#because the errors are useless or even misleading | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

fakescenariosbeforesleepblog · 7 months

Text

Eye in the sky pt3.

Reader (codename: eagle) × König

Mission time, tension increased,you have to escape but you will not leave no one behind, what's your final decision? Will you run or stay?.

I was listening to this song while I was trying to describe the fight, I hope it helps to imagine the scenario.

Warning: Blood, violence, grammatical and spelling errors.

📢 Disclaimer: I do not own any of the characters nor do I claim to own them. I do not own any of the images used nor do I claim to own them.

Pt.4 Final.

A few weeks passed since the last mission with KorTac, you and könig text each other sometimes, Soap and Gaz have been joking about you and your new friend.

- Eagle is too enchanted by that guy

- I know, it's literally like the beauty and the beast

- are you 5 years old? Grow up!

You started to punch them and play with them when Price and Ghost appeared in the common area.

- Did you already finish?

«Sorry» «yes sir» «sorry captain»

- Get ready, we have work to do. Meeting room, in 30 min.

«Yes sir»

You were the first one to arrive, you were waiting scrolling on your phone when Ghost appeared, you smiled kindly and continued on your phone.

- Soap told me what he saw in the nursery the other day.

- Huh? Oh... That, König went to say goodbye.

- Very kind for someone so wild.

You sighed and looked at him, you're annoyed, why everybody cares so much?

- you don't know him well, why do you even care?

- Listen, eagle, I... Worry about you, not only because we work together, you're... Special to me. I will just ask you this once. Stay away from him.

- I don't know what you're trying to say ghost, he's my friend.

- you don't look at a friend in the way you did all the time he was here...

- Ok, stop that, I'm not in the mood for this conversation.

The rest of the team arrived, also König and Horangi arrived too. Price noticed the absence of Roze, he looks concerned.

- and the woman? We will probably need more than 2.

- Roze is on a mission with other companions.

- alright, well... This is probably a terrorist group probably allies of our biggest enemy, what are we going to do? Ghost...

- There are hostages, we will help them and we'll look for information, any kind of information, no matter how useless it can look, we need it.

Horangi and könig were talking and observing the location on the map, Horangi stood up from his seat interrupting ghost.

- Ah sorry, indeed Captain, Ghost, we will need more people, we made area recognition a month ago, the location is isolated. The closet city is 6 hours away using vehicle... And the access is misleading, a lot of mercenaries patrolling.

- What do you propose Colonel?

Price looked at könig, who is still contemplating the map, you can see it in his eyes, he's planning every detail.

- As Horangi said, we will need more people, the place is infested by those mercenaries but we can clean it well, I understand that this is a mission under the water, am I wrong?

- yes, no one can know we're there.

- So, I propose you and your team will be behind us, as snipers, clean the path as much as possible, we will get close to the building, once there, you will join us, we will need some bombs, this building has a good structure and every entrance is well armored.

- Soap can help with that.

König nodded and continued.

- inside the building we will probably find more enemies, we think the hostages are in the attic, so Eagle and me...

- Negative.

Everybody looked at ghost, he looks angry but König apparently doesn't feel intimidated by him.

- What?

- I'll go with you, Eagle will look for information with Gaz.

- I see, well we will lose some time trying to convince them that two masked men are there to keep them safe, ja?

Your laugh echoed in the room breaking the tension, somehow König was right. Would be hard to convince the hostages.

- What is it so funny, Doc?

- Sorry Lt., but the colonel is right, maybe that's not the best idea, i suggest to go with soap or the captain, they look more friendly.

Before Ghost could protest, könig continued.

- Good, eagle and whoever you decide will go for the hostages, the rest of us, look for information And eliminate any target.

- Ah König, Roze, fender and stiletto are back from their mission. We can call them and see them at the location.

- Ja, go ahead Horangi, danke.

Price looked pleased with the plan, after more details, all the group was ready to go.

It was Early in the morning, the location was a beautiful forest, the smell of wet ground, trees and grass green, made it look like a painting. Horangi and Fender were leaders, since they knew the lands better. Ghost was behind you, you could feel his eyes, König kept his distance because he didn't want to cause you troubles, but that didn't mean he wasn't looking at you every chance he found. You were thinking about Ghost words, then about you and König, you're trying to understand what you're feeling.

Before you could finish debating, you were in the zone, everybody got ready to take positions, König approached you and as always, he was looking at you with tenderness.

- Keep us safe Maus.

- You will have eyes in the sky, don't worry Kö...

He chuckled and nodded.

- Danke...

- Have a nice hunt...

«let's go König, we're ready.�� you blinked an eye at him and he left. After some time, your radios finally emitted a noise.

«Captain, we're in position.»

- Good, we're ready, you can proceed König, we already eliminated some enemies in that area.

«Gaz to stiletto, you have an enemy at your left, you can proceed, eliminate him easily there's no one around »

«Horangi, don't move yet» «Copy, Fender, you can continue» «Roze, get ready to attack, the target moves in your direction» «König, move to your right, you have an easy target»

You were too focused, observing every step könig was given, you were wondering how someone so tall as him could move so quickly and silently, you're observing every detail, his clothes, his belt, his helmet, he's... Perfect.

- We're outside, we need Soap with the explosives.

- Copy.

- well, you already heard them, let's go.

Once there the real spectacle began. There were more targets inside than outside. You were waiting for this moment, you're a doctor but that doesn't mean you don't know how to give a good fight.

You gave perfect headshots, threw some knives, kicks, it looks like you're in your zone, like a fish in the water, you love this, the adrenaline you feel during the combat. You saw an enemy approaching könig from behind, before König could notice him you brought it down, that caught König's attention, you're seriously amazing, jumping from a wall to your target, punching, shooting, too busy to notice who's observing you. you're wild, behind all the beauty and kindness there's danger, he's amazed.

Unfortunately, even if all of you are doing their best, more mercenaries have arrived at the place, More than all of you expected.

- Captain, what now?

Gaz was on the radio, everybody was hiding and trying to defend their own position, the noise of bombs, shooting, was making difficult to listen.

- We have to go.

- Sir, the hostages... ?

- Eagle, no, we have to go, don't forget we're not allowed to be here.

- All units. We have to go, let's go.

«Copy»

You were running through a hallway, looking for anything that could give information, you found a room, full of computers, maps and photographs, you locked yourself in the room and tried to send all that information to your laptop, you don't have time to read if it is useful, you will check it later. You were leaving when a guy appeared in front of you, he tackled you and started to suffocate you, you were trying to set you free when König appeared, he took the man and with a quick move broke his neck.

At this point everybody is already outside on their way to the rendezvous, it's just you and könig. You stood up and ran behind him until another guy jumped over him, he stabbed him. You gave him a headshot but the damage was already made. König was pressing his hand against his abdomen

- König...

- I'm fine, go, I'll be there in a min.

- No, I'm not going to let you here, lemme see...

- Maus, there's no time, go.

- No!

He finally let you see, unfortunately he was losing a lot of blood, you felt fear running through your veins, your hands are trembling but you tried to clean the wound and close it enough to stop the bleeding, König is doing his best to not show the pain but it's impossible, you don't want to lose him, you're losing your mind and control.

- I am ...the eye in the sky looking at you, I can read your mind...

- Wha..

- I am the maker of rules, dealing with fools...

-I can cheat you blind And...

-AH! Scheisse! (Ah, shit!)... I don't need to see anymore to know that

- I... I can read your mind...

- Good, keep going... Mein Liebling... You can do it.

Finally you finished and helped him to stand up, you put his arm on your shoulder to give him support, even with the wound he did his best to protect you.

«Eagle! Where are you? You have less than 5 min to arrive here!»

Ghost was on the radio, you gave him a quick «copy» but König is too weak, he's still losing blood, so he stopped.

- Leave.

- No, I won't.

- you will not make it on time, leave, I'll find a way to..

- No, you're too weak König! You will not survive... And I won't leave you behind.

«Eagle, König, report, where are you? We can't wait for you, more enemies are arriving»

Horangi is now asking you to hurry up, everybody starts to talk, until you hear ghost once again.

«Eagle, come here right now, it's an order, Sargent»

You look at könig, he is not afraid, you know he would understand if you stand up and leave, but no, you won't do that.

- We'll not make it on time, leave us, König is hurt.

- Eagle, it's an order...

- Sorry Sir. I promised myself I never would leave a man behind.

You cut communication and stayed with könig, you cleaned and tried to close the wound once more, you looked at könig again, you know it was maybe a bad decision, but you never broke a promise, you really won't leave him. His look changes in less than a second and...

- EAGLE! BEHIND!

Everything went dark for you after that.

54 notes · View notes

pokemoncenter · 1 year

Text

On Pokemon DNA

In all living things, there is a special polymer of nucleotides forming a double helix called Deoxyribonucleic Acid, or DNA. This is the basis of life. DNA is something akin to the instructions of life- It encodes instructions for cells and proteins to follow, and from that instruction, it builds the appropriate life form.

(I am aware that this is vastly oversimplified, however, I wish to put in an extremely basic understanding for those who left school to go on Pokemon journeys, and thus would not have even this knowledge base to work with. I will not be explaining each base or each role of each part. Please understand.)

DNA is passed down from parent to child. When two living beings conceive a child, the zygote receives half its DNA from its father and half from its mother, engaging in new combinations, before even factoring in mutations.

However, DNA is not perfectly efficient. Over time, transmission errors, mutations, and other such factors build up, and portions of the DNA do not code instructions. Some of this DNA has use- Even if it does not code anything itself, it may modify or instruct other DNA coding sequences. This is called non-coding DNA, or ncDNA.

However, there is further DNA- Fragments of ancient DNA that still gets passed down, or pseudogenes- that seem to do nothing at all. This is called 'junk DNA'. However, the study of ncDNA and junk DNA is rather limited, as because they are not actively encoding information, they are thought of as useless.

(There is a theory that Mewtwo is so different from all known records of Mew, not because Team Rocket intentionally augmented Mewtwo, but because they deemed the ncDNA as worthless and removed it from the genome.)

It is said that the human genome is as much as 99% ncDNA, and the active part that creates genes and creates the person is as small as 1%. That is, over our millions of years of evolutionary history, only 1% of what we still hold on to remains in use.

(Atavism, when a trait lost over the course of evolution suddenly returns via a mutation, is thought to involve the reactivation of some ncDNA. Such examples include humans growing tails, or a Torchic with teeth.)

However, while humans have as much as 99%, interestingly, Pokemon eclipse even that, with potential 99.99% of their DNA seeming to be ncDNA. The strange part is, this is true for most Pokemon- Regardless of its species or complexity, all Pokemon seem to have an incredible amount of ncDNA by any standards. The reason and method for this is currently unknown. Why Pokemon DNA genomes seem to be so long while so little of it is used, and why it is so consistent... Another mystery of Pokemon.

As mentioned above, I purposefully oversimplified things here to try to make it easier for those with no understanding or schooling in genetics to understand. However, I recognize I may have accidentally made some parts misleading or even incorrect in my attempts to simplify matters. If any experts on genetics wish to weigh in and add in your own thoughts and corrections, I would welcome this.

#pokeblogging #unreality #pkmn irl #science with sophora #atavism arc

21 notes · View notes

game-boy-pocket · 2 years

Text

Today, I beat Shadowgate, my first game from issue 10 of Nintendo Power. This is a port of a point and click PC adventure game to the NES. This is my first time playing an Adventure game of this type on NES, and I know there's boatloads, especially from the Famicom side of things.

Admittedly, I had to look up quite a bit of the answers to this one, although I feel like I didn't need to. Most of the solutions seemed really obvious once I looked them up. And a lot of the things were things I already tried but the aim of my cursor was a little off, or I used some items in the wrong order... there were also some things that mislead me, for example pressing select sometimes yields hints, and I was told "sometimes there are ways besides weapons to solve a problem", but then the solution still ended up being a weapon.

This game doesn't have game overs but it does have a finite supply of torches, and when your torches burn out, you die, if you get down to just one torch, you might as well restart your game, which sounds bad, but if you know the solution, you can quickly breeze through the game. Ideally you should do so making as few "moves" as possible, because your torches go out based on the number of moves you make so each time you do an action your torches get close to burning out.

There's also magic spells you can find but only some of them hint about their usage. There's no MP so you're free to try them on everything, just know that it costs you some torch time to do it, there's also spells that seem like they work but you'll be missing an item and have to come back when you have that item.

The game will get you on a technicality at times, looking at a book is not the same as reading a book, you have to use the "open" command to read a book. You also need to be a bit eagle eyed, if that pebble looks different from the other pebbles even in a subtle way, then there's likely something up with it... there's also a lot of red herring useless items, doors you can't ever enter, and most of your items are single usage only.

The game is actually pretty short, but it's padded out with the trial and error gameplay. And the fact that you'll find clues to later puzzles early on, meaning you're likely to forget them.

