I run a cybersecurity newsletter so i find myself searching through rubbish for ages, from both a mix of mainstream media and people's personal blogs. Most of my issues lie with mainstream media which either not have enough expertise to write the story or signigicantly dumb it down so they can be applicable to a much wider audience.
The study didn't use special characters and also used the same laptop keyboard, which I would imagine significantly inflates the percentage compared to a real world situation for this to be effective.
The particular method suggested is about using correlatable known text with audio situations to build the accuracy for other recordings of the same typist. I.e. a meeting with a chat feature or an office app may have correlated exanples.
Without paying, Tinder tells you that someone has liked you, but it doesn't tell you who liked you. The only way to match with that person is to organically swipe "like" on them when they're presented to you in the "random" list of people you get shown on the app. It is however tacitly in their interest to not show you the people who have liked you, so you can swipe for a long time without actually getting shown any of the people that liked you. Couple that with the fact that you have a limited number of "like" swipes a day, and you end up in a situation where you can go days without matching with anyone simply because Tinder isn't showing you the people that liked you. So you need to exercise a level of game theory if you want to actually match with people.
Paying for Tinder, in its various tiers, lets you swipe on an unlimited number of people in a day, or, for more money, lets you just see who swiped on you as soon as they swipe "like."
I don't pay for it personally, but if you are paying for it you're saving time and reducing a lot of the (Tinder imposed) friction, so, I get that. I also get why some people might not see the value in Tinder in the first place, but it does make meeting people in a romantic context a lot easier, or at least more streamlined.
It really is an awful pattern. The whole point of these apps were to only show each other if there was mutual interest. That made it safe to swipe on someone. Now they can just pay and see all of the one sided interest.
Also as you say its in Tinder's interest to put everyone who swiped on you into a different queue and throttle the hell out of it. Drip feed matches into the stream of 'no's. As that liked queue gets bigger, your rejections grow and therefore your desperation/ willingness to pay rises. They can literally see who is already a yes and could prioritise those if they were pro-user. They do the opposite.
I've also noticed they will use this queue of people who liked you strategically. If you haven't been on in a while they will release some matches to build that reward expectation back up and then turn it down once you're doing what they want and engaging daily. (I can't prove this but it feels like the best way to get some matches is to wait for their 'we missed you' spam)
yeah it's extremely shady business imo, especially since all the major ones are owned by the same group who then apply a similar business model to all of them.
I wish, the bigger the company, the smaller the fines (proportionally) tend to be. Like slapping Google on the wrist with a $125m fine. "oh no, an amount we can make back in about an hour, whatever shall we do!"
>Like slapping Google on the wrist with a $125m fine. "oh no, an amount we can make back in about an hour, whatever shall we do!"
If the specific misconduct they got caught for netted them $x, and they got fined for $5x, who cares how much % of their global revenue is? That specific crime was still a net negative for them. I'm not sure why conglomerates should be punished more harshly just because they have more revenue overall.
There are no crimes being committed, they've not been taken to court, judge against the US criminal code, and found guilty, after which the punitive damages are what they get fined. They merely violated the law, and were fined over that. The entire amount charged was the fine.
As for "who cares about %": every one who understands that fines that cost a company nothing, do nothing, all they say is "it'll cost you a trivial amount more to do this", turning what should be an instrument to rein in companies into simple monetary transaction that just goes on the books as an entirely expected and affordable expense.
It should be a crime, and they should have been found guilty in court over that, and the fine should be such that no matter your company's size, you can't risk running afoul of the law repeatedly. But it absolutely isn't.
I get where you're coming from, but corporations should be fined massively for bad behavior to act as a deterrent.
Personally I think that C levels should automatically be disbarred if the corporation is found guilty of criminality as that puts responsibility on the people with the power to prevent it.
Good. If you cannot afford the price of doing business illegally, close up shop or leave. And then you will be charged as foreign company when you try to sneak your way back into doing business in the country you left with the much more fun threat of being declared illegal and your products and/or services pulled from the market.
While you thought you presented an argument against hefty fines, you actually gave the perfect reason for why they should be hefty. If illegal practices are affordable, they're not illegal. They're just the price of doing business. So make them hurt.
