You're assuming that: 1) search can be profitable while respecting privacy law or not (seems possible, but not necessarily a given) 2) that search can be effective while respecting privacy (this seems even more likely, but not a given).
The other scenario that could happen is that search becomes a subscription and/or is ineffective and twitter, Facebook, reddit, etc become how to find things. Closer to web directory era yahoo than a search engine.
Usually concrete, but yeah, I break a lot of them.
They've existed how long, 9 years? I've had at least eleven (this one is pretty old at 8 months though, and 2 or 3 were defective (or broken charging ports that got Jarred and we're soldered to the board) and one was lost while skiing).
I suspect the number over time skews low because 5 or so years ago they were pretty rapidly improving and replacements were less likely break related vs today.
I don't take issue with the sales numbers, but it doesn't follow that there are therefore 5 billion in use.
1) your 4 year typical use assumption is quite likely wrong (I know it is in the US, I can't speak to the world at large). 2) your 66% source (for a tech heavy weighted list) doesn't actually list what they're defining as 100% saturation., but they're predicting 90% penetration. I can't prove it, but it seems very likely they are leaving out at the very least young people (6.5% of US population is under 5 (2010 census), that doesn't leave much wiggle room to get to 90%.
1 billion sales being a 5% increase means smartphones last a little over 2 years when there's 2.5 billion of them, where did you get your 4 year number?
It seems unlikely that 5/7s the population is using an Android phone, or that their are enough double phone users to significantly impact that premise from 5 billion phones in use.
Take out children, elderly, and super poor, it seems unlikely to me that their are even 5 billion smartphone users.
Except if their sales are going up while overall sales are going down (though I'm too lazy to check actual numbers, just accepting that premise from earlier in the thread), it follows they aren't just hanging onto their sliver, but growing it.
It could be a loophole in a poorly locked down corporate setting.
A lot of companies allow people to install software on their laptop, and a lot of people treat work laptops as personal to an extent (I'm not saying any of this is good, just reality). I could see an info leak from a malicious employee attacking another employee in a network that relies on perimeter security.
Very frequent 1/3 cover ups asking me to download the app, and a really crummy interface (worse than/.s request desktop site, and maybe even worse than/.s mobile version) that does a lot of loading new pages to read comments in a thread and then losing place when hitting back to go to the main post.
Even with all of that, sometimes it's the best place to get a good discussion on a topic. I never browse it, but give it preference when it comes up in my search results when I'm trying to get a question answered or a review.
Similar to/., The community (at least in some subs) makes dealing with the site worth it.
Interesting, a system like that seems like it'd be very dangerous if it had false positives.
I'd think you'd want to tune it to have false negatives far more often than false positives (since it is not meant to be relied upon, simply something that can help when the worse could happen)
Also, if it happened that often I'd think there'd be complaints about it in automagazines and stuff.
I assume the Volvo system is an emergency breaking system that just slams the breaks.
Would you say that it makes sense to disable an emergency breaking system because there's a driver?
If Volvo has a tried and true, doesn't false positive, emergency breaking system, I would think it should be used as a backup to the Uber system (which is presumably worse than a driver, which also uses this emergency breaking system).
I would think anything that triggers the car to over rule a human driver in normal driving should also over rule an experimental system.
I spend $20/month on coils $20/month on accessories (I keep breaking vapes and tanks) $30/month on juice
These are likely all actual costs, and I've been excessive, and I do none of the work myself. I could cut back on vaping rather than on nicotine level and save a lot on juice I suspect, but my plan is to ramp nicotine to zero then cut back on vaping (currently at 3mg/ml down from 12).
I just checked how much total I've spent from the two places I order from, and divided by the ten months from my first order. I ignored the fact that I still have about two months of coils and a month of juice. I also have three working vapes and three tanks right now (trying to find the perfectly balanced vape for pocket size vs battery life) I have purchased 4 vapes total, one broke on a drop.
Someone more frugal could save on coils by making them ($20/month doesn't seem worth it to me), and not buying superfluous vapes every few months.
I spent over $180/month for cigs, I spent a little less than that up front for my first month vaping, then quite a big savings.
I could definitely do it for $50/month (7*4 30ml bottles, and a pack of coils at just under $20) if I wasn't so inclined to find the perfect gadget (I'll likely find it when I quit...).
Well (after RTFA), the study found no statistically significant difference between ecigs and money. It didn't say what type of setup they used for ecigs (which is where my skepticism comes from based on experience and observation).
Also though, it had almost an additive effect when doing both, which leads me to believe not that one method is particularly more effective than the other, but that they are effective on different people.
The money and the aids likely work for different people.
Slashdot Mirror
Soubdsike you're part of the 3.8% (gig workers), but also content to commit fraud for a 50% larger paycheck.
It could also mean that people are looking at "sharing" jobs as permanent.
You're assuming that:
1) search can be profitable while respecting privacy law or not (seems possible, but not necessarily a given)
2) that search can be effective while respecting privacy (this seems even more likely, but not a given).
The other scenario that could happen is that search becomes a subscription and/or is ineffective and twitter, Facebook, reddit, etc become how to find things. Closer to web directory era yahoo than a search engine.
I assume they'll call it a troll
Auto correct likes to break it sometimes too.
