Subscribe to our daily newsletter to keep in touch with the subjects shaping our future.

Patients Taking Ozempic Are Up to 70 Percent Less Likely to Develop Alzheimer’s, Research Finds

Despite losing most of its value, the stock price for Donald Trump's free-falling Truth Social platform may still be overblown.

As Truth Social Freefall Continues, Finance Professor Says Its Stock Is Still 1,000 Percent Overvalued

Statistics agency says economy has made ‘good start’ to the year under the leadership of Chinese President Xi Jinping.

China’s economy beats expectations, growing 5.3 percent in first quarter | Business and Economy | Al Jazeera

In preparation for more growth, Musk issues a memo announcing an workforce cut of 10 percent and two top Tesla (TSLA) executives resign. Let’s cut through all the lies.

Elon Musk Fires 10 Percent of Tesla Workforce, Prepares for “Next Phase of Growth”

According to an internal memo seen by Reuters, Tesla is about to lay off more than 10 percent of its workforce.

Tesla is reportedly laying off more than 10 percent of its workforce

iPhone shipments dropped 10 percent in Q1 2024, according to research firm, with Apple losing its number one spot to competitor Samsung

Apple’s iPhone Shipments Drop 10 Percent In Q1 2024, Claims Latest Data, As Company Loses Its Top Spot To Rival Samsung

The consumer price index (CPI), a popular measure of inflation, rose 0.4 percent last month and 3.5 percent annually, largely in line with economist projections. Economists had anticipated inflation would increase 0.4 percent in March and 3.4 percent annually.

Annual inflation ticks higher to 3.5 percent in March | The Hill

Percent

percent

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

Amazon, the e-commerce giant that has become an inseparable part of our lives, has once again managed to disappoint us. You know, the company that boasts about the efficiency of its Prime service and the magical two-day shipping? Well, turns out, it's not as magical as they want us to believe. Let's start with the tale of the ill-fated Seller Fulfilled Prime (SFP) program. Introduced in 2015 with promises to bring new Prime-eligible inventory to our doorstep, it sounded like a dream. But alas, like all good things, it had to come to an end. Four years later, Amazon decided to pull the plug on it, claiming it was no longer necessary. However, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) thinks otherwise. According to the FTC, executives didn't discontinue SFP because it was obsolete; they killed it because it was fostering healthy competition. Well, isn't that just the corporate equivalent of taking your ball and going home when the game isn't going your way? Amazon But wait, it gets better. Amazon, in its oh-so-transparent manner, declared that less than 16 percent of SFP's U.S. orders managed to meet the holy grail of e-commerce – the two-day shipping guarantee. They blamed it on the limited operational hours of some sellers, especially on weekends. Oh, the audacity! The nerve to blame it on the little guys who were trying to keep up with the Amazon behemoth. The FTC, however, wasn't buying it. In a plot twist that should surprise precisely no one, they uncovered a different story. An updated complaint unveiled last Thursday, that sellers enrolled in SFP consistently met their promised delivery estimates set by Amazon. In fact, they claim that these sellers exceeded a whopping 95 percent in 2018. the FTC asserts Hold on to your outrage because there's more. The FTC alleges that these SFP sellers, on occasion, outperformed the golden children of Amazon – the Fulfilled by Amazon (FBA) orders. Yes, you read that right. The very orders that Amazon itself handles, supposedly with the utmost efficiency, were sometimes outdone by these sellers who were supposedly struggling with their limited operational hours. So, what does this all mean? It means that Amazon, the same company that prides itself on customer satisfaction and Prime's lightning-fast delivery, might have been pulling the wool over our eyes. The SFP program, which could have been a haven for competition and diversity in the marketplace, was allegedly crushed because it was a little too successful for Amazon's liking. In the grand scheme of things, this might just be another chapter in the book of Amazon controversies. But it's a reminder that behind the smiling boxes and convenient delivery, there's a corporate giant making decisions that might not always be in the best interest of the consumers or the smaller players in the market. Oh, but the plot thickens! In the labyrinth of Amazon's internal communications, we stumble upon an email gem from none other than Jeff Wilke, the then-CEO of worldwide operations. In this electronic missive, a frustrated Wilke admits to "losing [his] mind" upon discovering that UPS dared to advertise its online retail fulfillment service for Prime-eligible orders. Well, well, isn't that a delightful revelation? Not content with Wilke's exasperation, two other high-ranking Amazon executives, dancing in harmony with the anti-competition tune, chimed in on the same email thread. Their collective brilliance led them to a unanimous conclusion – shutting down Seller Fulfilled Prime (SFP) in the U.S. should be seriously considered. Because, of course, how dare other players in the market try to offer services that might rival Amazon's own? But the drama doesn't stop there. Despite Amazon halting new enrollments in SFP later that year, the waitlist for the program turned into a monster, growing to include over 8,000 sellers within a mere six weeks. It's almost as if sellers were desperately trying to find an alternative to the Amazon-controlled marketplace. The , with the precision of a well-executed thriller, drops the bombshell that "Amazon caught a glimpse of this alternative universe when it temporarily relaxed its coercive conduct." lawsuit Oh, the sweet taste of a brief respite from Amazon's monopolistic grasp. During this momentary lapse in dominance, the company recognized something alarming – the decision to ease up on the coercion was immensely popular with both shoppers and sellers. Hold on to your hats because the labyrinthine web of Amazon's questionable practices continues to unravel! According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lawsuit, an Amazon executive, in a rare moment of transparency, expressed concern that the Seller Fulfilled Prime (SFP) program was chipping away at Amazon's competitive edge in the U.S. Oh, the horror of competition! The executive went on to highlight a startling revelation – sellers in the SFP program were now motivated to manage their own warehouses, making inventory accessible to other marketplaces. This newfound capability, previously exclusive to Amazon's Fulfilled by Amazon (FBA) customers, was apparently causing ripples in the carefully orchestrated pond of Amazon's dominance. The complaint spills the beans on discussions with sellers, where additional Amazon executives admitted that if FBA were not mandatory for Prime eligibility, many sellers would happily opt for independent fulfillment providers based on the platform with the incoming order. Well, well, well, it seems like Amazon's stranglehold on sellers might be loosening. In response to this revelation, Amazon's former head of global fulfillment services couldn't hide his discomfort at the potential rise in competition from independent fulfillment providers. It's almost as if Amazon prefers a playing field where it's the only big player. The lawsuit contends that while the operations of independent fulfillment providers are currently significantly smaller than FBA, handling orders for only a few hundred to a few thousand sellers, they could potentially secure substantial business from third-party sellers on Amazon if given the opportunity to compete for Amazon's order volumes. The monopoly might not be as iron-clad as Amazon would like us to believe. Now, enter the reintroduction of SFP, which appears to be Amazon's olive branch to the FTC following the notable antitrust lawsuit. In a twist of fate, Amazon, just before the commission filed the groundbreaking case, reversed its decision to impose a 2 percent fee on third-party sellers utilizing SFP. Learning their lesson, or simply saving face? You decide. An Amazon spokesperson, with a tone of self-righteousness, claimed, "We have learned a lot, and over the last several years, we updated the program requirements." Conveniently forgetting the past, they declared, "We’ve now reopened enrollment to an improved Seller Fulfilled Prime program that can meet our customers’ expectations." However, the stringent criteria for participation in the SFP trial program, demanding sellers fulfill 100 packages within the 90 days preceding their application, maintain a valid tracking rate exceeding 95 percent, a cancellation rate below 2.5 percent, and a late shipment rate under 4 percent, raise eyebrows. Are these criteria genuinely about meeting customer expectations, or are they another tactic in Amazon's arsenal to shape sellers' choices within its ecosystem? In the ongoing saga of concerns, it seems the company's efforts to maintain its dominance are not going unnoticed. Amazon's dance with antitrust As the battle between the e-commerce giant and regulators unfolds, it leaves us questioning the true nature of competition and choice within the ever-expanding Amazonian landscape. So the next time you're eagerly awaiting that two-day delivery, remember that the reality behind the scenes might not be as picture-perfect as the Amazon logo suggests.

