The devs will believe that the review is wrong far more often than it's actually wrong though.
Look, they're reviews. Movie and theatre makers don't get a right to reply to a bad review that they believe misunderstood the work. They just have to grin and bear it. And trust that if the work actually is any good the positives outweigh the negatives.
So in the first case the app isn't intuitive enough. The best dev response is to improve the app, not argue with the review.
In the second, the review comment will have disappeared into the "comments on older versions" section, and the fact that the feature is now in the app will be listed in the description of the
Of course customers aren't always right. Sometimes they say stupid things. But if it's a good app, they will be outnumbered, and sometime corrected by reviews from other customers.
Fact is good apps will get more positive reviews than bad apps. Regardless of devs getting a right to reply.
Is there a different way than a network of dealers and service centers? Feel free to contribute your ideas.
You really are quite lacking in imagination. Not that you need much imagination given that it what Tesla already do. Outsource to service centres. You don't have to have dealer networks selling cars in order to have local service centres servicing cars.
You make it sound like a dealer network is the only way to solve this problem, and that Tesla hasn't thought this through and has a solution. Neither are the case.
Apple get trust because they are trustworthy. Trustworthiness is a very delicate attribute. Sony had it, and lost it. Microsoft too (many here won't be old enough to remember when).
Apple still has it because they haven' betrayed their customers. Not because of magic (the RDF).
I'm not sure it's junk, but it shows that the Apple "halo-effect" is a crack in its reality distortion field.
Rather than a crack in the RDF, it's evidence that there never was an RDF. Apple has sold products hand over fist because they've been highly desirable products. When they release a product that isn't so desirable, such as the Watch or the Apple TV, then it doesn't sell so well. (Unlike what RDF theory would suggest.)
The fact that you have to save up to buy a car confirms that $1000 is a significantly amount of money for you. People who don't have to think about $1000, just buy a car.
And buying a Tesla isn't about what people think of you any more than buying an iPhone is. Big mistake. It's the pleasure of using something of quality. Apple has the highest customer satisfaction in the industry. Everyone who drives a Tesla loves the experience (not the turning heads).
You seem to think that a real AI project would only use one approach to AI. But of course they don't, any more than a human brain does. Watson undoubtably pulls on data-mining techniques, neural-nets, rule-based AI, scripts and many other techniques.
Of course the "intelligence" displayed by AI programs is a trick. But then the "intelligence" displayed by humans is also a trick.
For example, we believe that we make decisions with the conscious mind, but actually recent science shows that the subconcious mind makes decisions, leaving the conscious mind to make up plausible explanations for that decision, of asked. Yet the conscious mind doesn't know the real reason.
Of course you could define intelligence as the particular set of tricks that the biological brain of higher species plays. And not the set of tricks that AI computers use. But that would be constructing the definition to force the outcome you want.
Turing had the right idea. The Turing test only requires the appearance of intelligence. It doesn't try to define what's real intelligence and what's fake.
"Defend". Dude people don't have to defend different choices on how they use their money. Returnable deposits are a reasonably common transaction that like any other transaction brings a benefit to each side. There's nothing in economics that rules them out as reasonable.
The emotion seems to be yours. Stereotyping people who buy Teslas with people who buy Apples and Air Jordans.
Your fundamental problem is that $1000 is a significantly difficult amount of money for you. For others it's not. Saving a few dollars here and there is more important to you than quality of product and getting new products early. For some other's its not. Each to their own.
And yet you are trying to tell other people that their spending is foolish, when you have no idea what they have now, what makes them happy. Nor what their finances are.
The ACs articles are telling you exactly what I told you. You are naively dividing the money they've spent so far and dividing it by the cars they've sold so far. It;s not just capital costs you're not allowing for but all up front costs.
The listing of polar bears as an endangered species comes from scientists estimating their populations via perfectly reasonable scientific methods.
Of course when the topic is reported on in the press then of course they want an illustrative picture. It doesn't mean that the idea that polar bears are endangered came from that picture.
I'm a much bigger fan of the open peer review process. Where in anyone can publish anything and then everyone can judge for themselves if something is sensible or not.
What's your qualification for reviewing climatology papers?
As to politics, you are the one who's arguing because of your right wing politics. You are arguing against people who's views are based on the science.
Slashdot Mirror
The devs will believe that the review is wrong far more often than it's actually wrong though.
Look, they're reviews. Movie and theatre makers don't get a right to reply to a bad review that they believe misunderstood the work. They just have to grin and bear it. And trust that if the work actually is any good the positives outweigh the negatives.
So in the first case the app isn't intuitive enough. The best dev response is to improve the app, not argue with the review.
