Backed by the teams behind Thrasio, Perch, Merama, Elevate Brands, Heyday, and more, Movley is building the first ever quality control platform for D2C e-commerce brands

Movley

movley

These popular restaurant stocks are certainly on many investors&#x27; radars.

Better Stock to Buy Right Now: Chipotle vs Starbucks @themotleyfool #stocks $SBUX $CMG

Crypto has been an industry predominantly dominated by white men, especially from developed countries. That’s just a fact for anyone with eyes. So, it didn’t start by being pretty diverse or inclusive, even if the whole gist of decentralization and self-custodial money was to include everyone or as many people as possible. Luckily, things have improved over the years, but diversity and inclusion in crypto still seem to be a work in progress. Now, to be fair, a lot of people participating here tend to be anonymous and therefore we know close to nothing about their “diversity stats” —ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, age, nationality, etc. Satoshi Nakamoto is a great example. We’re not even 100% sure that he is (or was?) a guy. Still, among the ones that have decided to step into the public (CEOs, employees, journalists, adopters, and more) there is only a minority of non-white-men among the powerful ones (founders and leaders), while it seems that most adopters are, indeed, non-white-men. Let’s start with some stats to check how that’s going so far. Current landscape Or as current as the stats and reports have allowed us to know. Likely, the first thing that stands out about this topic is the gender gap in crypto. According to Forex Suggest, as of 2023, there were only 6% female CEOs of crypto companies. In their list of the 50 most influential crypto CEOs, barely three women appear. On the other hand, according to Coin Dance, Bitcoin (the most used coin) community engagement shows around 14.2% activity from females and 85.7% from males. For the BIS, less than 35% of all crypto trading app users globally were female in 2022. Similar reports are all over the industry, but almost always show the same gender gap. It’s not the only type of statistic worth noting for diversity purposes, though. This is an interesting one: as discovered by Pew Research, 24% of Asian adults and 21% of Black or Hispanic adults in the United States have invested in crypto, compared to only 14% of white adults. Besides, as indicated by Chainalysis, the countries that have most adopted cryptocurrencies are developing markets, such as their top three in 2023: India, Nigeria, and Vietnam. Age is also a factor to consider in adoption and general inclusion in crypto. As shownin Bankrate, and also to Coin Dance, millennials (born 1981-1996) are the majority, followed by Gen X (born 1965-1980). Older and younger generations, for some reason, are behind in adoption. As for the sexual orientation aspect, a survey by Motley Fool in 2023 discovered that 36% of LGBTQ+ Americans have a cryptocurrency wallet, in contrast to 16% of the total US population. Women and Minorities in Crypto If we scrutinize the stats above, we can conclude that crypto adoption is more likely in people who have been most excluded from traditional financial services, or whose countries have certain monetary issues or limitations. However, differences in age and gender can’t be fully explained by it. On the other hand, crypto founders, leaders, and top employees are still mostly white men, all over the world. According to another study by Forex Suggest, Chainalysis is the crypto company with the highest proportion of females in its top team —46.2%. It’s not bad, but it means that the best so far still has more than half of the men leading. Meanwhile, other firms like Alchemy, Bitpanda, and Ledger are 100% male-dominated. All of this doesn’t mean that minorities can only participate as silent crypto adopters. There are numerous decentralized projects and protocols founded and managed by minorities, and that have been built to support minorities too. Some Initiatives Black individuals and communities, for instance, have developed numerous crypto projects to address economic inequality and empower themselves. Examples include Equity Coin, a Black-owned cryptocurrency that invests in affordable housing, and Long Neck Ladies, an NFT project by a young Black girl that has generated significant revenue. Black-owned DAOs and crypto businesses, like some crypto exchanges, are providing access to and funding for underrepresented groups, enabling greater financial inclusion and eliminating racial biases in funding processes. Women and the LGBTQ+ community have found an open space in crypto as well. Namely, NFT collections like Queer Rise and Bit Baddies aim to represent women and queer culture, while supporting organizations like wayOUT. OutRight, and Little Pink Houses of Hope. Other initiatives, such as The MetaPride Land Festival and First Contact, provide a safe metaverse space for LGBTQ+ individuals and support LGBTQ+ charities. AthenaDAO focuses on women’s health research and education, while Crypto Tech Women empowers women in tech through education and advisorship programs. The Queer Museum of Digital Art supports queer artists, and the Yes Queen Club promotes diversity in the crypto world with proceeds supporting inclusion initiatives. SheFi offers crypto education to women and non-binary individuals, and the NGO Diversity in Blockchain is dedicated to ensuring equal participation in the crypto industry. What’s left to do? Well, decentralized protocols don’t care about who you are, where are you from, or what are your current circumstances. They’re mostly automatic systems designed to include everyone, so we are able to use them for whatever (harmless thing) we want. The one inclusion-related thing we must still worry about in crypto is the potential censorship of these systems, be it by governments, by companies, or by any other centralized player. That’s why we should use the most decentralized and censorship-resistant protocols. On Bitcoin and Ethereum, for example, large mining pools or nodes controlled by a few entities can potentially influence transaction processing and their inclusion into the blockchain. Additionally, infrastructure providers like major exchanges and wallet services can become points of centralization, impacting the network's overall decentralization and susceptibility to censorship. Obyte, for its part, stands out for its ultimate decentralization and resistance to censorship. Unlike blockchains, which rely on a limited number of block producers that can potentially censor transactions, Obyte uses a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) system. This means transactions are added directly to the network by users, without needing intermediaries, eliminating central points of control and making it truly decentralized. This design ensures that Obyte is free from domination and censorship, providing a secure and accessible platform for anyone worldwide to store and transfer value, and even to build new Dapps, DAOs, or any other inclusive project. Features like customized tokens, conditional payments, textcoins, chatbots, and a private coin are available for everyone, without coding. We can confidently say that Obyte promotes diversity and inclusion in crypto by eliminating central control and enabling equal access for all. Featured Vector Image by upklyak / Freepik Crypto has been an industry predominantly dominated by white men, especially from developed countries. That’s just a fact for anyone with eyes. So, it didn’t start by being pretty diverse or inclusive, even if the whole gist of decentralization and self-custodial money was to include everyone or as many people as possible. Luckily, things have improved over the years, but diversity and inclusion in crypto still seem to be a work in progress. Now, to be fair, a lot of people participating here tend to be anonymous and therefore we know close to nothing about their “diversity stats” —ethnic, gender, sexual orientation, age, nationality, etc. Satoshi Nakamoto is a great example. We’re not even 100% sure that he is (or was?) a guy. Still, among the ones that have decided to step into the public (CEOs, employees, journalists, adopters, and more) there is only a minority of non-white-men among the powerful ones (founders and leaders), while it seems that most adopters are, indeed, non-white-men. Satoshi Nakamoto Satoshi Nakamoto there is only a minority of non-white-men among the powerful ones (founders and leaders), while it seems that most adopters are, indeed, non-white-men. Let’s start with some stats to check how that’s going so far. Current landscape Current landscape Or as current as the stats and reports have allowed us to know. Likely, the first thing that stands out about this topic is the gender gap in crypto. According to Forex Suggest , as of 2023, there were only 6% female CEOs of crypto companies. In their list of the 50 most influential crypto CEOs, barely three women appear. On the other hand, according to Coin Dance , Bitcoin (the most used coin) community engagement shows around 14.2% activity from females and 85.7% from males. For the BIS , less than 35% of all crypto trading app users globally were female in 2022. Forex Suggest Forex Suggest Coin Dance Coin Dance the BIS the BIS Similar reports are all over the industry, but almost always show the same gender gap. It’s not the only type of statistic worth noting for diversity purposes, though. This is an interesting one: as discovered by Pew Research , 24% of Asian adults and 21% of Black or Hispanic adults in the United States have invested in crypto, compared to only 14% of white adults. Besides, as indicated by Chainalysis , the countries that have most adopted cryptocurrencies are developing markets, such as their top three in 2023: India, Nigeria, and Vietnam. Similar reports are all over the industry, but almost always show the same gender gap. Pew Research Pew Research Chainalysis Chainalysis Age is also a factor to consider in adoption and general inclusion in crypto. As shown in Bankrate , and also to Coin Dance, millennials (born 1981-1996) are the majority, followed by Gen X (born 1965-1980). Older and younger generations, for some reason, are behind in adoption. As for the sexual orientation aspect, a survey by Motley Fool in 2023 discovered that 36% of LGBTQ+ Americans have a cryptocurrency wallet, in contrast to 16% of the total US population. in Bankrate in Bankrate Motley Fool Motley Fool Women and Minorities in Crypto Women and Minorities in Crypto If we scrutinize the stats above, we can conclude that crypto adoption is more likely in people who have been most excluded from traditional financial services, or whose countries have certain monetary issues or limitations. However, differences in age and gender can’t be fully explained by it. On the other hand, crypto founders, leaders, and top employees are still mostly white men, all over the world. According to another study by Forex Suggest , Chainalysis is the crypto company with the highest proportion of females in its top team —46.2%. It’s not bad, but it means that the best so far still has more than half of the men leading. Meanwhile, other firms like Alchemy, Bitpanda, and Ledger are 100% male-dominated. On the other hand, crypto founders, leaders, and top employees are still mostly white men, all over the world. Forex Suggest Forex Suggest All of this doesn’t mean that minorities can only participate as silent crypto adopters. There are numerous decentralized projects and protocols founded and managed by minorities, and that have been built to support minorities too. Some Initiatives Some Initiatives Black individuals and communities, for instance, have developed numerous crypto projects to address economic inequality and empower themselves. Examples include Equity Coin, a Black-owned cryptocurrency that invests in affordable housing, and Long Neck Ladies, an NFT project by a young Black girl that has generated significant revenue. Black-owned DAOs and crypto businesses, like some crypto exchanges, are providing access to and funding for underrepresented groups, enabling greater financial inclusion and eliminating racial biases in funding processes. Examples include Examples include Women and the LGBTQ+ community have found an open space in crypto as well. Namely, NFT collections like Queer Rise and Bit Baddies aim to represent women and queer culture, while supporting organizations like wayOUT. OutRight, and Little Pink Houses of Hope. Other initiatives, such as The MetaPride Land Festival and First Contact, provide a safe metaverse space for LGBTQ+ individuals and support LGBTQ+ charities. Women and the LGBTQ+ community have found an open space in crypto as well. Women Women LGBTQ+ community LGBTQ+ community AthenaDAO focuses on women’s health research and education, while Crypto Tech Women empowers women in tech through education and advisorship programs. The Queer Museum of Digital Art supports queer artists, and the Yes Queen Club promotes diversity in the crypto world with proceeds supporting inclusion initiatives. SheFi offers crypto education to women and non-binary individuals, and the NGO Diversity in Blockchain is dedicated to ensuring equal participation in the crypto industry. What’s left to do? What’s left to do? Well, decentralized protocols don’t care about who you are, where are you from, or what are your current circumstances. They’re mostly automatic systems designed to include everyone, so we are able to use them for whatever (harmless thing) we want. The one inclusion-related thing we must still worry about in crypto is the potential censorship of these systems, be it by governments, by companies, or by any other centralized player. Well, decentralized protocols don’t care about who you are, where are you from, or what are your current circumstances. That’s why we should use the most decentralized and censorship-resistant protocols. On Bitcoin and Ethereum, for example, large mining pools or nodes controlled by a few entities can potentially influence transaction processing and their inclusion into the blockchain. Additionally, infrastructure providers like major exchanges and wallet services can become points of centralization, impacting the network's overall decentralization and susceptibility to censorship. Obyte, for its part, stands out for its ultimate decentralization and resistance to censorship. Unlike blockchains, which rely on a limited number of block producers that can potentially censor transactions, Obyte uses a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) system. This means transactions are added directly to the network by users, without needing intermediaries, eliminating central points of control and making it truly decentralized. Obyte , for its part, stands out for its ultimate decentralization and resistance to censorship. Obyte Obyte This design ensures that Obyte is free from domination and censorship, providing a secure and accessible platform for anyone worldwide to store and transfer value, and even to build new Dapps, DAOs, or any other inclusive project. Features like customized tokens, conditional payments, textcoins, chatbots, and a private coin are available for everyone, without coding. We can confidently say that Obyte promotes diversity and inclusion in crypto by eliminating central control and enabling equal access for all. a private coin a private coin Featured Vector Image by upklyak / Freepik Featured Vector Image by upklyak / Freepik Freepik Freepik

Diversity and Inclusion in Crypto: Work in Progress?

ক্রিপ্টোতে বৈচিত্র্য এবং অন্তর্ভুক্তি: কাজ চলছে?

Vielfalt und Inklusion in Krypto: In Arbeit?

Diversidad e inclusión en las criptomonedas: ¿trabajo en progreso?

Diversité et inclusion dans la crypto : des travaux en cours ?

क्रिप्टो में विविधता और समावेशन: क्या कार्य प्रगति पर है?

暗号通貨における多様性と包括性：進行中の取り組み？

암호화폐의 다양성과 포용성: 작업이 진행 중인가요?

Diversidade e inclusão na criptografia: trabalho em andamento?

Разнообразие и инклюзивность в криптографии: работа в процессе?

Kriptoda Çeşitlilik ve Katılım: Çalışmalar Devam Ediyor mu?

