794CD01

If you assign a foreign-sounding word to it, it sounds more official.

The offer is there. It's freedom, and most people don't want it.

The headline and article are written as if it's somehow outrageous that a text could do this, but when an old-school verbal shout can trigger a lynching, if anything, it would be a letdown if an electronic message couldn't.

Thankfully, you're not the first person to think of this, so there are also many ways to buy fake engagement.

Who benefits from the sun shining? Whoever can figure out how to harness the sunlight. The sun doesn't care either way.

Cars sounded like a terrifying future for stagecoach drivers.

I can't speak for an individual ad I haven't seen. Even if I did see it, I don't necessarily know marketing enough to analyze it. I just know that the purpose can be broader than your post was originally giving it credit for.

Ads don't solely exist to convince you to buy a product. Some ads are designed to make you feel good about the purchase you already made. or to teach people who will never buy a product to respect people who do.

The terms don't apply to the same context. A/B testing is a specific technique (well, not that specific) which can be used to do ethical science or unethical science.

Good can mean different things. A given volume/weight of diamonds will typically be worth much more than an equivalent amount of bic pens, or even of gold, so in that sense, diamonds are pretty efficient.

Hope ICANN has 10 million euros.

Shunning as pseudopunishment is silly. If it's not a problem, let them be. If it is a problem, fine them or arrest them.

It is like that in the sense that both are truer than you apparently give them credit for. How many people use, say, facebook or instagram from the dedicated phone app they sought out and installed vs searching for facebook in google and using the mobile browser site?

Though I think a better comparison might be the eating habits one other people have made. Veggies might be better for you, but most people will choose to eat junk food. I just think that's sufficiently solved by natural selection.

Firstly, you probably could do what you mean for that specific piece, at least once or twice. But more importantly, that statement presupposes the wrong intended purpose.

>Obviously a completely locked down subreddit that rejects and deletes all posts and comments would be useless,

Not necessarily. Reddit used to have some of those as running jokes. /r/blackfathers and such. Disagreeable uses are still uses.

What makes you think users were happy? If people liked that content so damn much, why was artificial vote manipulation needed to make it visible?

That's how they maintain content that you, as someone who prefers heavily moderated forums, find interesting. Most people aren't you.

What's wrong with whistleblowing? It's pretty concerning that your example of something that isn't worth blowing a whistle about is basically rape.

People like the idea of it when they read about it online, but it sold poorly and the few people who played it didn't enjoy it.

Threatening someone with consequences if they perform some action may not prevent them from doing what they are determined to do, but it will dissuade many. The entire basis of modern society and law is built on the idea of threatening people if they break the law, rather than completely preventing them from doing anything illegal. This is not control in, say, the unix permissions sense, but it's control in common parlance.

What are you actually trying to say here?

I agree with you in principle but your argument has veered into unsound territory. Do you not believe it's possible for the threat of damages to end up preventing an ex from sharing nudes of you that they otherwise might have? Sure, there's a level of determination that will surpass that barrier, but at least there's a barrier.

Is that really an "issue" if that rewriting of history is what finally brings peace?

It's better than "never guilty because proof is impossible".

Freelancers concerned about stability? You don't say.

The MSDN subscription gets you licenses for almost all MS software, including their OSes.

Sadly, yes. These days you cannot judge anyone by your own ethical standards, only by their own. There is no right and wrong, only consistency and hypocrisy.

Would you trust each doctor to know enough about IT security to be capable of protecting patient data without hiring someone else to run their enterprise IT infrastructure?

You could buy a VS premium license with MSDN. Or would you still consider that "trying"?

Is the point to use robots? Because I'm pretty sure they already know that.

The manager can make the decision whether they care that the person stole cookies.