Steve Jobs single handidly killed Apple's presence in the early PC market by taking his project (handling the development and launch of the first Macintosh) and commandeering it into a monster project.
What was meant to be an affordable alternative to the Apple II, became under Job's supervision a method to take control of the Apple line of computers. He ended up making a less feature-rich Apple II, which rivaled it in price, killing the idea that the computer could compete with other cheaper computers on the market.
Yes, it was a disappointment. It lacked color (something the Apple II already had), had buggy software, and all at a price that rivaled the Apple II.
$1,298 for the Apple II
$2,495 for the Macintosh
It completely destroyed the progress they'd made. Jobs took this project opportunistically at a time when Steve Wozniak was recovering from a plane crash. If he'd approached the project more strategically, it could have positioned Apple to take a place in the market share of cheaper PC's of the time.
Despite high turnover, and lots of complaints, my last company had one of the highest Glassdoor ratings I'd ever seen> How? Simple, they'd pay their employees to do so.
I hesitate to suggest that this may indicate there aren't that many 4.5+ star Japanese food restaurants. Even great resaurants in my area struggle to break the 4.5 barrier.
Changing the zoom level will typically show these missing results. For example, I just checked my neighborhood. There are 5 restaurants within a few hundred feet of each other rated 4.5+ stars. With my filters set to 4.5+ stars, when I zoom out a bit, 4 of the 5 restaurants disappear, and I instead see a handful of 4.1 and 4.3 star restaurants. One of the 4.3 star restaurants is literally next door to a 5 star and 4.5 star restaurant, which are hidden at that zoom level.
I thought maybe it's some kind of weighted rating, because it's showing me the 4.3 star restaurant with 1,100 reviews, instead of the 4.5 star restaurant with 600 reviews. So, perhaps Google thinks the additional number of reviews make up for the lower rating, and they rank it higher, even though I'm specifically asking to not see those results. However, it also shows a 4.4 star restaurant with 40 reviews, while hiding a 4.5 star restaurant with 90 reviews.
This is par for the course when it comes to modern recommendations though. Do you want to see Netflix movies released in the past 3 years? Or what about a simple list of top rated movies? Too bad, you can watch what we tell you to watch. It's a complete lack of respect for the user.
It could also be recent ratings; I think it is reasonable to weight old reviews lower than new ones given restaurants can change a lot over the months and years.
Perhaps. But then why not just say “no results found”? Because that might give the impression to the “average” user that Google is broken and isn’t solving their problem. To the more sophisticated user, Google is just meddling where they shouldn’t.
Google is proving the central limit theorem by catering to the average.
Google long ago decided that "No results found" is never an acceptable response. Same with regular Google search. It will just choose arbitrary things to show you instead.
It's one of the things that has reduced the usefulness of these tools.
At least here where I live, Foodora and similar have ruined what was left of the Google ratings for any place offering take-away, because there's ton of 1 star reviews which concerns the transport.
At least viewing the most recent comments and reading the comment that goes with it helps figuring out if it might be a decent place or not... at least sometimes.
Agreed. People lie to me all of the time. Heck, half the time my anecdotal stories are probably riddled with confident inaccuracies. We are socially trained to take information from people critically and weight it based on all kinds of factors.
Are these folks hitting the sack at 6-7ish or not getting a full 7/8?
Couldn’t imagine doing this, purely considering the implications of going to bed with the sun up and offsetting my schedule to accommodate a commute that early.
I find it convenient mainly because I have kids. You can do quite a lot of heavy lifting in those first few quiet hours before they wake up.
Whether you can or should do it depends heavily on your particular circumstances, of course. But when I started doing it, I wondered why more people weren’t talking about it. Personally, I find it fantastic.
I remember this happening. The 20 some sites we ran went down as they were supported by cloudflare. I spent a panicked 30 minutes trying to figure out what I had done wrong, to eventually find out it was on CF's end.
I remember voicing at our team meeting "boy, they must be panicking at CloudFlare."
Cloudflare works so spectacularly we just wrote it off as a one time thing.
To hoard liquid cash for buying opportunities. If the prices of commodities goes way up, individuals and companies need cash in hand more than the long term assets. Cash is king.
What was meant to be an affordable alternative to the Apple II, became under Job's supervision a method to take control of the Apple line of computers. He ended up making a less feature-rich Apple II, which rivaled it in price, killing the idea that the computer could compete with other cheaper computers on the market.
All to stroke his own ego.