>Yes. Organizations must fund pensions up front and not rely on future revenue to make up for shortfalls.
What? Maybe my reading comprehension is a little off this morning but are you saying a company offering a pension plan must set aside hundreds of thousands of dollars day 1 every time they hire a new employee?.... That math doesn't math.
I think this is the only solution. Until then, google et al make tons of money off these scams.
I expect a decent percentage is total BS and too big to get rid of without messing with their quarterly numbers.
Of course, it would be pretty simple for google to prevent through a sort of advertiser FICO score. But they don’t, because it would make then less money.
Spammers can create a new identity relatively cheaply, resetting their trustworthiness score. Google surely already buckets advertiser based on trustworthiness internally.
Back in 2013, I worked at a top-100 traffic website where we ran a few ads through Google. We'd regularly have blantant scams being advertised, and we'd report them, block the advertiser, and the next day they'd be back with bit for bit identical images under a new advertiser profile. Even back then, our Google reps were basically like "we can't do anything about it", which is clear bullshit, they just wouldn't and still won't as it might cut into their profits, and their recommendation was that we put a human on staff to review ads run on our platform daily and continue to ban the problematic ones.
Google and all the tech companies need to be held to account for this shit. Facebook in 2024 estimated as much as 10% of their revenue, $16 billion, would come from scams and ads that should be banned on their platform, and everyone suffers for it. I call bullshit on the notion that they can't afford to do better because scale. Spend some of those billions of dollars on human review. Spend some of those billions of dollars remunerating the people who get scammed through your platform. If you can't afford to keep running your advertising business after that, then it gets shut down, there's no inherent right to the monopoly on advertising that Google has had for over a decade.
Stop making excuses for companies worth trillions of dollars.
Which means that if the ad companies have consequences for letting through scams, new identities will face restrictions (e.g. identity verification, initial safety deposit, not being able to advertise on most surfaces) until they find a way to keep the scams out or die trying.
Of course, this will cost money, both because it will cost them legitimate customers that get caught up in the friction and because implementing the measures/reviews has costs, so they will only do it if forced. If they can just externalize the cost (in the form of scam victims getting hurt by scams) and/or can profit from the scams without sufficient downsides, they're going to do just that...
It doesn't matter. As long as Google is not held accountable for showing you a scam ad that makes you lose $10k, Google doesn't care about the trustworthiness of the spammer.
But this is not how actual FICO scores work, and more interestingly, also not how historically Google has assigned domain authority for PageRank.
In both cases a history of transactions is required. Even if you could just spin up a new ID for a FICO score, having zero or little credit history typically means you'll have a very hard time securing any meaningful loans. Likewise, in the days when PageRank mattered a new domain would typically take a year to build up the authority required to get good results ranking well. Of course there were work around, but there are plenty of examples where easy to create a new identity does not equate starting with a fresh reputation (in fact even HN has the same principle! New accounts cannot, for example, downvote)
I don’t know about supermarkets but for medical freezers it’s useful to be online for monitoring and calibration.
My org has lots of freezers that need to be at precise temperatures. Sometimes they drift so you have to check them a few times per day, log the check, and adjust as necessary. Doing this for a thousand freezers is tedious and error prone. Networking helps. “Cloud” lets it all be done remotely without getting IT very involved for vpns to be set up with specific vendors. It also helps with patching and auditing security so seems odd that these supermarket ones were out of date.
The output isn’t interesting to me. I clicked around in both and it seemed kind of neat but like a portfolio project for school and certainly not art that would engage me.
I’m not sure how this causes an identity crisis. But if my purpose in life was to churn out random stuff that wasn’t meaningful to people, I would assume that I would be crisising much earlier than now.
That was a weird list, save for one or two suggestions. Should someone suggest a list of alternatives in this context, they would very likely go with Drupal, Joomla, October CMS etc. WP is a PHP-based free, self-hosted and open source CMS, there is absolutely no reason to suggest a closed SaaS version as an alternative. A Java-based self-hosted open source alternative? Maybe. A .NET one? I guess so.
Developing an alternative to a thing because you're fed up with the thing (and have specific painpoints you want adressed) is a perfectly reasonable course of action. But I'll agree that the whole "recommend to customers" angle is weird and probably shouldn't be in the post.
It’s weird how people bring this up. It was very unusual for the usps not to have to set aside money now to pay for pensions in the future.
reply