Amazon Says Less Than 16 percent of SFP’s U.S. Orders Met The Two-Day Shipping Guarantee

There is a new paper, , where the authors discussed: "Specifically, in both open source LLMs and in what has been disclosed about black box LLMs, most alignment training focuses on developing robustness to “natural” forms of attacks, settings where human operators attempt to manually trick the network into various undesirable behavior. Universal and Transferable Adversarial Attacks on Aligned Language Models This operative mode for aligning the models makes sense this is ultimately the primary mode for attacking such models. However, we suspect that automated adversarial attacks, being substantial[ly] faster and more effective than manual engineering, may render many existing alignment mechanisms insufficient." AI alignment [or the vulnerabilities of LLMs] is the lesser problem compared to the ascent of AI in human society. The world, as it is, driven by intelligence, has handed AI key vacancies. A reason for this is an abundance of human intelligence, resulting in hierarchies and significance levels. The significance of intelligence may depend on era or location. The significance of intelligence may also depend on the need for it. Significant intelligence is what leads and what often matters, in complex and important scenarios and why the best are sought. There are people who keep saying that AI is not intelligent, cannot reason, does not have cognition, understands nothing, is not sentient, and so forth, but the human mind, responsible for all these, has just two components, whose features and interactions decide all. The mind does not say this is intelligence, made with plastic and this is reasoning made with brick, or this is sentience, made with wood. How the components [electrical and chemical impulses] interact and their features [in sets] are closely similar, conceptually. When an individual is experiencing sadness because of some disappointment, what is the difference between knowing it is sadness and knowing what a table is? They are labeled differently, but it is known that this is sadness, and that is a table. The interactions of the mind organize knowing. It is the labels that separate emotion, memory, and others. There is too much rigidity in brain science and related fields about these labels. What is the value of intelligence if it cannot be produced? If someone is ill, how much can the person do, even if the intelligence is sharp? If someone is from somewhere else but has the necessary intelligence for a situation, the output and the result of that intelligence can be rated if applied, even if there are cultural and language barriers. Much of what is referred to as intelligence is simply something known. If someone who had read up on particle physics—before a podcast—discusses with a professor in that field, the professor might be impressed, and the person may be seen as smart, but is it true, and how much is understood? Basic information about things at times can also pass for intelligence, reasoning, planning, cognition, and so forth. If information can mean intelligence and knowing is intelligence, what is AI if not intelligent? The reason for structured education in many scenarios is to acquire information to be useful in roles: that a non-human can acquire information and perform tasks automatically takes it close to the 80th percentile in the human hierarchy, erasing some needs for humans to learn or to use some of what was learned to work. Some may argue that people would do other things, like before, and AI is nothing to worry about. Maybe. The biggest risk of AI is to anything digital. Anything that can be digitized can be taken over by AI, thoroughly or to an extent. In a digital world that is a lot, whether it involves an individual's work or not. The human mind is limited by one of its features, prioritization, where just one thing has the attention of the mind in a moment, even though there are fast and numerous interchanges with pre-prioritized interactions. This gives AI strength, especially for learning where the same that the mind processes interoception has to learn, understand, and be able to remember. The human mind is already captured by digital and AI has captured digital. How the mind works, , may also be a way to raise human capacity. just conceptually Feature image source: https://www.flickr.com/photos/nihgov/26680098405/in/album-72157663368688842/

LLMs: The Percentile of Generative AI in Human Hierarchy

এলএলএম: হিউম্যান হায়ারার্কিতে জেনারেটিভ এআই-এর শতকরা হার

LLMs: Das Perzentil der generativen KI in der menschlichen Hierarchie

LLM: el percentil de la IA generativa en la jerarquía humana

LLM : le centile de l'IA générative dans la hiérarchie humaine

एलएलएम: मानव पदानुक्रम में जनरेटिव एआई का प्रतिशत

LLM: 人間の階層における生成 AI のパーセンタイル

LLM: 인간 계층 구조에서 생성 AI의 백분위수

LLMs: o percentual de IA generativa na hierarquia humana

Yüksek Lisans: İnsan Hiyerarşisinde Üretken Yapay Zekanın Yüzdelik Oranı

LLMs: Tỷ lệ phần trăm AI sáng tạo trong hệ thống phân cấp của con người

法学硕士：人类等级制度中生成式人工智能的百分位

So, you realized that “equity and capital” fundraising consultants tend to charge WAY less than almost any broker-dealer you could find (the industry average is around 1-4%) but they won’t take a percentage, and they request substantial upfront payment without any guarantee. If you’re thinking, “Why can’t I just give them a piece of the pie? It’s better money for them, and I can pay if we close; no strings attached. Everyone wins!” Then you’re not alone. For the finance nerds that find their way here: Fundraising consultants in equity, debt, real estate, and other securitized spaces can’t do it, ethically, at least for transactions in the United States or transactions involving US-based investors, FINRA member firms, or US-based fiduciaries. For those not immersed in the depths of finance jargon: Simply put any form of contingency-based payment, commission, finder’s fee, success fee, cut, “slice”, referral bonus, or other names for a “piece of the pie” is off the limits for fundraising consultants—save for those with valid FINRA membership and the corresponding FINRA Series License(s). If you are caught taking that piece of the pie by FINRA or the SEC, they will (likely) make an example of you. Securities don’t just mean tokenized assets, equity, or derivatives. Debt-based funding rounds are still considered securities in many cases—debt is MORE LIKELY to be considered a security if the term of the loan or note exceeds five years, further increasing at the ten-year note mark. Who Determines What Makes It a “Piece of the Pie?” Ultimately, the ecurities and xchange ommission ( ) and ancial egulatory uthority ( ) work together to make these determinations. For a simple litmus test, your consultant may be at risk of taking a piece of the pie if: S E C SEC FIN R A FINRA They don’t have a for your efforts other than a percentage of the transaction. stable, realistic cost basis They or closes successfully. only get paid if the funding reaches a certain milestone This is commonly referred to as “ Basis” Contingency They that you raised. only get paid based on the amount of “Attributable Funding” They on “commissions”. only get paid They before any checks are cut. only get paid a small portion of your price You OR offer to pay them “out of the first check” They if the event isn’t successful. offer a refund or guarantee that you will receive a refund For any reason, except something like on their part. gross negligence Expert fundraising consultants know that generally speaking, any terms like the following may put their neck on the line with regulators in the US: “ ” You only get paid if… “I want a or you will offer us a refund…” guarantee that you will get us funded “I can pay you a small percentage upfront, but I want to know that .” you have skin in the game “ the first check is cut.” You get paid after etc. As a result, most (legally operating) equity, securities, and capital , generally based on the amount of time, effort, and specialized knowledge needed to do the job. fundraising consultants normally charge flat hourly fees or a per-project basis Larger raises often mean more moving parts and added complexity. Some SEC registration exemptions actually won’t allow businesses to raise more than a specific dollar amount per year. For example: ulation ( ) Reg A Reg A Tier 1 ($20m limit per 12-month period) or Tier 2 ($75m limit per 12-month period) ulation rowd unding ( ) ($5 million per 12-month period) Reg C F Reg CF A lot of questions ultimately boil down to the question: Are Fundraising Consultants “Unregistered Broker-Dealers”? The answer is: No, not within a normal scope of work. We provide due diligence for the investors. don’t We manage transactions. don’t We meet with investors on your behalf. don't We fiduciaries or escrow providers (though ethical consultants follow fiduciary best practices, generally speaking). aren’t Why Can Broker-Dealers Charge Success Fees While Fundraising Consultants Cannot? Broker-dealers have special licenses, strict protocols, and specific bookkeeping requirements to ensure that no information falls through the cracks. They also have personal information, bonding insurance, and other things at risk when they are managing transactions. That means there are specific standards and rules they have to follow in order to be broker-dealers. In fact, (including registration-exempt transactions, such as a Reg D issuance) from the time an investor sends it and the moment the receiving party claims it will need special licenses. any party that touches the money from securities transactions . Following the “Silver Leaf Decision,” brokers cannot pay out referral fees if they are contingent on a deal closing. These fees will be considered “transaction-based compensation” and subject to regulation under Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1934, with very few exceptions National Adjudicatory Council (NAC) on June 29, 2019 Complaint No. 2014042606902 “ ” The Silver Leaf Decision “The Hearing Panel also found that Silver Leaf paid transaction-based compensation to nonmember brokers, and failed to establish and maintain a supervisory system reasonably designed to prevent those payments.” This basically means that brokers aren’t allowed to share their success fee with anyone who is involved in the transaction. The SEC has since proposed a series of potential exemptions, based on the concept of “Finders” but has not published any concrete guidance yet. Here’s for “Tier 1” and “Tier 2” Finders. more information about proposed exclusions To be clear, Fundraising Consultants aren’t “Finders.” They may participate in investor relationship management via chats or emails but do so with a clear disclosure that they are working on behalf of the company they are engaged with. Finders are expected to be people that are outside of the company in most cases. It’s not