On 23/04/14 22:56, Lisi Reisz wrote:> On Wednesday 23 April 2014 13:22:25 Henning Follmann wrote: >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:04:31PM -0700, Patrick Bartek wrote: >>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Henning Follmann wrote: >>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 09:47:24AM -0700, Patrick Bartek >>>> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 22 Apr 2014, Henning Follmann wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, Apr 21, 2014 at 10:25:18AM -0700, Patrick Bartek >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Apr 2014, Xiánwén Chén wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Patrick, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why not just a second Gmail account for various lists? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That was the first thing I considered, but didn't want to >>>>>>> be a part of Google+ and all that social networking crap >>>>>>> Google pushes on gmail applicants. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do not know what you are expecting. >>>>> >>>>> I didn't want all the headaches of Google+ (something I'll >>>>> NEVER use or participate in) just for an email account. >>>>> >>>>>> Free does not exist. There is always a price. >>>>> >>>>> It was a price I was unwilling to pay. >>>>> >>>>>> Unfortunately today the majority chooses free beer over >>>>>> free speech. >>>>> >>>>> Well, I've done a little research, and have found I can have >>>>> both free beer and free speech. You can get a "free" gmail >>>>> account without Google+. >>>> >>>> Errrrrrrr. Wrong. You pay with being spied on for marketing >>>> purposes. >>> >>> I don't know how useful such marketing info will be on >>> correspondence from a few technically oriented mail lists. >>> Google probably gets way better info from Chrome. ;-) Although >>> from the ads I see, I think the algorithm is very badly broken. >>> It has yet to correctly determine even my gender. >> >> So you think they only look at the content of the mail? They can >> read that already without you having an account with them. Or do >> they track - how often and when you check your mail - how often you >> reply - the location from where you are checking? >> >> The algorithm is not broken. It is big data. That is the crux with >> statistics there is no factual link between cause and effects. It's >> just hedging you bets. So you don't fit their statistical modeling. >> Good (or bad) for you. Here is the scary part, they actually might >> know more about your future than you do and the ads are dead on. >> You yet do not even know about your sex change in two years ;) > > I don't get any ads.
That's a fact. But this thread is now about Confirmation Bias. So your facts, like many other facts, are both irrelevant, and (simultaneously) further proof of The Evil Plan(TM) - that's "The" Evil Plan, singular, not the "multiple shades of grey, evil is subjective, plan". Which may seem contradictory and illogical but...(sigh). > > Lisi > > Kind regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5357bae9.50...@gmail.com