In 2014, the Google numbers imply under 24 months, but lengthening.
https://www.ben-evans.com/bene...
Usually concrete, but yeah, I break a lot of them.
They've existed how long, 9 years? I've had at least eleven (this one is pretty old at 8 months though, and 2 or 3 were defective (or broken charging ports that got Jarred and we're soldered to the board) and one was lost while skiing).
I suspect the number over time skews low because 5 or so years ago they were pretty rapidly improving and replacements were less likely break related vs today.
I don't take issue with the sales numbers, but it doesn't follow that there are therefore 5 billion in use.
1) your 4 year typical use assumption is quite likely wrong (I know it is in the US, I can't speak to the world at large).
2) your 66% source (for a tech heavy weighted list) doesn't actually list what they're defining as 100% saturation., but they're predicting 90% penetration. I can't prove it, but it seems very likely they are leaving out at the very least young people (6.5% of US population is under 5 (2010 census), that doesn't leave much wiggle room to get to 90%.
1 billion sales being a 5% increase means smartphones last a little over 2 years when there's 2.5 billion of them, where did you get your 4 year number?
It seems unlikely that 5/7s the population is using an Android phone, or that their are enough double phone users to significantly impact that premise from 5 billion phones in use.
Take out children, elderly, and super poor, it seems unlikely to me that their are even 5 billion smartphone users.
Except if their sales are going up while overall sales are going down (though I'm too lazy to check actual numbers, just accepting that premise from earlier in the thread), it follows they aren't just hanging onto their sliver, but growing it.
How is Tesla tanking its sales? Now I'm even more confused.
Are you saying both Nissan and Chevy avoid selling EVs?
Do you mean Chevy and Bolt, or Nissan and Leaf?
Curious which company is tanking its EV sales.
If this is true, there isn't the capacity to train them at universities.
Good guess, the summary said eight years ago.
It's almost like most corporate hacks happen when people break obvious rules and common smart computer practices...
It could be a loophole in a poorly locked down corporate setting.
A lot of companies allow people to install software on their laptop, and a lot of people treat work laptops as personal to an extent (I'm not saying any of this is good, just reality). I could see an info leak from a malicious employee attacking another employee in a network that relies on perimeter security.
I'm more wondering how it did on the identification of non malignant lesions.
I could identify 100% with an algorithm that just kicked out yes, but if I got 0% of the non malignant ones, it's not very useful.
It looks like doctors got 87% of the bad ones and falsely identified 21% of non malignant as bad, the computer getting 95% of the bad ones.
Or I completely misunderstood the summary because I don't know medicine.
I guess what I mean is they agressively want me to use their app, not their site.
Very frequent 1/3 cover ups asking me to download the app, and a really crummy interface (worse than /.s request desktop site, and maybe even worse than /.s mobile version) that does a lot of loading new pages to read comments in a thread and then losing place when hitting back to go to the main post.
Even with all of that, sometimes it's the best place to get a good discussion on a topic. I never browse it, but give it preference when it comes up in my search results when I'm trying to get a question answered or a review.
Similar to /., The community (at least in some subs) makes dealing with the site worth it.
I found some of the communities great, but they are aggressively against me browsing their site, and I'm not installing an app for it.
Interesting, a system like that seems like it'd be very dangerous if it had false positives.
I'd think you'd want to tune it to have false negatives far more often than false positives (since it is not meant to be relied upon, simply something that can help when the worse could happen)
Also, if it happened that often I'd think there'd be complaints about it in automagazines and stuff.
Does Canada count?
Is it?
I assume the Volvo system is an emergency breaking system that just slams the breaks.
Would you say that it makes sense to disable an emergency breaking system because there's a driver?
If Volvo has a tried and true, doesn't false positive, emergency breaking system, I would think it should be used as a backup to the Uber system (which is presumably worse than a driver, which also uses this emergency breaking system).
I would think anything that triggers the car to over rule a human driver in normal driving should also over rule an experimental system.
I spend
$20/month on coils
$20/month on accessories (I keep breaking vapes and tanks)
$30/month on juice
These are likely all actual costs, and I've been excessive, and I do none of the work myself. I could cut back on vaping rather than on nicotine level and save a lot on juice I suspect, but my plan is to ramp nicotine to zero then cut back on vaping (currently at 3mg/ml down from 12).
I just checked how much total I've spent from the two places I order from, and divided by the ten months from my first order. I ignored the fact that I still have about two months of coils and a month of juice. I also have three working vapes and three tanks right now (trying to find the perfectly balanced vape for pocket size vs battery life) I have purchased 4 vapes total, one broke on a drop.
Someone more frugal could save on coils by making them ($20/month doesn't seem worth it to me), and not buying superfluous vapes every few months.
I spent over $180/month for cigs, I spent a little less than that up front for my first month vaping, then quite a big savings.
I could definitely do it for $50/month (7*4 30ml bottles, and a pack of coils at just under $20) if I wasn't so inclined to find the perfect gadget (I'll likely find it when I quit...).
Well (after RTFA), the study found no statistically significant difference between ecigs and money. It didn't say what type of setup they used for ecigs (which is where my skepticism comes from based on experience and observation).
Also though, it had almost an additive effect when doing both, which leads me to believe not that one method is particularly more effective than the other, but that they are effective on different people.
The money and the aids likely work for different people.