pompino

13 ms·

121.
by pompino 3y ago
Sure, I can respect that.
122.
by pompino 3y ago
https://news.googleblog.com/2009/02/ads-in-google-news-searc... https://support.google.com/googlenews/thread/2165411/how-do-...
123.
by pompino 3y ago
There is no difference between content/link farms and what Google is doing - its copy/pasting someone else's words on a website and surrounding them with ads. _Neither_ are deserving of fair-use protections.
124.
by pompino 3y ago
Yes, but those link-farms get de-ranked by Google (which is a good thing IMO). Google is pretending that their particular case of linking is legitimate and deserves fair-use protection.
125.
by pompino 3y ago
Google penalizes link-farms, and websites who copy content from others, but adopts a holier-than-thou attitude for itself. Not very surprising. There is no inherent "legitimacy" when Google (as the worlds largest spyware vendor) d
126.
by pompino 3y ago
Conversations around new regulations on the internet are eerily similar to conversations about regulations on firearms in the US. "It won't fix anything or address the issue" "The cure is worse than the disease" &qu
127.
by pompino 3y ago
I don't agree with your opinion. Its no big deal, we can all happily co-exist! As a reader, you seem to care more about compliance than discussing the contents/quality of the paper. That tells me everything I need to know.
128.
by pompino 3y ago
For any journal, compliance is not the goal, the goal is the have high quality, impactful papers. If you care about compliance more than the paper, then sure, so be it, but its not a conversation I'm particularly interested in.
129.
by pompino 3y ago
>The disclosure is so that readers can make their own assessment about whether the possible conflict has introduced actual bias. You are the reader here. Do you have any evidence of bias?
130.
by pompino 3y ago
If you wish to convince others of your views, you'll have to provide a lot more than assertions. As per the article - [..] can sometimes lead to [..]. I don't know how clearer the article can be, there is no proposed "solutio
131.
by pompino 3y ago
The website talks only about affiliation. "Potential" is one of those funny words which can be stretched to mean anything. As such, its not worth arguing about. So your personal view of what is a potential conflict isn't some
132.
by pompino 3y ago
The actual journal that this was submitted to is Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law, Vol. 27. The linked article is a pre-print. Hardly surprising that the pre-print website did not contact every author of every articl
133.
by pompino 3y ago
Chrome is not a better browser because of the various ways it spies on you. It's essentially a keylogger for Google.
134.
by pompino 3y ago
"Performance" is a marketing term and is meaningless without details. "Faster" means nothing without context. We need to know the exact workload, the peak performance numbers, the sustained performance numbers, the heat
135.
by pompino 3y ago
The overwhelming majority of the world uses Windows to get stuff done.
136.
by pompino 3y ago
Yes, that is what I'm saying so I already agree with you. My point is Google takes content from Column A and puts in in Column B and collects money in their little toll booth. Google pretends to care about spam only when they can'
137.
by pompino 3y ago
This is Google's business model, they throw completely legitimate emails your business sends into spam/marketing, so you're forced to pay them for gmail ads.
138.
by pompino 3y ago
Sure, you could cap the expense per-employee so its a non-issue. I was thinking about benefits in general that nobody cares about or uses. But even if they use it, snacks/food can get expensive real quick. https://www.busine
139.
by pompino 3y ago
I'd rather receive benefits in cash than paying some vendor tens of thousands of dollars to stock useless items.
140.
by pompino 3y ago
I'm assuming 80% of your comment was in jest.
141.
by pompino 3y ago
I'm curious - Where are you getting your numbers from?
142.
by pompino 3y ago
People are not identical and you can't apply the same policy for a labor force of 3 billion. If you think your policy is so right, stop calling people names who disagree with you. Go run your company as you think is right. If your empl
143.
by pompino 3y ago
>in the future we’ll look at enforcement measures for creators who consistently choose not to disclose this information. Nothing of use here. As per the usual MO of tech companies they throw the responsibility back on the user. Sounds li
144.
by pompino 3y ago
I think it would be useful to separate data & code here. What if you kept the code the same, and downgraded the assets so the overall package is smaller/easier to process/execute? Or maybe tweaked the renderer so the same code
145.
by pompino 3y ago
Because the people who own those planes, and people who regulate the airline industry don't want human casualties under their watch - a fairly reasonable concern. Status-quo is not something you typically argue for , its what you need
146.
by pompino 3y ago
That doesn't work at all. There are often times like takeoff, landing, dealing with adverse weather events, re-routing, mechanical failure, etc where they're going through a detailed checklist. The last thing you want is some rand
147.
by pompino 3y ago
>That’s true, but there are plenty of other options. Well we can't settle it in the comments, nor should we. So which of those options can successfully survive a detailed engineering review on its merits?
148.
by pompino 3y ago
Not usually a supporter of Google, but personally I'd cut them some slack for this. I do hold them responsible for not being able to go a few clicks without some google tech shoving a shitty ad in my face.
149.
by pompino 3y ago
Not even close. MS is allowing the end user alternate means of installing software. Apple is trying to rob each iOS developer of 30% of their sales.
150.
by pompino 3y ago
Ah yes, the classic "Think of the innocent children and grandmas" . Sorry, that isn't an argument anymore. It never was convincing before and isn't now either. >Don’t like it? Don’t publish to it. Yeah, why protest at

More ›