A Virtual Aluminium Ecosystem: Find news a global aluminum industry portal that covers Bauxite, Alumina, Primary Aluminium, Secondary aluminium &nbsp;and fabricated products.

AlCircle

What is Flutter and How Does it Work?

Elon Musk will say ANYthing to remain in the spotlight. Having bought , fired (or forced out) most of its workforce, and attempted to out of pure spite, the eccentric billionaire and supposed visionary is now touting the idea of if and were to ever ban his social media company from their app stores for not playing by their rules. Twitter burn it into the ground creating a new phone Apple Google Musk clearly wants to trend over the internet, so much so that he'll say the most bizarre sh*t just to do so. For example, there really isn't any immediate reason to believe that Apple or Google would take down Twitter from their app stores. But that didn't stop Musk from flaunting the idea in response to a tweet by pro-conservative podcaster Liz Wheeler. Not surprisingly, the media ate it up, with write-ups after write-ups of the world's richest man tweeting that he'll build a phone. Never mind the fact that Twitter's current (and a supposed ban from app stores in the future) is of Musk's own causing, with advertisers on the platform specifically of all the changes he's making at the social media company. predicament pausing spending because One of those changes was letting users purchase Twitter's coveted 'verified' checkmark for $8 a month regardless of their identity, which turned out . Supposedly chastised by the experience, Musk is in selling the 'verified' checkmark, but after a " " authentication, i.e. what Twitter was already doing before its decided to hand out the 'blue tick' like candies. The only difference this time is that anyone can apply for the checkmark (as long as they verify themselves), and Twitter will charge for the service — which not only defeats the purpose of the feature but isn't even a good way for the company to from consistent losses. as well as you'd expect still interested manual new CEO bounce back Musk insists that the Twitter purchase is a to his 'everything app' X, but only time will tell whether the tech 'entreprenuer' will be successful in creating a software to rule them all. precursor Twitter ranked #51 in this week's tech company rankings, down seven spots from last week. As an additional note, it sucks that we have to keep reporting on Musk because he just won't stop trending all over the internet. We've already started to experience Musk fatigue, and the last thing we want is to turn this feature into the . Elon Musk News Brief 📱 Black Friday Has Come and Gone.. .. yet many consumers on the iPhone. As we , the Chinese factory that produces the phones is dealing with COVID-19-related lockdowns, hurting iPhone production and causing deep discontent within its workforce. Just , workers began clashing against security personnel, held mass protests and continued to flee the location despite promises of better pay and bonuses. could not get their hands reported previously this past week Both Apple and Best Buy have already __ __a scarcity of the iPhone 14s. We can only imagine the joy scalpers are experiencing, especially considering that Christmas is right around the corner and consumers are looking to snag a smartphone as part of their holiday shopping. In fact, just on eBay, some sellers are charging premiums of upwards of $1k+ for the phones, so good luck getting one! flagged Apple ranked #7 in this week's Tech Company Rankings. 🏛️ Oh, How The Roles Reverse Until recently, FTX's former CEO Sam Bankman-Fried (or SBF) was for spending time in Washington, D.C., with the who's who of the U.S. government as part of his personal brand championing regulation in the crypto industry. All of that came to a halt after the of FTX, yet calls for regulation remain, this time from an unlikely source: SBF's competitor and owner of now the largest crypto exchange in the world, Changpeng Zhao. known rubbing shoulders downfall Zhao, the founder and CEO of , recently : "Regulation is essential for the crypto industry and will go a long way towards building trust with consumers and institutions interested in the space." Binance told Tech Crunch Zhao then at a company event in Athens. By all accounts, Zhao and SBF were stark opposites of each other, but it's quite interesting to see how Zhao has taken up the mantle of regulation now that SBF is dealing with involving FTX. echoed those comments legal problems Binance ranked #21 in this week's Tech Company Rankings. 📰 In Other News.. , which ranked #31 this week, has decided to discontinue two services in the world's largest democracy India: one related to and another related to . 🧑‍🎓 Amazon food-delivery eLearning Russia's justice ministry has categorized -owner as an . Facebook and Meta ranked #1 and #13 respectively this week. 🔫 Facebook Meta extremist organization If you're a World of Warcraft fan, there's a great YouTube video on why it's rude to suck at the game. Check it out ! 🏅 here And that's a wrap! This has been the tech company brief, and you were reading Issue #26! See y’all next week. PEACE ☮️ — Sheharyar Khan, Editor, Business Tech @ HackerNoon

