Matt Of All Trades

Matt of All Trades blog, like the title suggests, is by a Vermont author and offers offbeat musings on pop culture, media, journalism, humor, weirdness, stupid people, smart people, my life as a journalist, landscaper, photographer, married gay man, dog lover and weather geek and more. It's run by me, Matt Sutkoski, a native Vermonter living in St. Albans, Vt.

Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Google. Show all posts

Thursday, December 28, 2017

Annual Google Search Video Reflects An Exhausting 2017

This wonderful woman was among the many iconic people
featured in Google's annual searches of the year video.
At the end of each year Google releases a sort of year-in-review video of top news events and top search subjects during the prior 12 months.

This year's Google search video which is at the bottom of this post, is surprisingly emotional, at least to me.

I guess 2017 was even more trying than I thought, what with the constant political upheaval; endless string of disasters; scandals, sexual and otherwise; and more encouragingly, a sharp uptick in citizen activism.

It seems we had only the Great Eclipse of 2017 to distract us from all the messes we endured.

The year was surely reflected in some of our most frequent Google searches:

"How far do North Korean missiles go?" 
"How do wildfires start?"
"How to help flood victims"
"How to be a strong woman."
"How to make a protest sign."
"How to run for office."
"How to be fearless."

I think we all want to know the answer to that last Google search on the list you just read.

I like how toward the end of the video, Google tries to encourage to keep going, keep doing what's right, as other people in the video's closing half minute or so do.

I wish everyone a calm and happy 2018, and I hope we all find the best answer to the last and most poignant Google search question in the video you are about to see: "How to move forward."

Posted by Matt Sutkoski at 10:15 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: activism, disasters, Google, hope, news, perseverance, politics, searches, viral video, year in review

Thursday, April 13, 2017

Just When You Thought Adveritising Couldn't Get More Annoying, There's This

This jerk in a Burger King ad will trigger your Google Home
and other devices, subjecting you to a cacaphony of
Burger King advertising. Ugh. 
UPDATE:

The Burger King Google device advertisement has backfired. As noted below in yesterday's post, the ad triggers voice activated to start reciting the Wikipedia entry for the fast food chain's Whopper sandwich.

So, people went into Wikipedia and altered the Whopper entry.

According to The Independent, the change in the Wikipedia definition of the Whopper describes it as containing cyanide, causes cancer and is the worst product sold by Burger King.

Take that!

PREVIOUS DISCUSSION

Burger King has a great new idea to piss people off through advertising.

According to CNBC:

"Burger King is launching a full-fledged marketing blitz based on triggering voice-activated Google devices, in what could become a grim precedent for TV and radio ads talking directly to voice-activated gadgets like smartphones and Amazon's Echo speakers. 

The fast food company's new TV ad features a person looking directly into the camera and saying, "OK Google, what is the Whopper burger"", which - if anything goes as planned - will trigger Google devices like the Google Home assistant and Android phones that have enabled voice search."

Great. you got yourself a handy dandy Google Home assistant or Amazon Echo - and they are kind of cool - and now you have to hide them away and shut them down every time you turn on the TV or radio.

Or, you will have to endure these devices yakking on about the stupid product some advertiser has that triggered the devices.  The ad makes the devices start reading the Wikipedia entry for Burger King's Whopper. You can see why CNBC called the Burger King ad a "grim precedent."

By the way, this is not what Google and Amazon intended with their devices. Neither company worked with Burger King or anyone else to do these ads, says CNBC. 

Burger King president Jose Cil is enthusiastic about the idea. "We saw it as technology to essentially punch through that fourth wall....a cool way to connect directly with our guests."

I don't want Burger King or any other advertiser punching through any of my walls.  

I keep hearing from the ad industry that annoying ads are effective because they make you remember the brand. 

It's true I remember the brand after seeing a bad ad, but not in a positive way that makes me want to buy the product.  You'd think this would be obvious. 

Now that I know about Burger King's device-triggering ad, I can picture myself driving by a Burger King, remembering the Google Home-triggering ad and going, "ugh" before driving on as fast as I can. 

I have not found any article or information that explains to me how annoying ads can make me or anybody else buy products.  I will confess that compelling ads, done well and unobtrusively, will make me take a second look at a product and make me consider buying it. 

