Recreate famous water profiles using supermarket bottled water
waterdictionary.net133 pointsby smugglerFlynn61 comments
> I make an effort to use Spotify to find and listen to albums, but it wasn’t built for this, and invariably find 90% of my listening happening on algo-generated playlists of songs that sound exactly like a song I like. I never learn the names of the songs or the names of the bands as the songs go by, and I fall in love with none of it… It just vaguely sounds like stuff I like. It sucks.
I don't think algorithms are to blame (bear with me). - Spending more time and attention when selecting next artist
- Reflecting on what you like about the song/album, and why
- Taking time to curate your collection
- Exchanging thoughts with other people, and reflecting on their opinions
Platforms are selling you efficiency, in reality the've compressed above steps to minutes or even seconds. > My goals for the end of 2027 are as follows:
> Stop making stupid mistakes. I want to be able to finish a task fully without missing or skipping a step. One way to do this is to make a plan for everything you do, and only do that thing. Nothing else.
If you are neurodivergent or have other things influencing you mentally, you are _NOT_ going to snap out of it. You are not going to just build a better planning system one day. > Leaving something adds a little humanity to the internet.
At this exact moment in time there are literal thousands of creators that chase external validation, and millions of lurkers leaving 1-bit "like" reactions under their content. Let's go to popular instagram pages in a search of humanity. > It helped you, so it’s likely a useful idea
Billions of reactions left on social media so far proved to be very poor indication of quality. > You now have a profile you can access that collects the things you found noteworthy
In a world of content abundance one rarely has time or motivation to re-visit everything he/she reacted upon. This also works increasingly worse the more "traces" you leave, see #1 and #2. > Jobs was flawed and everyone knew it, but it was all par for the course. He was aggressive in his ambition, uncompromising about even the most minute details of his company, and occasionally arrogant
What is it, exactly, which inherently separates Job’s behavior from Altman’s? I’d argue that both rely/relied on available publicity, marketing and VC management tools of their era. > Then there was Woz, the patron saint of computer science: bashful, generous, humble, averse to the spotlight, and content with having a reasonable amount of wealth but not an absurd, evil-seeming amount of wealth
Tech co-founders like Woz are still out there, so cherry picking to paint a different picture and widely generalise immoral wrongdoings / lack of nerds in certain companies management structures to the whole industry does not help. - Availability & salience bias - vivid, memorable things feel more important than they are
- Narrative bias - humans tend to think in stories, and AI tells plenty
- Recency and novelty bias — new things feel more consequential than established ones (this one already drives like 80% of all HN content btw)
- Proportionality neglect - people are bad at intuitively grasping what percentages mean, even if they see the stats
- Social proof and reflexivity - coverage signals importance, and drives more coverage
- Status quo invisibility - things that work reliably become invisible (surprisingly, HN is really good in terms of working against this bias, I feel like at least 5% of all posts are some niche "inner daily workings" topics)
- Speculation premium in attention - uncertainty generates more discussion than certainty
- In-group signaling - cutting-edge things are status markers among influencers
‘Will Google decide on which ads to place? Will it be part of search results or a summary’ - we all know the answers