“This partnership is a historic first for a major professional sports league, and will allow fans around the world to watch all MLS, Leagues Cup,1 and select MLS NEXT Pro and MLS NEXT matches in one place — without any local broadcast blackouts or the need for a traditional pay TV bundle.”
The “around the world” part is huge for the MLS (and to a lesser extent for Apple). I’m in Europe and I’ve never watched an MLS game. But it looks like it’ll be the first and only football league that I’ll be able to watch in a civilized way so I’ll definitely give it a try.
This may be true for lower-tier and middle-of-the-pack graduate programs but at the higher end, if anything, the opposite is true. There's an arms race among the candidates to get the best grades in the hardest classes, to get the best research experience, best letters of recommendations, perfect or near-perfect GRE scores and often GRE subject scores.
Getting a good job sounds almost blissfully easy in comparison.
A little nitpicking about GRE, it really doesn't seem to matter anymore. There is a wave of schools making it optional, and often outright banning it from submission.
Anecdotally, I have a near perfect-perfect GRE score (334/340, perfect score in quantitative), with at least avg position on other criteria (I think). I failed to get even interviews in many mid-tier US universities last year.
A member of my family got a "you know the only thing you can do with this is teach, right?" undergrad degree from a prestigious liberal arts school. And then she followed it up with a master's at a prestigious school. And now she's a teacher. Thankfully she didn't go into debt over it.
You’re ignoring the competitive landscape. You might pay for Google, but a lot of people would choose to use a free alternative if they needed to pay. The loss in users would give Google less data and make Google less effective as a search engine.
You’re absolutely right about Google but, I think, it’s not necessarily true for Twitter. Their social graph is so important that it wouldn’t make sense for any one person to go to a free Twitter clone.
And everybody moving at roughly the same time is probably an insurmountable coordination problem.
> it wouldn’t make sense for any one person to go to a free Twitter clone
True, but they may leave microblogging behind altogether rather than pay. Twitter just isn't that valuable. Then again, I deleted my accounts four or five years ago.
>>everybody moving at roughly the same time is probably an insurmountable coordination problem.
If this were true we would not have a long long list of defunct once popular platforms where people used to be, but moved away from in mass after poor decisions by the platform operators.
To believe twitter is immune to the digg, myspace, etc effect is hubris not backed by reality
Myspace was for young online people. I was on Myspace. It was tough to even convince half of my friends during that time that being online was fun, let alone being on a social network that didn't really facilitate communication.
Digg was for nerds and nerd-adjacent people. Not sure why you'd even mention it in the same breath as Twitter.
Twitter's scale is so massive, the social graph so varied, that a true replacement is probably years away. It's not impossible for a competitor to take over, of course. Just unlikely.
But there are key differences. Twitter is used as a key communication channel for politicians, public officials, business executives, journalists, academics etc. all over the world. People’s careers and influence are built partly on their follower count and who those followers are. Key users post under their real name.
>>twitter is used as a key communication channel for politicians, public officials, business executives, journalists, academics etc. all over the world
I think this is over stated, Twitter is used to amplify, or bring attention to some announcment, event, or other communication but twitter itself is not the communication channel, it simply links to the communication channel which is often another platform (youtube as an example) or a website, or some other communication type.
Twitter is advertising, be it paid ads, or the "politicians, public officials, business executives, journalists, academics " advertising their own work directing people off twitter to consume more of that work
Personally I have found very little value and very little substantive communications coming out of twitter, in fact the only time I even visit twitter it is look at meme accounts not to find actual information or news
> Plenty of companies and services which people would pay a lot for choose to be ad-supported.
I don't think that's true, because they would charge for access and have ads. These are fairly rare.
>Google, Bing, and other search engines are ad-supported but, if they weren’t, I’d pay a lot for them in a blink of an eye.
Most people wouldn't or they would charge for access and increase their RoI. Search isn't really valuable to Google, they make most of their money in ads.
>plenty of them successfully transitioned to paid subscription model
That's not really true, you have massive consolation because their business model is nonviable any other way.
> Most people wouldn't or they would charge for access and increase their RoI. Search isn't really valuable to Google, they make most of their money in ads.
They make money from ads… which people see when they use search.
Ad-support allows for a much greater userbase which is a key ingredient to having a good search engine or a good social network. It doesn’t mean people wouldn’t pay a lot for those services if they were paywalled.
Of course if, say, Google charged for search, users could defect to Bing.
But the argument here is that Twitter’s users won’t defect anywhere. Its social graph is too valuable for them and a coordinated move somewhere else is borderline impossible.
EDIT: as a baseline, consider how many users are willing to pay for purchase/subscription to different Twitter apps. And that’s only a different (presumably better for the buyers) front end, not the core service.
> Ad-support allows for a much greater userbase which is a key ingredient to having a good search engine or a good social network.
This logic is backwards. Having a large userbase allows them to sell ads in the first place to the user base that won't pay for the service in the first place.
Pretty much every large tech website has a building phase where they make no money and sell no ads while building a user base large enough to start selling ads. None of the large web companies today have charged to use their product and at this point it's unlikely they could.
>But the argument here is that Twitter’s users won’t defect anywhere. Its social graph is too valuable for them and a coordinated move somewhere else is borderline impossible.
Which is a terrible argument written by someone who doesn't understand the market. It's like saying no one will move away from AIM in 1999. Yes, people will. There are lots of historical examples, including the Digg to Reddit exodus. Even Facebook itself has had the problem of users migrating away from Facebook. Facebook has literally bought companies where users have migrated to (Instagram/WhatsApp).
