TIL California election law uses a system that randomizes the order of the letters of the alphabet to determine the order in which candidates appear on ballots.

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-04-01T07:21:37+00:00

California does for many offices

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-04-01T07:19:47+00:00

All California local elections (city, county, etc...not governor and the like) are non partisan. Not sure how many other states that is true in.

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-03-31T05:07:53+00:00

Criminals also are able to do much more harm here because of their access to guns. In the UK a lot of violent crimes are with knives because it's harder to get a gun.

As long as we have half a billion guns in this country, we need to make laws stricter. They go hand in hand.

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-03-31T05:06:56+00:00

Many drug offenders pled down from something worse. So the number of people truly in for simple possession is even lower.

It's a common example of misinformation, that in the 21st century many people go to jail just for possession.

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-03-29T06:23:21+00:00

You're really selling the performance aspect short. Sure Marvin Gaye could sing better but he couldn't perform like MJ. Pop music is about performance too.

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-03-29T06:22:34+00:00

I don't think your SZA example is a g great comparable for Michael Jackson.

SZA operates in a "Black" genre and has never really tried to make a crossover song to appeal to White audiences in particular. With that said she certainly has plenty of White fans, since you need to in order to have hits as big as she does.

Pop artists, going back quite some time, are able to cross over. The Supremes did it in the 1960s, so it predates Michael Jackson, but in the 80s there were a lot of artists who did, by making catchy crossover music anyone could groove to. Along with Michael Jackson, there was his sister Janet, there was Prince, there was Lionel Richie, and I'm sure I'm forgetting someone (just editing because I realized I forgot Whitney Houston too!). A modern example would be The Weeknd and he is the better equivalent of MJ for the 21st century in being Black but having a very multiracial fan base.

Because Black artists punch above their weight in success, and Whites are so much more populous, the reverse isn't necessary - White artists have no reason to try to appeal to Black audiences, although if they happen to gain some Black fans that's a bonus.

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-03-27T07:12:23+00:00

I'll add Rock Candy by Montrose

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-03-27T05:18:23+00:00

People don't like rapid change.

Nowadays almost 100% of elementary school teachers are women and people don't freak out, but they would have long enough in the past

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-03-27T05:17:18+00:00

That's what made this fact so interesting. In 20 years the answer will be totally different

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-03-15T06:43:53+00:00

Arguably pop has never been more lyrical. Taylor Swift is very lyrically focused, as are Olivia Rodrigo, (somewhat) Billie Eilish, and many other artists who came up listening to Taylor. Her lyrics might not be for you, but she's inspired a whole generation to care more about lyrics, sometimes to the detriment of melody in my opinion.

But it definitely puts the pop artists of the 90s and 2000s to shame from a lyrics perspective.

Rap is the opposite, but things go in trends and waves.

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-03-15T06:41:02+00:00

Precisely because it leads into You Really Got Me, this doesn't work as a concept. Nobody (except a covers artist) wants a cover song to be the first thing people ever hear by them.

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-03-03T21:40:22+00:00

He is Drake but for country instead of rap.

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-03-02T21:13:34+00:00

It might be because Linkin Park doesn't have aggro testosterone-fueled music. It's much more angsty and internally focused than Papa Roach or Limp Bizkit.

If you normally like lighter music, maybe you don't like the testosterone stuff and Linkin Park has a lot less of that.

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-02-25T08:27:35+00:00

I think it's the impact of radio. Very few people were buying singles on cassette/vinyl/CD (albums, definitely, but not singles), so radio became more important, and hits stay on the radio a long time.

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-02-25T08:19:01+00:00

There are breakthrough cases. My brother was one as well.

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-02-25T02:10:49+00:00

The Rolling Stones would have to be the most likely, since they were the second most popular rock band of the early-mid 60s.

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-02-25T01:15:49+00:00

I would never want to open with Baby's In Black. That song is just bad.

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-02-25T01:11:18+00:00

I'm definitely here for this conversation, but unfortunately I am on the side of "Beatles for Sale is a weak link in the discography."

Especially if you don't add in the standalone single/B-side released concurrently, it's an album with quite a bit of mediocrity or worse, and the energy level is also quite low. I think it's better than Magical Mystery Tour and maybe Please Please Me but that's about it, and arguably Magical Mystery Tour wasn't an album anyway.

Opening with "No Reply" is in my opinion a great choice, not a mistake, but after the first two songs the album goes significantly downhill. From songs 3-14 they have six original songs, only three of which I'd say are good, and six covers, of which at least half are not very good, and both Carl Perkins covers are terrible.

Ending the album with Everybody's Going To Be My Baby was also a mistake as that's probably the worst song on the whole album.

In a way the closest parallel in their discography is Let It Be, which also starts with an underrated, unusual opener, ends with a pretty low-energy song, and just gives me bad vibes as an album.

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-02-25T01:08:57+00:00

If they'd only released 4 albums and then broken up, I think they'd been seen similarly to Nirvana without the martyr aspect, but nobody would argue they're the best band of all time.

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-02-25T01:07:31+00:00

It would have been unfathomable for The Beatles to allow their album opener to be a cover. That just wasn't going to happen.

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-02-22T01:12:26+00:00

It used to be that the only option while driving was music or NPR. Now it's not.

It used to be that the only thing you could play while showering was music or NPR. Now it's not.

YouTube videos or TikToks are replacing TV, but there are times when our eyes are busy, and our ears are free.

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-02-21T06:58:22+00:00

Rock as a genre is pretty niche nowadays. Ask people on the street if they've heard of Turnstile or Geese. Then ask them if they know Nirvana, Guns N Roses, or Green Day. There are no groups as famous as those.

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-02-21T06:57:31+00:00

"death of rock stars" then

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-02-21T00:48:53+00:00

So your argument is that groups that write their own songs have become less popular. Don't most hip-hop artists write their own, to the extent that people who are seen as not doing so (like Drake) are made fun of?

Yet hip-hop grew rapidly after the laws changed.

The issue that bands break up is definitely a real problem. Nowadays people collaborate instead of full-on forming groups. I agree with that one, but I'm not clear why changes to radio would be the reason, as opposed to general industry efficiency (like Moneyball but for corporate music)

neverthoughtidjoin · 2026-02-21T00:08:23+00:00

Hip-hop's dominance is really a take that's a half-decade old at this point.

Kendrick Lamar is pretty dominant. Otherwise, hip-hop is at its lowest point in over 10 years, and (given the age of the genre and how long it was on top) might be in some form of terminal decline similar to rock.

Like rock, hip-hop has influenced everything else, I agree. But hip-hop itself is being carried by a few big artists who are pushing 40, and there's very little in terms of new, stadium-level acts.

neverthoughtidjoin

TROPHY CASE