It's part of the implicit selection criteria. The system has rewarded overconfident cheating scumbags for decades.

I've said it many times before: treat people like rockstars and they'll start behaving like rockstars.

Also, the chance that the balance is exactly 0.00 is just statistically improbable, and therefore very likely to be wrong. I think the rule "don't display incorrect values" is even more important here.

(Either that or display "Haha skint")

"So anyway, completely in accordance with the null hypothesis we turned out to be right all along."

When you click "no response" someone earning minimum wage in a drab strip mall office will go "AHA!" and continue to spam you.

Ok, wow! Didn't realise they were doing a documentary instead of comedy

RIP waistline 🥲

As a massive M&W fan: I haven't seen it yet. Should I? Is it numberwang?

Future research directions:
Just, literally anything.

TL;DR, from a privacy perspective; I wonder how much of the consent that RELX relies on for its data processing is actually freely given, specific, informed and unambiguous.

Another example, they collected my banking details because my (then) university made us pay upfront for conference visits. Reference manager? Sorry bud, IT only supports Mendeley on your uni provided computer. Oh and don't forget to update your Pure profile...

Pondering this a few years after the fact the thing that bugs me most is that academics have *no choice* but to use these products. E.g. because your employer forces you to use platform X, for which you need a phone for 2FA SMS. No work phone? You're SOL, they now have your private number.

Not sure if it works the same with books as with record labels, but when the word "break-even" is mentioned ask for excessive details as to what does and does not count towards that break-even.

FAILURE TO COMPLY WILL CONSTITUTE A LEGALLY BINDING ADMISSION OF DERELICTION OF DUTY.

My best guess is a typo and they meant "casual analysis"

Still just stochastic parrots.