Why would they have manual reviews? How would it scale with hundreds of thousands of developer accounts? It's mostly automated with rare manual escalation for "suspicious activity". The "process" is to ban the malicious accounts when reported, like everywhere else.
They quite literally justify the lack of sideloading and the 30% cut by saying that they provide you actual human services like review.
"The guiding principle of the App Store is simple—we want to provide a safe experience for users to get apps and a great opportunity for all developers to be successful. We do this by offering a highly curated App Store where every app is reviewed by experts and an editorial team helps users discover new apps every day. For everything else there is always the open Internet."
> I think Apple has also done good things with their strict app store policies
Apple could have hidden the settings to enable it behind two levels of menu settings and anyone like you would never get to it. The only reason they have "strict" policies, as has been shown over and over again, is for their commercial benefit.
> Apple has been for example putting limits on data collection and tracking.
I want to be tracked by apps, because it leads to better ads for products that I am actually looking for (than some random garbage that I don't care about)... and better usability in general. Apple put those rules in place so that their ad business has the edge over competitors. If Apple was running in a country that was not corrupt, this would be seen as anti-competitive and they would be sued.
> Strong players, like Facebook, may just take their app away from the official store and distribute it through other ways.
And? If you want clear rules on tracking, go talk to your politician. Apple is blocking competitors from tracking users while it has access to all of users data and uses it for their $5 billion revenue business.
I don't think "lots of people" are going to living in Mars anytime soon. Before we start sending any people, we would be sending a whole lot of other equipment to send us high quality data about the environment before we are ready to start sending any real humans.
Personally, I think we should never send any humans ever to Mars. Humans will not be leaving the solar system anyway and glamorising the idea of humans being in Mars could just unnecessarily delay going further with life.
Before the anti-Musk cats get too wet, Elon Musk has said, and I quote, "If we get far enough away from launch pad before something goes wrong, then I think I would consider that to be a success. Just don't blow up the pad.": https://edition.cnn.com/2023/04/16/world/starship-spacex-lau...
Right. The criteria for this test was "Failure = CATO (catastrophic at takeoff)". It took off, it didn't CATO, it even hit max Q, therefore success. That's not "partial success". That's 100% success, you won the game show, but you didn't get all the points in the sudden death bonus round.
I fed the question and the grading remark to GPT-4 and here's what I got:
"""
The problems with the question and grading remark are as follows:
1. The question assumes that everyone is identical, which is an unrealistic and oversimplified assumption. In reality, people have different preferences, time constraints, and valuations of goods and services. This assumption may limit the applicability of the conclusions drawn from the model.
2. The grading remark assumes that the provision of free coffee will cause the line to get longer. While this may be true in some cases, it is not necessarily true in all cases. The increased utility from receiving free coffee may not be enough to incentivize more people to join the line, especially if the waiting time is already long, or if there are alternative sources of coffee or raspberries available.
3. The grading remark also assumes that the waiting time will increase until the value of the coffee is completely dissipated. This is a strong assumption and may not hold in all cases. The increase in waiting time may be limited by factors such as the opening hours of the store or the availability of raspberries.
4. The grading remark calculates the social cost of providing the coffee as $100, which may be an oversimplification. The actual social cost may depend on factors such as the opportunity cost of the time spent waiting in line, the environmental impact of producing and distributing the coffee, and any externalities associated with coffee consumption.
5. The question does not specify whether the government's cost of $1 per cup includes the opportunity cost of the resources used to provide the coffee or only the direct monetary cost. This may lead to an underestimation of the true social cost of providing the coffee.
In conclusion, the question and grading remark are based on a simplified model that may not accurately capture the complexities of the real world. The assumptions made in the question and grading remark may limit the applicability of the conclusions drawn from the model.
"""
Maybe it's not a failure of GPT-4 but a failure of a system which regards "professors of economics" as competent people.
tldr; the answer to the clickbait: "I’m having a rest before another challenge crops up, and I really don’t want to think about my heart rate variability, whether I slept well, or even have notifications on my wrist at all – I just want to give my brain a break. "
I'm guessing that the only reason he wore it to be able to write this article with this headline.
idk if you have ever been accused of doing something, and you didn't do it, and there is literally no way for you to prove your innocence of it. And the more you try to defend the more others pile on. It feels pretty bad.
It feels especially bad if you were even proud and happy that you did a clever thing (like guess the number meaning) and then this very thing that you were proud and happy of (the cleverness) is itself used as the rationalization that you are guilty of something bad (it was too clever to be true).
EDIT: maybe it could be possible @dang or some mod could back up that I am saying the truth, to stop the dogpiling and witchhunting me. They could backtrace the ip addresses. Some might say that I just used a VPN to make the throwaway, but if the one who actually made it didn't use one, the mods could see their real account and verify that it wasn't me without revealing who it really was. If that happened, maybe the hunters would say that my account is another of the throwaways of that user on a different IP address, but maybe that would be too much of a stretch of belief.
