So an Audi has such great resale value and reliability that the cost per a year of owning one for two years is better than something like a three year old Accord?
At work I have 16GB, and I'm definitely glad to have it (and it's a fairly low end computer), but usually over 25% being used is web browsing, and 40% or so is often free.
For a Steam box plugged into my TV, I don't foresee any web browsers being open.
Looking at Farcry 5, it wants 8GB (both minimum and recomended), so I don't know if 8 is enough if 1 is going to the GPU.
I really hope the system is available in August (the Windows 10 one, not the console), because I've been wanting to get a SFF with a 2400GE as an HTPC, but I bet this will be better for me, AND less money.
Well, at least one person doesn't bother to save the non instant win pieces (me), and I get an average of.25 pieces a year.
So using my direct observation we can prove that side streaming winning sets directly to people has a 100% chance of increasing the odds a winning set will be found.
Open a CSV of US addresses that have some in the northeast (or Puerto Rico).
Oh look, it's already not displaying the file, fun...
Hit Control-S to save
Oh cool, not there has been alterations to a file you didn't touch that are irreversible.
Also works with ISBNs
Somebody decided that the best way for Excel to behave was that if you open a supported file format (and common data interchange one for mailing), do nothing, and hit save, there's been permanent data loss. I don't know who made that choice, but I would love for them to stub their toe.
I'm not sure I like Libre Office's way much better, forcing me to review every field, I really just wish it loaded text files as all text, and let me change the columns as needed.
I don't really see much of a niche for Libre Office over Google Sheets in the real world.
Mostly because it struggles to open Excel documents though (2 line cells get broken characters is the most frequent issue I have.
It also does a weird thing where the cell that I'm editing appears above the cell I'm actually editing sometimes (last used about 18 months ago, it was hardly a new project).
I'm sure that their are people that want to work on sheets bigger than what's convenient on Google Sheets and don't need the bells and whistles, but I really would be willing to bet that most people working with that much data want them.
It also appears that North American users are the only particularity profitable users.
Though I don't know where all of the revenue is coming from, I get 1.4 billion users * $6/user = 8.4 Billion, that leaves another 4-5 they're earning somewhere else.
2.1 billion shares $1.72 earnings/share is 3.6 billions total earnings.and implies their expenses are 13.2-3.6 = 9.6 billion / 1.4 billion users = $6.85/user (per quarter).
If we scale out the 25% of revenue that isn't Facebook users (and assume it's equally profitable pursuits (unlikely, this probably skews low)) it's still about $5.10/user in costs US is massively profitable, Europe quite profitable, and The rest are loss leaders.
If they thought it would succeed they likely would have asked for more.
Basically, the drug company was taking a long shot (300% return a year for the life of the patent), the tribe had literally nothing to lose (they got 13 million, plus left over profits after 50 if thwy succeeded).
I don't know how long the patent I good for, but 250 million over five years is a huge return on 13 million if it succeeded.
I'm not quite sure that I follow that the value of a highly profiled view goes down as less of them are available.
There's likely a certain threshold that makes profiling harder because of difficulty building the graph if enough people opt out, but I would guess that number is higher than 50%.
There will always need to be a free option (or membership will dwindle over time), and the pay option can't be much more expensive than the revenue from the free option (or it creates an incentive to make the free option suck too much), but it seems viable to me.
If there's a reason it outright won't work on bet it's because there is dramatically different revenue per user based on country, and though $3/month seems reasonable to pay, if the users in higher gdp/per capital countries (about half I think) are essentially all of the revenue, that turns into $6/month, which is getting pricey for a distraction and a phone book IMO.
I'd think that's in the realm that plenty of people would pay to opt out of some of the data ecosystem.
It'd be nice if they offered as an option $3/month or $24/year to use Facebook and not be sold, maybe $4/$30 since I imagine the revenue is actually higher in areas where there's more money.
