> Sounds like this needs oversight.
That's what the record is for. There needs to be consequences
268 karma · joined December 10, 2017
That's what the record is for. There needs to be consequences
Most people didn't hear about it. You can ask people on the street. They sure know facebook. Excitement is not a good way to motivate people to move platforms, in general (despite the niche cases like Fyre Festival which are relatively small). Maybe they should have gotten some celebrity support? Otherwise the excitement wasn't mainstream. G+ needed mainstream users.
> But people did want to join Google+, but they couldn't
That doesnt explain the lack of participation a year later. Nobody wanted G+ because they didn't need it. Even if it gave some benefit (which it couldn't) it didn't join with their existing Social Media data making a higher barrier.
> Maybe for you to need another employee you need a new product/process/business..
The "I" in the example, was for simplicity, try not to take it too far. The candy vendor family at the fair goes to lots of fairgrounds. They are living on the demand that exists, or he would have more employees than his family. The idea that there is some phantom demand, not being met, is at odds with reality of existing businesses as they exist (if there was more demand, there would be growth). New markets necessarily come at the expense of old markets, by-in-large because the disposable income available does not serve new demand, but is the lever that allows for it. Unless adjusted wages spike, the measurable loss of jobs will outpace the growth in every timescaled window where the related events occur.
Opportunity for innovation in the market is far less than opportunity for innovation (ie automation) in business processes.
Given a hypothetical business equilibrium (business growth has stabilized or slowed to a small linear function) I have 2 employees. 1 employee writes a program to automate the other employee's job. Now I have 1 employees.
In order for me to have another employee, I have to have a new product and/or process or a whole new business.
I have personally automated people out of a job. Like, they got fired and never replaced. Maybe 5 in my career.
I'm not sure where you get this from, because I've never heard any legal doctrine to cover it.
> My right to privacy implies that they do not keep a shadow profile on me
Every user has a data model, which you can call whatever you like. This is not unique to FB.
> My right to privacy implies that they dont read through me phone messages at will
I'm not sure how you imagine spam scanners don't read your email. Perhaps you need to rethink your concept of "your right to privacy" or whatever.
> My right to privacy gives me the freedom to avoid being spoon fed by the highest bidders such as Trump, farage et al
Dumping some weird political spin where you don't want to hear things you don't like, is unsurprising. This is not a Right in the US. Some other places in the world (Canada, Germany, etc), are trending this way. It's an interesting development that "words can cause harm" is a central tenet of some political movements.
It's not compelling to acknowledge that they understand and then turn around and say they need their hand held because they aren't responsible enough. This isn't a public safety issue.
At most companies (small to medium and a large number of industries), that isn't a fulltime job. Most companies have IT as support or are a very small segment of the total business.
The pharmacological industry resistance to these findings is unsurprising.
Can you show any examples of these "features" that are forcing the hand of other browsers?
> think Outlook.com and the introduction of AJAX
https://www.sitepoint.com/xmlhttprequest-vs-the-fetch-api-wh...
I remember that every browser had an AJAX API, where IE had a specific API that was more straightforward. The AJAX capability was a forgone conclusion rather than a technical leapfrog. You could always had access to an HTML request and timers to code AJAX as a final backup.
Those are 2 claims, in which neither makes sense to me, probably due to a lack of detail. Did they make sense to you when you wrote it?
If it's 'legitimate', are you referencing the oppression of the majority as a proxy for western society?
Economic coercion - The threat or act by a sender government or governments to disrupt economic exchange with the target state, unless the target acquiesces to an articulated demand.
It's possible that 'economic coercion' is now a misnomer, having been used to mean something else specific, initially. I have referenced a definition, for simplicity. Feel free to audit. As it stands, it is not oppression, unless any given demand is supposed to equate to the status of oppression?
You can survive without participating in the economics, it just benefits you more to participate, where lifespan and pleasure is concerned. That isn't coercion any more than checking the material you put in your mouth is biological oppression, it's a linear optimization you're free not to make.
I'm old enough. People sharing your view, are agreeing with a broad assumption that isn't based in reality. Ironically, the Chrome has had to adopt from the other direction (webasm) and hasn't created much whole-cloth that other browsers have had to adopt...and developer's certainly aren't hambstringed by these small additions that make Chrome a delight (for now). From a business perspective, the popularity monopoly is not the same as how IE was made "popular". It's VERY different from the old days in terms of quality and the state of the industry.
Australia has a study that's pretty damning. Is that one of these practices listed?