Someone Give Musk The Spotlight

Alguien le da a Musk el centro de atención

Quelqu'un donne à Musk la vedette

कोई मस्क को स्पॉटलाइट दे

誰かがマスクにスポットライトを当てる

Alguém dá a Musk os holofotes

Ai đó cho Musk sự chú ý

有人让马斯克成为焦点

Twitter v. Elon Musk Court Filing by Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, July 12, 2022 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 22 of 31. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS VII. Defendants materially breach their obligations to work toward closing and refrain from unreasonable withholding of consent to operational changes B. Musk delays and stymies key operational decisions 115. Since signing, Twitter has complied in all respects with its obligation under Section 6.1 of the merger agreement to operate the business in the ordinary course. In an excess of caution, the company has sought Musk’s consent even for matters falling well within the zone of commercial reasonableness. Though Musk has approved some of Twitter’s requests, he has been slow to respond to ones that required urgency and has unreasonably withheld his consent to others, in breach of his own obligations under Section 6.1. 116. Most notably, Musk has unreasonably withheld consent to two employee retention programs designed to keep selected top talent during a period of intense uncertainty generated in large part by Musk’s erratic conduct and public disparagement of the company and its personnel. 117. During negotiation of the merger agreement, Twitter had sought Musk’s consent to a broad retention plan. Musk’s team deferred decision on the matter; the plan Twitter proposed was detailed, and time for negotiation was short. But Musk indicated he was open to further discussion. 118. During a May 6, 2022 post-signing diligence session, Twitter management again broached the subject of retention, and Musk was noncommittal. He suggested the matter be tabled pending further clarity on the expected interval before closing the deal. 119. Over the weeks that followed, Swan discussed with Twitter management a narrower retention plan than the one that had been discussed during the merger agreement negotiations. Consistent with those discussions, on June 20, 2022, Twitter sent defendants a formal request for consent to two tailored employee retention programs that had been vetted by the board and its compensation committee with the assistance of an outside compensation consultant. 120. Musk initially failed to respond at all to the June 20 consent request. (It would soon become clear that he had fired Swan.) After a follow-up request for consent, Musk’s counsel stated tersely that “Elon is not supportive of this program and has declined to grant consent for it.” Twitter offered to arrange a meeting between Musk and Lane Fox to explain the importance and utility of the proposed programs. Musk’s counsel repeated that Musk “doesn’t believe a retention program is warranted in the current environment,” and said Musk was unwilling to consider the advice of compensation consultants, but left open the possibility of speaking with Lane Fox. 121. On June 28, 2022, following further stonewalling from Musk’s counsel, Twitter urged that a discussion would be fruitful. After initially suggesting Musk might be “amenable to a call next week,” Musk’s counsel replied, “Elon already gave his response but I’ll remind him of Martha’s request for a call.” The call never happened — Musk has continued to duck it — and neither retention program has been implemented due to defendants’ unexplained and unreasonable withholding of consent. Employee attrition, meanwhile, has been on the upswing since the signing of the merger agreement. 122. Defendants have unreasonably withheld consent in other domains as well. On June 14, 2022, Twitter sought consent to terminate Twitter’s existing revolving credit facility, noting that no amounts were presently drawn under the facility and that the facility would have to be terminated in connection with the merger’s consummation. Maintaining the facility requires Twitter to incur ongoing monthly costs. After initially saying he would consent to the termination, Musk withdrew it the next day without explanation. Continue reading here

Musk's 'erratic conduct and public disparagement' caused Twitter employee attrition, per lawsuit

La 'conducta errática y el menosprecio público' de Musk causaron el desgaste de los empleados de Twitter, según la demanda

La «conduite erratique et le dénigrement public» de Musk ont provoqué l'attrition des employés de Twitter, par procès

मस्क के 'अनियमित आचरण और सार्वजनिक तिरस्कार' के कारण प्रति मुकदमा ट्विटर कर्मचारी की उदासीनता हुई

訴訟によると、マスクの「常軌を逸した行動と公の場での誹謗中傷」が原因で、Twitter の従業員が減少した

A 'conduta errática e depreciação pública' de Musk causou atrito com funcionários do Twitter, por ação judicial

'Hành vi thất thường và sự chê bai công khai' của Musk đã khiến nhân viên Twitter bị tiêu hao, theo mỗi vụ kiện

根据诉讼，马斯克的“古怪行为和公开贬低”导致 Twitter 员工流失

Musk is the perfect example of taking a joke too far. After with 's and toying with the idea of building a rival platform, the eccentric billionaire and supposed visionary spent a to become the largest shareholder of the social media company. What followed was months of legal wrangling in a saga that ultimately ended in Musk to buy the entirety of Twitter for more than what it's probably worth. airing his gripe Twitter free-speech principles small fortune will he, won't he being forced Musk probably felt very stupid about the whole thing but has now likely fallen victim to the sunk-cost fallacy. Instead of reflecting on the decisions that led him to some of his own net worth to buy Twitter for $44 billion, he spent his first few days at the company making dumb jokes, , and crowning himself CEO. liquidate laying off employees Now he's hell-bent on . burning the company to the ground Just last week, Twitter asked the remaining employees at the company to "working long hours at high intensity" or GTFO. Understandably, hundreds of employees opted to depart instead of working for a megalomaniac, leaving Twitter with a skeleton crew struggling to fix bugs and preventing service outages. choose between Meanwhile, Musk is trying to to run Twitter. Clearly, fixing the social media company's problems is beyond Musk's depth, so he wants someone else to take responsibility while he his ungodly compensation at electronic vehicle firm . But here's the thing though: Musk decided to lead Twitter of his own accord. If he had no intention of running the business, he could have just left former CEO Parag Agrawal to run Twitter until a replacement was found. In fact, one has to wonder why Musk decided to buy Twitter in the first place and whether in content moderation is a good idea. find someone else justifies Tesla personally involving himself Twitter's former execs are probably having a laugh right now, having used the billionaire's hostile takeover bid to jump ship and while leaving the world's richest man to fix the problems that plague the social media company, including its . For now, Musk seems more focused on spurring former U.S. President Donald Trump back to the platform, despite the latter after being unbanned from Twitter. make millions lack of profitability declining the offer Twitter ranked #52 in this week's while Tesla ranked #78. tech company rankings ⛈️ Layoffs Reach Amazon And so it happened. has decided to let go of , following in the footsteps of other tech companies, both small and , in course correcting now that the COVID-19 pandemic is virtually over. Amazon nearly 10,000 people large Meanwhile, a damning report on a less-known practice at Amazon of hiring employees in India and Costa Rica to review warehouse camera footage in a bid to train the company's warehouse-monitoring algorithms. True to form, Amazon treats its employees even more poorly in low-cost countries, with workers calling their jobs "stressful," "mind-numbing," and "crushing." The Verge published Amazon ranked #14 in this week's rankings. 🤑🤑🤑 Business Chat is Where It's At In yet another sign that Mark Zuckerberg's focus on the metaverse is , the CEO acknowledged the company's messaging apps WhatsApp and Messenger will drive sales sooner than Horizon Worlds. doomed to fail Meta "We talk a lot about the very long-term opportunities like the metaverse, but the reality is that business messaging is probably going to be the next major pillar of our business as we work to monetize WhatsApp and Messenger more," Zuck was in a company-wide meeting following Meta's decision to let go of 11,000 people. heard telling employees Meta ranked #16 in this week's rankings, while and , which are owned by Meta, ranked #1 and #3 respectively. Facebook Instagram 😱 It's Worse Than It Looks FTX's new CEO John Jay Ray III  — notable for managing the largest corporate failures in history, including Enron's — he had never in his career seen such a complete failure of corporate controls. said Meanwhile, U.S. lawmakers scrambled to figure out for the lax oversight at FTX whose former CEO Sam Bankman-Fried, or SBF, is said to be in an upscale neighborhood in the Bahamas as his now-failed crypto exchange flags nearly in money owed to its 50 biggest creditors. who to blame hunkered down $3.1 billion 📰 In Other News.. Note-taking and task management app Evernote is by Italian app developer Bending Spoons. 🤝 being acquired , which ranked #18 this week, on who employees invite for talks at its headquarters. 🔍 Google set rules Bob Iger is at Walt Disney Co., BABY! The former CEO, responsible for Marvel, Lucasfilm, and Pixar during his tenure, replaces Bob Chapek after just two years of retiring from the role. 👨‍💼 back acquiring And that's a wrap! This has been the tech company brief, and you were reading Issue #25! See y’all next week. PEACE ☮️ — Sheharyar Khan, Editor, Business Tech @ HackerNoon

