tokensimian

1) put another way, people against profanity are trying to control what other individuals say. People into the right to be profane are expressing their freedom to swear.

2) I cannot. I can be offended by things people say, but language itself is not offensive.

3) No, it's not my responsibility to censor myself to support archaic beliefs about other people's children.

This is good!

It sucks as a learner. But for science and progress of knowledge, it provides an inefficient but lacks-false-positives mechanism.

It sucks for Liebniz, but was a positive for our understanding

They have banners, search ads, content ads, and native advertising. Some of their inventory is served by bing, so if you use both bing adcenter and yahoo/gemini, you may be competing against yourself.

But I just launched a yahoo/gemini campaign 2 weeks ago, for leadgen on web. They definitely have more than banners.

(Also, I've found banner ads can refer to either the format [728x90 graphic] or the model [pay per view/CPM/CPV]. They offer the gamut just like everyone else, even the small shady players.

To say that yahoo just has banners is very incorrect.

You are correct.

However, the sites that do the overkill of a sticky header tend to also have poorly thought out site navigation and user experiences.

Let's say on a normal site, killing any absolute nav would result in a 5%* decrease in UX.

On a site like this, killing any absolute nav might result in a 5% increase in UX.

The cost of the skimmer is insignificant, but the labor to replace it adds friction and is going to reduce the number of active skimmers. To replace the removed skimmer will also expose the criminal to more risk of getting caught, especially if the police are aware of the removal and can set up a sting or something.

So while the economic ROI is so high the behavior will continue, it does slow them down.

Not a complete fix by any means, but adding friction to their criminal behavior.

Ensuring that skimmers need to evolve frequently is a valid counter-strategy because it increases their cost of goods stolen.

This assumes the police have competency, concern, and resources.

It's not necessarily punitive (although it could be), but they will unlikely receive similar negotiating advantages as they did before.

Except previously it was negotiating with a number of smaller entities.

Now it will be negotiating with a block of them. The UK just willingly decreased their leverage so they had free will.

Thank you, from all of America. You managed to be completely embarrasing in your 2016 election cycle, before we are really able to be shockingly shameful in front of you.

Brits are polite to the end.

Exactly. It's leverage, not abuse. What's the difference? Eye of the beholder.

Regardless of judgement, you have to look at leverage. That's what really matters in terms of outcomes.

I believe it's important for individuals to build character based on morals (ie judge leverage for abuse), but that's like suggesting thermodynamics law 2 just isn't very nice.

You're right: it sucks. But wishing it were otherwise is not super relevant.

Sorry to jump in uninvited... but that's what HN is.

I think you're mischaracterizing the situation.

Perspective 1: UK is breaking up with the EU, not vice-versa.

P2: EU gets some adv/dis-advantages by including UK specifically P3: UK had some advantages/disadvantages from being part of EU P4: EU has incentive outside of British sitch to stay unified

My (american) perspective is that Britain should stay in the EU because while their direct adv to leave may outweigh direct disadv to stay, they are subject to P4, which is to make an example of someone who leaves.

Exclude your judgement of right, wrong, and what should be. Look simply at leverage.

I have no idea what your original comment is referring to, but from my perspective you just lost the game of "let's not appear completely insane in front of strangers."

That's an ineffective way of communicating your point.

Parent's "a few cents" and what I pay in SoCal for a can of beans ($1.40 regular price; $0.99 on sale) indicate a different scope.

You project a 1:3 ratio. Cheaper estimates of chip cost, more expensive beans suggest the other end of that ratio is $0.03:1.40 indicate the chip cost around 2%, which could potentially be recouped by better inventory practices.