I think this is probably Tesla's way of varnishing over the fact that most insurance companies aren't going to insure SDC's or aren't going to ensure them at rates people want to pay.
Really, the simple fact is that we don't need as many outlets as we used to. One outlet can serve people around the world.
Naturally, there's going to be some consolidation - particularly if you can't convince enough people that your product is worth paying for above all the others.
I think there is some real truth to this. People are so constantly and aggressively marketed to that they have lowered their blast shields, and actually fight against being influenced by it.
While these new metrics might make more sense than measuring clickthroughs, I still don't see how this will achieve the objective. Time spent on a page or how deeply I scroll down an article is no indication of how likely that corporation is to separate me from some of my money.
I think TV has been advancing toward this point for a long time, but the Internet is overtaking it quickly -
The core problem is that there's just way too much low quality content out there. There's an avalanche of TV channels, websites, blogs, zines, etc - a mountain of content for every eyeball walking the earth and more. But 99.99% of the content is nothing that anyone would actually pay money for.
Clickthroughs allowed temporarily the parasitic existence of clickbait sites and fake news sites ad infinitum.
But we are getting to the point where people realize that there are about 5 TV channels they ever really want to watch, and about 5 websites they would care if they had to live without, and even fewer that they want to pay for.
The problem is not the metrics. You're going to get what you measure.
The problem is really that nobody is making anything that the general public thinks is worth paying for.
Does it matter that much if you don't participate?
Putting on our tinfoil hats here - if a nefarious conspiracy were to use the nefariously collected data for nefarious purposes - if Cuckerberg has mined and sold data on everyone else in the population except you - are you really better off ?
One could argue that you'd be better off in the faceless ocean of data, protected in security by obscurity, rather than someone who sticks out as being off the grid. The nail that sticks out is the one getting the hammer.
Now I'm going back to my alcove before the thought police come stamping up the steps...
On both sides of the aisle, the social issues are for the activists and the idealogues. Politicians pay lip service to them and then take no action on them in office. (Well, until now)
What gets the politicians moving is not social issues. It's money. Money from corporate donations from these big tech companies. (What side gets most of that money?) The manpower of the ground game in election races that keep them in power.
Both parties pretend to care about social issues, but all they really care about is keeping themselves in office and their parties in power.
Outside your comfort bubble, people do different things. Intelligent people acknowledge this instead of screaming like a madman.
I think that is helpful for understanding things, particularly when reading/.
This is an extremely niche group of people who are not typical consumers.
This is also a group of people with rooting interests for and against certain companies/products which are so strong that they'd back the average european soccer fan blush for the partiality.
We should acknowledge the role that price drops and other promotional considerations have had, but really... Apple owns this entire market. Nobody has a credible competitor that's carved out a slice. It's another case of them, for all their faults, still eating people's lunches and leaving/.ers hand-wringing.
Maybe companies like Samsung and LG and Alphabet should ask themselves why they keep being late to parties and taking cues from Apple and improving their products instead of fragmenting their own platform?
But if everyone leaves Facebook, how will I continue to convert SO MANY PEOPLE to my ways of thinking by repetitively "Sharing" articles about my political beliefs?
I can't handle being 2.5 minutes from doomsday on top of Trump, Firefly, and everything else! I am heading off to the nearest university to find a safe space where I can color.
Quality issues aside, who thought this G5 experiment was going to work? How many people were ever going to buy those expensive accessories like the VR goggles or the camera, especially if they aren't hot swappable? Who was going to spend all that money just to carry around some huge accessories?
It was ill-conceived from the start, the only question is why it ever got green-lighted
Most people would say they're fine with paying prices that are a little higher if it means more Americans are at work in good jobs, and if it means more business is being done in the US.
We'll find out if peoples' spending habits match their words, or if it turns out to be prices that are just "a little" higher.
Personally, I think it's a worthwhile thing to try. Preserving our independence is worth something.
This seems to run against the common talking point that people won't pay for content if they can't find it for free. If people really are buying the physical discs and revenues are going up when they can't find it online for free. (or nearly free, comparatively)
Slashdot Mirror
something something, MBAs, PHBs,
I think this is probably Tesla's way of varnishing over the fact that most insurance companies aren't going to insure SDC's or aren't going to ensure them at rates people want to pay.
Really, the simple fact is that we don't need as many outlets as we used to. One outlet can serve people around the world.
Naturally, there's going to be some consolidation - particularly if you can't convince enough people that your product is worth paying for above all the others.
Just like the internet was AOL once.
I think there is some real truth to this. People are so constantly and aggressively marketed to that they have lowered their blast shields, and actually fight against being influenced by it.
