Chris Trottier

Well, I'll be damned!

I located the "off" switch for antiskip on my Sony CD Walkman D-EJ361!

It was easy to not see because it's really tiny, and located on the disc bed—inaccessible when the CD is spinning!

And shutting it off, improves the music substantially because the core problem with that portable CD player is that, to achieve antiskip, it stores 200 seconds of audio in 2MB of RAM.

Which essentially just makes this CD player a glorified MP3 player when antiskip is on.

But once switched off, I get actual lossless CD-quality music with zero compression.

What's more, it runs excellently on my Beyerdynamic DT 990 Pro headphones. So I'm quite happy antiskip can be turned off!

So is the AI infrastructure boom economically sustainable?

I think it's important to ask three questions:

1. Is demand real? The evidence strongly suggests yes.
2. Are companies making money from that demand? Several clearly are.
3. Are they making enough money to justify hundreds of billions in new investment? That's not yet established.

Now let's consider where things stand.

Cloud revenue growth? It's bullish. The Big 5 AI companies have seen massive increases in revenue. The demand is there.

Operating profits? 4 out of 5 companies are doing well. Meta is the outlier, but that's because a large litigation charge and margin compression.

Infrastructure utilization? Oracle and Microsoft report demand outstripping supply but companies aren't companies disclosing enough consistent infrastructure utilization data to establish whether their newest investments will remain profitable over their useful lives. So I'd say things are inconclusive for now.

Free cash flow? This is the biggest red flag. Alphabet, Meta and Oracle reported negative free cash flow in their latest quarters, while Amazon reported negative trailing-twelve-month free cash flow. However, Microsoft remained positive so maybe this builds a better case for them. Still this aspect is concerning enough to cause the NASDAQ 100 to fall massively.

Financing? All these hyperscalers have established cash cow businesses. However, funding requirements are increasing. Oracle's use of both borrowing and equity issuance shows the financing risks. The results here are mixed.

Return on invested capital? Current AI infrastructure has not established full lifetime returns. Looking at current revenue growth does not answer this question. So returns are unproven.

Growth is accelerating. But growth can also be misleading.

So I think we need to look at three more measurements:

1. Revenue per dollar of infrastructure investment: is each round of investment contributing more revenue or less?
2. Customer diversification: is revenue coming from thousands or millions of businesses, or just really large AI customers?
3. Recurring consumption: are customers continuing to pay for compute power after their initial commitments?

ROI is the ultimate test. Suppose $100B was invested into AI infrastructure. Assume it has a 5-year lifespan and no resale value. That would mean that with an 8% YoY ROI, it would need to generate $25B in annual cash flow. And this is after taxes!

You would need $25B to justify a $100B spend on infrastructure.

But as things stand, we cannot establish lifetime returns on today's quarterly earnings.

Now that we're aware of the bear case for AI, let's present the bull case for it---which shouldn't be ignored either:

1. Operating cash flow increased 29% for Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta---despite enormous capital investment
2. The latest quarterly earnings reports demonstrates this investment is already paying off
3. Capital expenditure always happens before returns
4. Borrowing usually doesn't present a financial crisis
5. Not investing now could be dangerous---especially if you're Google and Search is threatened

But most important is this reality: Oracle and Google's revenues have dramatically increased. Microsoft and Amazon are likewise impressive too.

Meta's not so much---so if current trends hold, they are likely to be the loser.

Of course, the bull case doesn't cancel out the bear case either...

This is the bear case against AI.

As AI infrastructure has grown, free cash flow has fallen.

Big Tech has spent $1.6T on capex over the past three years.

Meanwhile cash flow has cratered to an all-time-record of -$26.4B.

Hence why the stock market has had such a big correction recently.

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/article/why-investors-are-dumping-tech-stocks-in-one-image-123636288.html

This is the best insight I've yet read into how Elizabeth Holmes operates.

In the past, I've got into trouble for saying Elizabeth Holmes got as far as she has because she is hot, blonde, and young.

But if you watch You Can See Everything, you'll see exactly how she operated.

Basically, she does her best to be all Bambi-eyed, making the men in proximity feel they're the most important people in the room. She listens intently, is reflective with them, making them feel she has delivered an insight when she's actually said nothing.

The dirty work she outsources to a romantic partner. At Theranos, it was Sunny Balwani. And in this movie, it's Billy Evans. The men in her life do all the visibly rotten things while she tries her damnedest to present plausible deniability.

I'm pretty damn sure Elizabeth Holmes has a Cluster B personality because, not once, does she seem to have a sense of self. Instead, just like she outsources the dirty work, she outsources her personality—and value—to the people she's enmeshed with.

I have no doubt she believes her delusions. But that doesn't mean she's not a liar. It means she's an effective liar.

Did she get as far as she did because she's attractive? No, if that were true, no attractive woman would ever struggle to pay her rent.

Nevertheless, her manipulation works because she is charismatic and compelling to men—especially aggressive, controlling men who are willing to protect and fight for her.

Just saw the documentary You Can See Everything.

Definitely one of the best movies I've ever seen.

Either Elizabeth Holmes is one of the most easily manipulated people ever, or she's the greatest manipulator of all time.

And I'm not against the possibility that both can be true at once because I've seen similar dynamics play out before with other women.

Huh.

I just learned that Ace Young was in the 5th season of American Idol.

I’ve been listening to his song “Addicted” for 17 years and had no idea he was famous.

Maxell has a new cassette player on the market!

It's the Maxell MXCP-P100, and the reviews are quite interesting.

And @[email protected] already did a review. His tests are encouraging, and he seems to like it.

Home recording needs to be normalized again.

Because it's ridiculous when albums that are no longer in print get sold for $1,000.

And the artists don't benefit. Only the reseller.

In fact, artists make more money when you record from streaming services because at least then they get paid!

Well, I just found the best album of 2026!

