(Haven't we been through this before?)
Not if the bias is systemic. It often is. There are lots of papers on the subject.
WhatsApp Voice Message comes with several other big advantages as well. It's free, and unlike FaceTime or Skype, asynchronous, so it's convenient to use across time zones and doesn't require scheduling in advance. While other voice messaging options exist on apps including iMessage, Line and Viber, WhatsApp has the distinction of being integrated into a platform that people all over the world already use.
Our different media choices are actually part of the message itself now,
This is why my chosen medium is rocks and broken bottles.
2. an solution to an actual problem -- for one specific subset:
A lot of this popularity is owed to the fact that it offers Chinese users a break from the laborious work of typing in Chinese characters, which requires searching for characters that convey both the correct meaning and pronunciation.
"Typing out Chinese characters is such a pain, so it was easy to adapt to voice message because it's very convenient"
"The practical benefit of saying an awful lot without having to turn your slightly inarticulate thoughts into an articulate email is obvious," Young, who is also a friend of mine, tells me in an audio note.
Dear Cthulhu, take me now!
One of the main reasons I LIKE email is that it gives the sender time to organize their thoughts. Much better than listening to some user or boss hem and haw and backtrack and contradict themselves wasting endless minutes of my life.
Also inserting reality should ne done wilth cameras and not via clear lenses like Google Glass
Lag is the reason why inserting via cameras, processing, then displaying fails. We humans aren't really good at tens of milliseconds of disconnect from what our senses tell us and what we see.
Clear lenses (like Sony SmartEyeglass, in front of your eyes, unlike Google Glass) has zero lag on real world content (of course).
I'm not responsible for any of the straw men you created. If you want to read the papers on systemic errors (I linked one) you're of course free to do so.
No, if the errors are systemic they can absolutely change the trend. Not only within a measurement system (human readers rounding to nearest half degree) but most definitely when you switch measurement devices (bucket intake on ships).
Most research in the world would benefit from having professional statisticians help out with the statistics. It's simply quite hard to get right. One principle that is never used as it should is the Bonferroni correction.
Not if the errors are systematic. And they often are.
"May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." -- George Carlin