On July 26, 2004, the Wikipedia article for Let's Roll claimed that Todd Beamer's last words to a telephone operator were "Roll it" instead of "Let's roll." Later revisions cited the 9/11 Commission Report as a source. The report, however, does not actually transcribe any part of Beamer's phone conversation, and does not identify who said "Roll it" during the passengers' invasion of the cockpit (which presumably happened after Beamer's phone call ended). I attempted to correct it on October 27, 2005. It was immediately reverted. I reverted again with a detailed explanation and didn't bother to pursue it any further. The spurious detail was reverted back into the article and remained a part of subsequent revisions until at least January 24, 2007, still falsely citing the commission report as a source.

According to the second article, it has been fixed.

Please Note:The legitimate hacked website was contacted and informed about its participation in the Zeus bot activity and accordingly has stopped serving the malicious variant.

Sure, they can work around the legal definition of payola. It doesn't change the fact that some people will find it just as vile as you find advertising. And as someone else mentioned, it's questionable whether record labels would be willing to pay for the service, or if it would generate sufficient revenue for Pandora.

What are your other solutions?

You suggest that Pandora devise a more creative source of revenue as if it's a completely trivial thing to do. If it were that easy, content providers would never resort to advertising at all. They don't do it to be evil. Some advertising is unscrupulous, but there's nothing meretricious about the concept of advertising itself.

Incidentally, your Kanye West example is known in the radio industry as payola. It's a reviled practice. Pandora is against it. You might want to share one of your other hundreds of examples if you really want advertising to disappear.

I can give you the answer right here an now. All people are always 100% accurate in determining what is funny. This is by definition, as funny is an opinion. The humor part does not in any way apply to social skills. Their test is no more valid that if they had asked 8 house painters, via email, what are the best colors.

People are not always so accurate in determining what other people will think is funny. That's where the social part comes into play. A house painter might think black is the best color, but if he said that most people want their bathrooms to be painted black, a survey could prove him wrong.

Please note that I'm not really trying to defend the humor test. It's definitely imperfect. I'm not sure of how else to measure a social skill, but at the very least, their check sample (the professional comedians) seems too small to consider conclusive. The same argument, however, does not apply to the logic and grammar tests. I wouldn't disregard them simply because you disagree with the first one.