> I don't buy it. If a potential customer contacts a business first, and the business sends unsolicited messages to the customer, that reply shouldn't get dropped as spam. And yet it does.
1,581 karma · joined October 22, 2022
Google Drive is infamous for its spam problem.
What I'm seeing is four motherboard makers trying to win customers at the expense of ASUS by taking very public steps to state their product does not suffer from this issue unlike ASUS.
Ok, thanks for your contribution.
That's quite the extrapolation. It's far more likely that AMD sees the exposure that a hand full of cases is having as a threat to the public's perception of the issues and is actively and very publicly addressing it to contain it.
So far all the reports I've seen about this issue was that it was really a problem with ASUS motherboards which were bricking the processor. The article seems to confirm it, and AMD seemed to have published a mitigation.
What name do you give to this "area under the curve", or the "rate of change" of this area? They are pretty fundamental concepts with important and basic properties, which affect things like local optima and minimization, and expected value and covariance, etc. I mean, you can't cover linear models and least squares without this stuff, and if you don't then I wouldn't really call it learning.
That makes no sense at all. Are you actually trying to argue that your perceived popularity of an email provider is proof that email is dead? While actually referring to the popularity of email as a whole?
> And yes, gmail won
According to some sources, Gmail has a 36% market share of email. This means that the remaining 64% share is not held by Gmail. Do you look at this and think that email as an open federated non-centralized service is doomed? Absolutely ridiculous.
Does it though? For example, you simply cannot teach Newton's laws of motion without knowing what a derivative is.
It really isn't. That might be how some people managed to get a passing grade, but clearly they learned nothing and squandered a once in a lifetime opportunity to get to know it.
I knew a professor from a math department from a top European university who taught data science courses who swore that data science and data mining were just marketing terms invented to sell statistics.
How do you expect students to understand what they are doing with "data science" without learning probability and statistics, and how do you expect students to get probability and statistics without learning calculus?
I mean, Bayes' theorem. How do you get people to get it if they don't know calculus?
What are you talking about? I spend all day every day sending and receiving emails from all sorts of services, and Gmail is not it. What exactly is your definition of "won"?
Not clickbait. It documents Twitter's modus operandi, and the irresponsible way it grants it's "verified" status, in some cases even against the user's request.
> when this mistake was corrected and the account was suspended
Irrelevant. The whole point was that Twitter proactively verified a bullshit account.
This is clearly not true. All it takes is to acknowledge that Lego produces tires (which it does), check how many they produce per time period (which they provided) l, and compare with other statistics from other tire producers (which they do).
At best, you can claim that your personal definition of what a tire is doesn't match Lego's.
You missed the whole point: people do not learn with this approach, regardless of speed.
The only benefit is keeping people engaged in a skinner box while watching ads, and selling them ways around keeping their track record engaged with said skinner box unbroken.
I think that the point is that Cloudflare's business model lies largely on its ability to monitor individual end users. So when Cloudflare announces they are providing a service whose primary selling point is that it affects their ability to monitor users then this sounds like a blatant contradiction.
I also think that begging people to blindly trust corporations, specially when it's without any rationale or reason, is to say the least very silly.
It sounds like you're the one missing the whole point.
The goal of learning a language is not grinding on an app, but to have progress. Duolingo's gamification pushes grinding behavior, and not actual progress. Duolingo does not reinforce pushing forward, but does prompt you repeatedly on how to say "I drink milk" regardless whether you're on the app for two weeks or two years. You can be on Duolingo for two years grinding stuff daily and still have nothing to show for. You are prompted to keep your streak up of answering things like "I eat bread" over and over again regardless of language, and if you fail to keep your steak up you're prompted to pay for something to artificially keep it up.
This is not educational. It's a waste of time.
Emigration is not an option on most people's plate, specially when discussing topics such as learning a new language. Also, some people try to pick up languages for fun, which would be ridiculous to format your whole life around.
Last time I checked, those were only available through their website, not on mobile.
This observation might be good for Duolingo's stock price, but it doesn't fit reality. Duolingo is not the only way to learn languages online, nor is it known for being effective.
For example, to me Memrise was far superior to Duolingo to expand vocabulary, and pretty much any YouTube series on learning language X is far better than Duolingo. Even browsing newspapers in language X paired with Google Translate is a far more productive experience than grinding on Duolingo.
The only selling point of Duolingo is that it sells you a false sense of progress and provides you a positive feedback loop that keeps you optimizing on local optima that are awfully unproductive.
I don't think this is good advice. There are myriads of ways to get you started, so Duolingo doesn't provide additional value in that regard.
The question is: why use Duolingo at all instead of any conceivable alternative out there? What's the upside to Duolingo? Is there any, whatsoever?
Is this a serious question at all?
For starters, websites provide the lowest barriers to entry, and don't expect users to grant intrusive access to their personal systems.
I don't think this is true at all. The reason that JSON won is stated quite clearly in the interview: you do not need a software stack to handle JSON. This feature sells itself for any software development team who needs to have frontends running in a browser consuming data from a backend. You do not need an evangelist to convince people to use a feature that is ubiquitous, free, extensively tested, and more performance than anything in the market.
Nutritionists everywhere point out the fact that diets which exclude whole food groups don't guarantee an adequate supply of some key nutrients, and in some cases require taking supplements to avoid suffering from health issues.
And you refer to that fact as "bias", to try to dismiss it?
The whole agricultural industry in Europe is heavily subsidized through Europe's common agriculture policy. It's a strategic and national interest policy so that Europe's access to food is not jeopardized in case of war.
It's ok that these subsidies exist, and they surely won't go away any time soon.
What leads you to believe that the clear conflict of interests pointed out by OP changes in any way if OP doesn't use a marketing term to refer to their product?
Isn't Europe experiencing an inflation wave of around 10%? That tends to take away meat from the diet.
Edit: Eurostat says it's 6.9% in the euro area, and 8.3 in the EU as a whole.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/16324910/2-1...