Then you could edit the page, add another relevant page explaining it from a "better" perspective. If dedicated Wikipedia editors cancel your changes you could run another free website explaining things better than Wikipedia. You could call it Wikipedia++. Wikipedia is far from perfect, after all.
Absolutely. Wikipedia should cut the salary of volunteers writing about difficult topics because they are not writing well. That can make a refund possible for your free reading of Wikipedia.
Ok, my phone was not in English so couldn't check the real name in English : privacy guard. My rough translation turned out to be stupid.
Again, this was less about my privacy and more about attack surface in an app that wnats to be seen as highly secure.
I respect that, but these privacy enhancing steps do reduce the attack surface too to some non-trivial extent. E.g. when you use Xposed to block some method call by the app, the real code to , say, obtain your contacts, is not run, but Xposed shows the middle finger to the app.
Remember - permission by itself doesn't hurt you unless it is used. By the app intentionally, or after being hacked. Xposed prevents the usage of the permission. It doesn't prevent the method being called - but it does the next best thing - implementation is changed to a much simpler one protecting your data as well as reducing attack surface.
It would be best to not have all that attack surface area, but we need to live in reality.
If you really think that all predictions must be quantifiable in order to be falsifiable
Objective metrics could have made it falsifiable, but you refuse to provide any. Revenue is objective, market share is somewhat objective, even the dotcom era "eyeballs" could be objective if measured reliably. All these could contradict each other - and after asking multiple times you have not come up with any objective metric and rejected all my suggested objective metrics. You have instead settled on the non-quantifiable, subjective "impact".
In a certain market segment, Android leads in the number of customers reached and data mining potential, iOS leads in profits. Depending on which one supports your "prediction", you could choose either one as the "top dog" - if you know what falsifiable means you would understand how this post-facto deniability makes your claim non-falsifiable. If not, your nose is bulletproof.
Similarly, for those whose "prediction" is supported by the claim could even today incontestably make the claim that Microsoft is the "top dog" in operating systems shipped with computers. It doesn't support your claim, so you could incontestably claim that it doesn't matter - again- post facto deniability.
So you can't quantify the "impact". A claim about non-quantifiable, subjective metrics can't be falsifiable. A non-falsifiable prediction is not really a prediction for non-idiots.
Since former top dogs are usually in many different fields, it can always be said they are " no longer top dog " in some field or the other. Even of they are in only one field and they regain the top dog position, you can always say "it is not like the old times" - nostalgia is powerful.
So the percentage of market served by Microsoft in dollars in year X would be the same as that served by IBM in year X-n and you are going to define the market and n in advance ?
Otherwise IBM could really hold a lot of the IT market with their consultancy business, but one could say that is not really important so i would call the "trajectory" as going downwards - while the real reason is that that way it would make my prediction come true.
A changing prediction is no prediction at all. Which is what i was saying, you just proved me right for more reasons than earlier : you are predicting nothing whatsoever.
"Trajectory" has not been defined objectively enough for confident post-facto analysis. Do you agree that IBM, Nokia, and Apple changed their "trajectory" ?
You also included the condition on size of the company in your prediction : "or any other company of its size". This is not falsifiable as the size of a company is measured in 10 common and a trillion obscure ways in the world of business.
What number? Date for what? What do you think I'm predicting?
Nothing whatsoever until much more clarification is provided.
There is nearly no chance that Microsoft (or any other company of its size) could pull off such a complete reinvention of themselves as to change that behavior.,
What size do you have in mind? IBM seems to have moved fine from counting employee hours, to mainframes, to consulting. Apple seems to have moved fine from computers to mobile devices. Nokia seems to have moved fine from wood pulp to phones - last decade Nokia was larger than Apple.
I see no reason to modify my prediction yet.
When a prediction is not falsifiable, there is never a reason to modify the prediction. Give a number along with a date to avoid sounding like the consultant leeches.
You don't need to prove again that you don't understand analogies. I just hope you are not "taken" again.
Electricity solves a trillion times more problems with 10 times more complexity than audio connectors - which already means something for people with 2 brain cells to rub together. That something is that electricity infrastructure is 100 billion times more consistent.
Yeah, you are the master of the "shitshow" that doesn't apply to the discussion. Single country becomes the world, analogies become phantoms that take you.
, didn't you admonish me for only responding to part of your post? So then I list outlet sockets, voltages, frequencies, and bulb sockets and you cherry-pick only the frequencies?
As if you could handle frequencies as well as sockets in the same post. You are "taken" by a mere analogy to the level of being unable to read further.
So now you admit that requiring an "adapter" for AC frequency is hugely unlikely for a resident of a country for equipment manufactured for / in the country*? We could move on, but I don't see it going any other way.
How convenient for you. It's a good thing you don't travel.
Not for me.
