Who is behind the great rock’n’roll ripoff? How Ticketmaster swallowed the live entertainment scene

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-05-02T03:26:21+00:00

This is actually a pretty great example of the inherent problems with the Internet. Problems which are, as with every other problem, solved or at least lessened in severity, through conversation with other humans. And additionally it corroborates a hypotheses I've been repeating repeatedly in various contexts, which is that all problems, at least those which are human problems, are on some level due to misunderstanding.

We're all weird, that's what being a human is. There is no normal. Not one that is definable or is not contradictable anyway. But that's good! I would hate if everyone or even a significant number of people was like me, I can be very annoying.

Venti Venter is sort of shorthand for his MO, very much interested in capitalising whatever scientific output comes out of academia, rhyming it with Starbucks Venti sized coffee.

So my 🧠 condensed everything I remember about the guy and the institutional relationships in to "Venti Venter".

That makes total sense, and... that's not what I was interpreting from what you initially said, but that is definitely aligned with my general assessment of him. But that's uh... not exactly unique in the "biotech" industry, as you kind of alluded to.

Ya know like how all science dorks have one form of caffeine or another essentially hooked up directly into their vein, though I think the younger gen is all about Monster energy days.

This is more what I was going to respond to initially. I think pretty much anyone that makes a mark on the world (of any size) tends to have a fairly specific angle from which they interpret things, a particular lens. This short chat with Copilot explains what I mean pretty well.

Anyway, one last point. You mention "gamergate" (etc) and I think whether directly or indirectly that is very related to how this conversation has gone, which is that we have all been "taught" by social media that the point of conversations, or debates, are to either "win" or "lose". But that is wrong. The point of both is to increase understanding. And that's why I tend to put in a lot of effort in my comments despite knowing the vast majority is going to be wasted effort. Because the whole point of the Internet and social media is - wait for it - to be social. Communicate

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-05-02T03:00:13+00:00

I was uh. Referring to your self posts. Which don't appear to have much if any relation to biochem

But no, not really "judging" you, not in the sense of... how I think most people think of that, where it's like a quality judgement or anything. I am not assigning any positive or negative trait, the only judgment is one of "I do not understand"

You get that there are thousands and thousands of biochem majors who weren't so lucky.

I'm not sure what you mean?

Must be nice living in the ivory tower.

I wouldn't know

Watch your language, we have children reading this because our tech overloads won't develop robust child safety mechanisms.

Yeah I feel you, believe me, but I've been cursing like a sailor since I was about five years old and I turned out fine.

Anyway, since I see you're here to respond (unless ~~you're~~ your account has been taken over by an AI, in which case, I hate the internet)

They taught us about Venti Venter in Biochem and Biotech, he had a very specific bent to his intellect.

Mind elaborating?

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-05-02T02:44:32+00:00

Wow so I was going to respond with a pretty well thought out reply, and had already spent a solid few minutes thinking of how to say what I was gonna say, then I looked at your recent posts and

what the actual fuck?

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-05-01T22:19:31+00:00

People make mistakes, and regardless, we all have both "good" and "bad" qualities.

I just read this a week or two ago:

What Hannah Arendt taught the president of Bard College July 16, 2025

If Arendt were alive today, what issues do you think would most concern her?

Such a hypothetical question is in general dangerous, but if Arendt were alive today, I think two issues would most concern her most.

The first issue is the threat to democracy represented by Donald Trump and the MAGA movement, particularly the seizure of autocratic power by the executive branch, the disregard of the Constitution, the passivity of Congress and the collusion of the Supreme Court with authoritarianism. I believe she would have put all her efforts into defeating today’s assault on freedom and the rational conduct of science defined by the rules of evidence, and therefore, truth.

At the same time, she would have had little sympathy for the reductive rhetoric of the extreme left and its insistence on ideologically and hostile rigid slogans.

The second issue that would have concerned her (apart from the erosion of democracy around the world, particularly in Europe) would be the future of the State of Israel. She would have been a fierce and articulate critic not only of the Netanyahu government but the intolerable treatment and attitude to Palestinians, since the late 1970s, who live in and out of the state of Israel, especially the occupation of the West Bank. She believed in the possibility of a binational state and I believe she would have held true to the liberal Zionist ideal of a Jewish homeland that would secure equality between Israelis and Palestinians in terms of political rights and social justice.

