He’s lamenting the loss of a more democratic web, where all kinds of content was possible.
All kinds of content is possible now, so that can't be it!
You can’t compete with these huge commercial entities.
Why would "all kinds" of content be competing with just one type of content? This claim only makes sense if your first point is wrong and he means something else!
Very, very little of the valuable content that I find is "competing" with anything! Certainly not commercial content, as the reward feedback loops for commercial content do not encourage maximizing the information quality, or the quality of the user experience! A commercial training company isn't going to post complete, quality content where everybody can use it freely; they wouldn't make any money! And yet, University professors (who are often paid more than the person doing the commercial training!) often post free content online, and the user experience is often a big part of their motivation. They want to help people learn, and they're already being paid to do that separately. So the training company might see them as competition, but it is one-way; the professor probably doesn't see the company as competition at all!
Why does the existence of a strip mall mean that other things stopped existing? It seems the evidence for that would be somewhere other than the strip mall!
Why the hell would a person whose goal is to provide content need to "compete?" Is their content really of such low quality that they can't find hosting for it? Why the hell would content be "harder to host" now? If it is non-commercial content, there are lots of places to host it, and hosting is cheap these days. I run servers and I don't know that the security environment makes it hard; actually, if you don't know what you're doing just choose CentOS or some other business-oriented distro and set updates to automatic; all the scary stuff you saw in the news had patches pushed out, after all! Security is hard if you're doing something special, or you wrote your web apps yourself, but if you're just hosting some content you can choose solid, well-tested software that receives updates.
You include a link, but it doesn't say what you claim.
I have the 2012 Nexus 7, and it stopped getting full-OS updates, but it never stopped getting security updates! And Google moved their services to apps, so those are all updated.
The slow SSD was fixed in 5.1 according to your link.
Apparently, depending one what apps were installed before the update, some people were still having performance problems, but that went away if they did factory reset, so it probably was just the apps doing it.
My daily-use tablet is a 2013 Nexus 7, and it still runs the same as ever. The 2012 I don't use as much, but it was never slow for me. But then, I don't run social media apps on it, just tools!
From just an information theory perspective, you've demanded that research be done but you haven't actually specified anything more specific than "MicroSoft hasn't changed."
And I impeach that by pointing out that once upon a time their product was a computer language written by hand by Bill and Paul. And now, Bill and Paul are off doing other things, they don't write the code by hand from the datasheet without a computer anymore. Somebody completely different is blindly pounding out code now! So we know that the statement "MicroSoft hasn't changed" is false.
For small enough values of "nerd" and "archetype" it might be possible, but I doubt you can get the values of achetype that small when the root word is arkhos, "king" or "ruler."
If you can't tell the difference between a press that you own, and the public airwaves that have to be shared, and you can't find any difference between them in the 1st Amendment, then you don't actually have any idea how you feel about the Constitution because you don't know what it is or what it says!
I recall reading recently that the online ads actually weren't working, and that companies were realizing they weren't getting much value.
It is well known that hated ads on television and radio work. But is that because people don't know any better, or because the audience is captive? That is still being hashed out, and you can find research claiming to support both claims.
Advertising generally is a hundreds of billions of dollars industry because advertising generally works. That tells us nothing at all about newer forms of advertising that have disrupted the industry. The history of advertising is not only full of success stories, but also failures, even failures that damaged the company.
It is known that, as you say, otherwise-intelligent people who are dumb enough to believe they can listen to the ad without being affected are still affected. But is the affect the same when they feel like they're controlling the content as when they feel like they're passively watching it? Not well established. They might wrongly believe they can ignore it, but then resolve the cognitive dissonance with an ad blocker!
Are people with higher incomes more likely to install ad-blockers, because they're more used to being in control of their experience? Oh, that is already established: Yes, (outside of France) higher income people are more likely to install ad blockers. https://marketingland.com/ad-b... It looks like a small difference, but when young people are also more likely to install blockers, and young people generally earn less than older people, it might actually be much worse than the numbers show.
(In defense of France, their rich people weren't more likely to install ad blockers than their poor people, but only because their adoption rate is so high across all income levels; highest outside of Asia!)
No I'm not going to read your screed. You said that crap about "private companies" when the issue is "public airwaves." It doesn't matter who the fuck the company is, the public airwaves are not something they own, it is not their private property! Free speech is not a right of publishing graffiti on the public square, it is the right to publish your own words with your own press or a press that agreed to your use.
