You could pump a large part of those resources into supporting other kinds of music and arguably the outcome would be more interesting.

Isn't that by far the simplest solution that removes any and all bureaucracy for almost everyone and still catches 99% of the cases?

Yes we do have plenty of practice adjusting our explanations to the audience.

If you can make a gigantic bet on the price going up and then buy a large amount of Bitcoin that moves the price up you can win from that. See the Jane street India derivatives market issue.

For an overdone example see 2024,4219.

That is not to say that this is not a cool project. The distributed nature and running so seamlessly directly in the browser is definitely cool and allows people to contribute compute easily.

It may be that grandiose claims of new records are needed to make people donate their computational resources but I am not a fan of deceptive claims like this.

This is a flaw in the data that is much harder to account for.

The source of truth here is the code we wrote for the formal verification system.

Had he created songs by hand they would rack up millions/billions of botted streams but them not being international hits anyone had ever heard before would have made it obvious botting behaviour.

I'm also somewhat surprised no one else was being pedantic about this. I expect better from HN :)

Refering to polynomials as exponential just results in confusion essentially removing any meaning from the word. Any function can be written as something involving exponents, so that statement becomes meaningless.

The second law of thermodynamics is in a sense a statement about evolution of probability distributions. As time goes on the dynamical system mixes any probability distribution such that entropy increases. Poincare recurrence is a part of this mixing phenomenon.