4 ms·
Ewww absolutely lost me at "playing an mp3 could modify the file itself." If you wanna hash the song and allow mp3 players to opt into a database or something t
by jrm4 4y ago
Ewww absolutely lost me at "playing an mp3 could modify the file itself." If you wanna hash the song and allow mp3 players to opt into a database or something to track plays, fine. But modifying the file? Nopenopenope.
- degenerate 4y agoI imagine the author has never seeded a torrent or managed backups (edit: author replies)
- lawik 4y agoI did not seriously mean to make you think I thought this was an actually good idea. I find the idea delightful and amusing, not good. I've dealt with torrents, large file databases and backups. Well aware of hashing which makes this more amusing, not less, in my eyes.
- throwawaymaths 4y agoIf you want a fun romp down computer history, check out BeFS, which had basically databasing filesystem metadata. For mp3, it extracted all of the id2 metadata and then seeded the database; if you made a change it wouldn't affect the file payload.
- ballenf 4y agoI loved the whimsy. Felt a little like the exact opposite of a black mirror episode. Or maybe a world where
- jrm4 4y agoYou know, I think in the back of my head I probably thought that, but it still just gave me the heebie-jeebies.
- MBCook 4y agoWhat about backups? Every time I play an MP3 my backup program should re-backup the entire multi-Meg file because a single byte changed? I like having a play account, but that does not seem like a good solution at all.
- gnopgnip 4y agoMost backup products track changes at the block level instead of file level these days
- dangravell 4y agoKind of agree, but the obvious reason for doing it this way is so that you can support using multiple different players, or different users in some cases. Ideally a separate container for metadata, agreed by all, would be used but it takes time and some sort of special magic for such de facto standards to be agreed.