Quatity_Control

You mention your discover weekly. Do you know how that algorithm works? It suggests songs that you have not played, that other people who played songs that you played. It’s the same positive feedback loop. It’s songs already popular that it promotes to be played more. Which makes them more popular so it recommends them more. And thus you end up with the most steamed artists only making 15% of the content.

Does it work? Passably. For the majority, mostly generic listeners. Is it a fair way to structure a platform and to dispense payments? No. A great business model however.

If you make a great song, and Dua Lipa makes a crap song, which one would be featured and added into playlists by Spotify’s algorithms? It’s not a level playing field. It doesn’t promote content that isn’t already popular.

Which is mostly due to Spotify’s playlist and algorithms. Which fall victim to the positive feedback loop issue. Those popular artists are suggested, promoted, and played more frequently so more people hear them and thus play them more. It’s not a level playing ground. It’s a self generating walled garden of artists.

95% of the royalty pool goes to 200000 artists who generate 15% of the content. Sounding less fair the more you look at it.

A debate requires two reasonable points. Your dull comments lack a point. With no need to cry about it, why do you have the need to comment on it? Just keep on buying more air and thinking you are winning at life. The rest of us can enjoy the laugh.

The addition of more and more air has nothing to do with chip protection. It is shrinkflation. That has always been my point, regardless of whatever you’ve mistaken it for.

And you’re a magical level of dumb shit if you don’t see they are reducing weight and increasing the air to make bags appear more full. “Protects the chips” and “Weight not volume” are the literal marketing campaigns designed to cover up the shrinkflation. Which, since you read the order of amount of air per brand articles, varies from 17%-73% with ckearly no regard for the optimal chip protection amount and quite obviously “as much as we can get away with” amount.

As I’ve repeatedly said, you’re whiny disagreement is more about you than this actual situation in the market in the real world.

Ooh internet credentials! So awesome. And an unrelated field? Mmm very intimidated I’m sure. You’re an idiot if you don’t recognise the shrinkflation. Regardless of your claims.

I don’t have a condescending word for the kind of person who believes more = better without comprehending the basic concept of reality. Thankfully, I don’t need one as Darwinism ensures there aren’t many of you around.

Unfortunately, you’ve missed the point of my experiment, re earning my condescension. I’m demonstrating the terrible effect of air as a cushion against force. I’m not replicating shipping at all.

It’s also quite revealing that the brands you named are substantially different in manufacturing process, resulting chips with significant difference in tensile strength and edge thickness. Those figures are far more relevant to broken chips than air.

So here’s your next training course in chip packaging. Take ten chips and drop them onto various surfaces from waist height. Drop them vertically and horizontally. Then put individual chips on bags with varying amounts of air and replicate. Then multiple chips. Have your parents help you write up the results and share with all your {online} friends!

It’s not the size of the space that enables the chips to move at speed. So no, I don’t believe you have studied any science. Watching sci fi movies doesn’t count.

Here’s a practical example for you to try. Make sure you get your parent’s permission!

Take a sandwich bag and put ten corn chips in it. Remove as much air as you can and seal it. Now, shake vigorously. You’ll find that the chips are held almost motionless by the plastic and thus do not break.

Now add a little air to the bag. The chips can now move. As you shake the bag back and forth, they collide, rotate in the allowed space, reposition inside the bag. You’ll get a few broken chips.

Now add heaps of air to the bag. When you shake vigorously, the chips all move in different directions, pin wheeling, bouncing off the bag surface, rebounding into each other, rotating inside the bag to present their crisp faces to the hardend edges of other fast moving chips. You’ll notice that it’s not the moving of the bag that damages the chips. It’s the sharp and abrupt change in inertia. The extra air allows the chips more space to orient in dangerous ways before the change in inertia smashes all the chips together at one end of the bag.

Now that you’ve done the fun practical part of the lesson today, I’ll follow it up with a simple thought experiment. What brands do you think have more broken chips in them?

https://amzn.asia/d/hpk0kKF When you’ve done the background requirement for the conversation, we can continue.

Cool, got a source? Or, is this just about you?

Do you think more air will protect more chips? Do you not think there is a point where too much air allows the chips to move around too much in transport and thus you get more broken chips? A point of diminishing returns?

That’s more about you than the level of air suitable for protecting chips or shrinkflation.

Go on, have a google. The weight has consistently and distinctly and excessively changed. Surprise reveal, the changes only ever give you less product for the same, or higher price.

And how many packets of ships have you opened in your life?

Im going to put a crazy idea to you: 95% of bags you open do not have excessively broken chips. That 5% that do, suffered an incident in transport that regardless of air, resulted in broken chips. And if you honestly are complaining about a few broken chips a rare amount of times, the issue is with you and not the chips.

I will also add that as more and more air is introduced, it’s creating more space in the bag for chips to move, collide, and break.

Finally, imagining that the more and more air being introduced to chip bags is anything other than a way to increase the size of packaging while reducing the weight and volume of the actual product is just foolish. If that’s the path you are choosing, gl with that.

I mean, it’s a particularly bold type of stupid. Other poster claimed the air was for freight reasons. I asked for the source, and there was none. If you bothered to at least google, there’s plenty relating to air in chip packaging, including Pringle’s. Pro tip for amateur googlers: Add shrinkflation to the search to get specific results!

Which is my point. There is no reason to increase the air in a Pringle’s can. They have reduced the size of the can, increased the amount of air, all in the name of shrinkflation. Same as other bagged chips. All the excuses is just marketing bs.

And you think more air has and will continue to reduce broken chips? Don’t you think there is a point of diminishing returns?