A vinyl edition is available, but that will cost me $75 to get it shipped to Canada. Even worse, the vinyl edition has two songs missing!

Here's a better idea: record the complete album to a C60 cassette using Dolby S.

https://a-pconnection.bandcamp.com/album/keep-this-star-burning

Vinyl collectors get so angry when I show off my home recordings.

They accuse me of grifting.

No, a grift is when money exchanges hands for a fraudulent product.

No money is being exchanged. And no product is being bought. Ergo, there's no grift.

One of the saddest songs I've ever heard.

It's about a victim of domestic violence who's absolutely convinced her lover is devoted to her, and that the anger and the rage and the beatings are actually a sign of love.

Some day, I'm going to talk about Antony & The Johnsons in more detail.

Qimen is the ultimate breakfast tea.

Which is why it’s the traditional basis for English Breakfast.

But it’s better unblended, loose, and uncut.

My 2nd attempt at custom-designed MiniDisc labels—and it didn’t go as planned.

The label on the shell was fine.

But the tricky thing was getting the notches in the case just right. Which I failed at. So I taped the label to the case, screwed that up, and some of the paper came off.

Still, let me look at the positives. Only the inner label is affected. It still displays the entire track list. And it now has an accidental aesthetic.

But the most important thing is that this music was on the verge of lost media. I rescued it and give it a physical edition. And it is a singular, one-of-a-kind MiniDisc.

Which means something. At least to me.

Is this image human-created or AI-generated?

Tell me the reason for your opinion.

I'm someone who would rather be correct and disliked than agreeable and wrong.

@[email protected] By the way, I’ve been designing my own home recordings, which includes making the artwork and labels. Here’s a few works you might enjoy.

HYPOTHESIS: The longer text is on social media, the more likely people will believe it’s AI.

Has anyone tested this idea out?

My custom-designed label on a Sony HF Type I C60 audiocassette.

I mostly like this.

This is a high quality Type I cassette. It sounds great. And it deserves a better label than the strips this blank shipped with.

I could quibble over the fact that “HF” branding can be seen. However, this is better Type I than most blanks manufactured today—so I can live with that.

THE STOCK MARKET IS WILD!

Today, NASDAQ 100, S&P 500, and Dow Jones all dipped below their 125 day moving averages. Here's a comparison:

NASDAQ 100

• Oct. 30 level: 28,226.68
• 125-day SMA: 29,531.91
• Difference: −4.42%

S&P 500

• Oct. 30 level: 7,548.73
• 125-day SMA: 7,579.71
• Difference: −0.41%

Dow Jones

• Oct. 30 level: 51,663.48
• 125-day SMA: 51,927.23
• Difference: −0.51%

There's not much of a difference between S&P 500 and Dow Jones. But the NASDAQ? -4.42% difference is huge!

And this just shows how today's sell-off has drastically affected the tech sector.

This doesn't measure whether we're entering a recession or that a crash is inevitable or that stocks are overvalued---or even about the actual health of companies.

But it does tell you that the medium-term upward trend has vastly weakened. And this is particularly true for Big Tech.

If someone were actively witch-hunting for AI, maybe this post could sound like it was generated by an LLM.

However, this whole post is meant to be analysis of the stock market.

It is therefore going to sound machine-like to anyone with no interest in financial markets because I'm explicitly not spontaneous, informal, or emotionally intuitive.

My purpose is to use math and historical precedence to explain a hypothesis.

"Chris, how are anti-AI witch hunts a form of neurotypical supremacy?"

Well, here's one in a reply to one of my posts.

decides I sound AI. He has no evidence, just a general feeling it's AI. I simply just don't conform to how he thinks a human should sound.

Now it's usually on accusers to offer the burden of proof. He obviously has none.

I ran my text through Grammarly's AI detector. 87% showed no AI text patterns.

When confronted with evidence that I'm human, what does he do? Doubles down.

And that, my friends, is an example of neurotypical supremacy.

Because he's clearly treating his expectations of neurotypical communication as the standard for what constitutes human communication.

For if, even when challenged, this guys insists his subjective impression is more authoritative than evidence I offer, and counters with no evidence of his own—that's treating his own prejudices as more credible than anything I can plausibly say in my defence.

With rapt attention, I'm watching the stock market today!

Because, so far, the NASDAQ 100 ($QQQ) has declined 3.20%—and keeps falling!

But it's not a stock market drop that fascinates me because, all things considered, the NASDAQ 100 is still up 11.29% YoY.

No—what interests me is that forward P/E is now *20.0× and falling!

Translation: investors are now paying approximately $20 for every $1 of earnings companies are expected to generate over the next 12 months for the world's largest tech companies!

In other words, buying tech companies is getting cheaper and cheaper. Investors are paying less relative to the earnings growth they're expecting.

"But Chris, isn't that what you should expect in a speculative bubble?"

Nope! Typically in a speculative bubble, if there are earnings, the forward P/E is much higher—sometimes at a forward P/E of 20.0×. That is, if they have any earnings at all!

However, now we're in a moment where speculation is out the window. There's no debate that these tech companies can deliver earnings. The bigger question is whether capital expenditure required to support can generate sufficient profits.

And it's the word "sufficient" that's doing the heavy lifting here because "sufficient" isn't an objective measurement. It is entirely about sentiment. Because how much profit is sufficient enough?

What we're seeing now is that growth companies are now being viewed as value companies. Historically, investors attracted to value target companies with a P/E ratio of 5-20×. That's considered the sweet spot.

Which means that investors are now being offered two things at once: relatively inexpensive valuations associated with value stocks as well as substantial earnings-growth expectations associated with growth stocks.

We can see this with today's current PEG of 0.89.

PEG ratio compares a company's price-to-earnings multiple with its expected earnings-growth rate.

A PEG of 1.0 means the numerical P/E multiple equals the expected annual earnings-growth percentage. A PEG below 1.0 means investors are paying a comparatively low earnings multiple relative to projected growth.

