My wife works in a lab, has a masters in biology and I'm decently scientifically literate and we had a hard time being confident that we were reading the paper strip correctly by ourselves.
Is it a faint line? How strong does it need to be?
Is that a line or is it a smudge?
Did we wait long enough?
Well these online instructions are for a previous model, are they still valid?
It's not easy. But having a calibrated machine tell you "pregnant" or "not pregnant" give a lot more confidence about scheduling a follow-up test with the doctor
It's easier to have a group of professionals program it correctly once than it is to have someone who only uses these tests at most every 11 months (assuming success) try to read it themselves.
As I think Naomi Wu said, the paper tests are extremely accurate in the lab, the majority of errors come from failure to read the output correctly (misinterpretation or otherwise).
So adding a digital readout that produces unambiguous results justifies the price.
Likely they wouldn't, but if during their line chrck, they found other more dangerous omissions and failures by the promotor to setup the stage and equipment correctly, they definitely could cancel.
These guys were working with thousands of amps of electricity, hundred of pounds of equipment, pyrotechnics,etc. Could easily severely harm or kill someone if it wasn't setup properly. No obligation to do a show of the other side of the contract isn't being fulfilled
Yeah YouTube's recommendations don't really strike me as being based on comparison of the content or themes of the videos, but based pretty heavily on what other users have watched.
To be fair, codifying video into clusterable features is a lot harder than audio. But when you have Google levels of money I'd expect a bit more progress.
The code is probably in place to do that, but it probably errors out and no one who needs access to those logs has access or knowledge of them, and the humans handling appeals are probably siloed off from the bots and devs, so they think things are fine, and the devs think things are fine, since no one is complaining.
Happens to me all the time now too. Even when I put the phrase in quotes it still omits words or says "search for X, do your really want to search for Y"
But maybe our use cases are the outliers, and the new search is what works for most people.
It's a pretty well tested principle that massive familial wealth usually disappears by the 3rd or 4th generation (because the descendents regress to the norm in terms of ability) and it looks like we're seeing the same at Google.
They've got too little "real" work for the number of hands they need to keep busy, so unqualified people are going back and "improving" the work of the 1st and 2nd generation.
But because of the company's size, it can't hire high risk shoot from the hip revolutionaries (not that they'd want to work at a buttoned up Corp anyway), so it's staffed with safe employees who don't really resemble the cowboys of the 1st and 2nd generations, and hence can't improve the systems any further.
Because they're not using humans to do the reviews anymore. They're putting bots on the frontlines, then using humans to (maybe) handle appeals.
But those humans are probably undertrained, underpaid and have zero context for each of their 1k cases, so they default to accepting the bots judgement. Which in turn feedback to the bot, justifying it's actions.
The schooling aspects of this are largely just a fact of life when you attempt to centralize and standardize education at this kind of scale.
> Well it's not like that in {{small, rich, socialist European country du jour}}
Again, scale. Only Japan and China have really had to deal with this, and their children are likely as stressed and free of free time as those in the US.
Large scale means strict standards with zero room for deviation.