You know, when I was in high school, we had an all volunteer group of hall monitors, and it was this pointless excursion in self-policing that resulted in frustration on all sides, because both the monitors and the deviants were equally incompetent, and unprofessional.
Only the dumbest volunteered, and only the dumbest got caught. Meanwhile, parking lot shenanigans surged, even though people were still exchanging blowjobs in the elevators in the two-floor wings (yes, even on camera).
So, hallway fights declined, but fights were the only metric that saw progress, and people fought behind the school, in the parking lots, and in the sports fields instead, but at least they weren't fighting in the hallways anymore.
Youtube, meanwhile, doesn't have a single critical metric. Their goal is quality of community. You can't let everybody into your community indiscriminately, and expect to have a high quality community. Selective partitioning and curration of membership creates quality of company; choose your friends wisely. This is why gifted-and-talented programs are so controversial.
Youtube can't simultaneously appeal to the lowest common denominator AND enjoy openly elitist patronage, which is by definition exclusive.
P.S.
In the end, my school district accepted defeat, and paid for professional security guards. The school was unruly enough to warrant the extra line item in the budget, and initially people complained that the students were being alienated, as if they were criminals, to which the stark reply was: Some of them ARE criminals, and here're the arrest records and police blotter to prove it!
1. The Envious (anything to get ahead of everyone)
2. The Optimists (everyone else is basically good, have faith)
3. The Pessimists (most others are evil, favor the lesser of evils)
4. Trusting Collaborators (will go along with anything to just be included)
5. Unclassifiable (no common archtype correlating decisions, strategic decision making demonstrates conflicting tendencies)
4 simplistic patterns, and one group of creative thoughtful people. I wonder how well "Unclassifiables" are represented among the most accomplished and powerful people in society.
This article could really benefit from an image DIFF widget. Even animated flashing GIF images would be an improvement.
It needs something that not only permits comparable overlays, but (perhaps with a third diff layer) also highlights the ugly/wrong pixels with a high-contrast paint.
A handful of images are only somewhat obviously problematic, but for most of the images, I really had to struggle to find undesirable artifacts.
If it's that difficult to discern inconsistent image artifacts, one can understand why so little attention is often paid to this situation.
The article is not especially pay-walled, from what I can detect, using multiple devices. It seems to just use the typical 10 article cookie variable that all NYT articles usually check.
I'd estimate your current machine is behind some kind of network/web proxy that's browsing with a separate session, on your behalf, with a stale cookie that has reached the free article limit attached to its session.
Maybe you're the victim of an A/B test? That's the only other idea I can imagine.
Because obnoxious people will spam the form with emails that are not their own, as malicious behavior against acquaintences they detest.
These ubiquitous subscribe forms provide a vector for inflating the size of mailing lists. Mailing lists with more addresses sell for real money, and sell well.
It doesn't matter if the data is accurate. Only the perception of the data matters. The more addresses the better, the more datapoints per address, the higher the quality of data. The age and activity against the data matters.
There are reputable companies that trade on these details and pay the salaries of expensive developers.
You know, when I was in high school, we had an all volunteer group of hall monitors, and it was this pointless excursion in self-policing that resulted in frustration on all sides, because both the monitors and the deviants were equally incompetent, and unprofessional.
Only the dumbest volunteered, and only the dumbest got caught. Meanwhile, parking lot shenanigans surged, even though people were still exchanging blowjobs in the elevators in the two-floor wings (yes, even on camera).
So, hallway fights declined, but fights were the only metric that saw progress, and people fought behind the school, in the parking lots, and in the sports fields instead, but at least they weren't fighting in the hallways anymore.
Youtube, meanwhile, doesn't have a single critical metric. Their goal is quality of community. You can't let everybody into your community indiscriminately, and expect to have a high quality community. Selective partitioning and curration of membership creates quality of company; choose your friends wisely. This is why gifted-and-talented programs are so controversial.
Youtube can't simultaneously appeal to the lowest common denominator AND enjoy openly elitist patronage, which is by definition exclusive.
P.S.
In the end, my school district accepted defeat, and paid for professional security guards. The school was unruly enough to warrant the extra line item in the budget, and initially people complained that the students were being alienated, as if they were criminals, to which the stark reply was: Some of them ARE criminals, and here're the arrest records and police blotter to prove it!