Sadly, your examples seem to suggest the opposite. The condensing of phrases makes the language more opaque and difficult to learn. So to a versed English speaker, the dropped implied words are easy to fill in; for someone learning, it's requires significant processing.
When I purchased my Paperwhite, it was in small part due to the frustration that came with variable font sizes from different books. Giving up the high quality lettering so that I can read without losing my line has made the act so much more enjoyable. Now if only they supported some form of quick stylus based highlighting (and easy on device access).
When I want to ensure strict immutability, I use an implementation of deepFreeze (https://github.com/jsdf/deep-freeze) that recursively calls Object.freeze() on all child properties. Obviously slower than strict browser support. Does ClojureScript rely on the Clojure compiler to ensure the properties aren't modified or is there some polyfill?
I was under the impression that ad fraud was more seen as how those sites put 6 iframe windows of ads one on top of another so while they were all loaded and "seen" by visiter, only one of them was visible. The main thrust of ad fraud was "this ad cannot possibly be seen by a consumer". As with all things, some may pervert the definition for gain but on the whole: you'd call it fraud if you paid for a billboard and the company put up your ad but then plastered somebody else's ad on top of it.
Yeah, and the world would be better off without that, but it's incredibly hard to detect.
My point however, is that it is already factored into the price. When a TV station says this show has 10 million viewers, the advertisers understand that it's actually only 5 million who are going to be watching their ad, because of channel flipping, fast-forwarding, cups of tea, etc. It is already an understood factor in the pricing. Whereas online, they don't appear to want to make the same concession towards bots/iframes and so on.
You could argue, particularly for free-to-air TV channels, that anyone not watching the ads is breaking the "social contract" and defrauding the station. That's the exact same argument that Wired makes when they block adblocking readers.
There's always a percentage of your ad buy that will go completely unseen offline. It's no different online.
> I know we're talking about checking accounts. That was tried too -- it was called Washington Mutual,
Is there evidence to suggest the "free checking account no questions asked" was large portion of it being one of the "Biggest Bank crash in U.S. history". It looks like Washington Mutual crashed for the same reason the others did: it had all this loans out on people who couldn't pay them. Not because it offered checking/savings accounts to underprivileged. It's weird you reference the 2008 collapse then fail to mention that being the exact time when WaMu crashed.
> should not be based only on whether a p-value passes a specific threshold.
It seems as though you'd missed the "only" in the clause. Further, they say nothing w.r.t. "does not pass" (aka: not hitting minimum threshold). Both your complaint and their point are orthogonal.
