Comment The next blink tag (Score 1) 52
When adding a new feature, have to remember it will be (ab)used by idiots on the internet.
When adding a new feature, have to remember it will be (ab)used by idiots on the internet.
It's 1% of revenue for all the software. So if you use over 100 pieces of software, still 1%. And ask actors about the wonders of a percentage of "profit".
Well they're both confused. Americans aren't primarily motivated by greed, even if their bosses are. And American doctors in particular aren't primarily motivated by greed, there's better jobs for that. Polls show most Americans would prefer more time off of work rather than additional paid hours. Quitting their job is the first thing most would do if they won the lottery, and not so they could better invest the money. America may be run by the greedy but most people are just being dragged along.
As an example: researchers, pharmaceutical company employees, nurses, doctors, hospital staff, insurance company employees -- not primarily motivated by greed. Pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, insurance companies -- motivated by greed, and even if they aren't each layer of management has to squeeze more out of those below them or they'll be fired.
I care. This is Gates-gate!
If they could profitably raise prices like that they already would have.
Tell that to my mitochondria.
Absolutely not, that is absurd. The point of science is to make falsifiable predictions concerning objective reality. Science is by necessity verifiable by third parties, but you can do science by yourself with no one to review your work.
Keep in mind that at the time they didn't believe in irrational numbers, negative numbers, nor non-Euclidean geometry.
We already replaced Pythagorean's Theorem, for use in non-Euclidean geometry.
"Ad-based service without ads" is different from "Customer-based service". Will not the premium customers still get the ad-focused "maximize engagement" algorithm?
Nope, my argument is that both companies acted in their best interest.
The business case for Google vs Apple leaving China are vastly different:
1) Apple sells hardware which people pay big money for, abandoning their users is a bad look. Google's thing is internet search, which is useless when censored, and available anyways via proxy.
2) Removing a few apps is different than the highly detailed censorship and snooping that would be asked of Google.
3) There's tons of alternate search engines just a click away, Google could vanish near instantly if they are perceived as inferior.
4) Can almost guarantee that Google would have had to do infinite snooping, censorship, and propaganda promotion before being replaced anyways.
There you go, as you say the majority of the posts aren't spam. I imagine well over 1% of your google search results for dating will be ripoffs or even worse.
However shitty reddit may be, at least it's real humans talking about things humans care about. Way better than the spammers that have bamboozled google with SEO, which is about to be worsened by AI.
The 5th Amendment isn't about public vs private stuff. It's because at the time it was common to torture people until they confess. Passwords are an interesting case because they can't be a false confession; but confessing that you know the password is confessing that you have access to the account, but the stuff protected by the password is physical evidence and not a confession. There's been cases of people being compelled to share their password after admitting they know it. And biometrics are physical evidence, not a confession.
"What if" is a trademark of Hewlett Packard, so stop using it in your sentences without permission, or risk being sued.
