Ordinary Nothing

Sometimes PR speak is so bad, that it prevents any actual info from showing. Well, alright, that sometimes was a bit gentle, it happens a lot with PR speak. But still , this is one of the more amusing cases I encountered lately.

My boss was checking possibilities for a new computer, and noticed a very cheap option from some seller. So he asked me to take a look at the spec. The computer was a barebone Asus Terminator C3. As a barebone system, it has the CPU as an on-board component, and is pretty weak, but I wanted to see exactly what is it and what can it do.

Which brought me to this amusing paragraph from their site:

Instead of meaninglessly looking for high frequency processor, ASUS Terminator C3 brings you into a new world – it is strong enough to do your office/school job as well as fulfill your multimedia needs. ASUS Terminator C3 is built to be silent, space-saving, and cost effective.

Or in other words: Instead of looking for something that can prove it’s good, trust us, this one can do what you want it to, and we don’t even need to ask what you want to do with it in order to know that.

Very reassuring, isn’t it? Why check for specifications? Why check how fast a computer is. This one would do the job. It’s a wonder the big companies are releasing different kinds of processors, isn’t it, if you can just make one that always fit…

And that’s not even the best part. I found another site selling it, which had even more to say:

Confused about all those CPU naming rules? Do you really have idea about
530, 540, 550, 560 or the difference from them to 2600+, 2800+, 3000+?
With on-board CPU, ASUS Terminator C3 offers you enormous DIY fun while
sparing the trouble over CPU selection.

Yes, you read that right, they just plain go out and say: Confused about the names and models that big CPU manufacturers use? Don’t worry, we don’t give you any name or model details, so you have nothing to be confused about.

Which is the same thing, but put even better. How does this solve the problem? If getting names and models of CPUs doesn’t help their intended audience avoid confusion, why would no info at all be better? With no info at all (except for trust us of course), I’d expect people would be even more confused, no?

And what about poor people like me, who are actually not confused with all these name? People who want to know what their computer is. Are they saying this one is bad for them? Because, you know, if it has to be bad for the people with technical knowledge, it doesn’t inspire the rest that it would be good for them. And, well, DIY fun?! That surely isn’t what people who don’t get these names and models would be interested in, doing it themselves.

Odd.

I’m subscribed to Nature
magazine for years now. The sciences are a hobby of mine, and Nature is
one of the best, and oldest, interdisciplinary journals out there.

My current subscription was nearing the expiration period, and I logged
in to the site to renew. I don’t usually use the site much, since I
read everything on the paper, but when it comes to registration it
beats filling a paper form and sending an envelope, hands-down.

Before starting the renewal, I took a quick look at my account details,
and noticed a problem. I was listed as working in the pharmaceutical
industry. I certainly never provided that information, so it must be a
mistake. This is one of the information fields that doesn’t have any effect on me,
and only interests them, since it gives them better data about their
subscribers.

I decided I can spare a minute to be nice and go and change this. I
entered the account details page, changed to a more appropriate
category, and tried to update the data.

No such luck. They have required fields which were not
filled.
Mind you, these are required field that didn’t contain any info
previously, so how can they really be required? But specifically, they
require that I also fill in my Secondary Speciality, my Main Activity,
and my Professional Qualification. Even ignoring the fact that I’m not
entirely sure what the heck they’re talking about, why would I be
required to provide that info? I don’t want to, and don’t need to.

I’m a paying customer, have a subscription for years, and nobody forced
me to go change my details. I’m doing them a favour of updating some
details, and they won’t let me do that without divulging even more personal
information? Yes, that’s exactly what they’re doing.

I could either tell them more than I wanted to, or let them keep the
wrong info that I was willing to correct. So I said goodbye, and left
them with the garbage info. This makes no sense, why demand to receive
more information, when the info isn’t really required? Do they really
prefer to get no information about people, than partial info? Why?

And, oh, as a side-note, while the new subscription page works
great, the
renew subscription page is a total bust. The help system has a page
saying something about the entire on-line subscription being
inoperational, but the page is entirely undated, so it’s impossible to
know how close it is to apply. And the support rep, by email, said that
she doesn’t know why the renew pages don’t work, and offered me to send
her the credit card details by phone, fax, or email. Yes, clear-text
unencrypted email. Sloppy all around.