I'd seriously consider it just to avoid all of the sponsored garbage in the feed.
Interesting, I didn't realize it was less expensive to run fiber to every house than it is to run it to a location every other block or so.
I guess we'll see with Sacramento and Houston tests happening now though.
If o had unlimited budget it seems unlikely I'd want to set up a wired ISP, it sounds like a lot of capital expense when there's a competitor that can drive down prices and makes market share an uphill battle (even if everybody hates the incumbent, 2 free months and price reduction can buy loyalty).
The time to absorb cellular providers has passed though. If Comcast wanted a cellular company, they should have been trying to purchase TMO or Sprint, not buying their own bandwidth. Instead they're trying to compete with cellular.
For one thing if 5G does turn out to be viable competition, that's going to make the cellular companies more, not less valuable.
We already have 2 cellular companies trying to compete with TV (Verizon and T-Mobile). Verizon claims (grain of salt and all) that the reason they stopped the FiOS roll-out in our area (from an employee, not official, I think officially they're still rolling out, but SLOW) was that they were going to offer 5G internet access to the home, and that it would be good.
It seems credibly possible, I don't know how much better it'd be than the LoS ISP in my area though (trees block my access to both of their sites).
Slashdot Mirror
So an Audi has such great resale value and reliability that the cost per a year of owning one for two years is better than something like a three year old Accord?
I'm not convinced.
I know a few Indian people who've purchased Audis when only going to be here a few years.
At work I have 16GB, and I'm definitely glad to have it (and it's a fairly low end computer), but usually over 25% being used is web browsing, and 40% or so is often free.
For a Steam box plugged into my TV, I don't foresee any web browsers being open.
Looking at Farcry 5, it wants 8GB (both minimum and recomended), so I don't know if 8 is enough if 1 is going to the GPU.
I really hope the system is available in August (the Windows 10 one, not the console), because I've been wanting to get a SFF with a 2400GE as an HTPC, but I bet this will be better for me, AND less money.
That seems excessive for a low/middle end PC.
Seems to me the perfect steam box.
Play games at TV resolution, likely high settings for current gen and medium for a long while to come.
I'd love to have this chip, a beefed GPU slower CPU 2400G with RAM too.
This in an SFF PC is the dream for my usage.
I'd like to see Congress backed sanctions, which is pretty much where we are (I think).
Are you saying there is no action to be taken between two nations between 'cut it out!' and going to war?
Interesting, it leads straight to the article without a cookie warning for me.
There's a link that is to the right of the title, is that the one you're looking for?
Who's going to fund the extra transportation costs?
Well, at least one person doesn't bother to save the non instant win pieces (me), and I get an average of .25 pieces a year.
So using my direct observation we can prove that side streaming winning sets directly to people has a 100% chance of increasing the odds a winning set will be found.
Isn't their next model the small crossover ('Y')?
It seems unlikely that both will be released in the next 2 years.
4k/year/employee raise would not totally erase their annual profit. It'd erase a 1/4 their profits.
You think that's bad.
Open a CSV of US addresses that have some in the northeast (or Puerto Rico).
Oh look, it's already not displaying the file, fun...
Hit Control-S to save
Oh cool, not there has been alterations to a file you didn't touch that are irreversible.
Also works with ISBNs
Somebody decided that the best way for Excel to behave was that if you open a supported file format (and common data interchange one for mailing), do nothing, and hit save, there's been permanent data loss. I don't know who made that choice, but I would love for them to stub their toe.
I'm not sure I like Libre Office's way much better, forcing me to review every field, I really just wish it loaded text files as all text, and let me change the columns as needed.
I don't really see much of a niche for Libre Office over Google Sheets in the real world.
Mostly because it struggles to open Excel documents though (2 line cells get broken characters is the most frequent issue I have.
It also does a weird thing where the cell that I'm editing appears above the cell I'm actually editing sometimes (last used about 18 months ago, it was hardly a new project).
