jarrkam phyllypah hariell
Cheryll Witting
What we discovered surprised us. When we looked at the data in early 2021, our median (P50) hours in review for a diff was only a few hours, which we felt was pretty good. However, looking at P75 (i.e., the slowest 25 percent of reviews) we saw diff review time increase by as much as a day.
And so Next Reviewable Diff was born. We use machine learning to identify a diff that the current reviewer is highly likely to want to review. Then we surface that diff to the reviewer after they finish their current code review. We make it easy to cycle through possible next diffs and quickly remove themselves as a reviewer if a diff is not relevant to them.
After its launch, we found that this feature resulted in a 17 percent overall increase in review actions per day (such as accepting a diff, commenting, etc.) and that engineers that use this flow perform 44 percent more review actions than the average reviewer!
We built a new reviewer recommendation system, incorporating work hours awareness and file ownership information. This allows reviewers that are available to review a diff and are more likely to be great reviewers to be prioritized. We rewrote the model that powers these recommendations to support backtesting and automatic retraining too.
The result? A 1.5 percent increase in diffs reviewed within 24 hours and an increase in top three recommendation accuracy (how often the actual reviewer is one of the top three suggested) from below 60 percent to nearly 75 percent. As an added bonus, the new model was also 14 times faster (P90 latency)!
For diffs that were taking an extra long time to review, Nudgebot determines the subset of reviewers that are most likely to review the diff. Then it sends them a chat ping with the appropriate context for the diff along with a set of quick actions that allow recipients to jump right into reviewing.
Our experiment with Nudgebot had great results. The average Time In Review for all diffs dropped 7 percent (adjusted to exclude weekends) and the proportion of diffs that waited longer than three days for review dropped 12 percent! The success of this feature was individually published as well.
To help personalize content, tailor and measure ads and provide a safer experience, we use cookies. By clicking or navigating the site, you agree to allow our collection of information on and off Facebook through cookies. Learn more, including about available controls: Cookie Policy
Youtube might love this since Youtube Premium is less money ($168/yr) and I bet they could make a case that every Youtube user costs way more in bandwidth and infrastructure than the typical Facebook user.
The market is already oversaturated. Besides, whenever competitors come along, fecebook tends to rip off whatever features it has rendering the competitor's product moot given it doesn't have anywhere near the reach the former has, meaning few people will bother. In various lawsuits, emails from zuckerfuck have surfaced where he specifically admits to doing it for the express purpose of killing off competitors. First he tries a buyout, then when they don't sell he does that. Same shit apple does (though the
Exactly, nobody has been able to muster up a competitor (even Meta) to Twitter/X even with it's turmoil, If the network effect is working so strongly there I imagine it's even more for Facebook who also have a lot more resources at their disposal.
None. Youtube do not offer you a lack of tracking for payment. They offer you a lack of ads (among other things), those are two very different things. Meta's product is one that removes tracking, tracking is not allowed to be conditional on payment and actually should be optional under the GDPR.
I don't need an account to use youtube and I can fairly easily configure my browser and hide my Internet presence such that all tracking-tech youtube tries on me is fooled sufficient that it effectively can't do this anymore. I do need an account to use Facebook. Therefor, I can't use Facebook without being tracked.
If a site like Facebook with such a massive userbase could turn a profit on late 90's style dumb banner ads. No crazy tracking, just first party images serving links to other sites and getting paid for clickthrough's and affiliate orders.
How sad it would be - imagine that $20/user is their monthly gross per user. That means an average user is spending enough money as a result of targeted advertising that companies are willing to pay that much per person to either directly serve them ads (or propaganda) or access their data. Meaning that $20/user would be the expense and presumably profits would be higher than that.
It's worth $20/month to Facebook. That does not mean the advertisers are recovering their costs. If you read up on the blogs from people on that end who buy Google, Facebook, etc ads, you'll see a lot of stories about how they spent a ton of money on ads and saw no change in viewership or revenue and then zeroed their spend and again saw no change.