> EDIT: as a baseline, consider how many users are willing to pay for purchase/subscription to different Twitter apps.
Virtually none. No one was paying for TweetDeck and now it's part of Twitter. Consumers aren't using HootSuite or Sprout Social, they target businesses. Going down the Android list most Twitter apps are free, the few that cost anything have small install bases (Fenix 2 <100k purchases, Talon for Twitter is ~ 100k purchases). Twitter has an daily active users of over 300 million users. So maybe 0.1% are willing to pay a one time fee for a client? I don't think Twitter can do much with that.
Virtually no one,on a consumer level, is willing to pay for a messaging service. WhatsApp (one-to-one) is free, Facebook is free (broadcast), Instagram is free, Snapchat is free, YouTube is free, TikTok is free, Skype is free, Zoom is free (to individuals), Google Chat is free, SMS/MMS/RCS usage is free (depending on how you look at the service cost).
On a business level you can extract payments (think Slack), but on a consumer level, messaging has no value people are will to pay (so it's ad supported instead).
What I don't fully subscribe to here is the statement on Stratechery that:
>and given that some of Twitter’s most hard core users use third-party Twitter clients, and thus aren’t monetizable, the revenue per addicted daily active user is even lower
I don't see how this must be true going forward, either by having a standard cost for open access to the API or through inclusion of twitter ads and metrics in the endpoint streams.
As pointed out they are just in the middle of re-opening the API developer ecosystem & it would be a shame to have this reversed by activist investors for the second time.
Note that the OP is asking about college-level math, not cutting-edge papers.
Textbooks routinely have a list of symbols and their definitions.
But, from my experience, notation is rarely the problem. I’d bet that the root cause of OP’s frustration is lack of understanding of concepts, not notation. (But, of course, it’s hard to say more without specific examples).
I’d say the MacPaint demo was bigger. We had touch screen devices before the iPhone and several failed attempts at tablets (then called “slates”). The iPhone interface felt like a big leap but still an evolutionary one that we all know someone was eventually going to nail. Whereas MacPaint seemed almost supernatural compared to what was sat on people’s desks before it. Sure it drew a lot from Lisa and Xerox but at that stage most people weren’t familiar with those and that had certainly never believed it would end up in an affordable device any time soon. I remember Amiga invoked similar responses for me too. Then first time I saw an Amiga in the flesh it seemed almost magical.
I don’t think we will ever have breakthroughs like that again because of the way how tech is often previewed in public (to drive up hype) and the laws of diminishing returns with regards to computational upgrades. Plus I think people are more used to seeing hardware breakthroughs so expect more these days.
What's weird is that I was working on prototype handsets for Nokia in 2004 and I have never seen that handset until today. WTF. (Note: the prototypes I was working on were all designed around stealing Apple's iPod mojo and baking it into their phones)
I had a 7710 for a few weeks, interesting concepts, but half-baked implementation and so slow you couldn’t really use it. Gave it back. It was more of a strange tech demo, than a usable phone. You can’t compare it to the iPhone.
I had very good experience with The Economist but, despite that, I'm still hesitant to re-subscribe because I just don't want to bother e-mailing them if I want to suspend or cancel my subscription (or add/remove print etc.).
I had a great experience with Audible. I switched from Audible UK to Audible US but forgot to cancel the former. After six months I noticed I had 6 credits I didn't want. I sent one short e-mail explaining what happened and within 15-30 minutes I got a response that said they'll refund everything.
I’m glad you had a good experience, but IMO the way Audible works is a mess of dark patterns to begin with. If you stop paying for one month you loose all your credits, so when I’m not reading as much I end up in a bind where I can’t cancel, but if I don’t cancel I get deeper in a hole.
You can pause a subscription, but only once every couple years and only for 90 days, and the option is hidden.
I will say that maybe they’ve updated things, because I went to cancel and it said “you have x amount of credits, would you like to pause for y time in order to keep them”. In no way was it hidden. I hate the credit system and the fact that they go away, but pausing was encouraged
Once I unsubscribed from Audible I started receiving email every 1-2 weeks with 60-70% discounts for couple of months. So I’ve been subscribing/unsubscribing to keep getting nice discount
Few people are criticizing the show from deviating from books per se. It isn’t good on its own merits.
Of course they had to make some changes and flesh out some characters to adapt it for TV. They just made poor choices. Instead of going with chosen ones, heroes, and battles, they should have gone for politics in space.
Something like the political manouvering in A Song of Ice and Fire but in space.
Arguably, framing Hardin as a "Hero's Journey" is the show taking chances versus the relatively much more dry source material. As Seldon says time and again, psychohistory can only predict the actions of large enough groups of people, it cannot predict the actions of individuals. From that perspective alone, I've found so far I mostly appreciate the twists the show is taking on the source material. Most of them seem to me to be individual actions within the overall predictions of psychohistory (treating the books as one prediction versus reality/timeline and the show as another).
Particularly since one of the two characters on the hero's journey for a majority of fans turned evil in the last two episodes. And that the one who ended up in the seat of power at the end had a different kind of journey.
The “around the world” part is huge for the MLS (and to a lesser extent for Apple). I’m in Europe and I’ve never watched an MLS game. But it looks like it’ll be the first and only football league that I’ll be able to watch in a civilized way so I’ll definitely give it a try.