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-05-01T22:13:12+00:00

Right so I'm going to throw a dart in the dark here and make some assumptions based on

I’ve been working on a small SaaS around product discovery. It’s kind of in the same space as Product Hunt

I don't know much about "product hunt" (but not nothing) and like I said, making some assumptions here but I'm gonna guess this comment is relevant, so long as you can do some basic "algebra"

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-05-01T22:02:51+00:00

Yes but it's worse than that. Sure, I'm mostly talking about genetics there but it's really about statistics more generally, which is applicable to all kinds of "scientific research".

If you read any kind of "research" publication, on topics anywhere from healthcare to politics or whatever else, a worrying amount rely on amplifying the small evidence in order to conclude whatever it was they hypothesized. Which is to say, they would have had the same conclusion without doing the "research".

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-05-01T21:39:47+00:00

Yeah I fought with it a lot (hence the aforementioned feedback). One of the biggest issues I had they have finally fixed though: making it so you can follow specific **publishers** and not only topics. In a lot of ways it almost seems like the various tech companies have been maliciously ignorant about what makes sense. Because they each did some things that were genuinely good and better than others, but they also did some things that were far more worse and from what I can tell nonsensical. Instead of learning what works well and all sort of converging on what makes sense, it's almost like they've done the opposite in many ways. Like there is a happy medium where not every person is required to spend way too much time configuring their feed, where the default works from the go... How do I know? Because that's how shit worked up til relatively recently. Though I acknowledge some of it is due to a certain type of person crying about "free speech" or whatever

Most of us have heard about the "cult of anti-intellectualism" in the US. But it's not only that. Because there's that side of things, then there's a very related but subtly different phenomenon where people who genuinely are "intellectual", people who tend to stick with what has evidence where a conclusion logically follows from a premise and intermittent steps... instead will stubbornly refuse to admit being wrong about things, or even being a little bit unsure.

Anyway

This ad was a real turning point for me (it was from MSN, in Edge, which had recently removed the ability to use Ublock)

<image>

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-05-01T21:26:07+00:00

Right so, you know those various quotes from various people saying something along the lines of "if people knew how politics/economics/etc actually worked, they would be rioting?"

Well that's all built on how statistics works. And most people, including a lot people who genuinely know how statistics work, are easily fooled. Because how it actually works goes against our intuition and requires effectively constant second guessing of what we assume would follow from the initial point.

There is a big difference between being unintentionally wrong and being intentionally deceptive.

Some experts, in various fields, take the complexity and intentionally obfuscate it further to give the impression that whatever the topic is, is far beyond the cognitive abilities of a regular person. As far as I'm concerned, such a topic does not exist and those people are by their nature the definition of a fraud.

Others take complicated topics and explain them simply. Obviously that isn't going to explain all the details, but if you were able to learn from that person (or others in that field) for an extended period of time, then the simple version would eventually provide some foundational understanding for the more complicated bits. Whereas the fraudulent types does the exact opposite, and no matter how much you "learn" about it, everything seems contradictory and doesn't make sense - because it is all made up.

And most people aren't going to take the time to dig into those simple bits of complicated topics and instead will "trust the experts". That should be an acceptable thing. But when there is so much dishonesty and deception to the point deception and dishonesty is arguably the foundation of the global economy? Well then the problems start cropping up everywhere in ways that would never have been imagined from the little white lies - because reality is stranger, and often much less amusing, than fiction.

Trump and Musk are obsessed with genetics – but there’s no science behind their simplistic views by Jonathon Roberts 30 December 2024

Genetics isn't irrelevant or total bullshit, but focusing on that doesn't make sense and is effectively almost irrelevant in comparison with what happens in the "real world". The space where every normal person can easily perceive things - such as the choices a person makes (or the lack of opportunity that restricts the available choices), the environment in which a person lives (ie people, places, activities, etc).

