In theory, I agree... but in my experience, an employer won't even look at you sideways if you don't have any job experience experience yet and don't have that piece of paper that gets your foot in the door. You can sidestep this requirement if you happen to be well connected with the right kinds of people in your target industry, but if you don't happen to have such connections, then it doesn't matter worth shit how good you might be. Your talent will be wasted only doing things as no more than a "hobby". People who personally know you might know how good you are, but unless they are well enough connected to people in the industry that they could recommend you to get your foot in the door at some company, you're still stuck. I think that this is especially hardest felt by people who are struggling to get out of poverty, and where most of their social connections may be in a similar financial situation.
Once you have that first chunk of real experience under your belt after graduation, your education won't matter that much anymore to future employers either... it's certainly important to know for yourself that you can do a particular job, but without that piece of paper, it's not generally going to matter whether you are good at what you or not.
Not entirely... the chocolate egg itself has a fixed and known value even before you buy the egg. The prize inside is technically considered a free gift to incentivize buyers.
No, it is not... because you are not paying for the toy inside of it. You are paying only for the chocolate egg that the toy comes inside of, and the value of the egg is a known and fixed value. The toy is then considered a free gift that comes with the treat, designed to motivate people to buy them.
CCG's with randomized packs are a bit more interesting, because I'm not sure if there's a known and fixed value that can be associated with them.
If an algorithm that is trying to predict what will interest you guessed incorrectly then that is no different from your perspective to an untargetted ad in the first place. Why should it have to be all or nothing? Isn't it still better that at least some of the ads might be of interest to you?
If that's not good enough, then the problem isn't really about the targeted nature at all, and that's just a scapegoat to use about not liking uninteresting ads, which again isn't going to be any different from your perspective than untargetted ads where the advertisers paid for the spot
The sass is a cool nice to have, but honestly, I'd settle entirely for just being able to actually automate the butler/maid functionality properly.
A roomba can vacuum a level floor, but can't move furniture to vacuum underneath it, nor vacuum the sofa or bed to clear them of cat hair.
A roomba will also not put dishes in the dishwasher and put them away when they are clean, it will not do your laundry for you and neatly fold all laundry and put them in their appropriate place when clean.
Not to mention that a roomba can't do any of the other housework that isn't vacuuming, like organizing and putting things away, laundry and dishes, et al.
I know that such a machine would not be cheap, but I doubt it will ever even exist in my lifetime... perhaps my grandkids will have children that might have such things though.
I mean, if having to deal with ads in the first place is something that we have to live with, particularly for services that one doesn't have to pay for financially, isn't it preferable to have ads that interest you than ads that are irrelevant?
Not a rhetorical question here... I'm genuinely curious, why are targetted ads seen as a bad thing?
I wasn't attempting to argue with anyone.... I was trying to figure out what the fuck you were actually attempting to say. Which is, apparently, nothing remotely useful to anyone. I had been initially trying to give you benefit of the doubt that you had some sort of point to make, but when you finally admitted that you weren't even interested in the topic, it was apparent to me that you were only trying to be an asshole... because, I don't know.... maybe you had nothing better to do than respond to a question that doesn't even fucking interest you?
You are, you know, not anywhere even close to being as insightful into people's ideals and motives as you seem to think you are.... and there's little you could do to convince me otherwise, given how far off base you were with what you seem to think I was thinking... because despite what you may think, I'm probably a better judge at evaluating my own motivations than you are.
I wasn't attempting to "twist" anything... that is how the expression looked to me, and if I were trying to twist it, I wouldn't have asked you if that was right, would I?
I wasn't twisting anything, I was asking what the fuck you were actually trying to say, because I was not seeing it, and giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were attempting to communicate something that may have been worth knowing.
Of course, the fact that you are (by your own admission) uninterested in the topic suggests to me that this entire exercise was just you being a dick all along.
