The problem isn’t that their random is biased or has rules, the is that it is entirely deterministic, to the point where it will play the same exact songs, in the same exact order for days. It’s as if shuffle just activates a hidden “shuffle” playlist that only updates once a week.
Yes, that was what I was getting at. Not having true random is one thing, I understand (and like) that implementation. Apple has been doing it since the first few iPods. But Spotify “shuffle” isn’t near even, it is exactly even, as in “if you shuffle play this playlist twice two days in a row, it will play the exact same order”. Which is why people are complaining about Spotify specifically.
That’s not what I’m doubting here. I was raising awareness to the fact that a computer physically cannot be truly random. I know that pseudorandomness is enough as we cannot perceive a difference easily.
Humans think real random isn’t random 🙃
It’s wild but they see patterns
The problem isn’t that their random is biased or has rules, the is that it is entirely deterministic, to the point where it will play the same exact songs, in the same exact order for days. It’s as if shuffle just activates a hidden “shuffle” playlist that only updates once a week.
You and I might be talking about different things.
I mean that humans don’t like theoretically true random, as a cool side note
You seem upset about one implementation
Also, shuffling and having something appear near even though you throught it was shuffled is part of that finding patterns
Yes, that was what I was getting at. Not having true random is one thing, I understand (and like) that implementation. Apple has been doing it since the first few iPods. But Spotify “shuffle” isn’t near even, it is exactly even, as in “if you shuffle play this playlist twice two days in a row, it will play the exact same order”. Which is why people are complaining about Spotify specifically.
Well, computers physically cannot be random, they rely on logic
CSPRNGs are a thing…
As are radioactive sources
And there’s mathematical tests for whether something is random enough
So no, computers really can do random xD
CSPRNG literally stands for “cryptographically secure pseudorandom number generator”. All randomness in computers is pseudorandom. Not TRULY random
Radioactive sources for randomness aren’t really just put into your average household PC or phone either for obvious reasons.
A CSPRNG is more than random enough for a playlist xD
Take it from someone who works in the field - computers do random well enough rotflol
That’s not what I’m doubting here. I was raising awareness to the fact that a computer physically cannot be truly random. I know that pseudorandomness is enough as we cannot perceive a difference easily.
Randomness is lumpy as one mathematician put it.