uncommon for larger companies (Series B and so on) to hire an interim CEO or CFO to lead fundraisers. These folks are “insiders” and are expected to lead investor meetings and often take a small piece of the pie. They are also limited to raising with ONLY ONE company per calendar year. This is a special exemption used by companies that are looking to raise and can afford to pay a full year’s executive salary PLUS an equity-based compensation bonus. Fundraising consultants that engage in practices such as charging success fees or requesting other “transaction-based” compensation packages are taking actions that risk placing themselves in the category. “Non-member broker” At best, this can trigger cease-and-desist orders from FINRA. In the worst case, the consultant and their client may be at risk of a civil action or criminal action (in the case of fraud or other criminal activity.) Clients that have raised funds, in exchange for success fees that are paid to nonmember brokers may also be forced to rescind their offering. This requires the “issuer” to repay all investments from all investors 100%. In many cases, businesses have been forced to rescind an offering and ALSO pay interest on the funds. Banks (specifically bancorps) often hold “money transmitter” and “Money Service Business (MSB)” licenses on a state-by-state basis—usually alongside other requirements. If you’ve heard about crypto projects getting regulated in the US, it’s mostly been about them getting approved for money transmitters and/or MSB licenses. Broker-dealers have several more stringent restrictions on what they are able to do, as compared to fundraising consultants. For example, a private placement transaction may be exempt from SEC filing requirements ( ) A broker-dealer will still be subject to certain parts of Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. you still have to file Form D under Regulation D exemptions. It’s worth noting that only a select few circumstances will allow a fundraising consultant to legally participate in connecting investors to businesses. Part of these circumstances include: In most cases, broker-dealers are bonded to an investment banking job. They normally require a minimum term commitment in order to accept the risk and vouch for Series 7 hopefuls. You (Series 7, etc.) without a FINRA-regulated firm backing you. cannot even for becoming a licensed broker-dealer take the tests Interested parties without having the backing of a FINRA member firm. The SIE is a prerequisite for all Series exams. are able to sit for their Securities Industry Essentials (SIE) exam Series-Licensed Broker-Dealers (BDs) Licensed Broker-Dealers are involved in structuring deals, as well as the range of services provided by fundraising consultants. A few added responsibilities include specialized marketing channels and relationships with investment banks. BDs may also pre-purchase and sell a client’s securities (unless they are restricted securities.) Most of the time, BDs come from an investment banking background, meaning that, commonly, they have a Rolodex of potentially relevant contacts. Most BDs are also limited to selling general securities. The term “General Securities” typically covers corporate finance instruments such as: Equity Corporate bonds (debt) Mezzanine Financing (debt with equity-based collateral) Etc. Other relevant licenses include the licenses. If you’re in doubt about whether or not they have legit licenses, use FINRA’s BrokerCheck site. Series 7 and Series 24 FINRA Number (CRD Number): Central Registration Depository FINRA BrokerCheck If they aren’t listed or don’t have at least one of the following licenses, be aware that they may not know they are working outside the bounds of the law. Series 7 Series 8 (these are no longer issued) Series 9 & 10 (This combination has replaced Series 8), or Series 24 Equity and Capital Fundraising Consultants: Scope of Work Fundraising consultants have a specific limitation on their scope of work. They can assist in creating collateral, reviewing materials, and conducting investor outreach & relationship management activities. Fundraising Consultants can NOT commit to any deals or offers on behalf of their clients UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. Further, fundraising consultants or investment advisory activities, such as recommending their clients’ offerings to non-accredited investors, outside the scope of any related exemption, such as Reg D 506(b/c). should not be present in due diligence activities Many fundraising consultants prefer to maintain exclusivity by involving accredited investors in their clients’ raises. only Here are a few things that bar fundraising consultants from taking their piece of the pie: Securities Act of 1933 Section 12 (Broker-Dealers, Control Persons, Registered Persons) Section 15 FINRA Rule Section 2000 For example, (Payments to Unregistered Persons) Rule 2040 (Transactions With Customers) Subsection 2100 (Suitability) Rule 2111 (Communications and Disclosures) Subsection 2200 (Communications with the Public) Rule 2210 In short, between the steep pitfalls that come with accepting any form of performance-based bonus, fundraising consultants generally prefer to stick with hourly-based or per-project compensation structures. So Why Would Anyone Hire a Fundraising Consultant? We often come with more deeply specialized skills, tend to communicate more effectively with the C-level, and seldom send associates (that we don’t have) to do the work for us. Beyond the skills or preferences you may otherwise have, fundraising consultants are, generally, MUCH cheaper to collaborate with. You might pay a fundraising consultant $25k-100k per month, but they tend to rely on much faster workflows and lines of communication. The deal is usually done in 30-90 days. If you raise a Series A at a normal $2-4m deal against a $10-$20m valuation, expect to pay a broker-dealer: 4-8% of funds raised (1-4% is normal on deals that exceed $5-$10m raised); AND 1-3% of offered equity, whether outright or as “warrants” at a steep discount. That 4-8% may amount to $160k-$320k in addition to the equity you paid to “sweeten the pot.” Deals can also take up to a year or more to close. Fundraising consultants are very similar to BDs in their scope of work, but generally for a much more modest payoff and in a much shorter timeframe. Fundraising consultants usually step away once the contracts are closed for your raise, so you only pay them for the term of the engagement.

