Re: Personal Recommendations for Free List Compatible Email Service
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
Reply to: