Minnesota Sports Forum

monsterpile wrote:

TheSP wrote:

monsterpile wrote:

TheSP wrote:We already hate each other enough for our positions on Rubio, right?

Marco or Ricky?

:d

Hey come on this isn't a presidential debate just answer the question.

I won't answer you question, but if I did it'd be a beautiful answer, the most beautiful answer.

Yeah let's all just grab some *ahem* popcorn and enjoy the season!

Yes. My apologies. Because any mention of clearly-first-kid-picked-on-the-playground Mark Zuckerberg should be a signal that it is time to get serious about the sporty-talk. Especially on a day when he was in the news answering for the actions of his business in the last election.

The facts are not in dispute: Facebook is about to have a much smaller footprint. When asked about all the nonsense on his website, Zuck said he didn't know how to stop it. Then one of his ex-employees said that a bunch of employees developed an algorithm to suppress it and it worked 95% of the time, but Zuck squashed it because he knew he would lose customers (is that even the best word, since FB is free? How about market share?).

So there you go. Instead of picking accuracy/quality, Zuck chose a lesser product in a feeble attempt to maintain the status quo. And what's worse, FB knew it was enough of a problem to be working on it. Don't get me wrong. They were going to lose customers(?) no matter which one they picked. But you ALWAYS chose quality over a lesser product when given the option, ESPECIALLY when price isn't an issue.

So if it is your dream to have Zuck own a Minnesota team, maybe make it 2016 instead of 2019. And how about the Twins? What, he's going to do worse? But in 2019, he may not have enough money to buy the Kings or the Pelicans.

JasonIsDaMan wrote:Yes. My apologies. Because any mention of clearly-first-kid-picked-on-the-playground Mark Zuckerberg should be a signal that it is time to get serious about the sporty-talk. Especially on a day when he was in the news answering for the actions of his business in the last election.

The facts are not in dispute: Facebook is about to have a much smaller footprint. When asked about all the nonsense on his website, Zuck said he didn't know how to stop it. Then one of his ex-employees said that a bunch of employees developed an algorithm to suppress it and it worked 95% of the time, but Zuck squashed it because he knew he would lose customers (is that even the best word, since FB is free? How about market share?).

So there you go. Instead of picking accuracy/quality, Zuck chose a lesser product in a feeble attempt to maintain the status quo. And what's worse, FB knew it was enough of a problem to be working on it. Don't get me wrong. They were going to lose customers(?) no matter which one they picked. But you ALWAYS chose quality over a lesser product when given the option, ESPECIALLY when price isn't an issue.

So if it is your dream to have Zuck own a Minnesota team, maybe make it 2016 instead of 2019. And how about the Twins? What, he's going to do worse? But in 2019, he may not have enough money to buy the Kings or the Pelicans.

I think he already has enough money to buy the entire NBA, NHL, and most of MLB... but of course the 2020 post I linked to in teh opening post was completely in jest and had no political spin until you interjected with your butthurt response. Apparently we cannot even have meaningless fun anymore because Trump won.