>It's so frustrating seeing people talk about ad blocking as some ethical issue.
How often do you hear your family talk about the ethical implications about ad blocking? What I mean is, how often do people with no dog in the fight talk about ad blocking ethics? For me, never. Of course websites that depend on advertising dollars are going to complain about the public blocking their advertising dollars.
Because 4chan's ads aren't invasive and they don't track you. They're just small banner images displayed at the top and bottom of the page with no JS, no flash, etc.
Precisely the type of ads we should be celebrating since they subsidize the content we consume. A lot of people either are oblivious to their actual importance, or just don't care. The internet simply wouldn't be what it is today without them. True, there has been plenty of bad (trackers, malware, etc), but the good that has come from that subsidization has lead us to where we are today. A vast majority of the innovation on the internet has been directly or indirectly related to that subsidization.
I can determine what ads I do and do not want to block. How many other ads does Focus by Firefox not block?
Edit: Y'all downvote weird shit sometimes. Marco quit the ad blocking game because he didn't want to be the arbiter of what did and did not get blocked. It's perfectly reasonable to question what a given blocker will and will not block. And perfectly valid to wish to have that control.
Also, on a more technical level 4chan's ads aren't served from a well known ad host like Google, so they wouldn't be blocked by a typical blacklist without filtering URLs containing ad -- which some adblockers do, causing [all kinds of problems] [0].
Do you not have to 'accept' the TOS prior to using a Blizzard bot? I am not told to accept (or even view) the Business Insider's TOS prior to use.
IANAL, both it's obvious that parties must agree for a contract to be valid. It can not be implied. I can not hang a mortgage contract on my wall in the bank and bypass the need for individual acceptance.
This is me. What's the reason behind this? Is this because it gives me the "I'm doing something productive" feeling while simultaneously doing nothing productive?
And, yes, not only were you encouraged to give them high marks, they actually built a front-end to the survey system used to track who had and had not submitted a response and setup HR conversations with anyone that gave them less than a top score.
I actively avoid companies on those kinds of lists.
The company was very proud of "teamwork". There were "teams" everywhere. Every employee was expected to be on at least 3. As a senior engineer, I was on 5, not including the actual project team I was assigned to. Things like "data architecture team" and "API review team" and "future engineering team" or "testing web services team". These teams would meet at least once a month, often weekly.
In spite of, or, more likely, because of, all these teams existing, there was actually very little team work. Lots of turf wars and internal politics.
The review process was silly. Your manager gave you 5 goals and you had to come up with 3 goals for each team you were on. You had to select two peers to rate you on your 5 goals, as well as 2 members from each team for your team goals. So, basically, you just did horse trading to give each other 5-star reviews ('hey, I'll give you all fives if you give me all fives, cool?'). This consumed an insane amount of time. Even though I was only there for 3 months, I had to go through this process twice.
Management was also completely ham fisted. They wanted to improve QA. So they gave notice to everyone in QA and told them they could reapply for their jobs. They literally made them all clean out their desks and then come in the next day with resumes in hand to interview. As if they had never worked there. Anyone not "rehired" by the end of the week was given severance.
There were some positives. They had on-site day care and a decent (for the time) vacation package. They also had a liberal education reimbursement plan that only had a 1 year lock-in.
1. This is not cash in a bank.
2. Innovation is a requirement not an option.
3. Innovator's Dilemma completely contradicts the point you attempt to make in #2.
I agree. But, as a potential shareholder, let's point out the elephant in the room: Yahoo is not doing good. What is being done about that? If all you do is emphasize the positives, I have to wonder if you're taking the bad seriously.
I agree as well: although, from what I've read, it seems she's taking the bad seriously. Seriously enough that some screws are getting loose:
She began to read.
"Bobbie had a nickel all his very own. Should he buy some candy or an ice cream cone?"
Mayer held the book up, to show the employees the illustrations.
"Should he buy a bubble pipe? Or a boat of wood?"
Another illustration.
"Maybe, though, a little truck would be the best of all!"
Employees in URLs exchanged looks. At their desks, employees in remote offices grew confused.
What was Mayer doing?
How often do you hear your family talk about the ethical implications about ad blocking? What I mean is, how often do people with no dog in the fight talk about ad blocking ethics? For me, never. Of course websites that depend on advertising dollars are going to complain about the public blocking their advertising dollars.