[Event over, go home]Google event today
-
Expected to announce nexus 5x and 6p, and apparently a new chromecast device.
For those interested go here for more info on what's expected: http://www.ibtimes.com/google-fall-2015-event-live-stream-nexus-6p-nexus-5x-android-marshmallow-chromecast-2-2118147
Or here at 9am pacific time to watch: https://m.youtube.com/google?uid=K8sQmJBp8GCxrOtXWBpyEA
(Link is from the article, I'm innocent if it doesn't work!)
Allegedly the event is 45 minutes.
-
I haven't heard any rumours of one, but I'm hoping for a new tablet announcement. Or at least a price drop on the Nexus 9.
Actually, more generally, anyone know if there are any good Android tablets out nowadays?
-
A quote from the livestream "turns out the phone is just the best game controller"
-
I took the title a little bit too literally.
Not enough caffeine, I guess. This is what happens when you turn company names into verbs.
-
I took your 'too literally' too literally, and I thought you were expecting to find a new Google service called "Event Today".
EDIT: I wasn't trying to be meta, but I seem to have started something down below...
-
I took your "too literally 'too literally'" too meta, and thought you were expecting to find someone had googled about someone expecting to find a google service that they had googled called "Event Today".
-
I took the meta discussion too far and assumed that we were talking about how the tendency of meta-discussions was to progressively get more meta until nobody understood what anyone was saying anymore.
-
I took your meta comment about meta discussions about people taking "too literally" too literally, too literally, and I couldn't understand why you couldn't understand the discussion simply because someone had taken everything that was once way too literal far too meta.
-
It would be easier to continue this discussion if we stopped and came up with a language framework for abstracting meta-topics so we could abstract out all of this discussion about comments about discussion about taking people too literally when they take people to literally and focus on the things that really matter in an abstract meta discussion.
-
So what's the announcement about? I was stuck in traffic. (Also why the fuck do they always do these things at 8:00 or 9:00 in the AM? I can't think of a worse time.)
-
"Smart Burst will capture a burst of images at 30FPS. It makes gifs!"
-
Oh well that's well worth an expensive press conference.
-
> "Smart Burst will capture a burst of images at 30FPS. It makes gifs!"
Will that improve the video quality of the audience drinking lead based paint?
-
It was just an announcement that nexus 5x and nexus 6p are both available for preorder
sometime todayNow, and will be shipped sometime in october. Also advertising upgrades to the chrome cast, and the price point will remain at $35.Overall, among my phone options to pick from, I think the 5x fits what I want the best, so there's that.
-
> "Smart Burst will capture a burst of images at 30FPS. It makes gifs!"
So they invented video?
Are Google now 'reinventing' stuff like Apple do?
-
@aliceif said:
> "Smart Burst will capture a burst of images at 30FPS. It makes gifs!"
So they invented video?
Are Google now 'reinventing' stuff like Apple do?
Please tell me you didn't just notice that's what Google has been doing since it started?
-
@loopback0 said:
@aliceif said:
> "Smart Burst will capture a burst of images at 30FPS. It makes gifs!"
So they invented video?
Are Google now 'reinventing' stuff like Apple do?
Please tell me you didn't just notice that's what Google has been doing since it started?
Google hasn't, for the most part, been coming up with ideas as if they're new, carefully wording those ideas in such a manner as to avoid drawing attention to previously existing ideas that are remarkably similar. They've just been directly making better versions of preexisting things.
-
@loopback0 said:
@aliceif said:
> "Smart Burst will capture a burst of images at 30FPS. It makes gifs!"
So they invented video?
Are Google now 'reinventing' stuff like Apple do?
Please tell me you didn't just notice that's what Google has been doing since it started?
They copy stuff sure, but they don't (IIRC) claim they invented it.
-
Why aren't you using an adblocker?
-
Maybe because he wants to force advertisers to pay for views?
-
Google invented exactly one thing: Map/reduce.
Everything else they've bought from someone else and then done a terrible job of maintaining.
-
Everything else? Are you saying you'd put nice, wonderful GMail in the same boat as terrible, money-grabbing YouTube?
-
Ok I guess they invented about 4-5 things, and 2 of them haven't utterly failed. Gmail and Google+. Ironically, Google Reader which was a product people loved and also a far more successful social network than Google+, they canned. Because of course they did. Buzz and Wave were moronic ideas from day one.