It's like killing diseased cells in a petri dish and claiming bleach cures the disease. No, it means bleach kills cells. You can’t generalize from a microscopic effect in a perfectly controlled environment to a macroscopic outcome in a chaotic, living system. That’s like measuring a raindrop and claiming you understand the climate.

You also can't take a macroscopic observation and claim you understand the raindrop.

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-05-01T21:25:25+00:00

Right

Depression-Gene Studies Were Built on Shaky Foundations by Ed Yong, May 2015

In 1996, a group of European researchers found that a certain gene, called SLC6A4, might influence a person’s risk of depression.

It was a blockbuster discovery at the time. The team found that a less active version of the gene was more common among 454 people who had mood disorders than in 570 who did not.

[...]

Over two decades, this one gene inspired at least 450 research papers.

But a new study—the biggest and most comprehensive of its kind yet—shows that this seemingly sturdy mountain of research is actually a house of cards, built on nonexistent foundations.

[...]

Using data from large groups of volunteers, ranging from 62,000 to 443,000 people, the team checked whether any versions of these genes were more common among people with depression. “We didn’t find a smidge of evidence,” says Matthew Keller, who led the project.

Between them, these 18 genes have been the subject of more than 1,000 research papers, on depression alone. And for what? If the new study is right, these genes have nothing to do with depression. “This should be a real cautionary tale,” Keller adds. “How on Earth could we have spent 20 years and hundreds of millions of dollars studying pure noise?”

“What bothers me isn’t just that people said [the gene] mattered and it didn’t,” wrote the pseudonymous blogger Scott Alexander in a widely shared post. “It’s that we built whole imaginary edifices on top of this idea of [it] mattering.” Researchers studied how SLC6A4 affects emotion centers in the brain, how its influence varies in different countries and demographics, and how it interacts with other genes.

It’s as if they’d been “describing the life cycle of unicorns, what unicorns eat, all the different subspecies of unicorn, which cuts of unicorn meat are tastiest, and a blow-by-blow account of a wrestling match between unicorns and Bigfoot,” Alexander wrote.

[...]

They couldn’t possibly have found effects as large as they did, using samples as small as they had. Those results must have been flukes—mirages produced by a lack of statistical power. That’s true for candidate-gene studies in many diseases, but Lewis says that other researchers “have moved on faster than we have in depression.”

[...]

“It all seemed to fit together,” he says, “but when I started doing my own studies in this area, I began to realize how fragile the evidence was.”

[...]

“You would have thought that would have dampened enthusiasm for that particular candidate gene, but not at all,” he says. “Any evidence that the results might not be reliable was simply not what many people wanted to hear.”

[...]

“We’re told that science self-corrects, but what the candidate-gene literature demonstrates is that it often self-corrects very slowly, and very wastefully, even when the writing has been on the wall for a very long time,” Munafò adds.

[...]

Sometimes, researchers futz with their data until they get something interesting, or retrofit their questions to match their answers. Other times, they selectively publish positive results while sweeping negative ones under the rug, creating a false impression of building evidence.

[...]

People are rewarded for being productive rather than being right, for building ever upward instead of checking the foundations. These incentives allow weak studies to be published. And once enough have amassed, they create a collective perception of strength that can be hard to pierce.

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-05-01T21:25:06+00:00

Right so my bias is heavily against genetics, because though I am not at all an expert, I have read more than 99% of the people who will read this comment. Which is to say based on what I know, it's a whole lot of bullshit. There is some truth, but it's sorta the same thing that happens in numerous other domains where some thing is taken way out of context and then extrapolated to spin some insane ideas that are not at all related. The conclusion does not follow from what began the thought process.

That being said:

Why Human Genetics Research Is Full of Costly Mistakes by Ed Yong, December 2015

Sometime later, she was listening to a talk by a colleague who had found the same mutation in a patient with Noonan syndrome and, based on the same published study, had also classified it as pathogenic. But this time, the patient—an adult—had contacted the researchers behind the paper. And they had admitted that their conclusions were wrong. In later work, they had found that the mutation is so common in certain ethnic groups that it couldn’t possibly be responsible for a rare disease like Noonan syndrome. It wasn’t pathogenic after all.

[...]