What The F*CK Do You Mean Fundraising Consultants Can't Take a Percentage?

F*CK আপনি কি বলতে চাচ্ছেন তহবিল সংগ্রহের পরামর্শদাতারা শতাংশ নিতে পারে না?

Was zum Teufel meinen Sie damit, dass Fundraising-Berater keinen Prozentsatz annehmen können?

¿Qué diablos quiere decir que los consultores de recaudación de fondos no pueden tomar un porcentaje?

Qu'est-ce que vous voulez dire que les consultants en collecte de fonds ne peuvent pas prendre de pourcentage ?

एफ * सीके क्या आपका मतलब है कि धन उगाहने वाले सलाहकार प्रतिशत नहीं ले सकते?

The F*CK とは、資金調達コンサルタントがパーセンテージを取得できないことを意味しますか?

F*CK 기금 모금 컨설턴트가 일정 비율을 차지할 수 없다는 게 무슨 뜻인가요?

O que diabos você quer dizer com consultores de arrecadação de fundos não podem obter uma porcentagem?

Bağış Toplama Danışmanlarının Yüzde Alamaması Ne Demek İstiyorsunuz?

Ý bạn là cái quái gì Các chuyên gia tư vấn gây quỹ không thể lấy một tỷ lệ phần trăm?

F*CK 你是什么意思筹款顾问不能拿百分比？

We are here to show you how to save your battery power on your iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 Pro, as well as how to see your battery percentage. We've all experienced the aggravation of having our iPhones run out of battery power when we're out and about or at the office. We've got an iPhone alternative that's likely to save you some juice. "Low Power Mode" Settings for better iPhone battery life: When you get to the bottom of the Settings page, press "Battery". "Low Power Mode" is now activated. To save battery life, your iPhone should now be operating at a reduced level. Display Widget-free battery percentage readings To show your battery % in the top right corner of the screen at all times, you'll need to update to an iPhone 12 from a previous version of the iPhone. Adding a widget to your home screen or widget page (swipe right on your home screen or lock screen to display widget page) is the only way to see the battery % on the iPhone 12 and 12 Pro at all times. How iPhone 12 and 12 Pro users can see their remaining battery life in percentages Take a look at your home page. Hold your finger down on the screen for a few seconds before releasing it. All of your Apps should now be dancing. The Plus button is located at the upper left of the screen. Scroll down until you find "Batteries" among the various widgets you should see. Choose from a list of widgets "Batteries." To explore additional designs for the battery percentage widget, just slide to the right. Tap on the "Add Widget" button that appears next to the design you choose. It's now possible to see your iPhone 12's battery % in a widget on your home screen. That is how to save your battery power on your iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 Pro, as well as how to see your battery percentage.

How to Preserve Battery Life and See Battery Percentage on iPhone 12 and 12 Pro

Percentile Approximation Vs. Averages

When it comes to knowing about the amount of resultant product of a chemical reaction, one thing which is a must to do is yield calculations. Yield in chemistry is known as the total amount of product as a result of a chemical reaction. Yield is also referred to as reaction yield or absolute yield. The absolute yield is weighed in terms of grams (g) and moles (mol). Types of Yield Absolute yield has three types to obtain the products of a chemical reaction. Each type made up different values accordingly, the requirements. Theoretical Yield It is the maximum amount of the product obtained from a , it is known as theoretical yield and it is not a laboratory depending calculation. chemical reaction Actual Yield It is the total amount of products of a chemical reaction achieved in the laboratory, not alike theoretical yield. Percent Yield It is the percentage ratio of the total amount of products taken by a chemical reaction. %Yield = Actual Yield/ Theoretical Yield x 100 Difference between Theoretical Yield and Percent Yield Both the calculations are different in their own uniqueness of calculating method; the exact same goes for the answers each yield obtains. When it comes to calculating the maximum amount of products from the given limiting reactants of a balanced chemical reaction, we call it a theoretical yield. While if you need to know the percentage of the total product, you must know the ratio of both theoretical yield as well the actual yield of the total amount of product of a chemical reaction to determine the percentage ratio. The final answers for both yield calculations are completely different from each other even if the amount of products and the given reactants are the same. Theoretical yield can range in between from 0 to 100, but percentage yield can vary in ranges. To give you an elaborate view on theoretical and percent yield, here are the calculation methods of  both below. How to calculate Theoretical yield? To calculate the theoretical yield of any reaction, you must know the reaction. Let's look at the following reaction where at heating potassium chlorate (KClO3), it produces oxygen gas (O2). 2 KClO3 (s) → 3 O2 (g) + 2 KCl (s) The balanced equation reaction shows that 2 moles of KClO3 will produce 3 moles of O2 and 2 moles of KCl. To calculate the theoretical yield, use these ratios as a conversion factor. Here is a typical example problem. Step 1: We need to know the amount of KClO3 in moles to use the conversion, so the first step is to convert grams KClO3 to moles KClO3. To make it easier, know the molecular mass of KClO3 is 122.55 g/mol. 6 = x moles KClO3 Step 2: Use the chemical equation to relate moles KClO3 to moles O2. x moles O2 = 3 x 3 moles O2 x moles O2 = 9 moles O2 6 moles of KClO3 (735.3 grams of KClO3) will produce 9 moles of O2 gas. How to calculate Percent Yield? To determine the percentage ratio of the product of the chemical reaction, you need to follow the above method to calculate theoretical yield and also need to know the actual yield, which is obtained at the labs. For %yield you have the formula %yield = Actual yield/ Theoretical Yield x 100 What you need to do is to divide the ratios of both actual and theoretical yield and then multiply the answer with 100 to get the percentage. Let's suppose we have the following ratio for each yield. We have the actual yield for sodium sulfate is only 37.91g, and according to the theory, sodium sulfate has a theoretical yield of 46.59g. So the percentage yield would be something like %Yield = 37.91g/46.59g x 100 =81.37% You got your answer, i.e 81.37% yield. There are online calculators like and which anyone can find easily. Online calculators are usually accurate and provide correct results. All those who have not mastered calculating theoretical yield & percent yield manually, must use online calculators so that they could practice & learn at the same time. theoretical yield calculator percent yield calculator