It's actually dripping with great atmosphere, and though the music is mostly short repetitive loops, I think they're great at adding to that atmosphere.

I'd recommend this to someone looking for something in the horror department for NES, but not to casual players that can't stand trial and error gameplay, if you understand this game is going to kick your ass around a bit aren't afraid to do a few burner runs where you just kind of futz about learning how to make progress before your real run begins, then go for it.

#pocket plays #nes #shadowgate #shadow gate

9 notes · View notes

sondepoch · 5 years

Text

XIII: Neutral Route (Y/N)

Where Futures Begin

Life used to be simple for you. Peaceful. But the Savior had other plans for you, and in moments, she ruined what you thought was your one shot at happiness. Blinded by anger, you escaped the Mint Eye, but that triggered a series of events that would bring you further into the world of brothers Saeran and Saeyoung. And further into the twisted world of your love for them.

Neutral Route: 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ✔

Saeyoung’s Route: 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ✔

Saeran’s Route: 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | ✔

MASTERLIST

Your parents had always called you names.

Useless. Pathetic. Ugly.

The kids at your orphanage hadn't been much better, distancing themselves from you and wondering why you were so weird, whispering insults behind your back.

Only two people from the Mint Eye had ever called you beautiful, and that included a bipolar man who had made it clear that he now hated you, and a manipulative woman who made it her life's purpose to destroy happiness (though, of course, she thought she was spreading it).

On the rare occasions that you had looked into the mirror and considered yourself to be particularly stunning, you had always thought that it was the form-fitting dresses that the Savior had given you that did the trick.

As you stared at yourself in the mirror, dressed in Vanderwood's cargo pants and a tank top he had stolen from god knows where, you noted, with mild amusement, that you truly were pretty. You stared at your face, still not used to the white locks that framed your face and the mint green eyes that stared back at you, but the lack of any magenta clothing articles was a pleasant change.

You took a step back before walking out of the room. "What should I do with this dress?" You asked Vanderwood, who had been waiting at the door while you changed.

"Give it to me. I'll burn it."

You raised an eyebrow, but handed the clothing over nonetheless.

"What? Don't you want to forget about the Mint Eye?" Vanderwood's question made sense, but...

"Kind of hard to forget about the Mint Eye when it stares back at me every time I look in the mirror." Your words weren't laced with anger or venom, a simple truth that you would eventually need to accept.

Vanderwood still looked slightly apologetic, though. "Oh. Right. Well, you can't forget about the Mint Eye either way. You still need to help hack into...what did you call it? The defense room? Perimeter?"

"Security room," You told Vanderwood, but hesitating. "Are you sure Luciel will even let me use his laptops anymore? I doubt he wants to see me right now..."

Vanderwood chuckled.

"Luciel usually isn't as unprofessional as you saw him act this morning. He'll be able to handle it. The only reason he let his emotions get the better of him was because he let his emotions loose around you." The man paused, rolling his eyes. "Kissing is stupid. Either have sex or don't, but there's no benefit to making out on a couch."

You blushed, pulling your eyes away from the brunette in front of you. You didn't refute his claim of kissing being stupid, not wanting to admit that you, too, had been emotionally invested when you kissed Luciel.

It was your first kiss, after all.

It's not like you knew that Saeran had claimed your lips once before.

"Though I guess your situation was a little different," Vanderwood said, pausing thoughtfully for a moment. You thought he was being kind until he continued, "Given that you kissed Luciel because you'd always wanted to kiss his brother, and he was the second-best thing."

"That's not true!" You blurted, resenting the idea that he thought you had only kissed Luciel because of your prior feelings for Saeran. "Saeran and I were never like that..."

"Oh?" Vanderwood said, taking a step closer to you. Resisting the urge to back up further against the wall, you stared up at the man, not letting yourself be intimidated by him. "So you're saying that if I had happened to be there instead of Luciel...you would be fucking me right now?"

Vanderwood whispered the last part in your ear, his body close enough for you to smell the cologne he had sprayed on his suit. You felt his hot breath on your ear, tickling your neck as he continued.

"Because I could go right now, darling."

Vanderwood practically purred the words into your ear before he took an abrupt step back. "See, I told you." He smirked. "It's specifically Luciel you're attracted to. And you can't tell me he doesn't resemble his twin brother."

You swallowed, still flustered from the previous moment.

"Go, Luciel will need your help hacking in. He won't admit it, but by being there, you're making everyone's lives easier."

Vanderwood shooed you away, probably so that he could go get another cup full of coffee, and you mentally prepared yourself for a barrage of insults before stepping into Luciel's room.

It was still dark, but the short-circuited laptop had been discarded in the corner of the room, replaced by another, slightly older model.

"Use that computer." Was all Luciel said to you, not even glancing upward as you awkwardly shifted your weight onto the sagging bed, reentering the world of code.

You tried your hardest to ignore Luciel's presence, to ignore the sheer fury he managed to convey in his keystrokes alone. You wanted to apologize one more time, tell him you honestly didn't know that he was Saeran's brother, that you didn't know he didn't realize Saeran was alive, that you never meant to mislead him.

But you didn't.

You focused on the laptop in front of you, staring at code until you and it were one. Your thoughts were in binary when you abruptly stopped, seeing something interesting.

Saeran had stripped your user from all administrative privileges. Even if you were able to sign in, all you'd be able to view was a series of file folders titled 'Classified.' Saeran, on the other hand, had his user still up and running.

Your fingers stopped, staring at the screen before you.

There was no need to hack your way in if you had the password. Hacking was like breaking a window to get into someone else's house, or shimmying in through the dog door; but the password was the key to the main entrance.

If you had the password, all your troubles would be solved instantly.

"My password is always the most important person in my life."

Saeran had told you that long ago.

Very long ago.

So long ago, that it may not even be true anymore.

You still found yourself pulled toward the screen, though.

You knew, from your time in the Security Room, that you had three attempts to type in the password before the system would auto-lock you out, the only way back in via a physical override at the Mint Eye itself.

There was no need for three full tries, though.

You only needed one.

You flicked your eyes up, for the first time, and gazed at Luciel as he worked. Still engrossed, he was typing away, likely trying something much more reasonable than the far-fetched idea in your head.

You typed the characters slowly, staring at your fingers the whole time and double-checking to ensure that there were no mistakes. (Y/N).

You'd spelled your name a thousand times before, filling out various forms, sending texts. None of those instances compared to the swell of adrenaline you felt as you typed the characters that made up your name. Were you still the most important person in Saeran's life?

It was a longshot. A very long longshot. But, still, you knew you wouldn't be able to sleep unless you tried.

Your finger hovered over the 'Enter' key, and you had almost summoned the courage to press the button, when an image flashed through your mind.

It was the day you'd been released from your Secondary Commitment. The moment when you'd been in front of the great wooden door that served to separate you and the other council members.

At that moment, you still had hope. You thought that you were Saeran's number one, and that as soon as the door opened, things would immediately go back to normal.

But then the door had opened. And you'd seen it: him, arm draped around MC, laughing and smiling the way he had around you.

You inhaled sharply, recalling Saeran's fixation with MC. How he'd obsessed over her and entirely replaced you, giving her the gifts and pet names and affection that you were starved for.

How stupid, you thought to yourself, hitting backspace. As if I'd be the most important thing in his life.

With a heavy heart, you type in the characters that formed MC's name. It was so much more practical. You couldn't afford to test out too many passwords, and you already knew that Saeran hated you.

But you couldn't deny that it would hurt so much to know that Saeran had replaced you in his heart.

You let your index finger linger on top of the 'Enter' button, entirely unsure if your ignorance was bliss or not, until you couldn't bear to wait any longer. With a single flex, you'd pressed the key,

A second of buffer passed.

And then, your heart felt lighter. All hope was not lost.

Error: Incorrect password.

2 attempts remaining.

MASTERLIST

Neutral Route: 01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05 | 06 | 07 | 08 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | ✔

Saeyoung’s Route: 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | ✔

Saeran’s Route: 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | ✔

Word count: 1.5k

Notes: Uuurgh I have to work out for like an hour now >.> Not looking forward to that. I feel tired just thinking about it T^T Wish me luck

Comment & Like

Next Update: 2/13/20

I do not own the rights to Mystic Messenger or any of the characters within it.

16 notes · View notes

goldfinchhoneybee · 4 years

Text

Mass Reproduction & Technological Advances: How Technology and Dissemination is Damaging Our Society

Mass Reproduction & Technological Advances:

How Technology and Dissemination is Damaging Our Society

How have advances in print; the Gutenberg moveable type printing press, linotype, etc., and technology; computers, the Internet, Twitter, etc., assisted in dissemination; to spread (something, especially information) widely, and thus caused a downfall in general society?

Firstly, structural differentiation, the move in society from simple to complex, “creates problems of communication and control” while “mass media and other means of communication emerged in part to help resolve some of these problems.”

The Gutenberg press is an excellent example of a moment in history of structural differentiation. Its invention allowed for books to be printed at a rate never before seen in history and marked a new age of information. As stated in Mr. Abel’s book, The Gutenberg Revolution, the invention of the moveable type printing press “completely and radically restructured the trade in intellectual products and thereby, even more radically, enlisted a vastly increased number of minds recruited too the challenge of formulating more and better solutions to the ever-constant problems arising in human society.” To follow that quote up with another by philosopher and social critic Walter Benjamin, "mass reproduction contributed to human emancipation by promoting new modes of critical perception.”

These advancements should have just led to improvements and the spread of factual knowledge, growing until the day technology stepped up to the plate with computers and the Internet. The spread of ideas should have been flowing rapidly, instead the advancement came too fast and society does know how to navigate them properly.

With all this in mind, if mass media and dissemination is meant to solve the problems of communication and control, then when did we as a society move into a world where misinformation spreads rampant? When did the technological advances move past being a helpful solution to making our lives more difficult?

This question of why the rapid spread of information is no longer emancipating the population should be of great concern in our society. Especially in light of situations like the video captured of the MAGA (Make America Great Again) and other protesters in Washington DC on January 18th, 2019. The limited information available about the situation spread too quickly, assumptions and interpretation were made without all of the facts, and many people stuck their foot in their mouth by spreading untruths and accusations before they could assess the situation further.

As we have advanced through history these technological advances have occurred closer together and society has not had the time to adjust to use these technological advancements, like Twitter, more judiciously or within more stringent regulations to prevent the spread of misinformation. So print is not entirely to blame for the downfall in this situation. The printing press had its rise and fall in society and now has regulations to balance what is printed/published. “This sudden acceleration in the generation and exchange of ideas and some of the many consequences flowing therefrom… and characterizes the invention of printing simply as a historical change agent, not as a technological invention that radically transformed the evolution of the culture.” Without the adequate amount of time for society to adjust to the new technology and all that entails, is the power of newfound technology abused and how to we find guidelines to adjust without apparent set back?

Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead said that,

It is the first step in sociological wisdom, to recognize that the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur:—like unto an arrow in the hand of a child. The art of free society consists first in the maintenance of the symbolic code; and secondly in fearlessness of revision, to secure that the code serves those purposes which satisfy an enlightened reason. Those societies which cannot combine reverence to their symbols with freedom of revision, must ultimately decay either from anarchy, or from the slow atrophy of a life stifled by useless shadows.

Perhaps the only solution is some kind of crash so technology can be reborn to a wiser world. Society after Gutenberg’s movable type printing press was invented broke down. Most people in power at the time kept knowledge like power to keep down the citizens in ignorance, but with the printing press it was much more difficult to elites to control the production and distribution of knowledge. Then Martin Luther used that new technology to print up his manifesto and post it for everyone to see and thus created a schism in the church and led to new religions and interpretations of the Bible.

Without sufficient time in the present day to process these rapidly occurring advances in how we create and share information, our society is skipping over the reset that occurs in the face of massive information and technological change. “Not only is Internet use a new and rapidly changing social phenomenon, but the technology underlying the Internet itself is changing at the speed off Moore’s Law (Gordon More the co-founder of Intel, predicted that the number of transistors per square inch on integrated circuits would double every year). We do not know how to process the information as required by the advances. In other words, we are reading a book in which we do not understand the slang. Leading to things like ‘fake news” that we see running rampant. People are used to being able to trust any news groups, but are now learning that false information is being spread on mass and now distrust most if not all news. The solution would be some kind of societal breakdown, as suggested by Philosopher Alfred North Whitehead that leads to regulations being put into place to prevent such a situation occurring again.