*Country is important because when electrical infrastructure was being standardized, the world was far less connected than it is now. So these standards largely mattered within a country, a bit less so in the continent especially continents made of small countries and largely irrelevant across continents - a huge majority of people in the world never travelled 500 km in their lives. Products were not manufactured by a company or 2 in a single place for 95% of specific markets the world over (Qualcomm for high end smart phones, Intel + AMD for processors, Android + iOS for smartphone OSes, Microsoft for corporate office software etc.)
And BTW, It's a good thing you don't know much about audio connectors.
Analogy is an analogy, it differs in some aspects while offers insight about other aspects. The funny thing about offers is that they are often not accepted.
You clearly know very little about the variety of audio connectors so now I understand why you believe what you believe.
Moving on with life is how we get fucked. Hitler annexed Austria? There is a very small section of Venn diagram representing the intersection of "people who care", people who know about it, people who can do anything about even if they wanted to.
The huge consistency in electric sockets, voltages, frequency of AC - at least in a particular country : is because of people who refused to move on with their life. People could have moved on with their lives if there were 100 kinds of sockets with thousand kinds of adapters. But they didn't, so we got a semblance of consistency and competition.
The interviewer didn't ask for evidence, so the "expert" didn't provide one. In this case, where the purpose of the article is not to provide evidence, your calling bullshit for lack of evidence is not correct.
Like you admit to making unscientific statements here : https://slashdot.org/comments.... : no evidence, even faulty statistics. This article is far less bullshit than your posts. Both your post and this article do not make any claims of being scientific publications. Yet your statements have clear logical fallacies which when pointed out you claim to not having made a scientific statement, so somehow the logical fallacies are supposed to be acceptable. This article's claims are in themselves not provably wrong, doesn't contradict itself, doesn't rely of logical fallacies, if supported with evidence and worded better, could even form a scientific paper.
Slashdot Mirror
Then you could edit the page, add another relevant page explaining it from a "better" perspective. If dedicated Wikipedia editors cancel your changes you could run another free website explaining things better than Wikipedia. You could call it Wikipedia++. Wikipedia is far from perfect, after all.
Not as much fun as complaining, though.
Absolutely. Wikipedia should cut the salary of volunteers writing about difficult topics because they are not writing well. That can make a refund possible for your free reading of Wikipedia.
'Nuff said.
Ok, my phone was not in English so couldn't check the real name in
English : privacy guard. My rough translation turned out to be stupid.
Again, this was less about my privacy and more about attack surface in an app that wnats to be seen as highly secure.
I respect that, but these privacy enhancing steps do reduce the attack surface too to some non-trivial extent. E.g. when you use Xposed to block some method call by the app, the real code to , say, obtain your contacts, is not run, but Xposed shows the middle finger to the app.
Remember - permission by itself doesn't hurt you unless it is used. By the app intentionally, or after being hacked. Xposed prevents the usage of the permission. It doesn't prevent the method being called - but it does the next best thing - implementation is changed to a much simpler one protecting your data as well as reducing attack surface.
It would be best to not have all that attack surface area, but we need to live in reality.
OK, funny how you omitted all evidence for your statements. On purpose?
How is the suggestion hurting you? What can hurt you is that they know a lot about you. Are you one of the "ignorance is bliss" guys ?
Yeah, but removing those permissions using privacy control is trivial. Or Xposed.
If you don't use those, all that information about you could already be on the dark internet due to other apps.
If you really think that all predictions must be quantifiable in order to be falsifiable
Objective metrics could have made it falsifiable, but you refuse to provide any. Revenue is objective, market share is somewhat objective, even the dotcom era "eyeballs" could be objective if measured reliably. All these could contradict each other - and after asking multiple times you have not come up with any objective metric and rejected all my suggested objective metrics. You have instead settled on the non-quantifiable, subjective "impact".
In a certain market segment, Android leads in the number of customers reached and data mining potential, iOS leads in profits. Depending on which one supports your "prediction", you could choose either one as the "top dog" - if you know what falsifiable means you would understand how this post-facto deniability makes your claim non-falsifiable. If not, your nose is bulletproof.
Similarly, for those whose "prediction" is supported by the claim could even today incontestably make the claim that Microsoft is the "top dog" in operating systems shipped with computers. It doesn't support your claim, so you could incontestably claim that it doesn't matter - again- post facto deniability.
So you can't quantify the "impact". A claim about non-quantifiable, subjective metrics can't be falsifiable. A non-falsifiable prediction is not really a prediction for non-idiots.
Since former top dogs are usually in many different fields, it can always be said they are " no longer top dog " in some field or the other. Even of they are in only one field and they regain the top dog position, you can always say "it is not like the old times" - nostalgia is powerful.
How do you quantify impact ? Or, under what circumstances is the "impact " of a company same as that of another company "n" years ago ?
