> This website is not affiliated with the Proxmox VE Helper Scripts repository. This website is simply a redesign of the original website, with a focus on readability and security.
I'm assuming there's no malicious intent here, but tteck explicitly warns against these kinds of copycat sites.
However, "Smalahove" is placed more or less exactly on the Norwegian town of Voss, which - among other things - is known (in Norway at least) for the dish "Smalahove", seared and boiled sheeps head.
Oh, cool catch! I had Smalahove as a link, so I must have noticed it was a food at some point, but I forgot to actually put the URL in. I didn't realize the connection to Voss, though.
If you're a cynic, announcing that you've "discovered" a large of amount of REE in your iron ore tailings - and having the chief executive of the EU declare it strategically important - seems like a very good way of making sure you can continue mining iron ore for the forseeable future.
No, this is just business. Sony and Merlin have already sold all or parts of their shares, and are in the process of sharing the windfall with their labels. It's a pretty significant chunk of cash, so if Warner didn't do the same they would look incredibly bad.
Broader picture the majors want Spotify to succeed, because the alternative is having the business run by Apple and Google, who only have an ancillary interest in music.
As bad as the star system is, I'm not sure there's anything better. I think Amazon has the right idea with the "Was this review helpful to you?" buttons, though that may not work quite as well for Yelp if you consider the possibility of review-burying by owners.
> Amazon reviews are so crappy. There is tons of reviews that say JUST "I haven't used this product/read this book yet." plus any number of stars.
While it's extra work I love those reviews.
"I haven't read this book but $THING IS WRONG, thus one " mean I can ignore some of the low ratings.
While reviews and ratings are weird and probably need some tweaking at some point[1] they are not nearly as bad as the weirdly broken search. I've got to the point where I would pay money to have better Amazon (also ebay) search*.[2]
[1]along the lines suggested in this thread - I might dislike a movie but love the genre; I might love a movie but generally dislike that genre; etc. So some method of saying why you like something so much would perhaps be handy.
[2] I go to Amazon.co.uk and I search for [microwave oven]. I chose a department - kitchen & home. I then sort by price, low to high. I am flooded with totally irrelevant items. (Egg cup; aluminum foil; salt&pepper shakers; children's cutlery sets; etc). You're not supposed to use search to find microwave ovens, you're supposed to drill down the tree of department, items, specific items.
We could have stars for multiple axes, plus a "choose n-of-m" keyword selection, but I wonder if that would be too complicated for users.
Example:
Service: 1-5
Cleanliness: 1-5
Concierge: 1-5
Modernity: 1-5
....
Choose three words to describe the hotel stay:
_ modern
_ rustic
_ rude
_ quaint
_ clean
...
There's a lot of evidence that minimizing dimensions--even to the point of getting rid of obviously relevant ones--generally works best. Though Zagat does have food, decor, service, and cost so it can work especially when you're focused on a single thing. It gets harder when you're rating different things that span different dimensions. Amazon, for example, obviously just has a star system and DVD reviews are this sorta annoying mix of reviews of the movie and reviews of the specific DVD product.
I watched rally for a few years, but lost interest after Loeb won his third straight WC. There was absolutely no suspense, everyone knew Loeb would win most of the rallies barring the winter courses.
As for Women's football, there's a reason it's not really appreciated and that is the fact that the skill level is significantly lower. Far fewer women play, which results in less competition and less highly talented individuals. Another problem is that the goals are sized for men, while the women keepers statistically speaking are smaller and can cover a smaller area, which means it's far easier to score with cheap shots. It all makes for rather dull spectating, sadly.
The ability to monetize music on Youtube is unlikely to be a big hit since few labels make much compared to real streaming services. The big hit is going to be for promotion. The only reason indie labels have put up with the abysmal payouts from Youtube have been the fact that it's a great way to promote their music. Youtube is great for discovery and poor for streaming, which makes for great conversion.
However, what Google are trying to do is essentially turn Youtube into a fully fledged music streaming service, but they're framing it as the same old video sharing service to justify continued abyssmal payouts. They can do this because they know that artists will put pressure on their labels to get back on Youtube if they're ever blocked. It's a classic monopolist move, and the only solace is that Google will likely fuck up yet again like they do every time they try to enter different markets.
A lot of people are already using YouTube as a free streaming service, and even though artist can monetize their music, the payout is significantly lower than from pure music streaming services. This is seen as a fair tradeoff seeing as YouTube is also a great promotional channel, but Google are now trying to pivot it into a pure streaming service without significantly changing payouts.
It sets a very dangerous precedent for the value of music, which can be incredibly damaging for already struggling indie artists (not so much for the three majors who have received _massive_ advances)
Possibly, but that won't help the flora or fauna since young, planted forests have completely different ecosystems than the rainforests we're tearing down. Arguably it won't help co2 emissions much either since old forests capture enormous amounts of carbon in the ground, which planted forests don't.
While I agree that tree plantations aren't as biodiverse as natural forests, I had been lead to believe that young, fast growing trees sucked in more carbon than mature, stable forests.
Do you have any citations for why forests are better, CO2-wise? My google search results turned up a mixed bag.
I'm assuming there's no malicious intent here, but tteck explicitly warns against these kinds of copycat sites.