beezlebroxxxxxx

You also have people sending death threats to players because of their bets. The improved viewership by bettors makes the leagues more profitable, but that's not synonymous with better for everyone involved in the long run.

I can't comment on classical (I almost only listen to live recordings) but there's a very obvious smoothness, perfection, and lack of surprise, to AI jazz (or as it's often on YT as "chill-jazz") that is immediately apparent to anyone with even a little experience with the genre. Jazz's valorization of improvisation also means there's way more importance put on live recordings and surprise/novelty than on polished recordings which are often considered somewhat suspect even without a whiff of AI.

I've never heard an AI bebop song come even close to a live example, but I'm always open to being impressed.

Very cool list, I will give all of these a listen!

Some people get really disheartened when they see examples of young people with perfect pitch like this, but they really shouldn't. Perfect pitch (or absolute pitch) is one of those things that is obviously incredible on its own, but it's not really necessary to make amazing music. Presumably it might make music making easier, but the idea that perfect pitch destines someone for musical virtuosity is somewhat more a marketing pitch than a thing. Mastery of relative pitch and ear training in the context of songs is, for the most part, far more important. So much so that I'd argue perfect pitch is kind of irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Hell, just throwing in some syncopation into a pop song would make it wildly more interesting.

"Triplet-flow" in rap took the genre by storm after Migos and Future popularized it a while ago, and the initial appeal was the rhythmic novelty of it. (It obviously got stale after the novelty wore off.) Pop music in many of the big genres is in general, however, quite reticent to move away from perfectly riding a 4|4. Even using a 6|8 would be interesting.

> I wish the article had posted how it made this type of analysis so I could run some of my albums through it myself.

I very simple way is to throw a track into a DAW and see if the drum hits line up perfectly with the "grid". Most DAW's have a grid background so you can see. If it's perfect for the whole song, then it's definitely quantized to death (pun unintended, though does sound quite kvlt).

This is largely pretty subgenre specific, though. For tech-death the robotic sound of quantized perfection is often a stylistic choice, it's literally a part of the appeal of the music for some people. (An obvious example is Archspire, not my cup of tea, but some people love that production style.)

I don't really hear the same thing as much in doom, black, or more extreme death variants.

Another recommendation is jazz music. Modern music, and especially modern pop music, is incredibly harmonically simple. You rarely hear anything beyond a 7th chord. But step into jazz and all of sudden you're hearing augmented, diminished, and other more complicated chords and sounds that in just a raw way sound more complex and interesting than a lot of modern music. (Classical is even more out there, but that's a harder sell in 2026 unfortunately)

It's also about lack of leadership and (true) strategy. Many large organizations just careen from "crisis" to "crisis" and are extremely reactive; lacking a long term strategy and clear plan, it becomes extremely hard to actually make decisions.

People endlessly defer because they don't want to be the person to "take the blame" for a decision. Making decisions when you don't connect them to an actual goal/plan/vision becomes a liability. The solution is endless meetings where liability is distributed to...everyone in the meeting. It's successful, in a way, but also exhausting and makes you feel like your job involves just tilting at windmills (imaginary crises).

> but things like ornate decorations and facades were still expensive additional work

This again, is partially true. A lot of ornamental decorative elements in public facades were, essentially, mass produced using molds --- very few were hand-made in the way they are done now.

They would degrade over time, however they could also be repaired or replaced relatively easily.

Your point about survivorship bias is also somewhat more nuanced. The buildings that have survived were often, as you said, made with more expensive materials, and they lasted longer; but there was also a change in tastes over time, in particular against ornament and decorative elements, and a change in the idea that certain buildings should be maintained. In the past, people were just way more accepting of tearing down or replacing buildings. Conservation as a general approach was not as common, nor were people as inclined to see certain buildings in particular as uniquely worthy of conservation. It is those buildings which were deemed "appropriate" for conservation and "historically significant" which have largely shaped our understanding of "traditional" architecture, a somewhat snapshot idea of architecture on the cusp of modernism,

Clamshell phones were essentially the default design 2 decades ago and people have been talking about folding phones ever since, really. Folding is a unique way to overcome the ever present size issues/comments; however, it looks like the manufacturers have taken an alternate approach and used folding to double the size rather than halve it.

The anthropomorphizing is part of the marketing. They'll never let up on it.

> Why is real journalism dying? Ads

This is not really true. Ads, especially the classifieds, were often the only way that newspapers and news organizations stayed afloat aside from public funding. What happened was the major ad-tech companies captured the revenue and the subscriber data that came from ads and viewers that would normally go to those organizations. "Real journalism" often didn't make much if not any money. "Real journalism" at least for most of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st has always existed alongside advertising. Magazines literally survived on advertising, their entire product to readers was long form content, while, to brands, a higher quality product and more targeted subscriber base. It's pure romanticism to say that ads themselves were the problem. Ad-tech, it's monopoly control in the hands of 2-3 behemoths, is the real issue.