So the percentage of market served by Microsoft in dollars in year X would be the same as that served by IBM in year X-n and you are going to define the market and n in advance ?
Otherwise IBM could really hold a lot of the IT market with their consultancy business, but one could say that is not really important so i would call the "trajectory" as going downwards - while the real reason is that that way it would make my prediction come true.
A changing prediction is no prediction at all. Which is what i was saying, you just proved me right for more reasons than earlier : you are predicting nothing whatsoever.
"Trajectory" has not been defined objectively enough for confident post-facto analysis. Do you agree that IBM, Nokia, and Apple changed their "trajectory" ?
You also included the condition on size of the company in your prediction : "or any other company of its size". This is not falsifiable as the size of a company is measured in 10 common and a trillion obscure ways in the world of business.
What number? Date for what? What do you think I'm predicting?
Nothing whatsoever until much more clarification is provided.
Given your state, you should learn many many more.
There is nearly no chance that Microsoft (or any other company of its size) could pull off such a complete reinvention of themselves as to change that behavior.,
What size do you have in mind? IBM seems to have moved fine from counting employee hours, to mainframes, to consulting. Apple seems to have moved fine from computers to mobile devices. Nokia seems to have moved fine from wood pulp to phones - last decade Nokia was larger than Apple.
I see no reason to modify my prediction yet.
When a prediction is not falsifiable, there is never a reason to modify the prediction. Give a number along with a date to avoid sounding like the consultant leeches.
You don't need to prove again that you don't understand analogies. I just hope you are not "taken" again.
Electricity solves a trillion times more problems with 10 times more complexity than audio connectors - which already means something for people with 2 brain cells to rub together. That something is that electricity infrastructure is 100 billion times more consistent.
Electricity solves a trillion times more problems than smartphone audio.
Yeah, you are the master of the "shitshow" that doesn't apply to the discussion. Single country becomes the world, analogies become phantoms that take you.
, didn't you admonish me for only responding to part of your post? So then I list outlet sockets, voltages, frequencies, and bulb sockets and you cherry-pick only the frequencies?
As if you could handle frequencies as well as sockets in the same post. You are "taken" by a mere analogy to the level of being unable to read further.
So now you admit that requiring an "adapter" for AC frequency is hugely unlikely for a resident of a country for equipment manufactured for / in the country*? We could move on, but I don't see it going any other way.
How convenient for you. It's a good thing you don't travel.
Not for me.
*Country is important because when electrical infrastructure was being standardized, the world was far less connected than it is now. So these standards largely mattered within a country, a bit less so in the continent especially continents made of small countries and largely irrelevant across continents - a huge majority of people in the world never travelled 500 km in their lives. Products were not manufactured by a company or 2 in a single place for 95% of specific markets the world over (Qualcomm for high end smart phones, Intel + AMD for processors, Android + iOS for smartphone OSes, Microsoft for corporate office software etc.)
And BTW, It's a good thing you don't know much about audio connectors.
Japan.
Only one ? With much much fewer AC frequencies than the number of audio connectors ? Not doing very well, are we ?
and I'm directly addressing your comments
No, my comments were about a particular country. You are addressing the strawman of Anyway, the world.
Are these the brain muddling side effects of being "taken" by a mere analogy ? Do you even have a point ?
Please provide the lack of a huge consistency in frequency of AC "in a particular country". Your strawman about "Anyway, the world" is ugly.
Analogy is an analogy, it differs in some aspects while offers insight about other aspects. The funny thing about offers is that they are often not accepted.
You clearly know very little about the variety of audio connectors so now I understand why you believe what you believe.
Stopping reading my post after that part is not extreme ?
Giving the argument a name makes it wrong ?
Moving on with life is how we get fucked. Hitler annexed Austria? There is a very small section of Venn diagram representing the intersection of "people who care", people who know about it, people who can do anything about even if they wanted to.
The huge consistency in electric sockets, voltages, frequency of AC - at least in a particular country : is because of people who refused to move on with their life. People could have moved on with their lives if there were 100 kinds of sockets with thousand kinds of adapters. But they didn't, so we got a semblance of consistency and competition.
The interviewer didn't ask for evidence, so the "expert" didn't provide one. In this case, where the purpose of the article is not to provide evidence, your calling bullshit for lack of evidence is not correct.
Like you admit to making unscientific statements here :
https://slashdot.org/comments.... : no evidence, even faulty statistics. This article is far less bullshit than your posts. Both your post and this article do not make any claims of being scientific publications. Yet your statements have clear logical fallacies which when pointed out you claim to not having made a scientific statement, so somehow the logical fallacies are supposed to be acceptable. This article's claims are in themselves not provably wrong, doesn't contradict itself, doesn't rely of logical fallacies, if supported with evidence and worded better, could even form a scientific paper.
Do you also call your own posts bulshit ?