Re: Thinking small
Only moons with round corners.
92 posts • joined 16 Jul 2014
You misunderstand the GOP mindset. The GOP is always in favour of _big_ business, regardless of domain and political view. So for example, conservatives rail against the Hollywood libs, but GOP administrations will always do everything they can to protect their IP at home and abroad.
This may seem contradictory. It is not as long as you understand the first principle of the GOP is to support big business. The actual business is of secondary importance. So expect Google to get a very easy ride indeed.
"Not you hit F1, and an almost random page opens in a browser with very little, if any, useful information."
This. I remember when MS help was awesome - full, clear and context sensitive in Excel for example. Now you get random links to websites that often don't exist anymore, along with lots of worse than useless "community content".
The vast majority of users do not currently use ad-blockers. So this is a smart move by Google. They are hoping to head of the growth of the blockers by stripping out the massively irritating ads but leaving the fairly innocuous ones. That is where Google started remember - small simple ads on search results.
It may or may not work, but its an interesting move to try it, especially for mobile.
If you had asked me a year ago whether visibility of what buses were arriving where and when would be helpful, I probably would have been lukewarm.
However, having recently consumed the service via mobile apps it is genuinely useful because you can decide which bus to take from which stop, or whether to walk or get a tube. It sounds trivial but for a city the size of London it's a big deal: there are so many bus users and each gets a little bit of benefit.
Good work TfL.
I think it depends on which point the paper was in its distribution. The fact that is handed out "free" eventually does not mean that the owner does not have rights to the stock in the vans, warehouses etc. It's a bit like if I decide to hand out free Snickers for a promotion that does not give you the right to make off with my whole stock from the warehouse.
If on the other hand the papers were taken when they were just left out for people to pick up then it could be an interesting legal case.
The recent Jenner Pepsi ad was widely mocked, but subsequent surveys have shown that, despite the "bad" publicity, perceptions of Pepsi's improved amongst those who watched it and saw the reactions. Private Eye was my reference but this story is similar:
Firstly, Silver is not a pollster, he is a forecaster and he uses polls as input. Blaming him for bad polling is pointless.
Secondly, I followed 538 (Nate Silver) during the election and it was very clear that he and his organization gave Trump a substantial chance of winning (about 30% on election day) and with articles that reinforced that it was an outcome that could easily occur. A 30% chance is a substantial probability, so all those who were "shocked" at the result cannot possibly blame 538.
The media who were taken by surprise have only themselves to blame, not polls or forecasters.
Not using Facebook much, I was surprised by the commotion about "fake news". Given how well Facebook can suppress pornography, breast-feeding etc I am surprised they cannot solve the problem in a similar crowd-sourced way, which leads me to conclude that the numbers involved probably all that significant anyway.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019