Mediaboss Marketing

Acquire and retain more users! This is a complete guide on social media marketing, SEO training, lead generation, and more.

Gone are the days of the passive, laid-back, starry-eyed consumer who could get swayed by viral ads and celebrity endorsers. However, theyre not enough. The customer today is connected, informed, curious, and communicative. While all marketing efforts are geared to impact customer intent, growth hacking is different.

It is a compound of many practices, optimized and synergized to build a comprehensive strategy for rapid growth. Its inclusive of product development, customer interaction, and technological expertise. Why not learn growth hacking strategies to scale your business.

This extensive 13-course bundle covers theentire aspect of growth hacking. Youll learn how to build an email list from scratch, use Facebook Ads to scale your campaigns and get maximum reach, and learn how to leverage other marketing platforms like Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, and LinkedIn. Lets explore this bundle in brief:

Growth hacking has gained momentum in recent years and fetched exponential results. Andrew Chen wrote that growth hackers are a hybrid of marketer and coder, one who looks at the traditional question of How do I get customers for my product. See this interesting video

So, enroll in the growth hacking strategy course and grow your business. The deal is available for only $40.

Over the past few years, you've likely heard the term 'growth hacking' being thrown around, but what exactlyis growth hacking, and how is it different from plain old 'marketing'?

With his M.Optom Degree in Eye Care Speciality, Rahul worked as a lecturer for many years in the college. Writing and teaching others is always his passion. He now writes about technology and make it digestible for readers who don't understand it well.

Join our newsletter for tech tips, reviews, free ebooks, and exclusive deals!

Please confirm your email address in the email we just sent you.

Read the original here:
Make Your Business a Success in 2021 With This Growth Hacking Course - MakeUseOf

UPDATE- It landed and sent back photos. Safe and Sound.

The latest NASA rover is scheduled to land on Mars this afternoon. The Perseverance rover has been moving toward the planet for almost seven months and will enter the planet's atmosphere at about 1:30 p.m. MST, at a speed of 12,000 miles per hour.

The Martian atmosphere will slow the spacecraft a bit and the heat shield will protect the lander. Then, a high-velocity parachute will deploy and slow it down even more. The heat shield is ejected and the craft's radar will look around for the landing site. The parachute is tossed away and the four retro rockets will fire (photo above) for a slow descent (to about 2 miles per hour). The rover is then lowered by a cable to the Martian surface. Once it touches down, the cable is detached and the rockets fly away. The rover than begins to settle in.

It all happens in about seven minutes. And Perseverance has to do it without any immediate help from NASA. It takes about 11 minutes to send a signal from Earth to Mars (and vice-versa), so scientists won't know if everything worked until after the whole landing sequence is over. NASA has had pretty good luck with all types of landing attempts, including a weird "bouncing ball" landing a few years ago. Even so, lots of nervous scientists are awaiting the landing today. Talk about "working from home"!

You can watch what the scientists see, live, on NASA's website on Youtube or NASA's TV channel. And, once this lander powers up, it has 24 cameras and even a microphone that will allow us to hear what it sounds like on the Martian surface. But one of the really interesting parts of the mission is a drone-type helicopter that will be doing some low level flights.

By the way, NASA and Montana have very strong ties. NASA grants have been awarded regularly to Montana State University, Salish-Kootenai company and UM. Mars is also connected to Montana. You can actually see it in our dark skies (when the snowclouds go away!).

View post:
Another NASA Rover Speeding Toward A Mars Landing - klyq

It is very likely that the Indian government will announce significant regulations on big internet related technology companies. It is worth thinking about how the global and local contexts will interact to determine the politics of regulation. Globally, countries from Australia to America are trying to come to terms with the power of big tech. To simplify, the world was presented with two visions of the internet technology space: California Libertarianism and Chinese Authoritarianism. Chinese Authoritarianism is going strong. The California Libertarian model had astonishing success. But it is now coming under pressure because of its internal contradictions.

There are several issues. First, many of the big tech companies were not, as they claimed, mere platforms, but began to curate and generate their own content, creating possible conflicts of interest. Second, there is a suspicion that big tech companies were acquiring more monopoly power; this was not a world of free competition. There is a curious conjunction of technology and finance here. The more companies were valued, the more they needed monopoly rent extraction to be able to justify those valuations. Hence the business model and the need to drive valuations came into direct conflict with the culture they professed.

