I remember reading that in an accident with one party intoxicated and the other not, the intoxicated party is more likely to survive because they are more relaxed and can take an impact better.
But of course sober people are less likely to get into single car fatality causing accidents I'm sure.
There use to be one Google video (out of many) that would completely fix my migraine in 3 minutes. Used it about 200 times for that. Hangovers, lack of sleep and spontaneous headaches. At other times it just gave great clarity, very refreshing regardless of the time of day.
I didn't use headphones. I had the link at the top of my blog menu. It was that important.
When Google video shut down I forgot to download it. Caused a slight panic lol The headaches now remind me of it but it is not the right mood to search and the videos online are all useless garbage.
I played it for a friend one time. He instantly put both hands on his head and screamed that I should shut it of immediately. He was really upset and thought I did it on purpose. Also didn't understand how I wasn't negativity affected like him.
If I didn't find that video I'd be convinced it's bullshit.
> Also didn't understand how I wasn't negativity affected like him.
It's very possible that even though everyone's brains are built from the same template, each brain is tuned uniquely, leading to different processing of the same stimuli (and conversely, perhaps similar processing of different stimuli) in various cases. The thought experiment that comes to mind is the possibility of 2 persons looking at objects of a particular colour, and agreeing for example that the colour is "red", but internally their brains are actually receiving different signals; it's the common language which makes it possible to share similar experiences.
You are going to have false positives in fraud detection. You are going to have to investigate those or pay in reputation. Fail to fight fraud may also cost rep.
When you run out of reputation people should take their business elsewhere.
> By using a service you also chose to support it.
> This is how one should make the choices.
Well yeah, but there're not the only choices. The full opportunity cost is finding and paying and learning alternatives when you have decades of vendor lock-in to overcome. Maybe "keeping people honest" is a bigger ask than you think while you're busy meeting all kinds of other requirements which take priority.
If you buy them in bulk for employees they get progressively cheaper. It also matters how many customers you can serve vs how many you have and what you spend to get one customer into your store. If you spend 500 per day to get 100 customers into your brick and mortar store you can also give/spend 500 in discounts to get 100 more. If only 60% redeems the card the other 40% is profit. ETC
Un-redeemed GC aren’t profit. You can’t book the revenue, rather the balances count as a liability (because you owe all the random cardholders valuable goods/services) and, at least in my state, after a certain period of inactivity, you’re obligated to give that money to the State as unclaimed property. Google “escheatment”
You want to restrict applications as much as possible without hindering their function. An assistant is only annoying if it can't actually do anything. If the hardware doesn't follow some cosy deal the user can swap out the API when they like, you would have to compete for real and forever.
Because there is simply no need to.
If there was one significantly better overall than Google (and not just a little better or better in just certain niches) people would switch.
Even if the products are better people don’t switch. Google organic has been a spam cesspool for a while with a few layers on top of ads and people don’t switch. I know some people that use Bing because it is the default of windows and they don’t switch.
I've used bing for a decent while but since they can't make a normal website that works on Firefox their slightly inferior results made me use Google again.
reply