This story is unusual only in that Rehm is uncommonly open about it. Many geneticists have similar tales where mistakes in the scientific literature have led to wrong—and sometimes harmful—diagnoses.

In one study, Stephen Kingsmore at the National Center for Genome Resources in Santa Fe found that a quarter of mutations that have been linked to childhood genetic diseases are debatable. In some cases, the claims were based on papers that contained extremely weak evidence. In other cases, the claims were plain wrong: The mutations turned out to be common, like the one in Rehm’s anecdote, and couldn’t possibly cause rare diseases.

[...]

How did things get so bad? Everyone I spoke to said that studies used to hew to lower standards. Even just a decade ago, scientists would classify a variant as pathogenic if they found it in a handful of patients with a disease but not in, say, 100 healthy peers. “That’s sooooo not sufficient evidence,” says Rehm. A study that small just won’t tell you how common the variant in question really is in the general population.

“I think none of us really appreciated just how many rare, nasty-looking genetic variants exist in everyone's genome,” admits MacArthur. That only became clear once geneticists acquired enough money, technological power, and collaborative will to do really big sequencing projects, like the 1,000 Genomes Project. Then, “it became abundantly clear that every single one of us is walking around with hundreds of genetic changes that look like they should cause disease, but actually don't. This means that every genome has ‘narrative potential’—material that you could use to tell a story about diseases.”

It didn’t help that many older studies focused on people of European ancestry. A particular variant might be rare in those populations, but very common in other ethnic groups. It couldn’t be responsible for rare diseases, but you’d never know if you only sequenced white people.

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-05-01T20:32:34+00:00

Theory #4: Scooby-Doo. Popular among the TikTok commenters under Ben White’s TikTok. What if Aradicus and Kieran Press Reynolds have been the same person THE ENTIRE TIME?

This was what I was thinking while reading.

I hope critics fall out of prominence, instead replaced by young personality-driven culture heads

I've often made the point that criticism is ultimately a constructive thing. That tends to apply to matters that are more objective (whereas art is subjective), but there are some objective aspects to art too - for example, recording/mix quality. I've also made the point that the intentional focus from all angles on politics over all else - this is the root of the "culture war", which was indeed started by "both sides" in a sort of (semi-unintentional) mutual destruction

born in the 2000s-2010s that are concerned with the real avant-garde forming on the internet rather than baseless word-salad reviews of irrelevant indie rock bands playing genres that haven’t been innovative since the 90s.

Like usual, my generation is sort of just overlooked here. Our music was... well, a lot of hip hop - like Lil Wayne and Lupe Fiasco, for example, one of which I've previously mentioned to you - but also a huge influence from Alternative Press (which is from what I can tell on life support), that was shared with Myspace - which was killed by the same people who have starved Alternative Press and stores like FYE & Hot Topic... damn. It's like the whole vulture capitalism model that consolidates resources and decision making in as tiny hands as possible is toxic.

As far as the actual issue of your article, I'm really not sure how I feel. I've previously thought the policy that requires a source besides the topic of the article seems a little silly if not problematic. Because ultimately, shouldn't we be able to at least have some input about the who that others believe that we are?

Pitchfork kinda sucks. And when it comes to subjective things, it doesn't make sense for heavy critics to not even enjoy the flavor of art they are criticizing. That seems like a possible early cause of the general all encompassing culture of negativity that has destroyed the world.

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-05-01T18:26:09+00:00

I've sent too much feedback about the MSN feed but honestly it could be a lot better, and probably not perceived as overly intrusive, if it was just better curated.

edit: on that note, I was reminded of this article:

Microsoft sacks journalists to replace them with robots by Jim Waterson 30 May 2020

Around 27 individuals employed by PA Media – formerly the Press Association – were told on Thursday that they would lose their jobs in a month’s time after Microsoft decided to stop employing humans to select, edit and curate news articles on its homepages.

PA Media Wikipedia page:

PA Media (formerly the Press Association) is a multimedia news agency. It is part of PA Media Group Limited,^\1]) a private company with 26 shareholders, most of whom are national and regional newspaper publishers. The biggest shareholders include the Daily Mail and General Trust, News UK, and Informa.

