In another thread here we are learning how much of this "daily active users" is actually bots run by corporations.
I for myself have shown myself out of Facebook and enjoy real live interactions with human beings like it's the '90s.
Counterpoint: I'd rather see Ads about things I'm interested in than things I'm not interested in. So by that metric, Facebook is far better than generic Ads I see on TV.
> I'd rather see Ads about things I'm interested in than things I'm not interested in.
You're not going to see more ads about the things you're interested in, you're going to see ads that have a higher potential to manipulate you into commercially profitable behavior. There's a big but subtle difference between those things. You are definitely not going to see ads for your interests that bring you more joy but aren't easily monetizeable.
The coarseness of TV targeting meant people had more opportunity to assert their own priorities against the less effective manipulation.
Is your argument that if an ad works I am being manipulated, and if it doesn't work then I am not being manipulated?
I'm telling you right now that I don't mind seeing Ads on Instagram. They're great and I've found out about niche products that I otherwise would not have. If this means that small brands are able to rise up against the mega corps (Dollar Shave Club vs Gillette, as a classic example), then all the better for the market.
The other reason I don't mind is that they're visually appealing and seem to fit the Instagram ethos. Compare that to shitty banner Ads that disrupt the flow of content by being so different and so jarring in comparison.
Now, my opinion isn't meant to be generalized. Others may have a far different experience on Instagram (just because of how the product is designed to work). I'm sure there is someone who will chime in and say they hate Instagram Ads because they are completely ineffective. We could both be right in opposite directions since our feeds are probably very different.
If your opinion isn’t generalizable, it’s probably not useful in a discussion about civilization-wide issues, right? Moreover you’re only sharing your perception of how ads affect you, while others are pointing to known effects on whole populations. In essence you’re arguing against a system worth many billions with your own personal anecdote.
My opinion isn't generalizable because no two people have the same experience on Facebook and no two people use the product in the same way. For example, I only use Messenger. Some people only use the photo sharing features. Some people only use Marketplace to buy/sell things. Some people use newsfeed as their primary news source. Some people use all of these things in tandem.
So when people come into this discussion with strong opinions and try to impose their experience on everyone else, that's not useful nor reflective of reality.
What you're arguing is something very primal and not isolated to Facebook. You can make that argument about literally anything in this world and that's why I'm saying it's not useful. Cars have known effects on whole populations. Tax regulation has known effects on the behaviors of whole populations. I mean potato chips and similar snacks are engineered from the ground up to be addictive and have known effects on mass populations. Where do you draw the line for your argument? I chose to draw it at the bounds of my own personal experience with the product we're discussing.
It's OK to not like Facebook. It's also OK to like Facebook. But for me to impose my opinion on you would be misinformed because I don't know how you use it. It's an incredibly complex product with incredibly complex effects.
Sometimes I don't know what I'm interested in, which is where TV ads are much better than targeted ads. For example, once I stopped watching TV, I found that I never knew when new movies were coming out, because I never saw ads for them.
How can you not fault Uber for this? There is a rule of law in this country that has to be observed. Furthermore, it clearly shows intent to cover up illegal activities.
Uber doesn't only operate in that country. When you operate at the scale and international scope that uber does, economic warfare, espionage, and corrupt governments are a real thing.
I hate Uber but I don't think this is something to really fault them on.
Based on the chart the share was a stable 2.5% this year. Then there was a slight uptick in July, and a rapid increase from 2.5% to 7.5%.
Was there any major Linux release that would explain that ?
Otherwise, i'd go with "This report contains preview data that has NOT been reviewed by Quality Assurance."
Seems like here in this thread like before, casual consensus, is Chromebooks and headless Chrome.
The data could be a bit wrong too like you're saying. It doesn't seem like Chromebooks should've made that big of an effect. Maybe a ton of schools are using them now though?
I am using lately 'nearby events happening now' apps to get myself away from the screen on the weekends and meet people for sports and hobbies. It's really liberating.
~18.8% is roughly 20% or every fifth student loan in the country. If 20% of your portfolio can't repay it's debt that's usually a bad portfolio.
In a simplified model : Assume you give 100 dollar to five people with the intent to earn 5 dollar on interest of each (total 25 dollar interest income.) If now one of them can't pay back the 100 dollar you lose the 100 dollar and the five dollar interest income. So instead of 25 dollar income you get (20-100-5 = -85 dollar).
To avoid this situation you start calling the guy (collections activities). Effecting your earnings again.
Of course one months in arrears is not immediately the road to immediate doom, but it is an early warning indicator.
Especially if you look into trends to understand the behavior of the portfolio.
In this case the early-stage delinquencies have been improving since 2014 and starting 2017 reversed that trend.
So if the trend continues this portfolio segment will grow again leading to more losses and collection activities.
Just for some perspective mortgage delinquency rages (90+ days overdue) were highest at 11.5%[1]. But there's a lot of factors to consider, so I wouldn't necessarily say this is the sign that the bubble is going to pop soon.
Don't understand why this is down-voted because it brings up a valid point.
The Financial Services sector is heavily regulated because of the importance of trust and correct information. You can bring the system to an immediate standstill since most of the automation in the sector relies heavily on credit bureau data.
I believe Amazon, Tesco, etc actually would hold now the most accurate information about customer repayment ability in the retail segment.
Regarding the 'correct information' you mention... I have never had a very 'active' credit history, I just don't borrow a lot. But when I went to buy my house, I pulled my credit report to see what its status was and do a sanity check. When I did, I found an error. What surprised me is that it was an error that was false on its face. It was an impossible entry. To this day I am perplexed how such a thing could exist on a credit report at all without being caught by even the most basic data consistency checks. It claimed, roughly, that on say July 2000 I had a balance of $0 on an account with a furniture company... and 30 days later, on August 2000, I was more than 180 days overdue with a balance of -$300 with that same company. Given that it is quite difficult to pack more than 180 days into the span of 30 days, I can only conclude that they just accumulate errors and do not value either correctness or basic sensibility.
Luckily I was able to easily get the error removed, but it seems absurd to me that a clear system error of some kind had simply persisted on my report for years.
