Right, in redneck territory a junkyard owner is a successful business person, the local ruling class in fact. And wise to worldly ways, educated in metallurgical topics. Probably subscribes to Scientific American or Popular Science. Of course he knew what it was. Even a typical idiot would know what it was, especially near a space program facility.
If you've narrowed what you're willing to consider in a way that excludes the examples in the story, then you're just ignoring what the subject is, and talking anyways. Whatever you said, am I clear that your position is that it doesn't apply to the subject at hand?
Sorry, but it is rather obvious to anybody with any business training at all, even unrelated training, that this will cause both more people to "get really annoyed," and to subscribe to apple music.
In the doom and gloom scenario where the "really annoyed" apple customer actually stops buying apple products because they suck and make them mad, (yeah, right lol) both things ("annoyed" and "subscribed") would be increasing. Under all scenarios, both the short term and medium term apple music subscriptions should go up because of this.
People who won't buy things because Siri wants them to, but are still using an Apple device, they can be as "annoyed" as they want. Why should Apple care? Those people can use an alternative, like voice web search. Like you said, your iFriends who don't use Siri because it sucks... still have iPhones. Sounds like Apple's reasoning was solid to me. Their customers are loyal to the death and won't stop buying no matter what they do, and apple music subscriptions will go up from this. If customers are loyal to a fault, and everybody knows it, they should expect their stated desires to have no value at all to the company they are loyal to. That is the value of brand loyalty!
If you want your suppliers to care about your opinion, just be an emotionless buyer of their stuff. Don't buy every single thing they make. Don't beg them to please think of you because you love them so much. They'll be laughing at you while taking a swan dive into a Scrooge McMoneyPool. You want your supplier to always understand that you use them because they were better than the other guy... this time. And that you continually re-evaluate your purchasing practices and explore alternatives proactively.
My advice, if Brand X is actually distinctive, don't buy it. Even if it seems better, the lack of competition will lock you in and take you for a ride. Always choose the best generic.
The examples we're talking about are quoted in the story which is something I made very clear in the comment you're replying to. Honestly, you're not leaving me convinced you would know the difference.
Right, but the story isn't about that. In the sense that the story is talking about, in the context of their examples, your statement is false. The discussion is not about information density being difficult for people to understand, the story is about poor writing making things needlessly obtuse. The disjointed prose discussed is actually disjointed; it is not just a false perception created by the untrained eye wandering off to check footnotes.
The contrast between the examples given and the picture you paint is rather stark. Even if you're not going to read the story, at least skim it for the first example paragraph. You'll find your mistake amusing, I wager.
I find the examples in the story to be of a totally different character than excess acronyms. When there are a lot of acronyms it is likely to be information dense. They're not talking about high information density being opaque, they're talking about the writing being opaque even just when saying basic, 101-level things that would be said with normal English words by members of their own field.
I read primary literature from multiple fields, and it is a serious problem. Much less so in hard science, because it is usually not accessible anyways. There is no benefit to making it intentionally opaque. Worst is in the life sciences, where the opaque style is often used to mimic information density. When it is outside your main field, it can take a significant effort to figure out that they're just repeating basic known things in a complicated way, and don't actually have any information that benefits from narrow jargon. For example, lets say somebody is claiming to have discovered some biological effect, and you're reading their paper with an interest in making a sensor related to it. It can be very frustrating, even where you already read a bunch of similar papers and have spent time with a glossary. When they start getting obtuse, you have to be very careful because they might just be blowing smoke and trying to sound more important, or there might be a subtle difference in the implications that is actually the main point of the paper. Low quality writing hurts that from both sides; there is a giant pile of over-written hogwash for every subtle distinction that is hopelessly buried, but it is missing the underwritten one that does the actual damage. Lost time and annoyance in one thing, but the more crap papers there are the harder it is to identify the diamonds.
If it is well written and obviously important, who cares? 20 other companies are already building the sensor before the paper finished peer review. In that case I'll wait for the abstract of the abstract to be published in New Scientist.
Don't say "Try and X", if you want to sound like you finished college.
Everybody who started finished. Somebody who flunked out the first year? They finished their college career early. Perhaps you were searching for the word "graduated?"