I was following some posts in a Yahoo group, when they showed a pop-up
message, asking me to answer a survey. The message gives the strong
impression that it’s yet another survey about Yahoo, probably about the groups, so I decided to see what it’s about this time.

You do agree that having it titled as coming from Yahoo! Research,
and saying that it’s time to tell Yahoo what I think, indicates it’s
about Yahoo, right?

Well, wrong. It started asking me about my opinion on various
American airlines, and how likely am I to fly with them. But never
mind, Yahoo! need to make a living, and since I don’t pay direct money
for the services I take from them, I can see this as payment.

What the problem was, is that I kept being offered to take this
supposed survey again, and again, and again. It only appeared when I was logged in, so they could easily know I already took it. Why bother me
with it, then? Even if they don’t want to keep a list of Yahoo! IDs
that took it, they can surely store something in a cookie. In any case,
once I took it, I’m not supposed to see the pop-up again.

And it wasn’t just a rare occurrence. There were a few days where the
thing kept showing in nearly every second page load. Sometimes on each
page load.

And when I tried to press the Take the survey button image, I was taken to a page telling me that:

Thank you for your interest. Unfortunately, you do not qualify to take this particular survey today.

Nice, isn’t it? Because it was me who was really interested in going
there again, without being prompted at all, sure. And I did not qualify? Qualify
?! This gave me the strong feeling that they decided they didn’t want to
say "Sorry, we screwed up, you already took the survey, sorry for
bothering you", and instead decided it’s better to tell me it’s my fault, that I’m not up
to some standard. Not a way to make people happy, guys. If I don’t qualify, tell me why.

Even better (well, worse), this page opened instead of the original Yahoo page I was
viewing, not in a new window, and not in a pop-up window. And yet they
put a "close" link on the page, like you do on pop-up pages that can be so closed. Except… This wasn’t a pop-up page. So there was this "close"
link there, and it didn’t do anything. At all. I tried, I knew it was
out of place, but was intrigued as to what it would do. It didn’t do
anything. Very professional, I was so impressed.

Instead I pressed the browser’s back button, returned to the original
page I started from, and… Guess what? I got this pop-up image asking
me to take a survey…

When it comes to phone carriers in Israel, there is only one company
that provides in-country land line phone connection. But cellular
phones, and international calls, are open for some competition.

My boss at work signed with one of the International carriers, called Barak.
And for some reason they decided to be nice. So when you call out,
instead if just connecting the line and keeping it quiet, they play
this chirpy little tune, and have an announcer thanking you for calling
with them.

If you make the rare call once in a while, I suppose it could be alright. But when you make lots of international phone calls, as we do
from the office, this is maddening. I’m getting sick of hearing their
tune, and want to yell back at the recorded announcer to stuff it when
I’m hearing the thank you…

They provide the service of international phone calls. So if I make
a phone, I should get a connection. Why the incessant
self-advertisement? It doesn’t help! it’s annoying! And if it was up to
me I’d really switch to another carrier just so I won’t have to listen
to this message ever again.

I had some purchases in the UK version of Amazon
in the past. So they’re sending me (with permission, this isn’t the
problem here) the occasional promotional emails about new releases and
special discounts.

The latest such message contained some interesting offers. Like:

The 4 DVDs for GBP 20 promotion applies to listed titles only, which are subject to change and availability. DVDs may be purchased individually for GBP 4.97.

Now, let me run this by you again. You can purchase, in a special promotion price, a pack of four DVDs, for a total of 20 GBP. Do the math, it comes to 5 GBP each. Or, you could forgo the special offer, and buy them individually, in which case they will cost 4.97 GBP each. Which is less.
So for example, if you really want four, you’re better off getting them
as four individuals instead of using the special promotion. Brilliant
offer, isn’t it?

But wait, there’s more:

The 3 paperbacks for GBP 12
promotion applies to listed titles only, which are subject to change
and availability. Books in this promotion may be purchased individually for GBP 3.99.

Yes,
that’s almost exactly the same thing. It’s not as bad here as in the previous
case, but you’re still either better off, or the same, buying them
individually instead of in the special offer pack. Would it have really
hurt them to say that each one is 4 GBP and be done with it, without any special offers?