Musk Took The Twitter Joke Too Far

Musk tomó la broma de Twitter demasiado lejos

Musk a poussé la blague sur Twitter trop loin

कस्तूरी ने ट्विटर मजाक को बहुत दूर ले लिया

マスクはツイッターのジョークをやりすぎた

Musk levou a piada do Twitter longe demais

Musk đã đưa trò đùa trên Twitter đi quá xa

马斯克把 Twitter 的笑话开得太过分了

👋 Welcome to HackerNoon's Tech Company News Brief, a weekly collection of tech goodness that combines HackerNoon's proprietary data with internet trends to determine which companies are rising and falling in the public consciousness. Tell your friends and family to subscribe . here Tech companies (and at least one billionaire) spent most of last week backtracking from statements. , who, having clearly shown full-bodied avatars (yes, full-bodied, with legs!) in its metaverse offering Horizon Worlds went totally back on that demonstration to clarify that CEO Mark Zuckerberg and wife Priscilla Chan's virtual counterparts were, in fact, . Meta created using motion capture Full-bodied avatars coming to Meta's virtual reality universe but you have to wait until next year before you can see them. This was one of the announcements from Meta's much anticipated but ultimately underwhelming event which also saw the release of Meta Quest Pro — a whopping ~$1,500 virtual reality headset that Meta clarified was the Quest 3 but instead a less bulky and more advanced version of hardware needed to tune into Zuckerberg's vision of The Matrix. are Connect not The headset is the social media giant's first big product since Zuckerberg bet his all on the metaverse by rebranding into Meta, but the new direction hasn't won him investor confidence. In fact, investors' lukewarm response has Zuckerberg's personal net worth and led to calls for him to . Facebook impacted step down and move aside Facebook is either ahead of the curve or the next in a attempting to create virtual worlds that people can step into, and all this chatter about the company and its future helped it remain comfortably at the top of HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings for yet another week. 👑 long line of failures Nvidia presses rewind on 4080 variant ⏪ has a problem, and that problem is Nvidia itself. Nvidia Having launched a pretty badass Founders Edition 4090, the company realized that it couldn't just release two versions of the next graphic card. Officially, having GPUs with the 4080 designation — the 4080 12 GB and 4080 16 GB — would be confusing for consumers, Nvidia said, but that the lower (and cheaper!) 4080 variant was simply a rebranded 4070 (which hasn't been announced yet). observers say With the lower 4080 variant ' ', consumers are left with no choice but to cough up a premium to get their hands on the remaining version of the graphic card. Nvidia's to the high graphic prices has basically been to 'shove it'. unlaunched response There was also a minor controversy involving Corsair and a tech YouTube channel that benchmarked the 4090. A Corsair staffer portions of YouTuber Gamers Nexus' reviews "total bullshit" though Corsair later issued an apology for its employee's conduct. called Nvidia was trending #69 on HackerNoon's . Tech Company Rankings Musk '💲mell💲' an opportunity Elon Musk has figured out a way to turn his followers into paying customers, and it involves selling items that capitalize on his popularity and social media reach. Case in point: ' ', a newly announced fragrance that captures the "essence of repugnant desire" and sells for $100 a bottle. Burnt Hair Already, the 'perfume' has helped raise for the who only recently and agreed to . Throughout the entire 'will he, won't he' Twitter saga, — which was cofounded by Musk — has seen its stock price rise and , kind of like its cofounder's erratic behavior. $1 million world's richest man reversed course again buy Twitter Tesla fall Musk was also in the news for on a Starlink-related announcement. The billionaire appeared to be wanting to discontinue Starlink in Ukraine unless the Pentagon paid his company SpaceX for the service, but then apparently had a change of heart and decided to continue providing it. Starlink is SpaceX's satellite internet service and has been crucial in keeping Ukraine’s military online during the war against Russia. reversing course Twitter was trending #60 this week, while Tesla was trending #91 on HackerNoon's . Tech Company Rankings And that’s a wrap! Thanks for reading Tech Company News Brief Issue #20! See y’all next week. PEACE ☮️ — Sheharyar Khan, Editor, Business Tech @ HackerNoon

