PCGuy_5960

Brb boys, going to patent FPSes real quick and make bank from CoD.

Brb boys, going to patent FPSes real quick and make bank from CoD.

Came here to say the same thing

maybe the hackers can fix the cyberpunk now

25 Years
 
......
 
 

ok 35 Years
 
......
 

Oh for you Sir, as long as you like

Brb boys, going to patent FPSes real quick and make bank from CoD.

Brb boys, going to patent FPSes real quick and make bank from CoD.

Thanks man, def getting the skoll now. Just waiting for stock on amazon😂

Bluetooth have higher latency than a dongled wireless mouse, even with apple magic mouse.
Can't recommend it for gaming, that's why many performance mouse is still using 2.4mhz dongle.

I use palm mostly, if im gaming I’ll use hybrid. For the style of the mouse, I have only used symmetrical mice, but I went over to my friends house who uses the skoll and it fit my hand quite well.

You know what to do, and so do I
 

This should say "This party's over".
 

Alternative title; Manipulating one market wasn't enough for robinhood.
 
 

It's not a perceived action, it's just an action 🤔 they did, you know, the thing.
Being unable to use the app for its advertised purpose is a perfectly legitimate reason to give a low review... if people want to trade GME and they can't for no discernible reason other than "richer people than you complained" then they're more than justified in expressing their anger with a low review.
Stock trading isn't the same as VOD, there is no equivalent to copyright law that is forcing RH to treat individual stocks differently as far as I know. For a service like netflix it would be unreasonable to expect EVERY show to be available; for a stock trading app it's perfectly reasonable to expect all stocks to be treated equally.
 
But also if I paid for netflix specifically to watch friends and then it were removed without sufficient prior warning (so that I could cancel my subscription before it became unavailable) it would be a perfectly valid reason to leave a negative review. It's bad service if not false advertisement and it deserves a negative reaction.

All reviews are intended to either raise or lower an app's rating, that's the point. This isn't a concerted effort to lower the rating by people who otherwise don't engage with the app, it's just normal negative reviews.
 
It's interesting how people get screwed over in stock trading all the time but as soon as it happens to a hedge fund suddenly it must be stopped...

Imagine the kids doing their work and all of a sudden, through the speakers they hear:
 
 

Facebook is a stupid conspiracy theory breeding ground and Twitter is just a retarded virtue signaling echo chamber. At least Facebook is pretty open about not really caring about what is on their platform, unlike Twitter who moderate their website but only when it's convenient.

I'd say fair enough, but twitter has recently shown that they are perfectly capable of moderating their website. They can't see themselves as a moral authority (like they currently do) and take 0 action against this kind of stuff. And it's not like this was a single tweet that got no attention so it was hard for them to even know it existed:
Not to mentioned that the individual in that video apparently talked to a twitter employee about this and even provided them with proof that they were underage. Like really, it's as if twitter was actively trying to keep the video up.

Yes, machine learning algorithms aren't biased, but they can become biased based on the data they are being trained with. To say that there has been some degree of bias in Twitter's algorithms recently wouldn't be entirely accurate IMO. Without trying to get political, an example would be "election fraud" claims from both sides (one in 2016, the other in 2020). Despite both being equally unfounded and largely bs, only one was actively censored and "fact checked" in every tweet. Or the summer riots and the recent ones, twitter seemed to crack down a bit harder on "calls to violence" for one of them.
 
I have no problem with them choosing to not want conspiracy theories and calls to violence on their platform, but those rules should be enforced without bias.

Facebook is a stupid conspiracy theory breeding ground and Twitter is just a retarded virtue signaling echo chamber. At least Facebook is pretty open about not really caring about what is on their platform, unlike Twitter who moderate their website but only when it's convenient.

This was discussed earlier in this thread. While the sources may not be the most credible, in one of the articles there is a link to the court filings and the case is basically what the articles are saying, so this isn't fake news.

Facebook is a stupid conspiracy theory breeding ground and Twitter is just a retarded virtue signaling echo chamber. At least Facebook is pretty open about not really caring about what is on their platform, unlike Twitter who moderate their website but only when it's convenient.

What you described is basically propaganda and yeah, it absolutely works.
Well a good way to eliminate bias is to have algorithms that are biased in equal and opposite ways, so in the end the bias kind of cancels out. Not to mention that the algorithms can be tweaked by their creators if they don't work as intended, so with some tweaking, making an algorithm that isn't very biased shouldn't be that hard for a company as big as twitter. 

Technically that depends on region. Age of consent is 13 in Japan, but looked down upon. But Twitter being a US company you'd think they'd go for the whole 18+ thing.
 
It would probably make the world a much better place. Social media in general needs to die.
 
Or disagrees with their political views.
Didn't all the "MAPs" (Minor attracted persons. Cute pen names make them seem less pedophilic.) go to twitter after being kicked off Instagram or something?

Yes, machine learning algorithms aren't biased, but they can become biased based on the data they are being trained with. To say that there has been some degree of bias in Twitter's algorithms recently wouldn't be entirely accurate IMO. Without trying to get political, an example would be "election fraud" claims from both sides (one in 2016, the other in 2020). Despite both being equally unfounded and largely bs, only one was actively censored and "fact checked" in every tweet. Or the summer riots and the recent ones, twitter seemed to crack down a bit harder on "calls to violence" for one of them.
 
I have no problem with them choosing to not want conspiracy theories and calls to violence on their platform, but those rules should be enforced without bias.