nopriorarrests

I mean, 1.2M views for the whole channel is... almost nothing, in terms of $? Surely not enough to affore new comfy bed and pillows?

Parler is dead, aka banned by apple and google 1-2 hours ago.

But how much can you acquire without triggering some FBI/police alarm? I honestly don't know, but I think it's harder now than in 1995.

Something does not add up here. Making RV full of explosives and exploding it in a right place not a small feat. Oklahoma City Bombing, for example, took 8 month from start to final blast.

5G paranoids, IMHO, have attention span of a fly and, frankly speaking, just too dumb. I just don't see one of them executing such complex project, and avoiding FBI attention while doing it.

Maybe my mind playing tricks on me, but it seems to me this object is human-shaped with something attached on his back (jet-pack?)

Honest question, no snark --- which consumer space problems were solved, if I don't play Go and don't have FB account to recognize me on a group photos (both of these two statements are true)?

How true. "Those evil Trump campaign staffers turned election in his favor using amazing evil micro-targeting FB techniques which are complete scam and do not work at all".

Pretty coherent point of view.

>they mean that it was uncommon for a typical consumer to experience it back then.

Siri from Apple was launched in 2011, as some other commenter noted below. Also, "On June 14, 2011, Google announced at its Inside Google Search event that it would start to roll out Voice Search on Google.com during the coming days".

If it does not count as 'typical consumer to experience it', well, I do not know what counts then.

9 years ago, I mind you, not 5. And I think that 5 years ago voice recognition was more-or-less good already. In 4 years both Apple and Google acquired large enough datasets to learn from, afer initial launch of their products in 2011.

What we are still struggling with is proccesing of fuzzy queries, something among the lines of 'Siri tell me which restaurant in my area serves the most delicious sushi according to yelp reviews and also allows takeout', but this is not a voice recognition problem (though typical consumer can think it is).

Of course it was awful. It was 1997.

But you can't claim that something "wasn't possible 5 years" ago, if 7 years ago said feature was included in inexpensive consumer product (LG TV).

I'm not acting cynical, but it's tiresome for me to see people who claim that 20-30 years ago we all were living in a caves and catching bugs with wooden sticks, and now boom, ML!

Regarding "something truly different", well, my personal computing / mobile experience not changed that much from 2015. Honestly speaking, progress from 1995 to 2000 felt much more impressive and 'truly different'. I mean, think of it, during this timeframe we went from DOOM via V.34 modems to amazon.com and ordering pizza online.

They confessed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/24/business/media/facebook-a...

>Presumably if you had a blog aimed at high-earning college educated people you could get a pretty high ratio of (target demographic/all viewers).

Correct. The problem of course is scale. How much money such blog can accept from advertisers before it will get absurdly expensive to buy ads from such blog?

FB gives you targeting and scale, and you need both to run meaningful advertising campaign.

>recognize voices. All these things were not possible 5 years ago.

FTR: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_NaturallySpeaking

Dragon Systems released NaturallySpeaking 1.0 as their first continuous dictation product in 1997. <...> As of 2012 LG Smart TVs include voice recognition feature powered by the same speech engine as Dragon NaturallySpeaking.

Honest question -- do you think that without Facebook there will be no tensions between anti-maskers and people who insist on wearing masks everywhere? Is FB really to blame here?

OK, agree. But then, don't shift the blame to 'malicious state actor'. This is their decision and they own it in full.

30% is HUGE, and this is why I do not buy the idea that you can get such percentage of votes because of some evil state actor who posts ads on facebook, with independent press, TV, all being available and popular as well.

If some party got 30% of votes in Germany, stop blaming facebook and 'state actors'. Germans are better then this, they are not zombies, and they have a lot of information sources to pick up news/opinions from.

Being originally from Russia, I know how things work there.

I mean, government contractors aren't saints in every country, it's a well known fact, but in Russia they are on a whole different level.

