this post was submitted on 06 Nov 2023
470 points (94.0% liked)

memes

10226 readers
2152 users here now

Community rules

1. Be civilNo trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour

2. No politicsThis is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world

3. No recent repostsCheck for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month

4. No botsNo bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins

5. No Spam/AdsNo advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.

Sister communities

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MeatsOfRage@lemmy.world 152 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (6 children)

Reminds me of the old iTunes shuffle thing. When it was first introduced it was actually random but too many people complained it was broken when they heard the same artist multiple times in a row so they rewrote it as a shuffle algorithm that would feel more random than actual random.

Just goes to show, we don't actually want random, we want variety.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 42 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

There are two basic ways of doing "random" songs:

  1. Pick a new song randomly each time a song ends. This is the naive way to do it and can result in playing the same song twice.
  2. Randomly shuffle the list of songs once and then go through the shuffled list in order, guaranteeing that no single song gets played a second time before all songs have been played.

The strategies are different, but I'd argue that they're equally "random."

I've got a cheap Chinese aftermarket head unit in my car that uses strategy #1, and it's mildly infuriating.

[–] Bumblefumble@lemm.ee 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, but all modern music platforms use a more advanced random, where it will avoid putting two different songs by the same artist in a row for example. But it's still based on the second strategy you wrote.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] whaleross@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

Reminds me of an article I read long time ago of the need in computer games to tweak percentage chance of success and failure, because if it is true as presented 80% success rate players think it should be "almost always" and complain when one fifth of attempts fail.

[–] aeronmelon@lemm.ee 21 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Me when the weather app says 80% chance of rain, so I go everywhere with an umbrella but it's overcast all day long. Then it says 15% and I get rained on while walking to the store.

I'm never going to learn.

[–] Radio_717@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I found out recently that those percentages actually mean 80% of the local AREA would have rain and 20% would not. Meaning if there is a chance of rain in your town at all it’s likely raining somewhere even if it’s just a tiny drop or two.

So if you don’t want to get wet at all bring an umbrella if the chance is over 0%.

Source: was talking to a meteorologist about this exact thing.

[–] CobblerScholar@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Well rain chance is a compound probability it's the probability that it will or will not rain multiplied by the percent of land hit with rain. Like if 50% of an area will be hit and there's an 80% chance it will rain the number the weather Channel will give you is 40%

[–] qwertyqwertyqwerty@lemmy.one 9 points 1 year ago

Chance of rain is calculated based on two things: Meteorologists' educated guess on the chance of rain, multiplied by the area that will receive rain, in the event it does rain.

https://www.discovery.com/science/chance-of-rain

[–] idunnololz@lemmy.world 14 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Pokemon players are very versed in this. This is why I only use 100% hit rate moves.

[–] slazer2au@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

Not to mention Xcom.

Missing a 90% shot 3 times is so dam annoying.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] teft@startrek.website 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It’s a big complaint for new players to Baldurs gate 3. People think a 95% chance to hit won’t fail but it does sometimes. Just the luck of the dice.

[–] ares35@kbin.social 4 points 1 year ago (2 children)

'drop rates' are the same thing. 10% chance doesn't mean you will see it drop if you run a mission or defeat that boss ten times.

[–] LordOfTheChia@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

Or thinking that if you didn't get the drop in 9 attempts, you're practically guaranteed it in the next attempt.

Nope, still 1 in 10 chance.

In most simple written RNG calculations, past failures do not guarantee future success.

I believe some games will keep a tally of failures and award a successful loot after x failures to avoid frustrating players.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Kusimulkku@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

There was a huge fight about this on The Battle for Wesnoth

[–] LordOfTheChia@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Same thing happened with the iPhone shuffle. People complained it wasn't "random enough" and would often end up calling members of the same family and/or household in a row. So they rewrote that algorithm too.

[–] MeatsOfRage@lemmy.world 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Wait, what?! There's a call a random person feature? What a nightmare

[–] aeronmelon@lemm.ee 6 points 1 year ago

Those were the best days of Apple. Steve Jobs literally titled the feature "Less Random".

[–] Fades@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

It’s not just about not wanting random, but randomness is actually very hard to create. Every random number is actual pseudo random

Some basic breakdowns of this concept:

https://slate.com/technology/2022/06/bridle-ways-of-being-excerpt-computer-randomness.html

The problem modern computers have with randomness is that it doesn’t make mathematical sense. You can’t program a computer to produce true randomness—wherein no element has any consistent, rule-based relationship to any other element—because then it wouldn’t be random. There would always be some underlying structure to the randomness, some mathematics of its generation, which would allow you to reverse-engineer and re-create it. Ergo: not random.

Kid friendly version:

https://stackoverflow.com/a/633085

[–] Turun@feddit.de 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Every random number is actual pseudo random

No, there are true random sources in a computer. Any outside input can be used to generate randomness. Mostly user input, but temperature fluctuations can work as well, if the sensor precision is high enough.

