I want to buy fake product reviews for my awesome product. But everybody already knows the reviews are fake most places, so my fake reviews will be ignored. Can you please tell me what places remain that people won't know the reviews I plant are fake?
(Some people don't. Apparently there are people who put their laptop on the desk, remove the charger, work until the battery is empty, then plug in the charger)
This probably has something to do with manufacturer "guidelines" instructing users that they need to completely discharge their battery and then fully charge it at least once a week. Apple was (is?) guilty of this. The guideline has something to do with the computer being able to accurately display time remaining, but it's always seemed like a Bad Idea (tm) to me.
(Slashdot, would it kill you to allow UTF-8, or even HTML escaped entities like ™ or at least <sup> tags?)
It's not Apple's pretty little prison, it's Adobe's. When you're using "mainstream" software, that means Windows or (most of the time these days) OS X. Lots of people have decided in the last 10 years than Microsoft simply does not make a modern operating system anymore. I'm sure we would all love to have the Linux revolution...any day now...but that's simply not feasible for the people who've invested their skills in Adobe, or MS Office, or ProTools, or any other professional software. There may be equivalent (or superior!) free options but the people who need them would have to start learning from nothing; Photoshop skills don't really translate to GIMP skills.
So really, it's prisons all around. Would you rather live in Apple's pretty walled garden, or Microsoft's smelly old dungeon? Or would you rather be free and live with the Linux penguins in Antarctica?
Especially once we figure out how to 'convince' it to give us the best discount on everything.
Sounds like a great idea for manipulating human psychology to me. Lead the human to believe it fooled the machine into giving it a "discount", which is going to make that human feel good about buying whatever. It only has to manipulate 5% of people to be successful, and I think you underestimate how easily we are manipulated.
I read TFA (but didn't watch the video because I hate watching interviews on the internet). The argument boiled down to:
- Targeted ads give less information because economics reasons.
- Low quality sellers are indistinguishable from high quality sellers when there's less information.
- People therefore avoid targeted ads because they notice there's less information and so it's not as meaningful.
The last part is classic wrong thinking in economics, but I think in this case the rest of the argument is still valid. It just takes a different mechanism. I've never known somebody who thought ads actually communicated anything about how likely the seller is lying. But I have known many people who enjoy creative ads, like Geico (before it just got self-referential and boring) and others I can't remember right now.
Targeted ads are not creative. They're actually a little creepy most of the time, which is probably a major part of why more people are trying to block them. But more importantly, and here's where TFA has a good point, the ads are usually crap. The kind of crap we've seen in our email for the last decade. The kind that people have already figured out is dumb.
The point in TFA applies here because it explains how this happens. Targeted ads are dumb because they're cheaper than running expensive ads on high quality sites. That causes more low quality sellers to be able to afford the ads.
The key here is that we're picking up on the average low quality of the ads, not the underlying reason. Nobody goes around thinking about how much information an ad is signaling (besides its literal content). But in this case, the underlying reason seems directly related to our perception.
What I find especially interesting about homeopathy is that the actual practice of it is supposed to be tailored to your individual circumstances. Bear in mind this is not personal experience, but basic internet research, but it would appear that a "homeopath" is supposed to extensively study various homeopathic remedies and tailor a concoction of them to your specific ailment, taking into account personal details including your personality and history. This bears absolutely no resemblance to "homeopathic" drugs sold in stores, as "homeopathic medicine" is actually supposed to describe a system of prescription-only remedies!
The ability to label drugs as "homeopathic" and thereby avoid FDA scrutiny benefits no actual homeopathic practitioners and only provides a loophole for unscrupulous drug-makers. A well-known example is Zicam, which sells zinc-based cold remedies. Research has actually proven zinc to be an effective means of weakening the common cold. Instead of using that research as a base to develop FDA-approved effective dosages, however, Zicam created a zinc remedy and sold it as "homeopathic", meaning it didn't have to undergo much scrutiny at all. Their remedy, therefore, is (probably) effective, but at least one of their products was unsafe. They used to sell a nasal spray, but it was pulled off the market after it was shown to have permanently damaged some peoples' sense of smell. That is exactly the sort of unintended side effect that FDA-mandated drug testing is supposed to prevent.
The biggest irony about Zicam is that although homeopathic medicine posits that remedies get stronger as they are more diluted, the concentration of the active ingredient in Zicam is listed as "1x", meaning only diluted once resulting in rather low homeopathic efficacy (but also the highest concentration of that ingredient!).
Barnes & Noble's Nook e-reader line has largerly [sic] been regarded as a botched attempt to compete with the Kindle
Exactly NOT just figuratively. *Literally*. That is the point!
Video or it never happened.
literally physically raped in the ass while their money is stolen and somebody laughs in their face...
Literally? Like, this was in the news? You probably mean "figuratively" but that would be quite a video if it exists.