reddit, if you say anything that is not leftist, you will get banned or deleted these days. I am a liberal, not left or right wing.
I’m not sure that Reddit doing the same thing is a big a problem as random acts of admin overreach and the looming threat of old Reddit going away. The moment that happens, I’m done with the service. New Reddit is a prime example of enshittification.
Yeah, reddit spread the changes out over years, just Decades of slow incremental changes. Even the new UI started off as optional, and the old UI is still (mostly) supported after 7 years.
Digg always rolled out its changes in one big update, which replaced the old version of the site overnight. So not only did users get to see all the changes in one big slap to the fact, but they couldn't switch back to Digg v3 if they didn't like Digg v4.
In fact, Digg itself couldn't roll back the entire site to v3 even if they had wanted to, as the v4 rollout required a database migration, and there was no reverse migration path.
As one of those users who migrated away around the time of the "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" incident, that's not what happened at all.
Digg never had much in the way gray/illicit content; The AACS key was only posted because it was newsworthy (and can a 128bit number even be considered illicit?)
There were a bunch of other issues at the time centering around digg power users (like MrBabyMan), and a perceived lack of action/communication from the digg staff. The disconnect had been boiling away under the surface for years.
The much bigger issue that the front page of digg at that time was increasingly just links that hit the front page of reddit 12-24 hours earlier. Users increasingly choosing to cut out the middle man and get their content directly from reddit. And at the same time, many fell in love with reddit's much better commenting system.
The censorship was just the catalyst for it all to finally boil to the surface, and the only news-worthy event to happen around that time. It might have been the final straw for some people, but for most it was tangentially related, at best.
When Slashdot was falling apart, RSS was becoming a thing. I just started paying attention to where the articles I liked were coming from, and started pulling their feeds. Yeah, sometimes I would go find the conversation and participate, sometimes I'd even read the article a few hours earlier and had time to ruminate on it. Once in a while I even scooped the usual posters.
I spent less time being dumb with other dumb people on the internet, which was nice. Nicer, at least. That kinda feels like something we lost.
It’s not just the AI bubble. Think of all the public services, rights, and scientific and medical research being destroyed by rightwing extremists and their billionaire enablers. It will take years, decades perhaps, to undo the damage they’ve already done, in just over 6 months in power.
Fair enough, but going into debt for something that has (or will have) no value is an entirely different question.
When I was young and dumb (at least more dumb than I am today) and newly graduated from college, I took a $6,000 personal loan at my credit union to buy a computer workstation, top of the line, with a large monitor, laser printer, the works. This was in the early 1990s. It was stupid, and of course the credit union didn't try to talk me out of it. I convinced myself I would "need" it as I entered my professional career as a software developer.
Of course it never meaningfully contributed to my income, it was rapidly obsoleted, and I was stuck with the payments. But I made them.
Many people have student debts that are 10-20x that, or more. Minimum payments of thousands of dollars a month, and no ability to discharge them through bankruptcy.
You can take on a few thousand dollars of debt as a young adult, realize you made a mistake, grind to pay it off and chalk it up as a life lesson.
We are letting young adults today make mistakes that they will never get an opportunity to learn from, because they will be paying for it their entire life. It is vastly different from your example.
Well the upthread example was graduating with "tens of thousands" in debt, which really should be managable for anyone who completes a worthwhile degree. Again, that's a new car, something most people pay for in 4-6 years.
The fact that you can get easy loans into six digits to pay worthless schools for worthless degrees is a different problem. "Free money" never leads to wise purchases.
I'm not talking about worthless schools -- I'm talking about the Ivy Leagues.
Worthless degrees, yes, but why are we not holding our most prestigious schools responsible for charging outlandish prices for worthless degrees? They are the ones with power misleading young adults who maybe should know better but guess what, they often don't, and that's a mistake but not one that should ruin you financially for the rest of your life.
But yes, you are right that this is not the majority of student loan borrowers.
I hear you, but it's still not analogous. I admit to being less than precise in my prior response, specifically.
A degree isn't a car, nor is it a computer. Nor is it something that you buy. You pay for the privilege to earn it.
The problem is that, during that earning process, an institution has the power to stop you from proceeding with no representation. The only failsafes in place are there to protect the institution.
Specifics as to how this can occur are another deep discussion. The takeaway is that a 50k or 100k USD degree is fraught with inherent risk that, even if unusually realized, merits easier loan terms. Due to the core nature of what a degree is and how it is obtained.
The day that they federally neuter the power of colleges to determine student progress outside of the grading system, or better yet they give students an easy way to gain advocacy, is the day that I will more or less agree with you.
Just wait until the rush of commenters that insist you’re wrong about being offended that they want to automate and commodify every aspect of your life.
Made this point elsewhere, but the music industry has been on a downward slide towards making music as cheaply as possible for some time now.