I am actually pretty cool with them being so screwed up that given the info about where I went to High School, where I went to College, and who my friends are ( they mostly live in one state, which is where I came from), they still get it wrong.
Why would anyone want to pay to advertise to people who overwhelmingly aren't interested in their ads, instead of paying someone else where they know ads are targeted at people who would be interested?
Well, yeah, isn't that what we are talking about here? That's the conundrum. People want to use site and people want privacy but site costs money and advertising without privacy violations doesn't make money.
At a first guess: It probably could. With careful tuning of bid prices, my guess is that non-targeted (or at least non-user-data-targeted - e.g. "you're on Sports Illustrated, you're probably interested in a special offer off ESPN") ads could turn a profit. But they could turn _more_ profit if targeted, and a publicly traded company would be under irresistible pressure to exploit that.
It is calculated based on what they expect customer are willing to pay. That is how ALL prices are set on the market. Facebook's price is in the same ballpark as streaming TV service, cell phone subscription, newspaper etc.
But besides that, even if you do pay, how can you trust Facebook not to put you under surveillance, invade your privacy and monetize your data anyway? The one thing Facebook has proven again and again over the years is that they're not to be trusted in any way, and it's not like an independent body will ensure they're true to their word.
Yeah I don't get this whole "you have a right to social media" crap that people like to imply. Believe me, I despise fecebook, but asking anybody to provide services for nothing, or worse yet, the idea that "if the internet company uses my data it must pay me money even though it already provides something I value dearly in exchange" is just bonkers.
But...what if the "ok" side of "pay or ok" mandates that users are ok to consent, but in exchange fecebook has to disclose, in detail, everything their data was used for, who exactly it was sold to, and indefinitely recursively, what the buyer used it for, who they sold to, etc. And of course, fecebook is liable for any data brokers they sell to failing to disclose anything such as who it was sold to, data breaches, etc.
This isn't just fecebook, this is anything really. My main comments from that come from seeing slashdot posts back in the earlier days of posts getting +5 insightful moderation because some derp was complaining that Google maps was collecting data from his searches without paying him. Srsly wtf...just stop fucking using it? Not hard.
The first step of any transaction is convincing the other party that it's worth your asking price. As of this post, facebook has failed in that step. It's up to facebook to either offer some supporting reasons for the cost (more like regurgitate BS...) or to change their asking price if they want the sale to go through. They are not entitled to the public's money.
No contractual agreement is above the law. If Facebook's EULA says you have to pay them in human kidneys and the law forbids trading human kidneys, then you will have no trouble accepting the idea that Facebook should either change their business model or go out of business, regardless of consent. Is it so complicated to accept that we need similar protection of privacy?
If Facebook wants to have a free tier then they can fund it with ads, not data theft. It's not the user's right to get it for free, it's Facebook's obligation to respect privacy even with a free product. They are of course free to withdraw the free tier if they don't think it is profitable enough.
Broadcast television has 3-minute ad breaks. Attempting to apply the concept of a 3-minute interstitial (or "ads with countdown") to the web environment would violate the Better Ads Standards [betterads.org] published by the Coalition for Better Ads. Meta Platforms is a member of the Coalition's board.
Paying on top of that is simply a transaction between you and the site monetizing you - "I'll give you $20 if you won't show me ads". In my mind, that's completely separate from the monetization aspect. Meta's proposal seems to be a weird mixture - "Give me $20, and I won't whore y
Notably there already are limits on what it can do with information it collects. For example, the deal it struck with EU regulators that allowed it to buy Whatsapp ban if from fusing databases from Whatsapp and the rest of Meta services for purposes of targeted advertising.
The Mafia doesn't typically just ignore you if you don't want anything to do with them. That's the big difference. You aren't being forced to use Facebook, and anyone who signs up to Facebook is presented with the terms up front. If you were forced, *that* would a Mafia-style protection racket.
90f70e40cf