With passover approaching, as with a few more of the main holidays,
many companies and businesses feel the need to get a holiday gift to
their employees (That’s not an altruistic feeling, in particular. It’s
so ingrained that people deserve it, that companies will face serious
disaffection and disgruntlement if they won’t do it. Cheaper to get the
gifts, and retain the good feelings of the employees. Some places, it may even be in the contract).

And a gift which is becoming more and more popular is a
multi-coupon, that’s worth a certain amount of money in a large amount
of store networks – clothing, music, books, toys, and supermarkets.
Actually, there are people using the opportunity to buy these things
privately, since if you buy at the included stores anyway, you save
money. the coupon price is less than it’s value in the store (not that
big a problem for stores, they give up a little of their mark-up for a
chance of getting more customers. If they didn’t think it was worth it,
they wouldn’t do it).

Now, in most places, it’s easy. If the coupon has a stated value of 100 ILS, then you can buy 100 ILS
worth of goods in it. Simple enough. But for a long time some of the
large clothing stores, and supermarket network, accept these coupons
for a reduced value, so the same coupon will be worth, for example, 95 ILS
there. These are probably the places that get lots of traffic anyway,
so they assume nearly all shoppers will be regular one that take
advantage of the coupons, rather than new customers that wouldn’t have
bought anything otherwise.

Personally, I found this irking enough that I wouldn’t go there with
the coupon out of principal. It feels too much like being cheated out
of money.

And now, one of the supermarket chains had these radio commercials that
I’ve been hearing over the last few days. And it’s a very sad state of
affairs that this sort of thing is considered by their PR
flacks to be an advantage worth publishing. It’s even sadder that many
people may actually see this as the special discount offer that those
commercial presents.

See, what they claim is that, very special offer, the coupons will
be worth their stated value in their store. Yes, you read that right,
this amazing and unbelievable offer, you could buy things in the sum
stated on the coupon as it’s value. Now is that the best deal you’ve
heard of in a long time, or what?

I was discussion with Yahoo!’s customer support a problem causing my
Yahoo! Messenger to be always marked as on-line from web pages and
Yahoo! Groups. After a few days they managed to sort it out, and that
was that.

Then I got an email asking me to take an on-line survey about their
customer care. I took the survey. The survey was very badly designed,
and had some serious flaws. They did provide an email address to send
other comments about the survey, so I took the opportunity and emailed
them (Satmetrix, which was running the survey for Yahoo!. I’m not sure
why, Yahoo! are big enough to be able to make bad surveys by
themselves. A good survey is something else, and may require previous
practice, but this?) my main complaints.

First, They had a series of question of the rate between 1-5 the following aspects
kind. One was for "Professionalism and courtesy of response". This is
something I saw on several past surveys, and it always ticks me off. Courtesy and professionalism are two entirely different things when dealing with technical support.
Courtesy is how nice and polite the person is. Professionalism is how
much it seems like they have a clue what they’re talking about.

Yahoo! support emails are always very courteous. I dealt with them
several times in the past, and I can’t fault their courtesy at all. But
part of it is because they use pre-written responses, which were went
over to assure they’re courteous. They are also usually entirely
irrelevant. This specific incident was much better than previous ones,
but still the level of professionalism was way below the level of
courtesy.

So do I give a low mark, and risk them making the responses even
more meaningless, yet friendly? Or do I give a high mark, and risk them
thinking that quoting unhelpful pages, and telling me the problem was
resolved when it wasn’t, is professional enough for me?

Second, they had a question about the "Time to receive a response
after sending email to Yahoo!". This is again very unclear. I got a
response straight away, but it was an automated response, copying the
same help web page that didn’t help me a single bit originally (which
is why I turned to support in the first place, after all). This
response told me to reply to it if it wasn’t helpful, which I promptly
did. The next reply, which is the first one I’d actually term a
response, was fast, but took a little longer.

But which do they refer to here? Which do they call the first response?
If I give a lower mark, would they think that they need to send the
meaningless response even faster? If I give a high mark, would they
think that the brain-dead automatic response was good?

Third, they had a field for free text commentary, but limited to
"one" thing that Yahoo! Support needs to improve. Just one. This is
silly, what if I have several comments? Heck, I did have several
comments. But I didn’t say them, since they were asking for one.

Result? I was annoyed since I had things to say, I even took a
survey which is supposed to let me say them, and then I wasn’t allowed
to say them. And Yahoo! loses as well, since they got reviews from
actual customers that they didn’t get. If this is the case with me,
this is the case in aggregate. They lose valuable customer feedback, and annoy customers. Why?