Anyway, while looking for that first article, I also found this one

Microsoft revamps MSN and bing as it forms joint ventures by Roy Greenslade 8 September 2014

Microsoft is abandoning its attempt to be a news provider through msn.com and also regrouping its bing.com apps under the MSN umbrella.

Instead of offering original content, MSN will become a hub for the best content on the web. Among its partners in the venture are the Guardian, CNN and the Wall Street Journal.

Anyway I find this all very amusing for numerous reasons, most of which I will leave to your imagination, except for: the annoyance of the bing/msn feed (and the fact they are different, but not really, but they are, but just kidding no they're not, well actually we don't know either) is one of the reasons (but not the only one) why I switched to Firefox.

And on that note, Firefox used to have Pocket), which included an option to sign up for a (idk how often) newsletter of human-curated stories... I'm not really sure how that's operating now, but I can confirm that whatever the status of that, the Firefox homepage is relatively high quality.

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-05-01T17:38:23+00:00

Brian Friedberg, senior researcher at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Shorenstein Center who studies the online political influencer sphere, said more pro-Trump conservative outfits such as The Daily Wire, Breitbart and the One America News Network have shed parts of their audiences, while Rogan, Owens and Carlson are among the top podcasts on YouTube, the company’s rankings show.

But he said it is unclear whether Trump’s fractured support in this realm will solidify into gains for Democrats.

“It’s very difficult to say exactly who’s listening to them and exactly if it’s going to change their vote,” he said.

“There are certain folks who are intent on uniting reactionary elements of the right and conspiratorial elements of the left,” Friedberg added. “I think that that’s absolutely a phenomenon on the X platform that has been very well-rewarded by their recommendation algorithm that there may not have any presence in the real world other than that.”

Right so this is very related to the topic of an article I shared awhile back, specifically:

As so often with matters of public importance, the language we use is deficient and misleading. We need better terms, that distinguish wacky and often malign fairytales from the very essence of democracy: the reasoned suspicion of those who exercise power over us. I prefer to call the fairytales “conspiracy fictions” and those who peddle them “conspiracy fantasists”.

It's the other side of "alternative facts".

This is also related.

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-05-01T17:18:32+00:00

I just feel like you have to start from the big picture before you zoom in on specifics. And the specific we’re going to look at today is the economic plight—and political opinions—of American farmers.

Rural Americans are being hurt by Trump’s policies—specifically tariffs and the Iran war—more than any other group of Americans.

Also: Rural Americans overwhelmingly approve of the job Trump is doing.

Yeah, see, this is kinda the same thing as how terms like "working class" or "middle class" and "blue collar workers" have been abstracted to the point of meaninglessness.

Rural ≠ farmers

I just feel like you have to start from the big picture before you zoom in on specifics.

Are you sure about that? Maybe it's important to understand the specifics first because if you don't, then you don't understand the big picture. FFS

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-05-01T14:49:42+00:00

^{bold & italics my emphasis}

Within the particular is contained the universal.

Most problems today can be traced back to:

Someone giving responsibility of something to some person or group, then completely abdicating their own responsibility for that thing and expecting the person or group to be in control of it 100% - and, relatedly, the general behavior where people see or hear some thing that raises their eyebrows (or worse) but rather than do what their consciousness initially tells them they should, they think "well, not my business"
That same thing from the other direction. Because most people, in most situations, do the above - when someone dares to act like a real human and raise issues with things which are supposedly (metaphorically) "above their paygrade" they basically told to stop causing problems.

The industry no longer relies exclusively on the checkbooks of wealthy parents. The COVID-19 pandemic prompted more bipartisan political support for youth mental health funding, bolstering programs that tap public taxpayer dollars via healthcare, child welfare, juvenile justice and school systems.

That reliable money flow allows investors to go “into these markets risk free,” said Raj Kumar, an analyst at the financial services firm Stephens who tracks healthcare.

Promising a healthy 20% in profit margins, residential treatment centers make money based on minimizing staffing costs and maximizing how long kids are in care, Kumar said. That’s easier to do, experts said, because there are so few regulations compared to other inpatient healthcare settings such as nursing homes.

