3 ms·

Well I think being vocally incredulous of anonymous tests is a valid perspective when it's framed in such fawning prose and should be treated as spurious of mer

Well I think being vocally incredulous of anonymous tests is a valid perspective when it's framed in such fawning prose and should be treated as spurious of merit. I think there are simply no legitimate questions raised by the article. Rather, the author starts with a perspective and spends the entire time raising justifications for their doubt, and fails to provide compelling evidence that such "threats" are credible. Forgive me if I sincerely doubt the claim that the anonymous human actually clicked that Reapeat 1 button 45,000 times in the timeframe listed, which as noted in another comment, is akin to a full-time job - if actually true, it only goes to prove the inherit merit of Spotify's internal controls. Not the opposite of empty FUD speculation, which is pervasive in the article.

shkkmo 11y ago
> Forgive me if I sincerely doubt the claim that the anonymous human actually clicked that Reapeat 1 button 45,000 times in the timeframe listed, which as noted in another comment, is akin to a full-time job - if actually true, it only goes to prove the inherit merit of Spotify's internal controls. You don't know what you are talking about: https://news.spotify.com/us/2014/02/07/repeat-once/ https://news.spotify.com/us/2014/02/07/repeat-once/ The repeat one button will repeat a single song indefinately. I can't really tell what else you are trying to say here. You might consider re-examining your sentence structure and word choice.