Quatity_Control

You mention your discover weekly. Do you know how that algorithm works? It suggests songs that you have not played, that other people who played songs that you played. It’s the same positive feedback loop. It’s songs already popular that it promotes to be played more. Which makes them more popular so it recommends them more. And thus you end up with the most steamed artists only making 15% of the content.

Does it work? Passably. For the majority, mostly generic listeners. Is it a fair way to structure a platform and to dispense payments? No. A great business model however.

If you make a great song, and Dua Lipa makes a crap song, which one would be featured and added into playlists by Spotify’s algorithms? It’s not a level playing field. It doesn’t promote content that isn’t already popular.

Which is mostly due to Spotify’s playlist and algorithms. Which fall victim to the positive feedback loop issue. Those popular artists are suggested, promoted, and played more frequently so more people hear them and thus play them more. It’s not a level playing ground. It’s a self generating walled garden of artists.

95% of the royalty pool goes to 200000 artists who generate 15% of the content. Sounding less fair the more you look at it.

Yep. We do need more though.

I’d agree with you if we were already producing enough renewables. Since we need to triple the current renewable market just to hit 1.5, I don’t agree with resources going elsewhere until we are on track there.

To prevent exceeding the 1.5 celsius increase, we need to triple the current uptake of renewables. I can extinguish a candle and say its carbon negative, however it’s not really going to help. We can look at other carbon reducing technology after the immediate requirement for renewable installations. I’m all for that, but right now, it’s just taking money time and resources away from renewables when we can’t afford any delay.

Carbon capture has had trillions and decades and still can’t reach reasonable efficiency rates. Certainly real world performance is nowhere near what it would need to be to make a contribution to the environment.

The companies investing in CCS are the companies mining fossil fuels and natural gas. They are using CCS to divert funding away from renewables and to greenwash their current mining operations. In most cases the material captured is used in further mining operations. Like a 2xdmg to the environment bonus.

Yep, arresting a 47yo for smoking will be very on point for a broken clock.

Keep in mind, this will be policed only on poor ethnic minorities. Rich white guys in their private club s will still smoke with impunity.

#1 killer of teens is dangerous driving most often influenced by peer pressure. Removing the peers by putting them ona bike would reduce the teen mortality rate by far more than the mortality rate of teens on bikes going over 30mph. See, stats can be used in many ways. Not always supportive of your opinion. Which is why it is important to choose a source that specifically relates to the topic. If you don’t want it pointed out that your source is irrelevant to the discussion.

Your welcome to your opinions. I’m just pointing out a study of primary school children is irrelevant to this particular thread. If you have studies on teens, I’d love to read them.

That’s primary school children. Not teens.

Indeed, by pretending to ignore what I wrote but devoting time to putting in a reply, having no basis for your mistaken assumptions and following up with insults that only relate to your own behaviour, I’m finally comfortable calling you out as unfit to be CEO of your own skid marks. Couldn’t even troll your own turds.

Yeah, choose ignorance. We’ll both be happier.

“Learn more about how to keep yourself safe by testing your instincts below and guessing whether each instance is a scam, using real-life examples.”

Distinctly not saying to research online and verify information.

As for tests outside academia, such as this one, even a bone headed dunce understands tests test the knowledge and ability you have, and not what you google online. To the point that if a test allows you to use other sources, that is always specifically stated. So that normal, reasonable people do not treat it as a normal, reasonable test, and complete it with their inherent knowledge and ability. I’m sorry you missed this valuable and important life lesson in learning. Explaining in the answers that you should have known to use outside sources is exactly as I have stated; a bad test.

“The best test phishing emails realistically emulate actual phishing emails. Intentionally adding errors only serves to train employees to catch bad phishing attacks.”

I’m glad as a CEO you don’t actually produce any content for your company. Emulating phishing emails means including the errors that are in phishing emails. Those are the ways you train people to recognise a phishing email. If you don’t include the errors then the only true verification of a genuine/phishing email is verifying with the purported sender by another communication channel. Not at all an effective policy, I’m sure you would agree.

No one’s butt hurt here. Treating a genuine email with caution and wariness is inherent good phishing awareness behaviour. If you can pull your vacuous head out of your voluminous arse for a moment, you will realise that once again, this is a bad test, a bad quiz, not an effective teaching tool, and just plain old click bait. Disparaging it is an appropriate response, and a fucktard such as yourself, with your vaunted claims of related professional acumen, trying to defend it is reprehensible.

You’re just pointing out that you are overqualified for this test.

At its root, it is a TEST. Not many TESTs allow you to Google for answers and supporting information. Unless specified any TEST provides in the question the information to determine the answer. By not providing all the information and not informing you to utilise any source available to obtain extra ESSENTIAL infirmation, it’s a bad test. Intended to trick you.

You and I both know if we create a test phishing email with no mistakes, it’s not a failure if people click on it. It’s a failure on our part for creating a BAD TEST. Same concept.

In the phishing Awareness course I wrote and sell, I do advocate to confirm that domains, phone numbers and other contact details, logos, are correct with the official website.

I don’t advocate that when they receive a bill for something they know they didn’t buy, they should go to Google.

And with googles current state, I could easily buy a domain and buy ads to put it at the top of search results. Googling the answer isn’t actually the answer. Verifying against known legit sources is.

It’s a shit test, which more than half of the people in this thread got right, yourself excepted.

I mean, they are two different aspects of security. Pen testers are important, but they can’t help you if an employee clicks on the wrong link.

While yes, that’s an accurate quip, it actually does highlight a deeper issue in the industry. If everyone passes your scam test, they don’t need to buy your scam test.

Additionally, scam emails aren’t 50/50 yes/no pass/fail. It’s more a combination of red flags to gauge how risky the email is to click on links, reply to, download attachments from, etcetera.

Currently the scam testing industry has no way to rate an individuals ability other than how many scam emails they did or didn’t click on. That is a false metric. It incites scam testers to trick people to justify their value to the customer.

Yep. It relies on information not present in the example. It’s intended for most people to get wrong.

Similarly the Facebook one genuinely looks like a scam unless you know of the Facebook case.