You say that is irrelevant, well you don't care about the Constitution and I'm not going to read another word of your crap past that. It being public airwaves is the whole subject!
Comprehension fail! Try reading it again, more slowly. I wasn't talking about how people in the US understand the term. Oh, I see your mistake, you can't comprehend that other people are people! Pathetic.
As an exercise, can you find the words you missed? Or do some of the words just conveniently disappear, depending on who is being talked about?
This question you pose shows what a liar you were being above! You didn't actually mean what you wrote, you meant some other thing that requires different words. Is it true you're really so stupid you can't tell the difference between throwing somebody out for being the wrong _____, and being the one thrown out? You can't comprehend that if nobody is trying to throw somebody out, nobody is getting thrown out?
It is pathetic and it exposes your evil to those who have become educated in the language your evil deploys.
You missed the point; if you're not home, you're also not dying in the fire. That was why I talked about smoke detectors at all; if you're home and die in the fire, then you don't care about insurance! If you didn't die in the fire, then it is an insurance matter.
If somebody robs you, and has a frozen-frame video to "prove" they were never there, then you could lose [whatever you have of value in your house] and you might not even have an insurance claim! You could even be threatened with making a false police report if nobody knew about the bug.
The people are all frightened sheep, and they already have shepherds.
People who think they would be better shepherds should focus on growing greener grass, instead of complaining about moral issues that sheep don't even words to talk about!
Look at what happened to CB radio (at least in the US), the original "open platform" for communication. It was eventually discovered that most people have absolutely nothing to say.
The inventors of the TV also thought it would be used for the average person to see plays and listen to symphonies.
They're not far off in my house, we only watch PBS! I mostly ignored visual media until youtube started getting good educational content. Now I use it to watch university lectures, and also amateur lectures that are just as good! And cat videos. I don't want to own a cat, thanks to all the people who share theirs online!
Actually, on CB radio if you're on the right channel there are a lot of people who do have something to say, "Hey I got a flat tire on the ___ at the __ milepost, can anybody help me out?" And they get help faster than if they called roadside assistance. Stand on the side of the road and wave your hand everybody is too scared of strangers to stop, but get on the horn and ask and they'll trust the sound of your voice! When I was a teenager I had a handheld CB and I could even hitchhike with it; I could get city to city rides within 5 minutes of asking. Now I have one in the car and when I'm on single lane forest roads I use it to let log trucks know I'm coming up the mountain! Very useful. Yeah, you can also turn it to the chat channels and wow, people sure do have a lot of nothing to say!
Right, got it: if the news-reader tell you to call it terrorism, then it is terrorism. If they don't tell you the person's motivations, or if they don't really dig into it because [whatever], then you know it wasn't. Easy-peasy!
I noticed the same thing. All the white supremacists invented a new word recently, but they didn't actually change their views at all.
In my experience the only time they deny it is when they're doing a build-up to a racist joke!
If I'm walking down a dark street at night and on one side of the street are some Black Panthers, and on the other side of the street are some skinheads, I'm definitely crossing to the Black Panther side; they're only willing to fight for their own freedoms, they don't want to take away mine. The idiot supremacists want to beat down anybody who doesn't agree that idiots are supreme, me included!
No, I was talking about real communism. How the fuck can you not detect in what I posted the discussion of real events? There was nothing abstract about it at all!
Oh, I see, you're saying it isn't a True Scotsman!
BTW, go look up bourgeois. It means "lower middle class."
The really shocking part is that they had to assign staff to keep him away from teenagers, but didn't actually ban him or anything.
Yeah, the... fact that it was widely known and they would try to mitigate this stuff is really disturbing. I don't know if it was just being non-confrontational or they thought there was some benefit to having him around that was worth the risk.
Society didn't care, and they would have been fired if they tried to stop it.
Times are changing; people are starting to enforce the rules I was raised to believe were already the rules! It is going to take a long, long time to straighten it all out as a society.
Slashdot Mirror
He’s lamenting the loss of a more democratic web, where all kinds of content was possible.
All kinds of content is possible now, so that can't be it!
You can’t compete with these huge commercial entities.
Why would "all kinds" of content be competing with just one type of content? This claim only makes sense if your first point is wrong and he means something else!