No, I was not.... because you didn't actually directly answer it with respect to what I was originally asking, and I had to guess what you were actually saying. I asked because I wanted to be sure about it, not because I was making any sort of deliberate attempt to try and pigeonhole your opinions into some preconceived set of standards that I have.
And you claim you aren't interested, but rather than not answer the original question, you instead decide to take up the position that if a person is unable to find alternative software to accomplish an end, then there are not sufficient people interested in those ends for it to be a desirable goal. The logical conclusion of this attitude is that unconventional or unpopular ideas would never actually gain any momentum, and in fact we'd probably still be living in caves and not capable of communicating beyond grunts.
And, by your own admission, you are uninterested in the topic, which could entirely color your bias about how you perceived the intent of the question. Given how you utterly misinterpreted what I was doing, it wouldn't suprise me in the slightest if you were also wrong in your other assumption/
They don't.... the only way his remark makes any sense is if you add in weekends to his paid days off per year, and amortize his entire week's pay over an entire week instead of only the five other days worked so that effectively, he is paid for two days off each week, albeit at a lower rate of daily pay than what his actual hourly wage would dictate based only on hours worked. It may be the case, although I do not know this for sure, that their actual minimum hourly rate must be large enough that after such amortization, it is still higher than some threshold.
"Nice try"??? What are you suggesting that I was trying to do, beyond trying to understand what your actual point was with regards to the initial question (which you assume was rhetorical, but in fact could be taken as sincere). Tepples might have expressed some skepticism that alternatve technologies exist that can do what was done with flash, but rather than actually answer the question, you appear to criticise the very fact that anyone would *WANT* to do anything that happened to be only previously possible with with flash.
Whether vector animation is useful or necessary is a subject I'm not actually interested in.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that nobody else is interested in it... and your posts did read as though you were criticizing people who may have been, simply by virtue of their association to flash.
You know, when you repeatedly never actually answer direct questions, and insist on making analogies, it leaves one to guess at what you are actually trying to say. It's a pretty lazy way to try and communicate, if you ask me.
So again, are you suggesting that vector animatiion *IS* actually lacking inn post flash modern technology, and if so, are you further suggesting that it is something that the web is better off without?
Of course, I'm not an American.... but being neighbours, I didn't realize that our labour laws were actually *THAT* different in this regard (I knew about some differences, of course. but I didn't think they were different about vacation time).
Here in Canada, employees are entitled to a paid stat holiday, regardless of whether you are scheduled to work that day or not, if you have been employed for more than 30 days, and have worked at least 15 of the last 30 days. If you are not scheduled to work on a stat for which you will be paid, then you are entitled to an average day's pay for the stat, and if you work on that day, you are entitled to time and a half for the hours worked PLUS an average day's pay. There are 6 nation-wide stat holidays in Canada per year, and most provinces have their own stat holidays in addition to these, bringing the total to around 10 stat holidays per year for any employee.
Employees who have been with a company for more than one full year are also entitled to 10 additional paid time off days per year, although the employer has freedom to dictate when some or all of those days are, or to choose to offer the employee payment in lieu of those days. An employer is not obligated to pay an employee for unused vacation days unless the employer restricted the employee from taking a vacation. Some employers allow employees to accrue unused vacation days for several years, although this varies from employer to employer, and the law is neutral on this point. After 5 years with a company, the number of vacation days per year increases to 15. These are the legal minimums... employers are at their discretion to offer more if they choose.
I'll be more specific, then: if one finds the available technologies lacking, there are two reasonable options: invent the necessary technology, or do something else.
Obviously... but are you then asserting that the technology of vector animation *IS* actually lacking in post flash modern web technology?
Or perhaps the poster wasn't asking what they could do to keep flash alive, they were asking what they needed to do to adapt their workflow to newer technologies to achieve specific ends. Your comments read as if those ends (animated vector diagrams) are neither possible nor desired with modern technologies.
Of course, I'm sure that it's a whole lot easier to effectively insult a person by suggesting that their question is irrelevant than it is to try and actually answer it.
