311–320 of 336 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does he still own paypal Stock? Seems unlikely. And he wants X to be a competitor!
Uh Peter Thiel basically owns JD Vance. Musk wasn't meaningful in Paypal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a very reasonable argument to be made a number of shopers wouldn't convert if they didn't feel like they were getting a "deal." So honey is undeniably aiding in the sale. It's not "literally doing nothing" to compile and automatically apply/suggest coupon codes. That's literally doing something. Is it valuable? Objectively, yes, hence the millions upon millions of users. Your statement is either hyperbolic or…
You're framing this in an extremely slanted way. > So honey is undeniably aiding in the sale. First of all, "undeniably" here is hyperbole. At best you could say "possibly, occasionally". You were already brought to site by a content creator, added the item to your cart, and are in the process of checking out. Why would a coupon code aggregator then deserve the commission for that sale? > It's not "literally doing no…
That statement is emotionally charged and factually incorrect, multiple times over. I assume the rest of your reply is along the same lines and won't trouble myself reading it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a very reasonable argument to be made a number of shopers wouldn't convert if they didn't feel like they were getting a "deal." So honey is undeniably aiding in the sale. It's not "literally doing nothing" to compile and automatically apply/suggest coupon codes. That's literally doing something. Is it valuable? Objectively, yes, hence the millions upon millions of users. Your statement is either hyperbolic or…
weren't they inserting themselves even in cases where there was no available coupon? Finding the user a deal isn't "doing literally nothing", and the argument for honey inserting itself in that case is at least not crazy. But as I understand it, they inserted themselves in every case even when they very literally did nothing (no deal, nothing).
My point is the issue is not honey. The problem is affiliate marketing (specifically last click attribution) as a whole. Don't hate the player. Hate the game.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a very reasonable argument to be made a number of shopers wouldn't convert if they didn't feel like they were getting a "deal." So honey is undeniably aiding in the sale. It's not "literally doing nothing" to compile and automatically apply/suggest coupon codes. That's literally doing something. Is it valuable? Objectively, yes, hence the millions upon millions of users. Your statement is either hyperbolic or…
That's how any fraud works - the mark feels like he is getting a good deal. And while the fact that there are millions of marks is an objective fact, it's not an objective indicator of the fraud being valuable to the marks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I understand this feature pretty well. What I'm arguing for is taking the common information between all news sources (without having to place them in left / right / center) is much higher signal to noise. Honestly your paranthesis that "the right is way worse" is already too political for my taste. It makes me feel dumb for even writing this reply. Alas, these are my thoughts. News should be news. What happe…
Given that there are at least as many things happening as there are humans, how do you suggest the people serving as “news sources” avoid editorial judgment when deciding what’s newsworthy and what it means?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think I understand this feature pretty well. What I'm arguing for is taking the common information between all news sources (without having to place them in left / right / center) is much higher signal to noise. Honestly your paranthesis that "the right is way worse" is already too political for my taste. It makes me feel dumb for even writing this reply. Alas, these are my thoughts. News should be news. What happe…
> What happened and when. "What" is often a matter of definition and framing, especially if you also want news to include "to what effect" which is not always black-and-white. "Why" is an answer that also must be answered, but will often come through a political lens. News cannot be free from a political lens if "why" and "to what effect" are considered, and probably can't be free from some element of a political len…
I don't. I want to be able to draw my own conclusion as to the effect of what happened might be.
> News cannot be free from a political lens if "why" and "to what effect" are considered, and probably can't be free from some element of a political lens even if just sticking to "what".
I have no interest in the "why" and "to what effect". I have an interest into "what" so that I can draw my own conclusions.
Though thank you for your thoughts, it helps me understand the people calling for political sides better.
Have a friend high up at one of the “Big 3” in this space. The entire business model is predicated on injecting themselves as the last click for attribution even when they weren’t remotely responsible for the conversion. Cool business, but can’t keep going on forever without someone catching on.
Hijacking this for visibility. I had this idea before Honey. When we spoke to our attorney, he instantly told us "that won't fly; you'll get popped for cookie stuffing." The adware world had been doing similar things forever - injecting fake results into Google, taking over default home pages to show Google look-alikes. When Honey launched on Reddit and got their first user bump, I started building our prototype. Whi…
AdBlock Plus also had this idea back in 2012/2013.
Here’s a (German) article about this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220817235820/https://www.mobil...
Near the end he mentions the typoRules.js, rules.json, urlfixer stuff and Yieldkit. Apparently, whenever you’ve mis-typed a URL to e.g. amazon, it auto-corrected it and added their own affiliate id (which was then valid for 30 days). And the feature only needed very few changes to get applied even to correct links.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I want to like RetailMeNot but every time I try it, I very seldom come across functioning coupon codes. I don't understand what incentivizes people to submit bogus codes.
The codes are probably legit. There's just no incentive for anyone to clean up dead codes nor submit fresh ones except for the coupon providers themselves who might see retailmenot as a marketing angle, which seems to be very few.
Just like travel sites where you can book some remote roadside run of the mill in Wyoming for mid week, winter next year, and be told “14 people have booked this hotel today, hurry”.
No, they haven’t. Or certainly not for that date.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that there are at least as many things happening as there are humans, how do you suggest the people serving as “news sources” avoid editorial judgment when deciding what’s newsworthy and what it means?
I don't suggest they avoid editorial judgement. I'm only interested in what happened so that I can draw my own conclusions.
Then, the Rebel Times says "Moisture farmer with magic powers joins fight against Empire", but the Empire Daily has "Moisture farmer joins fight against Empire". the common whats are just that a moisture farmer joined the Rebel Alliance, which is true, but much less consequential than if he had magic powers.
Later, the Rebel Times says "Secret Empire super-weapon destroyed at the Battle of Yavin", and the Empire Daily publishes... nothing because they don't want to admit defeat. There's no common information between these stories (because there is no second story), so looking for common whats would conclude that nothing happened.
If the process of analysing the news accounted for the fact that the different outlets are interested in presenting different whats, it could conclude that the fact that the Empire Daily published nothing about the third story doesn't mean that it didn't happen. In the second case, if it could account for the Empire wanting to suppress information about the Force, the conclusion would be that Luke joining the Alliance is somewhat more of a big deal than otherwise. Even in the first case, it might realise that the fact that the two sources don't agree about Leia doesn't mean that one side isn't right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
if the computer belongs to the company, and you're using it as an employee, you should be told that such spyware is installed and your usage of said machines are monitored. Then there's no qualms about this at all. It's only an invasion of privacy if the monitoring is done in secret.
|It's only an invasion of privacy if the monitoring is done in secret. Uhhh... that seems very incorrect. If someone pokes their head into your shower session, it's an invasion of privacy - whether or not they let you know they're peepin on ya.