I'm sure that their are people that want to work on sheets bigger than what's convenient on Google Sheets and don't need the bells and whistles, but I really would be willing to bet that most people working with that much data want them.
It also appears that North American users are the only particularity profitable users.
Though I don't know where all of the revenue is coming from, I get 1.4 billion users * $6/user = 8.4 Billion, that leaves another 4-5 they're earning somewhere else.
2.1 billion shares $1.72 earnings/share is 3.6 billions total earnings.and implies their expenses are 13.2-3.6 = 9.6 billion / 1.4 billion users = $6.85/user (per quarter).
If we scale out the 25% of revenue that isn't Facebook users (and assume it's equally profitable pursuits (unlikely, this probably skews low)) it's still about $5.10/user in costs US is massively profitable, Europe quite profitable, and The rest are loss leaders.
If they thought it would succeed they likely would have asked for more.
Basically, the drug company was taking a long shot (300% return a year for the life of the patent), the tribe had literally nothing to lose (they got 13 million, plus left over profits after 50 if thwy succeeded).
I don't know how long the patent I good for, but 250 million over five years is a huge return on 13 million if it succeeded.
And a quick googling makes me think that's correct.
Almost $10/month US.
The $3/month in Europe may be a good solution to privacy concerns there (compliance there seems to make it far less profitable).
https://www.statista.com/stati...
I'm not quite sure that I follow that the value of a highly profiled view goes down as less of them are available.
There's likely a certain threshold that makes profiling harder because of difficulty building the graph if enough people opt out, but I would guess that number is higher than 50%.
There will always need to be a free option (or membership will dwindle over time), and the pay option can't be much more expensive than the revenue from the free option (or it creates an incentive to make the free option suck too much), but it seems viable to me.
If there's a reason it outright won't work on bet it's because there is dramatically different revenue per user based on country, and though $3/month seems reasonable to pay, if the users in higher gdp/per capital countries (about half I think) are essentially all of the revenue, that turns into $6/month, which is getting pricey for a distraction and a phone book IMO.
This is actually the most interesting part to me.
I'd think that's in the realm that plenty of people would pay to opt out of some of the data ecosystem.
It'd be nice if they offered as an option $3/month or $24/year to use Facebook and not be sold, maybe $4/$30 since I imagine the revenue is actually higher in areas where there's more money.
I'd seriously consider it just to avoid all of the sponsored garbage in the feed.
Are restaurant/bars with sports not a thing everywhere?
They're pretty common here. Probably boring for a child to watch sports out though.
Almost every bar I go to for watching has plenty of non bar seating with good watch ability.
Some even have screens at each booth.
Or like, go to the bar.
Interesting, I didn't realize it was less expensive to run fiber to every house than it is to run it to a location every other block or so.
I guess we'll see with Sacramento and Houston tests happening now though.
If o had unlimited budget it seems unlikely I'd want to set up a wired ISP, it sounds like a lot of capital expense when there's a competitor that can drive down prices and makes market share an uphill battle (even if everybody hates the incumbent, 2 free months and price reduction can buy loyalty).
No, I simply think they'd like to be bigger, and squeeze out Comcast as much as they can, as Comcast tries to do the same to them.
They have room for growth.
The time to absorb cellular providers has passed though. If Comcast wanted a cellular company, they should have been trying to purchase TMO or Sprint, not buying their own bandwidth. Instead they're trying to compete with cellular.
For one thing if 5G does turn out to be viable competition, that's going to make the cellular companies more, not less valuable.
We already have 2 cellular companies trying to compete with TV (Verizon and T-Mobile). Verizon claims (grain of salt and all) that the reason they stopped the FiOS roll-out in our area (from an employee, not official, I think officially they're still rolling out, but SLOW) was that they were going to offer 5G internet access to the home, and that it would be good.
It seems credibly possible, I don't know how much better it'd be than the LoS ISP in my area though (trees block my access to both of their sites).