Musk 'Smells' an Opportunity

Musk 'huele' una oportunidad

Le musc "sent" une opportunité

कस्तूरी 'गंध' एक अवसर

ムスクの「におい」はチャンス

Almíscar 'cheira' uma oportunidade

Musk 'ngửi thấy' một cơ hội

马斯克“闻到”机会

Authors: (1) Renato P. dos Santos, CIAGE – Centre for Generative Artificial Intelligence in Cognition and Education. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Materials And Methods Results and Analyses Prompts and generated texts Conceptualizing chemical reactions Deepening on understanding of chemical reactions Question about combustion Question about a graph of gases turning into water over time Question about the difference between atoms, molecules, and moles Deepening on the concept of mole Question about changing of state Question about an animated representation of water molecules undergoing phase changes Question about plasma, a state of matter Question about chemical bondings Question about illustration of chemical bonds Question about the essence of the type of chemical bonding Further analysis Conclusions Limitations of the study and possible future studies Author Contributions, Conflicts of interest, Acknowledgements, and References Question about illustration of chemical bonds *: can you create an illustration explaining these types of chemical bonds?* P1 *: Certainly! Let's break down the explanation and illustration into three parts:* ChatGPT 1. Covalent Bonding 2. Ionic Bonding 3. Hydrogen Bonding 1. Covalent Bonding: *: Covalent bonds are formed when two atoms share electrons. The shared electrons are attracted to the nuclei of both atoms, holding the atoms together. This type of bond is common between non-metals.* Description *: Imagine two circles (representing atoms) with electrons (smaller circles or dots) around them. When they come close, they share some of these electrons.* Illustration ***2. Ionic Bonding: *** *: Ionic bonds are formed when one atom donates one or more electrons to another atom. This creates a positive ion (cation) and a negative ion (anion). The opposite charges attract each other, holding the atoms together. This type of bond is common between metals and non-metals.* Description *: Imagine two circles (representing atoms). One atom has an extra electron which it donates to the other. This creates a "+" sign on the donating atom (cation) and a "-" sign on the receiving atom (anion). They are attracted due to opposite charges.* Illustration ***3. Hydrogen Bonding: *** *: Hydrogen bonds are a type of weak bond that occurs when a hydrogen atom* Description bonded to a strongly electronegative atom (like oxygen or nitrogen) is attracted to another electronegative atom. They are especially important in water molecules and in the structure of DNA. *: Imagine a water molecule (H2O) with a hydrogen atom (H) and an oxygen atom (O). The hydrogen atom in one water molecule is attracted to the oxygen atom in a neighboring water molecule. This attraction is represented by a dotted line, indicating the hydrogen bond. Now, let's create a visual representation for each of these bond types.* Illustration * Here's the visual representation of the three types of bonds: 1. Covalent Bonding: Atoms A and B are sharing electrons, represented by the blue dots between them. The red line indicates the covalent bond formed by this sharing. 2. Ionic Bonding: Atom A has donated an electron to Atom B. As a result, Atom A becomes positively charged (A+) and Atom B becomes negatively charged (B-). The dashed red line indicates the attraction between these oppositely charged ions. 3. Hydrogen Bonding: The hydrogen atom (H) bonded to the oxygen atom (O) is attracted to another oxygen atom. The solid red line indicates the covalent bond within the molecule, while the dashed green line represents the weaker hydrogen bond. I hope this helps clarify the differences between covalent, ionic, and hydrogen bonds! BingChat: * *: Sure. Here is an illustration explaining the different types of chemical bonds:* Bard Ionic bonds ionic bond between a sodium atom and a chlorine atom * In an ionic bond, one atom transfers one or more electrons to another atom. This results in two oppositely charged ions, which are attracted to each other by electrostatic forces. In the image above, the sodium atom transfers one electron to the chlorine atom. The sodium atom becomes a positively charged ion (Na+), and the chlorine atom becomes a negatively charged ion (Cl-). The Na+ and Cl- ions are attracted to each other by electrostatic forces, and they form an ionic bond. Covalent bonds * covalent bond between two hydrogen atoms In a covalent bond, two atoms share one or more pairs of electrons. Covalent bonds are typically formed between nonmetals. In the image above, the two hydrogen atoms share a pair of electrons. The two hydrogen atoms are covalently bonded together. Hydrogen bonds * hydrogen bond between two water molecules A hydrogen bond is a special type of weak bond that forms between a hydrogen atom and a highly electronegative atom, such as oxygen or nitrogen. Hydrogen bonds are responsible for many of the unique properties of water, such as its high boiling point and surface tension. In the image above, the hydrogen atom in one water molecule is attracted to the oxygen atom in another water molecule. This hydrogen bond is weaker than a covalent bond, but it is strong enough to hold the two water molecules together. I hope this illustration helps you to understand the different types of chemical bonds. Please let me know if you have any other questions. *: Here is an illustrated explanation of the three main types of chemical bonds - ionic,covalent, and hydrogen bonds:* Claude * In this illustration: • Ionic bonding is shown with the full electron transfer between the sodium and chlorine atoms, forming charged ions that attract. • Covalent bonding is shown with the shared pair of electrons between two hydrogen atoms. • Hydrogen bonding is shown with the polarity of the water molecule, leading to electrostatic attraction between molecules. Let me know if a visual explanation like this helps differentiate the types of bonds! I can create more illustrated examples to demonstrate chemical concepts. Images and diagrams can sometimes bring these abstract ideas to life. starts with the usual “Certainly!,” followed by "Let's break down the explanation," which demonstrates . After a detailed description of what the visualisation should comprise, repeatedly asking the student to “Imagine” something, it generated a quite crude “visual representation of the three types of bonds”, finalising with a “I hope this help clarify”. solely reliance on four high-quality, yet generic, pictures of chemical bonds not only did the images fail to employ effective , but they also did not promote genuine , failing to deeply engage users in the topic. The content also lacked in , as it missed drawing on parallels or real-world examples. Furthermore, the images also missed adding a , making the learning experience feel less tailored and intimate. used , by providing a comprehensive explanation, accompanied by three specific images sourced from the internet, each distinctly depicting a type of bond, adding . Concluding its explanation, added a touch of , expressing, “I hope this illustration helps you” and prompting further engagement with “Please let me know...” depiction was even more rudimentary, presenting bond details in textual format instead of offering a lucid visual illustration. Such a choice reflected a deficiency in and diminished , even though the final assertion “Images and diagrams can sometimes bring these abstract ideas to life.” While the closing remarks of "Let me know" and "I can create more illustrated examples" hint at a desire for , the lack of an actual tailored visual representation undermines this effort. ChatGPT Reinforcement & Feedback Instructional strategy Personalization & Personable Touch BingChat’s Instructional Strategies Engagement & Interactivity Use of Analogy & Comparative Illustrations Personalization & Personable Touch Bard Instructional strategy Detail Depth & Content Recommendation Bard Personalization & Personable Touch Claude's Instructional Strategies Engagement & Interactivity Personalization & Personable Touch This paper is under CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