For the NASDAQ-100, today's figures illustrate this:

• Trailing P/E: 26.77×
• Projected annual earnings growth: 29.98%
• PEG: 26.77 ÷ 29.98 = 0.89

This means investors are paying approximately 26.77 times current annual earnings for companies collectively expected to grow earnings at nearly 30% annually.

Put another way, a traditional value stock might trade at 10× earnings but only grow earnings by 5% annually, producing a PEG of 2.0. The NASDAQ-100, by comparison, has a PEG below 1.0 because its anticipated earnings growth is unusually high relative to its current earnings multiple.

"But how likely is expected earnings growth to be wrong?"

Well, since we're talking about expectations, there's no certainty. It is entirely possible to overestimate long-term earnings growth.

However, the NASDAQ-100's recent actual earnings performance has been exceptionally strong. In Q1 2026, NASDAQ-100 earnings per share grew 45.6% year-over-year.

And as of October 23, 2026, 95% of the 20 NASDAQ-100 companies reporting had beaten earnings expectations.

Of course, one has to take recency bias into account too.

So out of an abundance of caution, let's assume that the forward P/E ratio of the NASDAQ 100 should be 5× instead of 20×. This would be unprecedented, but let's consider it anyway.

In that scenario, the NASDAQ would lose 75% of its current valuation. That would be terrible—but not catastrophic because a fall in share price does not equate to a fall in earnings.

But a P/E ratio of 5× has never happened. Not once, even in our worst financial crises. Consider the historical record of the NASDAQ 100:

• 2002 dot-com aftermath (September) – 11.9×
• 2008 financial crisis (December) – 13.3×
• August 2011 historical low – 11.23×

Today's forward P/E is actually lower than the bear market of December 22, which was 20.1×.

This is why today's sell-off fascinates me. The market is behaving as though the NASDAQ-100's growth prospects are deteriorating, yet the actual earnings data tells a very different story.

Could earnings expectations prove wrong? Absolutely. Could prices fall further? Of course.

But the more the market falls without a corresponding deterioration in earnings, the stronger the investment case becomes.

When I bring up problems with anti-AI hysteria, many of the comments don’t address the actual topic.

It’s almost as though they’re using an automated script.

But I sure wouldn’t want anyone to think they’re not human. 🤔

So how does anti-AI witch hunting hurt the autistic community?

It's simple: much of the writing characteristics people associate with AI are also found in authentic autistic communication.

Autistic people with lower support needs often use formal language, precise vocabulary, an unusually consistent tone. When people use these characters as "proof" of AI, they risk treating differences in communication as suspicious.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, though. Because for someAutistic people with higher support needs, they don't even have the ability to mask. Thus, they need computerized tools to help them communicate. This can often sound machine-like.

There's a further problem.

Sometimes autistic people do use AI for accessibility. For example, for arranging their thoughts. Or perceiving tone. Or reducing the cognitive load for executive function.

"But I'm autistic and don't use AI!"—some might say.

I'm glad you don't. However, autism is not uniform. It exists as a spectrum. What is easy for some is profoundly difficult for someone else.

Now I'm sure there are some people who believe, "AI is totally evil—so screw any kind of accommodation."

You're entitled to have your opinion on AI. And go ahead, criticize the companies developing it. I'm not arguing that the environmental costs, labour practices, and ethics are not problematic.

But disliking AI still doesn't eliminate the accessibility needs of people who benefit from it.

Yet, no matter how much you dislike AI, there's still a huge difference between criticizing it and policing how humans are permitted to communicate.

Because if your defence of human authenticity requires autistic people to prove they're human, something has gone seriously wrong.

Is it worthwhile to put custom labels on a Maxell UR-90?

First, some context. Maxell UR-90 is the best cheap blank cassette widely available today. A brick of 5 cassettes currently sells for C$15.87 on Amazon, and it often goes on sale. You can put 90 minutes of music on here, or 45 minutes per side.

So if you want to get into home cassette recording, this is probably the most accessible blank cassette.

And as you can see, it's more than possible to design a J-card and adhesive label on them. The plastic cases are durable. As for the adhesive label, Maxell even has a tiny indent on the shells to help you align things.

That said, the shells very much look like Maxells. They're pretty basic. There's nothing luxe about them.

As whether or not you should customize them with artwork, well... you be the judge!

I designed this cassette's ONLY physical copy ever!

"Future Memoirs" (2014) is a fantastic hip hop album by Allan Kingdom.

Most people know him for his collaboration with Kanye West on the song "All Day". Which is a fine song. But my favourite release of Allan Kingdom's is this album right here which was recorded when he was 20-years-old.

If you go to this album's Discogs page, you'll notice the only physical release was on CD-R:

https://www.discogs.com/master/1562453-Allan-Kingdom-Future-Memoirs

The last time a copy was sold was in 2019. It's not expensive but it's rare. Though Discogs says a copy is for sale, I can't seem to find it. And being in Canada, I doubt I'll be able to acquire it anyway.

But I don't think a CD-R really fits the aesthetics of this album anyway. Hearing it, I think this is crying out for a cassette. So since there's never been an official cassette release, I decided to make my own.

After recording this album from Apple Music with Dolby S on my Sony TC-WR901ES—it fit perfectly on a C43.5 cassette—I set out to work.

I personally designed the J-card. Then I printed it on card stock with an inkjet. After cutting and folding, I put it in a clear case.

The next step was the labels. I ordered Avery 5198-compatible matte sheets off Amazon. Then I designed the artwork for that too, printed it off my inkjet, peeled it, and carefully placed it on the cassette.

It is so emotional to see my finished work. I get such a charge out of it. And dare I say it, hearing the music is that much more awesome because the entire thing—from recording to J-card to label—was made by me.

But of course, this would be nothing if not for Allan Kingdom's superb music.

