> I'm old enough to remember when people said that about Facebook.
Anyhow, Facebook has a lot more user data to sell to advertisers, but most people tell me the ads convert like crap. Marketers love just how fine you can tune your targeting, though.
Don't get me wrong, Twitter does monetize its users to people who datamine the stuff and such, but they haven't been making enough money off it.
Right now, they're just cutting costs so their financials don't look so bad, they can probably stay afloat for quite a while just by being so big. I mean, Yahoo has a NEGATIVE value if you take out their stake in Alibaba and they haven't imploded.... yet.
Don't be too surprised if they get sold at fire sale prices if the economy goes south, though.
That's because idiots thought Google gave away free search and didn't know it was raking in money with AdWords because they never looked at any financial statements.
Twitter is a pure money sink that is trading on their fame. I'm not even sure how they would monetize it and I don't think they know either.
God I hate this flat button craze that is infecting all software, let me see what is a button, if it looks like a button, I know I can click on it.
Good point. Skeuomorphism is fine if it actually works on a computer, such as buttons you can click on. A worse example would be a rotary knob on music software, since you cannot actually grab and turn it. It's somewhat OK with a mouse wheel, because you have some kind of rotation going on, but even that's stretching it.
IMHO, the point of doing things in software is that you can escape some of the limitations of hardware. But since a lot of software is designed to act like old-fashioned hardware, you also get a lot of the same old limitations.
Look, just because you can't tell the difference between gray text and the grey background doesn't mean there isn't one!
Might want to fact check that next time. Watch the videos. Look at the corroborating sources. Note that the Zulema lies to the cops and that she fakes illness ("nice acting!") among all the other things.
But don't take my word for it. Watch the videos and compare (not, e.g., the mole on her chest that proves it's the same person). Look at the dates listed on the FEC website in comparison to the rallies.
Think for yourself. Contrary to what some have claimed, you don't need CNN's authorization to look at stuff. The press doesn't have extra rights, particularly not the right to think for us.
We have always told the drug companies that we would not pressure them and create a slippery slope where prices they negotiate with us for poor countries would inevitably lead to similar prices in rich countries.
[...] If we do try to do something in this area, we suggest that we approach the innovator companies that can currently sell products in the US with the idea of making donations to help clear the ADAP lists. For a variety of reasons, the companies will likely favor a donation approach rather than one that erodes prices across the board.
[...] I would guess that they would also likely favor a solution that involved their drugs rather than an approach that allowed generic drugs from India to flood the US market at low prices or one that set a precedent of waiving patent laws on drugs.
Stop the orbital bombardment of Mars! White cis-gendered males are attempting to continue their colonial exploitation of indigenous peoples! They're trying to buy Olympus Mons for a handful of beads! #martianlivesmatter
That's a very convenient hypothetical you engage in, but some of us went through a lot of research to corroborate some of those things with the FEC records, two independent videos, etc.
This would tend to give factual support to a conclusion opposite of that hypothetical scenario in which your ideological opponents act in ridiculous ways.
> Tell me, why have these e-mail releases only come at the expense of the Democrats?
Because nobody has sent Wikileaks any. They're a leak group, not a hacking group. They tweeted themselves that if someone had sent the leaks earlier, this could've been Sanders v. Trump.
> Do you believe that only the Dems conduct shady or embarrassing business?
Unlikely, and one of the GOP hinted as much downplaying the leaks by saying "next time it could be us." But you do have to actually present evidence before I'll go accusing anyone.
> Or is it simply that the current situation validates your political position and you aren't interested in justice?
I'm sure there may be some like that--there always seem to be. I wouldn't count myself among them, however.
> Is it a coincidence that these e-mail releases come during a political campaign?
Not at all. It should be hard to get leaks of campaign malfeasance before a campaign isn't actually going on.
> Or is it a coincidence that Donald Trump keeps making these bizarre admiring comments about Vladimir Putin?
Probably--they talk about playing up his "bromance" with Putin in the leaks, though. I won't defend Russia's actions--I don't like that at all. I greatly prefer not to go to war with them, however.
> I'll take a regulated police officer over a vigilante (or simply paid mercenary) hacker any day.
I will, too, but I'm not quick to condemn whistleblowers for releasing true information. And based on what I've been able to corroborate, it appears to be true.
> We know little about the motivations of these hackers, but logic suggests they have an agenda. And you've fallen for their agenda. Congratulations, an anonymous hacker is pulling your strings for reasons you vigorously deny! You are the perfect patsy.
Everyone has an agenda. I won't blindly believe Wikileaks any more than CNN. That's why I've gone through and verified things for myself.
What have you read? What have you researched? You can't base every decision on your priors, you have to actually test them against the evidence yourself.
It's not our business that the primary was rigged, that Bernie supporters were framed for the violence at Trump rallies (actually staged to benefit Hillary)? Normal people would call that newsworthy. It's also something that's been captured on video, including independent videos that corroborate the O'Keefe video. And then we have the FEC showing that person on the Democratic payroll.
What next, are you going to quote some of the joke personal emails they were talking about releasing?
I presume they're talking about the hack:
Why won't sharks eat lawyers? Professional courtesy.