How do they make money from giving their users free photo storage? I think the only path for that to be profitable was to grow the username for future subscription revenue.
“As always, we don’t sell your information to anyone, and we don’t use information in apps where you primarily store personal content—such as Gmail, Drive, Calendar and Photos—for advertising purposes, period.”
So these random people are going to be put in power without making any ideological commitments, no platform, no coalition, no campaign promises. Where are these rookies going to get policy ideas if not from the lobbyists whose job is to convince them?
From my perspective, that’s pretty much how it works anyway. At the end of the day you’re sampling from a distribution. You can improve the outcome by networking, interview prep, and negotiation strategy but all of those are just changing the shape of the distribution. I would reject the idea of intentionally adding more randomness because the signal is already so obscured.
I don’t find it too surprising that more Democrats have an opinion of QAnon. There’s a small segment of people who actually have consumed the material and believe in it, and a much larger set who have heard of it and have a vague (and possibly wrong) notion of what “side” it’s on. I think due to the repugnant nature of the movement, most of that commentary is going to come from the left, so mostly left-wing people will form an opinion. Most of the people who are favorable toward QAnon in those polls on both the left and right probably have little idea of what it actually is.
The important question is how much demand does each dollar of marketing create. It would be poor decision-making to just assume marketing is a bad idea because they are already able to sell through everything at current prices. Presumably there’s somebody doing that math at the company.
Auctions feel unfair to consumers. The free marketing hype from the product selling out may be worth a lot more to them than selling a few consumer-grade units for high prices at auction. It’s possible AMD knowingly targeted stock levels and prices to cause the sellout.
For the real high-value users they have completely different products for sale to capture that margin at even higher prices (Epyc, Tesla).
I think that there’s a dichotomy between east coast oil/finance/defense/old money power and west coast tech money power that’s somewhat independent of the right-left political dichotomy. There’s a desire among Washington and New York power brokers and journalists to knock big tech off its pedestal, which creates an insatiable appetite for anti-tech narratives.
I think this explains why so much of the conversation around the 2016 election blames Facebook for the result, when it was one of 100 factors, and some of the more proximate factors were choices of institutions like the FBI and the New York Times. Facebook and Twitter’s measures to visibly suppress Trump’s claims of winning the current election can be seen as attempts to head off this kind of scapegoating, neutralize the narrative, and bow to those east coast institutions. These actions are legally unrelated to antitrust, but seem to be part of an effort to cede ground in the larger conflict the antitrust actions are part of.
Yeah, I don’t think this thread is entirely relevant to this particular case, but the parent comment was about the anti-tech actions uniting the two political parties.
> Inflation is a vector NOT a real number, any asset that people care about has become generally unaffordable i.e: housing, education, healthcare.
Inflation is not the cause of unaffordability in those areas, the cause is limited supply. Using bitcoin as our currency wouldn’t make more houses, more medical professionals, or less administrative bloat in universities. However, it would probably mean a complete collapse of the economy during times like these when a central bank can intervene to stabilize things.