Tính đa dạng và hòa nhập trong tiền điện tử: Đang tiến triển?

加密货币的多样性和包容性：正在进行中吗？

Nvidia's done it! Nvidia's become a company worth $3 trillion! And it only took the company a little over three months to do so. You don't need me to tell you how impressive that is, especially considering that it was only in March that Nvidia hit the $2 trillion market valuation for the first time. What's impressive still is that some analysts believe the company is headed for a $5 trillion market valuation a couple of years from now. Which begs the question, should you invest in Nvidia? Well, dear reader, here are some of the arguments for and against investing in the company. Now, before you go and start pouring in all your life savings into buying Nvidia stocks, there are a few things you may want to consider. First, don't expect to make massive gains if you decide to buy the stock now. According to The Motley Fool, the upside is probably 50% based on current pricing if the company hits a market cap of $5 trillion. Compare that to the fact that people who bought the stock at the start of 2023 saw a meteoric rise in the value of their shares: a whopping 8,280%! In fact, if you had invested in Nvidia's stock at the start of this year, you would have already seen a gain of 174%! By that comparison, 50% probably feels like peanuts. Like Axios wrote back in February: Investors who bought Nvidia a while ago are very happy. Those who buy it today may not be. Still, proponents of investing in Nvidia point to the company's virtual monopoly in supplying the hardware necessary to power generative artificial intelligence. With no end to demand in sight, and given that AMD is yet to offer a formidable alternative to Nvidia's hardware, it's no wonder then that Wall Street expects the company to nearly double its revenue in fiscal 2025 to $120.5 billion and follow it up with a 33% rise in sales in fiscal 2026. The generative AI boom isn't the only thing that is helping Nvidia, though. Some other factors that will drive the company's business is a subsiding in inflation which is expected to open up demand for graphic cards, meaning the company will likely see a bump in GPU sales come update cycle. BUT, and there's always a but, Nvidia's stock is susceptible to volatility. We've already seen some of this play out this past week, when, after briefly becoming the most valuable company in the world, a mere few %age point reduction in share price wiped more than half a trillion off of the company's valuation, prompting The New York Times to opine that the "artificial intelligence stock boom could be tough to sustain." Some publications, like London's Financial Times, are also comparing Nvidia's rise to that of Cisco back in 2000. In March 2000, the networking equipment maker became the world's most valuable company, only to lose nearly all of its value as the dotcom bubble hit in the subsequent year. "Nvidia will decelerate," Barry Bannister, chief equity strategist at Stifel, was quoted as saying by the FT. The recent Nvidia selloff, which saw the company's stock slump 13%, made short sellers $5 billion richer, which would make it appear that there are investors who believe up isn't the only direction the stock will go. Regardless of whether you think the stock will go up or down, there is enough research out there that supports either thesis. Just don't go to Reddit for advice :-) Nvidia ranked #5 on HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings this week. Sponsored Content Discover Institutional-Grade Wealth Management with Heron Finance Once, private credit investments were exclusive to the ultra-wealthy and institutional investors. That’s why Heron Finance built a seamless platform for any accredited U.S. investors to maximize their returns. Heron Finance’s investment analysts line up highly collateralized deals for consistent returns. Heron Finance lowers volatility and manages risk based on how they select deals: Maintaining strict criteria for filtering prospective deals, ensuring that underlying borrowers stay profitable or hold assets to secure payments
Vetting every deal with a rigorous analytical process designed to reduce risk Partnering with other lenders to find the most creditworthy deals
Continuously monitoring all investments with regular borrower reporting Once you’ve made an investment, Heron Finance's robo-advisor also handles automated portfolio rebalancing, taking the stress out of managing your investments. Whether you're a seasoned investor or new to private credit, Heron Finance gives you the tools you need. Don't wait to improve your investment strategy, try Heron Finance and start maximizing your return potential.Risk disclosures: http://heronfinance.com/ Tesla Sues Supplier for Stealing Trade Secrets Tesla is seeking billions in dollars in damages from Matthews International for allegedly stealing confidential trade secrets related to the automaker's dry-electrode battery manufacturing technology and disclosing them to its competitors. Matthews became one of Tesla's suppliers in 2019, and the automaker said it shared confidential designs of industrial machinery necessary for the manufacturing process of its batteries after it entered a nondisclosure agreement with the electric vehicle producer. "Matthews betrayed that trust," Tesla is alleging in its lawsuit. Tesla went on to accuse Matthews of using its designs and passing them off as its own and building and selling equipment for dry-electrode battery manufacturing that are based on its "confidential trade secrets." On the other hand, Matthews is claiming that Tesla is bullying the company and wants to strip it from its intellectual property. In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, the company said that its engineers had been developing technology that served the basis of dry battery electrode solutions well before the formation of Tesla as a company. It was precisely because of Matthews' work that Tesla approached the company in the first place and narrowed it down as a supplier. Both sides plan to pursue this in court, so let's see how it plays out. Tesla ranked #4 on HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings this week. In Other News.. 📰 Renewed Bullishness Expected After Bitcoin, Ether's $10B Options Expiry on Friday — via CoinDesk
AThis smiling robot face made of living skin is absolute nightmare fuel — via TechCrunch
Microsoft faces mega fine after EU takes issue with bundling of Teams and Office — via CNN
AI dataset licensing companies form trade group — via Reuters
Book authors get a startup to help them deal with AI companies — via Axios
U.S. chip curbs in Middle East just 'business as usual,' Ooredoo CEO says after Nvidia deal — via CNBC And that's a wrap! Don't forget to share this newsletter with your family and friends! See y'all next week. PEACE! ☮️ — Sheharyar Khan, Editor, Business Tech @ HackerNoon *All rankings are current as of Monday. To see how the rankings have changed, please visit HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings page. Tech, What the Heck!? is a once-weekly newsletter written by HackerNoon editors that combine HackerNoon's proprietary data with news-worthy tech stories from around the internet. Humorous and insightful, the newsletter recaps trending events that are shaping the world of tech. Subscribe here. Nvidia 's done it! Nvidia's become a company worth $3 trillion! And it only took the company a little over three months to do so. Nvidia Nvidia $3 trillion! You don't need me to tell you how impressive that is, especially considering that it was only in March that Nvidia hit the $2 trillion market valuation for the first time. What's impressive still is that some analysts believe the company is headed for a $5 trillion market valuation a couple of years from now. $5 trillion market valuation $5 trillion market valuation Which begs the question, should you invest in Nvidia? Well, dear reader, here are some of the arguments for and against investing in the company. for for against against Now, before you go and start pouring in all your life savings into buying Nvidia stocks, there are a few things you may want to consider. First, don't expect to make massive gains if you decide to buy the stock now. According to The Motley Fool, the upside is probably 50% based on current pricing if the company hits a market cap of $5 trillion. probably 50% probably 50% if Compare that to the fact that people who bought the stock at the start of 2023 saw a meteoric rise in the value of their shares: a whopping 8,280%! In fact, if you had invested in Nvidia's stock at the start of this year, you would have already seen a gain of 174%! 8,280%! 174%! By that comparison, 50% probably feels like peanuts. Like Axios wrote back in February: Investors who bought Nvidia a while ago are very happy. Those who buy it today may not be. wrote wrote Still, proponents of investing in Nvidia point to the company's virtual monopoly in supplying the hardware necessary to power generative artificial intelligence. With no end to demand in sight, and given that AMD is yet to offer a formidable alternative to Nvidia's hardware, it's no wonder then that Wall Street expects the company to nearly double its revenue in fiscal 2025 to $120.5 billion and follow it up with a 33% rise in sales in fiscal 2026. virtual monopoly virtual monopoly The generative AI boom isn't the only thing that is helping Nvidia, though. Some other factors that will drive the company's business is a subsiding in inflation which is expected to open up demand for graphic cards, meaning the company will likely see a bump in GPU sales come update cycle. BUT, and there's always a but, Nvidia's stock is susceptible to volatility. We've already seen some of this play out this past week, when, after briefly becoming the most valuable company in the world , a mere few %age point reduction in share price wiped more than half a trillion off of the company's valuation, prompting The New York Times to opine that the "artificial intelligence stock boom could be tough to sustain." most valuable company in the world most valuable company in the world half a trillion half a trillion opine opine Some publications, like London's Financial Times, are also comparing Nvidia's rise to that of Cisco back in 2000. In March 2000, the networking equipment maker became the world's most valuable company, only to lose nearly all of its value as the dotcom bubble hit in the subsequent year. comparing comparing "Nvidia will decelerate," Barry Bannister, chief equity strategist at Stifel, was quoted as saying by the FT. The recent Nvidia selloff, which saw the company's stock slump 13%, made short sellers $5 billion richer , which would make it appear that there are investors who believe up isn't the only direction the stock will go. $5 billion richer $5 billion richer Regardless of whether you think the stock will go up or down, there is enough research out there that supports either thesis. Just don't go to Reddit for advice :-) Nvidia ranked #5 on HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings this week. Tech Company Rankings Tech Company Rankings Sponsored Content Sponsored Content Sponsored Content Discover Institutional-Grade Wealth Management with Heron Finance Discover Institutional-Grade Wealth Management with Heron Finance Once, private credit investments were exclusive to the ultra-wealthy and institutional investors. That’s why Heron Finance built a seamless platform for any accredited U.S. investors to maximize their returns. Heron Finance’s investment analysts line up highly collateralized deals for consistent returns. Heron Finance lowers volatility and manages risk based on how they select deals: Maintaining strict criteria for filtering prospective deals, ensuring that underlying borrowers stay profitable or hold assets to secure payments Vetting every deal with a rigorous analytical process designed to reduce risk Partnering with other lenders to find the most creditworthy deals Continuously monitoring all investments with regular borrower reporting Maintaining strict criteria for filtering prospective deals, ensuring that underlying borrowers stay profitable or hold assets to secure payments Vetting every deal with a rigorous analytical process designed to reduce risk Partnering with other lenders to find the most creditworthy deals Continuously monitoring all investments with regular borrower reporting Once you’ve made an investment, Heron Finance's robo-advisor also handles automated portfolio rebalancing, taking the stress out of managing your investments. Whether you're a seasoned investor or new to private credit, Heron Finance gives you the tools you need. Don't wait to improve your investment strategy, try Heron Finance and start maximizing your return potential . Risk disclosures: http://heronfinance.com/ try Heron Finance and start maximizing your return potential Risk disclosures: http://heronfinance.com/ http://heronfinance.com/ Tesla Sues Supplier for Stealing Trade Secrets Tesla Sues Supplier for Stealing Trade Secrets Tesla is seeking billions in dollars in damages from Matthews International for allegedly stealing confidential trade secrets related to the automaker's dry-electrode battery manufacturing technology and disclosing them to its competitors. Tesla Tesla seeking seeking Matthews became one of Tesla's suppliers in 2019, and the automaker said it shared confidential designs of industrial machinery necessary for the manufacturing process of its batteries after it entered a nondisclosure agreement with the electric vehicle producer. "Matthews betrayed that trust," Tesla is alleging in its lawsuit. Tesla went on to accuse Matthews of using its designs and passing them off as its own and building and selling equipment for dry-electrode battery manufacturing that are based on its "confidential trade secrets." On the other hand, Matthews is claiming that Tesla is bullying the company and wants to strip it from its intellectual property. In a statement after the lawsuit was filed, the company said that its engineers had been developing technology that served the basis of dry battery electrode solutions well before the formation of Tesla as a company. bullying the company bullying the company It was precisely because of Matthews' work that Tesla approached the company in the first place and narrowed it down as a supplier. Both sides plan to pursue this in court, so let's see how it plays out. Tesla ranked #4 on HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings this week. Tech Company Rankings Tech Company Rankings In Other News.. 📰 In Other News.. 📰 Renewed Bullishness Expected After Bitcoin, Ether's $10B Options Expiry on Friday — via CoinDesk AThis smiling robot face made of living skin is absolute nightmare fuel — via TechCrunch Microsoft faces mega fine after EU takes issue with bundling of Teams and Office — via CNN AI dataset licensing companies form trade group — via Reuters Book authors get a startup to help them deal with AI companies — via Axios U.S. chip curbs in Middle East just 'business as usual,' Ooredoo CEO says after Nvidia deal — via CNBC Renewed Bullishness Expected After Bitcoin, Ether's $10B Options Expiry on Friday — via CoinDesk CoinDesk CoinDesk AThis smiling robot face made of living skin is absolute nightmare fuel — via TechCrunch TechCrunch TechCrunch Microsoft faces mega fine after EU takes issue with bundling of Teams and Office — via CNN CNN CNN AI dataset licensing companies form trade group — via Reuters Reuters Reuters Book authors get a startup to help them deal with AI companies — via Axios Axios Axios U.S. chip curbs in Middle East just 'business as usual,' Ooredoo CEO says after Nvidia deal — via CNBC CNBC CNBC And that's a wrap! Don't forget to share this newsletter with your family and friends! See y'all next week. PEACE! ☮️ — Sheharyar Khan , Editor, Business Tech @ HackerNoon Sheharyar Khan Sheharyar Khan *All rankings are current as of Monday. To see how the rankings have changed, please visit HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings page. *All rankings are current as of Monday. To see how the rankings have changed, please visit HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings page. *All rankings are current as of Monday. To see how the rankings have changed, please visit HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings page. Tech Company Rankings Tech Company Rankings Tech, What the Heck!? is a once-weekly newsletter written by HackerNoon editors that combine HackerNoon's proprietary data with news-worthy tech stories from around the internet. Humorous and insightful, the newsletter recaps trending events that are shaping the world of tech. Subscribe here. Tech, What the Heck!? is a once-weekly newsletter written by HackerNoon editors that combine HackerNoon's proprietary data with news-worthy tech stories from around the internet. Humorous and insightful, the newsletter recaps trending events that are shaping the world of tech. Subscribe here. Tech, What the Heck!? is a once-weekly newsletter written by HackerNoon editors that combine HackerNoon's proprietary data with news-worthy tech stories from around the internet. Humorous and insightful, the newsletter recaps trending events that are shaping the world of tech. Subscribe here . here here

Should You Invest in Nvidia?

