it's meaningless to say that 50,000 wikipedia editors left, unless you know the base number that it's drawn from.
They didn't say merely that 50,000 had left, even the summary mentions that it is a net loss of 50,000, and further, that's a net loss 10x larger than the previous year: which is then evidence of a trend. It doesn't matter then so much what the base number is, so much as the trend is worrying enough as it is, especially if it's exponential.
>But we don't do we ? There is a reason for that. It's a lot of hard work and cost bringing a product to market and generally, the real dogs are killed long before they hit the shelves. I've been reviewing hardware/software for 20 odd years now and I can only remember giving a score of less than 4 a handful of times. Equally, 9 & 10 is rare (for me). The vast majority of stuff is 'good enough' and merits 7 or 8 out of 10. TBH, I get really frustrated by constantly dishing out 7s and 8s and the few times something has turned up for review that's truly bad, I'm been delighted as it gives me a chance to have a real opinion.
And this is exactly the mentality that has invalidated reviewer sites: you're looking out for the developers of these games, not the consumers who are your audience. Who cares if "it was a lot of hard work" when that hard work amounts to shit? If it's shit, say so, don't pretend its worthy because it was effortful shit.
Glad to hear that guys. Way to go. Good work telling everyone that fixing things fixes them.
The conclusion isn't just that they're fixed. It's that because they are fix-able, that we don't need to pour money down the R&D drain for modern variants, which would just sit on the same shelves these old ones now occupy.
They only need to last until 12/12/12.
I think you mean 12/21/12, the end of this Long Count cycle.
"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."