Very, very little of the valuable content that I find is "competing" with anything! Certainly not commercial content, as the reward feedback loops for commercial content do not encourage maximizing the information quality, or the quality of the user experience! A commercial training company isn't going to post complete, quality content where everybody can use it freely; they wouldn't make any money! And yet, University professors (who are often paid more than the person doing the commercial training!) often post free content online, and the user experience is often a big part of their motivation. They want to help people learn, and they're already being paid to do that separately. So the training company might see them as competition, but it is one-way; the professor probably doesn't see the company as competition at all!
Why does the existence of a strip mall mean that other things stopped existing? It seems the evidence for that would be somewhere other than the strip mall!
Why the hell would a person whose goal is to provide content need to "compete?" Is their content really of such low quality that they can't find hosting for it? Why the hell would content be "harder to host" now? If it is non-commercial content, there are lots of places to host it, and hosting is cheap these days. I run servers and I don't know that the security environment makes it hard; actually, if you don't know what you're doing just choose CentOS or some other business-oriented distro and set updates to automatic; all the scary stuff you saw in the news had patches pushed out, after all! Security is hard if you're doing something special, or you wrote your web apps yourself, but if you're just hosting some content you can choose solid, well-tested software that receives updates.
You include a link, but it doesn't say what you claim.
I have the 2012 Nexus 7, and it stopped getting full-OS updates, but it never stopped getting security updates! And Google moved their services to apps, so those are all updated.
The slow SSD was fixed in 5.1 according to your link.
Apparently, depending one what apps were installed before the update, some people were still having performance problems, but that went away if they did factory reset, so it probably was just the apps doing it.
My daily-use tablet is a 2013 Nexus 7, and it still runs the same as ever. The 2012 I don't use as much, but it was never slow for me. But then, I don't run social media apps on it, just tools!
What the hell is a phone call?
A far-speaker that runs in your jeejah. It requires a numeric password to identify the victim.
If it is a Google Nexus device and you want to run stock you can get updates... forever so far!
I am just so sick of code thrash, they've tried every paradigm three times why aren't they ever ready to choose?!
From just an information theory perspective, you've demanded that research be done but you haven't actually specified anything more specific than "MicroSoft hasn't changed."
And I impeach that by pointing out that once upon a time their product was a computer language written by hand by Bill and Paul. And now, Bill and Paul are off doing other things, they don't write the code by hand from the datasheet without a computer anymore. Somebody completely different is blindly pounding out code now! So we know that the statement "MicroSoft hasn't changed" is false.
The truth is, even though MS are the good guys these days I still put black tape over their keyboard logo.
But they are pretty nice keyboards.
If you don't need to know what is in their mind, then perhaps it is in your mind, and not theirs?
For small enough values of "nerd" and "archetype" it might be possible, but I doubt you can get the values of achetype that small when the root word is arkhos, "king" or "ruler."
OK, so you call knowing what is in somebody else's mind, knowing their true motivations, is using your... "brain?"
Wow! On my planet they can only do that in bad sci-fi movies! We have to judge people's actions here!
I don't doubt the skinheads will call me names; that isn't even new! They do that already.
If you can't tell the difference between a press that you own, and the public airwaves that have to be shared, and you can't find any difference between them in the 1st Amendment, then you don't actually have any idea how you feel about the Constitution because you don't know what it is or what it says!
I recall reading recently that the online ads actually weren't working, and that companies were realizing they weren't getting much value.
It is well known that hated ads on television and radio work. But is that because people don't know any better, or because the audience is captive? That is still being hashed out, and you can find research claiming to support both claims.
Advertising generally is a hundreds of billions of dollars industry because advertising generally works. That tells us nothing at all about newer forms of advertising that have disrupted the industry. The history of advertising is not only full of success stories, but also failures, even failures that damaged the company.
It is known that, as you say, otherwise-intelligent people who are dumb enough to believe they can listen to the ad without being affected are still affected. But is the affect the same when they feel like they're controlling the content as when they feel like they're passively watching it? Not well established. They might wrongly believe they can ignore it, but then resolve the cognitive dissonance with an ad blocker!
Are people with higher incomes more likely to install ad-blockers, because they're more used to being in control of their experience? Oh, that is already established: Yes, (outside of France) higher income people are more likely to install ad blockers. https://marketingland.com/ad-b...
It looks like a small difference, but when young people are also more likely to install blockers, and young people generally earn less than older people, it might actually be much worse than the numbers show.
(In defense of France, their rich people weren't more likely to install ad blockers than their poor people, but only because their adoption rate is so high across all income levels; highest outside of Asia!)