Also the argument is only correct on a technical level for PRNGs. Choose a 65535 sided dice and make the instructions a thousand steps long and you'll have a pretty hard time to deduce the instructions from the generated numbers. Not to mention how long the list of numbers needs to be for the attacker to start guessing.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Asifall@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

For the purpose of shuffling a playlist pseudo random is indistinguishable from truly random in all the ways that matter anyway.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] BURN@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago (2 children)

And since they removed my playlist radio, song discoverability has gone down so much. They just keep playing me the same damn music when I want related stuff.

[–] Deuces@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago (2 children)

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why they got rid of playlist radio. It makes Spotify so much worse and I can't imagine it saves them any money

[–] BURN@lemmy.world 12 points 1 year ago

Probably some over complicated statistical model that will eek out cents more revenue per user.

It’s one of the worst changes they’ve made and it’s legitimately been making me take another look at all of their competitors.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] DudeDudenson@lemmings.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For the same reason all the streaming sites decided to gimp their discoverability and just force you into whatever the algorithm thinks you need.

Some middle manager wanted to justify their bonus so they jumped in the current fad

load more comments (1 replies)

Wait until he finds out DJ X just plays the playlists from Spotify curators and he isn't really keeping track of what you skipped.

[–] snowe@programming.dev 28 points 1 year ago (4 children)
[–] Stamets@startrek.website 29 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I didn't hear it anywhere, its personal experience. Spotify straight up isn't shuffling any of my older liked music. Everytime I hit shuffle it always ends up localized around recently saved music and it never changes. Moreover, that's a blogpost from a decade ago. Spotify changes stuff constantly. I seriously doubt that is the same algorithm they're using now. ESPECIALLY considering they've introduced 'Smart Shuffle' which doesn't only shuffle music you have saved but adds completely new music into the mix as well. That and Spotifys overall quality control has dropped drastically in the past decade.

[–] fishos@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While I can agree with others that it might not be that strict and they may get more variety, from personal experience, my 700+ song playlist tends to focus on a handful of songs. Blue - Eiffel 65 gets a CRAZY amount of playtime for some reason. It's a running joke with my carpool that it's my car's theme song. I can sometimes skip it 2-3 times on my drive to work. And some songs seem to never come up. I've been having some better luck with the AI DJ lately, although it will throw in an entire chunk of songs I don't even care about as basically ads.

[–] SlikPikker@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago

That song is probably cheap for them to play

[–] nyctre@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I've got thousands of liked songs and I get a nice variety of old and recent stuff. From last month to as old as 8 years ago. Sometimes I get too many songs from the same band, sure, but when you've got 50-100 songs from the same band liked, that's bound to happen

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fades@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Personal experience aka anecdotal evidence aka fucking useless

[–] snowe@programming.dev 5 points 1 year ago

Especially when they state it like it’s fact in the title and then can’t back it up at all.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] shadejinx@infosec.pub 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The shuffle button does it's thing every time you activate it. I believe, anecdotally, that it uses whatever song is playing or selected as a seed to build the random queue.

Try this, select a song and press Shuffle. When it gets to a song you don't want to hear, skip to a song you want to hear and toggle Shuffle off and on.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

But you can make it actually random by doing this:

  • Tap your profile picture
  • Tap settings
  • Tap Playback
  • Toggle the “Automix” switch to off

Now you have truly random shuffle

[–] emeralddawn45@discuss.tchncs.de 37 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

I'm pretty sure this is wrong. From what I understand, automix just blends together the ending and beginning of the two songs. For example if there's silence at the end of one song, or 'compatible' music, the 'ai' will try to smooth out the transition like a dj would while making a mix.

Edit: yup, that's what it is https://support.spotify.com/ca-en/article/tracks-transitions/

[–] filcuk@lemmy.zip 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Turn off* cross play.
That will give more randomness, but I still get a bunch of songs on repeat in a 3K song playlist. Annoying.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Hildegarde@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (4 children)

I doubt it. True random shuffle play is rare, because humans don't understand the chaos of true random generation, we see patterns in it and assume it's not random.

A truly random shuffle can play the same song twice. A truly random shuffle can play multiple songs from the same artist in a row. In the fullness of time all of these will happen with a true random shuffle.

Nothing does that these days. Nearly everything "random" is algorithmically engineered to be less random so it feels more random to humans.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee 9 points 1 year ago (4 children)

You can definitely make a truly random shuffle that doesn’t play the same song twice within a gap of ten songs.

You just make a list of all the song IDs that aren’t in the last ten played, and grab an item at a random index.

Randomness is a texture not a shape. Dice are random despite only being able to present six outcomes.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] nottheengineer@feddit.de 8 points 1 year ago

Shuffle uses a limited list that rarely gets updated, but not just the 100 most recent ones. You can force it refresh by turning off shuffle and force closing the app.

[–] Saint_of_Illusion@lemm.ee 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Hit the shuffle button twice to turn on Smart Shuffle. It will throw some brand new songs into the playlist shuffle.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] RoxActually@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

It is shit like this that made me get back into buying my own music.

load more comments
view more: next ›