Okay, so here’s some more easily interpreted numbers. In addition to having the largest change in traffic share relative to its previous share, Linux actually had the largest change in actual traffic share. It was just BARELY above Mac OS. If more significant digits were allowed here, Linux rose 0.0085 while Mac OS rose 0.0082.
The relative percent change for “other” is not reported in the graphic. There is a remainder of 0.005 in the Share Change which is, presumably, attributable to change in the “other” category.
Last year’s results
I just found last year’s results. It looks like my math bears out, though it appears that they rounded differently.
Notably, last year’s changes were very different.
OS
2022 Share
2021 Share
Share Change
Windows
0.647
0.646
0.001
Mac OS
0.284
0.273
0.011
Linux
0.028
0.028
0.000**
Chrome Book
0.025
0.025
0.000**
Other
0.011
Unknown***
0.015***
** Linux and Chrome Book’s absolute change was less than 0.0005.
*** As with 2023, the percentage change for “other” is not reported in the graphic. There is a remainder of 0.012 in the Share Change which is, presumably, attributable to change in the “other” category. This seems large, though, given that the total traffic share for “other” is only 0.016. That would imply a change from 0.001 to 0.012. Looking at the 2021 numbers this doesn’t appear to be correct.
You are just going to die on this hill, aren’t you? Even Linus recognized that his attitude was toxic, eventually, and that it was having a negative impact on the kernel development community. Yes, people left. Talented people decided it wasn’t worth the abuse.
Unfortunately search engines typically also own the ad networks.
You know, now that I think about it, that sounds like a really good reason to file an anti-trust suit. Search engines have a clear conflict of interest to prefer content that uses their ad network. Search engines should not have a preference for a particular ad network, but they almost certainly do and that harms the consumer.
Something tells me that you don’t work in science. The process for getting science funding isn’t simple and weeds out useless studies pretty quickly. On average, calls for proposals have about a 15% success rate. So, 15 in every 100 proposals get funded. They are funded after being vetted for usefulness, feasibility, novelty, cost, and other factors.
Since studies are well-vetted before getting funded, studies that sound like they’re simple or useless based on headlines normally make a lot of sense when you read the research results.
Money is speech, right? Does that make the ramifications of this decision go a lot farther? I don’t see how yet, but it seems like this ruling may have broad impacts when people start getting creative with it…
*Cries in Debt* (lemmy.zip)
This truly is the year of the linux desktop (lemmy.world)
Linus does not fuck around (lemmy.one)
An oldie, but a goodie
i hate it (i.imgflip.com)
Kid's going places (mander.xyz)
Businesses can discriminate against their customers? Alright then... (lemmy.world)