As for "try and X," I do agree that it lacks proper punctuation. If you want to be taken seriously you need philosophical rantings to take on a more precise syntax:
I know this is a crazy thing to say, but if you read the story you'll find that isn't what they're talking about. The problem is not that specialists use specialist jargon freely, it is that they use longwinded specialist jargon to explain the simplest of concepts, and jump through significant syntactic hoops in order to construct sentences that use the jargon words repeatedly and exclusively, and entirely without cause. Just see the examples in the story. Nobody is talking about dumbing-down papers, they're talking about papers whose mundane content has a high density of jargon, often arranged in a grammatically strained manner that serves no purpose other than to make it sound like it is describing something more complicated or specialized than it actually is.
They even accuse researchers of doing it intentionally in order to make in unreadable by people not specialized enough to understand it. Is that a useful function for a specialist? Is that really the alternative to the lowest common denominator, or is that a false choice?
Naw, the more complicated the subject is, the more benefit you get from attempting to communicate clearly and efficiently. It is silly to presume it is a wasted effort unless the result is some sort of maximal simplicity. There is a giant sack of assumptions here, and I'll bet many of them are also involved in the low quality of academic writing referred to in the story.
Just because the subject is dense, that doesn't mean that the subject benefits less from clarity, or for removing jargon words in the cases where the simpler literary word contains the desired meaning. Subject complexity is no excuse for inaniloquent longiloquence or grandiloquent cacology. I don't think anybody is demanding suaviloquence, merely planiloquent discourse.
"All mainstream game consoles" and "most useful commercial software" is not "everywhere."
Games are not mandatory in the way that walking past other citizens in a city is mandatory for living in the city.
Commercial software is not mandatory, and in fact "useful software" is the specific area where there are non-commercial options in the vast majority of cases.
I can and do avoid both game consoles and commercial software containing DRM. (even most commercial software that doesn't contain DRM, for that matter.) I wish I could be that successful at avoiding second-hand smoke! And BTW, living in the countryside doesn't help. Visit a rural market sometime, you'll see what I mean; less population on the sidewalk, because there is no sidewalk, but there might be a half dozen people standing around smoking, or sitting in their (idling, diesel) cars smoking. Half the village usually drives (a few hundred feet) to the store, where the man sits in the car and smokes while his wife shops. Sad but true. If you're lucky, he's not also drinking a can of beer.
Indeed, if they made everything an exception, Congress might see fit to remove the exception for abuse. I may hate the DMCA, but I do at least assume that Congress supports it since it hasn't been repealed. This is certainly more than I expected, more than I heard anybody mainstream claim was likely.
No, I think what Cowherd was saying wasn't that he's going to do "other things" meaning the crack the game and still play the game, he's saying that since they don't want to sell or give away game content in a reasonable way that respects user freedom, he's going to go play at the park instead.
I for one am glad that the game industry sucks so bad. Playing all those video games was very good for me as a child, I believe. But the value wasn't in the games, it was in the fun computer time and the secondary lessons involved. As an adult I get deeper satisfaction out of traditional adult recreation, and restricting computer entertainment to its function as an information access tool. Actual computer games are a natural distraction, but the content is so vapid and trope-y that there is little value to be gained.
So I say, thank you for making the games suck so bad, and hating your users. It would be harder to say "no" if the products had depth and quality.
I understood that part. "We're gonna figure out which code is most important to our business, and thrash the features back and forth a bunch of times."
Doesn't really tell me what to plan for; which services they're going to stop, and which ones they're going to remove all the features from. If I knew at least which specific products they're going to transform then I'd know which ones to stop using on account of they're already doing what I want, which is about to end. Then I could select a competing service in advance, that currently does the same thing. Now that would by synergy.
Compounding drugs isn't a loophole, it is a traditional medical service. They didn't have some right to a monopoly, so there is no "loophole." It is just such a simple drug that it turns out somebody else can offer it after all.
This isn't a patent situation, where there is supposed to be a monopoly. They thought they had one, but it wasn't natural and so it won't persist. No loophole, just poor understanding of their product and market by executives.
