Shuffle plays the shuffled list from start to finish. Nothing is repeated until the whole list has been played, at which point the same order is repeated. You have to manually toggle shuffle off and back on to get a new order.
It *is* a shuffle. With shuffle and repeat turned on you do not hear the same song more than once. And, actually, it doesn't reshuffle when it gets to the end of the shuffled list. It plays the same shuffled order again. You have to toggle shuffle off and back on to get a new shuffle, or you have to manually select a song which also nets a new shuffle.
I usually play the same playlist at work. Currently this playlist has 4,709 songs in it, which is simply every song in my library that I have given at least one star. so I am not getting through that whole list in one shift at work, as that is too many songs to play in one day. But, every single day I start a new shuffle. And every single day it soon becomes apparent that I'm going to hear a lot of because that location in the playlist is going to be the hot zone that it goes back to quite often. At a glance I don't see a quick way in iTunes to show me how many different artists I have in my library, but looking in my media directory it looks like that number is at least 600. To me this seems like too much variety, and too much repeatability since it happens every day, for it to not be a weakness in their algorithm.
It doesn't happen occasionally. It happens every single day. Every single day I wait to find out who the artist of the day is. And if I don't feel like hearing a lot of that artist, I'll reshuffle so the hot zone gets moved to a new spot.
As long as Apple gets it and shuffle stops jumping back to the same area many, many times a day then I'll be happy. That shit gets on my nerves, yo!
They're only of average intelligence. Who cares what most people think? Kind of hard to argue with science.
Yeah. You heard me.
That's why it is called a meteor and not a meteorite.
As if catching typos weren't easy enough, so is searching to see if a story was already submitted and accepted the day before. Knock it off!
98" 8k TV? I'm not sitting 38" from a 98" TV, heh. A 98" 4k TV doesn't even make sense. When regular HD is already past the line where I can actually see pixels, any resolution above that is pointless. http://isthisretina.com/
Geez, read the article.
Exactly. If the resolution on my measuring device is 2 m then all I can measure is multiples of 2 m, so 2 m, 4 m, 6 m, etc. This is perfectly acceptable for distances many times greater than 2 m, and would give me a pretty accurate measurement of a 10 km distance. I would be very happy with the amount of error present in a 10 km measurement made with such a device. But I couldn't measure 1 m with that any better than I could measure the spark plug gap for the plugs in my car with it.
It's not just that they can't even determine that it was 12% in that case. They're simply doing it wrong from the beginning. "Let's take a technology that gives us a measurement that contains a possible error of more than the length we are trying to measure, and then complain about how much of an error we got in that length!" The best accuracy I've ever seen reported on my GPS is 2 m. Why would I try to measure 1 m with that?! Go do the experiment with a 10 km square and see what your error is then. *sigh*
Smartphone battery ~ 5 W-H, electricity ~$0.15 / kW-H, so 1333 complete drain/charge cycles = $1.00
http://isthisretina.com/ will or should prove to you that there is no such thing as affordable UHD/4K. You need a screen way too big, and/or you have to sit way too close, to make anything over standard HD worthwhile. $85,000 for a 120" TV that you have to sit 8' from does not make much sense to me. If it makes sense to you, good for you.
"I have five dollars for each of you." -- Bernhard Goetz