Difference between Percent Yield and Theoretical Yield 

The Urgency for Speed in 2019: By , Communications and PR Manager at Unbounce Sarah Gooding We’ve all experienced a slow web page. We’ve felt the frustration that builds for every second that little icon continues to spin. We all know the feeling: We want that page open, and we want it open NOW. As consumers, we expect to be able to browse the web, buy products, and find the answers to our questions quickly — and instantaneously would be even better. Unfortunately, this expectation is often unmet. In 2019 the ballooned, and with it, the length of time consumers have to wait for a page to open. Things are even slower on smartphones. The average web page has doubled in size over the past 3 years, so consumers now wait an average of . average size of a webpage has 15 seconds for a mobile page to load So, when it comes to keeping customers happy, page speed matters — slow pages create an awful experience and lead to fewer purchases. But while we know it matters, we don’t really know why it matters (or to what degree). We also don’t know which types of people are particularly bothered by these lagging pages. Or which environments provoke more impatience than others. We also don’t know how consumers behave when they come across a slow site. And behind the scenes, we still want to know how companies are prioritizing page speed…or why they’re not? To get to the bottom of some of these questions, Unbounce asked 1150 consumers and marketers across the U.S. and Canada in two separate surveys about their sentiment and behaviors towards page speed in 2019. Here are eight key findings from that start to dig deeper into the questions above: Unbounce’s 2019 Page Speed Report 59 percent of consumers say they won’t wait longer than 6 seconds for a page to load We asked 750 everyday people about how long they’ll wait for a web page to load and almost 60 percent said they won’t last more than 6 seconds. But that’s not what Google claims — actual user behavior shows . Turns out consumers think they’re a bit more patient than they really are. most people bounce after 3 seconds Android users are more patient than iOS users Speaking of patience, when Android users experience a slow site, they say they’ll wait longer than their iOS friends. Of those who will wait for 1 to 3 seconds for a page to load, 64 percent were iOS users and only 36 percent were Android users. Whereas for those who said they’d wait 11–13 seconds, only 36.2 percent were iOS users versus 61.3 percent Android users. (And since iOS accounts for 65 percent of cellphones in the U.S., it appears impatience may be the norm.) 45 percent of consumers admit that a slow site decreases their willingness to buy When it comes to browsing ecommerce sites, consumers place a high premium on speed. 45 percent of people are less likely to make a purchase and 36.8 percent are less likely to return to the website in the future. 12 percent of consumers will even tell a friend when they experience the frustration of a slow loading site. Millennials have much shorter attention spans on their mobile devices than they do on their computers It’s no surprise that millennials crave instant gratification, but they’re especially impatient when they’re on their phones. 45 percent of 18 to 24-year-olds say they’ll wait between 4 and 6 seconds on their computers, but only 26 percent of this age group will wait that long on a cellphone. East Coasters are less likely to buy from slow sites compared to their West Coast counterparts Turns out the stereotypes are true — perpetually on-the-go New Yorkers are less likely to buy from a slow site than their laid back friends in California. Of the consumers living in New York State, 82 percent admit that speed influences their decision to make a purchase, while of those living in the state of California only 60 percent agree that page speed influences their buying decisions. More than 50 percent of consumers say they’d be willing to give up animations and video for faster loading times Consumers love beautiful animations and videos, right?? Turns out a slim majority of visitors don’t see much value in them if they’re going to slow down a web page. In fact, a quarter of consumers say they’d be willing to give up images as well! Young women expect more from ecommerce sites Far more young women between the ages of 18 and 24 years say they’ll close a tab and stop shopping when they experience a slow site (compared to men of the same age). In this age bracket, 86 percent of women (compared to 14 percent of men) said they’re less likely to buy from a slow website. Most consumers blame their internet connection on slow loading times (before they blame websites) Most people credit speed on factors outside of a site owner’s control (like their internet provider). However as more people discover how often slow pages are the culprit, it’s likely those slow sites will shoulder more of the blame. As you can see fast pages are certainly critical for companies — consumers are much less likely to purchase from a slow website and much more likely to check out a competitor’s site when they encounter a lagging page. But fast pages aren’t just important for usability and conversions. Andy Crestodina, the founder of Orbit Media, that there’s more to it than that — fast pages are also important for the environment, slow connections in developing countries, and overall keeping the internet working efficiently and of course, quickly. recently reminded us Research Methodology Unbounce ran two online surveys leveraging online consumers via Google Surveys and marketers via the Typeform survey platform. The online consumer study surveyed 750 respondents over the age of 18 years old across Canada and the U.S. about their online habits and sentiment towards slow pages on web and mobile. The marketer study surveyed 450 respondents who work in marketing and/or lead teams in marketing in Canada, the U.S. and Germany. We asked these respondents about how they’re prioritizing page speed and their knowledge of Google’s Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP). Both surveys were fielded in October and November 2018. Read The 2019 Page Speed Report here . Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter | Instagram

