Note that the previous Java LTS release license reverts to the OTN license one year after the new Java LTS version is published, making it no longer free, assuming you keep up with the security updates. See the license note on the Java 21 LTS version[1].
Gemini has images, just by default the gemini protocol is designed to not download and inline them, though many gemini browsers allow auto inlining of images. There is no specific line format for them, they are just another link line pointing to an image.
Looking at the examples, they look good, though one thing stands out, the "w" seems to be bolder than the other letters. The "m" seems fine, as do the other letters and symbols, just the "w".
I've often thought this. It feels like there should be two languages, one for the implementation of the parts, and another to design/architect the software using the parts, allowing the design/architect language to focus on the high level architecture of the software and the implementation language to focus on the parts. We currently use the same language for both, and mix the two areas as we program
It used to be completely normal, and profitable, to effectively advertise without personal information. The idea that this is now required for advertising is just wrong, and shouldn't be accepted as such
> It used to be completely normal, and profitable, to effectively advertise without personal information.
It used to be completely normal to get all of our news and entertainment through a small number of curated channels. What works for advertising in that environment won't necessarily work in the massively different news and entertainment environment we now have.
Four TV networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS), plus independents.
Several dozen radio networks.
Shortwave if you are really into world news like the BBC or Radio Moscow.
The local newspaper. A big city used to have several. If you are in a small place you might also subscribe to the nearest big city paper, and/or the New York Times or other major city paper.
I knew people who received the local paper via mail from the small town they came from. Every one of those is a potential news source, though for major news they mostly used wire news services.
And then there's the weekly and monthly news magazines (Time, The Economist, etc.)
That's far less of a bottleneck on news distribution than we have now, where a couple of advertising companies dominate the entire market.
I cannot believe that a digital marketplace, which has less overhead than a physical one, requires user tracking and behavioral marketing in order to survive.
I find it much easier to believe that user tracking and behavioral marketing gives the ability to out-compete more ethical context-based marketing, just like how companies which dump their waste right into the river can out-compete companies which treat their waste first.
> It used to be completely normal to get all of our news and entertainment through a small number of curated channels.
Before the 90s, there were one or two orders of magnitude more channels for information than there are now. There may be a bunch of brands now, but all the people who own, run, and make the final decision about what goes on them could fit in my bathroom.
Seeing our new, concentrated media culture as diverse requires the intentional deception of ignoring that this claimed diversity is delivered through precariously employed independent contracting "content providers" who all have to pass through half a dozen gatekeepers who have complete control of their income and message at any time, with no oversight (except through various forms of informal government intimidation.)
It's not "what works for advertising," it's what works for the tiny number of incestuous oligarchs with media publishing arms and the politicians they pay for. It's also a matchmaking problem: publications used to have subjects, and advertise things related to those subjects. Now the content is generic, fact-free jingoistic sludge that people are tricked into reading by manipulatively vague headlines, advertising random shit that happened to win a realtime auction.
I absolutely promise that you could keep your fishing website afloat advertising fishing gear, but only if the market and fishing gear manufacturers were operating individually and rationally, rather than based on calculations motivated by complex ownership structures and market manipulation.
It was never normal or profitable to advertise without personal information online. One of the first selling points to companies making the transition digitally was because things could get so much more personalized than just seeing a basic billboard in person.
You can use context from the site, just not from stalking the user. Showing diaper ads on a site about babies is fine. Showing ads for AWS on a tech site is fine. Showing diaper ads on a tech site because you've been spying on the user and decided that they might have a baby is a problem even if it does happen to be true.
Why is it a problem if the user searches/shops for diapers, and then advertisers show diaper ads? The person is interested in diapers after all, and you don't just buy diapers once.
1. If I search for diapers, and get ads for diapers, the usual pattern is to show the ads above the real search results, which tricks people into buying more expensive and/or lower quality products (after all, why else would the company need to pay to show up at the top of the search results?).
2. If I search for diapers on one site and get shown ads on a different site, then it follows that companies are trading information about me behind my back, which is not okay from a privacy perspective.
Because it's none of their business what websites I'm looking at, especially completely unrelated websites. Remove the re-targeting and tracking then they don't need to know who's looking at the page.
So you admit to being an extremist then. You probably find problems with a great deal of the modern world as well.
You can't buy things online with cash. Your opinion on what people do online is therefore, colored significantly and is definitely out of touch with most people's experiences.
Declaring anyone who disagrees with you (and acts on those ideas) as an extremist is a neat trick, but the only thing it actually gives you is an ad hominem.
