So, they run their campaigns with an open targeting and then they trimed the websites to the ones users clicked, and then, selected which ones had better brand value for them. That's simple optimization and they should have always been doing that.
The question arrises when you have to start from scratch. They would also have to start with an open targeting to learn what performs for them.
Because we (not we as in the people but ICANN or whoever's in charge) are allowing corporations to use trademarks as top level domains. While before the top level domains belonged to countries or were general, now they can also be populated by those rich enough. Personally I see it as brands encroaching on a previously "public" space. Would Google allow me to register fuck.google or anything that could damage their brand? I highly doubt it. I wouldn't find it so bad if any joe schmo could create their own TLD, but this is an instance of allocating address space to the most powerful and letting control it as free advertising. It's not a technical problem by any means, but I see it as a moral one.
Well fuckMicrosoft.com was a thing [0], unless with the .google.com thing you meant as some kind of subdomain on Google's site. I don't think those are available for registration anyway. Also, FWIW, a .sucks TLD exists. [1]
Simple: I just don't see the point on using these new TLDs, they are confusing, it's not clear how the work and stupidly expensive... Seems just as an snobby thing.
Very similar accuracy, timing and alignment. We don't do speaker diarization at all because the results seem consistently weak, even among the competitors such as Speechmatics. I'd hazard to say our web editor is much better for providing an end-to-end solution, where accuracy and verification matters.
If I may ask, what software does your team use at Scribie?
Nice initiative, please consider adopting IAB standard ad sizes like 300x250, 728x90, 468x60, etc so you can access to more remnant inventory.
Right now many ad companies use Greenpeace or Red Cross for serving something when they run out of ads. It shouldn't be hard to get some impressions from them, but the standard ad sizes will be a common requirement.
I get the impression this is more geared towards sites that would run the Deck, Fusion, et al. In other words, sites that tend to have very limited advertising and don't subscribe to the IAB's definition of size standards.
You can, there are plenty of XML feed providers who will provide you an XML of ads relevant to the keywords you provide, which you collect server side and display to your users.
Are you sure the Garden Hose has free access? I can't find any public access to it in the docs, everything directs me to their "data partners", which charge for this information.
Well the reference generator is in java, but take a look at the github repo, there is nothing preventing adding an additional generator in the /generators directory.
I don't think there's any value and the differences between BTC and LTC are not substantial (IMO).
But my guess is that being the second immediate P2P currency will give traction to LTC and some people who came late to the BTC party will jump in rising the value for a while.
It is just different enough to be separately viable at the same time; the blockchains are incompatible down to the hash level. Second it rewards people with lots of hardware and not specialized hardware, which is where Bitcoin is going crazy right now, because a few players have got their hands on something that the rest of the network won't have for some weeks or months to come (ASIC).
ASIC miners for bitcoin are not viable for litecoin because the litecoin scrypt hashing process is memory dependent, not CPU-bound like bitcoin / SHA256. My information comes not from any technical expertise but from interpreting what I'm told by people who have done more research than me.
The central premise for Litecoin using scrypt was that it was not able to be mined on GPUs, this was quickly proved wrong and the statement retracted. There's no technical advancement in LTC, it's just a weaker bitcoin clone.
GPUs these days have alongside their massive collections of ALUs, large tracts of fast local memory. That's why they are viable for LiteCoin mining.
ASIC implementations for Bitcoin will be based on SHA256, built with not a lot of internal memory that can be accessed without traveling across another bus. Those implementations will not work with LiteCoin or scrypt, which is memory bound. GPUs have lots of memory.
It's no technical advancement over Bitcoin, I agree, but it is gaining acceptance (the prices have maintained parity with Bitcoin growth) and it seems that your current investment in LiteCoin mining will remain relevant for longer than old Bitcoin hardware, just because ASIC developers working on Bitcoin problem all see LiteCoin as just a weaker Bitcoin clone.
