|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Unpopular opinion: people listen to too much music. Everyone constantly has headphones in whether they're shopping, walking, on the bus, in a car, at home...do you really need a constant soundtrack for your life? I take the train to work every day and yes, I need headphones in because otherwise my soundtrack is often a woman evangelizing loudly and talking about the end times or a homeless guy standing in the middle of the car telling everyone his entire life story.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
hawowanlawow posted:when you use Spotify or last.FM to suggest music, you're not seeing all of the music that you could be seeing. You're seeing what the service is selling to you. There's nothing stopping them from suggesting poo poo just because they make more money from it. Without net neutrality your service could get throttled because it doesn't have music from labels with a favorable relationship with your ISP / carrier. poo poo can be taken down or put up out of nowhere, changing the value of what you're paying for. They could start shoehorning in more ads, or make them harder to block. I think streaming is only going to go downhill from here I have pretty eclectic taste in music. I like some stuff from almost any genre, both popular and obscure things, but I don't consciously have any specific criteria. Apparently Spotify has figured me out, because their "suggested" playlists are almost always songs I enjoy, and I've discovered a lot of new music through them. I imagine if you only like one genre it works the same way, at least if it's not so obscure that there's nothing similar on streaming. Spotify has a much bigger selection of music than YouTube or soundcloud, and I feel a little smug about not downloading a video 10x the file size of the audio for the pleasure of looking at an album cover or some weird slideshow while I listen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2017 16:46
|
|
|
hawowanlawow posted:they probably just saw you coming lmao
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:00
|
|
|
I need headphones on the train because every drat time there are loud chinese grandmas yelling into their phones on speaker mode having 20 minute conversations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:07
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:Not if you are willing to pay 10 bux a month which is basically a steal for faux owning almost ever album you could imagine. I could not be happier about getting rid of all of my physical and digital music in favor of streaming. Yeah spotify premium is worth every penny and I don't get why people act like I'm oh-so-crazy for shelling out. Everyone pays for netflix and I guarantee I use spotify premium more. It's also way easier to obtain whatever thing is on netflix than to replace the features spotify has. The variety is amazing too. You can go from Gaga to The Beatles to Metallica to 1920s-30s socialist revolutionary hymns and its all loving on there. Technically you can use both on the go, but it's not like I'm gonna go for a run and bust out my netflix app to stream some Breaking Bad. So spotify has them beat there too. yeah I eat rear end posted:That bugs me too. Especially if you are using your phone for navigation, people freak out if they lose the signal in the more remote portions of the country. It doesnt happen often anymore but still, its like people have forgotten that there are other ways to navigate than a phone. I went on a backroads trip from TX to Oregon and brought a map to try and use it for fun. Thank god I did or I'd still be lost in the desert somewhere. yeah I eat rear end posted:Unpopular opinion: people listen to too much music. Everyone constantly has headphones in whether they're shopping, walking, on the bus, in a car, at home...do you really need a constant soundtrack for your life? I constantly listen to nerdy podcasts and then have to awkwardly answer "so what do you listen too?" Edgar Allen Ho has a new favorite as of 15:22 on Dec 18, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:16
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Everyone pays for netflix The gently caress you say.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 15:18
|
|
|
hawowanlawow posted:this is nonsensical ...How do you think Youtube works?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
hawowanlawow posted:this is nonsensical It's also in their interest to suggest things you'll actually like so you keep using the service.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:...How do you think Youtube works? I don't use youtube to suggest music, nor do I use it to replace the function of a music streaming service. I didn't say that I did. I read articles on bands, look at their influences and who they influenced, read comments, etc. once I get an idea for a band, I look up their poo poo on youtube and then buy the mp3 on amazon if I want it. Mu Zeta posted:It's also in their interest to suggest things you'll actually like so you keep using the service. true, I just think it's a safe bet that greed and monetization inevitably corrupt the service. there are artists that don't want to be on spotify because it doesn't pay enough (greed on spotify's part already) or artists who aren't on spotify because they've committed to other services. for example, king crimson isn't on there, and it's a big prog rock band. If you used spotify to suggest prog to you, that would be a big hole I'm just pointing out the inherent flaws in the service, and posters here have been responding by assuming I use youtube in place of it and making irrelevant posts about themselves and the variety of music they listen to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:31
|
|
|
