The point of the post is about overall profitability of adwords. An ad's CTR is important to drive as much traffic as possible and also to keep a high quality score, but you arent directly paying for people who do not click your links. However, you are paying for all the people that click your links and do not convert, so focusing on improving your conversion rate is one of the best ways to improve the profitability of an adwords campaign
This is not how the vast majority of people shop. It seems like you are arguing that changes to a site's design will rarely result in a significant increase to their bottom line, but there are countless case studies that prove the opposite.[1]
I think the language used to push these needs to be centered around protecting good drivers from all the other bad drivers. "You aren't the problem, they are the problem and these cars are simply able to better anticipate the mistakes others will make."
He didn't "take" their car and do anything with it. He made a lower cost version of one of the systems, but not a fully functioning car. This is hugely impressive, but that doesn't mean the title isn't misleading.
choosing the mechanism that made it easier to consume is not beside the point because google didn't have to do that. we know two things; 1, they had to make the source available, 2, they released the source online. We cannot assume they only did this because they had to, especially when they went above and beyond the requirements. With this logic, anybody that doesn't break the law only does so because of the law.
The original point was put quite simply and your "summary" has messages the original didn't. Just seems a weird way of adding your own opinion as when you start with "let me put _your_ point in plain words," you imply that you are still keeping the point the same, just rewording it, not editorializing.
Nobody starts brute forcing at "mycat." Even if they somehow knew that's how it started, that barely helps them. They don't know how many other words there are, or what the next one is. Simply because it is more likely to be "my cat likes" does not mean it is now feasible to crack. Without social engineering, that password is not crackable for all practical purposes and is far from a terrible password.
"By definition, new accounts are not "speculators" putting in trades to manipulate the price, they are people putting in trades to acquire their first bitcoins."
What definition are you talking about? That sounds exactly like speculation. You do not need to manipulate anything to be a speculator, you simply need to be making a gamble that what you are betting on will increase [or decrease if youre betting against] in value.
You dont refute his point at all. There is something inherent to bitcoin that may hamper a "country to convert a great part of this dead stock into active and productive stock;" the fact that you need to take an insane amount of computing power and electricity to "create" new bitcoin. He could hate something that did not exist in his lifetime because he hated the principles that are fundamental to the process.
the problem is that you did not base any of your arguments on actual facts. you just said "if you would have invested 5 months ago, your investment would have grown by a factor of 10." when that is the logic presented, the analogy holds. if you were to give specific reasons why you believe bitcoins grew at that rate AND why the will continue to grow, then it would be a different argument [not that it would necessarily be correct]. however, my point is that when you do not have any sound logic underlying your "investment" it is truly the same as gambling.
This is not rational thinking. Simply because something has gone up in the past does not mean it will continue to. The returns for the past 5 months have been insane, but that doesnt mean it was a good investment 5 months ago because thats based entirely on results oriented thinking. In a casino, if a roulette wheel hit black 10 times in a row, somebody letting it ride on black the whole way would have made a fortune, but that doesnt mean it would have been a good bet, it means the people making those bets got lucky. It also doesnt affect the chance of the wheel hitting red or black on the next spin, so it doesnt tell us anything about the future.
Most people suck at negotiating, and in a field where so much value is provided, there is a lot of value that simply isn't captured by the employee. I think having a management company like this makes a lot of sense assuming that after your fee, you are able to make more than you otherwise would.
As far as the website goes though, it needs a ton of work. They should basically take out their life story in the middle and use that for a press release and create a simplified about us page. Overall it really just seems like they threw everything on the page, and while nobody wants to leave anything out, having so much text is very distracting and takes away from your message
In the US, and likely most countries, card counting is not illegal. However, casinos can refuse to do business with anybody they want, so they can ban you for it. The exception is Atlantic City where you can't be banned for card counting, but if you are suspected of it, they will use other tactics to negate any advantage you may have (e.g. shuffling after every hand)
yes, this is the most efficient method for getting market value for something (its almost tautologous); however, thats not the problem identified. the problem is determining a fair price for the ipo so that the company being listed brings in as much cash as they should. releasing all the shares at once determines a fair price quickly, but that doesnt help the company bring in more cash
would you mind saying what the herbal supplement was that you ended up using? my girlfriend has a lot of these issues as well and I would like to mention it to her so she could discuss it with her doctor the next time she sees him. thanks!
it sounds like this is an interesting article, but on my android this website was barely usable. the feed on the right took up more space than the actual article and the header was huge. maybe it renders better on other phones, but for a site of the size of pando, they really should address a broader base for usability
simply because you and your friends are not ffrom google/facebook and did not get in does not mean they only accept people from google/facebook. did the founders of the most successful yc companies have that pedigree? i really dont think so. you can rationalize your own rejection however you want, but you cannot make such a sweeping generalization about something with so little support