191–200 of 379 posts
However, it may be a small amount or they both factored this change into their forecasting before announcements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless used in an obviously derogatory context, all modern usage of "chick" that I've heard (American English) has basically been equivalent to "dude" for men. Most people I hang out with (men and women) toss around "chick" and "dude" equally as a friendly and casual way to refer to an unnamed individual.
Yes, but the social context of men and women in professional environments is different. Causal terms like this carry a lot more baggage for women, who have had to fight for decades to be taken seriously in the workplace. "Chick" is more likely to remind somebody of all the times they have been talked down to than "dude" is. Obviously not everybody responds this way but we should be aware of the context.
I was listening to terrestrial radio the other day and was surprised to hear a radio advertisement beckoning retirees to cash in their 401ks to join the cryptocurrency future of Bitcoin and Ethereum. The bubble is too big for Google to slow it down and it has grown beyond the realm of tech savvy geeks into something fueled by hype and hubris.
From the best tweetstorm ever on topic by Sarah Jeong: https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/953464303960469504 > All of this has gone too far!!!!! It was fine when you paranoid dorks were out there scamming each other, please leave the normies alone!!!!!!!!!!!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The frustrating bit is that these scams paint a really sour picture of the space as a whole. There's a lot of value to cryptocurrencies, and as a technology it's poised to change the world in some very serious ways. People latch onto it because it's a powerful idea and because the underlying technology has a lot of legitimacy to it. People hear ads about how you need to move over your 401k and discount the whole spac…
> People latch onto it because it's a powerful idea and because the underlying technology has a lot of legitimacy to it. A few, but the vast majority have latched onto it because they think it will make them rich. Almost no one buying into cryptocurrencies could explain a blockchain if their life depended on it.
Self-interested value creation has generated the vast majority of great achievements in the world. I don't see what wrong with that being a primary motivation to invest time and resources into something?
Why else should people do it? Only for fun or altruistic reasons?
If that was the case then cryptocurrencies would still be novelty on the internet only known to nerds. That may be safer and harmless and idealistic but it would be entirely insignificant.
Nearly all big developments requires risk, experimentation, and early failures until it matures into a stable and well understood technology.
Every time I hear about Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies on mainstream radio/media they always mention it's volatility and risk. Google results are full of stories about it. The association between risk and cryptocurrencies are essentially common-sense these days, as it rightfully should be. I'm not sure why everyone's acting like it's some big secret we need to protect people from.
If it's an explicit scam or ponzi scheme then yes that's a problem worth worrying about, and we already have plenty of laws, regulations, and agencies to deal with that already. But I don't quite agree with automatically lumping all paid mentions of cryptocurrencies and blockchains into that category.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> this chick I can't, just can't, not in 2018, leave "this chick" without a remark: it sounds rather derogatory. Please be more respectful.
I apologize if the word offends you. It was both intentioned to be non offensive (which should be apparent from my admiration for her WORK while giving no fucks about her as a person) and carries a common definition in the English space of being polite and non derogatory. Had she been male my comment would be exactly the same except it would say 'dude' in place of 'chick'. Now does anyone know where I can find that w…
Dude is gender neutral.
Chick comes from "chica", which by itself comes from the Latin "ciccum" as in pea.
By calling a woman a chick, you are called her a "chick-pea".
There's even some association with "chick bird", as in a bird you hunt.
Modern usage associates the use of "chick" with the beauty of the individual. Calling a woman a "chick" is using her physical appearance to describe her, disregarding her actual skills and achievements.
By calling a woman a chick, you are either:
A) Calling her a young girl (women are not children)
B) Calling her a young bird (women are not prey)
C) Calling her a young plant (women are more than brainless beautiful things)
All of those can offend.
The equivalent would be calling a men "boy toy" or some such slang. Not something you can do without earning a punch in the face.
Derogate: –verb (used with object) 3. to disparage or belittle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google doesn't want to slow it down. They just don't want to be associated with companies that are related to fraud. And, I think that this is a valid and correct choice for Google because they have their own brand to protect.
> They just don't want to be associated with companies that are related to fraud. More specifically, Google doesn't want the SEC to hold them liable when they go after some of these fraudsters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the best tweetstorm ever on topic by Sarah Jeong: https://twitter.com/sarahjeong/status/953464303960469504 > All of this has gone too far!!!!! It was fine when you paranoid dorks were out there scamming each other, please leave the normies alone!!!!!!!!!!!
Except paranoid dorks are not the ones scamming. It's a completely different group of people who created the space, and completely different one that twisted it into a farce, created thousands of scam ICOs and altcoins that make no sense. Well, some overlap actually might be there, but not that much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
USA drug purchases fund most global drug research. That money comes from somewhere. It's fine for us to question whether this is the best way for drugs to be marketed in our nation, but for the rest of the world to do so seems a bit ungrateful?
I work in pharma research in the US, so I'm pretty biased here, but I have thoughts. In my opinion, the more useful kinds of marketing is to physicians. Help them understand new products and where they fit in the treatment paradigm for whatever indications your company makes. On the other hand, there are tons of people who have stories about knowing something was wrong, being told by 3 physicians that it was nothing,…
Your colleagues in marketing agree with you, though they probably have a different definition for "useful". This 2012 article[0] says pharma spent $24B in marketing to professionals vs $4B to consumers. I assume relatively more is spent on consumers now but didn't find any more recent numbers.
It is also worth mentioning that pharma now spends more on marketing than research.
> On the other hand, there are tons of people who have stories about knowing something was wrong, being told by 3 physicians that it was nothing, then finding a 4th who diagnosed them with something the others missed because a patient is usually their own strongest advocate.
Are there any peer reviewed studies to back this up? As a researcher in the field I'm sure this is the threshold you would want to meet before making such an assertion.
Also, are there any studies that can tell us the ratio of marketing spent on informing consumers of legit ailments vs what is spent on kickbacks, hiring former cheerleaders as marketers, junkets for doctors, coupons for the on patent drug when the off patent drug works just fine, paying the generic company to not sell its drug to compete, etc or any of the other shady practices that pharma engages in?
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/11/big-p...