How GenAIbots Repond to Questions About Illustration of Chemical Bonds

কিভাবে GenAIbots রাসায়নিক বন্ডের ইলাস্ট্রেশন সম্পর্কে প্রশ্নের উত্তর দেয়

So reagieren GenAIbots auf Fragen zur Darstellung chemischer Bindungen

Cómo responden los GenAIbots a las preguntas sobre la ilustración de enlaces químicos

Comment les GenAIbots répondent aux questions sur l'illustration des liaisons chimiques

GenAIbots रासायनिक बंधों के चित्रण के बारे में प्रश्नों का उत्तर कैसे देते हैं

GenAIbotsが化学結合の図解に関する質問にどのように応答するか

GenAIbot이 화학 결합 예시에 대한 질문에 응답하는 방법

Como GenAIbots responde a perguntas sobre ilustração de ligações químicas

Как GenAIbots отвечают на вопросы об иллюстрации химических связей

GenAIbot'lar Kimyasal Bağların İllüstrasyonu Hakkında Sorulara Nasıl Yanıt Veriyor?

Cách GenAIbot trả lời câu hỏi về minh họa liên kết hóa học

GenAIbots 如何回答有关化学键说明的问题

This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED license.
Authors:
(1) Lana L. Blaschke, Earth System Modelling, School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany and lana.blaschke@pik-potsdam.de;
(2) Da Nian, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany;
(3) Sebastian Bathiany,  Earth System Modelling, School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany;
(4)  Maya Ben-Yami,  Earth System Modelling, School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany;
(5) Taylor Smith, Institute of Geosciences, University of Potsdam, 14476 Potsdam, Germany;
(6)  Chris A. Boulton, Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter, EX4 4QE Exeter, UK ;
(7) Niklas Boers, Earth System Modelling, School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany, Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter, EX4 4QE Exeter, UK, and Department of Mathematics, University of Exeter, EX4 4QF Exeter, UK. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction
Materials and Methods
Data
Results
Conclusions, Open Research Section and Conflict of Interest/Competing Interests
Author Contributions, Supplementary Information, Acknowledgments and References
Additional Insight from the Conceptual Model 
AMSR2 until 2022 Excluded Due to Missing Human Land Use Data
Investigation of Resilience Loss in AMSR2’s X-Band
Results Proving Robustness
Potential Driving Forces and Sources of Bias RESULTS PROVING ROBUSTNESS Text S8. Robustness with respect to the parameterization of the STL algorithm The results in Figures 5 and 6 are based on the residual found by the STL algorithm with default parameterization. Yet, Figure S9 and S10 prove that the analysis is not influenced by this choice as the results are almost identical when the length of the seasonal smoother equals 13 (instead of 7). Text S9. Robustness with respect to the size of the sliding windows The choice of the sliding window size is difficult for short time series as that of AMSR-E’s and AMSR2’s VOD. Yet, the results are robust w.r.t it, as Figure S11 based on sliding windows of 3 years is almost identical to Figure 5 with windows of 5 years. This also holds for the summarizing Figure S12 when compared to Figure 6. It is to note that the spatially averaged time series of the three indicators are more noisy for the choice of smaller windows, which is due to the fact the the calculation of the indicators becomes more unstable when calculated on only 36 data points, corresponding to the 3 years. The right choice of the window size in an approach to resilience analysis like the one shown here is challenging, as the increase can only be determined reliably based on enough indicator time steps either. The fact that the results are robust with respect to the window size gives confidence in the choice of 5 years as default. Text S10. Robustness with respect to the measure of change In the main text, any change in indicators is measured in terms of linear trends. Yet, another option would be the Kendall’s τ as a measure of steadiness of increase. Figure S13 is the analogue of Figure 5 but with increase in time series quantified in terms of Kendall’s τ . In Figure 6, increase in the indicators is quantified in terms of linear trends. The results are almost identical when measuring the indicators’ increase by the Kendall τ rank coefficient. Text S11. Robustness with respect to the distance defining neighboring cells The definition of the spatial correlation depends on the distance taken into account when taking the average correlation with neighboring cells. Figure S15 shows the trends of the spatial correlation for the different VIs comparing different radii defining the set of neighboring cells. As expected, a greater number of neighbors spatially smooths the results, but does not influence the general spatial pattern of the trends of spatial correlation. The turquoise circle on the bottom of the map shows an exemplary circular band of neighboring cells. In the main text, all results are based on a radius of 100 km. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED license. Authors: (1) Lana L. Blaschke, Earth System Modelling, School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany and lana.blaschke@pik-potsdam.de; (2) Da Nian, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany; (3) Sebastian Bathiany,  Earth System Modelling, School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany; (4)  Maya Ben-Yami,  Earth System Modelling, School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany; (5) Taylor Smith, Institute of Geosciences, University of Potsdam, 14476 Potsdam, Germany; (6)  Chris A. Boulton, Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter, EX4 4QE Exeter, UK ; (7) Niklas Boers, Earth System Modelling, School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany, Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter, EX4 4QE Exeter, UK, and Department of Mathematics, University of Exeter, EX4 4QF Exeter, UK. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-SA 4.0 DEED license. Authors: Authors: (1) Lana L. Blaschke, Earth System Modelling, School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany and lana.blaschke@pik-potsdam.de; (2) Da Nian, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany; (3) Sebastian Bathiany,  Earth System Modelling, School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany; (4)  Maya Ben-Yami,  Earth System Modelling, School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany; (5) Taylor Smith, Institute of Geosciences, University of Potsdam, 14476 Potsdam, Germany; (6)  Chris A. Boulton, Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter, EX4 4QE Exeter, UK ; (7) Niklas Boers, Earth System Modelling, School of Engineering and Design, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany, Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter, EX4 4QE Exeter, UK, and Department of Mathematics, University of Exeter, EX4 4QF Exeter, UK. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Materials and Methods Data Results Conclusions, Open Research Section and Conflict of Interest/Competing Interests Author Contributions, Supplementary Information, Acknowledgments and References Additional Insight from the Conceptual Model AMSR2 until 2022 Excluded Due to Missing Human Land Use Data Investigation of Resilience Loss in AMSR2’s X-Band Results Proving Robustness Potential Driving Forces and Sources of Bias Abstract and Introduction Abstract and Introduction Materials and Methods Materials and Methods Data Data Results Results Conclusions, Open Research Section and Conflict of Interest/Competing Interests Conclusions, Open Research Section and Conflict of Interest/Competing Interests Author Contributions, Supplementary Information, Acknowledgments and References Author Contributions, Supplementary Information, Acknowledgments and References Additional Insight from the Conceptual Model Additional Insight from the Conceptual Model AMSR2 until 2022 Excluded Due to Missing Human Land Use Data AMSR2 until 2022 Excluded Due to Missing Human Land Use Data Investigation of Resilience Loss in AMSR2’s X-Band Investigation of Resilience Loss in AMSR2’s X-Band Results Proving Robustness Results Proving Robustness Potential Driving Forces and Sources of Bias Potential Driving Forces and Sources of Bias RESULTS PROVING ROBUSTNESS Text S8. Robustness with respect to the parameterization of the STL algorithm The results in Figures 5 and 6 are based on the residual found by the STL algorithm with default parameterization. Yet, Figure S9 and S10 prove that the analysis is not influenced by this choice as the results are almost identical when the length of the seasonal smoother equals 13 (instead of 7). Text S9. Robustness with respect to the size of the sliding windows The choice of the sliding window size is difficult for short time series as that of AMSR-E’s and AMSR2’s VOD. Yet, the results are robust w.r.t it, as Figure S11 based on sliding windows of 3 years is almost identical to Figure 5 with windows of 5 years. This also holds for the summarizing Figure S12 when compared to Figure 6. It is to note that the spatially averaged time series of the three indicators are more noisy for the choice of smaller windows, which is due to the fact the the calculation of the indicators becomes more unstable when calculated on only 36 data points, corresponding to the 3 years. The right choice of the window size in an approach to resilience analysis like the one shown here is challenging, as the increase can only be determined reliably based on enough indicator time steps either. The fact that the results are robust with respect to the window size gives confidence in the choice of 5 years as default. Text S10. Robustness with respect to the measure of change In the main text, any change in indicators is measured in terms of linear trends. Yet, another option would be the Kendall’s τ as a measure of steadiness of increase. Figure S13 is the analogue of Figure 5 but with increase in time series quantified in terms of Kendall’s τ . In Figure 6, increase in the indicators is quantified in terms of linear trends. The results are almost identical when measuring the indicators’ increase by the Kendall τ rank coefficient. Text S11. Robustness with respect to the distance defining neighboring cells The definition of the spatial correlation depends on the distance taken into account when taking the average correlation with neighboring cells. Figure S15 shows the trends of the spatial correlation for the different VIs comparing different radii defining the set of neighboring cells. As expected, a greater number of neighbors spatially smooths the results, but does not influence the general spatial pattern of the trends of spatial correlation. The turquoise circle on the bottom of the map shows an exemplary circular band of neighboring cells. In the main text, all results are based on a radius of 100 km.