Slashdot Mirror
In theory, I agree... but in my experience, an employer won't even look at you sideways if you don't have any job experience experience yet and don't have that piece of paper that gets your foot in the door. You can sidestep this requirement if you happen to be well connected with the right kinds of people in your target industry, but if you don't happen to have such connections, then it doesn't matter worth shit how good you might be. Your talent will be wasted only doing things as no more than a "hobby". People who personally know you might know how good you are, but unless they are well enough connected to people in the industry that they could recommend you to get your foot in the door at some company, you're still stuck. I think that this is especially hardest felt by people who are struggling to get out of poverty, and where most of their social connections may be in a similar financial situation.
Once you have that first chunk of real experience under your belt after graduation, your education won't matter that much anymore to future employers either... it's certainly important to know for yourself that you can do a particular job, but without that piece of paper, it's not generally going to matter whether you are good at what you or not.
Not entirely... the chocolate egg itself has a fixed and known value even before you buy the egg. The prize inside is technically considered a free gift to incentivize buyers.
The value of that content is not known before you buy the item, however... the value of a chocolate egg in the case of KS is.
No, it is not... because you are not paying for the toy inside of it. You are paying only for the chocolate egg that the toy comes inside of, and the value of the egg is a known and fixed value. The toy is then considered a free gift that comes with the treat, designed to motivate people to buy them.
CCG's with randomized packs are a bit more interesting, because I'm not sure if there's a known and fixed value that can be associated with them.
.... your stories are about previously covered stories.
If an algorithm that is trying to predict what will interest you guessed incorrectly then that is no different from your perspective to an untargetted ad in the first place. Why should it have to be all or nothing? Isn't it still better that at least some of the ads might be of interest to you?
If that's not good enough, then the problem isn't really about the targeted nature at all, and that's just a scapegoat to use about not liking uninteresting ads, which again isn't going to be any different from your perspective than untargetted ads where the advertisers paid for the spot
The sass is a cool nice to have, but honestly, I'd settle entirely for just being able to actually automate the butler/maid functionality properly.
A roomba can vacuum a level floor, but can't move furniture to vacuum underneath it, nor vacuum the sofa or bed to clear them of cat hair.
A roomba will also not put dishes in the dishwasher and put them away when they are clean, it will not do your laundry for you and neatly fold all laundry and put them in their appropriate place when clean.
Not to mention that a roomba can't do any of the other housework that isn't vacuuming, like organizing and putting things away, laundry and dishes, et al.
I know that such a machine would not be cheap, but I doubt it will ever even exist in my lifetime... perhaps my grandkids will have children that might have such things though.
I sort of expect that nobody who is alive today will see it be a reality, however.
What's so bad, precisely, about targetted ads?
I mean, if having to deal with ads in the first place is something that we have to live with, particularly for services that one doesn't have to pay for financially, isn't it preferable to have ads that interest you than ads that are irrelevant?
Not a rhetorical question here... I'm genuinely curious, why are targetted ads seen as a bad thing?
WHAT?
I wasn't attempting to argue with anyone.... I was trying to figure out what the fuck you were actually attempting to say. Which is, apparently, nothing remotely useful to anyone. I had been initially trying to give you benefit of the doubt that you had some sort of point to make, but when you finally admitted that you weren't even interested in the topic, it was apparent to me that you were only trying to be an asshole... because, I don't know.... maybe you had nothing better to do than respond to a question that doesn't even fucking interest you?
You are, you know, not anywhere even close to being as insightful into people's ideals and motives as you seem to think you are.... and there's little you could do to convince me otherwise, given how far off base you were with what you seem to think I was thinking... because despite what you may think, I'm probably a better judge at evaluating my own motivations than you are.
I wasn't attempting to "twist" anything... that is how the expression looked to me, and if I were trying to twist it, I wouldn't have asked you if that was right, would I?
I wasn't twisting anything, I was asking what the fuck you were actually trying to say, because I was not seeing it, and giving you the benefit of the doubt that you were attempting to communicate something that may have been worth knowing.