Why don't most advertisers understand that concept?

Some advertisers recognize we don't like them and their products with annoying ads. Proctor and Gamble is backing a group called Coalition for Better Ads to curb the most intrusive and infuriating types of ads online and on mobile devices. 

We'll see if that has any effect. 

On the bright side of sorts, there's a bit of an arms race to stop the Burger King ad from being effective. Tech Crunch reports Google did something that stops the ad from working on their devices. 

For the first two hours after the ad appeared, Google devices were triggered by them. Then, it stopped working, Tech Crunch said. 

Score one for Google!

But, then again, there are reports this morning that Burger King altered their ad to make it trigger Google devices again.

Sigh. 

For the record, here's that odious Burger King ad:





Posted by Matt Sutkoski at 6:12 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: advertising, annoying, awful, Burger King, Google, news, technology, voice activated devices

Monday, September 5, 2016

Scamming The Scammer: Fake Trump Site Collects Donations For An Iffy 25-Year0Old Guy

Is the man on the left, Ian Hawes, scamming Trump supporters,
and by extension Trump himself?
Lots of people really want to donate to the Donald Trump campaign.

That's fine: If you like your candidate and want to donate, go for it!

However, it turns out you really, really have to be careful to figure out if you are indeed contributing to the Trump campaign, or any other legit campaign for that matter.

There are scammers out there pretending to be part of the Trump team.

Like Ian Hawes,  He launched a website called dinnerwithtrump.org which Politico says netted $350,00 in donations. Of that, $133,000 went to a company Hawes founded and owns called CartSoft LLC.

At last check, none of the money has gone to Trump, says Politico.

The site's home page tells visitors to "Enter for a chance for you and a guest to have dinner with Donald Trump. The flight, food and stay are no us."

The site invites people to enter their name, email address and zip code and the site says people can double their chances of winning by submitting a donation.

However, the web site has fine printe that says the prize is not a private dinner with Trump, but rather a chance to attend a Donald Trump event with other attendees. So maybe you get to go to a Trump rally if you win.

If you want to call a Trump rally "winning."

And if the web site actually declares a "winner." Or will they just keep the money and move on?

Hawes launched another web site, crookedhillary2016.org, purporting to have a contest to revoke Hillary Clinton's security clearance. Hawes is also raking in the dough with that one, as he's playing off Trump's penchant for always calling Clinton "Crooked Hillary."

It's unclear whether any of the money Hawes collected has or will go to the Trump campaign. But it looks like he's making pretty damn good money for himself.

Politico says the Federal Election Commission is pretty powerless to go after potential fraud cases, like this one might be.

The takeaway: No matter who you support in any give election, be careful how you donate money.

Politico says that scam political action committees that act on "behalf" of candidates are cropping up all over the place. The scam web sites are designed to look like the actual candidates' sites, and the scammers buy Google and Facebook ads to lure unsuspecting donors.

Trump's fans are particularly enthusiastic about the candidate, so they are an appealing target for scammers.

Some people say the candidates lie to use. Some people say Trump is a con man. But the scammers scamming the people - and scamming Trump - are even worse.

Money in politics is awful these days. It even creates a GREAT environment for scammers. Buyer beware.

Posted by Matt Sutkoski at 5:22 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Clinton, Facebook, Google, Ian Hawes, scammers, Trump

Saturday, December 26, 2015

Driverless Cars Getting In Crashes Because We Humans Are Too Stupid To Drive

A Google driverless car. People who actually drive cars
are idiots, and are slamming into the driverless ones. 
Experiemental driverless cars are getting into a lot of accidents lately. And it's our fault, not the fault of these robot cars.

According to Bloomberg, the "problem" is driverless cars follow the rules.

"They obey the law all the time, as in, without exception. This may sound like the right way to program a robot to drive a car, but good luck trying to merge onto a chaotic, jam-packed highway with traffic flying along well above the speed limit. It tends not to work out well.

As the accidents have piled up -- all minor scrape-ups for now -- the arguments among programmers at places like Google Inc and Carnegie Mellon University are heating up: Should they teach the cars how to commit infractions from time to time to stay out of trouble?"