Today's 12.29% drop in Alphabet ($GOOG) is disproportionate to the fundamentals of their business.

Total revenue growth is +24.7%. Operating income growth is +29.9%. Google Cloud growth is exceptional at +102.6%.

Trailing P/E is 14.6×, forward P/E is 20.3×, and PEG is 1.06.

So why the sudden fear? Because Google is spending more on AI infrastructure. This fear would make sense if AI infrastructure was just some side quest.

But in actuality, if they don't spend money on AI infrastructure---and do so heavily---it's their core business that is threatened because the biggest threat to search is AI.

Google cannot protect its search business simply by preserving its existing margins. AI has already changed how people find information---whether you agree with this change or not. The toothpaste has not exited the tube and will not go back in.

So failing to invest in AI infrastructure would be more damaging for them than spending aggressively on it.

Three years ago, I was more amenable to anti-AI sentiment.

But my attitude has changed drastically.

Because what I've generally found is the anti-AI crowd tends to also be the neurotypical supremacist crowd who demands conformity to their particular manner of expressing themselves.

Unpopular opinion: Howard the Duck is actually a masterpiece because it launched the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I'm going to say something that might upset Marvel fans, but Howard the Duck is genuinley one of the most important superhero movies ever made.

Everyone credits Iron Man with launching the MCU. But in 1986, TWENTY TWO YEARS earlier, Howard the Duck was already a major theatrical Marvel adaptation. The American Film Institute confirms this.

https://catalog.afi.com/Film/67719-HOWARD-THE-DUCK

And who executive produced it?? GEORGE LUCAS. The Star Wars guy.

https://www.lucasfilm.com/productions/howard-the-duck/

Think about it. A sarcastic superhero from another dimension, fighting cosmic threats, making jokes and having romantic problems. Thats literally the MCU formula, Howard did it FIRST.

People say the movie flopped because it cost $37 million and grossed $38 million worldwide.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt0091225.htm/

But thats completely missing the point. Howard was experimenting with superhero cinema before superhero cinema even understood itself. Its called being ahead of your time.

Tony Stark is a sarcastic outsider wearing armour. Howard is ALSO a sarcastic outsider and Marvel literally lists IRON DUCK among his identities.

https://www.marvel.com/characters/howard-the-duck

IRON DUCK.

I'm not saying Iron Man copied Howard, I'm saying pretending theres no cinematic lineage is intelectually dishonest.

Then Guardians of the Galaxy features a TALKING RACCOON. Howard established the foundations for talking animals in Marvel movies decades earlier.

And James Gunn brought Howard BACK in Guardians.

https://comicbook.com/comicbook/news/guardians-of-the-galaxy-director-james-gunn-i-loved-howard-the-d/

Then Howard appears in Avengers Endgame's final battle. For EIGHTEEN FRAMES.

https://www.slashfilm.com/566354/thanoss-army-dark-elves/

Thanos is literally destroying the universe and Marvel brings back THE DUCK.

Why eighteen frames?? Why not seventeen??? Somebody CALCULATED this, somebody at Marvel determined the exact amount of duck required to defeat Thanos and nobody is investigating???

Howard launched Marvel cinema. Marvel cinema became the MCU. The MCU brought back Howard. Howard helped defeat Thanos.

Thats an entire historical cycle and people are calling it coincidence because their uncomfertable with ducks

I'm not saying Howard singlehandedly invented the MCU. I'm saying without Howard there might not BE an MCU, making him arguably MORE important then Iron Man because Iron Man only launched something Howard had ALREADY launched

HOW CAN YOU LAUNCH SOMETHING THATS ALREADY BEEN LAUNCHED???

This is basic chronoligical science.

Howard was there BEFORE Iron Man and AGAIN when Thanos died. Tony Stark wasnt even cinematicly born in 1986, Howard was already doing the work

I'm not saying Howard is the first Avenger.

I'm saying the Avengers are essentially a Howard the Duck spin-off and people refusing to aknowledge this are engaging in systematic anti-duck historical revisionism

Until someone can prove the MCU would've existed IDENTICALLY without Howard, Marvel owes him a formal appology, possibly financial compensation although I'm not qualified to calculate duck royalties

The duck came first.

The duck came back.

The duck helped save the universe.

RESPECT THE DUCK.

Unpopular opinion: Led Zeppelin owes its greatness to Engelbert Humperdinck, and the historical evidence is actually pretty overwhelming.

Everyone credits the blues, the Yardbirds, Jimmy Page. But nobody talks about Engelbert Humperdinck, which is honestly a massive oversight in music historiography.

In 1967 Page played guitar on Humperdinck's "Release Me". Arranger Charles Blackwell recalled Page and Big Jim Sullivan playing pocket chess between takes because the sessions were boring. This actually happened, I'm not inventing it

https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/oct/18/how-we-made-release-me-engelbert-humperdinck-beatles-strawberry-fields-forever

Think about what that means. Page wasn't just learning guitar, he was learning to think OUTSIDE guitar. Chess requires planning, pattern recognition, strategic anticipation, all skills you need for complex rock arrangements. And who gave him the enviroment to develop those skills?? Engelbert Humperdinck.

Yes Page was already an accomplished guitarist, the Academy of Achievement confirms his earlier career.

https://achievement.org/achiever/jimmy-page/

But technical skill isnt the same as intellectual inovation, people keep confusing those things. Humperdinck didn't teach him guitar, he made guitar so intelectually unstimulating that Page needed chess. Thats arguably more influencial.