Third, the algorithms were not subject to accountability. They were, as Frank Pasquale put it, creating a black box society. There was an irony in an opaque algorithm being the instrument of a free, open and equitable society. Fourth, while the companies had immense economic impact, their distributive implications were more mixed. They empowered new players, but they also seem to destroy lots of businesses. The news business, for example, which is the subject of regulatory concern in Australia, has revolted against these companies. These companies themselves became the symbol of inequality of economic and political power.

Fifth, these companies seemed to display the ultimate hubris: Set themselves up almost as a sovereign power. This was most evident in the way they regulated speech, posing as arbiters of permissible speech without any real accountability or consistency of standards. Whatever one may think of the necessity of banning Trump from social media, the prospect of a CEO exercising almost untrammelled authority over an elected president, which was cynically exercised when that president was on the way out, only served to highlight the inordinate power and potential of hubris these companies could exercise. Facebooks reaction to Australia is also nothing but hubris. If there is anything that characterises the politics of our age, it is the demand that economic and technological forces be re-embedded in sovereign control.

And, finally, there is also greater wariness of the effects of big tech on democracy and democratisation. The social legitimacy of California Libertarianism came from the promise of a new age of democratic empowerment. But as democracies became more polarised, free speech more weaponised, and the information order more manipulated, greater suspicion was going to be cast on this model. All democracies are grappling with this dilemma. Given that Scott Morrison called Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the Facebook issue, it might seem that the Quad might need to be an alliance against both Chinese Authoritarianism and California Libertarianism!

But these global concerns will also be refracted through different national contexts. Poland, a government veering towards authoritarianism, ironically, made laws preventing media companies from censoring tweets. In India, this global context will now be used as a pretext to advance the regimes aims. Some of these aims are unexceptionable, but they will also be twisted to unsavoury ends. India will justifiably worry about its own economic interests. India will be one of the largest bases of internet and data users in the world. The argument will be that this should be leveraged to create iconic Indian companies and Indian value addition. India can create competition and be more self-reliant in this space. Pushing back against big tech is not protectionism, because this pushback is to curb the unfair advantages they use to exploit an open Indian market.

A few years ago, India would not have thought this way because of its desire to court the United States. But the context has now changed. There is a genuine ideological push to Atmanirbhar Bharat. India can also justifiably point out that in China keeping out tech companies did not make much of a difference to financial flows or investment in other areas. Will Tesla not invest because we exercise more control over Facebook or Amazon? Second, big business in India, or rather the only ones that matter in this regulatory environment, is a votary of more protectionism; it senses a business opportunity. How much we can innovate is an open question. There is a fundamental impulse in this government to potentially control the information order as much as possible. It courted foreign tech companies so long as it suited its purposes. But the minute there is a whiff that they will be a threat to this governments idea of an information order and cultural control, the government will find ways to tame them. In the long run, it would rather deal with domestic monopolies, however badly run, to create what this column called The RSS Meets Jio World (May 1, 2019).

So as new regulations affecting tech companies are announced, it will be important to distinguish between regulations that are solving some real problems in this space, and regulation that is using this larger context to exercise more control. There are complicated issues here that genuinely need addressing. How do we enhance Indias technological capabilities? What is a better institutional structure to protect democracy and freedom from both untrammelled executive power and unaccountable corporate power? Does the new regulation of technology genuinely help create a level playing field or does it create new local monopolies?

But it will be easier to address those issues if the government showed a principled commitment to liberty, a manifest commitment to root out crony capitalism, an investment in science and technology commensurate with Indias challenges, and a general regulatory independence and credibility. We should not assume that just because big tech is being made to kneel, the alternative will be any better. Just look at television news for example: An indigenous, thoroughly broken and corrupt system that is almost totally amenable to government control. We need to grapple with the internal contradictions of California Libertarianism. But we will also need to be wary that these contradictions do not become the pretext for slowly legitimising Chinese Authoritarianism.

This article first appeared in the print edition on February 20, 2021 under the title Between California and China.The writer is contributing editor, Indian Express

Link:
Big tech regulation can solve real problems, or only increase state control - The Indian Express

There is a great deal of nonsense being written and spoken about this weeks power failures in Texas, which left a number of people dead and millions without power or potable water, sometimes for days.