It isn't something they did R&D for, it is a standard known thing that nobody else was still making because there wasn't reason to compete on the cheap stuff with relatively few customers.
That is why another company can just make it for $1. They could make it for a few cents, but it won't sell as many bottles as ibuprofen. And it takes up a factory line to be making it. If they're only going to need to be making it a couple days per month, then it costs a lot more per bottle because of setup.
I read this book. If you don't invest, you end up living in the stone age in the forest, and if you buy in then you live inside the bubble city with technology.
It is highly unlikely that an ACLU lawsuit is "badly written." They employ top-shelf lawyers, and pick out a small number of cases to bring. They have a good track record, too. Expect appeals.
Beach sand isn't play sand. Play sand is from a river, and is collected as a byproduct of the more valuable gravel and rock. That is why it is cheap. If they were going out and collecting just straight play sand out of a river valley, above the amount already available, it would be much, much more expensive.
Beach sand has to be dredged off the ocean floor. And collected carefully, after environmental impact and other site analysis is done by professionals. And often the equipment isn't sitting around on standby for that sort of project, so you'll either be paying really high equipment rental on everything, or buying much of the heavy equipment before the project, and selling it afterwards. Not only to collect it, hold it for draining so it can be moved by truck, move by truck, and dump it, but delivery probably can't be done just by telling the trucks where to dump. The trucks are likely to sink into the beach if you try to drive right up and dump it in the surf. You're going to need a bunch of light tractors or some similar thing.
1000 m^3 is too much for a small project, and not enough for a large project. If they wanted to save money, they could purchase more, and have the rest delivered in the future; but governments are run in debt, with no cash reserves at all, and so the financing would eat the savings.
Sorry, your grammar isn't good enough for me to tell if you're trying to do a better job of teaching Republicanism, or if you're trying to increase funding for education in red states.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, in redneck territory a junkyard owner is a successful business person, the local ruling class in fact. And wise to worldly ways, educated in metallurgical topics. Probably subscribes to Scientific American or Popular Science. Of course he knew what it was. Even a typical idiot would know what it was, especially near a space program facility.
If you've narrowed what you're willing to consider in a way that excludes the examples in the story, then you're just ignoring what the subject is, and talking anyways. Whatever you said, am I clear that your position is that it doesn't apply to the subject at hand?
Sorry, but it is rather obvious to anybody with any business training at all, even unrelated training, that this will cause both more people to "get really annoyed," and to subscribe to apple music.
In the doom and gloom scenario where the "really annoyed" apple customer actually stops buying apple products because they suck and make them mad, (yeah, right lol) both things ("annoyed" and "subscribed") would be increasing. Under all scenarios, both the short term and medium term apple music subscriptions should go up because of this.
People who won't buy things because Siri wants them to, but are still using an Apple device, they can be as "annoyed" as they want. Why should Apple care? Those people can use an alternative, like voice web search. Like you said, your iFriends who don't use Siri because it sucks... still have iPhones. Sounds like Apple's reasoning was solid to me. Their customers are loyal to the death and won't stop buying no matter what they do, and apple music subscriptions will go up from this. If customers are loyal to a fault, and everybody knows it, they should expect their stated desires to have no value at all to the company they are loyal to. That is the value of brand loyalty!
If you want your suppliers to care about your opinion, just be an emotionless buyer of their stuff. Don't buy every single thing they make. Don't beg them to please think of you because you love them so much. They'll be laughing at you while taking a swan dive into a Scrooge McMoneyPool. You want your supplier to always understand that you use them because they were better than the other guy... this time. And that you continually re-evaluate your purchasing practices and explore alternatives proactively.
My advice, if Brand X is actually distinctive, don't buy it. Even if it seems better, the lack of competition will lock you in and take you for a ride. Always choose the best generic.
The examples we're talking about are quoted in the story which is something I made very clear in the comment you're replying to. Honestly, you're not leaving me convinced you would know the difference.
Right, but the story isn't about that. In the sense that the story is talking about, in the context of their examples, your statement is false. The discussion is not about information density being difficult for people to understand, the story is about poor writing making things needlessly obtuse. The disjointed prose discussed is actually disjointed; it is not just a false perception created by the untrained eye wandering off to check footnotes.
