![]() Sometimes they'll be two-in-a-row or separated by only one, two, or three different songs. ![]() I'll put on a list of songs to sing along to, only a few hundred songs, and often after half an hour or an hour I'll be repeating songs which I've already sung. So irritating.Īnd this randomness-is-too-random crap does happen. ![]() Sometimes I mean "rewind to start" and I accidentally tap the button twice to say "seek to last track." That takes me to a random track and then the original is no longer available as "next". I pine for the days when I used to have an iPod that could run Rockbox, so that the "back" and "forward" functions worked in the shuffled playlist. I have been dealing with Samsung half-phone half-MP3 players for a while now, and they all choose the next track randomly. The book doesn't even provide a rigorous definition of the concept, but it was never intended to be a serious treatise on statistics. Of course, by some definitions, even rand() isn't random enough, so I can see why people argue about it. To outcount for this, iTunes actually does use an algorithm to make the shuffled playlist "better" than a truly random one. Some people don't realize that rolling 1,2,3,4,5,6 on a die in order is as likely as 6,4,1,2,5,3 even though the second set of outcomes might seem more likely because it looks more random. Mlodinow explains that most people really don't understand randomness, and a "truly random" playlist might have the same song twice in a row, play a few songs from the same album in the normal order, and things like that. If I remember correctly, his explanation was something along the lines of this: a truly random playlist is not desirable to most users, which challenges the claim "I do believe the ordering is truly random the first time it's generated" in the top answer. Leonard Mlodinow touches on this issue in The Drunkard's Walk.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |