My site is focused on shopping and dining out therefore I don’t think the conclusions in those papers apply in my case. The audio interruptions noted in the Pandora test are far more intrusive than in-page display ads. If I used interstitials then I would agree.
Firstly my readers would have no idea what Adsense even is. But if they see accompanying ads like Swarovski, Nordstrom, local restaurant, then yes, I believe it would positively impact their impression on an intuitive level. If they actively thought about it then no. I can see how it wouldn’t appeal to other sites though.
I think it depends on the audience. Looking at your blog I can see how ads may not work as well. My blog is focused more on dining out, shopping etc where viewers think nothing of ads and I think they would even think it weird if there weren’t ads.
I completely agree. I’m the copyright holder of text I published on my own website years ago; the fact they hold on to my written copyrighted work without my permission, ignoring my explicit request to remove it from their internal database is infuriating.
Well, now kids would be learning about overclocking video cards, messing with refresh rates, optimizing their gaming mouse etc. Same idea. I had Zork and PAC man growing up and while I enjoyed it I wasn’t completely addicted to it possibly because the graphics, multi player gaming etc weren’t there yet. It does bother me seeing my son play fortnite rather than learning python etc like I’d have been inclined to do if I were his age. Then again, I’d probably be addicted to fortnite as well.
I was only asking about alimony, not asset division. It’s become clear in his situation that he previously had a high paying job, quit or switched to a lesser paying job right before the divorce, and expected the alimony to be reflected based on the lower salary. It looks like he thinks it was unfair that alimony was based on his higher paying job and that’s why he said the judge has a lot of leeway in how to set alimony. Personally I’m not surprised by that at all and think it’s fair although unfortunate since he has the potential to earn a higher income. Likewise, had she received lower alimony I could envision him changing his mind the following year and going back to a FAANG company to earn big bucks again. That wouldn’t be fair either and judges know that I imagine.
I assume he had significant income in previous years, switched jobs for whatever reason, makes significantly less, but alimony is based on past few years income. That must hurt but I think is done to protect the other person since some people might purposefully quit etc in order to have alimony be set at a lower amount, then get a new job after divorce to match what they were making previously.
I don’t get it. Assuming she didn’t work, wouldn’t it be half your income averaged over the past few years? Meaning, regardless of what she thinks she deserves, isn’t there a standard calculation used, ie half?
I think it’s important to take a more active stand. My child joined a school sport this fall and the coach told us information will be provided on a private Facebook group. I told him I don’t use Facebook and demanded he also put the information elsewhere, which he did end up doing. I hope over time, as more people demand this, more people will float away from FB.
If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, does it make a noise? If IA is storing copyrighted (noarchive) content but not displaying it, does that make it acceptable?