First off, I know absolutely nothing about the stock market. Actually, if it was possible - I know less than nothing about the stock market.
Anyway, I wouldn't pay over $45 a share if I wanted to buy. Why? 'Cause that's what you could have gotten it for at its best value. You can't possibly buy right now. Why? 'Cause it was at $45 a share! You missed your opportunity. You can't possibly settle for $65 a share when it was $45 a share just a few hours ago. YOU CAN'T.
But now, if it dips below $45, then I'd say it's time to start pondering buying.
(the above is based on sports betting and I believe the same principles hold true)
I don't have a problem with this. I think it can and will be useful. Although, I really believe innovators are missing a huge market for this kind of product (one that is trying to ease a physical buying experience).
And that's the retail/shopping market. If I had it my way, there would be large screens in department stores that displayed ratings and reviews of products congregated from a number of websites.
For instance, take the Nordstrom shoe department. Instead of having shoe displays against the wall, I really think they should have scrolling reviews displayed on sizable screens.
When I walk into a store, I rarely know what's worth my money. And who really thinks a salesperson is the right person to be helping you make a decision (or talking you into a decision...)? And yeah, I could search my phone for product reviews, but that's a hassle.
I would say both. For dissatisfied people to leave their current dating sites (or ones they've used in the past). And for people who would never pay $34/month or want to go through the painful process of answering hundreds of pointless questions.
Moving the "learn more" copy to the landing page is definitely a possibility, but I feel like it might be too much text. And yeah, the way you reworded the copy makes it smoother for sure. I need to tweak it some more per your suggestions. Thanks for the detailed response, unignorant.
I used to bet on sports. I've made 13k in 13 days. I've wagered 10k on a single game (numerous times). I've lost 14k in three hours. I've wagered my entire bankroll on a single day of NFL games.
And guess what? It was never about the money. Sure, I always wanted to see the number go up, but I had no intentions of withdrawing any of it. It was about being right. It was about pushing the envelope. And most importantly, it was about trying to figure something out.
I don't care if you make millions or go bust... or go back and forth between the two. As long as you leave your emotions at the door, you'll be fine. And to be honest, I was good at that (and still am). But it's probably not a life you want...
I mean, yeah, it's fun trying to solve something and seeing if you're right or wrong. But you're only doing it for yourself. You and no one else. And if that tickles your fancy, go for it - I have nothing against it. But what if you chose to share your passion for wanting to be right, for wanting to push the envelope, for wanting to figure something out...
In my eyes, it wouldn't necessarily make you a better person, it'd just be hard to call that bet a loss.
There are unaccountable psychological factors that happen on a game-to-game basis (as well as, daily basis) that not even "geeks" would be able to hack.
EDIT: This is coming from a guy who used to be bad, good, and decent at betting on sports (yes, you can be all three and even in the same day! ha)
If someone's ignorance cannot be altered or at least reasonably discussed, I think that's perfectly okay. That just means it's time for me to move on.
I don't see how attacking or embarrassing someone would make you feel better about your side of things. I'd much rather let that person enjoy their own ignorance.
Note: I tend to lack/block out very strong emotions
Non-infectious ignorance can be left alone. A state senator with a PR platform, using it to spread ignorance of a sort that ruins millions of lives, cannot be left alone in good conscience.
But unfortunately points of view aren't innocent things that everyone is entitled to. They can cause SERIOUS damage to the lives of other people.
If I have a point of view that binder clips should be made illegal because they're hideous, and manage to make that a law, then A: My point of view is making regular stationers criminals, and B: I might have put people who make binder clips out of work.
Everyone has a point of view, but not all of them are reasonable, and simply having them can screw other people up.
I agree with you in the sense of allowing people the space to disagree, but in this particular case, someone's bad opinion, if left unchallenged, could result in other people going to jail. It's the principle of reciprocity.
Think of it this way: he's not attacking the politician for her opinion. He's attacking her for attempting to make her stupid opinion into a matter of public policy.
Everyone is welcome to have their opinions. When one attempts to act on those opinions in a way that's harmful to other people, one cannot but expect others to oppose.
Let's say I believe that three-year-olds can fly if only they're forced into a situation where they must do so in order to save their lives. It's a stupid opinion, but it's harmless if it's just a thought sitting in my head.
Now let's say I decide that I need to teach a bunch of three-year-olds to tap their innate flying ability by throwing them off a bridge. Is stopping me from doing so disrespectful of my opinion? Would that actually give you pause in stopping me?
Respecting someone's opinion is fine and dandy, but your inalienable right to your opinion stops when it starts motivating action involving others; at that point, the general rules regarding your rights when interacting with other people apply.
Agreed. But it's hard because most people are one way communicators. They truly don't listen to the other person they're interacting with; instead they just want to get around to talking about themselves. Actually, that's why Facebook and Twitter work so well - they're self-broadcasting stations.