The contrast between the examples given and the picture you paint is rather stark. Even if you're not going to read the story, at least skim it for the first example paragraph. You'll find your mistake amusing, I wager.
I find the examples in the story to be of a totally different character than excess acronyms. When there are a lot of acronyms it is likely to be information dense. They're not talking about high information density being opaque, they're talking about the writing being opaque even just when saying basic, 101-level things that would be said with normal English words by members of their own field.
I read primary literature from multiple fields, and it is a serious problem. Much less so in hard science, because it is usually not accessible anyways. There is no benefit to making it intentionally opaque. Worst is in the life sciences, where the opaque style is often used to mimic information density. When it is outside your main field, it can take a significant effort to figure out that they're just repeating basic known things in a complicated way, and don't actually have any information that benefits from narrow jargon. For example, lets say somebody is claiming to have discovered some biological effect, and you're reading their paper with an interest in making a sensor related to it. It can be very frustrating, even where you already read a bunch of similar papers and have spent time with a glossary. When they start getting obtuse, you have to be very careful because they might just be blowing smoke and trying to sound more important, or there might be a subtle difference in the implications that is actually the main point of the paper. Low quality writing hurts that from both sides; there is a giant pile of over-written hogwash for every subtle distinction that is hopelessly buried, but it is missing the underwritten one that does the actual damage. Lost time and annoyance in one thing, but the more crap papers there are the harder it is to identify the diamonds.
If it is well written and obviously important, who cares? 20 other companies are already building the sensor before the paper finished peer review. In that case I'll wait for the abstract of the abstract to be published in New Scientist.
Don't say "Try and X", if you want to sound like you finished college.
Everybody who started finished. Somebody who flunked out the first year? They finished their college career early. Perhaps you were searching for the word "graduated?"
As for "try and X," I do agree that it lacks proper punctuation. If you want to be taken seriously you need philosophical rantings to take on a more precise syntax:
I know this is a crazy thing to say, but if you read the story you'll find that isn't what they're talking about. The problem is not that specialists use specialist jargon freely, it is that they use longwinded specialist jargon to explain the simplest of concepts, and jump through significant syntactic hoops in order to construct sentences that use the jargon words repeatedly and exclusively, and entirely without cause. Just see the examples in the story. Nobody is talking about dumbing-down papers, they're talking about papers whose mundane content has a high density of jargon, often arranged in a grammatically strained manner that serves no purpose other than to make it sound like it is describing something more complicated or specialized than it actually is.
They even accuse researchers of doing it intentionally in order to make in unreadable by people not specialized enough to understand it. Is that a useful function for a specialist? Is that really the alternative to the lowest common denominator, or is that a false choice?
Naw, the more complicated the subject is, the more benefit you get from attempting to communicate clearly and efficiently. It is silly to presume it is a wasted effort unless the result is some sort of maximal simplicity. There is a giant sack of assumptions here, and I'll bet many of them are also involved in the low quality of academic writing referred to in the story.
Just because the subject is dense, that doesn't mean that the subject benefits less from clarity, or for removing jargon words in the cases where the simpler literary word contains the desired meaning. Subject complexity is no excuse for inaniloquent longiloquence or grandiloquent cacology. I don't think anybody is demanding suaviloquence, merely planiloquent discourse.
"All mainstream game consoles" and "most useful commercial software" is not "everywhere."
Games are not mandatory in the way that walking past other citizens in a city is mandatory for living in the city.
Commercial software is not mandatory, and in fact "useful software" is the specific area where there are non-commercial options in the vast majority of cases.
I can and do avoid both game consoles and commercial software containing DRM. (even most commercial software that doesn't contain DRM, for that matter.) I wish I could be that successful at avoiding second-hand smoke! And BTW, living in the countryside doesn't help. Visit a rural market sometime, you'll see what I mean; less population on the sidewalk, because there is no sidewalk, but there might be a half dozen people standing around smoking, or sitting in their (idling, diesel) cars smoking. Half the village usually drives (a few hundred feet) to the store, where the man sits in the car and smokes while his wife shops. Sad but true. If you're lucky, he's not also drinking a can of beer.