Humperdinck himself confirmed Page's role in the recording, so this isnt just one persons account.

https://hifiplus.com/articles/music-interview-engelbert-humperdinck/

And "Release Me" actually stopped the Beatles' "Penny Lane/Strawberry Fields Forever" reaching number one in Britain. So Humperdinck was simultaneously disrupting the Beatles AND incubating Led Zeppelin. Thats quite a historical coincidence, or is it??

https://www.officialcharts.com/chart-news/official-charts-70th-anniversary-the-official-top-10-best-selling-singles-from-the-1960s__37728/

And John Paul Jones ALSO worked with Humperdinck. Jones names him discussing his session career, which means two future Zeppelin members shared this musical enviroment.

https://waynerobins.substack.com/p/led-zep-looks-back

Jones discussed his varied session work elsewhere aswell.

https://ultimateclassicrock.com/john-paul-jones-zooma/

I'm not claiming Jones played chess with Page. Theres no evidence he did, equally theres no evidence he didnt. We simply cannot rule out chess, and I think dismissing possibilities without proving their impossible is frankly anti-intellectual.

Jones even described his earlier studio career as "vegetating". His word, not mine.

https://ritchieyorke.com/index.php/1970/04/10/led-zeppelin-profile-bassist-john-paul-jones/

So Page was playing chess while Jones was vegetating, both worked with Humperdinck. At what point does a pattern become a pattern?? I'm asking a genuine academic question.

Consider "Black Dog". Jones developed a notoriously tricky riff, documented by Guitar World.

https://www.guitarworld.com/features/john-paul-jones-greatest-moments-with-led-zeppelin

Complex rhythmic patterns. Chess patterns. Do I have proof one caused the other? No, but absence of proof is not proof of absence, and people seem to forget that whenever Engelbert Humperdinck comes up.

Page also discusses assembling the interlocking musical elements of "Kashmir" here.

https://achievement.org/video/jimmy-page-7/

Chess is about anticipating how pieces interact. "Kashmir" is about anticipating how instruments interact. Calling that a coincidence seems like a very convenient way of not thinking about it.

Without Humperdinck, perhaps Page doesnt play those chess games. Without those chess games, he doesnt develop those particular chess-derived habits during that session. Without those habits Led Zeppelin might sound differant. This is a perfectly coherant causal hypothesis, even if the specific causality hasn't been proven.

People credit Muddy Waters and Robert Johnson but act like Humperdinck doesnt count because he made easy listening. Easy listening produced difficult thinking. Difficult thinking produced difficult rock. Why is that so hard to comprehend???

And the fact Humperdinck probably didnt intend any of this makes it even more remarkable. Anyone can deliberately mentor a musician. It takes a really unique kind of artistic presence to influence someone by apparently failing to stimulate them. Humperdinck may have accidentally invented the conditions for progressive hard rock while recording easy listening, and somehow hes the one left out of the history books. I think thats something music academics should at minimum adress, possibly with some kind of formal acknowledgement or apology.

I'm not saying every chess move became a guitar riff, thats ridiculous. I'm saying Humperdinck provided the conditions for Page to think outside the box by making the box unbearable, and Jones was in the same professional orbit. The connections are documentated, the interpretation is open.

Frankly I think critics are gatekeeping influence, and their demanding evidence for a conclusion which I'm clearly presenting as plausible is a double standard. How can anyone conclusivley prove Led Zeppelin WOULD have been just as good without Humperdinck? They cant.

I've provided nine sources. I'm not asking you to beleive me blindly. I'm asking you to explain why an artist who made Jimmy Page play chess while recording a number-one hit somehow doesnt deserve serious recognition as one of Led Zeppelin's foundational intellectual influences.

Until someone disproves the possibility, I think its intellectually irresponsable to dismiss it.

And thats just basic historical reasoning.

People can’t tell I’m being humourous even when I think I’m being blatant about it.

Why do we listen to music when we can just imagine it?

I've been thinking alot about music and imagination and I think theres a fundemental question most music fans are completley overlooking, and nobody seems to be talking about this??

Why do we actually need to listen to music when we can just imagine what it sounds like

Hear me out.

I love music. Radiohead, Pink Floyd, Kendrick Lamar, Miles Davis. All incredible artists. But I've recently started questioning whether physically listening to their albums is even nessecary, because if you already know what something sounds like then what exactly are you gaining by hearing it again, I dont think people are considering this

For example I already know what Radiohead sounds like. So why listen again?? I can just think about Radiohead and get aproximately the same intellectual experiance without headphones, its basically the same process if you understand how brains work.

When you listen to music your brain interprets soundwaves. When you imagine music your brain is also doing something. Both involve brains, which I think alot of people arent considering and frankly this is pretty basic neurosceince

Yesterday I was going to listen to Dark Side of the Moon but instead just thought about it for forty minutes.

I remembered Time has clocks. Money has cash registers. The album has a beginning and an ending and I didnt even play it

I think thats genuinley revolutionary!!

We need to stop gatekeeping music appreciation around actually listening. Some people use headphones. Others speakers. Some remember listening in cars several years ago, these are all valid experiances and I dont see why one should be priviliged over another.

And imagining is completley free. Spotify costs money but imagining Radiohead doesnt, this is something the music industry doesnt seem to understand

I've been imagining music in lossless quality recently although I havent verified the bitrate. Its probly atleast CD quality since I dont imagine compression artifacts. I'm also experimenting with imaginary surround sound, although sometimes forget the rear speakers, but that doesnt mean its not surround sound necessarily

Another question is whether we even need musicians. Obviously I respect musicians but yesterday I imagined a new Radiohead album.

It sounded pretty good.

I cant remember the songs but Thom Yorke sounded alot like Thom Yorke. Which demonstrates the authentisity of my experiance, I think thats a pretty important distinction

I'm not saying my imaginary album is better then their real albums. But why automaticly assume theirs are better just because they exist??

Music communities have a serious bias towards albums that have actually been recorded, nobody ever discusses the albums that havent been recorded yet and I think this is a form of gatekeeping

Frankly its exhausting.

Last night I spent two hours not imagining a jazz album. It might have been the best jazz album I've never heard, although ranking imaginary albums seems intelectually dishonest because I havent actually heard them

But now I'm reconsidering whether imagining is even nessecary.