This concern of how technological advances are damaging society and individuals was described in a very interesting chainsaw and chisel analogy by The New Yorker writer Tim Wu,

Imagine that two people are carving a six-foot slab of wood at the same time. One is using a hand-chisel, the other, a chainsaw. If you are interested in the future of that slab, whom would you watch?…This chainsaw/chisel logic has led some to suggest that technological evolution is more important to humanity’s near future than biological evolution; nowadays, it is not the biological chisel but the technological chainsaw that is most quickly redefining what it means to be human. The devices we use change the way we live much faster than any contest among genes. We’re the block of wood, even if,…sometimes we don’t even fully notice that we’re changing.

As stated by Elizabeth L. Eisenstein, “The ‘electronic age’ encompasses too many changes affecting communications (from radio and telephone to photocopying and computers) for any simple comparisons with the fifteenth-century to be drawn.” We need to consider how print relates to electronic media like Twitter. The regulations in place to ensure published books are reputable and do not contain spelling or grammatical errors help society in curbing slander. “It is clear [to] see print and electronic media as interacting with one another, with print maintaining its function as a reactive agent.” Perhaps Twitter should take a leaf from the publishing companies books and set up regulations to limit the amount of falsities circulating.

The more recent and rapid advances in how print is produced and distributed has been detrimental to society and have changed how society gathers information. Now with the internet and information has become more malleable and can be all over the world in a second. The kind of power is terrifying, because one sees more and more people using it to mislead, creating ‘fake news,’ and fill the void with trivial fluff, making the world shallow and careless with ideas and opinions. This in combination spreads false information and people without the tact to censor themselves to suit a situation. The world becoming less educated and more crude. With all of this in mind, one cannot say that Walter Benjamin was right in his idea of the reproduction of information emancipated the masses with knowledge. At this rate unbridled technology is watering down the information to nothing. Dismaying to say the least.

Bibliography

Abel, Richard. “The Gutenberg Revolution: A History of Print Culture.” Transaction Publishers, 2011.

Alcorn Baron, S., Eric N. Lindquist, and Eleanor F Shevlin eds. “Agent of Change: Print Culture Studies after Elizabeth L Eisenstein.” University of Massachusetts Press, 2007.

Byron Cooper, Stephen. “The Relationship Between the Printing Press & the Internet.” Chron. https://smallbusiness.chron.com/relationship-between-printing-press-internet-26566.html

Chappell, W. and Robert Bringhurst. “A Short History of the Printed Word.” Hartley & Marks Publishers Inc., 1999.

Demers, David. “History and Future of Mass Media: An Integrated Perspective.”Hampton Press, Inc., 2007.

Eisenstein, Elizabeth L. “The Printing Press as an Agent of Change.” Cambridge University Press, 2013.

Freeland, Cynthia."Digitizing and disseminating.” But is it art?. Oxford University Press, 2001.

Kraus, Don. “Pirates, the Printing Press and Global Democracy.” Huffington Post. 07/10/2014. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/don-kraus/pirates-the-printing-pres_b_5575113.html

Rosenberg, Eli. “How anonymous tweets helped ignite a national controversy over MAGA-hat teens.” Washington Post, January 22, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/01/23/how-anonymous-tweets-helped-ignite-national-controversy-over-maga-hat-teens/?utm_term=.51c739040828

Whitehead, Alfred North. “Symbolism: Its Meaning and Effect.” University of Virginia Press, 1927.

Wu, Tim. “As Technology Gets Better, Will Society Get Worse?” Elements, The New Yorker, February 6, 2014, https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/as-technology-gets-better-will-society-get-worse.

0 notes

douchebagbrainwaves · 4 years

Text

OK, I'LL TELL YOU YOU ABOUT INVESTOR

If anywhere should be quiet, that should. By the nineteenth century that had changed. But the techniques for building integrated circuits, and techniques for building a new type of venture firm? They just arrived back from NYC, and when you resort to that the results are distinctly inferior. If the startup can't raise the rest, the lead is out too.1 The other big force leading people astray is money. Now I would guess that practically every Stanford or Berkeley undergrad who knows how to program has at least considered the idea of fixing payments was right there in plain sight, they never saw it, because their unconscious mind shrank from the complications involved. Google, companies in Silicon Valley than Boston, then they're better off in Silicon Valley in the 1960s.2 And this is not a policy question.

So when you get a rejection, use the data that's in it, and the granary the wealth that each family created. The structure of their business means a partner does at most 2 new investments a year, the total cost in stock of a new hire's salary and overhead into stock you should multiply the annual rate by about 1. And VCs who try to compete with angels by doing more, smaller deals will probably find they have to work actively to prevent your company growing into a weed tree, dependent on this source of easy but low-margin money.3 To survive it you need a set of techniques mostly orthogonal to those used in physically getting up and down mountains. Idealistic undergraduates find their unconsciously preserved child's model of wealth confirmed by eminent writers of the past. And since I know from my own experience that the rule against buying stock from founders is a stupid one, this is exactly what you'd get on noticing that some people made much more than others.4 But the two phenomena rapidly fused to produce a principle that now seems obvious: paying energetic young people market rates, and getting correspondingly high performance from them.5

They're all competing for a slice of a fixed amount of funding is an obsolete one left over from the days when I might as well have sat in front of his client, that he'd screwed up, he instead had to insist on retaining all the draconian terms in it, and not simply write that stocks were up or down, reporter looks for good or bad news there was that day? For example, if you find yourself packing a bottle of vodka just in case.6 When you do negotiate with VCs, remember that they've done this a lot more on its design. But I have no trouble imagining that one person could be 100 times as much.7 We spent three months building a version 1, which we then presented to investors, constantly look for signs of where you stand. For me the list is four things: books, earplugs, a notebook, and a pen. That's why our motto is Make something people want. Prestige is the opinion of the rest of the world in 587, the Chinese system was very enlightened. It shows no sign of slowing. In a traditional series A round for, say, corporate law, or medicine.8

A big-name firms, but they aren't one another's main competitor. But some spectacular boundary cases like Einstein in the patent office proved they weren't identical. I'm less American than I seem. Deadlock wasn't the only disadvantage of letting a lead investor manage an angel round before going to VCs. You turn the fan back on, and the terms end up being whatever the lawyer considers vanilla. But there is another set of customs for being ingratiating in print is that most essays are written to persuade.9 Why risk it? It will be very valuable to understand precisely which ideas to keep and which can now be reduced to a formula. And of course there's another kind of thinking, when you're starting something new, that requires complete quiet. In a typical VC funding deal, the capitalization table looks like this: Starting a startup gives you more freedom and the opportunity to make a small number of expensive ones.10 If an investor gives you specific reasons for not investing, look at your startup and ask if they're right.

There are millions of small businesses in America, but only a few thousand are startups. And so they can try him out—and then a month later as employee #1. It costs you a little more information, and that was called work; the rest of the world in 587, the Chinese system was very enlightened. Make sure if you take the latter route that the lawyer is representing you rather than merely advising you, or his only duty is to the advantage of investors, who have in the past.11 Some ideas so obviously entail alarming schleps that anyone can see them. But except for these few anomalous cases, work was pretty much defined as not-fun. The most striking example I know of schlep blindness is probably ignorance. And the reason it's inaccurate is that, paradoxically, funding very early stage startups is not mainly about funding.12 Captains of industry issued orders to armies of workers, and everyone knew what they were supposed to do.

Notes

We wasted little time on, cook up a take out your anti-dilution provisions, even if we think we're so useless that in New York, people who said he'd met with a lawsuit just as big a cause as it sounds.

The Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2006. It's hard to say now. Many people feel confused and depressed in their graves at that. So if anything Boston is falling further and further behind.

Predecessors like understanding seem to have fun in college is much into gaming. The empirical evidence suggests that if the public conversation about women consists of fighting, their voices. That will in many cases be an inverse correlation between the two elsewhere, but I think this is also the perfect point to spread from.

In this context, issues basically means things we're going to have been five years ago.

In high school is rounding error compared to what used to reply that they discovered in the back of your last round of funding rounds are at some of those things that's not true. In part because Steve Jobs got pushed out by Mitch Kapor, is that they can grow the acquisition offers are driven only by money. 17 pilot in World War II had become so embedded that they cared about doing search well at a particular valuation, that good art is a bit misleading to treat macros as a kid.

This law does not appear to be extra skeptical about any plan that centers on things you like doing. Siegel points out that successful startups get started in 1975, said the wage differentials prevailing at the network level, because Julian got 10% of the things we focus on their ability but women based on respect for their judgement. An investor who says he's interested in each type of mail, I was just having lunch.

For founders who are weak in other ways.

But so many of which he can be fooled by grammar.

A rounds from top VC funds whether it was briefly in Britain in the world, and a back-office manager written mostly in good ways. Back when students focused mainly on getting a job after college, they sometimes describe it as a predictor.

Parker, William R. Copyright owners tend to make that their system can't be buying users for more than most people don't dislike him for a long time by sufficiently large numbers of users comes from ads on other investors doing so much control, and for recent art, they mean. One new thing the company goes public. It should be asking will you build this?

People tell the craziest lies about me. 6 billion for the next uptick after that, go ahead. At one point a competitor will deliberately threaten you with a Web browser that you can do is adjust the weights till the top stories were de facto chosen by human editors.

2%. And when they were forced to stop, but unfortunately not true! Few can have a big VC firm wants to program a Turing machine. I wrote the first million is worth more, and partly because you need to be, and when given the Earldom of Rutland.

Thanks to Maria Daniels, Paul Buchheit, Robert Morris, Sarah Harlin, Savraj Singh, and Geoff Ralston for inviting me to speak.

0 notes

carolinelinn233-blog · 5 years

Text

Cunyfirst website redesign

Overview: Cunyfirst is a website that all CUNY students used to enroll their classes, review financial aid, make payments, and all other pieces of information that were provided by the website. This site can also link us to the blackboard, CUNY portal or FAFSA, etc. I decided to redesign the CUNYfirst Website. The problem with this website is many contents and navigation that we never used before. Too much white spacing, no grids or structure was used, and there is no hierarchy on text or icon. Some of the links we don’t even know when to use it or how to use it. This redesign would be easier to use and more readable to the users.

I interviewed several different CUNY students. And the activity that related to my topic. My target is the CUNY staff, student, and teacher. My goals are to find out what is their opinion about CUNYfirst overall design, what sites they usually used, what are some pain points they have.

Questions& Answer

Q: How’s your experience with the home page of the Cunyfirst website?

p1: It's alright since I mostly use it to access my student center p2: A LOT Better ever since they fixed the oracle sign in issue p3: Terrible, error on login sometimes p4: It’s ok. p5: It’s complicated p6: My experience with the CUNYFIRST homepage isn’t much since I go straight to the student center. I don’t have much experience exploring the homepage.

Q: Have your ever scroll down the page to see what is below?

p1: yes p2: no p3: never p4: Yes, I did but only once for a project. I usually just go straight to the student center of CUNYFIRST.

Q: What do you like or dislike about the Homepage?

p1: I dislike that the layout of the contents is pretty much squished together p2: I like that it looks clean and simple p3: The font size is too small p4: It has multiple information. p5: Too messy p6: I dislike the layout of the CUNYFIRST homepage. All important dates and information are at the bottom of the page which isn’t viewed often. I think all the important information should be at the top of the homepage.

Q: Are there specific things that bother you?

p1: The layout looks messy p2: Sometimes I still have to log in twice p3: Too much information, and some information I don’t need to know p4: Sometimes it shows error. p5: Login p6: The layout is the only thing that really bothers me about the CUNYFIRST homepage.

Q6: Is there anything you would like to be changed?

p1: I would want the information to be spread apart so I won't be looking at a screen full of text. It might be more comfortable with my eyes if I can focus on one thing at a time. p2: Not really p3: Yes, make the font bigger and stay the section that mostly used p4: N/A p5: the whole thing p6: I would like the layout of the homepage to change so that it’s easy to find important information.

Q: Have you ever read the information that was provided for the Cunyfirst website? For example Cunyfirst Alert, IDNYC card, or CUNYfirst notices, etc

p1:no p2: no p3: no p4: no

Q3: Based on question #2 which information tab do you think is the most important?

p1: roll p2: Cunyfirst Alert p3: Student center p4: QC announcements

Q5: When you want to check your Financial Aid or blackboard at the cunyfirst website what do you usually do? Do you prefer the links to be at Cunyfirst website or the Student center?

p1: On the CUNYfirst website so it’s easier to find rather than having to search through the student center. p2: yes p3: Student center p4: I would go into the student center to access degree work or blackboard. I would prefer the links to be in CUNYfirst

Q6: What is the process that you take to enroll a class?

