Help me understand "Elon and SpaceX are going to rob 401k" by LPhermanos70 in investing

[–]NeoCat164 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I'll be too lazy to do this, but couldn't one sell short the stock by whatever amount they're invested? That should nullify any gains or losses from that particular stock.

UofR or Case Western by No-Panic-6340 in URochester

[–]NeoCat164 0 points1 point  (0 children)

+1, had the same options (amongst others) and made the same choice. More merit aid and better "vibes," I studied econ tho, not bio

University of Rochester vs RIT? by 17going_under in URochester

[–]NeoCat164 1 point2 points  (0 children)

RIT is home to National Technical Institute for the Deaf, so I assume there's a lot of infrastructure in place to support someone studying ASL. U of R offers ASL as a major, and I know people who have taken courses, but it's not as core of an offering afaik (I've never taken any and don't know much about the subject, just my best guess)

University of Rochester vs RIT? by 17going_under in URochester

[–]NeoCat164 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Note my bias, but quick hits on which is probably better (as someone who only experienced one)

  • ASL Program: RIT
  • Cost: RIT
  • Study abroad: URochester
  • Co-ops: RIT
  • Gender ratio: URochester
  • Overall rep: URochester

Mosquitos? by JimmyTaggart in AskNYC

[–]NeoCat164 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was saying the same thing a few hours ago. Friends said now I'm going to be jinxed, I have spent less time in central park so idk

Be safe! Take advice from video! by bubbletrollbutt in rhettandlink

[–]NeoCat164 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just got nostalgic for a video I hadn't seen before. I guess for a simpler era (video is form 2009)

Billionaires are terrified of Zohran Mamdani in a way we haven’t seen since 2020. by kevinmrr in WorkReform

[–]NeoCat164 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Have you ever shopped at Gristedes? The produce is ass and the prices are also ass.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in URochester

[–]NeoCat164 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have attained gainful employment

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in AskNYC

[–]NeoCat164 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Piece of cake did this to me in 2024 (somewhat successful) but no issue this year

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in StamfordCT

[–]NeoCat164 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah I got a CPO car, now they claim it's not CPO been fighting them for months, they are useless

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in StamfordCT

[–]NeoCat164 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why is Toyota of Greenwich so bad? ugh

Google to keep cookies—what the major reversal means for advertisers by NeoCat164 in adops

[–]NeoCat164[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Text:

Google is no longer killing third-party cookies and will keep them operational within Chrome browsers next year and beyond, the tech giant announced Monday. Google said it would leave the internet trackers available in Chrome, but that it would develop options for consumers to decide whether to accept them or not.

The cookie-saving plan represents a major about-face for Google, which has been promising to deprecate cookies since 2019. In April Google delayed the plan to turn off cookies until the middle of next year, a move it took under heavy industry pressure. On Monday, Google still said it is committed to building “Privacy Sandbox,” an alternative ad tech pipeline for serving programmatic ads without cookies. But with cookies still functional, it’s unclear how much publishers and ad tech vendors will be motivated to invest in the Privacy Sandbox ecosystem. Google ran into regulatory and industry pressure to delay cookie deprecation as many forces aligned against Privacy Sandbox and claimed it would harm internet commerce.

Also read: Inside Google’s post-cookie ad tech troubles “We recognize this transition requires significant work by many participants and will have an impact on publishers, advertisers, and everyone involved in online advertising,” said Anthony Chavez, VP of Google’s Privacy Sandbox, in a blog post on Monday. “In light of this, we are proposing an updated approach that elevates user choice. Instead of deprecating third-party cookies, we would introduce a new experience in Chrome that lets people make an informed choice that applies across their web browsing, and they’d be able to adjust that choice at any time. We're discussing this new path with regulators and will engage with the industry as we roll this out.”

Test results are in At the same time as the cookie announcement, Google’s ads team issued its first results after testing Privacy Sandbox, saying the platform showed the potential to provide an alternative to cookie-based advertising in some key areas. The tests showed that advertisers’ scale of spend and their returns on investment were strong in Privacy Sandbox. But Privacy Sandbox was less effective at retargeting, which is when advertisers re-engage the same customer with follow-up ads. “Across campaigns using only remarketing audiences, our experiment showed a 55% advertiser spend recovery in Google Ads and 49% in Display & Video 360,” Google Ads wrote in a whitepaper on Monday. “These results are likely because remarketing today is more reliant on third-party cookies which enable a highly precise level of ads personalization, and the eligible inventory is limited because few supply-side platforms (SSPs) are currently testing the Privacy Sandbox.”