So I sent my message. I wasn’t sure how much attention it would get, but I did my bit, and tried to help.

Guess what, I received a response. Is that a good thing? Well,
considering the response, no! Satmetrix made themselves appear entirely
unprofessional (and discourteous <g> ).

Of course the response was automated. That’s alright, I expected an
automated response. But I expected one saying that the received my
comments and will later review them, or something of the sort.

Anyone want to guess the method of automation used? An "Out of
Office AutoReply". They just set the email address as a personal email
address, with a setting used generally when someone is on vacation and
want to notify people that they won’t be able to reply for a while.

Technically, it does the job, yes. But this is so unprofessional.
It feels amateurish. It’s really not that difficult to send automatic
replies that don’t look like that. When I get a response from a company
after sending comments to an address they specified, I do not want to
see the subject of the response message telling me that someone isn’t
at the office. I sent it to an address meant to be a recipient of
messages for further processing, not a personal one.

In addition, they had spam filters installed to monitor this
address. How do I know? Because it added the word "[spam]" to the
subject. You do not put automatic spam monitoring on an address set to autoreply to everything, or one meant to receive public comments. Yet they did.

So the spam filter thinks it’s spam, adds the word "[spam]" to the
subject, and let the message go on.  Once past it, it gets caught
be the Out of Office AutoReply mechanism, which replies to it with the
pre-written text. And as a result I am told that they believe my
message is spam. Good to know. That’s rude, people.

Either you don’t filter this address, or you don’t reply to messages
you think are spam. But doing it like they really did it, bad, bad, bad.

All in all, if I had to fill a survey about my experience with Satmetrix, they would get very poor marks.

Just a tiny little blooper.

This looks like a nice and friendly shop for little children’s clothing.

Check the file name for the right-side image (Right click on the image, and choose "Properties").

Now, isn’t that very nice of them?

Hat tip to NTK.

PS. In case they found out about this and fix it, this is a nice picture of a cute young Asian girl, but the file name is chink.jpg

Last week we were in the Technologies 2005 exhibition in
Tel-Aviv. It’s a purely Israeli event, but there are representatives
from many of the major suppliers (and buyers) in various hi-tech
sectors.

The exhibition itself was fairly interesting (well, some aspects
more, and some less, there were very myriad types on things presented).

One mistake many presenting companies made was in the design of
their stands. Everyone made sure you could see the company name, but
some where so enthusiastic about having colours,  graphics, and eye
candy, that they made it very hard to know what they do. If someone
came over to search for then, that’s fine. For people who intend to
spend time on each stand, and talk to reps of each company, that’s fine
too. But most buyers were either generally browsing, or looking for
specific kinds of items/technologies. And when someone makes it very
hard to discern at first, or second or third, sight what it is they’re
selling, many people would not spend the effort of coming over to talk
to the rep.

And there seemed to be extremely bad judgement exhibited by many of those presenting thin LCD screens for embedded systems.

One supplier had a wall full of a large amount of models and sizes
of screens. And what did they show on them, to demonstrate the display
quality? The standard Flying Windows screen saver. So the screen was
black, with the occasional fast-moving splotches of colour. Not helping
to know anything about the screen at all, and mostly made me wonder
what were they trying to hide…

Another vendor did worse. They also had a wall covered with LCD
screens. And two huge problems. The first was a nice screen that was so
totally out of synch that the picture looked sliced and flickering.
Nobody should show that when they’re trying to sell something. It’s a
huge run away – this product we’re selling is defective sign. The
second one was that the lovely hi-res flower pictures they showed were
often replaced by a notice that this is a free demo of some commercial
screen saver product, with web address and contact details to buy the
full version. And if it’s not clear, this was not by the company making
the presentation. That’s right, they probably took a demo version of a
screen saver of the Internet, and used it for the exhibition. This is both
serious copyright infringement, and plain stupid. It looked so unprofessional. And they didn’t mind, it was like that for two days…