Among the more prominent nonsense peddlers was the Texas governor, Greg Abbott, who blamed the mess on wind power and other renewable fuels, while warning that proposals like the Green New Deal which would zero out fossil fuels would more or less be the end of civilization as we know it. There was also Rick Perry, the states former governor, who seemed to suggest that using more renewables would lead to socialism, and Representative Dan Crenshaw, who blamed the whole thing on that liberal bastion otherwise known as California. Bottom line, Mr. Crenshaw wrote on Twitter, Texass biggest mistake was learning too many renewable energy lessons from California.

These statements were catnip to progressives, who mainly blamed the states libertarian energy system, which, they claimed, sought to keep prices low at the expense of safety.

None of the poppycock from Texas politicians is of any help to the scores of Texans who spent long hours and days freezing in their homes. It has also obscured the real reasons for the disaster and diverted attention from an important lesson: that the nations energy delivery system, not just in Texas but everywhere, needs a radical overhaul if it is to withstand future shocks and play the role that President Biden has assigned it in the battle against climate change.

Both sides have elided an interesting piece of Texas history. The person who put wind power on the Texas map was a Republican named George W. Bush. As governor, in 1999, Mr. Bush signed a law deregulating the states power market, at which point Texas started building loads of wind turbines. Wind now supplies about a quarter of the states energy diet natural gas is about twice that and Texas is far and away the biggest supplier of wind energy in the country and among the biggest in the world.

But wind, which supplies a smaller fraction of power in wintertime, had little to do with this weeks disaster. The simple truth is that the state was not prepared for the Arctic blast. A few wind turbines froze up, but the main culprits were uninsulated power plants run by natural gas. In northern states, such plants are built indoors; in Texas, as in other Southern states, the boilers and turbines are left exposed to the elements.

There are two lessons here to be absorbed and acted on. First, the countrys energy systems must be robust enough to withstand whatever surprises climate change is likely to bring. There is little doubt that a warming climate turned Californias forests into tinderboxes, leading to last summers frightening wildfires. The scientific connection between climate change and extreme cold is not as well established, but it would be foolish to assume that it is not there. (The dominant hypothesis is that global warming has weakened the air currents that keep the polar vortex and its freezing winds in check.) As the Princeton energy expert Jesse Jenkins observes in a recent Times Op-Ed, we know that climate change increases the frequency of extreme heat waves, droughts, wildfires, heavy rains and coastal flooding. We also know the damage these events can cause. To this list we should now add deep freezes.

If building resilience is one imperative, another is making sure that Americas power systems, the grid in particular, are reconfigured to do the ambitious job Mr. Biden has in mind for them to not just survive the effects of climate change but to lead the fight against it. Mr. Bidens lofty goal is to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions by midcentury and to eliminate fossil fuel emissions from the power sector by 2035. In the simplest terms, this will mean electrifying everything in sight: a huge increase in battery-powered cars and in charging stations to serve them; a big jump in the number of homes and buildings heated by electric heat pumps instead of oil and gas; and, crucially, a grid that delivers all this electricity from clean energy sources like wind and solar.

This, in turn, will require from Congress a cleareyed look at the climate-driven calamities that have beset California, the Caribbean and, most recently, Texas. It will also require an honest accounting of their great cost, in both human and financial terms, and of the need to guard against their recurrence in the years to come.

Go here to read the rest:
Opinion | The Lessons of the Texas Power Disaster - The New York Times

To The Readers Forum:

First, let me say that l am neither a Democrat nor a Republican.

I am a registered Libertarian and l have no love for either of the major parties. Your editorial of Feb. 10 criticizing Rep. Tom Reed for his failure to try to remove another elected member of the House of Representatives seems to me to be extremely misguided. Your stated premise is that Rep. Reed should base his actions on his perceived personal interests.

What about his oath of office to protect and defend the constitution of the United States? Who decides who represents the 14th congressional district of Georgia? I contend that that choice belongs to the people of that district who elected her by a substantial majority. They deserve their representation.

Whatever her opinions, she has a right to them and a right, within legal bounds, to express them. lf the voters in her district decide that they wish to remove her they can do so in the election next year. ln the mean time she should be able to express her fringe right wing views in the same way that many Democrat representatives express comparable fringe left wing views.

Robert Peterson,

Kennedy

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Link:
People Of Georgia's 14th Congressional Make Decision Who Will Occupy That Seat - Jamestown Post Journal