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Pietro Ghezzi, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (2) Peter G Bannister, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (3) Gonzalo Casino, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain and Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain; (4) Alessia Catalani, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (5) Michel Goldman, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (6) Jessica Morley, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; (7) Marie Neunez, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (8) Andreu Prados, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain; (9) Mariarosaria Taddeo, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK; (10) Tania Vanzolini, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (11) Luciano Floridi, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Web search and content analysis Results Discussion Conclusion and References Table 1. Example of classification of webpages Table 2. Percentage of vaccine-negative webpages in different SERPs Table 2. Percentage of vaccine-negative webpages in different SERPs Total of 30 webpages for each SERP. Cells are colour coded: median (20%), yellow; maximum (53%), red; minimum (0%), green. *Significantly different from Google.com by two-tailed Fisher’s test corrected for multiple comparison using the method of Benjamini, Krieger and Yekutieli at a false discovery rate of 5%. #significantly different from the localized version of Google.

Online Information of Vaccines: Table 2. Percentage of Vaccine-negative Webpages in Different SERPs

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Pietro Ghezzi, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (2) Peter G Bannister, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (3) Gonzalo Casino, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain and Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain; (4) Alessia Catalani, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (5) Michel Goldman, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (6) Jessica Morley, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; (7) Marie Neunez, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (8) Andreu Prados, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain; (9) Mariarosaria Taddeo, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK; (10) Tania Vanzolini, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (11) Luciano Floridi, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Web search and content analysis Results Discussion Conclusion and References Table 1. Example of classification of webpages Table 2. Percentage of vaccine-negative webpages in different SERPs Table 1. Example of classification of webpages Positive stance on vaccines https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/do-vaccines-cause-autism https://www.nhs.uk/news/medication/no-link-between-mmr-and-autism-major-study-finds/ https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/mmr-vaccine/ https://www.autism.org.uk/get-involved/media-centre/position-statements/mmr-vaccine.aspx https://kidshealth.org/en/parents/autism-studies.html https://vaccine-safety-training.org/mmr-vaccine-increases.html https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021134 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30986133 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15366972 Negative stance on vaccines https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673605756968/fulltext www.whale.to/vaccine/vaccine_autism_proven.html www.vaccineriskawareness.com/Infant-Vaccines-Produce-Autism-Symptoms-In-Primates https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2014/07/17/more-of-that-vaccineautism-research-that-doesnt-exist/ edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/index.html https://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2018/02/21 nocompulsoryvaccination.com/2014/08/22/vaccine-autism-cover-up/ https://www.newswars.com/vaccine-autism-questioned-by-doctor-congressman-elect/ vaxtruth.org/2011/08/vaccines-do-not-cause-autism/ Neutral stance on vaccines https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/vaccine-and-autism-link.880852/ www.discovermagazine.com/2009/jun/06-why-does-vaccine-autism-controversy-live-on https://www.ecso.org/news/autism-charity-founder-anti-vaccination-campaigner/ https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/01/professor-who-links-vaccines-to-autismfunded-through-university-portal https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/trump-vaccines-autism-links-anti-vaxxerus-president-false-vaccine-a8331836.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2376879/

Online Information of Vaccines: Table 1. Example of Classification of Webpages

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Pietro Ghezzi, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (2) Peter G Bannister, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (3) Gonzalo Casino, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain and Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain; (4) Alessia Catalani, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (5) Michel Goldman, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (6) Jessica Morley, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; (7) Marie Neunez, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (8) Andreu Prados, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain; (9) Mariarosaria Taddeo, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK; (10) Tania Vanzolini, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (11) Luciano Floridi, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Web search and content analysis Results Discussion Conclusion and References Table 1. Example of classification of webpages Table 2. Percentage of vaccine-negative webpages in different SERPs Corresponding author: Professor Pietro Ghezzi, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Trafford Centre, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton, BN19RY, UK. Email: p.ghezzi@bsms.ac.uk; phone: +44-(0)1273-873112 Abstract The fact that Internet companies may record our personal data and track our online behaviour for commercial or political purpose has emphasized aspects related to online privacy. This has also led to the development of search engines that promise no tracking and privacy. Search engines also have a major role in spreading low-quality health information such as that of anti-vaccine websites. This study investigates the relationship between search engines’ approach to privacy and the scientific quality of the information they return. We analyzed the first 30 webpages returned searching “vaccines autism” in English, Spanish, Italian and French. The results show that “alternative” search engines (Duckduckgo, Ecosia, Qwant, Swisscows and Mojeek) may return more anti-vaccine pages (10-53%) than Google.com (0%). Some localized versions of Google, however, returned more anti-vaccine webpages (up to 10%) than Google.com. Our study suggests that designing a search engine that is privacy savvy and avoids issues with filter bubbles that can result from user-tracking is necessary but insufficient; instead mechanisms should be developed to test search engines from the perspective of information quality (particularly for health-related webpages), before they can be deemed trustworthy providers of public health information. Introduction The World Health Organization lists vaccine hesitancy as one of the top ten threats to global health in 2019 1, requiring ongoing global monitoring. Despite the fact that the 1998 study which incorrectly suggested that the MMR vaccine could cause autism in children and prompted antivaccine beliefs 2 has now been discredited, misinformation, and indeed, disinformation, about vaccines continues to be published on the Internet perpetuating such beliefs. It has been suggested that this misinformation plays a role in the current low uptake of vaccines in developed countries 3. Understanding whether this is actually the case, and how to address this issue, is crucial as web-based sources of health information may be instrumental to solve the sustainability challenge currently facing health systems across the globe. The accuracy of information provided by a website is a key indicator of its overall information quality (IQ). The broader aspects of IQ have been the subject of many studies 5, but health IQ and trustworthiness of the sources have only partially been characterized 6. Studies looking at the influence of variations in eHealth literacy levels 7 and trust in different sources of online health information2 indicate that the relationship is not linear in all cases, i.e. higher health IQ does not result automatically in higher perceived levels of trustworthiness. For example, in a study by Chen et al. 8, 618 people were recruited to complete a survey which tested their eHealth literacy level, asked them to identify which of 25 sources of health information they used, and how much they trusted each source. The study showed that people with lower eHealth literacy were less likely to trust medical websites (typically higher IQ) and more likely to trust social media, blogs, and celebrity webpages (typically lower IQ). This might seem a spurious result, were it not for the fact that research has shown that those with high eHealth literacy assess more accurately the credibility and relevance of online health information, whereas those with low eHealth literacy often struggle to locate and understand eHealth information 9. This difficulty lowers their self-efficacy 10, distorts their perception of source credibility, and impacts negatively perceived trustworthiness 9, ultimately creating a need for individuals with low eHealth literacy to find an alternative means of determining trustworthiness in online sources of information. One such alternative is social endorsement. Visible social endorsement, e.g. ‘likes,’ 11 enables those with low eHealth literacy to determine trust based on the bandwagon heuristic and assume that, if the source has already been deemed valid by others, then it is safe for them to trust it too 10,12. Traditional medical websites afford those with low eHealth literacy no such alternative means of determining credibility and trust. This suggests that those who are more vulnerable to the real-world effects of both disinformation and misinformation (e.g. declining to vaccinate their children) are more likely to rely on online sources with lower health IQ, which are more prone to spread such inflammatory and inaccurate information. Personalisation of online search results may favour this phenomenon and lead to a vicious cycle where the more one searches and reads dis- and mis-information about vaccines the less one finds and reads scientific information on the same topic. At the same time, there are increasing concerns about the privacy risks associated with Internet search engines storing potentially sensitive and private health information contained within users search histories, combining it with additional information collected for tracking purposes, and using these data for commercial or other purposes 13,14. This creates a public push back against the idea that search engines or public health providers should interfere in the results people see when searching for health information online. This makes it hard to address concerns about health disinformation/misinformation in a way that is at least socially acceptable if not ideally preferable 15. The UK’s National Health Service (NHS) discovered this when its announcement of Amazon Alexa responding with guaranteed high-IQ content from NHS.UK to user voice queries such as “Alexa, how do I treat a migraine,” resulted in a public outcry over privacy infringement 16. This raises the question whether, in the context of online vaccination information, it is possible at all to balance concerns about user privacy and IQ. The following pages seek to lay the foundations for answering this question by reporting on the methodology for, and results of, a study concerning the following research question: “What is the current relationship between search engines’ approach to privacy and the scientific quality of the information they return?”.

Online Information of Vaccines: Abstract and Introduction

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Pietro Ghezzi, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (2) Peter G Bannister, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (3) Gonzalo Casino, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain and Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain; (4) Alessia Catalani, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (5) Michel Goldman, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (6) Jessica Morley, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; (7) Marie Neunez, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (8) Andreu Prados, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain; (9) Mariarosaria Taddeo, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK; (10) Tania Vanzolini, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (11) Luciano Floridi, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Web search and content analysis Results Discussion Conclusion and References Table 1. Example of classification of webpages Table 2. Percentage of vaccine-negative webpages in different SERPs Conclusion Our analysis shows that while it may well be technically possible to design a search engine that manages to balance privacy-preservation with the promotion of high IQ material, this is currently not the case. The current relationship between privacy-preserving design features of search engines and the IQ of the results they return is inverse (although not proportionally). In instances where this can have a negative impact on public health, as in the example we have provided of the promotion of anti-vaccine misinformation, not intervening to alter the design of the algorithm even if this means sacrificing some degree of user privacy - can lead to severe harm for a large population of user and is, therefore, unethical. Designing a search engine that is privacy savvy and avoids issues with filter bubbles that can result from user-tracking may be a good thing, like designing a car with an engine that does not pollute and is inexpensive to run, and designers should seek to balance the different aspects of search engine design highlighted in Figure 3. However, if the brakes in an environmentally-designed car do not work, the car is unsafe and this negates the positive ethical decisions made by the designers. In a car this is a highly unlikely design outcome, as a car has to undergo several rounds of testing by regulatory agencies before being allowed on the market. This is not yet the case for search engines, which are only regulated from the perspective of data protection – which is primarily interpreted as data security rather than data privacy. Our study suggests that this is necessary but insufficient, and instead mechanisms should be developed to test search engines from the perspective of IQ, (particularly for YMYL webpages) before they can be deemed trustworthy providers of public health information. References 1. World Health Organization. Ten threats to global health in 2019. 2019. https://www.who.int/emergencies/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019 (archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20190627111040/https://www.who.int/emergencies/ten-threats-toglobal-health-in-2019) (accessed 27/06/2019 2. Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, et al. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 1998; 351(9103): 637-41. 3. Stahl JP, Cohen R, Denis F, et al. The impact of the web and social networks on vaccination. New challenges and opportunities offered to fight against vaccine hesitancy. Med Mal Infect 2016; 46(3): 117-22. 4. Martin GP, Sutton E, Willars J, Dixon-Woods M. Frameworks for change in healthcare organisations: a formative evaluation of the NHS Change Model. Health Serv Manage Res 2013; 26(2-3): 65-75. 5. Illari P, Floridi L. Information quality, data and philosophy. The Philosophy of Information Quality: Springer; 2014: 5-23. 6. Al-Jefri M, Evans R, Uchyigit G, Ghezzi P. What is health information quality? Ethical dimension and perception by users. Frontiers in medicine 2018; 5. 7. Norman CD, Skinner HA. eHEALS: The eHealth Literacy Scale. J Med Internet Res 2006; 8(4): e27. 8. Chen X, Hay JL, Waters EA, et al. Health Literacy and Use and Trust in Health Information. J Health Commun 2018; 23(8): 724-34. 9. Paige SR, Krieger JL, Stellefson ML. The Influence of eHealth Literacy on Perceived Trust in Online Health Communication Channels and Sources. J Health Commun 2017; 22(1): 53-65. 10. Kim J, Park HA. Development of a health information technology acceptance model using consumers' health behavior intention. J Med Internet Res 2012; 14(5): e133. 11. Borah P, Xiao X. The Importance of 'Likes': The Interplay of Message Framing, Source, and Social Endorsement on Credibility Perceptions of Health Information on Facebook. J Health Commun 2018; 23(4): 399-411. 12. Huo C, Zhang M, Ma F. Factors influencing people’s health knowledge adoption in social media: the mediating effect of trust and the moderating effect of health threat. Library Hi Tech 2018; 36(1): 129-51. 13. Chiou L, Tucker C. Search engines and data retention: Implications for privacy and antitrust: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2017. 14. Esteve A. The business of personal data: Google, Facebook, and privacy issues in the EU and the USA. International Data Privacy Law 2017; 7(1): 36-47. 15. Floridi L, Taddeo M. What is data ethics? : The Royal Society; 2016. 16. Moskvitch K. Amazon’s Alexa deal with the NHS can help patients but at what cost? Wired, 2019. (accessed 8/11/2019). 17. Arif N, Al-Jefri M, Bizzi IH, et al. Fake News or Weak Science? Visibility and Characterization of Antivaccine Webpages Returned by Google in Different Languages and Countries. Front Immunol 2018; 9: 1215. 18. Maki A, Evans R, Ghezzi P. Bad news. Analysis of the quality of information on influenza prevention returned by Google in English and Italian. Frontiers in Immunology 2015; 6:616. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00616. 19. Fleiss JL, Levin B, Paik MC. Statistical methods for rates and proportions. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 2013. 20. Economist T. Seek and you shall find. Google rewards reputable reporting, not left-wing politics. The Economist 2019; 431(9146): 85. 21. Taddeo M, Floridi L. The Debate on the Moral Responsibilities of Online Service Providers. Science and engineering ethics 2015: 1-29. 22. Mittelstadt BD, Allo P, Taddeo M, Wachter S, Floridi L. The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society 2016; 3(2): 2053951716679679. 23. Association for Computing Machinery. ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. 2018. https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics (archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20190627114921/https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics) (accessed 27/06/2019 2019). 24. Tufekci Z. Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent challenges of computational agency. Colo Tech LJ 2015; 13: 203. 25. Hasnas J. Teaching business ethics: The principles approach. Journal of Business Ethics Education 2013; 10: 275-304. 26. Macdonald C, Gavura S. Alternative Medicine and the Ethics Of Commerce. Bioethics 2016; 30(2): 77-84. 27. Taddeo M, Floridi L. The Debate on the Moral Responsibilities of Online Service Providers. Sci Eng Ethics 2016; 22(6): 1575-603. 28. Chigwedere P, Seage GR, 3rd, Gruskin S, Lee TH, Essex M. Estimating the lost benefits of antiretroviral drug use in South Africa. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2008; 49(4): 410-5. 29. Ouyang Y. Student's death highlights gaps in China's health regulations. Lancet Oncol 2016; 17(6): 709. 30. Browne M, Thomson P, Rockloff MJ, Pennycook G. Going against the Herd: Psychological and Cultural Factors Underlying the 'Vaccination Confidence Gap'. PLoS One 2015; 10(9): e0132562. 31. Bean SJ. Emerging and continuing trends in vaccine opposition website content. Vaccine 2011; 29(10): 1874-80.

