31–40 of 442 posts
> A single kitchen operating under many names to increase its algorithmic “surface area”; another shape of things to come. I find this infuriating. There's one dominican restaurant in my city that's listed on DoorDash, Grubhub and UberEats under over 20 different names with different subsets of their menu. All of these duplicate listings for the same place make it harder to search or browse the actual restaurant opti…
> A single kitchen operating under many names to increase its algorithmic “surface area”; another shape of things to come. I find this infuriating. There's one dominican restaurant in my city that's listed on DoorDash, Grubhub and UberEats under over 20 different names with different subsets of their menu. All of these duplicate listings for the same place make it harder to search or browse the actual restaurant opti…
(Shrug) This is how hotel restaurants, including some very good ones, have always worked. What difference does it make what other ethnicities/varieties of food the restaurant delivers?
The multitudes of different places at Disneyworld that all operate out of the same massive underground/hidden kitchen complex might be a better example.
> A single kitchen operating under many names to increase its algorithmic “surface area”; another shape of things to come. I find this infuriating. There's one dominican restaurant in my city that's listed on DoorDash, Grubhub and UberEats under over 20 different names with different subsets of their menu. All of these duplicate listings for the same place make it harder to search or browse the actual restaurant opti…
Haha, right on. I love me some Indian food, and there's ten different Indian "restaurants" near me, all located at the same address. I looked it up on Google Maps, and it's basically a hole-in-the-wall restaurant space that can barely hold one restaurant, never mind ten. Yet Grubhub et al. don't seem to care one way or another
Here's a commercial ghost kitchen explanation to restaurateurs:
https://cloudkitchens.com/blog/ultimate-guide-to-ghost-kitch...
In the “Release Radar” generated for me last week, there was a 40 second song consisting of rhythmic mechanical noises with a strange title and album art of an alien head. I didn’t like it at all. I think it was recommended to me because the publisher listed its artist as “Fanny Mendelssohn” — a classical composer whose work I definitely enjoy and have probably pressed “Like” a few times on — even though the song had…
I can't tell if the post is serious or just a setup now.
https://www.chosic.com/spotify-playlist-analyzer/?plid=2IaWg...
Interesting to notice that even when there are only little variations on the same song, the analysis (which is powered by the Spotify API) shows very different indicators for each of the songs in danceability, accousticness, valence, etc. This makes rather unexpected that all those songs could come together in a recomendation system.
People have been noticing this a lot recently but what nobody seems to know is that this is a form of money laundering/“scamming.” I know because I used to be active on crime forums and talked to some of the people who engineered this scheme. People will set up fake Spotify artist accounts with stolen identities and bank accounts, pay a musician for songs that pass as music, and then bot millions of streams on them.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> on account of being long-deceased and all posthumous releases are a thing
Not really for the likes of Fanny Mendelssohn.
Classical music categorization (where the composer of the music is often of more interest than the performer) is very difficult to reconcile with pop music (where the opposite is more likely to be true).
People have been noticing this a lot recently but what nobody seems to know is that this is a form of money laundering/“scamming.” I know because I used to be active on crime forums and talked to some of the people who engineered this scheme. People will set up fake Spotify artist accounts with stolen identities and bank accounts, pay a musician for songs that pass as music, and then bot millions of streams on them.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really for the likes of Fanny Mendelssohn.
This is incorrect, but it's principally incorrect because we all abuse the artist field to contain composer information. This is done, I surmise, because figuring out when to display the composer information (performances of composed works) and when not to (bands) is too hard while delivering consistent UX.