I've never heard an AI bebop song come even close to a live example, but I'm always open to being impressed.

- Chris Potter, I already linked him in another comment but he is a virtuosic post-bop player with incredible improvisational skill. Many people consider him to be one of the best living sax players in that style.

- Shabaka Hutchings, another sax player (he also plays clarinet and flute) with incredible songwriting ability and ability to play over varying genres and styles. It's hard to keep up with all of his projects. A very powerful player and a very gentle player when he chooses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpfpYTmohAk

- Kamasi Washington makes big band style jazz that mixes old school and modern sounds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8WTPgeVPjg

- Some great guitarists:

- Julian Lage, exists somewhat in an overlap between jazz/classical/blues https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFRVK_1o2cU

- Bill Frisell, no one else sounds like him and his deeply romantic sound https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xpu33a_Y8VU

- Mary Holvorsen, she's much more avant garde and loves using whacky pedals for effects but still has incredible chops https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlozC3nHisI

"Triplet-flow" in rap took the genre by storm after Migos and Future popularized it a while ago, and the initial appeal was the rhythmic novelty of it. (It obviously got stale after the novelty wore off.) Pop music in many of the big genres is in general, however, quite reticent to move away from perfectly riding a 4|4. Even using a 6|8 would be interesting.

An incredible player is someone like Chris Potter on the sax ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Fvsz8KuD-g ), who has a truly virtuosic control on tension and release. In the video I linked, he (and everyone in the band too) plays with the ballad form over and over, never seeming to resolve perfectly, until they transform into a wild funk sound that is an ecstatic release that is also just wildly dance-able. The incoherence, even some of the screeching, that emerges is like the cows that are finally let out of the barn after a long winter and jumping for joy in the sun.

I very simple way is to throw a track into a DAW and see if the drum hits line up perfectly with the "grid". Most DAW's have a grid background so you can see. If it's perfect for the whole song, then it's definitely quantized to death (pun unintended, though does sound quite kvlt).

I don't really hear the same thing as much in doom, black, or more extreme death variants.

People endlessly defer because they don't want to be the person to "take the blame" for a decision. Making decisions when you don't connect them to an actual goal/plan/vision becomes a liability. The solution is endless meetings where liability is distributed to...everyone in the meeting. It's successful, in a way, but also exhausting and makes you feel like your job involves just tilting at windmills (imaginary crises).

This again, is partially true. A lot of ornamental decorative elements in public facades were, essentially, mass produced using molds --- very few were hand-made in the way they are done now.

They would degrade over time, however they could also be repaired or replaced relatively easily.

Your point about survivorship bias is also somewhat more nuanced. The buildings that have survived were often, as you said, made with more expensive materials, and they lasted longer; but there was also a change in tastes over time, in particular against ornament and decorative elements, and a change in the idea that certain buildings should be maintained. In the past, people were just way more accepting of tearing down or replacing buildings. Conservation as a general approach was not as common, nor were people as inclined to see certain buildings in particular as uniquely worthy of conservation. It is those buildings which were deemed "appropriate" for conservation and "historically significant" which have largely shaped our understanding of "traditional" architecture, a somewhat snapshot idea of architecture on the cusp of modernism,

This is not really true. Ads, especially the classifieds, were often the only way that newspapers and news organizations stayed afloat aside from public funding. What happened was the major ad-tech companies captured the revenue and the subscriber data that came from ads and viewers that would normally go to those organizations. "Real journalism" often didn't make much if not any money. "Real journalism" at least for most of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st has always existed alongside advertising. Magazines literally survived on advertising, their entire product to readers was long form content, while, to brands, a higher quality product and more targeted subscriber base. It's pure romanticism to say that ads themselves were the problem. Ad-tech, it's monopoly control in the hands of 2-3 behemoths, is the real issue.

But I go to some blogs (philosophy, jazz, and men's clothing) that have ads that are literally just image links. The ads are actually relevant to the content, and because I go to the blog of my own volition, that means that more often than not the ads are at least somewhat relevant and usually worth a look, like the curated ones you see in a magazine. Most other ads online are so irrelevant it's almost comical, and I have no idea why people pay to use those services. All these tech giants who make enormous sums of money from advertising are emperors with no clothes - a hard look at the quality of their product reveals it's unanimously considered garbage by the public. Their promise of delivering hyper targeted advertisement was obviously a lie predicated on market capture and becoming the only middlemen in town.

The promises of WFH have also not come to fruition. The dream of moving anywhere and retaining your email job are not the reality in 2026. Employers seem actively hostile to that idea or are reneging on promises or claims that that "is the future".

No, you've identified the real issue: all the CEOs come from Harvard/Yale. There is a very large wealth class divide between the people who get these jobs almost exclusively due to "networking" (often failing upwards) and the increasingly rare people who actually work up to those roles. It's very much a club that uses every tool possible to maintain the opportunity hording, including AI.

This is largely because being an executive in 2026 has very, very, little to due with technical expertise. AI will just be another tool in their workshop for that.