> But for the time being there remain a few things that humans can do very easily which computers find difficult. Along with counting traffic lights and crosswalks, one of those things is finding the exact BPM of a song. Not an estimate like most software does, but the exact value with extreme precision across the entire song.

I thought BPM detection has been extremely precise for some time now (for electronic music anyway). Does this mean when software like Mixxx reports (for example) 125 BPM the raw output of the algorithm might have been 124.99, but some higher logic replaces it with an even 125?

Daft Punk if you're reading this please go on tour. We only have a few years before the robots take over for real...

Most likely a coincidence, but the article and this thread are so cool I hope they never confirm or deny.

Daft Punk continues to awe us, even after their retirement.

Can't believe it's been almost 20 years since Alive 2007!

Daft Punk are totally of the smart sort to do this kind of easteregg. They're just a clever band, another fun Daft Punk easter egg, they were in a band with Phoenix called Darlin'. (Daft Punk got their name from a review of the Darlin' record)

Good Luck Babe by Chappell Roan has a chorus that is 1 bpm slower than the verse!

Even if the software didn't support it, they could just make the song at 123 BPM and speed it up a tiny bit before releasing it.

Daft Punk is one of my favorite artists ever but I am not familiar with all their discography(my shame and I mean to remedy that). But this was such a cool read from an obvious bigger fan than me. Half way through was only when I realized the significance of a BPM of 123.45, I didn't read it out without the decimal until then lol. And so many more fans in the comments, wow.

This band really appealed to gen x and early millennial for some reason.

I listened to this song a day ago, freaky coincidence.