In the second, the review comment will have disappeared into the "comments on older versions" section, and the fact that the feature is now in the app will be listed in the description of the
Of course customers aren't always right. Sometimes they say stupid things. But if it's a good app, they will be outnumbered, and sometime corrected by reviews from other customers.
Fact is good apps will get more positive reviews than bad apps. Regardless of devs getting a right to reply.
There may be no danger. But you don't want some dickhead chatting on the phone at the pump whilst you are waiting for your turn to fill up.
So long as you're not stupid about it, the chance of being called jamming in a cinema is approximately zero.
And that's why capitalism is so shit.
They were right, you were wrong.
In other words - your "solution" is the one I already mentioned, a network of dealers and service centers.
You failed comprehension a second time. Idiot.
Dealers and service centres are NOT the same thing.
i.e. You have no relevant qualifications.
Is there a different way than a network of dealers and service centers? Feel free to contribute your ideas.
You really are quite lacking in imagination. Not that you need much imagination given that it what Tesla already do. Outsource to service centres. You don't have to have dealer networks selling cars in order to have local service centres servicing cars.
You make it sound like a dealer network is the only way to solve this problem, and that Tesla hasn't thought this through and has a solution. Neither are the case.
Apple get trust because they are trustworthy. Trustworthiness is a very delicate attribute. Sony had it, and lost it. Microsoft too (many here won't be old enough to remember when).
Apple still has it because they haven' betrayed their customers. Not because of magic (the RDF).
Still not as much as a correlation with no sex appeal as being a slashdot reader...
I'm not sure it's junk, but it shows that the Apple "halo-effect" is a crack in its reality distortion field.
Rather than a crack in the RDF, it's evidence that there never was an RDF. Apple has sold products hand over fist because they've been highly desirable products. When they release a product that isn't so desirable, such as the Watch or the Apple TV, then it doesn't sell so well. (Unlike what RDF theory would suggest.)
The fact that you have to save up to buy a car confirms that $1000 is a significantly amount of money for you. People who don't have to think about $1000, just buy a car.
And buying a Tesla isn't about what people think of you any more than buying an iPhone is. Big mistake. It's the pleasure of using something of quality. Apple has the highest customer satisfaction in the industry. Everyone who drives a Tesla loves the experience (not the turning heads).
Most AI's emulate females, because experience shows that human beings, both male and female, relate better when the AI presents as female.
You seem to think that a real AI project would only use one approach to AI. But of course they don't, any more than a human brain does. Watson undoubtably pulls on data-mining techniques, neural-nets, rule-based AI, scripts and many other techniques.
Of course the "intelligence" displayed by AI programs is a trick. But then the "intelligence" displayed by humans is also a trick.
For example, we believe that we make decisions with the conscious mind, but actually recent science shows that the subconcious mind makes decisions, leaving the conscious mind to make up plausible explanations for that decision, of asked. Yet the conscious mind doesn't know the real reason.
Of course you could define intelligence as the particular set of tricks that the biological brain of higher species plays. And not the set of tricks that AI computers use. But that would be constructing the definition to force the outcome you want.
Turing had the right idea. The Turing test only requires the appearance of intelligence. It doesn't try to define what's real intelligence and what's fake.
"Defend". Dude people don't have to defend different choices on how they use their money. Returnable deposits are a reasonably common transaction that like any other transaction brings a benefit to each side. There's nothing in economics that rules them out as reasonable.
The emotion seems to be yours. Stereotyping people who buy Teslas with people who buy Apples and Air Jordans.
Your fundamental problem is that $1000 is a significantly difficult amount of money for you. For others it's not. Saving a few dollars here and there is more important to you than quality of product and getting new products early. For some other's its not. Each to their own.
I'm not sure you understand the concept of a returnable deposit.
And yet you are trying to tell other people that their spending is foolish, when you have no idea what they have now, what makes them happy. Nor what their finances are.
That's the same as what it costs them.
The ACs articles are telling you exactly what I told you. You are naively dividing the money they've spent so far and dividing it by the cars they've sold so far. It;s not just capital costs you're not allowing for but all up front costs.
Many papers have shown vegetarians have longer life expectancies than meat eaters. So how are they malnourished again?
(Personally I'm a meat eater, but I'm opposed to people talking crap.)
The listing of polar bears as an endangered species comes from scientists estimating their populations via perfectly reasonable scientific methods.
Of course when the topic is reported on in the press then of course they want an illustrative picture. It doesn't mean that the idea that polar bears are endangered came from that picture.
I'm a much bigger fan of the open peer review process. Where in anyone can publish anything and then everyone can judge for themselves if something is sensible or not.
What's your qualification for reviewing climatology papers?
As to politics, you are the one who's arguing because of your right wing politics. You are arguing against people who's views are based on the science.