He's blatantly ignoring that most affiliate programs only payout to the last-click. Okay...great...the first click attribution is maintained, but if there is no payout for it, then the core issue is still the issue.
Just like many of these schemes, the first person to do it will probably make a good amount of money, but every nth person after that will make much less. There has always been a large group of people trying to spam their way through the Medium partner program.
The policy is enforceable through moderation. They're probably looking for multiple indicators then doing a manual review. The only way to monetize Medium is through the partner program, which is reliant on high volume of posts or a post to go viral. It's unlikely an AI generated post will go viral, but it is very likely people will spam the system and start posting 3-5x a day to get a few dollars. I don't think they're as concerned with someone using AI as an assistant to write a few posts a month, but rather AI slowly draining their payouts from real people.
1. if you can figure out how to do this, you're intelligent enough to score in the top 90th percentile on the exam.
2. good luck getting away with this in person at the proctored exam.
With the kind of money involved sophisticated cheating by professionals is a thing. This isn’t kids in the bathroom level cheating it’s mob and organized crime level.
So how is it worse than what happens now? These tests are worth a lot to a very small subset of people. The average high schooler (even the bottom 85%+) does not have access to those resources
Yep, the article says the exam is still on-site and proctored. Any cheating would have to be self-contained to the laptop and not obvious to someone looking over the cheater's shoulder.
This are big statements to be making with no rationale. These will still be proctored exams in person, so there is no reason to believe that cheating will increase. Additionally, there is low indicators from the start that standardized tests correlate with academic success, hence the number of higher ed institutions no longer requiring them.
People who want to cheat will always find a way to cheat. All you need to do now is go to the bathroom and lookup answers on your phone.
Standardized tests actually correlate better with academic success than a number of other measures. Some Ivies have recently been reinstituting standardized testing requirements.
That’s just straight false, or at least I have never seen any evidence showing a strong correlation. What has been shown is the negative advantage minorities, impoverished, ESL, disabled people have when taking the test and the advantages that wealthy people who can pay for tutors have.
>What has been shown is the negative advantage minorities, impoverished, ESL, disabled people have when taking the test and the advantages that wealthy people who can pay for tutors have.
How does this contradict the GP? This doesn't necessarily seem inconsistent with standardized tests correlating better with academic success on its face. Because I would expect that such people tend to have not just worse standardized test scores but also worse academic success (because of the advantages that wealthy people have that these people lack).
There is a difference between aptitude (intelligence) and academic success (grades). There is also the underlying issue of equity.
If someone with a high aptitude but low academic performance is put into a situation where they have more access to resources, they will perform better than someone with low aptitude that has the means to make up for it in their academic success.
For instance, the popular college prep hack is take the SAT three times. Study for a different section each time, and colleges will take your highest score of each section. That’s not possible without the moderate financial means to take the test multiple times.
Doing these online will create Lots of opportunities to cheat. You guys underestimate how much money there is in cheating these tests. It’s easily worth 100k per head maybe more.
It’s worth a lot to a small subset of people, but that’s an issue today. The biggest way the group you’re referring to cheats will not be made worse by having the system online (bribe proctors, have someone else take the test, SAT training, etc.)
Your average high school student does not have thousands, let alone tens of thousands, of dollars at their disposal to cheat on the SATs.
First, you're lumping every economist into a single entity. Different economists can look at the same information and determine different outcomes. It is more subjective than objective.
That said, many economists did warn that stimulus money would lead to inflation, however there were many people in dire need which justified the 'greater good' approach to it. As to fighting said inflation, many economists believed we would have the 'soft landing' that we are heading for. They warned fighting too hard would lead to a recession, as in the harder and higher interest rates go, the more likely a recession would become.
Were there economists on the other sides of these beliefs? Yes, so that's why weighing the multitude of opinions and getting toward a consensus comes into play.
Consumption - They are people who will buy things. They will also add labor to the market, making goods less expensive for others to purchase.
Government Spending - Investment in industries like energy, infrastructure, and chip manufacturing all needs labor. With a ~3% unemployment rate that's going to be hard to come by.
Investment - Immigrants will have money to save and invest. Many small businesses are owned by immigrant families.
Net exports - Lower skilled factory labor is in demand and hard to come by. Can't make stuff in America if there is no one to make it.
Apple does JIT assembly, so it would be relatively 'easy' to release a new/factory OS version that has this feature disabled. Take the marketing of this feature down, or mark it as in development, and should be okay?
I don't know why they haven't just done the simple solution yet and are instead fighting this in court, continuing to lose sales, for a feature .1% of people will use?
I believe they tried to do this early on and discovered that a software-only fix is not sufficient to defeat the import ban. That's because the import ban covers devices that have the particular hardware, which these devices would still have.
I do agree that it is odd to have such a big fight over a feature that so few people use. But Apple's behavior is consistent with this notion — they don't want to pay Massimo much because people don't really care about the feature. Therefore Apple isn't willing to pay much of a license fee for it.
Of course, it's likely that if Apple had this tech in the clear, they would have promoted it much more, and made it more prominent to the users. They probably hesitate to market the feature that prominently because they don't want to end up with a huge patent verdict against them, on the grounds that it's an important part of their newer watches. They'd rather it look like "just another one of many features" on the watch, which would command a modest royalty.
6.9 million accounts had information stolen because they were "relatives" of 14,000 users? Something doesn't add up there. That would mean each of those random users had 492 "relatives" on the platform. I've never used 23andMe for fears of exactly this, but they should look at recalibrating what the term "relative" means if you're opting in to sharing genetic information. The average Facebook user has 338 friends, as a point of reference, and I sure wouldn't want my information shared with those people.
They go out to 4th cousins. I've got 1500 people that 23andMe says are my relatives.
> 6.9 million accounts had information stolen because they were "relatives" of 14,000 users? Something doesn't add up there.
It adds up. The key is that for the attackers to get my data they only have to compromise 1 of my 1500 relatives.
14 000 out of 14 000 000 accounts were compromised, so 1 in a 1000.
In other words the attacked has 1500 chances to roll a 1 on a d1000 if they want to get my data. The probability they can do that is 1-(1-0.001)^1500 which is 0.78.
If everyone had about as many relatives as I do, we'd expect the attackers to get data on nearly 11 million people from those 14 000 compromised accounts. Getting "only" 6.9 million suggests that on average people have a little under 700 relatives.
It's very much more than supporting 'one product'. Off the top of my head, regarding engineering, I can think of:
1. iOS App
2. Android App
3. Windows App
4. Microsoft App
5. Web App
6. Underlying API
7. Artist Portal/App
8. Advertising Portal/App
9. PlayStation App
10. Xbox App
There are probably entire engineering teams for each micro-service in the overall product (personalization, playlists, player, etc.).