P1: I usually go the student student and click search to find my class and enroll p2: Student center,enroll, select the term, and click the search button on the left corner p3: Login to Cunyfirst click student center and search P4: student center and search

Q7: Is there a website function or format that you like? And wish it could appear on the Cunyfirst website?

p1: Don’t know p2: A website function I wish appeared on CUNYfirst is a link to the CUNY campus homepage. Since each school has its own homepage, each student at the school should be able to access their school’s homepage from any CUNY site including CUNYFIRST. p3: N/A p4: It would be great if we can also access our school email at CUNYfirst

Key Findings

Users wish that the font size of the pages would be bigger

Users wishes it needs more navigation links to other school relate links

Users said the layout is confusing and misleading

Users wish some content that needs to removed since it won’t respond

Users wish they would click less tabs to find things

Here all the problem that the users has a problem with:

Pain point: One of my interviewers said the layout is too messy and there is a lot of pieces of information that we don’t need. There is too much white space that is used and some important things that were list below and people will never check. overall, the problem is that the layout is too messy and all the information all squish together. When you scroll down the page there is information about payment due dates and registration to vote tabs that the student would never know because they barely scroll down.

Financial aid service and enrollment of the classes are inside the Student center and you have to click multiple tabs to get what you want. My interviewer felt misleading and not user friendly. Some of the tabs links to the same places which is not necessary.

What I would DO:

So, the information on the bottom should move to the top of the page to balance the layout. Plus there should be a hierarchy between title and the font size. All the letters look way too small and not readable. Delete some information that is not necessary and kept the important information that student wanted to have in a eye catching spot.

Focus Point

After the interviews, I want to do more focus on the the navigation tabs and make it easier for users. Also, some website functions they would or wish to have on the home page.

Personas

Empathy Map

Think

CUNYfirst is inconvenient to use for users

Why is all the important information was placed at the bottom of the website?

Why squished all the information together

Why are tabs links to same thing

Why do we have to click so many tabs just to access the information user wants

Feel

Annoyed

Terrible

Dissatisfied

Anxious

See

Most of the CUNY student complaining about the layout of the Hompage

Most design Professors don’t like the design and its hard to find things

There are people want to make changes to the site but no one wants to do it

Hear

They have to refresh the website multiple times

It's hard to go the Home page

All they need is the student center

Want links to appear on the Home page of the CUNYFIRST

Say

Make the layout neater

Removed some useless tabs

Play with the negative space that was around

Create hierarchies between the icon and the text

Doesn’t have to click multiple tabs to get access

They don’t access to Cunyfirst too often

Always go to the student center if they need something

Ignore all the announcement that was provided

Never scroll down to the bottom of the Page

Pain

Unable to read the information that was provide by the site

Some doesn’t know the tuition liability because they never scroll down

Won’t be able to access links to different website (BB, Degree work, etc) at the Home page

Hard to go back to Home page when they want to

Have to restart over again when clicking the wrong tab

Gain

Want to be able to access the important information quickly

Easier way to access the links

A neater looking website with text hierarchy

Point of view

CUNY students want a more effective website for the homepage and would be able to read the important information/links that was provided or needed because the layout of the page make everything squished together not readable

How might we

use the grid system to make CUNY homepage more convenient for the student/ professor?

provide links to different sites for the students?

arrange the information that is most important for students?

Make the site easier to access?

create hierarchy within the tabs ?

HOW/NOW/WOW

How: I want to redesign CUNYFirst Homepage so that the user would get rid of the worry that they have and easily to get access to it

Now: Apply grid system for the website and rearrange the information

Wow: redesign the icon tabs and the top of the website

Low-fi Wireframe

Hi-fi Wireframe + Prototype link

https://www.figma.com/proto/xACdrae6spR87dgOZBkb0V/SCHOOL?node-id=79%3A59&scaling=contain

moodboard

https://www.pinterest.com/zzzzzzz1285/interaction-design

AB testing

APPCrit: https://carolinelinn233.tumblr.com/post/618032946768642048/interaction-design-app-critique

INTERACTION DESIGN- School& Department List Redesign:

https://carolinelinn233.tumblr.com/post/617403365728681984/interaction-design-school-department-lis

0 notes

izumines-blog · 7 years

Text

TT (Japanese ver.) - TWICE (트와이스) || English translation + Lyrics

youtube

Vocals: TWICE (트와이스) (Nayeon, Jeongyeon, Momo, Sana, Jihyo, Mina, Dahyun, Chaeyoung, Tzuyu) Proofreader: Kaori Translator: ash✿ (@chiiash)

✲ If you see any error/s, don’t hesitate to message me or point out the error!

✲ To view the color-coded lyrics, click here!

✲ Certain lines were difficult to translate, I also had a hard time trying not to make them sound complex to avoid T/N’s, but even so, please read the end note for more explanations!

✲ “TT (Japanese Ver.)” is the 3rd track in TWICE’s Japanese debut album, “#TWICE”. Please support TWICE by buying their Japanese debut album! (translated album information)

⚠️ Please DO NOT repost or place my translation in captions/subtitles in YouTube!

⚠️ DO NOT re-upload them either with lyrics in YouTube! If you wish to share them, don’t hesitate to message me.

Japanese | Romaji | English

マジで焦っちゃって　見つめるだけで何もできない　ba-ba-ba-baby 想像して　その名前も呼び捨て　baby 知り合う前なのにねどんな服も素敵にコーディネート鏡の中　君とFASHION SHOW SHOW 今度こそ talk talk 私からな誓うけど　誓うだけで oh no maji de asecchatte mitsumeru dake de nani mo dekinai ba-ba-ba-baby souzou shite sono namae mo yobisute baby shiriau mae na noni ne donna fuku mo suteki ni KOODINEETO kagami no naka kimi to FASHION SHOW SHOW kondo koso talk talk watashi kara na chikau kedo chikau dake de oh no I get seriously impatient as I just stare at you I can’t do anything, ba-ba-ba-baby I imagine saying that name informally, baby Even before we’re acquainted Every kind of clothes are coordinated nicely Inside the mirror, a fashion show show with you This time, the talk talk is from me I promise, but I just promise, oh no

ナナナナナナナ口ずさんでみて Sweet love song ねぇ　どうしてそれだけで　涙が出そう Oh I Love You So Much na na na na na na na kuchizusan de mite Sweet love song nee doushite sore dake de namida ga desou Oh I love you so much Na na na na na na na I hum a sweet love song Hey, why is it only with that, I start crying? Oh I love you so much

大人ぶってみたって　ダメね心のディスプレイ　いつも泣いてる絵文字制御しよう　と思うほど溢れ出すラブ　溢れてbaby I’m like TT Just like TT 気づかないふりやめてやめて I’m like TT Just like TT tell me that you’d be my baby otona butte mitatte dame ne kokoro no DISUPUREI itsumo naiteru emoji seigyo shiyou to omou hodo afuredasu RABU afurete baby I’m like TT Just like TT kidzukanai furi yamete yamete I’m like TT Just like TT tell me that you’d be my baby Even if I act like an adult, it’s useless My heart always displays a crying emoji I think to an extent, “Let’s control it” This overflowing love, overflow baby I’m like TT, just like TT Stop pretending you didn’t notice, stop I’m like TT, just like TT Tell me that you’d be my baby

見た目は標準点　可愛いのにだって褒めてないし　ba-ba-ba-baby 落ち込んで　でもなんで　お腹は空くの甘い刺激　I need cookie mita me wa hyoujun ten kawaii noni datte hometenai shi ba-ba-ba-baby ochikonde demo nande onaka wa suku no amai shigeki I need cookie My appearance is in a standard point, but it’s cute nevertheless You didn’t compliment me, ba-ba-ba-baby I’m depressed but why am I hungry? A sweet motivation, I need a cookie

ダメメメ　ぬいぐるみ怒ったりして引きこもってたい無意味なtime　今日は流れお肌の調子も　not good good ネガティブ　独り言　ブーブーまま失敗　all the time yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah dame me me nuigurumi okottarishite hikikomotte tai muimi na time kyou wa nagare ohada no choushi mo not good good NEGATIBU hitorigoto buu buu mama shippai all the time yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah It’s no no no good, I got angry at a plush toy I want to shut myself; this meaningless time, today is passing* The tone of your skin is also not good good A negative monologue, boo-boo I occasionally fail all the time Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

ナナナナナナナお気に入りだって Sweet love song 気分逆撫で　イライラで　爆発しそう Oh I Love You So Much na na na na na na na okiniiri datte Sweet love song kibun sakanade ira ira de bakuhatsu shisou Oh I love you so much Na na na na na na na Still my favorite sweet love song I’m going to explode with this annoying feeling of irritation, oh I love you so much

大人ぶってみたって　ダメね君のリアクション次第で　気持ち　up&down 今までない　非常事態止まらないラブ　止めてよ baby I’m like TT Just like TT 振り回すのはやめて　やめて I’m like TT Just like TT tell me that you’d be my baby otona butte mitatte dame ne kimi no RIAKUSHON shidai de kimochi up and down ima made nai hijoujitai tomaranai RABU tomete yo baby I’m like TT Just like TT furimawasu no wa yamete yamete I’m like TT Just like TT tell me that you’d be my baby Even if I act like an adult, it’s useless Depending on your reaction, my feelings go up & down This is an emergency like never before This unstoppable love, stop it baby I’m like TT, just like TT Stop displaying it around, stop I’m like TT, just like TT Tell me that you’d be my baby

私を知らないまま　誰かに恋したら嫌だよ今度こそ　talk talk 私からな誓うけど　誓うだけで　oh no watashi wo shiranai mama dareka ni koishitara iyada yo kondo koso talk talk watashi kara na chikau kedo chikau dake de oh no Without knowing me, please don’t fall in love with someone else This time, the talk talk is from me I promise, but I just promise oh no

大人ぶってみたって　ダメね心のディスプレイ　いつも泣いてる絵文字制御しよう　と思うほど溢れ出すラブ　溢れて baby I’m like TT Just like TT 気づかないふりやめてやめて I’m like TT Just like TT tell me that you’d be my baby otona butte mitatte dame ne kokoro no DISUPUREI itsumo naiteru emoji seigyo shiyou to omou hodo afuredasu RABU afurete baby I’m like TT Just like TT kidzukanai furi yamete yamete I’m like TT Just like TT tell me you’d be my baby Even if I act like an adult, it’s useless My heart always displays a crying emoji I think to an extent, “Let’s control it” This overflowing love, overflow baby I’m like TT, just like TT Stop pretending you didn’t notice, stop I’m like TT, just like TT Tell me that you’d be my baby

★　☆　★　☆　★　 ★　☆　★　☆　★　 ★　☆　★　☆　★　☆　★　☆　★　 ☆　★　☆　★

T/N: In case some lines didn’t make sense, here are some lines with a few explanations of what I think it means－

※ I think to an extent, “Let’s control it” ― By “let’s control it,” it means “I” want to control “my” feelings.

※ My feelings go up & down ― Feeling nervous.

※ Stop displaying it around, stop ― (Let’s say that “I” is a “she”) She is trying to say that her feelings should stop trying to display it or show it off to the person she likes.

※ This is an emergency like never before ― “emergency” is referred to as the nervousness the “I” (am) feeling due to “your” reaction.

※ I promise, but I just promise ― since the line before this is “this time, the talk talk is from me,” this line (bold) is trying to say that it’s like the only promise “I” will make. Or disregarding the previous line, this may also mean, “I promise, but it’s only a promise, nothing more.”

※ Line “引きこもってたい無意味なtime 今日は流れ” was honestly hard (probably due to lack of particles). “引きこもる” (base of “引きこもって(たい)”) means to seclude one’s self, stay indoors, or simply be a shut-in. The word “引く” however, means to draw back or withdraw something. Considering the latter explanation, the translation would be “I want to withdraw/draw back this meaningless time; today is passing” instead of “I want to shut myself; this meaningless time, today is passing” which doesn’t make much sense.

※ As for line “いつも泣いてる絵文字,” it might sound misleading because in the first chorus, “泣いてる (naiteru)” would be heard as “抱いてる (daiteru),” which if you imply that in the line, it would be translated as “My heart always displays an embracing emoji” which is already out of context. “TT” is a crying emoji, so it definitely wouldn’t make sense if it were “抱いてる” instead of “泣いてる,” plus it would be way more logical if the latter was used than the former.

Even though no official lyrics had been out for this Japanese version, I decided to put this up due to fans’ inaccurate translations. I’ve already seen several videos of this song with lyrics & English translations, which honestly is absolutely inaccurate and Google translated.

But if ever my translation have any small mistranslations or some errors, please don’t hesitate to send me a message as soon as possible!

Thank you for reading~ (✿◠‿◠)

13 notes · View notes

path-to-the-salaf-2 · 8 years

Text

The Myth of Darwinian Evolution (Part 2) – Natural Selection

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salātu Was Salāmu ‘alā rasoolillahi

Ammā Ba’d

The Myth of Darwinian Evolution (Part 2) – Natural Selection

We begin this section by mentioning that the issue of Natural Selection is perhaps the most fundamental, key issue Darwin’s theory of Evolution is based upon. Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution, then sought evidence to substantiate the theory, this is important to note. It explains why Darwin and scientist believers in his theory, have struggled desperately to establish the evidence to confirm it.