A third vendor of those screen had a more conceptual problem. I
heard a discussion he had with one of the exhibition’s visitors that
was taking a look at his stand, and it was obvious they completely
misunderstood each other. The mistake of the visitor was
understandable, he didn’t come from the right field. But the vendor had
to know what he was talking about.  The visitor was mainly aware
of computer screens as things you connect to personal computers. But
the screens were meant for embedded systems (closed systems that also
need to display information. Like hand-held computers). So the screens
didn’t come with a connection to a regular computer’s graphical card,
since they were not meant to be connected externally to a full
computer. They were meant to be connected to computer boards for
embedded systems, which have special types of connectors built directly
into the circuitry of the board (TFT and LVDS).
So the vendor was repeating the claim that you don’t need a graphics
card in order to use the screens (which is true, but pointless for him
to mention since hardly any of those systems use external graphics
cards anyway), and the visitor kept claiming that you have to use a
graphics card since there isn’t any other way for the computer to use a
screen (which is also entirely true, for full computers like the
visitor know from home). It was a long argument, and they both ended it
feeling that the other person is an idiot…

Plus, as usual in these exhibitions, many of the traders brought all
sorts of silly gifts and trinkets, such as free food-stuff, candies,
pens, markers, flashlights, candles, toys, and up to a company that
gave free wine (good one, even) plus the wineglasses themselves. All a
colossal expenditure of money, which I doubt helped sales in any
noticeable manner, since the people who came just to take the free stuff
rarely paid attention to what was actually sold.

It looks like the Norwegians have joined the bandwagon.

Anyone heard of the large furniture selling network, IKEA ? Well, most of the furniture comes in pieces, as "flat pack", with instruction manuals explaining how to assemble them.

So what’s the problem? Some manuals contain drawing of human figures
alongside the pieces of furniture, illustrating positions and movement
needed for the assembly. And the Norwegian prime minister is furious
because all the figures are either of men, or of indiscernible gender.
So it must be sexual discrimination, you see?

Do you? Really?

Especially those indiscernible gender figures. Have they no shame?!

He’s absolutely right. Next time I buy something in IKEA I want the
instruction manual to be jam-packed with drawings of scantily clad
females. And be accurate and elaborate, so there won’t be room for
confusion. We have to know these are real women, and not men in
disguise. Equality is important, dammit! Are you listening IKEA?

On a side-note, the CNN news article
managed to get IKEA’s name wrong in the title. The web page title, in
the HTML, not the headline. The article itself is correct all the way,
but on the title it’s spelled ‘Ikea". An overzealous copy editor?

Hat tip to Common Knowledge.

After the pharmacy from the previous post, I went into a different
store. At some point their public announcement system (a bunch of low
quality, but high volume, speakers spread around the store) came to life
with a loud "To all our customers! To all our customers! Your
attention, please! A special offer! Only today!".

And that’s it. Silence.

People were staring at each other a bit puzzled. And nearly a minute
later again an announcement. "Attention, customer! Pay attention
please!". And died again, this time with a low quiet trace in the
background of someone whispering to someone else a sentence along the
lines of "… not working, I don’t know what…".

I never did get to find out what was the special offer. And the
announcement system wasn’t dead, if the thought occurred to you. It went
on perfectly in it’s usual work of calling personal to come to specific
stations.

Most odd. They got my attention, then did nothing with it…

The trade-in idea isn’t new. Various sellers in various industries
offer customers a discount if they bring in an older product similar to
the one they’re buying.
You see many trade-in offers for cars, for televisions, lots of home electronics equipment, phones, refrigerators,
and so on and so forth.

On the other hand, there are some things that you would normally not see offered as part of a trade-in deal. Like this tantalizing offer that I saw in the newspaper today…
A trade-in discount for… toothbrushes. Yes, you read that right. Bring in your old used toothbrush, and get a discount when buying a new one.

I mean… who would go to a store carrying a used toothbrush,
for crying out loud ?! The discount price is small, the price for a
brand new top of the line toothbrush is small. Would this really
overcome the gross factor ? Would it overcome the reaction of other
potential customers that would get out of the store when they see
people brandishing their used toothbrushes about ?

Personally, I may buy another competing brand of toothbrush just to avoid being asked if I carried the old one with me…

And from a different point of view, this also doesn’t make much
economic sense. Trade-ins are done as a sort of partial price
discrimination. Trying to attract the customers who won’t pay full
price because they have a similar product, but who may be willing to
pay less to get a sort of an upgrade. Well, newsflash:

1. Everybody has a toothbrush. Everybody.
2. The features of a new product are meaningless in the toothbrush
   industry. People replace a toothbrush when it needs to be replaced.
   They will replace it in the same time, regardless of price variations
   of the new product or the available features.