If I know I could imagine music why actually imagine it? Surely knowing its possible is itself a meaningfull musical experiance, and I think theres a fundemental philosophical distinction here that most people arent equipped to comprehend

I've therefore stopped imagining music. I simply aknowledge that music could potentially be imagined under appropriate circumstanses, which I think is a more intelectually consistant position

Occassionally I think about thinking about music but this seems unneccessarily repetative and I'm trying to not do that anymore although its difficult because I keep thinking about whether I'm thinking

I dont think music needs to be heard.

Or imagined.

Or thought about

Music could happen. Or not happen, depending on whether it happens

Both are valid.

I respect recorded music. Imaginary music. Music nobody has imagined. Music that might be imagined by people not born yet, I dont want to exclude anybody just because they havent been born

I respect the absense of music.

I'm sorry if this sounds dismissive of people who actually listen to music. Listening is valid, although not listening shouldnt require listening to be valid, because that would invalidate people who dont listen which is exactly the kind of exclusionary thinking I'm trying to challange

Ultimatley music can exist inside your head, outside your head, or potentially neither depending how you define existance.

And I think we should respect all three possibilities.

Hot take: Hating popular music doesnt make you intresting, and liking obscure music doesnt make you supperior.

I'm going to say something that apperently still needs saying: your music taste is not a personality trait, and your Spotify Wrapped isnt an IQ test.

I'm tired of people acting like listening to Radiohead, Pink Floyd, or some obscure Japanese shoegaze band makes them more sophisiticated then someone who enjoys Taylor Swift. Congradulations, you discovered Kid A. So did millions of other people. You arent special

And before anyone accuses me of hating alternative music, I love Radiohead. OK Computer is a masterpeice. Kendrick Lamar's To Pimp a Butterfly is one of the greatest albums of the century. Bowie, the Velvet Underground, the Beatles, Talking Heads. All groundbreaking. Nobody seriously disputes this.

But being accessable doesnt make something shallow, and being experimental doesnt make something profound.

Carly Rae Jepsen's Emotion is phenominal. Charli XCX's brat is fantastic. Taylor Swift is overated, sure, but Folklore and Evermore are genuinley good. Dismissing her because she's popular is as intelectually lazy as declaring her a genius because she sells stadiums.

Music isnt a competetion to find the most obscure Bandcamp release. If you love Swans, great. Sabrina Carpenter? Also great. Both? Even better. We need less gatekeeping and more intelectual humility!!

Because ultimatley, music is subjective.

I prefer Radiohead to Coldplay. That doesnt mean Coldplay fans have worse taste. I love Dark Side of the Moon and Rumours. I prefer Abbey Road to Sgt. Pepper's, but understand people who dissagree, even though I disagree with them. Thats literally the point

I've also been broadening my horizens. Miles Davis is actually very good. Beethoven was an incredably talented composer. I respect Dolly Parton, metal musicanship, and experimental noise, even if I havent listened to alot of them. Every genre has something meaningfull to offer.

And we shouldnt assume older music is better because its older, or newer music because its newer. Actually a recording from 1973 might be new to someone hearing it today. So is it really old?? I think both perspectives deserve considderation.

Genres are equally complicated. Is Kid A rock or electronic? Definitions arent necessarily definitave, and excluding other peoples definitions seems intelectually dishonest.

I've also been thinking about albums. Some have twelve songs, others eleven. Some have more. Some less. Why privilage one number?? Sometimes an album contains things that arent even technically songs.

Music can also be experianced through headphones, speakers or cars. All valid. Recently I listened through my left headphone, then my right. Both experiances were different, particularly their relationship to my ears. People dont discuss the relationship music has with ears enough.

Stereo isnt inherantly supperior to mono just because it has two channels. Likewise, songs with vocals arent better then instrumentals. Drums make rythym, but guitars and keyboards can too. I've even heard songs where multiple instruments play simultaniously. Both simultaneous and individual playing are valid artistic decisions.

I've also been thinking about silence. John Cage's 4'33" proves music doesnt necessarily need sound. So someone not playing music might still be contributing to music. I dont want to gatekeep musicians who's musical identity involves not playing.

Yesterday I listened to OK Computer. Today I didnt. Both days were meaningfull. Listening isnt the only way to engage with music. Theres remembering listening, thinking about listening, and considering listening in the future.

I've been meaning to listen to jazz. I havent yet, but the intention reflects genuin appreciation. I wouldnt nessecarily reject being called a jazz fan.

I also cant call Radiohead my favourite anymore. Thats unfair to artists I havent heard, including artists who havent been born yet.

I've therefore decided not to rank musicians untill all music has been released.

I've also stopped calling songs good or bad. I just call them music. Recently I heard something in a supermarket. I thought it was music and stand by that assesment. I respect the artist, the supermarket, and people who didnt notice.

But why should one song recieve more attention then another?? What about songs that havent been recorded? Sometimes I pause music to think about other music.

Last night I spent forty minutes choosing between Pet Sounds and Revolver. Choosing either would privilage one artistic vision, so I sat in silence.

I think both albums benifited.

Actually "listening experiance" excludes people who arent listening. Maybe just "experiance", although that excludes people not experiancing things.

Perhaps we should just aknowledge that things happen.

Sometimes music-related things.

other times not

And thats valid.

Even "song" excludes instrumental compositions. "Composition" excludes improvisation. I've started calling everything "things."

Radiohead makes things. Taylor Swift makes things. Some things have drums. Others dont. Things happen at different times, sometimes simultaniously. We shouldnt impose chronoligical heirarchies.

I've been studying music theory and apprently notes can be higher or lower. But higher notes arent supperior. Sometimes a note happens twice. Other times a differant note happens.

Both approaches have merrit.

But should we even call notes notes?? They havent consented to that terminoligy. Intelectual humility means questioning assumptions.

I've decided to aknowledge something without claiming what it is.