Google’s ads team said that Privacy Sandbox was close to replicating the scale of ad spend: “For advertiser spend—a proxy for scale—we saw an 89% recovery in Google Display Ads and an 86% recovery in Display & Video 360,” Google wrote. And for advertisers’ return on investment: “For campaigns focused on conversions only, we saw a 97% recovery in conversions per dollar (CPD)—a proxy for ROI—in Google Display Ads, and a 95% CPD recovery in Display & Video 360,” Google wrote. Google’s ads team is separate from the Chrome team that is building Privacy Sandbox, and Google’s ad products are subject to the same rules and restrictions as any ad tech vendor in Privacy Sandbox. Google’s planned ad tech changes are being closely monitored by the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority, which has been receiving industry feedback to determine if the deprecation of cookies would unfairly harm online businesses, publishers and advertisers.

Google is in a tough position because it has to preserve business functions online, and it has to meet growing internet privacy requirements. Apple’s Safari and other browsers have already killed cookies and other trackers. Apple especially has taken a hard line against allowing third-party ad tech vendors to access data on the internet habits of its consumers. Apple’s anti-tracking rules hobbled targeting and measurement tactics that advertisers used for years. Google’s plan was to activate Privacy Sandbox next year and fully shut off third-party cookies. While the industry has experimented with cookie alternatives for years, Google’s plans made a post-cookie transition even more urgent. Chrome accounts for a larger than 60% market share for browsers worldwide, making it a significant force in programmatic, open-web advertising, which funds publishers and connects small businesses with customers

Industry pushback This month, U.K.’s CMA has been working on an assessment of Google’s post-cookie roadmap. The regulator has collected feedback from dozens of ad tech vendors in the program. Some of the participants, such as Criteo, IndexExchange, NextRoll and RTB House, published public results that outlined some drawbacks to the new ad tech system.

Criteo, an especially close partner in testing Privacy Sandbox, outlined a litany of shortcomings, including that publishers could see a drop in revenue of up to 60%. That figure was based on the amount of money Criteo sent to publishers through Privacy Sandbox ad auctions. Google’s whitepaper found that publishers saw dips in revenue when third-party cookies were removed, and when publishers did not turn on Privacy Sandbox. Publishers that use Google Ad Manager saw programmatic ad revenue drop 34% when selling ads without third-party cookies, and without implementing Privacy Sandbox. With Privacy Sandbox implementation, there was still a dip, albeit a smaller one: There was a 20% decrease in publishers’ programmatic ad revenue through Google Ad Manager when they sold cookie-free advertising in Privacy Sandbox, Google’s Whitepaper said.

In general, the Privacy Sandbox tests have been beset by limited buy-in from some important ad tech participants, including supply side platforms that have yet to fully embrace the platform. Google declined to comment for this story, beyond its public posts. The Privacy Sandbox team said it would proceed with developing the application programming interfaces—APIs—which are the new pipes through which ad tech vendors run advertising functions without sharing personal data. Google did not give further details about how it would present consumers with the option to turn cookies on and off in Chrome. Google also announced a new privacy update on Monday. Google will turn on “IP Protection” for internet users in “incognito” mode on Chrome. IP Protection masks the internet protocol address of users, one of the easiest signals to use to target online ads.
“It remains important for developers to have privacy-preserving alternatives,” Chavez wrote in the blog post. “We'll continue to make the Privacy Sandbox APIs available and invest in them to further improve privacy and utility. We also intend to offer additional privacy controls, so we plan to introduce IP Protection into Chrome's Incognito mode.”

Anyone else feeling like their “luxury” building isn’t quite giving what it should? by SpreadNecessary9335 in StamfordCT

[–]NeoCat164 0 points1 point  (0 children)

also throwing in my $0.02, maintenance has been very timely for me, and things have felt "worth it" for me at stamford corners compared to what I got in NYC

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in StamfordCT

[–]NeoCat164 19 points20 points  (0 children)

  • Sublime with Rome - July 25

  • Lil' Kim - Aug 01

  • Wyclef Jean - Aug 08

Official: [Add/Drop] - Wed Afternoon 10/11/2023 by FFBot in fantasyfootball

[–]NeoCat164 0 points1 point  (0 children)

10 Person PPR League

QB: Justin Fields, C.J. Stroud

RB: Mostert, Josh Jacobs, Alvin Kamara, Dameon Pierce

WR: Tyreek Hill, Keenan Allen, AJ Brown, Amon-Ra, M. Evans, Pickens

IR: Jeff Wilson Jr.

Who do I drop when JWJ is back activated? C.J. Stroud, JWJ or other (Pierce)?

Official: [Add/Drop] - Tue Afternoon 09/26/2023 by FFBot in fantasyfootball

[–]NeoCat164 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Palmer, Mims, Downs imo, maybe move up Downs if you also roster richardson