I don't know what the breakdown is, but surely there are more users of spotify's free, ad-based service than there are subscribers. Maybe by a lot. So Spotify pays 30% for some small slice of users, 15% for a somewhat larger slice, and 0% for everybody else. They're just taking a shot at getting more money. There's no downside to trying. If it doesn't work then nothing changes. They're freerolling.
Are we just going to pretend nothing happened in Christchurch?
Do you do that in real life too? Just run up to people in a conversation and tell them to stop talking about what they want to talk about and start talking about what you want to talk about?
The catch, be-all end-all, is that this is just youtube trying to solve things with algorithms instead of people
I think it's the other way around. They want people to do it, but by "people" they mean the poster of the video, not somebody they have to pay a salary.
One of the comments on that video: "For anyone who cares, Drew Danneman is NOT the MAGA kid. Danneman graduated from Covington Catholic last year and is older than the MAGA kid."
Are they lying?
1) Why would you want to LISTEN to an Edison wax phonograph - technically superior? *
Dude, every true audiophile knows that the subtle nuances captured during the analog waxing process can never be truly and faithfully reproduced by your digital "music".
If the movie is included into your Prime subscription, you’re fine.
Unless you travel outside the US. Then 90% of the titles are "not available in your area," and the only way to know which ones is by actually trying to watch one. Before that moment there's no indication at all. It's close to useless. Ridiculous customer experience.
That's part of the reason for all the disclaimers. The other part is that it's much easier to get clearance to sell it when the claims are minimized. I'm sure that it actually does a pretty good job.
Slashdot Mirror
You keep your playstation in the water?
What's that got to do with it? The code is there, and it doesn't care one way or the other about the interests that created it.
What you've "been told", in general, is not a solid foundation for reasoning. People say all sorts of things.
I don't know what the breakdown is, but surely there are more users of spotify's free, ad-based service than there are subscribers. Maybe by a lot. So Spotify pays 30% for some small slice of users, 15% for a somewhat larger slice, and 0% for everybody else. They're just taking a shot at getting more money. There's no downside to trying. If it doesn't work then nothing changes. They're freerolling.
It's 30% for the first year of a subscription, then 15%. Spotify is not paying anywhere near 30%.
Do you do that in real life too? Just run up to people in a conversation and tell them to stop talking about what they want to talk about and start talking about what you want to talk about?
And if it could, why would the objections be measured in units of its weight?
My sound waves do travel up. That's why I have to talk down to people.
I think it's the other way around. They want people to do it, but by "people" they mean the poster of the video, not somebody they have to pay a salary.
For example?
Considering that this is from five years ago, how did it work out? Was it effective?
How did you measure this?
One of the comments on that video: "For anyone who cares, Drew Danneman is NOT the MAGA kid. Danneman graduated from Covington Catholic last year and is older than the MAGA kid."
Are they lying?
Here on the internet it's almost a requirement.
Dude, every true audiophile knows that the subtle nuances captured during the analog waxing process can never be truly and faithfully reproduced by your digital "music".
If that's the dumbest statement you've ever heard you've lived a charmed life.
And eventually those primitives would even know the difference between gleamed and gleaned.
Unless you travel outside the US. Then 90% of the titles are "not available in your area," and the only way to know which ones is by actually trying to watch one. Before that moment there's no indication at all. It's close to useless. Ridiculous customer experience.
I already give it to Apple, so for me I want to avoid giving it to anyone else. Even if Netflix is an equal risk, it still doubles it.
I'm not going to call you.
So your position is that if some things can be done then all things can be done?
That's some fine logic there, Lou.
Exactly. The popular press needs to learn that the proper Slashdot definition of AI is "Things computers can't yet do."
That's part of the reason for all the disclaimers. The other part is that it's much easier to get clearance to sell it when the claims are minimized. I'm sure that it actually does a pretty good job.
Yes, I had an ECG done as an add-on to a complete blood workup while traveling in Asia. The total cost was about $20 US.