Stealing goverment money under the premise of "we will rule the world comrade, so please allocate 100 million dollars to us ASAP" and pocketing it to buy London properties, obviously.

And of course, 50K out of 100M will be really allocated to buy some shitty FB ads to make screenshots and present it to higher-ups.

Yeah, I know. Russia would have a lot to gain from:

-- Trump being re-elected

-- Yellow Vests riots in France

-- Brexit

-- Alternative for Germany party rise in Germany

and all of these happened because of Facebook+Russia.

Sorry, but this is just Q-Anon level global conspiracy theory adopted for progressives. :-(

>How do you think populist leaders gain such a large voice so quickly in those EU countries?

There are two options here.

1. People are not really happy with current status quo so they are looking to choose alternative leaders via elections, just as expected in democratic countries.

2. Some bad guys post bad stuff on Facebook and, like, 30% of german voters read it and march to election booth like zombies to vote the way bad guys said them to vote (for Alternative for Germany).

Well, you can pick which theory survives the Occam Razor test better.

EDIT: And oh, wrt to "a large voice so quickly" -- when a lot of stuff happens quickly (i mean, between 1 or 2 elections) -- yes, a lot of people can change their minds quickly. Turbulent times, you know. In stable times people change their minds slowly.

I haven't seen a single article even trying to suggest that politics in Germany or Netherlands is affected by Facebook is any way. (And for USA, you can see such articles on HN front page any other day, btw).

The only gripe EU is having with Facebook is about privacy violations, as I can see.

Honestly, americans who are thinking in all seriousness that "we can have democracy or we can have Facebook" are just deluding themselves.

I wonder why facebook usage isn't "sowing discord" in Netherlands or, say, Germany, or other EU countries? From what I know, Facebook makes some real euros there, so adoption rate is quite high, but still, democracy is not "under attack" in these countries because of "automated newsfeed".

Consider these countries as a control group for "facebook being bad for democracy" test.

Maybe US should take a hard look into a mirror and accept the fact that it is very polarized country, not very cohesive society, with very little common ground (if any at all) between different factions, and facebook just shows this fact.

Don't blame the mirror for what you see in it.

There is one simple option to preserve whatever you want. Pay for it, dammit.

I never said it simple. Choosing between driving dodge ram or prius also affects others, because pollution. All I said that freedom is having mutiple choices.

Freedom is having a choice. Between, say, having fun in overcrowded bar till 3am or staying in your apartment alone, ordering delivery and watching netflix. Quite simple.

What worldview? This is purely objective point.

If you have 5% of AMZN, Besos has 95%, I have none and AMZN stock doubles in value, you can easily calculate the outcome in terms of dollar gains and how much inequality had risen.

>It also seems like Belarus is killing the goose that laid the golden egg here

Meh. Belarus economy is heavy machinery and agriculture (mostly exported to russia).

IT for Belarus is as important as expensive watches industry for US economy.

>remember Snapchat? Kids don't

And yet, SNAP stock is up YoY.

How many people will be okay staying in some location which is not properly disinfected, unlike a room in a chain hotel?

How may hosts will me okay returning to their place knowing that some strangers were living there?

Even if everything, including international flights, open up in autumn, I think people will prefer hotels for a long time.

So, Airbnb had an average Q1, Q2 is dead in the water, Q3 might bring, idk, 10-20% compared to 2019? and Q4, maybe 50%?

Overall, I can hardly see 50% drop YoY.

>According to Chesky’s missive, Airbnb anticipates its 2020 revenue coming in under 50% of 2019’s total

Very optimistic. They should be happy to get around 25% of 2019 totals.

I see it as a good thing. Russia waste less capital and valuable human resources on vanity projects. I know that HN crowd will dislike my view, since space is hot topic, but well, I would rather focus on something more tangible.

Germany has nothing to show in space industry prowess, but it is nice, wealthy country which focuses on problems at hand.