hawowanlawow posted:I don't use youtube to suggest music, nor do I use it to replace the function of a music streaming service. I didn't say that I did. I read articles on bands, look at their influences and who they influenced, read comments, etc. once I get an idea for a band, I look up their poo poo on youtube and then buy the mp3 on amazon if I want it. Look at mister fancy dancy and his music tastes over here, ooh la la. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
I thought everyone stopped paying for Netflix when they halved their library and started pushing their lovely original shows.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
hawowanlawow posted:there are artists that don't want to be on spotify because it doesn't pay enough (greed on spotify's part already) Also "doesn't pay enough" is kinda funny when the alternative is everyone just pirates your music and you get paid nothing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
I thought everybody was using someone else’s Netflix password
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:43
|
|
|
sassassin posted:I thought everyone stopped paying for Netflix when they halved their library and started pushing their lovely original shows. I just sub like twice a year and binge a few shows. I really think Netflix will be in trouble when the Disney/Fox/Hulu streaming monstrosity launches next year.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Also "doesn't pay enough" is kinda funny when the alternative is everyone just pirates your music and you get paid nothing. yes, they do have the artists right where they want them My parents still use the mail in DVD netflix service for poo poo that isn't streaming. Losing IASIP was huge, that was like 50% of my netflix usage
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
When/if the streaming gets shut down they'll just change to something else. For now they're getting access to a much larger music library than you are for much cheaper.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
We also don't have to spend any amount of time researching bands or influences unless we want to, in which case we can and then look their songs up on a streaming service. We can even still give them money if we want. Literally no downsides compared to your method and if starts to suck it's not like you're on a yearly contract to keep using it. Don't bands make the majority of their money from merch and shows anyway? In that case it seems like the publicity from streaming would be a net boon but I may be wrong. Plus it provides that old convenience of cable/radio that's been sort of lost these days, where you just want something on and don't care too much what. Y'all are right about netflix sucking tbh but I still have it cuz it's like 8 bucks. Hulu is definitely better these days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 17:28
|
|
|
I'm a little skeptical of this dreamy-eyed plan to terraform and/or colonize Mars. Getting to Mars is a worthwhile scientific achievement to aim for, but if we can't even be good stewards of the planet we have, what makes us think we have the right to lay claim to another planet and foul it up?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
Because we can (maybe)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
And it’s not like anyone else is using it that we know of! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
It's out exit strategy
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
I would annex the stars if I could.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Turtlicious posted:It's out exit strategy loving  that you think you're getting a ticket
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
MizPiz posted:loving Jokes on you. They'll need me on mars. I'm the funny fat guy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
hawowanlawow posted:I don't use youtube to suggest music, nor do I use it to replace the function of a music streaming service. I didn't say that I did. I read articles on bands, look at their influences and who they influenced, read comments, etc. once I get an idea for a band, I look up their poo poo on youtube and then buy the mp3 on amazon if I want it. It's fine if you want to support bands and all that, but Streaming services will have 98 out of 100 things you could possibly search for unless you have really unusual tastes (like, I've noticed almost all of the post hardcore stuff I was into in the late 90's early 00's didn't make the cut) and you can download stuff in the event that you will not be around wifi or 4G. Like, they have almost everything you could want. It's pretty much objectively a great deal even compared to piracy because it requires zero effort or HD space on your phone. And you really don't have to have music suggested to you, just search it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 07:06
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:I'm a little skeptical of this dreamy-eyed plan to terraform and/or colonize Mars. Getting to Mars is a worthwhile scientific achievement to aim for, but if we can't even be good stewards of the planet we have, what makes us think we have the right to lay claim to another planet and foul it up? The human virus must spread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 07:36
|
|
|
Edgar Allen Ho posted:Plus it provides that old convenience of cable/radio that's been sort of lost these days, where you just want something on and don't care too much what. F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:Getting to Mars is a worthwhile scientific achievement to aim for, but if we can't even be good stewards of the planet we have, what makes us think we have the right to lay claim to another planet and foul it up?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 08:28
|
|
|
If we have the capability to do it, we have the right to gently caress that planet up. Whats it going to do, blow a bunch of dust at us?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 13:05