Of course, the fact that you are (by your own admission) uninterested in the topic suggests to me that this entire exercise was just you being a dick all along.
No, I was not.... because you didn't actually directly answer it with respect to what I was originally asking, and I had to guess what you were actually saying. I asked because I wanted to be sure about it, not because I was making any sort of deliberate attempt to try and pigeonhole your opinions into some preconceived set of standards that I have.
And you claim you aren't interested, but rather than not answer the original question, you instead decide to take up the position that if a person is unable to find alternative software to accomplish an end, then there are not sufficient people interested in those ends for it to be a desirable goal. The logical conclusion of this attitude is that unconventional or unpopular ideas would never actually gain any momentum, and in fact we'd probably still be living in caves and not capable of communicating beyond grunts.
And, by your own admission, you are uninterested in the topic, which could entirely color your bias about how you perceived the intent of the question. Given how you utterly misinterpreted what I was doing, it wouldn't suprise me in the slightest if you were also wrong in your other assumption/
Maybe it just hasn't been invented yet.
Maybe there is, but you and I don't know of any.
They don't.... the only way his remark makes any sense is if you add in weekends to his paid days off per year, and amortize his entire week's pay over an entire week instead of only the five other days worked so that effectively, he is paid for two days off each week, albeit at a lower rate of daily pay than what his actual hourly wage would dictate based only on hours worked. It may be the case, although I do not know this for sure, that their actual minimum hourly rate must be large enough that after such amortization, it is still higher than some threshold.
Sure, but that doesn't mean that nobody else is interested in it... and your posts did read as though you were criticizing people who may have been, simply by virtue of their association to flash.
blargh... sorry. I thought I was responding to the person above... didn't see that this post was from someone else.
You know, when you repeatedly never actually answer direct questions, and insist on making analogies, it leaves one to guess at what you are actually trying to say. It's a pretty lazy way to try and communicate, if you ask me.
So again, are you suggesting that vector animatiion *IS* actually lacking inn post flash modern technology, and if so, are you further suggesting that it is something that the web is better off without?
Not according to this.
Of course, I'm not an American.... but being neighbours, I didn't realize that our labour laws were actually *THAT* different in this regard (I knew about some differences, of course. but I didn't think they were different about vacation time).
Here in Canada, employees are entitled to a paid stat holiday, regardless of whether you are scheduled to work that day or not, if you have been employed for more than 30 days, and have worked at least 15 of the last 30 days. If you are not scheduled to work on a stat for which you will be paid, then you are entitled to an average day's pay for the stat, and if you work on that day, you are entitled to time and a half for the hours worked PLUS an average day's pay. There are 6 nation-wide stat holidays in Canada per year, and most provinces have their own stat holidays in addition to these, bringing the total to around 10 stat holidays per year for any employee.
Employees who have been with a company for more than one full year are also entitled to 10 additional paid time off days per year, although the employer has freedom to dictate when some or all of those days are, or to choose to offer the employee payment in lieu of those days. An employer is not obligated to pay an employee for unused vacation days unless the employer restricted the employee from taking a vacation. Some employers allow employees to accrue unused vacation days for several years, although this varies from employer to employer, and the law is neutral on this point. After 5 years with a company, the number of vacation days per year increases to 15. These are the legal minimums... employers are at their discretion to offer more if they choose.
Obviously... but are you then asserting that the technology of vector animation *IS* actually lacking in post flash modern web technology?
I expect that the same thing can still be done with html5 and animated svg.
Or perhaps the poster wasn't asking what they could do to keep flash alive, they were asking what they needed to do to adapt their workflow to newer technologies to achieve specific ends. Your comments read as if those ends (animated vector diagrams) are neither possible nor desired with modern technologies.
Of course, I'm sure that it's a whole lot easier to effectively insult a person by suggesting that their question is irrelevant than it is to try and actually answer it.
I understood that "empirical" required reproducibility or verifiability... otherwise it's no different than anecdotal evidence.
Doesn't it still have to be verifiable?