RAC

Spotify just announced a feature that could either save the music industry or destroy it. Starting as early as Q1 2027, Spotify Premium subscribers will be able to use AI to transform any participating artist’s song into a completely different version. Turn a folk ballad into a dance track. Make a hip-hop song sound acoustic. Generate a cover where one artist’s voice performs another artist’s song. Remix a pop hit into lo-fi study music. Create the version of your favorite song that only existed in your head until now. The remixes will be uploaded directly to Spotify. They’ll appear in playlists. They’ll count toward the original song’s chart position. And most importantly the original artist will earn royalties every time someone listens to a fan-created remix of their work. Spotify has already signed a landmark licensing deal with Universal Music Group the world’s largest record label. Negotiations with Sony Music and Warner Music are ongoing. The feature will cost an additional $4–$5/month on top of Spotify Premium. And analysts project 7–8% of American subscribers will adopt it by 2028. This is not Suno or Udio generating music from text prompts. This is fans remixing real songs by real artists with the artists’ permission, on the world’s largest streaming platform, with royalties flowing back to the creators. A music industry analyst who’s covered streaming economics for 15 years told her team something after reading the licensing agreement that reframed how she understood the future of recorded music. “Spotify just turned 640 million listeners into 640 million potential remixers. The question isn’t whether people will use it they will. The question is whether paying artists for fan remixes solves the economics of streaming or creates a world where the original recording is worth less than the infinite remixes generated from it.” Here’s what Spotify’s AI remix feature actually is, who wins, who loses, and why this might be the most consequential decision in the music industry since the launch of streaming itself 🧵

Seth Rogen says he and his wife are now more grateful than ever that they decided not to have children he’s not afraid to explain why. He admits they used to question whether they’d made the right decision, but now their conversations have shifted to, “Honestly, thank God we don’t have children.” His reasoning? They’re in the prime of their lives, understand themselves better than ever, and have the freedom to pursue their careers, enjoy life, and build the kind of relationship they’ve always wanted. But Seth took it a step further, saying he sees people with children struggling to find the same time for work and personal enjoyment that he and his wife have. “I seem to get a lot more active enjoyment out of not having kids than anyone I know seems to get out of having kids.” That statement will probably divide people. Some see raising children as life’s greatest joy, while others believe a fulfilling life doesn’t have to include parenthood. Do you think Seth has a point, or is there a kind of happiness you can only understand after having children?

If you played Descent over LAN in the 90s, we probably would have been friends

Elizabeth Holmes' handwritten notes to herself from her Theranos days. These notes exude authenticity and warmth. This is not a person who treats herself as an instrument to be optimally calibrated for power, status, and influence: robkhenderson.com/p/a-guilty…

@RAC one of your vans is parked outside our house in a designated disabled bay!! Really not good practise!

amazon is blocking grok @bots from ordering, and elon's answer is just have your bot buy it somewhere else. one of my grok bots only handles my amazon returns, so i'm watching this one closely. would you switch stores for your bot? 🛒 Elon, i think its time for an X Shop? 👀

TR-808物理モデル