money supports the Clintons.
money supports the Clintons.
See what you just did there?
"a PROPER marketplace with a PROPER government is NOT..."
No, no, I have it all wrong, you say.
"government...is involved in the marketplace to assure the soundness of the transactions...enforce contract law, stamp-out fraud, squash involuntary transactions...make sure the marketplace is essentially 'safe' and fair..."
Gosh, then you restate exactly what I said. Markets exist because governments create the conditions for their existence. You list a few conditions that you believe are essentially right for markets, but these are not natural laws, they are your value statements about what makes a "good" market, presumably one likely to benefit you. Even the values have to be defined and are culturally bound. Sound transactions. Enforcement of laws. Fraud. Involuntary transactions. Safe. Fair.
These, too, are social quantities, socially defined. What do you think governing bodies do all day as they debate? They argue about what these things mean and how they ought to be encoded as policy. And however they're encoded, someone is getting their way and someone else is not.
By the time you have a market, governments (read: societies) have already picked winners.
"Safe" is not a natural quantity that can be measured. Neither is "fair." All are matters of social deliberation and social construction. All are arguments won (or lost) by someone. All are winners already picked.
Claiming that your own preferences are somehow objective and right doesn't make it so. Nature doesn't make markets. People do.
The market is not a natural entity, it exists because government creates and enforces the conditions to enable it to exist.
Picking a market is *still* the government picking winners and losers. It is picking whomever does well when the market does well under the market conditions that the government preserves.
Governments pick. That's what they do. What's why they were created in the first place. The only question is who gets picked.
Even in print journalism, the quality difference between 30 years ago and today is huge. Today's newspapers would have been yesterday's tabloids, in most local markets.
The problem is basic human nature. Before people needed some basic facts about life:
- Sports results
- Local events
- Job listings
- Legal announcements
- General news about the world
For historical reasons, these came to be gathered together in one place, the newspaper, about which several good social histories have been written. But as a result of the specialized labor and production involved (half a century ago, not just anyone could "make" print in their own homes) it was a professionalized sphere that had to serve a single, large regional audience with one bundle of print, so it had to be reasonably even-handed. There was a kind of obvious supply/demand synergy. The economies of scale were there to make it viable, if the information was presented at a reasonable level of quality and without prejudice or bias that would result in fragmenting the demand base.
Now people get get everything but the "news" part of this package for free. So now you have to ask people to pay only for "reporting" and not for those other "facts." But at the same time, there are endless sources of free reporting as well. And most of those are of lower quality (by which we really mean biased). So we're asking people to pay solely for material that they are *less* likely to agree with than its *free* alternative.
Most people aren't willing to pay for content that they disagree with when they can select for free only content that they agree with, and that agrees with them. Most people aren't willing to pay to be challenged.
So market conditions and human nature have conspired to make high-quality journalism untenable. It's no longer bundled with other facts that people are willing to pay for as well and that are available only through newsprint or television viewership, and as a result, there are no longer ready-made regional audiences of scale that will support it, and that at the same time drive a necessary professionalization and objectivity. Instead, you have to market just on the value of the prose alone and pick up subscribers where you can find them, which means that you have to segment the market according to interests and prejudices and play to their biases to get them interested, and then, because it's easy to chuck out content that reflects existing interests, prejudices, and biases (as opposed to professionalized reporting, which is research-oriented and often surprising), you're also competing with people that essentially do it for free as "bloggers" and so on.
This is not unconnected with difficulties in politics that we are experiencing. Once research-oriented, regionally-minded print goes away in favor of alacarte, self-selected consumption from the entire global market free and paid, people become more and more different as they consume media over time (and more and more intensely bound to their prejudices and narrow interests) rather than more and more the same (for having all read the same newspaper across a large region for years).
A combined reading of Michael Schudson's "Discovering the News" and Benedict Anderson's "Imagined Communities" gives a good sense for how this all comes together, and the problems for democracy and nationhood that we (and everyone) face(s) now in a post-news era.
assumptions at work.
"Here. I've optimized your car for you."
By social convention, people will assume this means that you have made their car run better. No, this is not spoken, but it is based on tacit agreement, a kind of social contract. We don't have to specify every last thing in detail; we can all agree that we know what we mean.
However, you could—certainly—mean that you have optimized their car for them to be more optimal with respect to environmental concerns. For example, you may have removed the engine. This would result in a perfectly optimal configuration for minimizing emissions and fossil fuel consumption.
But it would rightfully not be what someone expects when you said, "I've optimized your car for you." That would be a violation of the implicit social contract and social expectations.
But of course that is exactly the point of this story, and exactly where we are today. Which is why we *do* specify every last thing in detail (in interminable EULAs) and also why people feel as though the social contract is breaking down: because it is. But there are still remnants enough of it in place that people get upset when they feel as though it's been violated, and I can't say that I blame them.
I work in marketing and advertising by turns these days (seems like every career trajectory eventually ends up somewhere in this playground, whether near top or bottom of the food chain), so I have to admit guilt here as well.
There is a tendency to operate with the goal of eliminating negative and limiting language because, surprise surprise, positive language tests out well in actual conversion numbers. But there is unquestionably an element of half-truth in it.
"slowed down and degraded to reduce data use" becomes "optimized for mobile"
"we've raised our prices" becomes "we've changed our plans to offer the best possible value to our customers"
"we've removed a bunch of features that raised costs for us" becomes "we've streamlined our service for ease of use"
"we've slashed our support staff" becomes "we're enabling you to find answers more quickly with our self-help area"
"we've eliminated our warranty" becomes "our product is so reliable that it's made warranties obsolete"
and so on.