But Gmail wasn't that much of a stretch beyond what other emails provided.
-
Good question. I thought I was using one.
Going back to my original Google search again...
ABP is active and the ads are gone.I didn't disable ABP when I made that screenshot and I would never whitelist Google. I didn't switch browsers either. I double checked Chrome's history and the last time I used it was over a week ago. Either I messed up something, which wouldn't surprise me normally but I don't think happened this time, or ABP messed up something.
Filed under:
-
AdBlock Plus allows certain forms of less-annoying advertisements. In the settings you can tell it to just block everything, if it really bothers you, but generally I'm OK with letting people make ad revenue if it isn't annoying.
-
AdBlock Plus allows certain forms of less-annoying advertisements. In the settings you can tell it to just block everything, if it really bothers you, but generally I'm OK with letting people make ad revenue if it isn't annoying.
I know that. The point is that Google's advertisements somehow got through at the time I was taking that screenshot, even though I have them blocked by default. I don't mind whitelisting sites that I frequent as long as the ads aren't annoying and can't be used for drive-by malware.
-
I don't mind whitelisting sites that I frequent as long as the ads aren't annoying and can't be used for drive-by malware.
So your whitelist is empty.
-
-
I appreciate what you are trying to say, but as I said previously I know what LB_ is referring to. The non-intrusive advertising list is in itself a whitelist. One that you subscribe to just like all the others, but a whitelist nevertheless.
-
Cool, just wanted to make sure everyone's on the same page :)
-
-
-
-
Does white screen count as page 1?
-
-
Does their whitelist still work on the ad serving domain instead of the site's domain, making it fucking entirely useless and broken? Or have they fixed that at some point?
-
Nope, i white listed twitch tv broadcasters and the ads still get blocked. Only way to fix that is disabling entirely.
-
If it wasn't for that one stupid bug (which only exists because this author of ad-blocking software is UTTERLY IGNORANT OF HOW AD SERVING WORKS) I wouldn't have any opposition to AdBlock Pro.
-
Adblock plus guy isn't ignorant, he's selling companies rights to be whitelisted on his application, he knows how it works.
The whitelist is a feel good for end users who don't want to block people they support, without understanding it doesn't actually help.
-
Adblock plus guy isn't ignorant, he's selling companies rights to be whitelisted on his application, he knows how it works.
So he has a different whitelist that does work based on the site's domain instead of the ad's domain? Or he's only selling whitelist access to ad exchanges? Neither of those two options makes much sense...
-
Basically networks can pay to have their cdns whitelisted, the sites themselves have 0 control over that unless they are big enough to be considered an ad network (they manage their own ads, and other domain ads using a centralized method), large enough to own or have significant say in the network.
-
Wow, that is really bullshit. Ok I'm back to hating this project. Which you can all go back to misconstrue as me hating ad blocking in general, as you morons seem to do.
-
It's a complicated issue, because on one hand, 25-35 percent of Web traffic is ads, which impacts bandwidth limits on the end user (and lowers the general interaction experience, is a malware vector, can also cause site display issues if the ad network delivers an inappropriate style ad)
And on the other hand blocking the ads hugely impacts company revenue, to the point where some of the sites I'm working with are deploying more ads until they can finish a different work around.
But additional to that, mobile ads are almost worthless from a cpm perspective, since most publishers won't pay as much as desktop because there's no simple delivery method for non mobile apps, the user would have to see the ad and then view it on desktop. (For perspective, if a normal click would give you a dollar, the mobile click might give you 10 cents if you're lucky.)
Which means ad block + increasing mobile traffic (significant across the Web) is making massive dents in revenue up to 40 percent of total ad income (for the company i currently work for).
-
And as if on command, this happened to ratify my statements: http://thenextweb.com/apps/2015/10/02/trust-us-we-block-ads/?utm_source=reddit.com&utm_campaign=share button&utm_content=Adblock extension with 40 million users sells to mystery buyer, refuses to name new owner&awesm=tnw.to_p3Qog&utm_medium=referral
-
Don't be confused: AdBlock is an unrelated project from AdBlock Plus:
Which is better, Adblock or Adblock Plus?
Note: This is explicitly posted in my private blog rather than the Adblock Plus blog. This post represents my own opinion only. It is likely unwise to rant about a competing project but I just don’t want to keep my findings to myself. If you are here for Adblock Plus bashing and don’t care enough...
-
True, however they both practice this to different degrees.