Indeed, if they made everything an exception, Congress might see fit to remove the exception for abuse. I may hate the DMCA, but I do at least assume that Congress supports it since it hasn't been repealed. This is certainly more than I expected, more than I heard anybody mainstream claim was likely.
They don't need to "suck on a tailpipe," they're sucking on the dollars you paid.
"I gave you my money so I'm right and you're wrong" isn't a very convincing argument.
If you refused to give your money, that is when it would be self-consistent to then tell them to "go suck [it]."
No, I think what Cowherd was saying wasn't that he's going to do "other things" meaning the crack the game and still play the game, he's saying that since they don't want to sell or give away game content in a reasonable way that respects user freedom, he's going to go play at the park instead.
I for one am glad that the game industry sucks so bad. Playing all those video games was very good for me as a child, I believe. But the value wasn't in the games, it was in the fun computer time and the secondary lessons involved. As an adult I get deeper satisfaction out of traditional adult recreation, and restricting computer entertainment to its function as an information access tool. Actual computer games are a natural distraction, but the content is so vapid and trope-y that there is little value to be gained.
So I say, thank you for making the games suck so bad, and hating your users. It would be harder to say "no" if the products had depth and quality.
I understood that part. "We're gonna figure out which code is most important to our business, and thrash the features back and forth a bunch of times."
Doesn't really tell me what to plan for; which services they're going to stop, and which ones they're going to remove all the features from. If I knew at least which specific products they're going to transform then I'd know which ones to stop using on account of they're already doing what I want, which is about to end. Then I could select a competing service in advance, that currently does the same thing. Now that would by synergy.
Compounding drugs isn't a loophole, it is a traditional medical service. They didn't have some right to a monopoly, so there is no "loophole." It is just such a simple drug that it turns out somebody else can offer it after all.
This isn't a patent situation, where there is supposed to be a monopoly. They thought they had one, but it wasn't natural and so it won't persist. No loophole, just poor understanding of their product and market by executives.
It isn't something they did R&D for, it is a standard known thing that nobody else was still making because there wasn't reason to compete on the cheap stuff with relatively few customers.
That is why another company can just make it for $1. They could make it for a few cents, but it won't sell as many bottles as ibuprofen. And it takes up a factory line to be making it. If they're only going to need to be making it a couple days per month, then it costs a lot more per bottle because of setup.
This isn't indirect. This is exactly what the law already covers.
These types of investigations are done slowly.
I read this book. If you don't invest, you end up living in the stone age in the forest, and if you buy in then you live inside the bubble city with technology.
It is highly unlikely that an ACLU lawsuit is "badly written." They employ top-shelf lawyers, and pick out a small number of cases to bring. They have a good track record, too. Expect appeals.
Beach sand isn't play sand. Play sand is from a river, and is collected as a byproduct of the more valuable gravel and rock. That is why it is cheap. If they were going out and collecting just straight play sand out of a river valley, above the amount already available, it would be much, much more expensive.
Beach sand has to be dredged off the ocean floor. And collected carefully, after environmental impact and other site analysis is done by professionals. And often the equipment isn't sitting around on standby for that sort of project, so you'll either be paying really high equipment rental on everything, or buying much of the heavy equipment before the project, and selling it afterwards. Not only to collect it, hold it for draining so it can be moved by truck, move by truck, and dump it, but delivery probably can't be done just by telling the trucks where to dump. The trucks are likely to sink into the beach if you try to drive right up and dump it in the surf. You're going to need a bunch of light tractors or some similar thing.
1000 m^3 is too much for a small project, and not enough for a large project. If they wanted to save money, they could purchase more, and have the rest delivered in the future; but governments are run in debt, with no cash reserves at all, and so the financing would eat the savings.
You obviously don't read many legal rulings if you think this is outside the norm.
The good news, only the bots will know. Nobody else has time to read it all.
Sorry, your grammar isn't good enough for me to tell if you're trying to do a better job of teaching Republicanism, or if you're trying to increase funding for education in red states.
They don't care, cows never click the ads and their machine learning can detect that. It makes as much sense as the article, for once.
Yeah, but there is nothing there to tell us wtf he's actually talking about.