Very likely because radio did their work correctly (with the misfortune of a wrong prelim assessment), but the requesting doc either forgot or chose not to act on the results. Or results were not transmitted correctly, so the requesting doc never was aware... many things can go wrong in collaborative work. Anyways, a communication issue for sure.
As threeseed mentioned, most free apps esp. those without a per-install revenue source (e.g., Wikipedia) will likely not use the new model and stick with the old model which doesn't charge per app install
I suppose ultimately, the market is fragmenting and Apple is aiming to pull and set levels to encourage as many developers as possible to stick with the current system.
I suppose they're counting on the fact that inertia and laziness will encourage continued loyalty when it comes to non free apps.
Right I agree, the new model does seem quite punitive especially if you don't have an existing business model.
Imagine a new developer publishes a free app without a plan for monetization, and then it goes viral. They would be on the hook for thousands of dollars.
Unless they have a reason to switch most new apps will likely stick to the old model
As an aside, look how clear and well-written this web page is. I'm always blown away by how well the whole Apple ecosystem (even the the developer documentation) is designed
But you could just pay for both ChatGPT and the AI classifier, and keep re-iterating with new prompts until the AI classifier outputs a false negative right?
Edit: Thinking about it, they'd probably have to eventually restrict the AI classifier so that it would only be available in to schools / institutions in this scenario.
Is there a way to check if you've been compromised by these PyPl packages? Does PyPl have a mechanism to let people know that they've downloaded a compromised package?
As in general with associative studies, it is hard to make a distinct conclusion on causation.
Do we know if alcohol decreases gray and white matter volumes? Could the causation run in the reverse direction? Bi-directionally? Or could there be some common cause (e.g., proneness to "risky" behavior) that leads to both?
Every study that comes through here somebody invariably trots out the old "correlation does not equal causation" argument. You're not wrong, but you know, sometimes it is causation.
Rather than disregard every study, I just sort of internally give it a 50% weight and move on. Maybe it's bogus, maybe it's not, but surely some of them are correctly identifying causation.
even with every disease cured and without aging, you still will die by some random event unless you hide away in a bunker - in which case the bunker will eventually collapse and you will still die
Indeed, we'd need an interventional study.
Forcing a random study group to drink for decades seems unethical and expensive, but I wish we had the results.
The same story is covered in an episode of the newer run of Cosmos; S2E7.
I thought the coverage there was better. Brief overview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yV__MkDqqo (it ends up being an ad for the show, but good summary, nevertheless).