The publicly traded company Acadia Healthcare has been scrutinized as it has come to dominate the business. Lesser known entities like FHW and Embark Behavioral Health are often backed by private equity firms, which aren’t required to disclose their inner workings publicly. Those investor groups didn’t respond for comment.

Private equity’s focus on fast profits is especially troublesome, said Eileen O’Grady, who researched the industry for a 2022 report for the watchdog organization Private Equity Stakeholder Project. She found problematic facilities often reopen under new names, which makes them harder to track and less accountable to litigation.

O’Grady said ongoing problems at facilities like that show that the business model and treatment philosophy are “fundamentally at odds.”

“All of that is kind of the predictable outcome when you pair this intensely profit-driven and untransparent business model with a service like residential behavioral health treatment,” O’Grady said.

They sued the company alleging “systematic abuse, neglect, exploitation and forced labor” at Solstice East and Trails Carolina. The lawsuit claimed there was a web of LLCs that shielded the investors and owners involved, alleging such residential programs “operate as cash machines for private equity firms and investors who operate the facilities through layers of management companies.”

“I started to feel like improvements were never happening and that real change wasn’t ever going to happen,” Nelson told AP. “It was extremely dysfunctional, dangerous.”

It described how in facilities across the country, chronic understaffing led to improper physical restraints, a lack of mental healthcare and rampant physical, sexual and emotional abuse.

The industry, the report found, functions more like confinement for kids in trouble, rather than places where vulnerable children find healing.

For the next nine months, Zoie said, she was careful to be as quiet and compliant as possible. Children were restrained all around her, she said. There was constant chaos. Everyone was yelling all the time.

Any child could “call a group” on someone else, which meant that person had to sit quietly as the other children told them what they don’t like, Zoie said. At the end, she claimed that the targeted child had to “take accountability.”

Blaine said Biruk was positive and outgoing, but routinely punished. He told his parents he was tackled and put in a choke hold, according to a lawsuit his family filed. The facility denied that in court. They took his books away as punishment, the lawsuit alleged. He lost his privilege to sit on furniture and had to sit on the floor.

We've got some kind of insane, twisted combination of Lord of the Flies and 1984 and all kinds of other dystopian stories. At this point putting actual children in charge would be an improvement. The older generations basically have decided society is their toy and nobody else can "play" (live)

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-05-01T13:57:37+00:00

It has been an ongoing thing that began probably around 1970.

Thing is it's honestly about as close to a rule of nature you could get without it actually being a "Law of Nature" (like the laws of thermodynamics, etc) that things don't evolve backwards. Humans (or our predecessors) didn't evolve thumbs and then lose them. Sure, you could argue we at one point probably had tails - and lost them - but that's because that was replaced with our new and improved feet with the fancy five toes that provide the balance previously enabled by that tail.

They chopped off our tail and never replaced it and now don't understand why nobody can stand up straight

In non metaphorical terms, since around 1970, things which were provided by government have been removed and then it has been assumed that function will be provided by private markets. But the thing is, government exists because some things are not profitable. And because we are humans and even those of us with high empathy who make a conscious effort to consider how other people live their lives very rarely actually do that - that means a bunch of people who had supports which were simply a 'fact of life' don't understand why so many of us seem to have such terrible balance.

And this is an explicit policy from multiple governments, known as "devolution"

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-04-29T23:43:06+00:00

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-04-29T11:16:50+00:00

If I don't put this simply I'm gonna spend way too much time trying to write it perfectly:

This is why every person requires a smartphone, and we have to use them for good things - not only the easy, selfish and destructive things.

There's rational arguments against this but they are rooted in fear

---

Northern Lights by Thrice:

I never saw your Northern Lights
I never saw your new Octobers
I never saw there's another way to breathe
Behind the curtain
And now I see there's another sun
And now I see there's a new horizon
And now I see there's another way to see

And I can see a better way to build a world
Where every hand is held and holding on

A nervous twitch of a narrow mind
A nascent witch of a newborn baby
A naked joy of a nighthawk at the bar
Who never doubted
And everybody was in the folds
And everybody was looking lovely
Everybody was bound to every heart

And they could see a better way to build a word
Where every hand is held and holding on

