minsc_and_boo

The nexus phone line were joint developments with OEMs. Pixel is the line that Google solely developed and marketed as its own as it pivoted to trying to influence the Android brand.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_(1st_generation)#History

>I will never understand why Google has never come up with a viable marketing strategy for Android, to be fashionable in its own different way.

Since Google traditionally never sold phones, the Android branding was left to OEMs like Samsung et al, who went with disjointed, masculine, and edgy themes.

Google finally decided to take the brand into their own hands by releasing Nexus, and now Pixel lines, with the "it's for everyone" approach to counter Apple's traditional "it's for the elite" brand. Goog is catching up to Apple, albeit slowly.

Search still relies on content that doesn't suck though, and like GP said, if the internet today sucks, then the competing search will also suck.

>Either people will pay a subscription fee to unlock the utility of an information-distilling agent, or they won't.

This feels a bit like projection though. People in general are trained to tolerate ads for most freemium services, such as social media, search, etc., and chat is no different.

For any market involving human attention, there's a portion willing to pay money for the service, but a significant larger portion willing to trade attention time (e.g. ad impressions) for a free service instead.

Disagree - the difference with now is the same difference between supervised and unsupervised machine learning.

Services. Inevitably some of the queries involve recommending a service, and when you have two equal substitute services in a market, both will pay a certain price to be recommended over the other.

Nothing I said is intentionally misleading, it's right there in the source I linked. Apple Chinese users are still Apple users.

Google employees rejected that same requirement to operate in China, showing that Google cares more about user privacy than Apple does. Apple has shown they care more about profits than privacy, which is the point.

You mean the direct quote made above with the "assertions"? Are you intentionally playing dumb?

Here it is (again):

> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.

Okay, but that doesn't change the fact that you mixed up the terms here. If the right wanted to really stop immigrant sex trafficking or child abuse, they would be promoting for fairer and easier immigration laws.

I'm imagining droves of tourists now in major cities, chatting with bot tour guides on tablets.

I mean, you said it yourself - there's an HFT moment happening with negative articles being robotically written that is causing the stock to drop. If anything it's a bit of an over-correction from the positive bump GOOG had recently from the same robot articles of the initial Bard announcement.

Or Apple, who shares more user data with the CCP than most American tech companies: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/17/technology/apple-china-ce...

All FAANG are suspect these days

Advertising is like finance; there are entire teams of people whose full time jobs it is to make money using complex markets. SMBs are not going to be able to casually compete.

Also if it wasn't a black box, then scammers would be fleecing everyone.

Can you? I'm not trying to make a point by hiding behind an appeal to averages.

Collapsing Damore's argument into "An average man is incapable of being in tech. An average woman is incapable of being in tech." is disingenious, especially given his quote only speaks to one sex.

But then I doubt you care, especially since your account does nothing but astroturf Damore on HN.

Worth noting that sunscreen only blocks a % of UVB, meaning you're still producing vitamin D while wearing sunscreen. Sometimes it's better for your skin to be wearing low SPF for regular sun exposure.

i.e. SPF 15, 30, & 50 sunscreen only blocks 93%, 97%, & 98% of UVB (respectively)

Hiding behind an appeal to averages does not change the fact that Damore said women [on average] are biologically incapable of being in tech and leadership positions.

Again, Damore reaped the consequences of his own actions by violating a contract he agreed to. This is intentionally misleading to represent him as a martyr for right-wingers.

Unless, of course, you think the conservative agenda includes promoting that women are biologically incapable of holding teach and leadership positions.

We're talking about fingerprinting here. Even a person wearing a ski mask could give a name, they still stand out because they have a ski mask on.

Deviations from the norm make you stand out, even if it's lying.

User agents are remarkably easy to spoof at scale. Bad actors could cycle known user agents with a password until they hit the right non-2FA login agent.

It also presents an attack vector to screw up everyone's logins and repeatedly force users to re-2FA every few minutes.

Users typically use the same browser on each device, so using first party cookies to identify a device for web logins is not that far fetched of a solution.

How is that a ban when they are tweeting about it?

It looks more like an algorithmic hiccup that was corrected than a ban for violating TOS. Not the same at all.

The fact that you take any action to obfuscate your identity only makes you stand out more from the herd, not blend in.

It's like wearing a ski mask in a store. Your profile(s) are more noticeable even if you're not immediately identifiable.

Dirk Servers here, just saying hi.

James Damore was fired for violating his employee agreement with Google, because he said the reason you don't see women in engineering and leadership positions is due to them being biologically incapable.

Even James confirmed as much. Trotting him out as an example is more to my point of how playing the victim card without acknowledging agreement violations is intentionally misleading. And before someone asks, "DiD u rEaD tHe MeMo?" it's right here:

> I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.

You're mixing up terms here.

Being against legal immigration and implementing policies to make it more difficult to become legal (as the right has done) has lead to the enslavement of immigrant women and other sex trafficking. Being against sane and fair immigration policies is what people react to.

Everyone is against illegal immigration and child sex trafficking, but vary vastly on the solutions.

I don't know why you're being downvoted - you're right.

It's not speech about fiscal conservative policies or smaller government that get's censored. It's people telling their viewers to harass Sandyhook parents, or participate in a violent insurrection, or something similar that gets censored.

Playing the victim card without acknowledging TOS violations is intentionally misleading.

I'm in the same boat - unknown autoimmune disease, talked to teams of neurologists in different health networks. All they can do is prescribe treatment for symptoms, not causes, which is frustrating.

How does one even go about sequencing their DNA?

You typically show symptoms of autoimmune attacks, like neuropathies, elevated WBCs in blood/CSF, protein in CSF, inflammation biomarkers, etc. What becomes difficult is determining what triggers the autoimmune attacks, as it could be based on diet, stress, or any range of indeterminable factors.

Providers typically are able to eliminate most of the known autoimmune diseases, but for determining a new one, you need a research team and many years.

For one or two attacks, sure, but at the scales to having impact we're talking prohibitively expensive, especially with antifraud detection whacking the moles.

But to GP's point, that appears to be the only news about the event:

https://news.google.com/search?q=mein%20kampf%20stanford

It seems like this really is a molehill.