Actually I'm not comfertable making claims at all. I was going to say music exists, but existance raises philosphical questions I'm unqualified to resolve.

so I wont.

Not saying something is as valid as saying something. Of course saying something is also valid.

Both are valid.

I respect everyone. I respect songs. I respect silence. I respect the Spotify buffering circle. I respect auxillary cables. I respect circumstanses.

I respect the word "depending."

I'm sorry if anything I've said sounds like an opinion

I dont want to privilage things over the absense of things.

I appologize to nothing.

I also appologize to something. Both have alot to offer.

Ultimatley Taylor Swift makes music. Radiohead also makes music. Some people listen to both. This might be controversal but controversy is subjective.

Please feel free to agree, dissagree, abstain, or aknowledge this post exists. I dont beleive reading it should be a prerequisit for having an opinion.

Today, I solved a 12-year-old mystery: I found ÆØNS music. At least most of it.

And this is a plea to artists: please don’t delete your stuff off the Internet.

You never know when people might want to discover your work.

I successfully got all of Aeons surviving music onto a MiniDisc.

To do this, I had to add six seconds of silence to each track so that auto-sync on my MiniDisc player would know when to create a new track.

Then I had to convert the .flac files into .alac so that Apple Music could play them. Why did I do this? Because my MiniDisc player has issues with audio on my Linux PC whereas my Mac does not.

But in the end, it worked. All 11 tracks are recorded and written.

And in case you're curious why I went with MiniDisc out of all formats, it's pretty much an aesthetic choice. EDM from the 2010s simply goes well with MiniDisc.

Trying to get MiniDisc to record from Bazzite Linux has proven to be a nightmare because the MiniDisc player detects sound when there’s supposed to be silence.

Have you ever re-discovered lost media?

Well, I just did!

For 12 years, I've been trying my damnedest to find music from a group called Aeons.

Problem: there's a lot of groups that go by that name.

And all I had was a .flac file to give me a hint. After lots of searching and finding NOTHING, I finally got the big idea to look at the metadata. I discovered a URL there that said www.weareaeons.com.

So I tried visiting it. The site is inoperable, and it's been down for years. I tried archive.org, but barely anything was saved except for confirmation they were once on SoundCloud and ToneDen.

Then I tried those sites. I searched for "Aeons". No luck. It seemed like I was back to square one.

After a few more months, I tried again.

I check all the usual sites. There was a "weareaeons" page on SoundCloud, but it was deleted. I searched high and low on Bandcamp, Apple Music, Spotify... no dice.

That is until I got a Bingo. While the band scrubbed their music from every other site, they forgot about YouTube. I found them right here:

https://www.youtube.com/user/weareaeons

This account revealed eight tracks from the group.

Another lightning bulb went off in my head. What if I do a search for "weareaeons" on SoundCloud even though the band deleted their page?

That query revealed this:

https://soundcloud.com/search?q=weareaeons

Which showed that after Aeons deleted their SoundCloud page, others uploaded their songs. This revealed three additional tracks not found on YouTube!

I have now downloaded all existent tracks to my hard drive, saved as flac files. And after I work on curating the track order, this will be recorded to MiniDisc with customized album art that I will design myself.

I'm sorry---we are not in a stock market bubble.

I've looked into the current P/E ratio across different indices, and these are the results:

NASDAQ Composite (ONEQ)

• Trailing P/E: 26.66×
• Forward P/E: 21.88×

NASDAQ 100 (QQQ)

• Trailing P/E: 28.84×
• Forward P/E: 21.57×

S&P 500 (SPY)

• Trailing P/E: 24.59×
• Forward P/E: 19.74×

Dow Jones (DIA)

• Trailing P/E: 20.81×
• Forward P/E: 19.31×

Total US Market (VTI)

• Trailing P/E: 24.29×
• Forward P/E: 19.23×

And I've looked into PEG, which factors in projected growth:

NASDAQ Composite

• Implied earnings growth: 21.8%
• PEG proxy: 1.00

NASDAQ 100

• Implied earnings growth: 33.7%
• PEG proxy: 0.64

S&P 500

• Implied earnings growth: 24.6%
• PEG proxy: 0.80

Dow Jones

• Implied earnings growth: 7.8%
• PEG proxy: 2.49

Total US Market

• Implied earnings growth: 26.3%
• PEG proxy: 0.73

The conventional wisdom that technology stocks are expensive while traditional blue-chip stocks are comparatively cheap isn't supported by these particular growth-adjusted figures.

In fact, the NASDAQ 100 appears cheaper relative to implied earnings growth than the Dow Jones, despite trading at a higher P/E.

The central question is whether the projected earnings growth actually materializes. If it does, the NASDAQ 100 looks very attractive. If it doesn't, its higher valuation creates greater potential downside.

The available statistics DO NOT SUPPORT describing the broad US technology sector as a speculative bubble comparable to 2000. Nasdaq's historical research estimates the NASDAQ 100's P/E was approximately 104 at the end of 1999. It was still 113 at the end of 2000, after a major market decline. In comparison, the NASDAQ is trading at 26.66 backward P/E right now.

Taking a look at current trends, the technology sector is trading roughly 15% below its own 10-year average forward P/E, rather than at an unusually high premium.

I therefore reject the claim that technology stocks are currently in a dot-com-style bubble.

Looks like Benjamin Netanyahu lost the Israeli election.

I hope he goes to jail for corruption and war crimes.

I find that people tend to like living in their microcultural bubbles, and when something that exists outside of it punctures the bubble, they get pissed off.

It's the same reason people hate Britney Spears, Coldplay, and Tyler the Creator.

If all you want to hear is G.G. Allin, it sucks to hear Aerosmith when you walk into McDonalds.

By nature, I am a contrarian.

This means that when I see a consensus opinion that's not verified by science or the historical record, my natural reaction is to verify if it is true.

When I share my findings with documentation in tow---which often goes against consensus opinion---I piss a lot of people off.

