A weekly newsletter for all your intellectual, spiritual, and physical needs
Hello all! Welcome to Volume 186 of Dovi’s Digest.
Last week I was excitedly waiting for a notification on my phone. I felt like a little kid on Christmas morning (well, what I assume it feels like. I was raised orthodox Jewish). When it finally came through, the joy and excitement quickly turned to disappointment, and I’ll admit, shame.
It wasn’t an acceptance letter, or word from a long-lost love, rather it was my Spotify Wrapped (I say this, but I use Apple music, so it’s their version). For those of you who don’t know, Spotify Wrapped is a sum up of your music listening habits over the last year. You get shown your top songs, most listened to artists, common genres, and this year you were even assigned a town for your signature sound.
Mine was mortifying. I won’t go into too many details but suffice it to say that I’m not keen to share it. I will say that my top artist was Jacobs vocal academy. It barely gets better, but thankfully Maisie Peters and All Time Low both make appearances. It’s worse because this year I tried to be careful and curate it, as last year was just as embarrassing. I’ll have to try harder in 2024.
Spotify wrapped has become a cultural phenomenon. A viral piece of marketing that people are excited to share and utilise, expanding it’s reach. This week’s headline is about how it became so big, and how its tactics have been copied across industries.
A big thank you to Tanya Perel for giving me the idea for this week’s Digest, and sending the first two articles.
In this week’s added extras:
Pantheon helps you discover the geography and dynamics of our planet's history. It focusses on famous people and places, and then allows you to parse all of it. For example, you can find out who’s the most famous person who’s ever lived (Muhammed. Jesus is third).
See how airport runways show how human culture and architecture have been influenced by wind patterns.
And lastly, here’s where that iconic Nokia ringtone actually came from.
Do you enjoy the Digest? Would you like it to get better? Then please consider sharing it, as the more articles I’m sent, the better it is. It only takes a few seconds, and all you need to do is click here 👇. Thank you!
There was ONE correct answer to last week’s brainteaser (I think). Well done to Ariel Raff! The answer and this week’s puzzle are below.
If you prefer silence, I apologise, there’s a lot of Spotify stuff this week. See how the visual identity of Spotify Wrapped (which is iconic in its own right) came to be, find out why some songs give you goosebumps (it’s called frisson), and then listen to the playlist, dive into the way Spotify chops your data to categorise you, meditate on the reason why too much mindfulness is bad for anxiety, get in your bunker to read the article that tells us how close to nuclear war we are, and finally for a total 180, the story of a man who has hundreds of children through a sperm bank.
Keep those articles (and everything else) coming!
Have a great weekend,
Dovi
And now, the articles:
Spotify Wrapped 2023
Here’s how it became a viral and widely copied marketing tactic.
How Spotify’s Wrapped Campaign For 2022 Came Together
It’s one of the most widely shared marketing campaigns globally. Here, we speak to the design team behind the visual identity to understand what it takes to grab the world’s attention.
Researchers Analysed 700-Plus Songs Known to Give People Chills.
Here’s the playlist.
Spotify Wrapped 2023 Assigns You A ‘Sound Town’ Based on Your Music Taste
Spotify Wrapped is back with some new ways to categorise your listening personality.
How Too Much Mindfulness Can Spike Anxiety
Stress, anxiety, productivity: mindfulness is often touted as a solution to nearly everything. But research shows that you can take meditation too far.
An Existential Discussion: What Is the Probability of Nuclear War?
The Case of the Serial Sperm Donor
One man, hundreds of children, and a burning question: Why?
Quote of the Week:
“The world is not driven by greed. It’s driven by envy.” – Investor Charlie Munger, who died last week
Word of the Week:
Spuddle
[spuh-dell] /ˈspʌdəl /
Noun
A useful verb from the 17th Century that means to work feebly or ineffectively, because your mind is elsewhere or you haven't quite woken up yet. It can also mean: “To be extremely busy whilst achieving absolutely nothing”.
Facts of the Week:
The most popular pub quiz team name in Britain is QuizTeam Aguilera.
Christina Ricci has an irrational fear of house plants.
40% of Americans say they're too scared to ask what is in their hotdogs.
Fear is good for stock markets.
When chased by lions, zebras fart loudly with every stride.
Zebra crossings can cause epileptic fits and migraines.
The NHS uses more than 10% of the world's pages.
Anaesthetics work on plants.
Cartoon of the Week:
Tweets of the Week:
Headline of the Week:
Brainteaser of the Week:
Can you make 20 using three threes and any mathematical operations you like?
[i.e., you need to find an expression that includes 3, 3 and 3, and no other digits, but may include any other mathematical symbol, such as +, -, x, ÷, (, ), √, ., etc. An example might be 3√3/3, although this would be wrong since it does not equal 20.]