Loss of Amazon Rainforest Resilience: Results Proving Robustness

At some point, too many people will have lost too much Bitcoin that they will meet to talk about it. Later, they will opt to do something about it. There can only be a (decreasing number) of bitcoins Lost cryptocurrency is a unique beast, quite different from lost information for 2 reasons: 1. We can continue maintaining its value. Right? Is it really still valuable? 2. Other people know it is lost. They simply check the blockchain. Whereas with lost information, nobody else can tell except those who have lost that intel. Take Bitcoin as an example. We still say 'There can only be 21 million'. But if this includes even lost bitcoins, then we are counting our losses as assets! That is very strange. Imagine if you were an accountant for a major company. The company deals in all sorts of assets, but sometimes writes some physical assets off as lost either due to theft, fire outbreak, or irreparable damage. But to your shock, the manager insists that not only do you keep counting those assets, but also, count them as fully functional assets whose value is going up every year. "But they are damaged", you might say. "Yeah, but they are still our assets" "What, how?" "There is hope we can recover them exactly as they were before they were lost. And then some". It’s hard to fathom. It indeed feels like Alice in Wonderland, where cards talk, a piece of cake can make one bigger, or smaller, and a cat can disappear leaving only its grin behind. Bitcoin and most crypto are the same. The question is thus; Is real value riding on all coins? Even when some are lost? Certainly, supply and demand economics might make all the coins feel equally valuable hence we would say that if Bitcoin is at $70,000 then the market cap is $1.47 trillion. But taking the figures as per this reddit post on lost bitcoins, if 6 million are lost then only 15 million coins are existing which are backed by a market cap of $1.05 trillion. Less by $420 billion. This does deflate our dreams and begs the question --> are we kidding ourselves? The road to Zero bitcoins By some estimates, 4% of 21,000,000 bitcoins continue to be lost every year. How many shall be lost, going forward? Let's assume this 4% holds true. 4% × 21,000,000 = 840,000 bitcoins. This is very steep. Well then, in 15 years, we shall lose 840,000 * 15 = 12,600,000 Add 6 million to this batch and circa 2039, 'There can only be 2,400,000 bitcoins' When will they be finished? Now, a little hope is in order. The 4% cannot hold steady forever, so it would be wise to say it too will be a declining figure as we progress. Because as Bitcoins get more valuable, people will be more careful with their keys. It is inevitable. Taking it at face value though, we shall run out of bitcoins to trade within the next 18 years. So Circa 2042. I hope the naysayers will be back to tell us they told us so, or to plead guilty of doomism and explain why there are still many millions of Bitcoins being traded daily. However, it certainly looks like way before the year 2137 when the last satoshi will be mined, we shall hit a big wall as per the coins lost vs the coins in the available supply. When enough is enough, for lost Bitcoins Assume at the time this shocking reality hits the Bitcoin community, we have only 4 million coins tradable around the world. Assume even Michael Saylor shall have lost some of his keys/coins. What then? Well, the price of a single coin, feeling so much demand, will spike to about $10 million, and then it will dawn on everybody. Bitcoin has a $40 trillion market capitalization and not a $210 trillion market capitalization. Right now, this is an elephant 🐘 in the Bitcoin room, but it is still a baby and we are all happy to pet it and feed it with careless abandon. Soon, however, it will become a giant. A big fat frustration. At $10 trillion per coin, the fees to move even a few sats will likely be thousands of dollars because; a) the Bitcoin reward is smaller. b) miners have also lost their coins. c) losing coins to hackers will be most likely (hackers will be sniffing all over every wallet, waiting for the SSL to get some slight holes) Everybody will be losing coins. It will be wild. But before I proceed? Why do people lose keys hence coins? Well, if you are using the key every time, sometimes changing it this way and that way to maintain your security (because AI powered cameras may be watching), it so happens that you are bound to make a mistake and lose the key. Or else, be hacked (since you cannot fathom changing the key all the time). Like smart people must have said, meat brains are not good at holding random numbers or random sequences of words. Luke Dash Jnr, a seasoned cypherpunk, was hacked last year. He lost 200 bitcoins. Elon Musk may have lost his Bitcon keys back in '20. So, shit happens. To hard fork those lost coins back, or not. That is the question So here's the thing. We wake up and Bitcoin is seizing up. Crashing into its mass and threatening to take our financial dreams with it when it turns into a black hole of lost keys / burned coins. We also wake up and realize that the debt spiral is still sucking us down with it, even as we hodl Bitcoin. Climate is now a real issue and oh, AI is giving us headaches. Too many addictive cat videos. Too many coins are lost, the blocks are always full so confirmations take decades, the core software is too large, the fees are too high. So we sit down, like AA group members, and decide that continuing to preach financial freedom yet the currency is fast tending towards technological obsolescence, is like being high on alcohol and thinking that one is blissful for other reasons. We need to quit the 'lost coins are good for all' alcohol. In short, it will be time for a hard fork. The Hard Fork --> Bitcoin ver. 2.0 Innovation comes full circle. After factoring in the reality of available supply and not merely supply, we could let Satoshi Nakamoto's 2 million or so coins be our target practice and our saving grace. One shot and bull’s eye. Trillions of dollars pour down from the Bitcoin