The first driverless car crash with injures came in July, when three Google employees in a driverless car suffered relatively minor neck injuries when another driver rear-ended them, says CBS News. The driver of the car that re-ended the driverless vehicle suffered minor injuries.

The accident rate for driverless cars is twice as high for driverless cars as it is for regular cars, according to the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute, as reported by Michigan Public Radio.

However, so far, none of the crashes studies were the "fault" of the driverless cars. Most have been by inattentive drivers slamming into the backs of driverless cars.

The driverless cars tend to obey the speed limit. A huge proportion of people who drive DON'T obey the speed limit (Yeah, I'm talkin' to you!)

Add in inattentiveness - let's text while we're driving since everybody else is doing it! -- and people end up rear-ending the slower driverless cars.

As a Google engineer put it, driving is a social game, not just plugging in the exact parameter of what is legal on the roadways and what is not.

Should Google and anyone else testing self-driving cars to break the rules every once in awhile, just to make things on the road flow more smoothly?  And if so, to what extent?  Limit it to things like crossing a double yellow line to make room for a bicyclist? Or speed a little bit on the freeway to keep up with the flow of traffic?

Where's the line between breaking the rules to make things go better and becoming a robot scofflaw?

And what of that "social game"? Will road rages become even more enraged when a robot car does not respond emotionally to some jerk yelling and screaming about something? Do driverless cars call police to report their suspicions that the car ahead is being driven by a drunk?

You can imagine, also, whether to program driverless cars to make "moral" choices, even if it's saving others from their own stupidity.

For example, asks Bloomberg's reporting, "should an autonomous vehicle sacrifice its occupant by swerving off a cliff to avoid killing a school bus full of children?"

Driverless cars will ultimately be programmed differently, so different models will "behave" differently in traffic.

That begs the question, posited by another Bloomberg article: Who would be at fault if two driverless vehicles collided?

After all, says Bloomberg. Computers routinely crash. Won't robot cars crash, too?

Lawyers are loving this, as you can imagine. Yes, driverless cars are autonomous robots. But would be made by humans. Who make mistakes. Who might program a car incorrectly.

Says Bloomberg:

"With no one behind the wheel, lawyers say they can go after almost anyone even remotely involved.

'You're going to get a whole host of new defendants,' said Kevin Dean, who is suing General Motors Co over its faulty ignition switches and Takata Corp over air bag failures. 'Computer programmers, computer companies, designers of algorithms, Google, mapping companies, even states. It's going to be very fertile ground for lawyers.'"

Well, at least lawyers can look forward to full employment, since robots and computers are going to take all the rest of the jobs from  us humans.

All these driverless car questions leads to the largest question of all:  Will the machines just take over? And another question: Will they do a better job? Because sometimes I think us humans have really mucked things up.


,







Posted by Matt Sutkoski at 6:10 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: Bloomberg News, driverless cars, engineering, Google, legal, news, safety, weird

Thursday, July 17, 2014

French Blogger Found Guilty By Judge Of Being Too Popular

A French judge who really doesn't understand how Google searches work at all, has fined a French blogger, essentially for the crime of being too popular.
A French judge ruled against a blogger, essentially
because she was ranked too high in Google searches for his taste. 

The problem, according to the BBC, is blogger Caroline Doudet wrote a scathing, negative review of a restaurant in her blog. The restauranteur said the review was hurting his business.

The judge said that since a Google search brings up Doudet's blog fourth from the top, and that her blog has 3,000 or so followers, she is popular and has influence.

Therefore, she should be fined for the negative review, said the judge.

I doubt Doudet had much influence on how Google ranked the blog for searches, but that apparently is beside the point, if I'm reading the judge's "reasoning" right.

Doudet was fined about $2,000.

Doudet said that basically, the judge made it a crime to be ranked too high on a search engine. "What is perverse, is that we look for bloggers who are influential, but only if they are nice about people," she said.

The restaurant review has since been deleted, since Doudet said the whole thing has been too much of  hassle.

It sounds like in the judge's mind, you can be nasty to someone on line if nobody reads your stuff, but you can't if people actually do read what you write.