While these new metrics might make more sense than measuring clickthroughs, I still don't see how this will achieve the objective. Time spent on a page or how deeply I scroll down an article is no indication of how likely that corporation is to separate me from some of my money.
I think TV has been advancing toward this point for a long time, but the Internet is overtaking it quickly -
The core problem is that there's just way too much low quality content out there. There's an avalanche of TV channels, websites, blogs, zines, etc - a mountain of content for every eyeball walking the earth and more. But 99.99% of the content is nothing that anyone would actually pay money for.
Clickthroughs allowed temporarily the parasitic existence of clickbait sites and fake news sites ad infinitum.
But we are getting to the point where people realize that there are about 5 TV channels they ever really want to watch, and about 5 websites they would care if they had to live without, and even fewer that they want to pay for.
The problem is not the metrics. You're going to get what you measure.
The problem is really that nobody is making anything that the general public thinks is worth paying for.
Peyton Manning is still a great quarterback! Look at all the money he has in the bank!
No, they're fighting her because she runs afoul of all their Union campaign money, and their re-election ground game. They don't actually care.
Does it matter that much if you don't participate?
Putting on our tinfoil hats here - if a nefarious conspiracy were to use the nefariously collected data for nefarious purposes - if Cuckerberg has mined and sold data on everyone else in the population except you - are you really better off ?
One could argue that you'd be better off in the faceless ocean of data, protected in security by obscurity, rather than someone who sticks out as being off the grid. The nail that sticks out is the one getting the hammer.
Now I'm going back to my alcove before the thought police come stamping up the steps...
On both sides of the aisle, the social issues are for the activists and the idealogues. Politicians pay lip service to them and then take no action on them in office. (Well, until now)
What gets the politicians moving is not social issues. It's money. Money from corporate donations from these big tech companies. (What side gets most of that money?) The manpower of the ground game in election races that keep them in power.
Both parties pretend to care about social issues, but all they really care about is keeping themselves in office and their parties in power.
A really nice article in National Review pointed this out last week - http://www.nationalreview.com/...
Missing out on "boarders"? I thought Brexit was because the brits feel they've taken on too many already...
You're forgetting that politicians are too addicted to tax dollars to help out the poor and foolish who are addicted to nicotine.
Apple is not a tech company?
Only on /. :)
If the apple watch eliminated my phone - by being able to make calls on its own, I'd not need an iPhone.
Which is probably why they aren't including the most obviously missing feature.
Outside your comfort bubble, people do different things. Intelligent people acknowledge this instead of screaming like a madman.
I think that is helpful for understanding things, particularly when reading /.
This is an extremely niche group of people who are not typical consumers.
This is also a group of people with rooting interests for and against certain companies/products which are so strong that they'd back the average european soccer fan blush for the partiality.
We should acknowledge the role that price drops and other promotional considerations have had, but really... Apple owns this entire market. Nobody has a credible competitor that's carved out a slice. It's another case of them, for all their faults, still eating people's lunches and leaving /.ers hand-wringing.
Maybe companies like Samsung and LG and Alphabet should ask themselves why they keep being late to parties and taking cues from Apple and improving their products instead of fragmenting their own platform?
But if everyone leaves Facebook, how will I continue to convert SO MANY PEOPLE to my ways of thinking by repetitively "Sharing" articles about my political beliefs?
I can't handle being 2.5 minutes from doomsday on top of Trump, Firefly, and everything else! I am heading off to the nearest university to find a safe space where I can color.
Quality issues aside, who thought this G5 experiment was going to work? How many people were ever going to buy those expensive accessories like the VR goggles or the camera, especially if they aren't hot swappable? Who was going to spend all that money just to carry around some huge accessories?
It was ill-conceived from the start, the only question is why it ever got green-lighted
Most people would say they're fine with paying prices that are a little higher if it means more Americans are at work in good jobs, and if it means more business is being done in the US.
We'll find out if peoples' spending habits match their words, or if it turns out to be prices that are just "a little" higher.
Personally, I think it's a worthwhile thing to try. Preserving our independence is worth something.
Breaking: iPhones have a zero-day vulnerability that involves you watching someone enter their password. No ETA on a fix.
Yet another soon-to-be short-lived MS attempt to be 5th or 6th to market with someone else's idea.
This seems to run against the common talking point that people won't pay for content if they can't find it for free. If people really are buying the physical discs and revenues are going up when they can't find it online for free. (or nearly free, comparatively)
Windows 10 obviously doesn't have anything people think is worth paying for.
Now, drink your Victory Gin
but first, The Year of Linux on the Desktop (tm)
It'll be the latest thing consumers shrug at, like 3D or the curved screens. Nobody is going to rush out and buy it except for the gotta-have-it set.