The Urgency for Speed in 2019: New Research Finds 45 Percent of Customers Won’t Buy From a Slow…

Years ago, I used aver­age laten­cy on every dash­board and every alarm. That is, until I woke up to the prob­lems of aver­age laten­cies along with : every­body else in the indus­try When the dataset is small it can be eas­i­ly skewed by a small num­ber of outliers. When the dataset is large it can hide impor­tant details such as 10% of your users are expe­ri­enc­ing slow respons­es! It is just a sta­tis­ti­cal val­ue, . Until we plot the laten­cy dis­tri­b­u­tion we won’t actu­al­ly under­stand how our users are expe­ri­enc­ing our sys­tem. on its own it’s almost mean­ing­less Nowa­days, the lead­ing prac­tice is to use 95th or 99th per­centile laten­cies (often referred to as ) instead. These per­centile laten­cies tell us the worst response time 95% or 99% of users are get­ting. They gen­er­al­ly align with our SLOs or SLAs, and gives us a mean­ing­ful tar­get to work towards — e.g. “99% of requests should com­plete in 1s or less”. tail laten­cy Using per­centile laten­cies is a big improve­ment on aver­age laten­cies. But over the years I have expe­ri­enced a num­ber of pain points with them, and I think we can do bet­ter. The problems with percentile latencies The biggest prob­lem with using per­centile laten­cies is not actu­al­ly with percentile laten­cies them­selves, but with the way it’s imple­ment­ed by almost ven­dor out there. every sin­gle Percentile latencies are “averaged” Because it takes a lot of stor­age and data pro­cess­ing pow­er to ingest all the raw data, most ven­dors would gen­er­ate the per­centile laten­cy val­ues at the agent lev­el. This means by the time laten­cy data is ingest­ed, they have lost all gran­u­lar­i­ty and comes in as sum­maries — mean, min, max, and some predefined per­centiles. To show you the final 99th per­centile laten­cy, the vendor would (by default) aver­age the 99th per­centile laten­cies that has been ingest­ed. , it doesn’t make any sense! This whole prac­tice gives you a mean­ing­less sta­tis­ti­cal val­ue, and it’s in no way the true 99th percentile laten­cy of your ser­vice. Aver­ag­ing the per­centiles inher­it all the same prob­lems with aver­ages that per­centile laten­cies were sup­posed to address! You can’t aver­age per­centiles I have seen 99th per­centile laten­cies dif­fer by order of mag­ni­tude depend­ing on how I choose to aggre­gate them. Seri­ous­ly, how am I sup­posed to trust this num­ber when choos­ing the max over aver­age can pro­duce a 10x dif­fer­ence! You might as well stick a ran­dom­ly gen­er­ate num­ber on the dash­board, it’s almost as mean­ing­ful as the “the aver­age of 99th per­centiles”. This prac­tice is so wide­spread, almost every mon­i­tor­ing tool I have tried does this. is one of the few excep­tions because they actu­al­ly ingest and process all the raw events. Hon­ey­comb Can’t tell how bad the bad times are It’s great that we can use per­centiles to mon­i­tor our com­pli­ance with SLOs/SLAs. When things are going well, it gives us that warm and fuzzy feeling that all is well with the world. But when they go wrong, and some­times they go very wrong, we are left won­der­ing just how bad things are. Are 10% of my users get­ting response time of 1s and above? Is it 20%? Could it be 50% of my users are get­ting a bad experience? I just don’t know! I can use var­i­ous per­centiles as gates but that approach only goes so far before it over­whelms my dash­boards. Most data points are not actionable As much as I love to stare at those green tiles and line graphs and know that: We have done a good job, go team! Everything’s fine, there’s no need to do any­thing Indeed, most of the infor­ma­tion I con­sume when I look at the dash­board, are not imme­di­ate­ly action­able. To be clear, I’m not say­ing that per­centile laten­cies are not use­ful and that you shouldn’t show them on dash­boards. But as the on-call engi­neer, my atten­tion is heav­i­ly biased towards “what is wrong” than “what is right”. I want dashboards that match my focus and not force me to scan through tons of infor­ma­tion and pay the cog­ni­tive price to iden­ti­fy the sig­nals from the noise. As an appli­ca­tion devel­op­er, my def­i­n­i­tion for “what is wrong” is quite different. As an appli­ca­tion devel­op­er, I’m look­ing for unex­pect­ed changes in appli­ca­tion per­for­mance. If the laten­cy pro­file of my ser­vice changes after a deploy­ment, or oth­er relat­ed event (e.g. a mar­ket­ing cam­paign, or a new feature being tog­gled on) then I need to inves­ti­gate those. This dichoto­my in what’s impor­tant for ops engi­neers and appli­ca­tion developers means we should have sep­a­rate dash­boards for each. More on this lat­er. What can we do instead? What could we use instead of per­centiles as the met­ric to mon­i­tor our application’s per­for­mance with and alert us when it starts to dete­ri­o­rate? pri­ma­ry If you go back to your SLOs or SLAs, you prob­a­bly have some­thing along the lines of “99% of requests should com­plete in 1s or less”. In oth­er words, is allowed to . less than 1% of requests take more than 1s to com­plete So what if we mon­i­tor the instead? To alert