The conjecture - in the article - is it doesn't work at, well at all is strong but certainly not to the degree that is claimed. Also, given the replication crisis in this field, any benefit is possibly noise.
> We conduct four randomized field experiments among 1,801 hosts on Airbnb by creating fictitious guest accounts and sending accommodation requests to them. We find that requests from guests with African American-sounding names are 19.2 percentage points less likely to be accepted than those with white-sounding names. However, a positive review posted on a guest’s page significantly reduces discrimination: When guest accounts receive a positive review, the acceptance rates of guest accounts with white-sounding and African American-sounding names are statistically indistinguishable.
I think it is more a case of being everything to everyone, and one size fits all just plain sux.
IMHO there is no Twitter problem, but there are specific Twitter niche problems. Twitter is trying to solve the problems of people who want to follow a sport with those who want to lead a culture war in the same way and with the same perspectives and expected outcomes. They are not just very different problem spaces, but fundamentally different cultures, with different expectations and rules, and making either group live with a compromise between their cultures leaves everyone unhappy.
Reddit sidesteps this to a degree, with subreddits, by everything being less personal, and with moderation of sub reddits. Twitter, being account based rather than topic based, can't manage that. Twitter is just Twitter - a singular entity used in non-singular ways and criticised as a singular entity from very specific and singular perspectives.
How do you fix that? No idea. My hope is that Machine learning can give us better filtering, because the problem with Twitter is that people are not brands, so if I follow a basketball coach, and he has a bugbear about an issue that annoys me, I either lose all of his tweets, or put up with off topic rants.
But then, thinking about it, I'm not sure if that is a bug or Twitter's key feature. Maybe Twitter only works because the poor filtering forces people to see what they don't want to, and that drives usage and, in a perverse way, a desire to use twitter. That's a dark timeline.
As opposed to wind and solar? Let alone batteries, that use extremely toxic chemicals.
What we do with waste is a key ingredient to any power source, and the plan with old batteries, solar panels and wind turbines is no better than nuclear.
There is no free lunch, only competing ideas with different sets of problems and difficulties.
Not all ads need clicking, and the big budgets have never been in generating clicks, but in Branding (like TV ads).
The 10% that click are likely spit somewhere around 50-50 between the least valuable eyeballs (suckers who click ads) and people that actually are interested, depending upon the ad type (Search more valuable, banners less so).
I really shouldn't suggest this because it is definitely a bug that I enjoy exploiting, but on YouTube, if you hit the next video link then immediately hit back on the browser, the ads all clear. As in all the yellow ad markers disappear. So no annoying mid video ads at all. My default YT viewing is click link, click next, hit delete.
This is on my Macbook and all three major browsers Safari, Chrome and Firefox.
... AAAAAAND watch as this gets fixed (I'm an idiot).
Sadly, on mobile (youtube app, ios) once the ad comes up you are locked in, and the next/previous buttons go away. I was watching on mobile the other day and accidentally clicked either next or previous. Got immediately sucked into an ad, and had to wait several seconds before returning to the content i actually wanted to watch.
most of the time i try to use the web-view instead of the app. i see way less (or maybe zero?) ads there.
Oh, that sound a lot easier than moving the scrubber to a couple seconds before the end, then hitting the replay button, which is what I've been doing.
That's not the argument in full. Carbon cost of production includes the cost of wastage. If the cost in carbon to produce what is wasted is > than the savings elsewhere, it is a loss.
It is not so much a complicated equation as it is an involved one, and we risk simplifying the equation and getting it very wrong.
The cost in carbon of a thing is complicated, and this sort of X (local) is good, and Y (non-local) is bad causes a lot of the issues.
There was a debate about Dutch flowers vs Kenyan. The debate was framed as "local vs grown in sunshine", e.g. the cost of growing in cold greenhouses vs sunshine. I think you know where this is going...
A book like https://www.amazon.com/Drawdown-Comprehensive-Proposed-Rever... provides the context needed to choose between options, and the solutions are often odd, like replacing old fridges which has a HUGE climate change benefit (because the refrigerants are 1,000s of times worse than CO2), but that's not a story that is told because, well I think complicated narratives lose to simpler ones.
All this stuff is super confusing. https://www.austrade.gov.au/contact/faqs/i-want-to-export-my... says you need to register if:
> your VAT taxable turnover is more than £85,000 (the 'threshold') in a 12 month period
> you expect to go over the threshold in a single 30 day period
WTF? How the hell would anyone know that? What if you never sell to the UK, but someone goes on a run because some product randomly becomes popular. It is such an unnecessary minefield.
The bullet point right below the 2 you quoted literally answers you question.
"If neither you nor your business is based in the UK. You must register as soon as you supply any goods and services to the UK (Same with EU)".
Alternatively, don't do business in a country you consider to complex to deal with.
Depends on the tax code. In Australia, corporate taxes are passed down as a deduction to real humans. So if I get a fully franked dividend (fully franked means the company paid the 30% company tax) of $70, I also get a tax credit for $30. If my marginal rate is > 30%, I pay the difference (e.g. 50% means I owe $20) but if it is lower I get a refund - the marginal rate is 19% up to $37K, so those people would get a refund of $11.
This seems to me a sensible law, as doesn't double dip, and foreign owners don't get the credit, so the government does get a smidge more revenue, while not F$%^ing over their citizens.
Except Digital sales take place in no-man's land, and are hard to tax. A federal tax hits Amazon, but would it hit Alibaba? The specifics are what make these ideas so difficult.
By far the better approach than removing information by having blind / limited information applications is to have MORE information, e.g. https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2019/02/re...
> We conduct four randomized field experiments among 1,801 hosts on Airbnb by creating fictitious guest accounts and sending accommodation requests to them. We find that requests from guests with African American-sounding names are 19.2 percentage points less likely to be accepted than those with white-sounding names. However, a positive review posted on a guest’s page significantly reduces discrimination: When guest accounts receive a positive review, the acceptance rates of guest accounts with white-sounding and African American-sounding names are statistically indistinguishable.