Ooooooh Facebook fan
Loads of mates are on it but it’s how certain people use it (to be nosey and to gloat or crave attention) that I can’t stomach. Never been on it ever and never will. Toxic environment for me.
You’re not old Sheebo
Ooooooh Facebook fan
Loads of mates are on it but it’s how certain people use it (to be nosey and to gloat or crave attention) that I can’t stomach. Never been on it ever and never will. Toxic environment for me.
fortheoldergenerationbook.com
Facebook is fast becoming irrelevant to you younger generations. It's all about Insta. Then, it'll all be about the new thing... and there will be many.
Young people are fickle. As you get older you like what you know, you don't embrace change as much. Instead of trying to tickle the nethers of the younger generation they should focus on keeping their core consumers on board.
fortheoldergenerationbook.com
Facebook is fast becoming irrelevant to you younger generations. It's all about Insta. Then, it'll all be about the new thing... and there will be many.
Young people are fickle. As you get older you like what you know, you don't embrace change as much. Instead of trying to tickle the nethers of the younger generation they should focus on keeping their core consumers on board.
I’m charmingly amused by how out of date you are. No offence
None taken! I don't have any social media accounts.... I just see what my kids are up to, and hear what they say.
I don't want to share my life online, I don't want to take a picture of my bleedin' coffee for everyone to see - just in case they forgot what a coffee looks like, and can't be arsed with all the fake people.
I'm pretty computer and t'internet savvy so I'm not a luddite - I'm just fast becoming a miserable old git who likes privacy and isn't fussed about validation.
As many thumbs up as possible now, please.
Ha! You’re not alone. I’m fairly young and have no social media accounts. Except this I guess. Just not interested.
My friends remain my friends and I don’t think I’ve missed out at all.
you do enough damage on here.
Absolutely no need for that. Surprised that’s come from you actually.
where's that sense of humour , i frequently cause carnage on fb , i call out corrupt politicians , police entrapment and generally abuse idiots , usually Americans who then get me banned , last ban 30 days followed by a 7 dayer for good luck from Zuckerbergs dopey administrators........Telegram and WhatsApp much better , get away with murder but fb really underlines the fact for me that 80% of it's user should be euthanised ASAP...! no offence by the way , it was a joke.
Ah. Sorry. I took that the wrong way. Over-tired. My bad
where's that sense of humour , i frequently cause carnage on fb , i call out corrupt politicians , police entrapment and generally abuse idiots , usually Americans who then get me banned , last ban 30 days followed by a 7 dayer for good luck from Zuckerbergs dopey administrators........Telegram and WhatsApp much better , get away with murder but fb really underlines the fact for me that 80% of it's user should be euthanised ASAP...! no offence by the way , it was a joke.
We still call Google, the product, Google because ... well, it still is Google. Alphabet is a separate company which owns Google.
I've no idea how Alphabet/Google/etc and Facebook/etc are currently set up, but it's not uncommon to use a multi-company structure to de-risk the business. You can do fun facepalm things like have the assets owned by Company A while Company B owns all the cost sinks. I once worked for a business that was structured as multiple companies (in Australia). The IP was all held at the parent company, but the staffing in that company was a bare-bones skeleton (only what was required by law essentially). Then beneath that was a publishing company, a development company, a distribution company. Each of those companies held all the major cost sinks related to their speciality: contracts with third parties, staff salaries, etc. When the product the development company was working on failed, they put it into administration and folded it. A few key staff had their contracts moved to the parent company. The rest were sent packing on short notice. Not long later a new development company was in place, those staff who were retained transferred into it, a few new staff hired (but fewer of them, so lower cost) and the product was revived for a while - because the IP rights were with the parent company, they weren't affected by the administration action. That product ultimately still failed again, but what they managed to do through the company structure was completely insulate the distribution and production companies from the failure of the product, as well as insulate their other long-term successful product from the failure of the riskier new product.
This all happened pre-2010, but the business is still operational today and ticking along nicely thanks to the way they'd structured everything.
This is pretty much how Crystal Palace have set up. CPFC Ltd, CPFC Selhurst Park Ltd, are owned by CPFC2010Ltd, CPFC 2018 Ltd is in no way related despite operating in a very similar field. Some Dullard seems to own that one.
The shithole, I mean stadium is separated from the club, and is not an asset of the club, this is obviously an entirely unnecessary precaution, as no way would the club over reach itself, spend ridiculous amounts on players wages and end up in administration, but if it ever did, the stadium would not have to be sold off to meet the debts of CPFC Ltd.