Most of us have been waiting for awhile now, and ever since President Trump's personal acct was permanently suspended from Twitter, we can almost taste the arrests coming.
#AWeekToRemember Thread:
I stumbled across this when I was re-reading old Drops, like we were advised to by 17, and I'll explain why I think this week starting today, is the WEEK TO REMEMBER.
Most of us have been waiting for awhile now, and ever since President Trump's personal acct was permanently suspended from Twitter, we can almost taste the arrests coming.
- WHAT must happen pre 11.11?
- 11.11 provided as strategic marker.
- Strength = Military
- Justice = Tribunals
I'll explain.
A: 01/11/21
Q: How do we usually shorten it when conversing & given the year is understood?
A: 01/11
Q: Can you see what I see?
A: Now, turn forward slash (/) upright.
Q: Now do you see?
A: 1111 = 11.11
• 11.11.18
What if you split the #'s of 11.11.18?
Like in groups of 3's.
1.) 11.1
2.) 1.18
Now this is just theorizing that 11.11.18 could be the WEEK TO REMEMBER!
Cont...
• 11 1 & 1 18
• 1/11 & 1/18
• 7 day difference
I recalled seeing a 7 somewhere & voila!
• Drop 582:
- :stay at home<
- [-7]
- Safe comms (> for Whit Hats)
But the following is eerily lining up that it possibly could.
• We've seen Lin Wood's bomb-drops on Parler about telecoms & Devin Nunes stating Parler will be terminated at midnight.
• Who is the 1st Indictment unsealed?
• Who is the 2nd?
• When?
• 11.3 - Podesta indicted
• 11.6 - Huma indicted
Do you see what I see? Right on top of one another?!
• 11.11
• as in => 1/11 as in January 11th.
• The 'STRATEGIC' marker from Drop 1357.
• Strength = MILITARY
• Justice = TRIBUNALS
PODESTA & HUMA on deck.
Apply same logic & reasoning I used above with decoding 11.11.
• 11.3 - Arrest announcement of Podesta
• 11.4 - Actionable on Podesta
• 11.6 - Huma indicted.
• 11.3 => 1/13 - Podesta indicted announcement
• 11.4 => 1/14 - Podesta actionable arrest
• 11.6 => 1/16 - Huma indicted
#AWeekToRemember #BOOMweek
#DeclasBringsDownTheHouse
☆ADD all #'s in Drop 3332: 3+3+3+2 = 11
• "This is only the start."
More from For later read
This response to my tweet is a common objection to targeted advertising.
@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.
Some counterpoints 👇
1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.
This does not seem self-evident to me
Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇
If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted
2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.
But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.
Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.
3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:
"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."
To
"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."
IMO the latter statement is incorrect.
@KevinCoates correct me if I'm wrong, but basic point seems to be that banning targeted ads will lower platform profits, but will mostly be beneficial for consumers.
Some counterpoints 👇
That targeted ads allow for "free" products for consumers is a common talking point and we're going to see more of it in the coming months.: https://t.co/Xty3My3f0u (1/14)
— Kevin Coates (@KevinCoates) February 16, 2021
1) This assumes that consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones.
This does not seem self-evident to me
Great post by @Sherman1890 got me thinking about the future of targeted ads.
— Dirk Auer (@AuerDirk) February 12, 2021
More and more tools (privacy labels, ad blockers, GDPR) enable consumers to opt-out from targeted ads - can limit the data platforms receive or block ads altogether.
The end of targeted ads? \U0001f9f5\U0001f447 https://t.co/MA6A3BrUWq
Research also finds that firms choose between ad. targeting vs. obtrusiveness 👇
If true, the right question is not whether consumers prefer contextual ads to targeted ones. But whether they prefer *more* contextual ads vs *fewer* targeted
2) True, many inframarginal platforms might simply shift to contextual ads.
But some might already be almost indifferent between direct & indirect monetization.
Hard to imagine that *none* of them will respond to reduced ad revenue with actual fees.
3) Policy debate seems to be moving from:
"Consumers are insufficiently informed to decide how they share their data."
To
"No one in their right mind would agree to highly targeted ads (e.g., those that mix data from multiple sources)."
IMO the latter statement is incorrect.
You May Also Like
The UN just voted to condemn Israel 9 times, and the rest of the world 0.
View the resolutions and voting results here:
The resolution titled "The occupied Syrian Golan," which condemns Israel for "repressive measures" against Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights, was adopted by a vote of 151 - 2 - 14.
Israel and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/HoO7oz0dwr
The resolution titled "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people..." was adopted by a vote of 153 - 6 - 9.
Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/1Ntpi7Vqab
The resolution titled "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan" was adopted by a vote of 153 – 5 – 10.
Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/REumYgyRuF
The resolution titled "Applicability of the Geneva Convention... to the
Occupied Palestinian Territory..." was adopted by a vote of 154 - 5 - 8.
Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/xDAeS9K1kW
View the resolutions and voting results here:
The resolution titled "The occupied Syrian Golan," which condemns Israel for "repressive measures" against Syrian citizens in the Golan Heights, was adopted by a vote of 151 - 2 - 14.
Israel and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/HoO7oz0dwr
The resolution titled "Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people..." was adopted by a vote of 153 - 6 - 9.
Australia, Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No' https://t.co/1Ntpi7Vqab
The resolution titled "Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan" was adopted by a vote of 153 – 5 – 10.
Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/REumYgyRuF
The resolution titled "Applicability of the Geneva Convention... to the
Occupied Palestinian Territory..." was adopted by a vote of 154 - 5 - 8.
Canada, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and the U.S. voted 'No'
https://t.co/xDAeS9K1kW