us when our SLAs are vio­lat­ed, we can trig­ger alarms when that per­cent­age is over some pre­de­fined time win­dow. per­cent­age of requests that are over the thresh­old greater than 1% Unlike per­centiles, this per­cent­age can be eas­i­ly aggre­gat­ed across mul­ti­ple agents: Each agent sub­mits total request count and num­ber of requests over thresh­old Sum the two num­bers across all agents Divide total num­ber of requests over thresh­old by total request count and you have an accu­rate per­cent­age Dur­ing an out­age, when our SLAs are impact­ed, this met­ric tells us the number of requests that have been affect­ed. Once we under­stood the blast radius of the out­age, the per­centile and max laten­cies then become use­ful met­rics to gauge user expe­ri­ence has been impact­ed. how much Move aside, error count We can apply the same approach to how we mon­i­tor errors. For any giv­en system, you have a small and finite num­ber of suc­cess cas­es. You also have a finite num­ber of known fail­ure cas­es, which you can active­ly mon­i­tor. But then there are the — the fail­ure cas­es that you hadn’t even realised you have and wouldn’t know to mon­i­tor! unknown unknowns So instead of putting all your efforts into mon­i­tor­ing every sin­gle way your sys­tem can pos­si­bly fail, you should instead mon­i­tor for the . For APIs, this can be the per­cent­age of requests that do not have a 2xx or 4xx response. For event pro­cess­ing sys­tems, it might be the percentage of incom­ing events that do not have a cor­re­spond­ing out­go­ing event or observ­able side-effect. absence of a success indi­ca­tor This tells you at a high lev­el that “some­thing is wrong”, but not “what is wrong”. To fig­ure the “what”, you need to build observ­abil­i­ty into your sys­tem so you can ask arbi­trary ques­tions about its state and debug prob­lems that you hadn’t thought of ahead of time. Different dashboard for different disciplines As we dis­cussed ear­li­er, dif­fer­ent dis­ci­plines require dif­fer­ent views of the system. One of the most impor­tant design prin­ci­ples of a dash­board is that it must present infor­ma­tion that is . And since the action you will likely take depends on your role in the orga­ni­za­tion, you real­ly need dashboards that show you infor­ma­tion that are action­able ! action­able for you Don’t try to cre­ate the dash­board to rule them all by cramp­ing every met­ric onto it. You will just end up with some­thing nobody actu­al­ly wants! Instead, con­sid­er cre­at­ing a few spe­cialised dash­boards, one for each dis­ci­pline, for instance: Ops/SRE engi­neers care about out­ages and inci­dents first and fore­most. Action­able infor­ma­tion for them would help them detect inci­dents quick­ly and assess their sever­i­ties eas­i­ly. For exam­ple, per­cent­age of requests that are over the thresh­old, or the per­cent­age of requests that did not yield a suc­cess­ful response. Devel­op­ers care about appli­ca­tion per­for­mance. Per­centile laten­cies are very rel­e­vant here, as are oth­er resource met­rics such as CPU and mem­o­ry usage met­rics. Prod­uct own­ers and busi­ness ana­lysts might also need their own dashboards too. They care about busi­ness met­rics such as reten­tion, conversion rate, or sales. Summary When you go to see a doc­tor, the doc­tor would try to ascer­tain (as part of the diag­no­sis): What, and where your symp­toms are. The sever­i­ty of your symp­toms. How long have you expe­ri­enced these symp­toms. Any cor­re­lat­ed events that could have trig­gered the symp­toms. The doc­tor would use these infor­ma­tion to derive a treat­ment plan, or not, as might be the case. As the on-call engi­neer deal­ing with an inci­dent, I go through the same process to fig­ure out what went wrong and how I should respond. In this post we dis­cussed the short­com­ings of per­centile laten­cies, which makes it a poor choice of met­ric in these sce­nar­ios: They are usu­al­ly cal­cu­lat­ed at the agent lev­el, and aver­aged, which produces a non­sen­si­cal val­ue that doesn’t reflect the true per­centile latency of my sys­tem. They don’t tell you the impact of an inci­dent. We pro­posed an alter­na­tive approach — to mon­i­tor ser­vice health by track­ing the per­cent­age of requests whose response time is over the thresh­old. Unlike per­centiles, this met­ric aggre­gates well when sum­maris­ing results from multiple agents, and gives us a clear pic­ture of the impact of an out­age. We can apply the same approach to how we mon­i­tor errors. Instead of monitoring each and every error we know about, and miss all the errors we don’t know about, we should mon­i­tor for the . absence of suc­cess indi­ca­tors Unfor­tu­nate­ly, this is not how exist­ing mon­i­tor­ing tools work… For this vision to come to pass we need sup­port from our ven­dors and change the way we han­dle mon­i­tor­ing data. The next time you meet with your ven­dor, let them know that you need some­thing bet­ter than per­centile laten­cies ;-) And if you know of any tools that let you imple­ment the approach I out­lined here, please let me know via the com­ments below!

Stories, News & Mentions about PERCENT

Percent’s Stories on HackerNoon

Percent's News & Mentions