In his book The origin of species Darwin presented three main arguments:

That species are not immutable (lit: Fixed, unchangeable), that is to say, new species of living beings have appeared during earths long history, through a process he named decent through modification (Random, undirected, mutations in the organisms DNA, leading to the development of an advanced version of the same creature, and this process continued until we have a completely new ‘species’ of animal that is unable to breed with its pre-species)

That this process accounts for all diversity of life

That this process was guided by Natural selection (survival of the fittest, the weaker inferior creature was surpassed by the new ‘mutant’ creature and thus it survived and the previous lifeform didn’t)

This third issue of natural selection is the topic at hand here,

As mentioned previously, Darwins theory of natural selection is based upon decent through modification. Darwin claimed that all species of animal after the first lifeform, are descended with modification from some other species. Therefore, everything in Darwin’s theory revolves around his argument that, the origin of all and any new species of animal, stem from existing species, what evolutionary biologist call speciation (spee-see-ay-shun). Proving changes within existing species are beside the point. Darwin called his book ‘on the origin of species’ since he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species to another was the most fundamental problem of his evolution theory. Thus the issue at hand is not change ‘within’ a species, but one species becoming another.

So speciation is Darwinism’s most fundamental problem, the starting point for everything else in evolutionary theory. It is not an issue for believers in intelligent design though, those who believe in an ever-living most-knowledgeable, Most-wise creator, do not have any issues here.

Speciation is not an issue for them, since every organism that exists, points clearly and categorically towards design. The creator of those organisms has also informed, in his revelation, of how he created. Revelation tallies with everything observed, just as we concluded in our previous house parable, the observed house could only be the work of an architect.

‘Observed’ speciation

As a purely scientific matter however, it is reasonable to ask, has speciation, the most fundamental process in Darwinism, ever been observed.

This on-going process, that has accounted for the development of all species, of fish, reptile, amphibian and mammal should, in order to be a consistent theory, still be observed!

The argument is: that through speciation, all kinds of animal have developed. Due to decent with modification, gradual changes through mutations, all species have developed. Due to fitness, some have survived and others have just not developed or have died out.

Mutation

Mutations are randomly occurring genetic changes, which are nearly always harmful when they produce effects within the organism large enough to be visible. The theory of evolution depends heavily upon mutations. Of course, mutations are genetic ‘errors’ that may occur within the DNA of a cell on rare occasions. While Darwin evolutionists agree that mutations are errors, they argue that those errors may occasionally improve the organisms ability to survive and reproduce. Organisms generally produce more offspring than can survive to maturity. In addition, offspring that have an advantage of this kind, can be expected to go on to produce more descendants themselves, than less advantaged members of the species.

The theory supposes that given enough time, and sufficient mutations of the right sort, enormously complex organs and patterns of adaptive behaviour, can eventually be produced in tiny cumulative steps, without the need for the existence of some pre-existing intelligence.

This is natural selection in a nutshell

Important note:

Before the selection process can begin, there has to be something to “select.” And that something is genes. If evolution can be thought of as manufacturing process whose product is increasingly complex organisms, then genes are its raw materials.

Genes are regions of DNA that consist of thousands to hundreds of thousands of base molecules arranged in a precise sequence. Needless to say, producing such a highly organized structure from a random, undirected process is a tall order. In fact, the chance of getting the correct sequence of molecules by happenstance is about one in ten to the thousandth power 101000 (that is ten with 1000 zeros!), even for the smallest gene!

Macro mutation Vs Micro mutation

Mutations are of two main types:

Macro mutations (Also known as saltation): A macro mutation is a major mutation that occurs within the gene structure of a cell, having a profound effect upon changing the nature of the cell and thus the organism itself.

Micro mutations: A micro mutation, is a minor, small-scale or highly localized mutation, one involving alteration at a single gene locus (the position of a gene within a chromosome)

Darwin argued, in essence, that evolution was based in macro evolution. That there would be major mutations that bring about major changes in an organism that would lead, in time, to the mutated organism surviving and changing. Over time it would be unable to breed with its like, but would breed with another similarly mutated organism, and they would go on to become a species.

It must also be born in mind, that DNA has amazing ‘proof reading, self repairing abilities. Chemical damage to DNA occurs naturally as well, and cells use DNA repair mechanisms to repair mismatches and breaks in DNA—nevertheless, the repair sometimes fails to return the DNA to its original sequence. So the theory therefore, is dependant upon waiting for mutations within a cell that would ordinarily repair itself, to fail to repair itself, and for resultant mutation to be ‘beneficial’!

Saltations (or systemic macromutations, as they are often called today) are believed to be theoretically impossible by most scientists, and for good reason. Living creatures are extremely intricate assemblies of interrelated parts, and the parts themselves are also complex. It is impossible to imagine how the parts could change in unison as a result of chance mutation. In a word (Darwin’s word), a saltation is equivalent to a miracle. Though he still maintained it ‘could’ happen.

Many organs require an intricate combination of complex parts to perform their functions. The eye and the wing are the most common illustrations, but it would be misleading to give the impression that either is a special case; human and animal bodies are literally packed with similar marvels.

Darwin wrote in The origin of Species:

“Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited variations, each profitable to the preserved being”

How can such things be built up by “infinitesimally small inherited variations, each profitable to the preserved being?” The first step towards a new function- such as vision or ability to fly- would not necessarily provide any advantage unless the other parts required for the function appeared at the same time. As an analogy, imagine a medieval ironsmith producing by chance a silicon microchip; in the absence of supporting computer technology the prodigious invention would be useless and he would throw it away.

The animal that developed the first mutated wing for example would probably have an awkward time climbing or grasping long before they became useful for gliding, thus placing the hypothetical creature at a serious disadvantage. Which, by the standard set in the theory based in ’survival of the fittest’, should cause this mutant creature to die out.

The number of vertebrae has to be changed in whole units, and to accomplish this you need to do more than just ‘shove in’ an extra bone, because each vertebra has associated with it a set of nerves, blood vessels, muscles, and so on. These complicated parts would all have to appear together for the extra vertebrae to make any biological sense

Stephen Jay Gould asked himself “the excellent question, What good is 5 per cent of an eye?,” and speculated that the first eye parts might have been useful for something other than sight. Richard Dawkins responded that – “An ancient animal with 5 per cent of an eye might indeed have used it for something other than sight, but it seems to me as likely that it used it for 5 per cent vision. And actually I don’t think it is an excellent question. Vision that is 5 per cent as good as yours or mine is very much worth having in comparison with no vision at all. So is 1 per cent vision better than total blindness. And 6 per cent is better than 5, 7 per cent better than 6, and so on up the gradual, continuous series.”

The fallacy in that argument is that “5 per cent of an eye” is not the same thing as “5 per cent of normal vision.” For an animal to have any useful vision at all, many complex parts must be working together. Even a complete eye is useless unless it belongs to a creature with the mental and neural capacity to make use of the information by doing something that furthers survival or reproduction. What we have to imagine is a chance mutation that provides this complex capacity all at once, at a level of utility sufficient to give the creature an advantage in producing offspring.

(It is also worth noting that is it well known among biolologists, that animals with gene related deformities have generally been found to be sterile)

Bird and bat wings appear in the fossil records already developed, and no one has ever confirmed by experiment that the gradual evolution of wings and eyes is possible.

Thus the issue remains a conundrum for evolutionist. They will continue to defend their position by saying “examples of macro mutation and gradual change in organisms, just haven’t yet been discovered in the fossil records”

Since that is the case it is safe to say it is a theory Darwin thought up and then attempted to seek evidence for. A theory that is thus far, baseless.

Darwin could not point to impressive examples of natural selection in action, so he relied heavily upon an argument by analogy.

Douglas J Futuyma stated:

“When Darwin wrote the origin of species he could offer no good cases for natural selection because no one had looked for them. He drew instead an analogy with the artificial selection that animal and plant breeders use to improve domesticated varieties of animals and plants. By breeding only from the woolliest sheep, the most fertile chickens, and so on. Breeders have been spectacularly successful at altering almost every imaginable characteristic of our domesticated animals and plants, to the point where most of them differ from their wild ancestors, far more than related species differ from them“.

The analogy to artificial selection is misleading. Plant and animal breeders employ intelligence, and specialised knowledge to select breeding stock and to protect them from natural dangers.

The point of Darwin’s theory was to establish that senseless, purposeless, natural processes can substitute for intelligent design.

The fact that he defended his point using examples and accomplishments of intelligent designers, only proves that his audience was highly uncritical of him!

Artificial selection is not basically the same sort of thing as natural selection, but fundamentally different.

Human breeders produce variations in pigeons or chickens or sheep for purposes absent in nature. When domesticated animals return to the wild, they revert quickly to their wild state, the most highly specialised breeds quickly perish.

Additionally breeders have created no new ‘species’. For example all dogs are of a single species because they are chemically capable of interbreeding. They are dogs. Differences in size may make mating with some breeds impractical. But they remain dogs!

The late French zoologist and evolutionist Pierre-P. Grassé concluded: “The results of artificial breeding provides powerful testimony against darwins theory, in spite of the intense pressure generated by artificial selection, eliminating any parent not answering the criteria of choice, over a whole millennia, no new species are born”

The fact is that selection gives tangible form to, and gathers together, all the varieties a genome (the genetic material of an organism consisting of DNA) is capable of producing but does not constitute and innovative evolutionary process.

In other words the reason dogs don’t become as big as elephants much less change into elephants, is not that we just haven’t been breeding them long enough, dogs do not have the genetic capacity for that degree of change. They stop getting bigger when their genetic limit is reached.

Darwinists disagree with this and they have points to make. They point with pride to laboratory experiments with fruit flies, which has not produced anything but fruit flies! though it may have changed some of their characteristics.

As far as animals are concerned darwinists return the inability to produce new species to a lack of sufficient time. The time available has to be taken into account in evaluating breeding experiments but it is also possible that the greater time available to nature is more than counterbalanced by the power of intelligent purpose, which is brought to bear in artificial selection. With respect to the fruit fly experiment for example Pierre-P. Grassé noted that the fruit fly, seems not to have changed since the remotest times. Nature has had plenty of time but it just hadn’t been doing what the experimenters have been doing.

Whether selection has ever accomplished speciation, that is, the production of a new species, is not the point. A biological species is simply a group capable of interbreeding. Success in dividing fruit flies into two or more populations that cannot inter breed, does not constitute evidence that a similar process could in time produce a fruit fly from a bacterium.

Thus if breeders where able to produce dogs that could only breed with itself and not other dogs they would have only made the tinest step towards proving darwins claims. Since only a part of his theory and definition of new species revolved around the new species being unable to breed with the pre-species.

Thus more evidence is needed.

Natural selection is a tautology (a way of saying the same thing twice)

The sum total of the concept is that the species that is strong enough to produce the most offspring…will produce the most offspring!

The famous philosopher of science karl popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) wrote:

“Darwinism is not really a scientific theory, because natural selection is an all-purpose explanation which can account for anything, and which therefore explains nothing!”

A tautology does not explain anything. When I want to know how a fish can become a man I am not enlightened by being told that the organisms that leave the most offspring…leave the most offspring.

The reality of the theory of natural selection is that we are told that the fittest beings remained in a given environment. Characteristics that give offspring an advantage differ from time and place and circumstance. That which may be an advantage in one place may not be so in another. The development of wings on a beetle may be an advantage in one place but if they are close to the sea, for example it could cause them to be light and easy to be blown away to sea, in which case it is a disadvantage. Therefore the characteristic that is considered advantageous to a creature, is that which helps him to survive. When he survives, he leaves the most offspring as a result of his survival. Therefore natural selection in actuality only states the obvious, that the organism that leaves the most offspring…will leave the most offspring!

Natural selection as a deductive argument

Natural selection may be presented in the form of a deductive argument.

For example:

All organisms must reproduce

All organisms exhibit hereditary variations

Hereditary variations differ in their effects on reproduction

Therefore variations with favourable effects on reproduction will succeed, those with unfavourable effects will fail, and organisms will change

From this stand point we see the only thing it establishes, is that some natural selection will occur and not that it is an explanation for evolution. Actually it does not even establish that organisms will change. In any population some animals will leave more offspring than others even if the population is headed for extinction.

Natural selection as a scientific hypothesis

Scientists will insist that Darwinist natural selection is a hypothesis (a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation), that has been so thoroughly and rigorously tested and confirmed by evidence that is should be accepted by reasonable persons as a presumptively adequate explanation for the evolution of complex life forms.

Therefore natural selection in combination with mutation is an innovative revolutionary process with is capable of producing new kinds of organs and organisms.

So the critical question is: What evidence confirms that the hypothesis is true?

Where are the ‘in-between’ species?

