When they measure the responses, even though people respond differently after seeing the ad those people don't believe it is because of the ad. They will almost always be able to identify better-sounding reasons. That's actually the whole point, and why the advertising is typically so stupid. If it was a logical response they were targeting the ads would look very different.
You might be shocked to discover this, but those of us who don't watch any commercial TV, commercial radio, and who block internet advertising, still manage to make it to stores that sell products, and sometimes to even manage to make a purchase. We don't die of starvation begging somebody who saw the ads to tell us what to buy.
And those products we buy? They were made by companies.
Please reconsider your understanding of the phrase "has to."
Right, that's why advertising still exists; people believe they can just decide to "ignore" it, and so they don't take the required steps to remove it from their experience. This allows advertising to continue to influence people in the ways that it intends to.
It may be that very little of advertising is actually intended as a logical appeal where you'd say, "golly, that ad is correct and so I'm going to incorporate the memes it presented into my thinking." If that was how it worked, "Sizzling Steak" wouldn't have been effective, and modern advertising wouldn't even exist.
To be more pedantic, that depends on what you're considering. Loopback uses things called network interfaces, but if you're looking at layer 1 it isn't even connected to the network.
If they include a store on the site and sell branded items useful to visitors, lots of people will buy them just to support the site. You don't have to try to replicate or distribute the advertising payment model in order to find alternatives.
It doesn't need to be chicken/egg it could instead by like the two sides of a coin, ying and yang, or Ohm's law where there are different measurable aspects of what is really a single and inseparable thing.
But if we're trying to be sciencey, it is pretty obvious that the chicken egg comes before the chicken, and was laid by the proto-chicken who does not have the recombination of genes that are in said egg. This remains true regardless of where you draw the line between the species chicken, and pre-chicken. This was an unanswerable question before genetics, but science has answered it very clearly.
It may be that the less your research leans on an "understanding," the more able to uncover unexpected results you are.
It may also be that the expected results have usually already been found by somebody else.
If you want to expand understanding, isn't measuring things you don't understand exactly what is needed? And wouldn't tainting that with your existing "understanding" only be introducing harmful bias?
I'm sure there is a good argument against oversimplification, but that wasn't it.
Just because you expect there to be bear shit in the woods does not in any way reduce the amount of information you can learn about the bear's life from looking at its shit.
I say that as somebody who spends a lot of time off-trail in the woods, and sees a lot of bear shit.
Having an open mind doesn't mean you have to allow any kind of idiocy in.
Are you sure about that? What if humans don't have a sensory organ for this "idiocy" thing, whatever it is? In that case you might have to "allow... in" everything that you want to gain enough experience with to even measure, much less characterize.
His choice of the word "most" shows that he believes there are also others would be affected more negatively. His statement is actually rather damning, if you understand the language he's using. Most people don't speak Business English and hear something totally different than what he said.
If you believe in property rights, then those 8 acres are 8 acres and it doesn't matter who the neighbors are, the neighbors don't own those 8 acres and can't pretend they do and close off access. End of issue.
Also, if you don't know who has interest in a property, that's fine. You might not actually have a right to know who has an interest in any property you want to acquire. If it is information you might simply not have access to, then there is no argument that they don't exist or in fact don't have an interest. In that case it just is their own business and their own land and piss off, right?
If you want to buy a private area to close off, my advice is to find one that is for sale, instead of a bunch of smaller plots next to each other with other plots in between that are not for sale. Seems obvious to me.
it's about someone wealthy from some social "platform"'s VC and stock-inflation value that decided to force natives out of their lands just because he has the money to do it. It proves he really hate everyone that isn't him, and uses everyone for his own personal gain.
Where is the angle that distinguishes this from any other rich-person-behaving-badly story, and warrants inclusion on Slashdot?
If you can't distinguish, you're not in a position to question it, so the question simply doesn't come up.
Some of us even complain that the cheap junk filling the stores has displaced higher quality products, and we'd really love to pay historical prices for historical quality.
There are lots of layers of complexity in these issues, and that is mostly lost in the food fights.
It depends if you read real information or the media bullshit. Like in the summary, some idiot doesn't understand that the unemployment numbers include all the things they complain are the truth. The number they complain about as not being the most important number, that's a number the media cherry picks off page 6 after passing over the numbers these idiots are blaming the government for not using!