The restauranteur never denied the service at his restaurant fell short when Doudet visited, the problem was too many people were finding the negative review.

Yes, people write a whole lot of unfair things on line. Or they write things that are fair but negative.  And it's a problem for business owners.

But getting "help" for the problem by complaining somebody is too popular on line seems like it would backfire.

I kind of hope in this case it does.
Posted by Matt Sutkoski at 3:31 AM No comments:
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest
Labels: courts, France, Google, judge, news, stupid, weird
Older Posts Home
View mobile version
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
  • APlus
  • ArsTechnica
  • boingboing
  • Bored Panda
  • Buzzfeed
  • Consumerist
  • FaithIt
  • Fark
  • FiveThirtyEight
  • Forbes
  • Funny Or Die
  • Grist
  • Improv Everywhere
  • Jezebel
  • JoeMyGod
  • NPR
  • Raw Story
  • Talking Points Memo
  • Tastefully Offensive
  • TechDirt
  • TheDodo
  • Towleroad
  • Vocativ
  • Vox
  • Wired

links

Followers

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2020 (47)
    • ▼  August (1)
      • Happy Anniversary Jeff!
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (6)
    • ►  March (14)
    • ►  February (10)
    • ►  January (9)
  • ►  2019 (74)
    • ►  December (10)
    • ►  July (1)
    • ►  June (9)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (5)
    • ►  March (12)
    • ►  February (16)
    • ►  January (20)
  • ►  2018 (110)
    • ►  December (15)
    • ►  November (6)
    • ►  October (10)
    • ►  September (6)
    • ►  August (6)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (4)
    • ►  May (10)
    • ►  April (10)
    • ►  March (9)
    • ►  February (11)
    • ►  January (20)
  • ►  2017 (240)
    • ►  December (15)
    • ►  November (14)
    • ►  October (10)
    • ►  September (12)
    • ►  August (10)
    • ►  July (16)
    • ►  June (13)
    • ►  May (22)
    • ►  April (28)
    • ►  March (34)
    • ►  February (31)
    • ►  January (35)
  • ►  2016 (414)
    • ►  December (29)
    • ►  November (34)
    • ►  October (32)
    • ►  September (28)
    • ►  August (25)
    • ►  July (23)
    • ►  June (35)
    • ►  May (29)
    • ►  April (41)
    • ►  March (51)
    • ►  February (51)
    • ►  January (36)
  • ►  2015 (420)
    • ►  December (34)
    • ►  November (32)
    • ►  October (34)
    • ►  September (30)
    • ►  August (31)
    • ►  July (30)
    • ►  June (27)
    • ►  May (21)
    • ►  April (32)
    • ►  March (44)
    • ►  February (49)
    • ►  January (56)
  • ►  2014 (520)
    • ►  December (39)
    • ►  November (34)
    • ►  October (36)
    • ►  September (37)
    • ►  August (33)
    • ►  July (34)
    • ►  June (32)
    • ►  May (38)
    • ►  April (47)
    • ►  March (62)
    • ►  February (65)
    • ►  January (63)
  • ►  2013 (537)
    • ►  December (45)
    • ►  November (42)
    • ►  October (55)
    • ►  September (38)
    • ►  August (45)
    • ►  July (32)
    • ►  June (24)
    • ►  May (31)
    • ►  April (48)
    • ►  March (52)
    • ►  February (61)
    • ►  January (64)
  • ►  2012 (474)
    • ►  December (53)
    • ►  November (44)
    • ►  October (47)
    • ►  September (38)
    • ►  August (36)
    • ►  July (33)
    • ►  June (33)
    • ►  May (38)
    • ►  April (31)
    • ►  March (39)
    • ►  February (43)
    • ►  January (39)
  • ►  2011 (266)
    • ►  December (38)
    • ►  November (29)
    • ►  October (35)
    • ►  September (24)
    • ►  August (23)
    • ►  July (19)
    • ►  June (21)
    • ►  May (23)
    • ►  April (32)
    • ►  March (22)

About Me

My photo
Matt Sutkoski
I'm a Vermonter, living in St. Albans, with an interest in just about everything, and ready with a comment on almost everything.
View my complete profile
Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.