The development of species required very ‘gradual’ steps over many, many years. So surely we must have some evidence of at least some of these many gradual developmental changes…but not one!?

In response we will inevitably hear natural selection (survival of the fittest) necessitated, that they died out!

The general hypothesis is that man (and all other creatures for that matter) began as a single cell amoeba and developed into more complex cells which then went on to become a fish, then an amphibian, then a reptilian lizard, then a tree dwelling mammal, then apes, then several stages of ape-man type creatures and then mankind. Of course this is a very general version of the proposed theory.

This presents a number of questions:

If man evolved from apes, why are the apes still here?

If lizards evolved into birds, why are lizards and birds both still here?

Evolutionists will answer this is because we have had evolution ‘cycles’ due to more than one ice age or because all species have common ancestries.

That still does not explain what we only have the presence of huge jumps from one species to another and no sign of the ‘in-between’ species. Bear in mind evolution is proposed to have taken millions of years (another issue that requires discussion). In utter desperation the evolutionist resorts to saying that the ‘missing link’ just has not yet been discovered in the fossil records. Some claim they have already found proof of the missing link, but upon investigation they have all found to be hoaxes. We will look at that under the issue of the fossil records. The reality is though that the missing link is not just one, but thousands of missing links indicative of our gradual development. That is if were looking at the missing link between monkey and man. What of the thousands of missing links between amoeba and fish? Similarly fish to amphibian, then amphibian to reptile.

All species between fish and reptiles died out? Why then did the original species for instance fish survive?

If there were many gradual steps between monkey and man, then why do we have hundreds of species of monkey, the original type, still living but none of the in-between?

The claim is that modern man has been around for 1 million years (yet another ‘claim’)which would necessitate that it would have taken some 100 million years of more for man to develop from Monkey to man. If we said (for the sake of argument) that it took only 10 million years for modern man to develop. That would mean at the rate of significant change there would be perhaps some 200 stages (probably far far more) from ape to man. The original monkey survived, in fact various breeds of monkey and ape, but not one of the 200 variations in between?…not one!?

The question is where are all these varying developmental stages we should see on the planet, since both ends of the spectrum still exist, but not one of the many stages in between, not even a legitimate fossil!

Where are the 10% man 90% ape? Or the 20% man 80% ape etc. Likewise among the other species. Why do so many pre-species, with their varying types, exist alongside their advanced species, and none of the species in-between. Could it possibly be because we actually don’t have perpetual evolution taking place?

Another issue is, why did the evolutionary process of ape to man, stop at man? And if the argument is, it hasn’t stopped with man (i.e. man is still mutating) then why is he the only one evolving.

The point is, evolution is not the ‘easy to accept, highly logical explanation for the origin of all things it is proposed to be, except when we leave these questions out and smooth the theory over.

The language of the evolutionist

Another important issue to note is the language of the evolutionist. It is commonplace to hear (or read) an evolutionist describing how evolution ‘selected’ a species, or caused a certain species to adapt. Or perhaps that evolution ‘fixed’ a particular problem or ‘left’ something since it didn’t need fixing etc. This language points to something that has the powers of reason and design, though they will not refer to it in these terms. It is as though they perceive evolution as some sort of ‘impersonal intelligent force’ that exists, making decisions on how the species needs to evolve.

This is clearly acknowledgement of the need for intelligent design while trying to flee from it as it will be tantamount to acknowledging a ‘creator’ but of course that cannot be done since we have an inability to establish a creator through scientific process.

Not only do we have the magnificent creatures that exist on earth but the ideal food chain to support them. An ecology that is perfect to support life with the ideal gasses, such as oxygen and CO2 etc

Perfection in the seasons and temperatures and the universe. There is beauty and fragrance in the flowers, birds, butterflies etc that for practical purposes should not be here.

Wouldn’t it be fair to say that to postulate that this has come about by chance is a tad far-fetched?

In light of all of this, even atheists like Sir Fred Hoyle have admitted,

“The idea that life originated by the random shuffling of molecules is as ridiculous and improbable as proposing that a tornado blowing through a junkyard would cause the assembly of a 747!”

Hoyle is among many who now concede that the universe is neither old enough nor large enough to produce even the most elemental gene. And without genes, evolution is like a factory assembly line without anything on the conveyor belt.

Conclusion

We are able to say in summary:

That the concept of natural selection is nothing but a statement of the obvious, that is in any given circumstance, the strongest organism that has best ability to leave more offspring…will leave more offspring! and thus survive.

That Darwins intent was that random unguided mutations, were all that were needed to bring about new species of animal.

That through this process, man developed from a single cell organism to where he is today

That natural selection conjectures about survival of the fittest but does not discuss the ‘arrival’ of the fittest

That decent with modification is until now unproven, thus ironically, believers in natural selection (when we really understands the far-fetched nature of what they assert) require far more ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ in it than to have faith in an Intelligent Creator.

If this is the strongest of the evidence presented by the evolutionist and we can see its fragility, the evolutionist retorts ‘but there is clear evidence in fossil records!’ therefore will look at that next.

Wa Sallallahu ‘alā Nabiyinā Muhammad

@abuhakeembilal

#Islaam #Darwinisim #Atheism #Refutation #Muslim #Non-Muslim

1 note · View note

etoroandaxitraderreviews · 4 years

Text

What is an Investment?

Among the reasons many individuals fail, even quite woefully, inside the game of investing is that they play it without having understanding the guidelines that regulate it. It is actually an clear truth that you simply can not win a game in the event you violate its rules. However, you need to know the guidelines before you'll be able to prevent violating them. A different purpose folks fail in investing is the fact that they play the game without understanding what it is all about. This is the reason it can be crucial to unmask the meaning with the term, 'investment'. What's an investment? An investment is definitely an income-generating important. It is really crucial which you take note of each and every word within the definition because they're important in understanding the true meaning of investment.

From the definition above, you will discover two essential options of an investment. Just about every possession, belonging or house (of yours) must satisfy both conditions prior to it may qualify to come to be (or be named) an investment. Otherwise, it will likely be something apart from an investment. The initial feature of an investment is that it can be a useful - some thing that's very useful or important. Therefore, any possession, belonging or property (of yours) which has no worth isn't, and cannot be, an investment. By the common of this definition, a worthless, useless or insignificant possession, belonging or home is just not an investment. Each investment has value which can be quantified monetarily. In other words, each and every investment features a monetary worth.

The second function of TradingGator is that, also to becoming a useful, it have to be income-generating. This implies that it will have to have the ability to generate profits for the owner, or a minimum of, help the owner inside the money-making process. Every single investment has wealth-creating capacity, obligation, responsibility and function. This really is an inalienable function of an investment. Any possession, belonging or house that can not produce income for the owner, or at least assist the owner in generating income, isn't, and cannot be, an investment, irrespective of how valuable or valuable it may be. Also, any belonging that can not play any of those financial roles is not an investment, irrespective of how pricey or expensive it might be.

There's yet another function of an investment that is certainly pretty closely associated towards the second function described above which you ought to be pretty mindful of. This can also assist you realise if a beneficial is an investment or not. An investment that doesn't generate income in the strict sense, or enable in producing income, saves cash. Such an investment saves the owner from some expenses he would have already been producing in its absence, although it may lack the capacity to attract some money for the pocket of your investor. By so performing, the investment generates dollars for the owner, even though not in the strict sense. In other words, the investment still performs a wealth-creating function for the owner/investor.

As a rule, each and every precious, furthermore to being anything that is definitely quite beneficial and crucial, have to possess the capacity to generate revenue for the owner, or save cash for him, just before it may qualify to become referred to as an investment. It really is really essential to emphasize the second feature of an investment (i.e. an investment as getting income-generating). The explanation for this claim is the fact that the majority of people think about only the very first function in their judgments on what constitutes an investment. They realize an investment just as a beneficial, even if the precious is income-devouring. Such a misconception usually has significant long-term financial consequences. Such people normally make expensive monetary errors that expense them fortunes in life.

Maybe, among the causes of this misconception is that it truly is acceptable inside the academic globe. In monetary research in conventional educational institutions and academic publications, investments - otherwise known as assets - refer to valuables or properties. This is the reason business organisations regard all their valuables and properties as their assets, even if they usually do not produce any earnings for them. This notion of investment is unacceptable amongst financially literate folks because it is not only incorrect, but also misleading and deceptive. This is the reason some organisations ignorantly take into account their liabilities as their assets. This is also why some people also think about their liabilities as their assets/investments.

It is a pity that a lot of people today, in particular financially ignorant men and women, look at valuables that consume their incomes, but don't produce any earnings for them, as investments. Such people record their income-consuming valuables on the list of their investments. Individuals who do so are monetary illiterates. That is why they have no future in their finances. What financially literate people today describe as income-consuming valuables are viewed as as investments by economic illiterates. This shows a difference in perception, reasoning and mindset amongst financially literate people today and financially illiterate and ignorant men and women. For this reason financially literate folks have future in their finances while financial illiterates don't.

In the definition above, the initial point you ought to consider in investing is, "How worthwhile is what you desire to acquire along with your income as an investment?" The higher the worth, all points becoming equal, the superior the investment (although the greater the cost of the acquisition will most likely be). The second factor is, "How substantially can it create for you?" If it is a precious but non income-generating, then it is actually not (and cannot be) an investment, needless to say that it cannot be income-generating if it truly is not a important. Hence, when you can't answer both questions within the affirmative, then what you will be carrying out cannot be investing and what you will be acquiring can't be an investment. At most effective, you might be acquiring a liability.

0 notes

shirlleycoyle · 5 years

Text

Why IBM Thinks Google Hasn’t Achieved ‘Quantum Supremacy’

Google’s claim to “quantum supremacy” has finally been published in Nature, a month after its research was accidentally leaked online.

But quantum supremacy has definitely not been reached, according to IBM’s quantum computing research team, who argued in a blog post that it’s not even really a thing.

IBM’s resounding rejection of the much-hyped quantum computing milestone came two days before Google's paper was published on Wednesday. The scientific community has been waiting for its publication with bated breath, and a good amount of skepticism, since a draft paper appeared online last month.

In a blog post published on Monday, IBM researchers Edwin Pednault, John Gunnels and Jay Gambetta disputed Google’s claim that it would take a state-of-the-art classical computer around 10,000 years to complete the sampling task Google used to demonstrate quantum supremacy on its Sycamore quantum computer. "Supremacy" here is the point at which a quantum computer can quickly complete tasks that would take a non-quantum computer more than a human lifetime to do.

The researchers instead claim that IBM’s Summit supercomputer could perform effectively the same job in just 2.5 days, by using hard drive storage and “performance-enhancing techniques,” which Google allegedly did not consider in its estimation.

“The concept of 'quantum supremacy' showcases the resources unique to quantum computers, such as direct access to entanglement and superposition,” IBM's blog post states. “However, classical computers have resources of their own such as a hierarchy of memories and high-precision computations in hardware, various software assets, and a vast knowledge base of algorithms, and it is important to leverage all such capabilities when comparing quantum to classical.”

In an email, a Google spokesperson said that they welcome new work on advanced classical simulation techniques, like those proposed by IBM, but emphasized that it's crucial to test these techniques on actual classical supercomputers, which IBM has not yet done. The spokesperson also reiterated the company’s claims to quantum supremacy.

“With Sycamore we’ve demonstrated that we’re now in the NISQ [Noise Intermediate-Scale Quantum] era, performing on real hardware a computation that’s prohibitively hard for even the world’s fastest supercomputer, with more double exponential growth to come.

“We’ve already peeled away from classical computers, onto a totally different trajectory,” they said.

The focus on whether or not Google has achieved quantum supremacy has arguably overshadowed the real innovations it did demonstrate in the research paper. Regardless of how long it would take a classical computer to simulate the same task, Google’s quantum system is the first superconducting quantum computer of this scale which is programmable, which means it can receive instructions for many different tasks, rather than being designed to execute one specific task.

Google also showed it had achieved an important level of monitoring and control over the quantum computer, turning off one faulty qubit—the quantum equivalent of a computer bit storing 1s and 0s—out of the original 54 to reduce errors resulting from other qubits interacting with it.

Even IBM gave Google props for this. "Google’s experiment is an excellent demonstration of the progress in superconducting-based quantum computing, showing state-of-the-art gate fidelities on a 53-qubit device," the blog said, while maintaining that it still should not be considered proof of supremacy.

“I regard the quality of the fabrication and the way the control systems work as a superb piece of engineering,” said Peter Knight, a professor of quantum optics at Imperial College London and advisor to the UK Research & Innovation’s (UKRI) Quantum Technology Strategic Advisory Board.

