Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

honestlyranked.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 398 posts

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#211

Post by dgellow »

rgavuliak wrote: post #94
fdgfikgfv wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is so much garbage on streaming platforms, I rather research and pay per song/movie than waste time on trash. And that was before AI slop. Only reason I have subscriptions is family (cheap babysitter)

I have a hard time understanding your opinion. What do you even mean by garbage? There's thousands of legitimate music bands/musicians on these platforms. Naturally you won't care for a majority of it, but an interpret being niche doesn't make them garbage.

Spotify is full of AI slop trying to pass as artists. That’s garbage

Also, the company has a pretty terrible leadership: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/music/story/2025-...

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#212

Post by smaudet »

elif wrote: post #169
password4321 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why can't anyone just run it through one of the "make this not appear so clearly LLM-generated" obfuscation utilities open sourced on GitHub, or something similar just with prompts. The level of phoning in the complete lack of any work beyond the absolute bare minimum is the most frustrating aspect to me.

I would say, because not everyone cares as deeply as you do. If it's readable and aesthetic, it is perfectly serviceable for the purpose of reading a post. Consider that you probably didn't have such an intense response to WIX templates or substack articles, so most of what's going on is actually your feelings about AI taking primacy.

> Consider that you probably didn't have such an intense response to WIX templates or substack articles

Apologism at best. People have been bemoaning this issue for a while now..., pre-AI even.

First time I'm seeing this defended from an "oh you're just anti AI" perspective (which, ironically, is exactly the sort of bare minimum a couple comments over was bemoaning)

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#213

Post by bocytron »

aba_cz wrote: post #194
walrus01 wrote: post #57

From an aesthetic point of view, I am getting pretty tired of this obviously LLM generated static site content template design in 2025/2026. 98% of the time when I see one of these it's a bunch of "content" generated by Claude or similar. Quoting the site: "Written by Rashid N. Rashid N is the editor of HonestlyRanked. He reviews every figure this site publishes against its source before it goes out, and has never ac…

Also the dark theme is something not everybody likes. Especially with red-green inside. Think of color-blind people. My eyes are in pain from just trying to focus.

i'm curious, would a white background with green/red figures be any better?

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#215

Post by DontchaKnowit »

dgellow wrote: post #211
rgavuliak wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a hard time understanding your opinion. What do you even mean by garbage? There's thousands of legitimate music bands/musicians on these platforms. Naturally you won't care for a majority of it, but an interpret being niche doesn't make them garbage.

Spotify is full of AI slop trying to pass as artists. That’s garbage Also, the company has a pretty terrible leadership: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/music/story/2025-...

So dont listen to it? I mean what is the problem here.

I never listen to basically anything spotify recommends me, just songs from bands I already know and love. And if I were to purchase the whole discography of the breadth of music I listen to it would cost the down payment on my house

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#216

Post by [deleted] »

duckmysick wrote: post #204
walrus01 wrote: post #57

From an aesthetic point of view, I am getting pretty tired of this obviously LLM generated static site content template design in 2025/2026. 98% of the time when I see one of these it's a bunch of "content" generated by Claude or similar. Quoting the site: "Written by Rashid N. Rashid N is the editor of HonestlyRanked. He reviews every figure this site publishes against its source before it goes out, and has never ac…

Would something like that be better? https://jsfiddle.net/hs03xbuo/ I deleted the stylesheet, removed the duplicate FAQ section, and reworded a few sentences.

[deleted]

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#217

Post by randusername »

Price increases are tolerated if the value increases. Even rent-seeking is tolerated if the value is relatively stable. But what we have here is value proposition decreasing from fragmentation and shallow content and increasingly intrusive targeted ads while the prices keep going up.

We traded one annoying cable company for dozens.

Re: The same nine streaming subscriptions cost $702/year more than in 2021

#220

Post by truthnukerino »

walrus01 wrote: post #57

From an aesthetic point of view, I am getting pretty tired of this obviously LLM generated static site content template design in 2025/2026. 98% of the time when I see one of these it's a bunch of "content" generated by Claude or similar. Quoting the site: "Written by Rashid N. Rashid N is the editor of HonestlyRanked. He reviews every figure this site publishes against its source before it goes out, and has never ac…

the nick gerr ification of the web
Post reply on HN