No, no, no, no, and no.
No I'm not going to read your screed. You said that crap about "private companies" when the issue is "public airwaves." It doesn't matter who the fuck the company is, the public airwaves are not something they own, it is not their private property! Free speech is not a right of publishing graffiti on the public square, it is the right to publish your own words with your own press or a press that agreed to your use.
You say that is irrelevant, well you don't care about the Constitution and I'm not going to read another word of your crap past that. It being public airwaves is the whole subject!
I'm running 50.1. If anything purports to tell me I have to upgrade, I'll be going Back to the Future with a fork! :)
Comprehension fail! Try reading it again, more slowly. I wasn't talking about how people in the US understand the term. Oh, I see your mistake, you can't comprehend that other people are people! Pathetic.
As an exercise, can you find the words you missed? Or do some of the words just conveniently disappear, depending on who is being talked about?
This question you pose shows what a liar you were being above! You didn't actually mean what you wrote, you meant some other thing that requires different words. Is it true you're really so stupid you can't tell the difference between throwing somebody out for being the wrong _____, and being the one thrown out? You can't comprehend that if nobody is trying to throw somebody out, nobody is getting thrown out?
It is pathetic and it exposes your evil to those who have become educated in the language your evil deploys.
Nope.
You missed the point; if you're not home, you're also not dying in the fire. That was why I talked about smoke detectors at all; if you're home and die in the fire, then you don't care about insurance! If you didn't die in the fire, then it is an insurance matter.
If somebody robs you, and has a frozen-frame video to "prove" they were never there, then you could lose [whatever you have of value in your house] and you might not even have an insurance claim! You could even be threatened with making a false police report if nobody knew about the bug.
The people are all frightened sheep, and they already have shepherds.
People who think they would be better shepherds should focus on growing greener grass, instead of complaining about moral issues that sheep don't even words to talk about!
Look at what happened to CB radio (at least in the US), the original "open platform" for communication. It was eventually discovered that most people have absolutely nothing to say.
The inventors of the TV also thought it would be used for the average person to see plays and listen to symphonies.
They're not far off in my house, we only watch PBS! I mostly ignored visual media until youtube started getting good educational content. Now I use it to watch university lectures, and also amateur lectures that are just as good! And cat videos. I don't want to own a cat, thanks to all the people who share theirs online!
Actually, on CB radio if you're on the right channel there are a lot of people who do have something to say, "Hey I got a flat tire on the ___ at the __ milepost, can anybody help me out?" And they get help faster than if they called roadside assistance. Stand on the side of the road and wave your hand everybody is too scared of strangers to stop, but get on the horn and ask and they'll trust the sound of your voice! When I was a teenager I had a handheld CB and I could even hitchhike with it; I could get city to city rides within 5 minutes of asking. Now I have one in the car and when I'm on single lane forest roads I use it to let log trucks know I'm coming up the mountain! Very useful. Yeah, you can also turn it to the chat channels and wow, people sure do have a lot of nothing to say!
Right, got it: if the news-reader tell you to call it terrorism, then it is terrorism. If they don't tell you the person's motivations, or if they don't really dig into it because [whatever], then you know it wasn't. Easy-peasy!
Nobody is terrified by mass murder, after all...
I noticed the same thing. All the white supremacists invented a new word recently, but they didn't actually change their views at all.
In my experience the only time they deny it is when they're doing a build-up to a racist joke!
If I'm walking down a dark street at night and on one side of the street are some Black Panthers, and on the other side of the street are some skinheads, I'm definitely crossing to the Black Panther side; they're only willing to fight for their own freedoms, they don't want to take away mine. The idiot supremacists want to beat down anybody who doesn't agree that idiots are supreme, me included!
No, I was talking about real communism. How the fuck can you not detect in what I posted the discussion of real events? There was nothing abstract about it at all!
Oh, I see, you're saying it isn't a True Scotsman!
BTW, go look up bourgeois. It means "lower middle class."
The really shocking part is that they had to assign staff to keep him away from teenagers, but didn't actually ban him or anything.
Yeah, the... fact that it was widely known and they would try to mitigate this stuff is really disturbing. I don't know if it was just being non-confrontational or they thought there was some benefit to having him around that was worth the risk.
Society didn't care, and they would have been fired if they tried to stop it.
Times are changing; people are starting to enforce the rules I was raised to believe were already the rules! It is going to take a long, long time to straighten it all out as a society.