redeeman

45 ms·

961.
by redeeman 4y ago
this makes very little sense? in what way would a bot ever be monetizable and "view" ads?
962.
by redeeman 4y ago
wouldnt a bot user by definition not be monetizable? I dont think this is what it is about at all, it makes no sense? They public a count of daily active users, this includes bots. The amount of those daily active users is very important
963.
by redeeman 4y ago
what does this do?
964.
by redeeman 4y ago
especially funny is that an OS called "Windows" has a laughably crappy window manager. Having to move the mouse to the small titlebar to move a window? having to hit a corner or side very precisely to resize? You'd think no d
965.
by redeeman 4y ago
> but hundreds of broken functionalities remain. And since pretty much forever, even more so on Windows. The difference is that windows users are used to those defects, they pretty much probably didnt realize there was a choice, so that
966.
by redeeman 4y ago
but it is part of the deal, given that twitter says "bot % is <=5", now he may believe that not to be the case. I think its concievable he may have acted before he fully considered whether that number indeed is true
967.
by redeeman 4y ago
are you saying it is 100% impossible that there really is way more than 5% of daily active users being bots? unless you have some information here, it seems like a fairly big claim to make? if elon musk thinks 20% is bots, that is a very di
968.
by redeeman 4y ago
waiving diligence does not mean that twitter can misrepresent things though. I do not know what the true amount of bot participants are, but IF it is above 5%, that would not be something "due diligence" had to discover, twitter s
969.
by redeeman 4y ago
isnt it also possible he (some might say rather impulsively) decided to buy twitter, and then upon further investigating finds that his quick rationales no longer make sense if bot traffic indeed is way above 5%? that perhaps he feels that
970.
by redeeman 4y ago
so... its just 100% unthinkable Musk is right? edit: dont know why this had to be flagged. I guess some people really take personal offense in that elon musk might be correct in his thoughts about twitter daily bot %
971.
by redeeman 4y ago
its not about whether its a problem in real life, its about whether the end user might be forced to use a product, which IS a thing, that that is the ONLY point I made
972.
by redeeman 4y ago
of course not, but the point was about end users
973.
by redeeman 4y ago
> Nobody is forcing anyone to use the code. until the time comes when a tax department gets the funny idea to use it, and forced you to use it, or people with guns come to your door and haul you away in the morning. (edit: formatting)
974.
by redeeman 4y ago
I live in the EU aswell, and in my country, the burden of proof for tax cases is reversed. The tax department can just invent their version of reality, and if I cannot disprove it, it sticks.
975.
by redeeman 4y ago
thats all well and good, assuming we use the same forgiving logic when you or I do something against the rules. But we dont. It seems that some are slightly more equal to the law than others
976.
by redeeman 4y ago
it seems to be a natural law that once a society takes the steps to create a government that "grants" rights to the citizens, the road to a hell is already paved. It is now inevitable that the government will see citizens as their