A: You will get a message from Team Snapchat that looks like the below message 2-3 weeks after the snap has gone live. At this point it important that you verify your email address.
I’ve been flooded with Snapchat Spotlight questions after posting I’ve qualified for a payout 4 times. Here are the answers to the most common questions I’ve gotten in my DMs. These answers are my own experience and may differ from others .
A: You will get a message from Team Snapchat that looks like the below message 2-3 weeks after the snap has gone live. At this point it important that you verify your email address.
A: my experience is that usually 7-10 days after you get the qualifying message, you get a message with the amount, it will look like this. This message will include a unique access code for HyperWallet.
A: Around three weeks after you get the payment amount you will get an email to your verified email from Snapchat Pay. It will look like this and will require you to fill out some tax forms, takes like 10 min.
A: it took me like 7 days from when I had my HyperWallet approved before I got the money into my HyperWallet account. I recommend you set up auto withdraw. You can send money to PayPal, Venmo or bank account.
A) Maybe! Whether you get paid out I believe depends on how many other videos did as well or better that day. Lowest views I’ve seen from a payout is from 44k views but I’ve personally never been paid out on anything under 120k views.
A: as I understand, there is a team manually reviewing every video that’s qualified for payout to ensure payouts go to those who deserve it. Your video may not have met Snaps payout criteria. Sorry 😕
A: They are looking for original content, do you own the video? Does it have any logos or copyrighted material in it? Is it awful quality or clickbait? All reasons it may not get picked.
A: All of my videos that have popped off have had at a minimum 5 likes to every 100 views. As it’s gotten more competitive in the last week it’s closer to 10% needed.
A: whatever fits your video, you can actually add up too 100 (I tested) but too many unrelated ones can get your video rejected
A: You probably had a TikTok logo on it, it was obviously not your video, it was poor quality or it was just boring.
A: Im probably wrong
A: Snap has a list of approved countries on your website. I’ve def heard people from outside getting paid, I’ve also heard the process takes longer.
More from Tech
The YouTube algorithm that I helped build in 2011 still recommends the flat earth theory by the *hundreds of millions*. This investigation by @RawStory shows some of the real-life consequences of this badly designed AI.
This spring at SxSW, @SusanWojcicki promised "Wikipedia snippets" on debated videos. But they didn't put them on flat earth videos, and instead @YouTube is promoting merchandising such as "NASA lies - Never Trust a Snake". 2/
A few example of flat earth videos that were promoted by YouTube #today:
https://t.co/TumQiX2tlj 3/
https://t.co/uAORIJ5BYX 4/
https://t.co/yOGZ0pLfHG 5/
Flat Earth conference attendees explain how they have been brainwashed by YouTube and Infowarshttps://t.co/gqZwGXPOoc
— Raw Story (@RawStory) November 18, 2018
This spring at SxSW, @SusanWojcicki promised "Wikipedia snippets" on debated videos. But they didn't put them on flat earth videos, and instead @YouTube is promoting merchandising such as "NASA lies - Never Trust a Snake". 2/
A few example of flat earth videos that were promoted by YouTube #today:
https://t.co/TumQiX2tlj 3/
https://t.co/uAORIJ5BYX 4/
https://t.co/yOGZ0pLfHG 5/
There has been a lot of discussion about negative emissions technologies (NETs) lately. While we need to be skeptical of assumed planetary-scale engineering and wary of moral hazard, we also need much greater RD&D funding to keep our options open. A quick thread: 1/10
Energy system models love NETs, particularly for very rapid mitigation scenarios like 1.5C (where the alternative is zero global emissions by 2040)! More problematically, they also like tons of NETs in 2C scenarios where NETs are less essential. https://t.co/M3ACyD4cv7 2/10
In model world the math is simple: very rapid mitigation is expensive today, particularly once you get outside the power sector, and technological advancement may make later NETs cheaper than near-term mitigation after a point. 3/10
This is, of course, problematic if the aim is to ensure that particular targets (such as well-below 2C) are met; betting that a "backstop" technology that does not exist today at any meaningful scale will save the day is a hell of a moral hazard. 4/10
Many models go completely overboard with CCS, seeing a future resurgence of coal and a large part of global primary energy occurring with carbon capture. For example, here is what the MESSAGE SSP2-1.9 scenario shows: 5/10
Energy system models love NETs, particularly for very rapid mitigation scenarios like 1.5C (where the alternative is zero global emissions by 2040)! More problematically, they also like tons of NETs in 2C scenarios where NETs are less essential. https://t.co/M3ACyD4cv7 2/10
There is a lot of confusion about carbon budgets and how quickly emissions need to fall to zero to meet various warming targets. To cut through some of this morass, we can use some very simple emission pathways to explore what various targets would entail. 1/11 pic.twitter.com/Kriedtf0Ec
— Zeke Hausfather (@hausfath) September 24, 2020
In model world the math is simple: very rapid mitigation is expensive today, particularly once you get outside the power sector, and technological advancement may make later NETs cheaper than near-term mitigation after a point. 3/10
This is, of course, problematic if the aim is to ensure that particular targets (such as well-below 2C) are met; betting that a "backstop" technology that does not exist today at any meaningful scale will save the day is a hell of a moral hazard. 4/10
Many models go completely overboard with CCS, seeing a future resurgence of coal and a large part of global primary energy occurring with carbon capture. For example, here is what the MESSAGE SSP2-1.9 scenario shows: 5/10
You May Also Like
@franciscodeasis https://t.co/OuQaBRFPu7
Unfortunately the "This work includes the identification of viral sequences in bat samples, and has resulted in the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines." were BEFORE the
chimeric infectious clone grants were there.https://t.co/DAArwFkz6v is in 2017, Rs4231.
https://t.co/UgXygDjYbW is in 2016, RsSHC014 and RsWIV16.
https://t.co/krO69CsJ94 is in 2013, RsWIV1. notice that this is before the beginning of the project
starting in 2016. Also remember that they told about only 3 isolates/live viruses. RsSHC014 is a live infectious clone that is just as alive as those other "Isolates".
P.D. somehow is able to use funds that he have yet recieved yet, and send results and sequences from late 2019 back in time into 2015,2013 and 2016!
https://t.co/4wC7k1Lh54 Ref 3: Why ALL your pangolin samples were PCR negative? to avoid deep sequencing and accidentally reveal Paguma Larvata and Oryctolagus Cuniculus?
Unfortunately the "This work includes the identification of viral sequences in bat samples, and has resulted in the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines." were BEFORE the
chimeric infectious clone grants were there.https://t.co/DAArwFkz6v is in 2017, Rs4231.
https://t.co/UgXygDjYbW is in 2016, RsSHC014 and RsWIV16.
https://t.co/krO69CsJ94 is in 2013, RsWIV1. notice that this is before the beginning of the project
starting in 2016. Also remember that they told about only 3 isolates/live viruses. RsSHC014 is a live infectious clone that is just as alive as those other "Isolates".
P.D. somehow is able to use funds that he have yet recieved yet, and send results and sequences from late 2019 back in time into 2015,2013 and 2016!
https://t.co/4wC7k1Lh54 Ref 3: Why ALL your pangolin samples were PCR negative? to avoid deep sequencing and accidentally reveal Paguma Larvata and Oryctolagus Cuniculus?