piñata. Like manna from the heavens. Right? Alas, There shall only be 4 million bitcoins and the value of lost coins, if "re-supplied" to the blockchain, will quickly deflate the value of the 4 million coins existing. Overall, lost coins would have helped the remaining coins get valuable to that point. Say $10 million per BTC. If you un-lose them by the most brute force of them all -- a hard fork -- you shock the demand economics and viola, have worth-less bitcoins than you started with. Now whoever is holding their previously un-lost bitcoins cannot be happy about that. It begs the question, what would they do? Refuse the hard fork outright. Obviously. Indeed, even if the value of the bitcoins would overall increase the market cap of the available supply, we can be damn sure it would reduce the value of each individual coin. Supply and Demand. Economics 101. The Big Question: Is this a financial revolution for the better, or for the worse? For example, let's say we had 4 million coins left. We then redeem the coins in the wallets of those proven deceased without any heir. Say Satoshi Finney is that first choice. At $10 million per coin, 4 million coins give up a market cap of 40 trillion USD. Add 2 million coins to the available supply but have the price shocked from 10 million to only 7 million. Total availability supply = 6 million. 6 million x 7 million USD = 42 trillion dollars. It is a good financial explosion. But to whom? Who gets the money?? Who makes the ultimate sacrifice of accepting to end up with less money than before? If rational and educated human beings cannot agree on simple (obvious) things like "Are fossil fuels necessary for economic progress or not?", how can they agree on how to share this pie? It is a financial explosion, except the majority will not want it. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine General's problem. Somebody needs to solve the "Goodness of the community over the Goodness of the individual" problem. Of course, with my limited brains, I know most people are wary of a Marxist dystopia sliding in during this very crucial process. E.g. The coins could instead be coded to go to a handful of powerful individuals, whereas before it seemed like they would go to people who deserved a financial turnaround. Especially in the wake of what we see today with government debt ballooning, government operatives hoping to snatch some of this reclaimed BTC so as to help the government pay its gigantic debt is not an impossibility. Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Not the best kind of sandwich. At some point, too many people will have lost too much Bitcoin that they will meet to talk about it. Bitcoin Later, they will opt to do something about it. There can only be a (decreasing number) of bitcoins L ost cryptocurrency is a unique beast, quite different from lost information for 2 reasons: ost cryptocurrency is a unique beast, quite different from lost information for 2 reasons: 1. We can continue maintaining its value. Right? Is it really still valuable? Is it really still valuable? really 2. Other people know it is lost. They simply check the blockchain. Whereas with lost information, nobody else can tell except those who have lost that intel. Take Bitcoin as an example. We still say 'There can only be 21 million'. But if this includes even lost bitcoins, then we are counting our losses as assets! That is very strange. Imagine if you were an accountant for a major company. The company deals in all sorts of assets, but sometimes writes some physical assets off as lost either due to theft, fire outbreak, or irreparable damage. But to your shock, the manager insists that not only do you keep counting those assets, but also, count them as fully functional assets whose value is going up every year. " But they are damaged ", you might say. But they are damaged " Yeah, but they are still our assets " Yeah, but they are still our assets " What, how? " What, how? " There is hope we can recover them exactly as they were before they were lost. There is hope we can recover them exactly as they were before they were lost. And then some ". And then some It’s hard to fathom. It indeed feels like Alice in Wonderland, where cards talk, a piece of cake can make one bigger, or smaller, and a cat can disappear leaving only its grin behind. Bitcoin and most crypto are the same. The question is thus; Is real value riding on all coins? Even when some are lost? Certainly, supply and demand economics might make all the coins feel equally valuable hence we would say that if Bitcoin is at $70,000 then the market cap is $1.47 trillion. But taking the figures as per this reddit post on lost bitcoins , if 6 million are lost then only 15 million coins are existing which are backed by a market cap of $1.05 trillion. reddit post on lost bitcoins Less by $420 billion. This does deflate our dreams and begs the question --> are we kidding ourselves? The road to Zero bitcoins By some estimates , 4% of 21,000,000 bitcoins continue to be lost every year. some estimates How many shall be lost, going forward? Let's assume this 4% holds true. 4% × 21,000,000 = 840,000 bitcoins. This is very steep. Well then, in 15 years, we shall lose 840,000 * 15 = 12,600,000 Add 6 million to this batch and circa 2039, 'There can only be 2,400,000 bitcoins' When will they be finished? Now, a little hope is in order. The 4% cannot hold steady forever, so it would be wise to say it too will be a declining figure as we progress. Because as Bitcoins get more valuable, people will be more careful with their keys. It is inevitable. Taking it at face value though, we shall run out of bitcoins to trade within the next 18 years. So Circa 2042. I hope the naysayers will be back to tell us they told us so, or to plead guilty of doomism and explain why there are still many millions of Bitcoins being traded daily. However, it certainly looks like way before the year 2137 when the last satoshi will be mined, we shall hit a big wall as per the coins lost vs the coins in the available supply. When enough is enough, for lost Bitcoins Assume