If you are a developer in AdTech, you will NEVER hear about interaction, or see contract, with most of the companies listed...other than a handful (maybe FB, maybe Yahoo, maybe Instagram). I've worked for Experian (the US Company) and talking about them in the AdTech space is the same as talking about HN in the cooking recipe space. There's a tiny bit of overlap, but it's largely pointing to shoehorned third parties because that isn't something Experian's existing infrastructure performs.
AdTech is fun, it pays well, and you get to be at the ground level of these moral compass debates. I have refused some pieces of work and AdTech is tolerant to negotiating concerns. I think most developers would benefit from experience in AdTech, even if it's just a short time.
Killing? What are you talking about? Yet-larger? What data are you basing this on?
It's not a false dichotomy, it's a practical issue.
eg > Kids tease each other, they call each other names, they occasionally get into fist-fights, but that's not necessarily bullying
There's no nuance between dominance behavior and bullying. It looks like bullying, regardless if you call it teasing or horsing around. Laws and policies are, in large, black or white. It's not practical to pretend that, because there is a subjective element, that it will be legislated that way.
Wtf? Reeves is a rather kind man who had some horrific life tragedies and yet managed a successful career (with no scandal). Why would I be sad about that?
Nope. It's jewelry for people who don't know anything about computers. Corporate aren't as naive in costing, so there's no traction there either.
800$ of hardware with a bunch of custom expansion slots. SSD is probably soldered on to the case or motherboard. It looks like a cheese grater. GL with that dead body.
Talking about the effect of healthy hearts obscures the effects. I am in stage 2 heart failure (as I have been for a long time). I cannot drink coffee, as it aggravates the tissue.
The study can say whatever it wants about coffee (without caffeine), but the effect of 100mg of caffeine on the heart is detrimental. That dread is the same as many heart-attack-precursor feelings (also documented in EMT training), that racing heart rate is aggravation of the left atrium, that shaking is the fight-or-flight adrenaline (which is what makes us feel good). This looks like a proletariat study. "Sure you can drink as much coffee as you want, as long as you feel good about producing. It's fine until it isn't."
Just within the Borders. Borders (border crossings), worldwide, have extra-national areas that are neither country for practical reasons (like keeping each other's soldiers out of casual range), where rights are not enforced. The US doesn't enforce rights, in an area where it has no authority.
"Chilling effect" is a recent idiom, which is subjective. The US judicial system makes a determination on what is or isn't a restriction.
My take is that this is another background-investigation tool. So what? People casually (and stupidly) aggregate a large amount of their own personal information in one place and then act surprised when a country wants to check it before allowing you to cross the border (eg Canada's restriction on US drunk drivers). I don't understand the outrage of what amounts to more paperwork.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antivenom
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/antivenom
You are free to pursue this futile fight.
> There is no "ad tech tax"
That is correct. You might get better revenues (as a publisher) dealing with SpotX (an exchange) over say...Viant (a reseller who acts as a publisher to SpotX), but probably won't do better on volume, which directly correlates to payout. Then again, SpotX may not pay you as much for your average demographic and volume as Viant, who wants your business more than SpotX. None of this is supply chain. The chain is not a chain, but more of an amalgam of situations that is affected by the market, as much as personal relationships. Conceptually, an ecosystem where anyone can consume from anyone (as a publisher) and feed from anyone (as an exchange).
> The issue for publishers here is lack of scale
You don't know that. In 2009, the economy was still recovering and ad-tech had been slapped hard in 2008, leaving banner ads at fractions of the previous years. They have slowly floated down a few more cents to where they are today, primarily due to better targeting, ad fraud, video, mobile browser support, and clickbait (er native) ads.
> no cookies
This was the comparison that led to the 4% revenue bump. If platforms do not pay forward to the publishers (because why bother, the platforms set their own cookies anyway), it suggests that publishers shouldn't bother with targeting. That's exactly what has happened. No platform consumes publisher targeting data in arbitrage, because it might be faked. Using something like Zvelo for context and your own cookies, you get a much better view of the client.
> 2nd-price auctions, meaning they don't get enough high bids and don't get the full price for those bids
Whatever "high bids" or "full price" means here, is nebulous. How an exchange decides to run auctions is often negotiated up front but is, ultimately, black box. What this has to do with publishers is confusing. Publishers rarely get paid off what the platform makes. You sign an order for a set period of time or slice of impressions unless you have traffic that is hundreds of thousands per day (an exeedingly small number of sites). In the case where you run a Real Time Bidding auction (header bidding), you might make some variable money. It's rare and wasn't even seen in the wild (ie IAB) till well after 2009.
See this more recent breakdown: https://www.emarketer.com/content/why-tech-firms-obtain-most...
Nicholas Cage is definitely more famous than Anna Kendrick, for differing reasons.