Online Information of Vaccines: Conclusion and References

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Pietro Ghezzi, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (2) Peter G Bannister, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (3) Gonzalo Casino, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain and Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain; (4) Alessia Catalani, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (5) Michel Goldman, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (6) Jessica Morley, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; (7) Marie Neunez, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (8) Andreu Prados, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain; (9) Mariarosaria Taddeo, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK; (10) Tania Vanzolini, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (11) Luciano Floridi, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Web search and content analysis Results Discussion Conclusion and References Table 1. Example of classification of webpages Table 2. Percentage of vaccine-negative webpages in different SERPs Discussion The aim of this research was to investigate whether search engines focused on privacy preservation ranked webpages with higher and/or lower levels of IQ (interpreted as EBM based content i.e. vaccine-positive rather than vaccine-negative) differently to the primary commercial search engines. In turn, this answered the research question “What is the current relationship between search engines’ approach to privacy and the scientific quality of the information they return?”. The results indicate that currently privacy-enhancing search engines often give more visibility to webpages promoting vaccine hesitancy or with a clear anti-vaccine position than Google. This is in agreement with the findings from a recent study by the Economist which analyzed 175,000 news links returned by Google to demonstrate that the search engine’s algorithm favorstrustworthy publications 20. Reputation and trustworthiness are key factors included in Google’s ranking algorithm. In 2019, Google published search quality evaluation guidelines, 4 which define webpages containing information that may affect the users’ health or financial stability, as “your money your life” (YMYL) pages. These guidelines reveal that when rating YMYL webpages, Google looks at the three criteria of Expertise-Authority-Trustworthiness (EA-T) and states “High E-A-T information pages on scientific topics should be produced by people or organizations with appropriate scientific expertise and represent well-established scientific consensus on issues where such consensus exists”. Thus, in the case of Google, the bandwagon heuristic mechanism of assessing medical information credibility is working in favour of promoting IQ. This is perhaps because those responsible for driving up the ‘reputation’ of specific websites by, for example, linking to them, have higher levels of eHealth literacy and therefore act as pseudo-gatekeepers protecting those with lower eHealth literacy from poor IQ results by ensuring that websites providing inaccurate online health information have a low ranking in the search results. In the case of privacy-preserving engines this appears not to be working – potentially because they do not track ‘reputation’ factors, which could be seen as proxies for IQ and credibility, e.g. clicks and bounce-rate, and so have no gatekeepers (pseudo or otherwise) working to limit the circulation of misinformation. To our knowledge, the algorithms used by these ‘alternative’ search engines are not public - Qwant states that they use their own algorithms5 - but despite this, we found a large overlap between the SERP of Qwant and those of Bing and Ecosia. Likewise, Ecosia and Swisscows showed a similar overlap (70%) with Bing. This means that it is not possible to check what factors determine the outcome of the decision making processes of the search engines algorithms, and hence identify those elements that contribute to circulate misinformation. Even without being able to check the exact mechanisms for the overall poorer results, the results suggest that, currently, decisions made by search engines to prioritize privacypreservation may have a negative impact on the IQ of results returned to users in health contexts. The pledge to provide independent and unbiased results or not to promote or hide websites based on political or moral interests can be seen as ethically ambiguous, in view of the potential consequences of pointing to scientifically unsound health information. Medical ethics requires that patients give informed consent before treatment and must, therefore, be informed accurately of the risks and benefits associated with treatment, something that is not possible if the search engine provider used by an individual is returning results with low IQ. From this consequentialist perspective, it is inherently unethical choosing not to interfere with a search engine’s ranking algorithm to ensure ‘manually’ that results of higher IQ are prioritized, whilst those of lower IQ are suppressed. This builds on arguments already made in the wider literature about algorithm ethics 21,22. For example, the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) code of ethics and professional conduct includes, as a general principle, “avoid harm” along with that of “respect privacy” 23, which aligns with the Hippocratic oath. Specifically, the implication that the current design of privacy-preserving search engine algorithms underestimates the need for evaluation of IQ fits into the wider discussion about algorithmic design and how to ensure design decisions are made to protect and incorporate key values such as IQ. It is necessary, but insufficient, to design search engine algorithms that index purely on ‘relevance’, they must also be designed to index on quality. The challenge lies in the ability to do this in a way that balances the need to accept different perspectives (particularly those that are rooted in different cultural, religious or social ideals) whilst also filtering for IQ. Supporters of such arguments, including the authors, note that this requirement necessitates making the workings of search engine algorithms more transparent 24 to ensure their ethical compliance. Providing information on vaccines that is based on misinformation or disinformation (including studies whose data or conclusions have been shown to be wrong) is a deceptive practice, which goes against the basic tenets of medical and business ethics 25. This is in line with those who argue that the promotion of ‘alternative medicine’ is unethical because it lacks evidence and transparency of clinical efficacy and should be considered ‘false advertising’ 26. Online service providers have a moral responsibilities to ensure that users access health information that is scientifically validate 27. Misinformation and disinformation concerning healthcare circulating on the internet can have severe consequences and lead to widespread harm. Consider the example of South African president Mbeki, who delayed introducing anti-retroviral drugs in favor of alternative medicine based on information obtained from HIV-denialist internet websites, a decision estimated to have resulted in over 300,000 deaths 28. More recently, a cancer patient died in China after following an alternative, non-approved therapy they found using a search engine 29. In response Chinese authorities issued new rules that require search engines to provide “objective, fair and authoritative results”. Moral responsibility follows on the level of harm that misinformation and disinformation on healthcare may cause. It could be argued that there is a greater onus on Google – and other commercial search engine providers – than on alternative search engines to take these considerations into account when designing or interfering with algorithms for the purposes of promoting ethical compliance, given their larger market share. Google currently has over 90% of the worldwide market share6 and therefore has the potential to indirectly ‘cause harm’, through the potential promotion of low IQ webpages on vaccinations, to a great many more people than any of the alternative providers. However, studies have shown that those who hold anti-authoritarian views, openness to (potentially) controversial opinions, and an interest in alternative medicine are, in some cases, already more likely to hold vaccine-hesitant beliefs 30. These are also the individuals who are most likely to use alternative search providers given their sensitivity to privacy and tracking concerns. Therefore, while the alternative providers might reach a proportionally smaller audience – they are reaching an audience that is already more receptive to antivaccine information 31, and therefore more vulnerable to its effects. In other words, unless the alternative providers take steps to rank vaccine-related search results according to IQ, they may cause greater harm to those they do reach, meaning that the net negative impact is still greater even though the number of individuals they reach is smaller.

Online Information of Vaccines: Discussion

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Pietro Ghezzi, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (2) Peter G Bannister, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (3) Gonzalo Casino, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain and Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain; (4) Alessia Catalani, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (5) Michel Goldman, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (6) Jessica Morley, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; (7) Marie Neunez, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (8) Andreu Prados, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain; (9) Mariarosaria Taddeo, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK; (10) Tania Vanzolini, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (11) Luciano Floridi, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Web search and content analysis Results Discussion Conclusion and References Table 1. Example of classification of webpages Table 2. Percentage of vaccine-negative webpages in different SERPs Web search and content analysis Searches in English were done from Falmer, Sussex, United Kingdom; in Italian from Urbino, Italy; in French from Bruxelles, Belgium; in Spanish from Barcelona, Spain. Each search was done using a logged-out Chrome browser cleared of cookies and previous search history so that the only identification was the IP address and its geolocalization. Additionally, when available, the local version of each search engine was used (e.g. Google.co.uk and Google.it). For searching Google.com, automatic redirection to google.co.uk was avoided by using the URL Google.com/ncr (no-country-redirect). The first 30 URL results from each search engine result page (SERP), excluding those marked as advertisements, and were transferred to a spreadsheet. When a duplicate URL was encountered, it was excluded. Websites were then visited and the content of each page was coded as vaccine-positive, negative or neutral, depending on the stance taken on the connection between vaccines and autism. Webpages recommending vaccination and/or negating the link with autism were coded as “vaccine-positive”. Those promoting vaccine hesitancy, cautioning about the risk of autism or openly anti-vaccine, were coded as “vaccine-negative”. Additionally, webpages that claimed further studies needed to be conducted to clarify the link between vaccines and autism were also coded as “vaccine-negative”, as previous research by {Browne, 2015 #421} has shown that users perceive this as confirmation of the fact that vaccine safety has not been proven. Webpages simply reporting the history of the anti-vaccine movement or a related legal debate were coded as “vaccine-neutral”. Examples of positive, negative and neutral webpages are provided in Table 1. Coding was completed by two raters for each language and inter-rater agreement was calculated with GraphPad, which uses equations 18.16 to 18.20 from Fleiss 19. On a sample of 59 webpages in English, agreement was 85%, with a Kappa of 0.669 (standard error, 0.077) and a 95% confidence interval from 0.518 to 0.820, a strength of agreement is considered to be 'good' 19. In Italian, agreement was 90%, with a Kappa of 0.818 (standard error, 0.067) and a 95% confidence interval from 0.687 to 0.950, a strength of agreement is considered to be 'very good'. In Spanish, agreement was 83%, with a Kappa of 0.609 (standard error, 0.098) and a 95% confidence interval from 0.418 to 0.801, a strength of agreement is considered to be 'very good'. In French, agreement was 89% with a Kappa of 0.746 (standard error, 0.091) and a 95% confidence interval from 0.568 to 0.924. When frequencies of vaccine-negative webpages was compared across different search engines, we used a two-tailed Fisher’s test corrected for multiple comparison using the method of Benjamini, Krieger and Yekutieli and a false discovery rate (FDR) of 5%.

Online Information of Vaccines: Web Search and Content Analysis

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Pietro Ghezzi, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (2) Peter G Bannister, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (3) Gonzalo Casino, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain and Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain; (4) Alessia Catalani, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (5) Michel Goldman, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (6) Jessica Morley, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; (7) Marie Neunez, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (8) Andreu Prados, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain; (9) Mariarosaria Taddeo, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK; (10) Tania Vanzolini, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (11) Luciano Floridi, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Web search and content analysis Results Discussion Conclusion and References Table 1. Example of classification of webpages Table 2. Percentage of vaccine-negative webpages in different SERPs Results Figure 1 shows the ranking of positive (green), neutral (yellow), and negative (red) websites returned by the different search engines in English, French, Italian and Spanish. A comparison of the percentage of vaccine-negative webpages in different SERPs (Table 2) shows that Google is consistently returning less misinformation, although some of its local version show more vaccine-negative webpages than the English-US version (Google.com). Other search engines return some vaccine-negative webpages with some, like Mojeek in English-UK and Arianna and Virgilio in Italian are the most likely to rank higher webpages with misinformation. In English, the frequency of vaccine-negative webpages in Yahoo, Bing and Mojeek was significantly higher than in Google.com. In Italian, all SERPs had a significantly higher proportion of vaccine-negative webpages compared with Google.com. In French, all search engines returned a significantly higher number of vaccine-negative webpages than Google.com or the local version Google.fr. There were no significant differences for search engines in Spanish. The SERPs of all search engines providers contained a higher proportion of vaccine-negative results than those obtained from Google.com. Even the localized versions of Google (Google.co.uk, Google.it and Google.es) returned more negative pages than the US/international English Google.com. The two Italian-only search engines (Virgilio and Arianna) returned the highest number of negative pages in Italian. In several instances, the same webpages were returned by different search engines, with large overlaps between these results as shown in Figure 2.