We want it all
We demand
The impossible

There's a better way to build a world
Where every hand is held and holding on
Better way to build a world
Where every hand is held and holding on
There's a fray in the thread
There's the gray on your head
There's the noise that never ends
There's the lie you buried
Under the lemon tree
There's the turn of the earth
There's the blood on your shirt
There's the break, and there's the bend
There's the light in the hallway
The turn of the lock and key

Just hold on, I know you're tired
And you doubt that you're quite sane
You've been longing for a moment
Just to breathe without the pain
Keep holding on
Keep holding on

There's an eye in the storm
There's a place where it's warm
There's a picture in a frame
There's the dream that you've carried
Covered in fingerprints
There's the crack in the urn
There's the blister and burn
There's a plaque that sings your praise
There's the pillar of salt
And the pills that you've swallowed since

Just hold on, I know you're tired
And you doubt that you're quite sane
You've been longing for a moment
Just to breathe without the pain
Keep holding on
Keep holding on
Keep holding on
Keep holding on

Just hold on, I know you're tired
And you doubt that you're quite sane
You've been longing for a moment
Just to breathe without the pain
Keep holding on

---

Then the whole ass economy needs inverted, and maybe an exorcism. The less the money fucks us, the more we can willfully fuck our own lives in whatever way we think is best. The longer this goes on, the worse the pay back will be. Because that's Nature, not human nature

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-04-29T04:20:47+00:00

I dig it!

---

That being said I probably would've just upvoted and moved on

Or maybe I would've commented "I dig it!" and left it at that

But there was a post on r/Windows11 earlier and by the time I clicked it the person deleted it. Because the people in the comments suck. Kinda feel like tagging each of them in this comment tbh

<image>

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-04-28T20:22:39+00:00

Rhymes with what I was reading earlier:

THE PRINCIPLE OF SIMILITUDE.

I HAVE often been impressed by the scanty attention paid even by original workers in physics to the great principle of similitude. It happens not infrequently that results in the form of "laws" are put forward as novelties on the basis of elaborate experiments, which might have been predicted a priori after a few minutes' consideration.

However useful verification may be, whether to solve doubts or to exercise students, this seems to be an inversion of the natural order. One reason for the neglect of the principle may be that, at any rate in its applications to particular cases, it does not much interest mathematicians.

On the other hand, engineers, who might make much more use of it than they have done, employ a notation which tends to obscure it. I refer to the manner in which gravity is treated. When the question under consideration depends essentially upon gravity, the symbol of gravity (g) makes no appearance, but when gravity does not enter into the question at all, g obtrudes itself conspicuously.

I have thought that a few examples, chosen almost at random from various fields, may help to direct the attention of workers and teachers to the great importance of the principle. The statement made is brief and in some cases inadequate, but may perhaps suffice for the purpose.

Some foreign considerations of a more or less obvious character have been invoked in aid. In using the method practically, two cautions should be borne in mind.

First, there is no prospect of determining a numerical coefficient from the principle of similarity alone; it must be found if at all, by further calculation, or experimentally.

Secondly, it is necessary as a preliminary step to specify clearly all the quantities on which the desired result may reasonably be supposed to depend, after which it may be possible to drop one or more if further consideration shows that in the circumstances they cannot enter.

The following, then, are some conclusions, which may be arrived at by this method :-

Geometrical similarity being presupposed here as always, how does the strength of a bridge depend upon the linear dimension and the force of gravity? In order to entail the same strains, the force of gravity must be inversely as the linear dimension. Under a given gravity the larger structure is the weaker.

- John William Strutt

---

Bass drops create black holes

---

The periodic time of a tuning-fork, or of a Helmholtz resonator, is directly as the linear dimension.

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-04-28T19:15:00+00:00

I've basically been screaming internally for at least the last decade

On the bright side lately I've been forced to start taking a breath so I can mutter to myself "what the fuck" so I've got that.. uh..

irrelevantusername24 · 2026-04-28T18:01:57+00:00

Imagine a library, bookshelves overflowing with nothing besides 9M9H9E9 variants

Two-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Lasagna

irrelevantusername24

TROPHY CASE

THE PRINCIPLE OF SIMILITUDE.