The government is a lot more trustworthy than the media, though that isn't saying much. But the people complaining are usually too stupid to even find out the details of what they're complaining about! The government never changed what unemployment numbers they report, they report all of it including people who stopped looking for work. It is the media that chooses to pretend there is a single number called "unemployment rate." In the government reports that is a dozen pages of numbers covering everything that is measurable!
It has nothing to do with foreign servers though, it is about the DoJ telling US companies to turn over documents that are held by subsidiaries that they control. All of that happens in the US.
No, SCOTUS will overturn this because very-well-established precedent says that US companies, including their controlled subsidiaries, have to obey all US court orders. Americans traveling overseas does not stop them from having to obey US law. Maybe US laws are only applicable inside the US for specific reasons, but in general US law applies to Americans and American companies at all times.
An example, it is illegal for Americans to communicate with foreign governments for the purpose of affecting their response to US foreign policy; it is illegal for Americans to bribe foreign governments; it is illegal for Americans to have sex with minors in foreign countries. These laws are not legally controversial or gray areas, they are well-established.
Strange rulings at the lower and intermediate levels are to be expected, but this is heading for a unanimous ruling at the SCOTUS.
Last summer my wife went outside in the morning and surprised a squirrel that had just dug a hole and was about to drop an acorn in it. It saw her and to hide its actions it started lifting the acorn up and down like a human exercising. Squirrel was totally like, "nothing to see here, just exercising, move along!" LOL
I'd read about the fact that when scrub jays (a natural enemy that eats and hides the same foods) are around they are more careful about their hiding places, and avoid hiding anything when the jay is watching. They're clearly evolving to the ways of humans, though they probably don't realize we're not stealing their food, we just pull up the ones that sprout, and clean the rain gutters seasonally. To them it seems like food competition.
Is that because they aren't trying very hard, or there are only a few of them, or is it because people are so afraid of them that lots and lots of effort gets put into preventing attacks?
Slashdot Mirror
This observation puts you one step closer to understanding what I said. Well done.
To clarify, my comments were literal.
Getting all hand-wavy and dismissive by calling it philosophy doesn't change the discussion of scientific bias at all.
You're claiming apriori knowledge of the value of studies, and that is just hogwash.
When they measure the responses, even though people respond differently after seeing the ad those people don't believe it is because of the ad. They will almost always be able to identify better-sounding reasons. That's actually the whole point, and why the advertising is typically so stupid. If it was a logical response they were targeting the ads would look very different.
You might be shocked to discover this, but those of us who don't watch any commercial TV, commercial radio, and who block internet advertising, still manage to make it to stores that sell products, and sometimes to even manage to make a purchase. We don't die of starvation begging somebody who saw the ads to tell us what to buy.
And those products we buy? They were made by companies.
Please reconsider your understanding of the phrase "has to."
Canadian bacon was always made in the USA, though, right?
Right, that's why advertising still exists; people believe they can just decide to "ignore" it, and so they don't take the required steps to remove it from their experience. This allows advertising to continue to influence people in the ways that it intends to.
It may be that very little of advertising is actually intended as a logical appeal where you'd say, "golly, that ad is correct and so I'm going to incorporate the memes it presented into my thinking." If that was how it worked, "Sizzling Steak" wouldn't have been effective, and modern advertising wouldn't even exist.
To be more pedantic, that depends on what you're considering. Loopback uses things called network interfaces, but if you're looking at layer 1 it isn't even connected to the network.
If they include a store on the site and sell branded items useful to visitors, lots of people will buy them just to support the site. You don't have to try to replicate or distribute the advertising payment model in order to find alternatives.
If you block third party javascript it drops to 6 here.
You might not even understand the difference between a grammatical error, and a failure to utilize your preferred style guide.
It doesn't need to be chicken/egg it could instead by like the two sides of a coin, ying and yang, or Ohm's law where there are different measurable aspects of what is really a single and inseparable thing.
But if we're trying to be sciencey, it is pretty obvious that the chicken egg comes before the chicken, and was laid by the proto-chicken who does not have the recombination of genes that are in said egg. This remains true regardless of where you draw the line between the species chicken, and pre-chicken. This was an unanswerable question before genetics, but science has answered it very clearly.
It may be that the less your research leans on an "understanding," the more able to uncover unexpected results you are.
It may also be that the expected results have usually already been found by somebody else.
If you want to expand understanding, isn't measuring things you don't understand exactly what is needed? And wouldn't tainting that with your existing "understanding" only be introducing harmful bias?
I'm sure there is a good argument against oversimplification, but that wasn't it.
