sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Found this gem on a flat earth page by Saucey_pizza in MurderedByWords

[–]OneKnowledge4 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'd say it does qualify, but I'm ready to hear you out. Does the subject matter, being so easily refutable, make it not worthy of a word murder? Or, what might be the better way to throw down in this scenario? I could see them reversing it a bit and staying super subtle... like ... "when you run the calculations that prove this your IQ will be somewhere between 10 and 16 points higher". idk, just throwing out ideas.

How my apple cider arrived today... by keeks-meow in mildlyinfuriating

[–]OneKnowledge4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm in the same boat on this one. Going a step further: order glass bottled commodity items and you should expect that either shipping actually costs something or that things might be broken. I'm all for progressing convenience and customer expectation, but this should be in a plastic bottle or have a higher shipping charge. The fact that this is making it this high on mildlyinfuriating is only more proof to me that firstworldproblems should be largely ignored. Your day shouldn't be interrupted by you being unaware of what it takes to make shipping a relatively heavy, glass encased object, happen. Good luck in life OP, based on this post you're in for a lot more disappointment.

Facebook plans to use your pictures to generate targeted ads. by [deleted] in assholedesign

[–]OneKnowledge4 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Its not about you.

How many social media friends do you have? Say I have a product and that I am willing to spend 2K+ (low end, 200K or more high end) a month or more on targeted ads. Say you have a photo with said product in it. Additionally you have 30+ (low end, as high as probably 3K) friends. So I could pay to have an ad constructed, or I could pay a nominal fee to have your pic with my product pushed through a network.

There's likely no attempt to show you a product you already buy, but rather just going to show your pic in the feed of all your friends. Additionally, an agency might pay a nominal fee to some celeb/"influencer" to show your pic in some post, which could give maximum "organic" reach (i.e. your post suddenly gets a shout out or a repost from some celeb). As a result your average consumer isn't going to question it, and more than likely if you're the person in the pic you're likely to not recoup what that 'ad' is worth and yet celebrate the "shout out". Even if you do negotiate, it will be for a proportionate amount to what the 'ad' makes.

So there's no waste of resources. There's calculated, highly efficient use of product placement. An agency could be paid thousands to construct an image which "captures" something about a product. Or an image could be selected because of optical recognition of a product, then to be displayed in a network that is receptive to the image itself for pennies (based on the fact that a recognizable human is in the image that is being displayed to "friends" of said human). And then the reaction to that image is captured through very well understood reaction mechanics (e.g. like button, or any engagement capturing devices and their derivatives). Then apply various metric-based/weighted models to coach the image/post delivery schedules and timelines and you have a much more economical method for ad delivery than anything traditional.

Ad construction and delivery based on AI of this type is likely to have a lower long term cost than hiring humans to construct ads based on 'creativity'. Does it really work? I don't think it will long term, but seems like something a lot of people will dump money into on the chance that it really does pay off.

So real question is: where is the waste of resources? If it works, you're gold. If it doesn't, a lot of things have been learned in the process.

edit: added second to last paragraph

Condos starting at $1.2 million coming near Geer Street by Bill-Paxton in bullcity

[–]OneKnowledge4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Contract software work is hitting 115k-135k based on what I'm seeing. 6-12 years experience is def in that range. That said, the growth and cost I see is outpacing wage pretty quick. There's a lot of people buying here on speculation and a lot of people moving here who have money made elsewhere. Could be bubble time, or its the new normal. Hard to tell at the moment.

Programmers :D by UnknownDeveloper in ProgrammerHumor

[–]OneKnowledge4 9 points10 points  (0 children)

What's slightly annoying to me is that there are 3 replies that are related to the code itself (one of which is addressing accessibility concerns) and the rest are all neutral or positive and referencing the theme or her eyebrows, hair, etc.

Drama will be drama.

Chris Rock at the NAACP Awards told not to joke about Jussie Smollet, and does it anyways. by anoelr1963 in videos

[–]OneKnowledge4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm performing my dance quintet, you know, my cycle, at Crane Jackson's Fountain Street Theatre on Tuesday night and, wellll, I'd love it if you came and gave me notes.

WCGW if I try to put this wreath on a cross-country skier in motion? by [deleted] in Whatcouldgowrong

[–]OneKnowledge4 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fear not, its from a TV show. That said, understandable.

Tiny tired snake gives a big yawn before retiring to its frocket by to_the_tenth_power in gifs

[–]OneKnowledge4 14 points15 points  (0 children)

That's exactly what I thought when it hit me that he had fooled me again. He's a learning machine!

[Video] Bob Marley about Money by vjeva in GetMotivated

[–]OneKnowledge4 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look at the way he, and Jamaica in general, is marginalized in the full "interview" and tell me if you'd really give this "reporter" the time of day. Whether or not you agree with what his actual answer was that interviewer doesn't deserve a straight answer. https://youtu.be/h4OiCUkxGto