at the time this shocking reality hits the Bitcoin community, we have only 4 million coins tradable around the world. Assume even Michael Saylor shall have lost some of his keys/coins. What then? Well, the price of a single coin, feeling so much demand, will spike to about $10 million, and then it will dawn on everybody. Bitcoin has a $40 trillion market capitalization and not a $210 trillion market capitalization. Right now, this is an elephant 🐘 in the Bitcoin room, but it is still a baby and we are all happy to pet it and feed it with careless abandon. Soon, however, it will become a giant. A big fat frustration. At $10 trillion per coin, the fees to move even a few sats will likely be thousands of dollars because; a) the Bitcoin reward is smaller. b) miners have also lost their coins. c) losing coins to hackers will be most likely (hackers will be sniffing all over every wallet, waiting for the SSL to get some slight holes) Everybody will be losing coins. It will be wild. But before I proceed? Why do people lose keys hence coins? Well, if you are using the key every time, sometimes changing it this way and that way to maintain your security (because AI powered cameras may be watching), it so happens that you are bound to make a mistake and lose the key. Or else, be hacked (since you cannot fathom changing the key all the time). Like smart people must have said, meat brains are not good at holding random numbers or random sequences of words. Luke Dash Jnr, a seasoned cypherpunk, was hacked last year. He lost 200 bitcoins. Elon Musk may have lost his Bitcon keys back in '20. So, shit happens. To hard fork those lost coins back, or not. That is the question So here's the thing. We wake up and Bitcoin is seizing up. Crashing into its mass and threatening to take our financial dreams with it when it turns into a black hole of lost keys / burned coins. We also wake up and realize that the debt spiral is still sucking us down with it, even as we hodl Bitcoin. Climate is now a real issue and oh, AI is giving us headaches. Too many addictive cat videos. Too many coins are lost, the blocks are always full so confirmations take decades, the core software is too large, the fees are too high. So we sit down, like AA group members, and decide that continuing to preach financial freedom yet the currency is fast tending towards technological obsolescence, is like being high on alcohol and thinking that one is blissful for other reasons. We need to quit the 'lost coins are good for all' alcohol. In short, it will be time for a hard fork. The Hard Fork --> Bitcoin ver. 2.0 Innovation comes full circle. Innovation comes full circle. After factoring in the reality of available supply and not merely supply, we could let Satoshi Nakamoto's 2 million or so coins be our target practice and our saving grace. One shot and bull’s eye. Trillions of dollars pour down from the Bitcoin piñata. Like manna from the heavens. Right? Alas, There shall only be 4 million bitcoins and the value of lost coins, if "re-supplied" to the blockchain, will quickly deflate the value of the 4 million coins existing. Overall, lost coins would have helped the remaining coins get valuable to that point. Say $10 million per BTC. If you un-lose them by the most brute force of them all -- a hard fork -- you shock the demand economics and viola, have worth-less bitcoins than you started with. Now whoever is holding their previously un-lost bitcoins cannot be happy about that. It begs the question, what would they do? Refuse the hard fork outright. Obviously. Indeed, even if the value of the bitcoins would overall increase the market cap of the available supply, we can be damn sure it would reduce the value of each individual coin. Supply and Demand. Economics 101. The Big Question: Is this a financial revolution for the better, or for the worse? For example, let's say we had 4 million coins left. We then redeem the coins in the wallets of those proven deceased without any heir. Say Satoshi Finney is that first choice. At $10 million per coin, 4 million coins give up a market cap of 40 trillion USD. Add 2 million coins to the available supply but have the price shocked from 10 million to only 7 million. Total availability supply = 6 million. 6 million x 7 million USD = 42 trillion dollars. It is a good financial explosion. But to whom? Who gets the money?? Who makes the ultimate sacrifice of accepting to end up with less money than before? If rational and educated human beings cannot agree on simple (obvious) things like "Are fossil fuels necessary for economic progress or not?" , how can they agree on how to share this pie? "Are fossil fuels necessary for economic progress or not?" It is a financial explosion, except the majority will not want it. Satoshi may have solved the Byzantine General's problem. Somebody needs to solve the "Goodness of the community over the Goodness of the individual" problem. Of course, with my limited brains, I know most people are wary of a Marxist dystopia sliding in during this very crucial process. E.g. The coins could instead be coded to go to a handful of powerful individuals, whereas before it seemed like they would go to people who deserved a financial turnaround. Especially in the wake of what we see today with government debt ballooning, government operatives hoping to snatch some of this reclaimed BTC so as to help the government pay its gigantic debt is not an impossibility. Talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place. Not the best kind of sandwich.

Is Lost Cryptocurrency Still Valuable, and Can We Reclaim It? 

ALCIRCLE

alcircle.com

11-50 employees

Since 2010

COMPANY RANKING

ALCIRCLE

EVERGREEN INDEX #1245

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

AlCircle WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

ALCIRCLE

alcircle.com

11-50 employees

Since 2010

COMPANY RANKING

ALCIRCLE

EVERGREEN INDEX #1245

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT ALCIRCLE

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

AlCircle WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!