Just because you expect there to be bear shit in the woods does not in any way reduce the amount of information you can learn about the bear's life from looking at its shit.
I say that as somebody who spends a lot of time off-trail in the woods, and sees a lot of bear shit.
Having an open mind doesn't mean you have to allow any kind of idiocy in.
Are you sure about that? What if humans don't have a sensory organ for this "idiocy" thing, whatever it is? In that case you might have to "allow... in" everything that you want to gain enough experience with to even measure, much less characterize.
are these capable of protecting us in a vacuum ?
Nope, they only protect astronauts.
They don't make spacesuits in neckbeard sizes anyways.
His choice of the word "most" shows that he believes there are also others would be affected more negatively. His statement is actually rather damning, if you understand the language he's using. Most people don't speak Business English and hear something totally different than what he said.
We're talking 8 acres
If you believe in property rights, then those 8 acres are 8 acres and it doesn't matter who the neighbors are, the neighbors don't own those 8 acres and can't pretend they do and close off access. End of issue.
Also, if you don't know who has interest in a property, that's fine. You might not actually have a right to know who has an interest in any property you want to acquire. If it is information you might simply not have access to, then there is no argument that they don't exist or in fact don't have an interest. In that case it just is their own business and their own land and piss off, right?
If you want to buy a private area to close off, my advice is to find one that is for sale, instead of a bunch of smaller plots next to each other with other plots in between that are not for sale. Seems obvious to me.
it's about someone wealthy from some social "platform"'s VC and stock-inflation value that decided to force natives out of their lands just because he has the money to do it. It proves he really hate everyone that isn't him, and uses everyone for his own personal gain.
Where is the angle that distinguishes this from any other rich-person-behaving-badly story, and warrants inclusion on Slashdot?
If you can't distinguish, you're not in a position to question it, so the question simply doesn't come up.
Ask more intelligent questions, please.
Hey brainreader, rub two brain cells together and discover we do care.
Look at your user id, you've been a user here for like, what, a week? Hey new kid, get off my lawn!!!
Some of us even complain that the cheap junk filling the stores has displaced higher quality products, and we'd really love to pay historical prices for historical quality.
There are lots of layers of complexity in these issues, and that is mostly lost in the food fights.
It depends if you read real information or the media bullshit. Like in the summary, some idiot doesn't understand that the unemployment numbers include all the things they complain are the truth. The number they complain about as not being the most important number, that's a number the media cherry picks off page 6 after passing over the numbers these idiots are blaming the government for not using!
The government is a lot more trustworthy than the media, though that isn't saying much. But the people complaining are usually too stupid to even find out the details of what they're complaining about! The government never changed what unemployment numbers they report, they report all of it including people who stopped looking for work. It is the media that chooses to pretend there is a single number called "unemployment rate." In the government reports that is a dozen pages of numbers covering everything that is measurable!
It has nothing to do with foreign servers though, it is about the DoJ telling US companies to turn over documents that are held by subsidiaries that they control. All of that happens in the US.
No, SCOTUS will overturn this because very-well-established precedent says that US companies, including their controlled subsidiaries, have to obey all US court orders. Americans traveling overseas does not stop them from having to obey US law. Maybe US laws are only applicable inside the US for specific reasons, but in general US law applies to Americans and American companies at all times.
An example, it is illegal for Americans to communicate with foreign governments for the purpose of affecting their response to US foreign policy; it is illegal for Americans to bribe foreign governments; it is illegal for Americans to have sex with minors in foreign countries. These laws are not legally controversial or gray areas, they are well-established.
Strange rulings at the lower and intermediate levels are to be expected, but this is heading for a unanimous ruling at the SCOTUS.
Gonna ignore the pun and tell a short story.
Last summer my wife went outside in the morning and surprised a squirrel that had just dug a hole and was about to drop an acorn in it. It saw her and to hide its actions it started lifting the acorn up and down like a human exercising. Squirrel was totally like, "nothing to see here, just exercising, move along!" LOL
I'd read about the fact that when scrub jays (a natural enemy that eats and hides the same foods) are around they are more careful about their hiding places, and avoid hiding anything when the jay is watching. They're clearly evolving to the ways of humans, though they probably don't realize we're not stealing their food, we just pull up the ones that sprout, and clean the rain gutters seasonally. To them it seems like food competition.
Is that because they aren't trying very hard, or there are only a few of them, or is it because people are so afraid of them that lots and lots of effort gets put into preventing attacks?
There might be layers of points to be had. ;)