Online Information of Vaccines: Results

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Pietro Ghezzi, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (2) Peter G Bannister, Brighton & Sussex Medical School, Falmer, Brighton, UK; (3) Gonzalo Casino, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain and Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain; (4) Alessia Catalani, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (5) Michel Goldman, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (6) Jessica Morley, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; (7) Marie Neunez, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles; (8) Andreu Prados, Communication Department, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, Spain, Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy, Institute for Interdisciplinary Innovation in healthcare (I3h), Université libre de Bruxelles, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, and Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain; (9) Mariarosaria Taddeo, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK; (10) Tania Vanzolini, Department of Biomolecular Sciences, University of Urbino Carlo Bo, Urbino, PU, Italy; (11) Luciano Floridi, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, Blanquerna School of Health Sciences, Universitat Ramon Llull, Barcelona, Spain, and The Alan Turing Institute, London, UK. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Methods Web search and content analysis Results Discussion Conclusion and References Table 1. Example of classification of webpages Table 2. Percentage of vaccine-negative webpages in different SERPs Methods In seeking to answer the above research question, this study builds on previous work which: (a) focuses on the results returned by a search of “vaccines autism” in different countries and languages, and found a great variability in the composition of the webpages returned and their ranking 17; and (b) suggests that whether a webpage promotes a medical treatment based on the practices of evidence-based medicine (EBM; e.g. based on the reporting by Cochrane reviews) can act as a proxy for health IQ. The phrase “vaccines autism” was searched using the main search engines (Google, Bing and Yahoo) and alternative providers which focus on respecting privacy and personal data (Duckduckgo, Mojeek, Qwant and Ecosia3) in four languages/countries (English-UK, Italian, Spanish and French) and the international, US-English version of Google (Google.com). We also used some country- or language-specific search engines. Each webpage returned was classified as vaccine-positive, -negative or –neutral as described in the Table 1

Online Information of Vaccines: Methods

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Andrew Ridden-Harper, Department of Astronomy and Carl Sagan Institute, Cornell University & Las Cumbres Observatory; (2) Stevanus K. Nugroho, Astrobiology Center & Japan & National Astronomical Observatory of Japan; (3) Laura Flagg, Department of Astronomy and Carl Sagan Institute, Cornell University; (4) Ray Jayawardhana, Department of Astronomy, Cornell University; (5) Jake D. Turner, Department of Astronomy and Carl Sagan Institute, Cornell University & NHFP Sagan Fellow; (6) Ernst de Mooij, Astrophysics Research Centre, School of Mathematics and Physics & Queen’s University Belfast; (7) Ryan MacDonald, Department of Astronomy and Carl Sagan Institute; (8) Emily Deibert, David A. Dunlap Department of Astronomy & Astrophysics, University of Toronto & Gemini Observatory, NSF’s NOIRLab; (9) Motohide Tamura, Dunlap Institute for Astronomy & Astrophysics, University of Toronto (10) Takayuki Kotani, Department of Astronomy, Graduate School of Science, The University of Tokyo, Astrobiology Center & National Astronomical Observatory of Japan; (11) Teruyuki Hirano, Astrobiology Center, National Astronomical Observatory of Japan & Department of Astronomical Science, The Graduate University for Advanced Studies; (12) Masayuki Kuzuhara, Las Cumbres Observatory & Astrobiology Center; (13) Masashi Omiya, Las Cumbres Observatory & Astrobiology Center; (14) Nobuhiko Kusakabe, Las Cumbres Observatory & Astrobiology Center. Table of Links Abstract & Introduction Observation Data Reduction and Processing Model Spectra Cross-Correlation Method Results Clouds and Hazes Implications for JWST Conclusion and Acknowledgement Appendix & References APPENDIX A. EXCLUDED WAVELENGTH REGIONS Here, we explicitly define the wavelength regions that were excluded from our analysis for having severe telluric contamination or insufficient signal-to-noise ratios (especially at the edges of the spectral orders). The excluded regions for the IGRINS data are shown in Table 3. REFERENCES Airapetian, V. S., Glocer, A., Khazanov, G. V., et al. 2017, ApJL, 836, L3, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/836/1/L3 Artigau, E., Kouach, D., Donati, J.-F., et al. 2014, in ´ Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 914715, doi: 10.1117/12.2055663 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322068 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aabc4f Batalha, N. E., Mandell, A., Pontoppidan, K., et al. 2017, PASP, 129, 064501, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aa65b0 Berta-Thompson, Z. K., Irwin, J., Charbonneau, D., et al. 2015, Nature, 527, 204, doi: 10.1038/nature15762 Birkby, J. L. 2018, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1806.04617. https://arxiv.org/abs/1806.04617 Bolmont, E., Selsis, F., Owen, J. E., et al. 2017, MNRAS, 464, 3728, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stw2578 Bourrier, V., de Wit, J., Bolmont, E., et al. 2017a, AJ, 154, 121, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa859c Bourrier, V., Ehrenreich, D., Wheatley, P. J., et al. 2017b, A&A, 599, L3, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201630238 Brogi, M., Line, M., Bean, J., D´esert, J. M., & Schwarz, H. 2017, ApJL, 839, L2, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa6933 Brogi, M., & Line, M. R. 2019, AJ, 157, 114, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaffd3 Brogi, M., Snellen, I. A. G., de Kok, R. J., et al. 2013, ApJ, 767, 27, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/767/1/27 Caballero, J. A., Gonzalez-Alvarez, E., Brady, M., et al. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2206.09990. https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.09990 Carnall, A. C. 2017, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1705.05165. https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.05165 Chiavassa, A., & Brogi, M. 2019, A&A, 631, A100, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201936566 de Wit, J., Wakeford, H. R., Gillon, M., et al. 2016, Nature, 537, 69, doi: 10.1038/nature18641 de Wit, J., Wakeford, H. R., Lewis, N. K., et al. 2018, Nature Astronomy, 2, 214, doi: 10.1038/s41550-017-0374-z Deibert, E. K., de Mooij, E. J. W., Jayawardhana, R., et al. 2021a, AJ, 161, 209, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe768 —. 2021b, ApJL, 919, L15, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2513 Demory, B.-O., Gillon, M., de Wit, J., et al. 2016, Nature, 532, 207, doi: 10.1038/nature17169 Esteves, L. J., de Mooij, E. J. W., Jayawardhana, R., Watson, C., & de Kok, R. 2017, AJ, 153, 268, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aa7133 Gandhi, S., Brogi, M., & Webb, R. K. 2020, MNRAS, 498, 194, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa2424 Giacobbe, P., Brogi, M., Gandhi, S., et al. 2021, Nature, 592, 205, doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03381-x Gibson, N. P., Nugroho, S. K., Lothringer, J., Maguire, C., & Sing, D. K. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 4618, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac091 Gibson, N. P., Merritt, S., Nugroho, S. K., et al. 2020, MNRAS, 493, 2215, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa228 Gressier, A., Mori, M., Changeat, Q., et al. 2022, A&A, 658, A133, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202142140 Grimm, S. L., & Heng, K. 2015, The Astrophysical Journal, 808, 182, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/808/2/182 Grimm, S. L., Malik, M., Kitzmann, D., et al. 2021, ApJS, 253, 30, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/abd773 Hargreaves, R. J., Gordon, I. E., Rey, M., et al. 2020, ApJS, 247, 55, doi: 10.3847/1538-4365/ab7a1a Harris, C. R., Millman, K. J., van der Walt, S. J., et al. 2020, Nature, 585, 357, doi: 10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2 Helling, C. 2019, Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 47, 583, doi: 10.1146/annurev-earth-053018-060401 Herman, M. K., de Mooij, E. J. W., Nugroho, S. K., Gibson, N. P., & Jayawardhana, R. 2022, AJ, 163, 248, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac5f4d Hirano, T., Kuzuhara, M., Kotani, T., et al. 2020, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 72, doi: 10.1093/pasj/psaa085 Jindal, A., de Mooij, E. J. W., Jayawardhana, R., et al. 2020, AJ, 160, 101, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aba1eb Jones, A., Noll, S., Kausch, W., Szyszka, C., & Kimeswenger, S. 2013, A&A, 560, A91, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201322433 Kempton, E. M. R., Bean, J. L., Louie, D. R., et al. 2018, PASP, 130, 114401, doi: 10.1088/1538-3873/aadf6f Khalafinejad, S., Molaverdikhani, K., Blecic, J., et al. 2021, A&A, 656, A142, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202141191 Kite, E. S., & Schaefer, L. 2021, ApJL, 909, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abe7dc Kotani, T., Tamura, M., Nishikawa, J., et al. 2018, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, Vol. 10702, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE), 296 – 306, doi: 10.1117/12.2311836 Kreidberg, L. 2015, PASP, 127, 1161, doi: 10.1086/683602 Kreidberg, L., Koll, D. D. B., Morley, C., et al. 2019, Nature, 573, 87, doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1497-4 Kuzuhara, M., Hirano, T., Kotani, T., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 1070260, doi: 10.1117/12.2311832 Lee, J.-J., & Gullikson, K. 2016, plp: v2.1 alpha 3, v2.1-alpha.3, Zenodo, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.56067 Libby-Roberts, J. E., Berta-Thompson, Z. K., Diamond-Lowe, H., et al. 2022, AJ, 164, 59, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/ac75de Mace, G., Sokal, K., Lee, J.-J., et al. 2018, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 10702, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy VII, ed. C. J. Evans, L. Simard, & H. Takami, 107020Q, doi: 10.1117/12.2312345 Madhusudhan, N., Ag´undez, M., Moses, J. I., & Hu, Y. 2016, SSRv, 205, 285, doi: 10.1007/s11214-016-0254-3 Miguel, Y. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 2893, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2803 Molli`ere, P., & Snellen, I. A. G. 2019, A&A, 622, A139, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834169 Molli`ere, P., Wardenier, J. P., van Boekel, R., et al. 2019, A&A, 627, A67, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201935470 Morris, B. M., Delrez, L., Brandeker, A., et al. 2021, A&A, 653, A173, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202140892 Mugnai, L. V., Modirrousta-Galian, D., Edwards, B., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 284, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf3c3 Mugnai, L. V., Modirrousta-Galian, D., Edwards, B., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 284, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abf3c3 Neves Ribeiro do Amaral, L., Barnes, R., Segura, A., & Luger, R. 2022, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2203.10127. https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.10127 Noll, S., Kausch, W., Barden, M., et al. 2012, A&A, 543, A92, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201219040 Nugroho, S. K., Kawahara, H., Gibson, N. P., et al. 2021, ApJL, 910, L9, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/abec71 Oliva, E., Origlia, L., Scuderi, S., et al. 2015, A&A, 581, A47, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201526291 Ortenzi, G., Noack, L., Sohl, F., et al. 2020, Scientific Reports, 10, 10907, doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-67751-7 Owen, J. E., Shaikhislamov, I. F., Lammer, H., Fossati, L., & Khodachenko, M. L. 2020, SSRv, 216, 129, doi: 10.1007/s11214-020-00756-w Park, C., Jaffe, D. T., Yuk, I.-S., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 91471D, doi: 10.1117/12.2056431 Peacock, S., Barman, T., Shkolnik, E. L., et al. 2020, ApJ, 895, 5, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab893a Quirrenbach, A., Amado, P. J., Caballero, J. A., et al. 2014, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9147, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy V, ed. S. K. Ramsay, I. S. McLean, & H. Takami, 91471F, doi: 10.1117/12.2056453 Ramirez, R. M., & Kaltenegger, L. 2014, ApJL, 797, L25, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/797/2/L25 Ridden-Harper, A. R., Snellen, I. A. G., Keller, C. U., et al. 2016, A&A, 593, A129, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201628448 Rogers, J. G., & Owen, J. E. 2021, MNRAS, 503, 1526, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab529 Rogers, L. A., Bodenheimer, P., Lissauer, J. J., & Seager, S. 2011, ApJ, 738, 59, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/59 Rousselot, P., Lidman, C., Cuby, J. G., Moreels, G., & Monnet, G. 2000, A&A, 354, 1134 Schaefer, L., & Fegley, B. 2009, ApJL, 703, L113, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/703/2/L113 Shkolnik, E. L., & Barman, T. S. 2014, AJ, 148, 64, doi: 10.1088/0004-6256/148/4/64 Sim, C. K., Le, H. A. N., Pak, S., et al. 2014, Advances in Space Research, 53, 1647, doi: 10.1016/j.asr.2014.02.024 Sing, D. K., Fortney, J. J., Nikolov, N., et al. 2016, Nature, 529, 59, doi: 10.1038/nature16068 Snellen, I. A. G., Brandl, B. R., de Kok, R. J., et al. 2014, Nature, 509, 63, doi: 10.1038/nature13253 Snellen, I. A. G., de Kok, R. J., de Mooij, E. J. W., & Albrecht, S. 2010, Nature, 465, 1049, doi: 10.1038/nature09111 Snellen, I. A. G., de Kok, R. J., le Poole, R., Brogi, M., & Birkby, J. 2013, ApJ, 764, 182, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/764/2/182 Swain, M. R., Estrela, R., Roudier, G. M., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 213, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe879 Tamura, M., Suto, H., Nishikawa, J., et al. 2012, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8446, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy IV, ed. I. S. McLean, S. K. Ramsay, & H. Takami, 84461T, doi: 10.1117/12.925885 Tamuz, O., Mazeh, T., & Zucker, S. 2005, MNRAS, 356, 1466, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08585.x Thompson, M. A., Telus, M., Schaefer, L., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 575, doi: 10.1038/s41550-021-01338-8 Trifonov, T., Caballero, J. A., Morales, J. C., et al. 2021, Science, 371, 1038, doi: 10.1126/science.abd7645 Tsiaras, A., Rocchetto, M., Waldmann, I. P., et al. 2016, ApJ, 820, 99, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/820/2/99 Vanderspek, R., Huang, C. X., Vanderburg, A., et al. 2019, ApJL, 871, L24, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aafb7a Vidal-Madjar, A., Lecavelier des Etangs, A., D´esert, J. M., et al. 2003, Nature, 422, 143, doi: 10.1038/nature01448 Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., et al. 2020, Nature Methods, 17, 261, doi: 10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 Wakeford, H. R., Lewis, N. K., Fowler, J., et al. 2019, AJ, 157, 11, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aaf04d Woitke, P., Helling, C., Hunter, G. H., et al. 2018, A&A, 614, A1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201732193 Wunderlich, F., Godolt, M., Grenfell, J. L., et al. 2019, A&A, 624, A49, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/201834504 Yurchenko, S. N., & Tennyson, J. 2014, MNRAS, 440, 1649, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu326 Zhang, M., Knutson, H. A., Wang, L., et al. 2021, AJ, 161, 181, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/abe382 Zhang, Z., Zhou, Y., Rackham, B. V., & Apai, D. 2018, AJ, 156, 178, doi: 10.3847/1538-3881/aade4f