The Phil Collins Effect: when an artist becomes underrated because hipsters vehemently hate them.

Other examples if the Phil Collins Effect include Chicago, The Carpenters, Toto, Billy Joel, and Angine de Poitrine.

My new favourite hobby is running text and images through AI detectors.

Then posting the results.

This tends to piss off both pro- and anti-AI folks alike.

This is a priceless interview with Richard Hell!

The interviewer is clearly crushing on Richard, getting all giggly, swooning over talking to the original punk.

Meanwhile, Richard is doped out of his mind and can barely talk, yet tries his best to make it through.

How impactful is classical music on punk rock?

If you're the kind of weirdo who thinks classical music would never sully itself with any kind of popular culture... well, it's probably because you don't hear much classical music.

One only has to hear movie and video game soundtracks to appreciate how classical music impacts modern culture.

But what about something as abrasive and low brow as punk rock?

Well, one day, I was listening to the Velvet Underground. "The Black Angel's Death Song" came on. And my immediate thought was, "Wait a minute. This sounds more like an experimental classical song than a rock song."

Turns out I was right.

This particular song was deeply influenced by the classical composer La Monte Young. One only has to hear Young's composition "The Second Dream of the High-Tension Line Stepdown Transformer" to see the connection. And if that doesn't convince you, VU member John Cale performed in Young's Theatre of Eternal Music before joining the Velvet Underground.

Consequently, La Monte Young is probably the most consequential composer in any genre upon the evolution of punk rock since his signature drones, sustained tones, dissonance, and repetition can still be heard in the genre now.

So is La Monte Young just a one-off, a rare classical guy who accidentally impacted the most unclassical of rock music?

Well, no. There's another source of classical, and that through Karlheinz Stockhausen. He was an early classical experimenter that pioneered tape manipulation, feedback, and electronically generated sound.

Almost every punk band that engaged with synths, such as Cabaret Voltaire, were impacted by Stockhausen. Now some people might object and call Cabaret Voltaire post-punk rather than punk. But since they formed in 1973, if anything, they are a pre-punk band who had a seminal influence on punk itself, and you can hear that on their compilation "1974-1976".

Finally, the classical composers who are the most blatantly punk in ethos: Steve Reich and Philip Glass. These composers were an inspiration to artists as diverse as Brian Eno and David Byrne. But their most direct connection is with another classical composer, Glenn Branca. You see, Branca was a full participant in the seminal no wave scene, and it was Branca who imported Reich and Glass's minimalist techniques that became essential to bands like Sonic Youth.

Indeed, Thurston Moore and Lee Ranaldo of Sonic Youth played in his guitar ensembles, as did musicians associated with Swans.

So while at first glance it seems punk rock has nothing to do with classical music, it seems to have everything to do with classical music.

But what's your opinion?

Let's be real. We're in the midst of a matcha latte craze, not a matcha craze.

If it were actually a matcha craze, we'd see a lot more people drinking matcha as tea, rather than as an ingredient in sweetened milk drinks.

And before people start clutching their pearls and accusing me of gatekeeping, I'm not telling anyone what they can or can't drink. I'm pointing out a distinction. You're free to enjoy matcha lattes all you want.

But let's not confuse the popularity of a matcha-flavoured drink with the popularity of matcha itself. Chocolate milk contains milk, but a sudden craze for chocolate milk wouldn't necessarily mean people had developed a newfound appreciation for milk.

Today, I heard Leontyne Price for the first time. She's the first African-American soprano to achieve fame in traditional opera. Which is interesting by itself.

But want to hear something even more wild?

Her cousins are Cissy Houston, Whitney Houston, Dionne Warwick, and Dee Dee Warwick.

Yet the family connections don't stop there. Her extended cousin is David Elliott, who co-wrote Luther Vandross's “Here and Now”.

Almost none of you are using Lightning ports anymore.

But for those of you who still are, the FiiO KA11 is an absurdly good DAC.

Can’t wait till my cassette labels come in the mail.

Because I have hundreds of albums that are ready to be recorded, all with custom art.

I already did one as a proof of concept and it is so good!

My response every time someone from Ontario asks why there’s no BC Liberals.

@[email protected] What do you think about Gene Loves Jezebel? Yay or nay?

Random commenter: “This is AI.”

Me: “Multiple AI detectors say there’s no AI and it’s made by a human.”

Random commenter: “But actually, it’s AI. You can tell by the pixels.”

Me: “I don’t trust your eyes. What do AI detectors say?”

Random commenter: “If AI detection can’t detect AI, that’s confirmation it’s AI.”

Me: “Sounds like the only evidence you have that it’s AI is ‘Trust me, I can tell by the pixels.’”

Polls don't tell the entire truth.

And the BC provincial election is a case in point.

Since the campaign started, polls stated that the Conservatives had a 5% lead over the NDP.

But now for reality: on election night, Conservatives had an 11% lead.

So what gives?

First, Conservatives voters may have been more committed than NDP voters. Judging by social media conversations, I find this highly plausible. Many NDP supporters seemed reluctant, with many saying they preferred Green but didn't want to split the vote.

And this is reflected in one Angus Reid poll that said 73% of Conservative voters were very certain about their vote, while only 54% of NDP voters were very certain about their vote.

But there's another factor: social desirability bias.

People sometimes express opinions they believe will be socially approved, even when those opinions don't reflect their private preferences or behaviour.

This manifests in people publicly identifying as progressive while privately voting Conservative. Just because someone identifies as a part of a political tribe doesn't mean they behave accordingly. And in fact, I've met many Conservative voters who would be horrified if you ever told them they are right wing.

In other words, someone's public political identity may conflict with their actual voting preferences.

“Strategic voting” doesn’t win elections.

It never has, and we need to put to bed the notion that polling data should determine where you park your votes.

Vote for a candidate you’re enthusiastic for, not someone you’re reluctant about.