If you look at Taylor Swift's first 12 number one hits, each of them was written by a different writer. Compare that to bands from 30 years ago, many of whom wrote and recorded all the songs themselves.
Labels don't sign rock bands anymore because actually recording a rock band well in a studio is 10x the cost of just using a sampler and a single artist singing. I know folks want to blame AI, but it's really just enabling the latest iteration of this trend.
I'm not defending the whole thing. It's a shame, and I love going back and listening to my old Rush albums. But AI is not the problem here. It's the incentives.
I don't have any special industry experience. I went on a tear a few weeks ago and watched a bunch of Rick Beato's videos on YouTube. I didn't know the guy before running across his work, but he has 5 million subscribers and he sure sounds like he knows what he's talking about. He's been a music producer for 30 years.
Anyway, he was the one that made the point that we don't sign rock bands anymore in the sense that they're not moving the industry. All you gotta do is look at the top songs that folks are listening to on Spotify or the radio and you'll immediately see what I'm talking about.
He was also the one that walked through the process of setting up mics for a drum kit and pointed out that it's just very expensive to get the studio time and the expertise to do all that correctly. He actually walks you through a studio where he's set up mics for a drum kit and explains why it's so difficult to do well. He then contrasts that with simply using samples that are professionally provided and that the cost difference is just immense.
Anyway, I don't need to die on this hill. My point was the music industry is going downhill regardless and AI is just one of many tools paving the way.
I agree 100% that mic-ing live drums is by far the hardest and most expensive element in rock recording
But in the 1970s-2000s it was complete black magic and without dedicating years to the craft - you were up to the whims of studios for how much you pay
Compare that today, for instance have a look at the Jazz-Rock Fusion band Vulfpeck’s first album. If you exclude the cost of instruments - they often only need three (rather cheap) mics. Everything else DI. Recorded in a basement for less than a couple grand - with effectively infinite recording time
Live drums are expensive compared to samples, but they’re not the reason an entire genre disappeared
Rick Beato is fine but he’s entirely disconnected from contemporary guitar-based music. I agree entirely with the OP, the quality-expense ratio has never been better for this type of music.
Like with software, I'm thinking there's two different discussions: what powers the industry vs. what is possible for hobbyists.
While the industry in software is obsessed with React and K8s, hackers still like self-hosting PHP apps. Same with music. The industry is powered by highly efficient teams that write, produce, and perform music at scale for a global audience, and that's totally different from contemporary guitar-based music (I suspect!) What's possible is very different from what makes money.
Looking at her singles page on wikipedia (suspect source, but i don't know of a better one), looks like she's had 11 singles hit number 1 on billboard 100, and most of them are later songs. She's had many more in the top 10. I think your theses here is a bit suspect.
Not sure why you think my thesis is suspect. She had 12 number one singles, and they all had different writers. Those are just facts that you can easily verify.
My point is that "artists" are huge teams of people. Here are the credits for Swift's top 12 hits. Of course I wasn't in the room for the writing of any of these, but the diverstiy of the team involved is at least notable, yeah?
"We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together" (2012): Taylor Swift, Max Martin, Shellback
"Shake It Off" (2014): Taylor Swift, Max Martin, Shellback
"Blank Space" (2014): Taylor Swift, Max Martin, Shellback
"Bad Blood" (featuring Kendrick Lamar) (2015): Taylor Swift, Kendrick Lamar, Max Martin, Shellback
"Look What You Made Me Do" (2017): Taylor Swift, Jack Antonoff, Richard Fairbrass, Fred Fairbrass, Rob Manzoli
"Cardigan" (2020): Taylor Swift, Aaron Dessner
"Willow" (2020): Taylor Swift, Aaron Dessner
"All Too Well (10 Minute Version) (Taylor's Version)" (2021): Taylor Swift, Liz Rose
"Anti-Hero" (2022): Taylor Swift, Jack Antonoff
"Cruel Summer" (2023): Taylor Swift, Jack Antonoff, St. Vincent
"Is It Over Now? (Taylor's Version)" (2023): Taylor Swift, Jack Antonoff
"Fortnight" (featuring Post Malone) (2024): Taylor Swift, Post Malone, Jack Antonoff
Maybe there's been once since, but my point was she doesn't write her own songs...my point is about how the industry works now, compared to 30 years ago.
Machine-learning for audio is just a different form of audio synthesis.
That is not the issue. The issue is how incredibly generic the music is.
It also doesn't let you combine genres to make really strange sounds like audioLM can do.
This is just another Muzak generator like they use to play at Dennys. As generic music as possible to the appeal to the most average of average listener.
I think you really need to train your own model if you want to explore creative sound design or algorithmic composition. It just isn't going to be a mass market product worth venture capital money.
reply