Last Week’s Brainteaser and Answer:
In the ancient land of Philosophia there is a ruling council of five philosophers, linearly ranked by power and prestige, with various accompanying benefits accruing in the order of this rank. Philosopher 1 is the recognized philosopher king, the most powerful, and then philosopher 2 and so on.
It is time to pick a new council, and according to the long agreed-upon procedure, the lowest-ranked philosopher proposes a new council and ranking. The newly proposed council can in principle include any citizen at all from Philosophia—candidates are not limited to the current council members, although strangely, it usually happens that the new council is constituted by previous council members. Given the new proposal, the council votes. If a majority approve, then this is the new council and ranking; otherwise, the lowest-ranked philosopher is kicked off the council and the next lowest-ranked philosopher makes a proposal. This process continues until a new council and ranking is approved.
As mentioned above, these philosophers are a selfish crowd, all hell-bent on becoming the new council’s philosopher king. Each member prefers being on the new council above all other things and will never vote in favour of a council that they are not on. Secondly, being on the proposed council, they would prefer to have as high a rank as possible (that is, a low number—being philosopher 1 is the best, 2 is second best, and so forth). Third, given that they will be on the council with a certain rank, they prefer that the council is as small as possible, so as not to have to share power unnecessarily (but superior rank on a larger council is preferred).
Philosopher 5, the lowest-ranked philosopher starts off, proposing a council and a ranking.
Can you suggest a proposal that guarantees philosopher 5 becomes philosopher king?
(If you have never seen a “pirate-division” problem before, you may find this puzzle hard to get your head round. The solution, however, is straightforward and involves no technical knowledge.
The way to solve it is to work backwards. Think about out what happens when the council has only one philosopher, and then two philosophers, and then three, and then four and then five.)
Answer:
As I mentioned, you solve the puzzle by working backwards. In order to know what philosopher 5 will propose, we seem to need to know already what philosopher 4 will propose, since that will be the alternative if we vote philosopher 5’s proposal down.
Let us start with the easiest case, where the council has only one philosopher, the king. In this case, he will be the lowest ranked philosopher, and he can propose that the new ruling council is the same as the old ruling council, having only himself as a member. This is clearly the most desired situation, according to the philosopher values we mentioned, and so he will vote in favour and the plan will be adopted.
If there are two philosophers currently on the council, then philosopher 2 must propose a plan that will pass unanimously, since that is the only way to have a majority of two. But philosopher 1 will not approve of any plan except the plan of him being on the council alone, since that is what he can attain if philosopher 2’s plan is rejected. And we said that philosopher 2 will only vote to approve a plan in which she is on the council. So, philosopher 2’s proposal, whatever it is, will be rejected and we will end up eventually with the council of just philosopher 1.
If there are three philosophers on the council, then philosopher 3, needing two votes, will propose a council of two, consisting of himself as king and philosopher 2 as the next member. This will be approved by philosophers 2 and 3, since they both prefer it to the result of the two-philosopher case. And furthermore, this is the best possible arrangement for philosopher 3, since he is made king on a council of size two.
If there are four philosophers currently, then philosopher 4 needs three votes. She will not get the vote of philosopher 3, who would be very well off if her plan were to be rejected, but she can get approval for a three-member council consisting of philosopher 2, herself, and philosopher 1, in that order. Each of these three will vote to approve, since they are better off with this than the alternative, and this is furthermore the best possible for philosopher 4, because she needs a three-member council, but must make philosopher 2 better off, and so philosopher 2 must become king (or should we say queen), and then philosopher 4 next, which is optimal, and then philosopher 1 will be third, which is better than he would get under the competing proposal of philosopher 3.
Consider now the case of five philosophers on the council. Philosopher 5 needs three votes and therefore will propose a council of size three, and indeed he can propose the council: himself, philosopher 1, philosopher 3, in that order. Philosopher 5 likes this very well, becoming king, and philosopher 1 prefers this to the preceding philosopher 4 plan, since he will have rank two instead of rank three. Philosopher 3 also likes this plan, since he wasn’t on philosopher 4’s proposed council at all.
Let us summarize the proposals as follows:
· 1 philosopher: proposed council 1
· 2: proposal rejected
· 3: 3 2
· 4: 2 4 1
· 5: 5 1 3
If you want to read further discussion of this puzzle, it can be found on Joel David Hamkins’ Substack Infinitely More. (Some of the content is free, some is for paid subscribers).
Hamkins, who wrote the puzzle, is the O’Hara Professor of Logic at the University of Notre Dame and was previously Professor of Logic at the University of Oxford. Infinitely More is an amazing resource for anyone who enjoys the intersection of maths and philosophy. It includes many essays, as well as serialisations of his books and puzzles.
Thanks for reading Dovi’s Digest!