It's not the actual policy that's the problem. It's that language is Orwellian. Bad becomes good. "Optimization" is supposed to be a good thing. But in this case, the customer's presumption that "optimized" equals "good for me" is actually not true; the word is being used in opposition to its conventional connotation.
Most people and small businesses don't have the skills necessary to take care of a resource that isn't behind NAT.
So it's more like "expect to be quickly and constantly pwned."
are going to disappear as the service bombs terribly, and is then subject to a class action lawsuit from disgruntled early adopters.
Windows as a lock-in platform is on life support and meanwhile Wine still doesn't run a single Windows application with perfect transparency.
What's the point?
I haven't used Yahoo since I switched to AltaVista. That's a long, long time ago.
Just loaded up their homepage. It looks like they're still trying to do the "Internet Portal" thing, it's all very, very texty, tries to cover every last topic, requires multiple clicks, and seems social and mobile unfriendly. Like they're stuck in 2001 or something.
I don't know anyone that uses Yahoo. I can't think of a use case for using Yahoo. The "Internet Homepage" model just isn't something that people do any longer. Even "web search" is really outdated; I work for a SaaS platform these days and most of our users just enter keywords into their Google widget on their mobile device, and they only do that when they want to learn something about something.
For day-to-day workflows and tasks, well... there's an app for that (whatever it happens to be). Seems like Yahoo is an epoch behind.
When is the last time I used Yahoo! for anything?! It was before I switched to using AltaVista because I thought it was that much better. That's the time frame involved. I don't know anyone that uses Yahoo!. I just looked at their page. They're still going after the "Internet Portal" thing, apparently; it's cluttered and claims to offer everything under the sun, but does it in a way that makes me click, click, click and seems entirely geared toward reading and content consumption.
It's like they're stuck before social media, mobile, and HTML 5. Feels very "Web 1.0" (though I hate that silly term).
No, these arw characgeristic of OLEDs.
LCDs have their own problems:
- Backlight leakage
- "Bright" and "dark" edges (relative to backlight edge)
- Dim corners (usujally just one, due to slight LCD warping)
The iPad Air IZGO display had tons of problems at first, too. I remember seeing them at a store and thinking, "geez, there's not a single good display in this entirew row of iPad Air units."
But that doesn't absolve OLED of its problems. I think for me the big issues arew the color cast issues. The pink/green gradient is probably the worst, followed by the yellow color cast esp. when dim and the uneven whites (usually not visible in when colors are being displayed).
I'm actually a fan of OLED displays when they're perfect, yes, even the bright colors.
But dammit it's hard to find a really good *actual* OLED display in an *actual* unit.
Went through five phones before I got a Note 4 with a good display. Went through four Galaxy Tab S units to find a good one new out of the box. Let's see, what are the problems encountered in the various and sundry displays?
- Strong yellow cast, like ridiculously strong
- Pink/green gradient, usually from corner to corner, with "white" only in display center
- Uneven brightness, i.e. dark "splotches" on white backgrounds or "dark gradients" at one edge of the screen to about 1-2" in from bezel
- Terrible pixelation/pixel noise at low brightness, not unlike digital camera "noise" in low-light exposures
- Burn-in (even in supposedly factory-new devices)
Either QC or the production process or both appear to be nearly fatally flawed for Samsung, and they're currently the biggest shipper of OLED screens in gadgets, and have had years of experience. You'd think they'd have it sorted out by now.
I love the *potential* of OLED, but it seems like for the most part right now, attempts to actually ship them in consumer devices leave a lot to be desired.
With regard to the issue of dealers, I'm not sure that it's just electric cars they don't want to sell.
In 2013 I was in the market for a gasoline-powered automobile. Did my research, selected a make and model. It wasn't the most common car on the planet, but it also wasn't extremely rare (a mainstream Japanese car). I identified three dealerships in the metropolitan area that, according to their websites, had a model on the lot.
I could not for the life of me get them to give me a test drive. The first dealership I visited, the salesman said they'd "lost the key" to that particular car and I couldn't test drive it or buy it that day, I'd have to come back "later." (He couldn't tell me just when "later" was.) But he put on the *very* hard sell for two other models.
The second dealership, they claimed to have lost the car, period. No, not on the lot, they said. The third dealership, they claimed that I didn't really want that model, it wasn't reliable. When I pressed, they told me that their (brand new 2013) instance was in the shop, that's how bad it is. "Honestly," they didn't want to sell me the marque's "worst model." *They* were looking out for *me*, you see. Which is why they really, really wanted to put me in this *other* model in the showroom....
I finally bought one online and had it driven in from out of state. It's been a great car and performed as expected with the features I needed.
I don't know exactly what was going on when I was trying to make my vehicle purchase, but to me it screamed "conflict of interest" as they clearly didn't want to serve me, the customer, by selling me a product that I came for and that they clearly *had*.
(1a) Root/jailbreak everywhere, as an easy option (not called that any longer). Rather like the security control on Mac OS. "Security" on by default, but can be turned off with a click.
(1b) An unlocked SIM socket on every device, of every size, along with a dialer/calling app for mobile networks. So that I don't have to choose amongst the limited selection of "phablets" but can instead use an iPad Mini or a Samsung Galaxy S2 as my phone if I want to.
Been Transferred Lately?