“Other people are getting there," he added, "but it really is quite difficult to reduce the noise down to achieve this level of control”

According to Knight, there’s also much to be said for reducing the power and resources it takes to run computational tasks. Even if, as IBM claim, a classical computer can achieve similar results in 2.5 days, Google’s ability to complete the task in just 300 seconds has huge implications. Knight mentioned, as an example, the “computationally intensive” problem of protein folding—a biochemical process thought to cause diseases like Alzheimers when it goes wrong— which quantum startups are already working on.

Yet IBM has not provided enough detail on its own claims about classical simulations for it to be independently verified, Knight said, though some of his own colleagues have already started that work.

The dispute over quantum supremacy runs much deeper than the current back-and-forth over whether supremacy has been reached, however. IBM’s criticism goes even further, rejecting the very notion of quantum supremacy.

Like many others, including the inventor of the term "quantum supremacy," IBM prefers to talk about "quantum advantages," referring to the value that quantum computers deliver without comparing them to classical computers. IBM proposes alternative milestones: quantum computers which use a fraction of the memory required by classical computers, and quantum computers which can do tasks that are not possible for classical computers to do even within thousands of years.

“It is well known in the quantum community that we at IBM are concerned of where the term 'quantum supremacy' has gone,” the IBM blog states. “A headline that includes some variation of “Quantum Supremacy Achieved” is almost irresistible to print, but it will inevitably mislead the general public. First because by its strictest definition the goal has not been met. But more fundamentally, because quantum computers will never reign 'supreme' over classical computers, but will rather work in concert with them, since each have their unique strengths.”

For all the hype, quantum "supremacy" is not the only way to evaluate quantum computing progress, and arguably it’s not the most useful either.

“The supremacy experiment/benchmark is not tied to practical applications/implications,” Lieven Vandersypen, a professor at QuTech, a quantum research lab at the Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands, said. “Quantum supremacy as claimed by Google may give the wrong impression that we can now use quantum computers to solve relevant problems. That is in fact still many years away. The supremacy claim pertains to a very artificial and useless problem.”

Vandersypen said he is still extremely impressed by Google’s technical achievement, highlighting the fact that the system had more than 50 qubits but less than a 1% error rate. But he believes other ways of evaluating quantum progress are more meaningful and practical, including IBM’s published benchmarking system.

In response to a request for comment, IBM directed Motherboard to a company blog on measuring quantum computing power, which lays out their approach.The approach is much more closely tied to commercial and practical considerations than the more abstract notion of "supremacy." It measures four key features of the qubit chip (relaxation, dephasing, two-qubit error rates, and single-qubit error rates) and defines a new metric called Quantum Volume to evaluate overall performance of the computer, including errors, device connectivity and computer efficiency.

Conversations around how to validate and measure quantum computing innovation are still at a very early stage, Knight said, since benchmarking has only become a relevant consideration with the latest quantum breakthroughs.

And, despite the caveats and arguments, this is why he is so impressed by Google’s recent work, he said. The quality of its quantum device has shown, even without any comparison to classical computers, that we’re a step closer to really useful quantum machines.

Why IBM Thinks Google Hasn’t Achieved ‘Quantum Supremacy’ syndicated from https://triviaqaweb.wordpress.com/feed/

0 notes

christsbride · 5 years

Text

Spark Spiritual Conversations

There is something that transcends this physical material world. Every human knows it, feels it. All humanity, atheists, humanists, agnostics, and all other religions all willingly or unwillingly, knowingly or unknowingly admit that there are two elements of the human existence; purpose/meaning and belonging. These are the essential elements of human existence that will ALWAYS spark spiritual thought and lead to a gospel presentation. Everyone knows they have a sense of purpose and meaning. This is why people decided to feed themselves and keep themselves alive instead of the alternative. This is why atheists don't commit suicide when they claim to believe life has not real meaning or purpose, yet, they still willfully choose to exist and strive for some sort of meaning and purpose everyday. Their argumentation alone proves they believe in some sort of meaning in life, if they feel a need to argue for what they believe. They prove the existence of purpose, if they feel they need to argue for their beliefs in that it gives them a sense of purpose. With this in mind, a simple question like "Why did you choose to do that?" or "Why do you want that?" can lead down the spiritual road. There is a universal transcendent sense of belonging and community. Even those who are "loners" or deemed "anti-social" still subscribe to ideologies and beliefs of others and make those ideas their own; they in some sense satisfy their inherent need to belong. Atheists belong to atheist communities and subscribe to a set of ideals and beliefs that gives them the sense of belonging, even if they don't want to admit it. With this in mind, a simple question like "Why do you think that?" or "Where did you get that from?" can lead to spiritual conversations.

Why did you choose to do that?

Why do you want that?

Why do you think that?

Where did you get that from?

These are all questions they, anyone, can ask you as well.

Atheist: "Why did you choose to do that?" YOU: "Because it is the right thing to do."

When that door has been opened by you simply injecting the concept of rightness, follow-up questions are critical. Once you ask the question, you become the driver of the conversation.

YOU: "What, you wouldn't have chosen to do that too? Why not? Atheist: "Because I don't think it's right" or "Because I think something else is better."

If you notice, they take the bait and entertain a discussion of rightness. You start driving down a road that leads to the issue of morality, right and wrong, good, better or worse. Again, as long as the person is open for discussion, keep driving down that road with follow-up questions.

YOU: "How is it not right?" or "What makes something else better?" Atheist: "Because I think/believe..."

At this point, they have just used some sort of standard by which they judge things to be right or wrong, better or worse, good or evil. From there, you can go straight to the essence of the issue with first real spiritually related follow-up question:

YOU: "What makes that right/good/better?" Atheist: "Because..."

Here they have just explicitly stated their moral standard and are officially now in a conversation about morality. From there is just a simple inquiry of exposing contradictory, illogical, irrational thought of relativism and subjective humanism. Big fancy words that basically lead them to admit that they can't say rape and killing innocent people (murder) sanctioned by governments or cultures is wrong. Because no matter their standard of right and wrong, it will always be determined by a government and culture of that time and age. Thus, the specific example is, the Holocaust which was condoned by the German people and legal under the Nazi government. This is how we know that universal transcendent morality, good, comes from outside of humanity. But all those are arguments you have to study up on. Here, we are addressing how to SPARK a conversation that would lead to a Spiritual conversation and ultimately a gospel presentation. Follow-up Questions and Specificity are the two lanes of discussion that CAN lead down the road to a spiritual conversation. Since YOU are the driver and see every interaction with God's creation as a potential opportunity to glorify him; every conversation is Missional. Conversations About Religion IF and WHEN the conversation enters the specific topic of religion, it becomes a million times more easy to present the gospel. Usually after the lines of questioning above, they will often say things like:

Atheist: "Oh, your one of those Christians, aren't you?" or "Are you a Christian?" or "Are you religious?"

When this question comes up, more than likely, they already have a ignorant false assumed picture of what "Christian" is. They may have gone to church when they were young. They may have other "Christian" friends or seen Christian movies; whatever, it doesn't matter. You respond semi-vague as to not validate their assumed false image of Christianity and follow up with:

YOU: "I have faith, yes. But it's not what you think it is. What is Christianity to you?" or "Yes, I'm a Christian, but what does that mean to you?

How do you know they don't actually know what Christianity is? Because they don't know Christ as their Lord and Savior. They can read the Bible cover to cover, memorize a ton of verses, even win debates against other Christians but, that is nothing more than words on paper and reciting Harry Potter quotes to them. If they knew Christianity, they would know Christ, and if they knew Christ, they wouldn't be atheist. At this point, if they took the bait on the "What is Christianity" topic, they will more than likely give some kind of explanation about doing some moral to-do-list like following the 10 Commandments, or doing good works, and claiming to follow Jesus. And this is it. This is where God has ordained YOU the opportunity to give the gospel. Conversation Break Down

Most broad "meaning of life" question.

Where the "meaning of life" comes from topic.

That standard that gives "meaning" topic.

The topic of religion.

The topic of Christianity.

The Gospel.

Notice from the start of the conversion, it could have been about anything and gone just about anywhere. But, with follow-up Questions that continually narrowed the focus, you drive the discussion into a spiritual one. With continued follow-up questions, you narrowed the spiritual conversation to Jesus. Follow-Up Questions and Specificity drive conversation to the ultimate point and reason of discussion. Notice, the last point, #6, directly answers in the most perfect way, the very first broad topic that kicked off the whole thing, #1. Is This Shady and Misleading? This is in no way misleading or shady because we are simply navigating to the best answer for the premise of the conversation. And by doing so, avoiding useless, fruitless, meaningless other spin off conversations and remaining focused to achieve the best possible answer. It only feels shady and misleading to those who hate the gospel or to those who are ashamed of the gospel. If you have any questions or comments about this article please CONTACT US, join our discussion FORUM, REPORT AN ERROR, or leave a comment below.

from Blogger https://ift.tt/2MaUE4d

#Blogger

0 notes

qualityassuranceservices-blog · 5 years

Text

Quality Assurance

Software testing services quality assurance (SQA or just QA) - an activity to assess the quality and ensure compliance with standards and processes (although many believe it is synonymous with testing).

Does the following of the process of software QA Services? Perhaps, if the process is focused on quality and has the means to maintain it. And during "regular" people.

Of course, theorists say that the process ensures the quality that all the problems caused by the violation of the procedures that the project is "wrong" or that all the errors because of the people, rather than due process. In fact, people are the most important part of success, while even a complete adherence to the process can lead to failure. In this sense, the term SQA misleading. SQA ensures no product quality and conformity to standards and processes, which is not the same thing.

Let’s look at it is the quality of the product, rather than following the process. Quality can be checked or it could be "embedded" in the product creation process. These approaches are complementary. In case if you are using only the control, you have to spend much time on fixing bugs, and if not control, it increases the risk to release a defective product.

To improve the quality, you can use a variety of tools and approaches. It is important to understand that we need to do, how to do it and how to verify that the product is made is what is needed to the customer.

Quality assurance services - this is a very big topic. The Internet has lots of information on techniques given below, in this review, I just briefly mention a few. Consider the following areas:

Requirements

Creation

Preventing future problems

Requirements

The project should solve the right problem, not just to make things right, but first of all do the right thing. The team must help the client understand what to do. If the customer explained his vision for the product team can analyze the required functionality given a vision. And to point out potential problems or defects at an early stage that will reduce costs and increase overall satisfaction with the project.

Sometimes the customer does not want to provide even a vision (for example, it is considered a trade secret). The team may try to explain the shortcomings of this approach and the potential risks, but the final decision still rests with the customer. Of course, in such a situation will create its own version of the vision, but it may be different from the vision of the client (most likely it will be different).

The client may not have time even to discuss requirements. Again, it’s his decision. A team can only warn about possible negative consequences for the project.

To improve the quality of the team can provide its expertise in functional testing services - the user interface (particularly specialists in user interaction and information architecture), the technical details (such as platform, performance requirements or scalability depending on the business requirements for the system) or even in business region, if the team has experience with similar projects.

Creation

The team has done that I could to figure out what to do. Now the question is - how? For a start it is important to understand that quality has its price. In the short run, high quality costs more, but in the long low quality may cost more (as is usually the case) than the high - the team must constantly correct errors with the code to work hard, you need a lot of time trying to change something or add new functionality.

Need to decide what level of quality required for this project. And then the team must constantly maintain this level throughout the project.

To this end, the team can use:

Architecture

Definition of done

Peer code review

Refactoring

Testing (unit, integration, manual, performance, etc.)

Architecture

Previously, it was a lot of noise about the architecture in agile approaches. The most radical say that architecture should arise during development, without any pre-planning and architectural design. I think this is an exaggeration. Sum of the parts is not always an integer, so a good design of small units does not guarantee a good system architecture. In practice, attention to the architecture depends on the complexity of the system - for small systems in a well-known area of ??the team already has a ready-made solutions, but for large systems with significant non-functional requirements need to separately address architecture. While you should not go to the other extreme - in advance to think through all the fine details; enough to think the most important and those that are difficult to change later.

Sometimes about architecture as a forgotten after its creation. Naturally, over time, deteriorating quality attributes of architecture - architecture is becoming less clear, it is difficult to sustain, stability is violated, etc. It is therefore necessary to periodically (or when new requirements do not fit the existing design), architecture review and modify, if necessary.

Definition of done

In Scrum, there is a good concept of "done". History or done, or not. It can not be "done, but …" or "almost done". How do I determine that the story is actually done and there is no "but"? Use the definition of done.

Definition of done - it’s a simple checklist. It contains conditions that must satisfy a story to be considered completed.

If we want to build quality, the definition of done a great place for this. For example, to avoid simple mistakes, the team may decide to include the condition that "No new warnings from the PMD and FindBugs».

The idea of ??definition of done may be offered by anyone, but to make a decision about using the command should be (and not the project manager and ScrumMaster). If a team does not see the benefit, then it will find a way around these criteria.

