Tuesday, November 10, 2020
Episode 163: The Sheer Amount of Space in Our Day
Play Now!Have you ever considered how much is spent befouling our attentions with ads? In other words, how much do people pay to get your attention? I'll examine an article that attempts to discover that in this Episode 163: The Sheer Amount of Space in Our Day.In this episode, I read from Bryan Menegus' article, "What Am I Worth to Advertisers? My Obsessive Quest to Put a Price on My Attention." Again, I'll conclude with my take on his test in the next episode.I play: Bill and Ted reading each others' minds; and et doing a perfectly named tune "A Song of Sadness" (another tune which is, once again, difficult to find on the intertubes), something to back the rectangles in our hands and lives, no doubt. I open with a new intro with Matt Stoller backed by KMFDM, and close with Mistle Thrush.[Well, Pim, how did things work?]
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I only just remembered to follow up on my comment and I saw my name in the shownotes! The way you're doing it on new episodes works great. It's good to see you took my advice to heart. :)
ReplyDeleteBest wishes
Oh, I have another, equally off-topic question!
ReplyDeleteI recently started listening to your backlog and I wanted to start at episode one, but couldn't find it on my podcast feed. Did something change in how you distributed your episodes before number 71? Are those completely unavailable, is my software borking, or do I just need to scroll way down on this blogspot?
Either way, it's not a bad starting-off point, cause I think the series on the *rattles chain* Powell Movement started off on episode 71. Right?
Hey, Pim!
DeleteI'm glad the new formatting works for you. Win! That means your podcast getter is using my podcast host's descriptions.
The fact that you can't go back further also has to do with my host (I think). A few years ago, they changed formats or something and put everything I uploaded prior to November 1, 2017 in some kind of special status. Those episodes are listed under a different statistics category, for me.
I thought it was to milk more cash out of me to get better stats; but it looks like this could be something else, a thing that affects your access. Hmmm….
Having had to do exactly this before, you can go "manually" through the show notes and physically download episodes. I don't know what kind of interaction playing them would entail, though.
Either way, look at the bright side: You are far from alone. FrootieTunez won't play any episode of any show beyond the 100th most recent. (Which is why I know about downloading straight from the show notes.) Ah, well. What a brave new world, that it should have such glitches in it.
(Oh, and the Powell Movement Stinger background sound was quarters dropping. It turns out gold has a much tinkly-er tune than dumb-old quarters, which, as you note, sound just like chains a' rattling. I am, though, just as happy with that interpretation as the original!)
Later!
—Jim
Update: it moves!
DeleteLast time I said that I'd been able to listen from episode 71 onwards. Today I notice it's only 72. And looking in the archives, I have actually listened to a few before that one. So it seems like it's not an issue with the older episodes themselves, but the way they're stored, or interpreted by my feed getter.
Specifically, it seems like only the first page on the libsyn page is available, and whenever a new episode is released, another old one gets pushed back to the previous page. So effectively onlyethe most recent (167-72) episodes are available.
I'll try and see if the problem persists on other podcast apps.
I suspect it's arbitrary. And I'm sure they have a really, really good reason for limiting it.
DeleteThat said, that sucks. Though mine is hardly in this category, imagine creating a completely sequential podcast (similar to an audiobook, or a Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality blog reading) where starting at Episode One made for the best experience.
It becomes a Best Experience, Denied for users on most aggregating apps.
Ah, well. Thanks for sharing your findings, Pim!
—Jim