High-Resolution Transmission Spectroscopy of the Terrestrial Exoplanet GJ 486b: Appendix & Reference

Internet culture can be a wild and creative place, but there’s been no online trend that’s resonated in the world of finance as strongly as the rise of memes and their transformative effect on stock market investing. In January 2021, meme investing became global news as a mobilized motley crew of social media-based retail investors generated a GameStop short squeeze, which saw the stock rally 1,500% in just two weeks. Despite GME retracing from its sharp 2021 peak, the stock is still sitting in a relatively comfortable position today, with a market capitalization just shy of $5 billion. Inspired by GameStop’s astronomical rally, retail investors have been targeting meme-based opportunities in stocks, cryptocurrencies, and NFTs in an attempt to make significant short-term gains. The 2021 surge in meme investing saw some success derived from GameStop and AMC stocks, as well as cryptocurrencies such as Dogecoin and Shiba Inu. This frenetic high-volume investing landscape occurred against the backdrop of a cryptocurrency rally in the wake of , which took place in 2020 and inspired a bull run that grew the portfolios of thousands of retail investors around this time. Bitcoin’s cyclical halving event Today, with Bitcoin’s next halving event scheduled for April this year, could we be staring at another rally that will supercharge the meme investing landscape? Signs of Life in Meme Markets There’s mounting evidence that meme investing is beginning to regain momentum in the wake of a series of economic headwinds that have impacted retail investor spending over the past two years. Using Roundhill’s MEME ETF (NYSEARCA:MEME) as an example, the exchange-traded fund has over the past year, posting almost 20% growth over the past three months alone. grown more than 38% The appeal of meme investing can be found in its sentiment-driven high-risk structure. As investors unite on social media to target a stock, they can purchase their stock in significantly high volumes to leverage growth without having to look at the company’s underlying fundamentals. This paves the way for stocks to be targeted based on factors like sentimental value (GameStop, AMC) or tributes to online jokes (Dogecoin). “Recent growth in GameStop and Dogecoin indicates a short-term surge in investing among retail investors. However, it's essential to recognize that this trend is speculative,” explained Maxim Manturov, head of investment research at . meme stock Freedom Finance Europe “It's crucial to note that while meme investments may yield significant profits, they also come with substantial risks due to their high volatility and speculative nature. Investors should carefully assess their risk tolerance and investment goals before engaging in this type of investing.” In 2023, meme markets , with the year’s biggest winners arriving in the form of fintech firm SoFi, software company Palantir, and used car retailer Carvana–with the latter recording 1,000% growth over the calendar year. comfortably outperformed the S&P 500 This investing phenomenon isn’t limited to Wall Street and crypto, either. In South Korea, young investors have been rejecting blue-chip stocks like Samsung and Hyundai to buy into high-risk in science and technology sectors in the hopes of faster returns. meme stocks Internet rumors about growth plans for stocks like Duksung, a Suwon-based textiles company, saw the stock triple in value over two weeks in mid-2023 before a 50% fall in a matter of days. JLK, an AI-based medical data company, rallied to a brief 1,000% peak during the rally between January and September before a similar 50% decline to close the year. , a senior researcher at the Korea Capital Market Institute, the appeal of higher returns ‘drives impatient young investors’, who would have started their trading journeys around the time of the post-pandemic boom period that began in 2020. According to Hwang Sei-woon The Rise of Short-Termism This short-term mindset among retail investors has given rise to the era of . While successful traditional investing relies on the in-depth research of stock fundamentals and the development of a sustainable investment strategy, meme investing revolves around staying switched on and alert to social media guidance. fast food investing One of the biggest issues that this causes is the volatility, and varying degrees of success that socially mobilized investing can bring. Using GameStop’s stock as an example, the firm is currently trading at 81% below its peak on January 29th, 2021. This means that many retail investors who bought the stock during its rapid rise would have lost out despite the stock settling higher than its values before the short squeeze. In addition to this, AMC stock has shed 87% of its value in the past 12 months alone, signifying that short-term attitudes can lead to stocks being abandoned for new memes at a moment’s notice. The fickle nature of meme investors has become increasingly apparent in recent weeks throughout the cryptocurrency landscape. The winter months drew launched on Solana’s network, but following December all-time highs for small-cap coins like Dogwifhat (WIF), Bonk (BONK), and AnaloS (ANALOS), the coins have tumbled 76%, 70%, and 92% respectively in a matter of weeks. added retail attention to meme coins Learning Lessons From the Past The recent approval of a Bitcoin Spot ETF on Wall Street has helped to add fuel to investor optimism for an upcoming cryptocurrency market rally in 2024 and 2025. These market movements throughout the crypto landscape could see more investors seeking to supplement their portfolio growth and renewed levels of market interest to commit more resources to meme investing. According to Reuters reporters Saqib Iqbal Ahmed and Laura Matthews, for meme investing in the wake of the 2021 GameStop short squeeze, but more so, their approaches became increasingly cautious as the market sell-offs of 2022 hit portfolios. retail investors never lost their appetite In understanding the difference between a company’s stock price and its fundamentals, investors may be capable of finding a better balance between the risk and opportunities offered by meme investing. With cryptocurrency markets set to take center stage once again in 2024, we can be sure that meme investing won’t be far from the limelight.

The Return of Meme Investing: Will a Crypto Rally in 2024 Pave the Way for a Meme Resurgence?

দ্য রিটার্ন অফ মেম ইনভেস্টিং: 2024 সালে একটি ক্রিপ্টো সমাবেশ কি একটি মেম পুনরুত্থানের পথ তৈরি করবে?

Die Rückkehr des Meme-Investierens: Wird eine Krypto-Rallye im Jahr 2024 den Weg für ein Meme-Wiederaufleben ebnen?

El regreso de la inversión en memes: ¿un repunte de las criptomonedas en 2024 allanará el camino para un resurgimiento de los memes?

Le retour de l’investissement mème : un rallye crypto en 2024 ouvrira-t-il la voie à une résurgence des mèmes ?

मेम निवेश की वापसी: क्या 2024 में क्रिप्टो रैली मेम पुनरुत्थान का मार्ग प्रशस्त करेगी?

ミーム投資の復活: 2024 年の仮想通貨ラリーはミーム復活への道を開くのか?

밈 투자의 귀환: 2024년 암호화폐 랠리가 밈 부활의 길을 열어줄 것인가?

O retorno do investimento em memes: uma alta criptográfica em 2024 abrirá caminho para o ressurgimento de memes?

Возвращение мем-инвестирования: откроет ли крипторалли в 2024 году путь к возрождению мемов?

Meme Yatırımcılığının Dönüşü: 2024'teki Kripto Rallisi Meme Yeniden Dirilişinin Yolunu Açacak mı?

Sự trở lại của đầu tư Meme: Liệu cuộc biểu tình tiền điện tử vào năm 2024 có mở đường cho sự hồi sinh của Meme không?