Definition of done can be extended beyond the stories - for example, a team can enter the definition of done for sprint or release (carried out performance testing, system works well under Windows and under Linux). This helps ensure that your system meets the non-functional requirements.

Peer code review

One of the most powerful tools to improve the quality of a peer code review (besides, it allows you to transfer knowledge and build a common understanding and standards within the team, and develop skills and learn faster). Sometimes a team forgets about code review, some deadlines are close (yes, deadline is very often somewhere very close to J), but the team does not conduct code review. To avoid this problem, the team can simply include code review in the definition of done - and then not be able to move forward until it had a code review.

In one team my proposal to include code review in the definition of done thoroughly discussed, and then the team came to the conclusion that it would be helpful. Subsequently, it has helped detect some serious problems and create a common style and understanding. In another team like the proposal was rejected. Some time later, the second team also concluded that the inclusion of code review in the definition of done is helpful.

Refactoring

Code deteriorates over time due to constant changes. Refactoring - one of the most popular and effective tools for improving code quality and increasing its understandability. You can make it part of definition of done. Or to allocate special time to refactor (for example, at the end of the sprint).

Testing

Unit and integration tests to increase stability and reduce errors by detecting problems early phases. They also help to think through a variety of options, making the system more reliable.

Manual testing can be performed by developers (when completed the story), testers, and team Owner’a Product (this may be one person) during acceptance testing.

Of course, there are many other types of testing, performing their special tasks.

Before you use any kind of testing is to analyze whether it is testing is useful for the project.

Preventing future problems

Ok, the team has corrected the problem. But a little later, again battling the same problem. Again and again. Lesson is lost. To learn the lesson, the team needed to define the problem, identify, analyze and fix the problem. And this is just one of the purposes of the retrospective.

Quality as part of development

All of the above can be summed as a simple checklist:

Make the requirements are quite adequate to the real business problem

Build quality in the process of creating

Architecture

Unit / integration testing

Definition of done

Refactoring

Peer code review

Test

Check that the result is that the sought

Check that the result is something that is really needed

Hmmm, very similar to the procedure of J. Not quite. The main difference - all these practices can be used separately, depending on the context. Some practices may be useless or even harmful in a particular project.

And most importantly - do not forget about people. It is important that the team understand how these practices can help them. And then a need for consensus. Jean Tabaka in her book "Collaboration Explained" defined consensus as a decision that everyone is willing to maintain and there is none who emphatically disagree with this decision. The team must decide on a set of practices that each team member is willing to maintain.

And then just enjoy the high quality product.

#offshoresoftware #independentsoftwaretesting #softwaretestingservices #qualityassuranceservices

0 notes

douchebagbrainwaves · 3 years

Text

YOU GUYS I JUST THOUGHT OF THIS

If you look at a list of articles that are interesting. False positives I consider more like bugs. So for big companies I propose the following experiment. But this was less costly than giving in, which would probably have destroyed the company. Maybe it's not a coincidence. The difficulty of firing people is a drop in the bucket by immigration standards, but would represent a huge increase in the pool of startup founders. About 20% of the startups we funded will make it big is not merely a useless metric, but positively misleading. In theory. It seems safe to say now that open source has prevented that.

How much should you take, though? Programs often have to work that way. If you look at an incoming mail you find more interesting tokens, meaning those with probabilities far from. And while governments might be able to find statistical differences between these and my real mail. I've had a total of five false positives so far, but the descent is steeper with talks. I could say that force was more often used for good than ill, but I'm not sure that will happen, but it's what we told people who came to work for them. What's wrong with having one founder, it seems a good bet, he's still at a disadvantage. The exciting thing is that their m. Startups happen in clusters.

If you find a lot of their time on their own projects? And so the average person expressing his opinions in a bar. Next time you're in a moderately large city, drop by the main post office and watch the body language of the office is replaced by wicked humor. I once calculated how much Frederick's was costing us in bandwidth, and it was only then I realized he hadn't said very much. It's natural for US universities to compete with one another. Even colocating servers seemed too risky, considering how often things went wrong with them. Afterward I put my talk online like I usually do. Now the standard excuse is openly circular: that other languages are more popular. There is a train running the length of it, and I know it's the wrong thing to optimize. As a founder, you have to do to create an environment where startups condense, none are great sacrifices.

I knew intellectually, but didn't. That's a completely different kind of error. 9999 To free 0. And managers prefer popular languages, because they give them more leverage over developers, who can more easily be replaced. At least one hacker will have to spend some of the current probabilities: Subject FREE 0. How could you make something users want, you'll probably have to get a silicon valley in another country. They've tried hard to make something users want. In the more common case, where founders and investors are equally represented and the deciding vote is cast by neutral outside directors, all the groups who had dealings with big companies found that big companies do everything infinitely slowly. Yes and no. We'll find out this winter.

0 notes

babiesjeep44-blog · 5 years

Text

13 Email Marketing Mistakes to Avoid for Better Engagement

With an average ROI of 3,800% and 3.7 billion global users worldwide, which is predicted to grow to 4.1 billion by 2021, email seems to hold a position within the top three most influential sources of information for quite some time.

Great news for email marketers, isn’t it?

But here’s the problem:

As email remains an essential component of marketers’ strategy for 95% of business organizations, the battle for customer engagement takes place for dear life.

Competition is high, and it’s so easy to get lost in rules, trends, and experiments in email marketing. Aimed at creating and implementing the most effective email strategies, marketers still get trapped with the most common mistakes.

In this article, you’ll find out 13 of them and learn how to avoid these mistakes for better open rates, engagement, and conversions.

1) Working with outdated mailing lists

As you know, mail providers set requirements to the mailing list quality. Also, they set limits on the number of allowable returns and complaints.

If not working with your mailing list, dozens of emails – long-abandoned or overfull mailboxes – appear there over time. The result? You exceed those limits, and your newsletter gets blocked.

What to do?

Use email validation services analyzing a mailing list. They help to delete non-working or suspicious addresses. In so doing, you’ll ensure reputation and improve the efficiency of your email marketing campaigns.

Another trick: grow your mailing list gradually.

First, take new contacts – those subscribed for the last three months – and add them to a newsletter list.

Based on statistics, delete “bad” addresses from your list.

Then, add old addresses (about 15% of the whole mailing list) to those newly polished – and send the next newsletter.

Keep this up.

Such algorithm allows you to defuse the harm and avoid the abrupt jump of emailing activity, so disliked by providers.

2) Sending unexpected emails

One-third of marketers send newsletters only when they have something to say.

Oops!

It’s a big mistake leading to customers frustration and unsubscription.

Just imagine:

One day you subscribed to a newsletter but didn’t get anything in your inbox. Suddenly, an email comes, offering a product. It’s likely you’ve forgotten about that subscription already. So you start boiling over and click “spam,” which does nothing well to that newsletter statistics.

How to do it right?

The best variant is to work with your mailing list from the start, even if you have only two contacts in it. Send at least one email per month!

If pauses happened, do your best to reactivate the list. Remind subscribers about your newsletter by proposing something sweet. As Pinkberry did:

3) Sending useless emails

The most common mistake of email marketers is that they create newsletters, useless for subscribers. They write about a company or a product, ignoring customer interests and worrying about nothing but sales. A product reigns on the emails, but efficient marketing campaigns don’t work like that.

What to do?

Know your audience and start thinking like them.

Learn their fears, doubts, and prejudices on your product.

Decide how you can debunk them in emails.

Write about a successful experience in using your product, not about this product itself. Consider words and tone you choose and don’t cheat by plagiarizing competitors.

Try to make an email creative and useful enough so readers would want to share it with friends.

4) No segmentation

Numbers have it, segmented emails get 14.64% more opens, 59.99% more clicks, and drive 18 times more revenue. It’s a big mistake to avoid segmentation of your mailing list: if people get irrelevant information, they will more likely unsubscribe or mark it as spam.

No wonder that default segmentation remains the highest priority for 80% of marketers. The same goes for personalization. In 2018, it’s no longer optional. It’s a must!

How to do it right?

Determine the core segments of your audience and decide on data you will need to separate them. If you don’t have anything except their emails, conduct a behavioral segmentation.

RFM analysis will help here. Work with each segment separately: ask feedback from “loyal” customers, send a special offer to “promising” or “about to sleep” ones, etc. Newsletters based on behavioral analyses are more efficient than general ones.

5) Wrong personalization

That’s what happens with your newsletter when you hurry up or don’t check tags:

Or, you forget checking the names visitors use to subscribe to your newsletter. Sometimes they misprint, write nonsense like “bdfrtd,” or jokes like “John (don’t write me, I am a pauper).” And when you use such names in the hope for customer loyalty, the result will be the opposite.

What to do?

Check all fields (names, tags, default setting) twice before mailing out.

Then, do A/B testing to see if addressing customers by name influences conversion.

Who knows, maybe the game isn’t worth the candle: users know that personalization is made automatically by tags, so calling them by names in emails may not cause the same positive effect it did before.

6) No systematic nature of newsletters

You can’t send emails to customers whenever you want or have time. The results will be low efficiency and open rate as well as a large number of “Unsubscribe me from this list” clicks.

How to do it right

Systematize your newsletter. Make a plan for several months ahead and decide on perfect days and time for sending emails. As for frequency, it will depend on your audience and marketing strategy.

7) Misleading or lying to subscribers

It’s the worst thing you can do to subscribers.

Let’s say, your subscription form promised to send discount codes to newcomers, but you didn’t do that. Or, a person subscribes to get informative content, but you send sales emails instead. Or, you promised to write once a week but sent emails every day.

It leads to a negative response.

What to do?

Keep your word. Promise less, give more. That’s what helps to build customer trust as well as turn them into your brand’s advocates.

8) Ignoring preheaders

A preheader is text appearing after a subject line of your email. Some marketers ignore it, though it’s another great chance to grab subscribers’ attention and motivate them to click.

Insert a line of code in your email’s HTML to add a hidden preheader for users to see when getting it.

What to write in preheaders:

summarize the message

hook with a value

offer a call to action

9) Subject line and email body mismatch

For historical marketing reasons, the subject line of your email speaks volumes. Some specialists use this trick without thinking, in chase of high open rates.

It works but disappoints users when they open an email and see a subject line and body mismatch. They will consider it manipulation, mark such emails as spam, and unsubscribe.

More than that, they won’t trust your brand anymore.

How to do it right?

Writing headlines is an art. It’s okay to motivate subscribers to open your emails, but their disappointment with irrelevant content will bode ill for the overall marketing campaign. Let your subject lines be relevant to the content you share with customers.

10) Giving no opportunity for feedback

Still send emails from “no-reply” or “admin” address, or from the inbox that no one ever checks? It’s a signal for subscribers that your brand doesn’t want to communicate.

What to do

People want to talk to people, not inboxes. Ask for feedback in your emails, share other channels of communication, introduce your support team. Giving them an opportunity to get answers to their questions, you enhance the chance of making them your clients.

11) Multiple CTAs

Some marketers overwhelm newsletters with several CTAs: go to the website, subscribe, order, leave your feedback, etc. People get lost in these endless streams of information and don’t know what to do first. As a result, your email marketing campaign becomes ineffective.

More than that, you can’t measure it because you have to analyze several metrics with various data.

How to do it right

Make subscribers understand what exactly you want from them. Make sure you’ve given all necessary information for that. You know the best option already: one email – one CTA, which will help to increase conversions.

12) Fear of experiments

Most brands don’t take the risk to experiment, and that’s why original newsletters are still rare today. Same-type sales emails jump to users’ inbox, so people can’t find any reason to spend time on them all. What do they do? They unsubscribe.

What to do

Analyze competitors and turn it topsy-turvy.

Watch best practices but don’t copy them mindlessly.

Think of juicy details you could add to own newsletters. What makes people subscribe? Your writing style? Your tone of voice? Anything else?

Here’s the example from Uber, shared by HubSpot:

13) No tests before launching

Getting into spam, wrong layout, HTML errors – all they are consequences of poor testing.

Rules and nuances of crafting an email are many. For instance, that’s what happens if you make it a picture:

Adaptability is lost (mobile versions don’t optimize images).

A subscriber won’t see it if his email settings don’t allow to display external images.

The chances to get blocked by spam filters are high.

Other rules include: avoid stop words, capslock, javascripts; don’t use link shorteners; don’t overplay with exclamation points, etc. It’s hard to remember them all, so the best way to find out if you do it right is to test a newsletter before launching it.

How?

Use a test mailing list, including your inbox at different providers there. Be skeptical to estimate the result and try to walk into the subscribers’ shoes. Does an email sound persuasive? Don’t be afraid to revise, edit, and make it better.

To be sure, even a highly experienced email marketer can miss or forget something. But as they say, not he who makes no mistakes wins but he who makes them less often.

Source: http://www.orbitmedia.com/blog/email-marketing-mistakes-to-avoid/

0 notes