Every time I click the share button in Android, the icons are in completely different order. Not last recently used, not alphabetically. Completely random.
Your not accepting the 1st suggestion (Arrow) when you typed "Ar" decreased the probability that that was the term you intended. The next suggestion factored in that you were probably looking for something else and bumped up other suggestions.
That’s a bad assumption. People often type faster than they can respond to changes on screen. Typing speed & muscle memory means I’m more likely to type “arr” than just “ar”. But I’m also likely to be thrown off by the search reshuffling as it expands.
Once an item matches the search, it should stay in place unless it’s invalidated by further typing. Reshuffling just adds needless friction.
This actually made me laugh with how tone-deaf it appears to be about how users normally interact with a search field. Is this response based on industry "knowledge"? How did this sort of thinking come about?
That would be such a stupid way to implement a search.
When you search you don't type letter by letter and inspect the suggestions after each keystroke. You type many letters and only then you inspect the suggestions/results.
> anyone else can just come along and beat you to the implementation
Pray tell, how might they do this when you know the method and they do not? Unless you developed the method, then went around telling random people before going about implementing it.
In those cases, users purely receive recommendations for media/products. In this case, users receive recommendations for other users to follow as well.
So, a classical theoretical model tailored to exactly match known results is validated. And a brand-spankin-new theoretical model based on a different approach is invalidated.
This means all assumptions of the classical model are correct and all those of the new model are incorrect? Doesn't sound right to me.
These tests are validating / invalidating the predictive power of specific models, not testing their underlying assumptions. Issues of supervenience will not be worked out for certain until we have models of which we are more confident.
You're trolling, correct? If PayPal shuts down for an hour, it loses a lot of money (transaction costs, administrative costs, paying idle employees, etc.). Not just them, but millions of their customers who rely on PayPal for their business lose out too.
There is no form of protest that does not affect other people and lost revenue is not damage. Your comment reads very mobbish.
You are free to disagree with the opinion of the DDoSers that PayPal punished Wikileaks because of close ties with a vindictive government and therefore deserved a tangible reaction, but you can't go arguing that people should only disagree with you to the extent that you are able to ignore them.
Explain what "mobbish" means in the context of my comment. Because I disagree with your position, my comment somehow resembles 'mob' behavior?
"you can't go arguing that people should only disagree with you to the extent that you are able to ignore them"
What does that even mean? Sorry, but that's one huge straw man attack for something I didn't state. You're free to have your own opinion. I did not state otherwise.
Further, you state that I am free to disagree with an opinion, but then you state that I cannot have some opinion that you conjured up some argument on your own to misrepresent my position -- and then attacking that distorted position?
I wasn't entirely satisfied with the word, but it was close enough. I meant that the words you (and others I read before) chose were of the polarizing variety, the kinds that people end up using in mobs. That is to say, instead of describing the situation at hand, I felt you were describing the closest clearly illegal thing someone could quickly think of, probably because your information was third-hand.
It seemed to me that you felt that the thing these DDoSsers did wrong was that they had an impact on the business of PayPal directly, rather than just the PR of PayPal. Well no, it seemed to me that you wouldn't have agreed with vocal badmouthing either, but that that would have resulted in an entirely different chain of events and so is not worth considering carefully.
If your opinion was not that no company's business should be directly manipulated for policy retribution purposes, I misunderstood. It was my intent to assert that this is not a position I consider valid and that the choice to briefly DDoS PayPal was almost certainly taken after considering less and more radical approaches. I saw no evidence towards the positions I do consider valid, that the retribution was overly severe or wholly unjust.
Fancy cryptography, p2p networking, with web-based command and control: indestructible 'new' type of botnet, or practically identical to Zues? You decide!
1) Arrow
2) Arboles
3) Area
And then type another 'r' before you realize your result is there ("Arr") and as you go to select "Arrow" the auto-suggest results turn into
1) Array
2) Arrogant
3) Arrow
Like, how does adding the second 'r' make "Array" higher probability than "Arrow"?!