Meme 投资的回归：2024 年的加密货币反弹是否会为 Meme 的复兴铺平道路？

This Cop Sabotaged His Own Cases to Undermine a Prosecutor: Why He Did So

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. . Authors: Gemini Team, Google Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Model Architecture Training Infrastructure Training Dataset Evaluation Responsible Deployment Discussion and Conclusion, References Contributions and Acknowledgments Appendix 8. Contributions and Acknowledgments Leads Rohan Anil, Co-Lead, Text Sebastian Borgeaud, Co-Lead, Text Yonghui Wu, Co-Lead, Text Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Co-Lead, MM Vision Jiahui Yu, Co-Lead, MM Vision Radu Soricut*, Co-Lead, MM Vision* Johan Schalkwyk, Lead, MM Audio Andrew M. Dai, Co-Lead, Data Anja Hauth*, Co-Lead, Data* Katie Millican, Co-Lead, Data David Silver, Co-Lead, Fine-Tuning Slav Petrov, Co-Lead, Fine-Tuning Melvin Johnson, Lead, Instruction Tuning Ioannis Antonoglou*, Co-Lead, RL Techniques* Julian Schrittwieser, Co-Lead, RL Techniques Amelia Glaese, Lead, Human Data Jilin Chen, Lead, Safety Emily Pitler, Co-Lead, Tool Use Timothy Lillicrap, Co-Lead, Tool Use Angeliki Lazaridou, Co-Lead, Eval Orhan Firat, Co-Lead, Eval James Molloy, Co-Lead, Infra Michael Isard, Co-Lead, Infra Paul R. Barham, Co-Lead, Infra Tom Hennigan, Co-Lead, Infra Benjamin Lee, Co-Lead, Codebase & Parallelism Fabio Viola, Co-Lead, Codebase & Parallelism Malcolm Reynolds, Co-Lead, Codebase & Parallelism Yuanzhong Xu, Co-Lead, Codebase & Parallelism Ryan Doherty, Lead, Ecosystem Eli Collins, Lead, Product Clemens Meyer, Co-Lead, Operations Eliza Rutherford, Co-Lead, Operations Erica Moreira, Co-Lead, Operations Kareem Ayoub, Co-Lead, Operations Megha Goel, Co-Lead, Operations Core Contributors George Tucker Enrique Piqueras Maxim Krikun Iain Barr Nikolay Savinov Ivo Danihelka Becca Roelofs Core Contributors Anaïs White Anders Andreassen Tamara von Glehn Lakshman Yagati Mehran Kazemi Lucas Gonzalez Misha Khalman Jakub Sygnowski Alexandre Frechette Charlotte Smith Laura Culp Lev Proleev Yi Luan Xi Chen James Lottes Nathan Schucher Federico Lebron Alban Rrustemi Natalie Clay Phil Crone Tomas Kocisky Jeffrey Zhao Bartek Perz Dian Yu Heidi Howard Adam Bloniarz Jack W. Rae Han Lu Laurent Sifre Marcello Maggioni Fred Alcober Dan Garrette Megan Barnes Shantanu Thakoor Jacob Austin Gabriel Barth-Maron William Wong Rishabh Joshi Rahma Chaabouni Deeni Fatiha Arun Ahuja Ruibo Liu Yunxuan Li Sarah Cogan Jeremy Chen Core Contributors Chao Jia Chenjie Gu Qiao Zhang Jordan Grimstad Ale Jakse Hartman Martin Chadwick Gaurav Singh Tomar Xavier Garcia Evan Senter Emanuel Taropa Thanumalayan Sankaranarayana Pillai Jacob Devlin Michael Laskin Diego de Las Casas Dasha Valter Connie Tao Lorenzo Blanco Adrià Puigdomènech Badia David Reitter Mianna Chen Jenny Brennan Clara Rivera Sergey Brin Shariq Iqbal Gabriela Surita Jane Labanowski Abhi Rao Stephanie Winkler Emilio Parisotto Yiming Gu Kate Olszewska Yujing Zhang Ravi Addanki Antoine Miech Annie Louis Laurent El Shafey Denis Teplyashin Geoff Brown Elliot Catt Nithya Attaluri Jan Balaguer Jackie Xiang Pidong Wang Zoe Ashwood Anton Briukhov Albert Webson Sanjay Ganapathy Smit Sanghavi Core Contributors Ajay Kannan Ming-Wei Chang Axel Stjerngren Josip Djolonga Yuting Sun Ankur Bapna Matthew Aitchison Pedram Pejman Henryk Michalewski Tianhe Yu Cindy Wang Juliette Love Junwhan Ahn Dawn Bloxwich Kehang Han Peter Humphreys Thibault Sellam James Bradbury Varun Godbole Sina Samangooei Bogdan Damoc Alex Kaskasoli Sébastien M. R. Arnold Vijay Vasudevan Shubham Agrawal Jason Riesa Dmitry Lepikhin Richard Tanburn Srivatsan Srinivasan Hyeontaek Lim Sarah Hodkinson Pranav Shyam Johan Ferret Steven Hand Ankush Garg Tom Le Paine Jian Li Yujia Li Minh Giang Alexander Neitz Zaheer Abbas Sarah York Machel Reid Elizabeth Cole Aakanksha Chowdhery Dipanjan Das Dominika Rogozińska Vitaly Nikolaev Core Contributors Pablo Sprechmann Zachary Nado Lukas Zilka Flavien Prost Luheng He Marianne Monteiro Gaurav Mishra Chris Welty Josh Newlan Dawei Jia Miltiadis Allamanis Clara Huiyi Hu Raoul de Liedekerke Justin Gilmer Carl Saroufim Shruti Rijhwani Shaobo Hou Disha Shrivastava Anirudh Baddepudi Alex Goldin Adnan Ozturel Albin Cassirer Yunhan Xu Daniel Sohn Devendra Sachan Reinald Kim Amplayo Craig Swanson Dessie Petrova Shashi Narayan Arthur Guez Siddhartha Brahma Jessica Landon Miteyan Patel Ruizhe Zhao Kevin Villela Luyu Wang Wenhao Jia Matthew Rahtz Mai Giménez Legg Yeung Hanzhao Lin James Keeling Petko Georgiev Diana Mincu Boxi Wu Salem Haykal Rachel Saputro Kiran Vodrahalli Core Contributors James Qin Zeynep Cankara Abhanshu Sharma Nick Fernando Will Hawkins Behnam Neyshabur Solomon Kim Adrian Hutter Priyanka Agrawal Alex Castro-Ros George van den Driessche Tao Wang Fan Yang Shuo-yiin Chang Paul Komarek Ross McIlroy Mario Lučić Guodong Zhang Wael Farhan Michael Sharman Paul Natsev Paul Michel Yong Cheng Yamini Bansal Siyuan Qiao Kris Cao Siamak Shakeri Christina Butterfield Justin Chung Paul Kishan Rubenstein Shivani Agrawal Arthur Mensch Kedar Soparkar Karel Lenc Timothy Chung Aedan Pope Loren Maggiore Jackie Kay Priya Jhakra Shibo Wang Joshua Maynez Mary Phuong Taylor Tobin Andrea Tacchetti Maja Trebacz Kevin Robinson Yash Katariya Sebastian Riedel Core Contributors Paige Bailey Kefan Xiao Nimesh Ghelani Lora Aroyo Ambrose Slone Neil Houlsby Xuehan Xiong Zhen Yang Elena Gribovskaya Jonas Adler Mateo Wirth Lisa Lee Music Li Thais Kagohara Jay Pavagadhi Sophie Bridgers Anna Bortsova Sanjay Ghemawat Zafarali Ahmed Tianqi Liu Richard Powell Vijay Bolina Mariko Iinuma Polina Zablotskaia James Besley Da-Woon Chung Timothy Dozat Ramona Comanescu Xiance Si Jeremy Greer Guolong Su Martin Polacek Raphaël Lopez Kaufman Simon Tokumine Hexiang Hu Elena Buchatskaya Yingjie Miao Mohamed Elhawaty Aditya Siddhant Nenad Tomasev Jinwei Xing Christina Greer Helen Miller Shereen Ashraf Aurko Roy Zizhao Zhang Ada Ma Angelos Filos Core Contributors Milos Besta Rory Blevins Ted Klimenko Chih-Kuan Yeh Soravit Changpinyo Jiaqi Mu Oscar Chang Mantas Pajarskas Carrie Muir Vered Cohen Charline Le Lan Krishna Haridasan Amit Marathe Steven Hansen Sholto Douglas Rajkumar Samuel Mingqiu Wang Sophia Austin Chang Lan Jiepu Jiang Justin Chiu Jaime Alonso Lorenzo Lars Lowe Sjösund Sébastien Cevey Zach Gleicher Thi Avrahami Anudhyan Boral Hansa Srinivasan Vittorio Selo Rhys May Konstantinos Aisopos Léonard Hussenot Livio Baldini Soares Kate Baumli Michael B. Chang Adrià Recasens Ben Caine Alexander Pritzel Filip Pavetic Fabio Pardo Anita Gergely Justin Frye Vinay Ramasesh Dan Horgan Kartikeya Badola Nora Kassner Subhrajit Roy Ethan Dyer Core Contributors Víctor Campos Alex Tomala Yunhao Tang Dalia El Badawy Elspeth White Basil Mustafa Oran Lang Abhishek Jindal Sharad Vikram Zhitao Gong Sergi Caelles Ross Hemsley Gregory Thornton Fangxiaoyu Feng Wojciech Stokowiec Ce Zheng Phoebe Thacker Çağlar Ünlü Zhishuai Zhang Mohammad Saleh James Svensson Max Bileschi Piyush Patil Ankesh Anand Roman Ring Katerina Tsihlas Arpi Vezer Marco Selvi Toby Shevlane Mikel Rodriguez Tom Kwiatkowski Samira Daruki Keran Rong Allan Dafoe Nicholas FitzGerald Keren Gu-Lemberg Mina Khan Lisa Anne Hendricks Marie Pellat Vladimir Feinberg James Cobon-Kerr Tara Sainath Maribeth Rauh Sayed Hadi Hashemi Richard Ives Yana Hasson YaGuang Li Eric Noland Core Contributors Yuan Cao Nathan Byrd Le Hou Qingze Wang Thibault Sottiaux Michela Paganini Jean-Baptiste Lespiau Alexandre Moufarek Samer Hassan Kaushik Shivakumar Joost van Amersfoort Amol Mandhane Pratik Joshi Anirudh Goyal Matthew Tung Andrew Brock Hannah Sheahan Vedant Misra Cheng Li Nemanja Rakićević Mostafa Dehghani Fangyu Liu Sid Mittal Junhyuk Oh Seb Noury Eren Sezener Fantine Huot Matthew Lamm Nicola De Cao Charlie Chen Contributors Gamaleldin Elsayed Ed Chi Mahdis Mahdieh Ian Tenney Nan Hua Ivan Petrychenko Patrick Kane Dylan Scandinaro Rishub Jain Jonathan Uesato Romina Datta Adam Sadovsky Oskar Bunyan Dominik Rabiej Shimu Wu John Zhang Contributors Gautam Vasudevan Edouard Leurent Mahmoud Alnahlawi Ionut Georgescu Nan Wei Ivy Zheng Betty Chan Pam G Rabinovitch Piotr Stanczyk Ye Zhang David Steiner Subhajit Naskar Michael Azzam Matthew Johnson Adam Paszke Chung-Cheng Chiu Jaume Sanchez Elias Afroz Mohiuddin Faizan Muhammad Jin Miao Andrew Lee Nino Vieillard Sahitya Potluri Jane Park Elnaz Davoodi Jiageng Zhang Jeff Stanway Drew Garmon Abhijit Karmarkar Zhe Dong Jong Lee Aviral Kumar Luowei Zhou Jonathan Evens William Isaac Zhe Chen Johnson Jia Anselm Levskaya Zhenkai Zhu Chris Gorgolewski Peter Grabowski Yu Mao Alberto Magni Kaisheng Yao Javier Snaider Norman Casagrande Paul Suganthan Evan Palmer Contributors Geoffrey Irving Edward Loper Manaal Faruqui Isha Arkatkar Nanxin Chen Izhak Shafran Michael Fink Alfonso Castaño Irene Giannoumis Wooyeol Kim Mikołaj Rybiński Ashwin Sreevatsa Jennifer Prendki David Soergel Adrian Goedeckemeyer Willi Gierke Mohsen Jafari Meenu Gaba Jeremy Wiesner Diana Gage Wright Yawen Wei Harsha Vashisht Yana Kulizhskaya Jay Hoover Maigo Le Lu Li Chimezie Iwuanyanwu Lu Liu Kevin Ramirez Andrey Khorlin Albert Cui Tian LIN Marin Georgiev Marcus Wu Ricardo Aguilar Keith Pallo Abhishek Chakladar Alena Repina Xihui Wu Tom van der Weide Priya Ponnapalli Caroline Kaplan Jiri Simsa Shuangfeng Li Olivier Dousse Fan Yang Jeff Piper Nathan Ie Contributors Minnie Lui Rama Pasumarthi Nathan Lintz Anitha Vijayakumar Lam Nguyen Thiet Daniel Andor Pedro Valenzuela Cosmin Paduraru Daiyi Peng Katherine Lee Shuyuan Zhang Somer Greene Duc Dung Nguyen Paula Kurylowicz Sarmishta Velury Sebastian Krause Cassidy Hardin Lucas Dixon Lili Janzer Kiam Choo Ziqiang Feng Biao Zhang Achintya Singhal Tejasi Latkar Mingyang Zhang Quoc Le Elena Allica Abellan Dayou Du Dan McKinnon Natasha Antropova Tolga Bolukbasi Orgad Keller David Reid Daniel Finchelstein Maria Abi Raad Remi Crocker Peter Hawkins Robert Dadashi Colin Gaffney Sid Lall Ken Franko Egor Filonov Anna Bulanova Rémi Leblond Vikas Yadav Shirley Chung Harry Askham Luis C. Cobo Contributors Kelvin Xu Felix Fischer Jun Xu Christina Sorokin Chris Alberti Chu-Cheng Lin Colin Evans Hao Zhou Alek Dimitriev Hannah Forbes Dylan Banarse Zora Tung Jeremiah Liu Mark Omernick Colton Bishop Chintu Kumar Rachel Sterneck Ryan Foley Rohan Jain Swaroop Mishra Jiawei Xia Taylor Bos Geoffrey Cideron Ehsan Amid Francesco Piccinno Xingyu Wang Praseem Banzal Petru Gurita Hila Noga Premal Shah Daniel J. Mankowitz Alex Polozov Nate Kushman Victoria Krakovna Sasha Brown MohammadHossein Bateni Dennis Duan Vlad Firoiu Meghana Thotakuri Tom Natan Anhad Mohananey Matthieu Geist Sidharth Mudgal Sertan Girgin Hui Li Jiayu Ye Ofir Roval Reiko Tojo Contributors Michael Kwong James Lee-Thorp Christopher Yew Quan Yuan Sumit Bagri Danila Sinopalnikov Sabela Ramos John Mellor Abhishek Sharma Aliaksei Severyn Jonathan Lai Kathy Wu Heng-Tze Cheng David Miller Nicolas Sonnerat Denis Vnukov Rory Greig Jennifer Beattie Emily Caveness Libin Bai Julian Eisenschlos Alex Korchemniy Tomy Tsai Mimi Jasarevic Weize Kong Phuong Dao Zeyu Zheng Frederick Liu Fan Yang Rui Zhu Mark Geller Tian Huey Teh Jason Sanmiya Evgeny Gladchenko Nejc Trdin Andrei Sozanschi Daniel Toyama Evan Rosen Sasan Tavakkol Linting Xue Chen Elkind Oliver Woodman John Carpenter George Papamakarios Rupert Kemp Sushant Kafle Tanya Grunina Rishika Sinha Contributors Alice Talbert Abhimanyu Goyal Diane Wu Denese Owusu-Afriyie Cosmo Du Chloe Thornton Jordi Pont-Tuset Pradyumna Narayana Jing Li Saaber Fatehi John Wieting Omar Ajmeri Benigno Uria Tao Zhu Yeongil Ko Laura Knight Amélie Héliou Ning Niu Shane Gu Chenxi Pang Dustin Tran Yeqing Li Nir Levine Ariel Stolovich Norbert Kalb Rebeca Santamaria-Fernandez Sonam Goenka Wenny Yustalim Robin Strudel Ali Elqursh Balaji Lakshminarayanan Charlie Deck Shyam Upadhyay Hyo Lee Mike Dusenberry Zonglin Li Xuezhi Wang Kyle Levin Raphael Hoffmann Dan Holtmann-Rice Olivier Bachem Summer Yue Sho Arora Eric Malmi Daniil Mirylenka Qijun Tan Christy Koh Soheil Hassas Yeganeh Contributors Siim Põder Steven Zheng Francesco Pongetti Mukarram Tariq Yanhua Sun Lucian Ionita Mojtaba Seyedhosseini Pouya Tafti Ragha Kotikalapudi Zhiyu Liu Anmol Gulati Jasmine Liu Xinyu Ye Bart Chrzaszcz Lily Wang Nikhil Sethi Tianrun Li Ben Brown Shreya Singh Wei Fan Aaron Parisi Joe Stanton Chenkai Kuang Vinod Koverkathu Christopher A. Choquette-Choo Yunjie Li TJ Lu Abe Ittycheriah Prakash Shroff Pei Sun Mani Varadarajan Sanaz Bahargam Rob Willoughby David Gaddy Ishita Dasgupta Guillaume Desjardins Marco Cornero Brona Robenek Bhavishya Mittal Ben Albrecht Ashish Shenoy Fedor Moiseev Henrik Jacobsson Alireza Ghaffarkhah Morgane Rivière Alanna Walton Clément Crepy Alicia Parrish Contributors Yuan Liu Zongwei Zhou Clement Farabet Carey Radebaugh Praveen Srinivasan Claudia van der Salm Andreas Fidjeland Salvatore Scellato Eri Latorre-Chimoto Hanna Klimczak-Plucińska David Bridson Dario de Cesare Tom Hudson Piermaria Mendolicchio Lexi Walker Alex Morris Ivo Penchev Matthew Mauger Alexey Guseynov Alison Reid Seth Odoom Lucia Loher Victor Cotruta Madhavi Yenugula Dominik Grewe Anastasia Petrushkina Tom Duerig Antonio Sanchez Steve Yadlowsky Amy Shen Amir Globerson Adam Kurzrok Lynette Webb Sahil Dua Dong Li Preethi Lahoti Surya Bhupatiraju Dan Hurt Haroon Qureshi Ananth Agarwal Tomer Shani Matan Eyal Anuj Khare Shreyas Rammohan Belle Lei Wang Chetan Tekur Mihir Sanjay Kale Jinliang Wei Contributors Ruoxin Sang Brennan Saeta Tyler Liechty Yi Sun Yao Zhao Stephan Lee Pandu Nayak Doug Fritz Manish Reddy Vuyyuru John Aslanides Nidhi Vyas Martin Wicke Xiao Ma Taylan Bilal Evgenii Eltyshev Daniel Balle Nina Martin Hardie Cate James Manyika Keyvan Amiri Yelin Kim Xi Xiong Kai Kang Florian Luisier Nilesh Tripuraneni David Madras Mandy Guo Austin Waters Oliver Wang Joshua Ainslie Jason Baldridge Han Zhang Garima Pruthi Jakob Bauer Feng Yang Riham Mansour Jason Gelman Yang Xu George Polovets Ji Liu Honglong Cai Warren Chen XiangHai Sheng Emily Xue Sherjil Ozair Adams Yu Christof Angermueller Contributors Xiaowei Li Weiren Wang Julia Wiesinger Emmanouil Koukoumidis Yuan Tian Anand Iyer Madhu Gurumurthy Mark Goldenson Parashar Shah MK Blake Hongkun Yu Anthony Urbanowicz Jennimaria Palomaki Chrisantha Fernando Kevin Brooks Ken Durden Harsh Mehta Nikola Momchev Elahe Rahimtoroghi Maria Georgaki Amit Raul Sebastian Ruder Morgan Redshaw Jinhyuk Lee Komal Jalan Dinghua Li Ginger Perng Blake Hechtman Parker Schuh Milad Nasr Mia Chen Kieran Milan Vladimir Mikulik Trevor Strohman Juliana Franco Tim Green Program Leads Demis Hassabis Koray Kavukcuoglu Overall Technical Leads (equal contribution) Jeffrey Dean Oriol Vinyals The roles are defined as below: • : Individual(s) responsible for the sub-team throughout the project. Lead Individual that had significant impact throughout the project. • Core Contributor: : Individual that had contributions to the project and was partially involved with the effort. • Contributor Responsible for the organizational aspects of the Gemini effort • Program Lead: Responsible for the technical direction of the overall Gemini effort • Overall Technical Lead: Within each role, contributions are equal, and are listed in a randomized order. Ordering within each role does not indicate ordering of the contributions. Gemini is a cross-Google effort, with members from Google DeepMind (GDM), Google Research (GR), Knowledge and Information (K&I), Core ML, Cloud, Labs, and more. We thank our reviewers and colleagues for their valuable discussions and feedback on the report— Alexandra Belias, Arielle Bier, Eleanor Tomlinson, Emily Hossellman, Gaby Pearl, Helen King, Hollie Dobson, Jaclyn Konzelmann, Jennifer Beroshi, Joel Moss, Jon Small, Jonathan Fildes, Oli Gaymond, Rebecca Bland, Reena Jana, and Tom Lue. Our work is made possible by the dedication and efforts of numerous teams at Google. We would like to acknowledge the support from Abhi Mohan, Adekunle Bello, Aishwarya Nagarajan, Alaa Saade, Alejandro Lince, Alexander Chen, Alexander Kolbasov, Alexander Schiffhauer, Amar Subramanya, Ameya Shringi, Amin Vahdat, Anda Rabatić, Anthonie Gross, Antoine Yang, Anthony Green, Anton Ruddock, Art Khurshudov, Artemis Chen, Arthur Argenson, Avinatan Hassidim, Beiye Liu, Benjamin Schroeder, Bin Ni, Brett Daw, Bryan Chiang, Burak Gokturk, Carl Crous, Carrie Grimes Bostock, Charbel Kaed, Charlotte Banks, Che Diaz, Chris Larkin, Christy Lian, Claire Cui, Clare Bycroft, Corentin Tallec, Daniel Herndon, Dave Burke, David Battle, David Engel, Dipannita Shaw, Donghyun Koo, Doug Ritchie, Dragos Stefanescu, Elissa Wolf, Emre Sargin, Eran Ofek, Eric Herren, Estella King, Fatema Alkhanaizi, Felix Gimeno, Fernando Pereira, Florent Altché, Gabriel Carvajal, Gaurav Gandhi, George Powell, Goran Pavičić, Harry Richardson, Hassan Wassel, Hongji Li, Idan Szpektor, Igor Ivanisevic, Ivan Jambrešić, Ivan Jurin, Jade Fowler, James Assiene, Jay Yagnik, Jeanbastien Grill, Jeff Seibert, Jenna LaPlante, Jessica Austin, Jianxing Lu, Jim O’Keeffe, Jin Huang, Joe Heyward, Johannes Welbl, John Jumper, Jonathan Caton, Josh Woodward, Joshua Foster, Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool, Katrina Wong, Kavya Kopparapu, Kelvin Nguyen, Kira Yin, Konstantin Sharlaimov, Kun Li, Lee Hong, Lilly Taylor, Longfei Shen, Luc Mercier, Maciej Mikuła, Mania Abdi, Manuel Sanchez, Maria Ines Aranguren, Mario Carlos Cortes III, Matthew Tait, Matthias Lochbrunner, Mehdi Ghissassi, Micah Mosley, Michael Bendersky, Michael Figurnov, Michael Harris, Michael Mathieu, Michael O’Neill, Michael Vorburger, Mihir Paradkar, Nandita Dukkipati, Nathan Carter, Nathan Watson, Neil Rabinowitz, Nikhil Dandekar, Nishant Ranka, Obaid Sarvana, Olcan Sercinoglu, Olivier Lacombe, Ottavia Bertolli, Paul Caron, Pranesh Srinivasan, Praveen Kumar, Rahul Sukthankar, Raia Hadsell, Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan, Roberto Lupi, Rosie Zou, Sachin Menezes, Sadegh Jazayeri, Sam Cheung, Sameer Bidichandani, Sania Alex, Sanjiv Kumar, Sara Wiltberger, Sarah Fitzgerald, Saz Basu, Sebastian Nowozin, Shannon Hepburn, Shayne Cardwell, Sissie Hsiao, Srinivasan Venkatachary, Sugato Basu, Sundar Pichai, Sundeep Tirumalareddy, Susannah Young, Swetha Vijayaraghavan, Tania Bedrax-Weiss, Taylor Applebaum, Teiva Harsanyi, Terry Chen, Tim Blyth, Ting Liu, Tom Cobley, Tomas Izo, Trystan Upstill, Varun Singhai, Vedrana Klarić Trupčević, Victor Cai, Vladimir Pudovkin, Vu Dang, Wenbo Zhao, Wesley Crow, Wesley Szeng, Xiaodan Song, Yazhou Zu, Ye Tian, Yicong Wang, Yixing Wang, Yossi Matias, Yunlong Jiao, Zachary Jessup, Zhenchuan Pang, Žiga Avsec, Zimeng Yang, and Zoubin Ghahramani. We’d also like to recognize the AlphaCode team, the Borg Scheduling team, the Facilities team, the Gemini Demo Team, the Global Server Ops (GSO) team, the JAX team, the the Legal team, ML SRE team, the ML Supercomputer (MLSC) team, the PartIR team, the Platforms Infrastructure Engineering (PIE) team, and the XLA Compiler team. We thank everyone at Google not explicitly mentioned above, who have shared excitement, given feedback on early Gemini models or created interesting demo uses of Gemini, and worked with or supported the core Gemini team on many aspects of this project.