So this trade in does not make their toothbrushes appealing
(although maybe appalling) to more people. It does not attract extra
customers beyond those that would by them anyway.

The only idea is to try and shift some people who already buy a
toothbrush from the competitors to them. I admit that it is a valid
economic purpose, but is this really the way? Somehow, I don’t quite
see that.

If anyone wonders, the offer is for new Colgate toothbrushes. So if
you happen to be in Israel, have your old toothbrush with you, and want
to get a shiny, new, dirt-cheap Colgate toothbrush, now’s the time.
Me, I’ll buy Oral-B next time…

Let me start by saying that I’m not a The West Wing
viewer. Mostly for historical reasons (Didn’t start to watch the first
season, didn’t have the time to catch up a little afterwards, was told
it’s not really worth it to catch up during the later seasons, and
don’t have the time to catch up on six whole seasons now). The reviews
I hear from people who watch it are that the latest is season is really
good, and on par with the first ones.

But they are making lots of noise in the media lately. It seems that hardly an episode goes by without someone getting insulted.

Early on December, they had an episode when they were dissing the hospital in Anchorage. And the mayor was greatly offended.

Last week they ran an episode saying some not-very-nice things about
the NASCAR races. And about the races’ fans. Which in turn got very upset.

And in the latest episode, they managed to rile the corn industry.

And I’m not sure why. If the latest season was bad, I’d believe
they’re desperately trying to get more viewers. But that’s not the
case…
Naturally most shows could easily manage to anger someone.
It’s easy to anger most people. But The West Wing is doing it best lately. I don’t follow The West Wing
on the news, and yet I heard about these. That’s more than for other
shows.

And it may be that Americans need to start taking
their entertainment TV shows a hell of a lot less seriously. And fast.
That would be another way to make everyone happier.

I ran across this article, where a Greek reporter complains that the FCC in the U.S. is considering censoring parts of the Greek Olympic Games opening ceremony. Which would be very stupid and ridiculous of them, and which I agree with her can be seen as an insult to Greece, but it would be far from the first time the FCC has made a stupid decision.

In any case, I decided to try and look for myself on the FCC website exactly is it that they have to say about the issue.
I entered the search screen, searched for Olympic Games, and clicked the link to sort results by date, since this is a new issue.

Should be simple enough, right?

Wrong.

Click the thumbnail to open a picture of the returned results I got, or just go ahead and run the search yourself (to see if they fixed it, maybe).

The dates are clearly listed on the right-side column.

If you’re wondering whether maybe those dates are wrong and the sorting is done on a different and correct date field (Which would be a problem all by itself), that’s not the case. Some of the summaries contain the date as text inside them, and you can see they all match perfectly.

It seems sorted by relevance, despite the fact that it clearly states that the results are sorted by date. And after requesting a sort by date, sorting by relevance is not very… relevant.

The relevance factor seems skewed as well. How can the same document published on the same day(check the file names and summary), once in a plain text version and once in a Word document, have different relevance values? The text should be identical…

Oh, well, making important telecommunication decisions that effect the U.S., and often the entire world, doesn’t require being able to perform basic sorts.

Note: I also sent this to This is Broken, but since the auto-reply let me know that it isn’t likely it will get posted there, and will take a long time even if it does, I decided to post about it here as well.

It’s so nice when people botch up translations.

I just logged into my Hotmail account, went to the inbox, and on the top of the page there appeared an ad from Microsoft. The ad was for the MSN Toolbar, and in Hebrew.

I think what they wanted to say was along the lines of "The pop-up blocker is one click away", or something of the sort. What they did say was "The ad blocker is one click away"… In their banner ad…

Which is a good point, I don’t want to see this ad. It’s quite refreshing to see simple ads that can not only describe a product, but also demonstrate that you really need it.

I have my doubts that the MSN Toolbar will work on my Firefox browser, though. But I do have the (quite wonderful) AdBlock extension, so I’m proud to report that I will now no longer need to see this ad. And they were perfectly right, it was just one click away… Thanks for the reminder.

BTW, I am aware that using the free service without seeing the ads is not very nice. But if they can discriminate against me just because I don’t live in the US or in Puerto Rico, then I’m allowed to be pissed off and not see their ads.