I don't see how your cited article is "worse" in any way. They used intuition to deduce what items a customer might be interested in based on their other purchases.
> One Target employee I spoke to provided a hypothetical example. Take a fictional Target shopper named Jenny Ward, who is 23, lives in Atlanta and in March bought cocoa-butter lotion, a purse large enough to double as a diaper bag, zinc and magnesium supplements and a bright blue rug. There’s, say, an 87 percent chance that she’s pregnant and that her delivery date is sometime in late August.
A cashier at the corner store can deduce as much by paying attention to their customers. When you check out at the grocery store with pizza dough, pepperoni and cheese in your basket - the cashier might deduce you're making pizza and even suggest trying a particular brand of sauce or whatever.
Relevant, targeted ads are actually a lot less annoying to most people because they're relevant.
I personally don't buy into the notion that advertisement is inherently good or necessary. Especially when the "best" ads effectively manipulate emotions and remain in people's subconscious.
A corner store cashier does not have the raw processing power and money of an ad network. If they tracked one customer with as much of vigilance as the average ad network, they should probably get slapped with a restraining order.
The article you linked to, regarding Target, is exactly what your corner store cashier is doing. There is literally no difference.
You are conflating two different things - stores retargeting existing customers and recommending products they think are relevant vs. ad networks like Google that track you across channels so that they may serve the most relevant ads to you based on your interests.
Neither are bad, and both are necessary. Tampon advertisements, for example, have no effect on men - men would find it annoying to see tampon adverts constantly because they are not part of the market.
Why would an advertiser want to advertise to people who will never make a purchase or care about their products? If you're a hiker though, it's really fitting to get advertisements for hiking gear and equipment.
Define track please. You seem to assume they're doing something nefarious or that they couldn't observe if you walked into a store.
To answer your question - yes. If you want relevant ads for items you might be interested in, then advertisers need to know what you are interested in. It's that simple.
Your own cited article about Target is evidence of why this is a good thing.
Your position that advertising is manipulative and unnecessary is disconnected with reality as well.
> A cashier at the corner store can deduce as much by paying attention to their customers.
Yes, you've just explained why people may go to a different store, where they are a stranger, when they want to buy something they don't want the local cashier to know about.
The classic example is a 16 year old who buys condoms at a store where no one is likely to recognize him, but others include buying adult diapers, buying a single plunger, and buying hard liquor.
The cashier at the new store might figure out what's going on, but does not know who "you" are.
Which is why the example you quoted is called contextual marketing - it's based on a very small context of the things you are currently buying.
That link, however, expands beyond that to user profiling with 'So Target started sending coupons for baby items to customers according to their pregnancy scores'.
> targeted ads are actually a lot less annoying to most people because they're relevant.
"Targeted ads' includes targeted based on context advertising and targeted based on user profiling.
The g'g'parent comment was specifically about advertising 'without personal information', which is only one type of targeted ads. Please do not use language which confuses the two as it makes it seem like you don't understand the relevant issues.
Yep point 1 I think is the most important, but if you don't have the luxury of an office at home, having a start of work process, and an end of work process is really important e.g. at end of day, close laptop, put away in a drawer, and tidy up work paraphernalia, then sit down and have a cup of tea while reading a book. It mentally bookmarks the start and end of work, and allows your mind to reset from work mode.
I usually use this awk function to parse CSV in awk:
# This function takes a line i.e. $0, and treats it as a line of CSV, breakin
# it into individual fields, and storing them in the passed in field array. It
# returns the number of fields found, 0 if none found. It takes account of CSV
# quoting, and also commas within CSV quoted fields, but doesn't remove them
# from the parsed field.
# use in code like:
# number_of_fields = parse_csv_line($0, csv_fields)
# csv_fields[2] # get second parsed field in $0
function parse_csv_line(line, field, _field_count) {
_field_count = 0
# Treat each line as a CSV line and break it up into individual fields
while (match(line, /(\"([^\"]|\"\")+\")|([^,\"\n]+)/)) {
field[++_field_count] = substr(line, RSTART, RLENGTH)
line = substr(line, RSTART+RLENGTH+1, length(line))
}
return _field_count
}
It's not perfect but gets the job done most of the time and works across all awk implementations.
I tend to like the phrase "Strong opinions, weakly held" to describe that sort of "best programmers". Through experience they have come to hold certain ideas, and will express them strongly, but are willing to describe why, and also accept that they aren't universal, mostly rules of thumb i.e. they aren't dogmatic.
[1] https://www.oracle.com/uk/java/technologies/downloads/#java2...
reply