Gemini -  A Family of Highly Capable Multimodal Models: Contributions and Acknowledgments

Mark Twain's Speeches by Mark Twain, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . AMERICANS AND THE ENGLISH here AMERICANS AND THE ENGLISH ADDRESS AT A GATHERING OF AMERICANS IN LONDON, JULY 4, 1872 MR. CHAIRMAN AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN,—I thank you for the compliment which has just been tendered me, and to show my appreciation of it I will not afflict you with many words. It is pleasant to celebrate in this peaceful way, upon this old mother soil, the anniversary of an experiment which was born of war with this same land so long ago, and wrought out to a successful issue by the devotion of our ancestors. It has taken nearly a hundred years to bring the English and Americans into kindly and mutually appreciative relations, but I believe it has been accomplished at last. It was a great step when the two last misunderstandings were settled by arbitration instead of cannon. It is another great step when England adopts our sewing-machines without claiming the invention—as usual. It was another when they imported one of our sleeping-cars the other day. And it warmed my heart more than I can tell, yesterday, when I witnessed the spectacle of an Englishman ordering an American sherry cobbler of his own free will and accord—and not only that but with a great brain and a level head reminding the barkeeper not to forget the strawberries. With a common origin, a common language, a common literature, a common religion, and—common drinks, what is longer needful to the cementing of the two nations together in a permanent bond of brotherhood? This is an age of progress, and ours is a progressive land. A great and glorious land, too—a land which has developed a Washington, a Franklin, a Wm. M. Tweed, a Longfellow, a Motley, a Jay Gould, a Samuel C. Pomeroy, a recent Congress which has never had its equal (in some respects), and a United States Army which conquered sixty Indians in eight months by tiring them out which is much better than uncivilized slaughter, God knows. We have a criminal jury system which is superior to any in the world; and its efficiency is only marred by the difficulty of finding twelve men every day who don’t know anything and can’t read. And I may observe that we have an insanity plea that would have saved Cain. I think I can say, and say with pride, that we have some legislatures that bring higher prices than any in the world. I refer with effusion to our railway system, which consents to let us live, though it might do the opposite, being our owners. It only destroyed three thousand and seventy lives last year by collisions, and twenty-seven thousand two hundred and sixty by running over heedless and unnecessary people at crossings. The companies seriously regretted the killing of these thirty thousand people, and went so far as to pay for some of them—voluntarily, of course, for the meanest of us would not claim that we possess a court treacherous enough to enforce a law against a railway company. But, thank Heaven, the railway companies are generally disposed to do the right and kindly thing without compulsion. I know of an instance which greatly touched me at the time. After an accident the company sent home the remains of a dear distant old relative of mine in a basket, with the remark, “Please state what figure you hold him at—and return the basket.” Now there couldn’t be anything friendlier than that. But I must not stand here and brag all night. However, you won’t mind a body bragging a little about his country on the Fourth of July. It is a fair and legitimate time to fly the eagle. I will say only one more word of brag—and a hopeful one. It is this. We have a form of government which gives each man a fair chance and no favor. With us no individual is born with a right to look down upon his neighbor and hold him in contempt. Let such of us as are not dukes find our consolation in that. And we may find hope for the future in the fact that as unhappy as is the condition of our political morality to-day, England has risen up out of a far fouler since the days when Charles I. ennobled courtesans and all political place was a matter of bargain and sale. There is hope for us yet.* *At least the above is the speech which I was going to make,
          but our minister, General Schenck, presided, and after the
          blessing, got up and made a great, long, inconceivably dull
          harangue, and wound up by saying that inasmuch as speech-making
          did not seem to exhilarate the guests much, all further oratory
          would be dispensed with during the evening, and we could just
          sit and talk privately to our elbow-neighbors and have a good,
          sociable time.  It is known that in consequence of that remark
          forty-four perfected speeches died in the womb.  The
          depression, the gloom, the solemnity that reigned over the
          banquet from that time forth will be a lasting memory with many
          that were there.  By that one thoughtless remark General
          Schenck lost forty-four of the best friends he had in England.
          More than one said that night: “And this is the sort of person
          that is sent to represent us in a great sister empire!” About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Mark Twain (2004). Mark Twain's Speeches. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved October 2022 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3188/pg3188-images.html This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at . www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

Stories, News & Mentions about MOVLEY

Movley’s Stories on HackerNoon

Movley's News & Mentions