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcY3FH208l8 This song and video both own. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2017 15:02
|
|
|
F_Shit_Fitzgerald posted:I'm a little skeptical of this dreamy-eyed plan to terraform and/or colonize Mars. Getting to Mars is a worthwhile scientific achievement to aim for, but if we can't even be good stewards of the planet we have, what makes us think we have the right to lay claim to another planet and foul it up? Fouling it up is subjective. Also both planets are ultimately doomed within a relatively short timeframe anyway. Also the universe doesn’t care.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 13:48
|
|
|
Rights are a social construct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
sassassin posted:Rights are a social construct.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
It should be illegal to charge people money to play alpha/beta release games. Stop letting video game developers make money off of incomplete games.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
I generally am not into capitalism but when it comes to fuckin video games, if somebody wants to pay money to play a pre-release version, go the gently caress ahead. Makers win, players win, game might be goofy, who the gently caress cares? No one is hurt. The monopoly man did not fund his cane and top hat with paid betas. Sell whatever dumb video game thing you want.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:It should be illegal to charge people money to play alpha/beta release games. Stop letting video game developers make money off of incomplete games. This law would just force developers to declare their products "complete" sooner and in-line with publishing deadlines/requirements. You'd just get shorter, less-ambitious and buggier games, from the small groups of people who can secure up front funding. Early releases allow development to continue after revenue streams have been tapped - so a greater variety of projects can be attempted - and for schedules to adjust according to actual (rather than predicted) sales figures.
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
sassassin posted:This law would just force developers to declare their products "complete" sooner and in-line with publishing deadlines/requirements. You'd just get shorter, less-ambitious and buggier games, from the small groups of people who can secure up front funding. They did it that way in the past and it was fine. Modern games are nothing but ambition. None of the games that get released as paid alphas/betas reach the promised potential. I have never played an "indie"/early release game that I didn't regret paying for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 00:03
|
|
|
This is kind of why I have a lot of nostalgia for physical, offline media: a game comes out, and you have it in your hands, and it's the exact same game forever, no more or less. Everything they intended to do, every little bit of polish they wanted to be known for, you can hold it in your hand and put it into a console and have it be the exact same forever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
Pastry of the Year posted:This is kind of why I have a lot of nostalgia for physical, offline media: a game comes out, and you have it in your hands, and it's the exact same game forever, no more or less. Everything they intended to do, every little bit of polish they wanted to be known for, you can hold it in your hand and put it into a console and have it be the exact same forever. Yeah this kind of explains my stance better. Maybe you get "less" and there might be some bugs, but they still managed to make games like morrowind that were very expansive and while there were some (hilarious) bugs, it's the kind of game I could play again and again without changing anything. They did eventually release expansions that made it better, but they (and the mods so many people are obsessed with on the PC versions) weren't necessary to make it a great game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 00:21
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Yeah this kind of explains my stance better. Maybe you get "less" and there might be some bugs, but they still managed to make games like morrowind that were very expansive and while there were some (hilarious) bugs, it's the kind of game I could play again and again without changing anything. They did eventually release expansions that made it better, but they (and the mods so many people are obsessed with on the PC versions) weren't necessary to make it a great game. I've given you some guff in the past, but you got it exactly right. I think it's neat that game developers (sometimes) continue working on the product that people have already paid for (my recent favorite, "Cook Serve Delicious 2," is an excellent example; I paid full price for it when it was released and the developer keeps putting out updates that aren't just bugfixes but what more greedy developers would have called "expansion packs"), but what I didn't realize I appreciated until it was gone was the idea that a game has to be at its best when you ship it. Nintendo wouldn't have shipped Super Mario Bros. 3 without beating it to hell and making sure it was exactly what they wanted as part of their legacy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 00:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 06:49 |
|
|
Pastry of the Year posted:Nintendo wouldn't have shipped Super Mario Bros. 3 without beating it to hell and making sure it was exactly what they wanted as part of their legacy. Only Nintendo and two or three other big publishers are capable of paying for that kind of development cycle for a game, and they would only do so for a guaranteed slam dunk in an established IP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2017 00:57
|
|