211–220 of 285 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google can probably determine EXACTLY how many nickels you’d have and here you are stuck just guessing.
181437
The standard nickel is 5 grams but they typically weigh between 4.9 and 5.1 grams. However for such a large number of nickels, due to wear, I'd say it's a safer bet to lean towards the lower bound, and also add some uncertainty so a more accurate answer is probably 204±5 thousand nickels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's not whataboutism. It's calling out hypocrisy So, it's exactly Whataboutism: “Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, [...]” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
In a way, aren't you deflecting the argument as well by labelling it instead of actually providing a logical answer of Why did everyone ignore or rave about Obama's use of over-reaching fb ads? And calling out hypocrisy isn't wrong thing to do in this matter. I'm not saying what trump's campaign did was the right thing to do. What i find appalling is the so called "literate/educated" class of people completely ignore…
No, I'm deflecting, if anything, a distraction from the argument, by not accepting the shift in subject matter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, the technical barrier isn't that high anymore. Social and economic barriers though... By subsidising otherwise prohibitively expensive mobile data connections for Facebook traffic only, Facebook has become the internet in many countries. Facebook have their app preinstalled by pretty much every Android vendor. As a system app that you can't remove. Other services require you to have a Facebook account to login,…
> By subsidising otherwise prohibitively expensive mobile data connections for Facebook traffic only, Facebook has become the internet in many countries. I like to see how much revenue Facebook gets from those countries vs. the US and Western Europe. > Competing with something this deeply entrenched would be difficult I don't think anything you listed makes FB so entrenched that's it's invulnerable. Facebook's big st…
That's not even the point, even if they're loosing money at the moment it's almost certainly worth it to capture those new users.
> All the money in the world can't keep something fashionable forever.
Facebook isn't fashionable or trendy, myspace et al took that angle which is why they're gone now, and also that's missing the point again.
Facebook is a social utility that a crapload of people can't live without. I have friends who I can't even contact without using facebook/messenger/whatsapp, and this is in a country where mobile data is cheap and SMS/phone calls are basically free. Go to a place where facebook-subsidised connections are the only option that people can actually afford and your only alternative is basically social suicide.
I don't think many people truly grasp the scale and pervasiveness of Facebook and how there just isn't anything that is even remotely close to competing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can get all of this information from a phone number too. https://www.twilio.com/marketplace/add-ons/nextcaller-advanc... Give it a try with your phone number. It'll provide your address (current and former), income bracket, relatives, siblings, children, etc, etc. Guess what Facebook asks you to provide when initially setting up!?
600+ Million records: "Name, Address, Email, Carrier, Line Type, Secondary Phone, Age, Gender, Household Income, Marital Status, Presence of Children, Home Owner Status, Home Market Value, Length of Residence, High Net Worth, Occupation, Education Level, Twitter Handle & Followers, Facebook Profile & Followers, LinkedIn Profile"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not sure why was I down voted? A little explanation could help.
I don’t know either, but it’s against the HN posting guidelines to inquire. It’s hard to know where sentiment comes from, I’d recommend not dwelling on it too long. Just keep writing comments you believe in.
How were any of you damaged by Facebook ads, exactly? Why the outrage now and not before, when Obama (and everyone else) used targeted advertising? This whole outrage over privacy is disingenuous. It’s painfully obvious the outrage is about Donald Trump being elected president, not personal information used to target ads.
Hang on, so what is your solution in this strawman scenario? Should we all smile for the panopticon and embrace total surveillance or do we have to wait until Our Team is in power to be able to complain without question of hypocrisy?
>Foremost among these tools is enforcement action against companies that fail to honor their privacy promises This is the crux of the issue. The problem is that when Facebook asks for "location information", the consequences of this are not being conveyed to the user. The user might think, "ah they want my location for the weather recommendations and event suggestions in my neighbourhood". They do not realise how som…
Regardless What pisses me off is FB not providing evidence to the contrary, that they don't harvest data in the bqckground. Not providing this evidence makes it quite clear that they do harvest this data. The issue isn't about permissions. 'Sir, may I come inside your house, is fine, but ransacking the house once you get is is douchebaggery.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"not that there was interaction between Russia and the Trump campaign." The FBI strongly disagrees with that statement. Facebook has been proven to be used as one of the tools to achieve those ends.
Could you provide a citation? OP's comment mirrors my understanding. My understanding is that Russia acted both for and against Trump, though primarily for. But that is different than those efforts being coordinated by the Trump campaign.
How were any of you damaged by Facebook ads, exactly? Why the outrage now and not before, when Obama (and everyone else) used targeted advertising? This whole outrage over privacy is disingenuous. It’s painfully obvious the outrage is about Donald Trump being elected president, not personal information used to target ads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a way, aren't you deflecting the argument as well by labelling it instead of actually providing a logical answer of Why did everyone ignore or rave about Obama's use of over-reaching fb ads? And calling out hypocrisy isn't wrong thing to do in this matter. I'm not saying what trump's campaign did was the right thing to do. What i find appalling is the so called "literate/educated" class of people completely ignore…
> In a way, aren't you deflecting the argument No, I'm deflecting, if anything, a distraction from the argument, by not accepting the shift in subject matter.