Engineers at NYU have built an AR app to operate robots in the real world
Your weekly selection of awesome robot videos
The creators of Tarzan the robot explain how it works and its potential applications
Facebook’s Yael Maguire talks about millimeter wave networks, Aquila, and flying tethered antennas at the F8 developer conference
Another unsettling accusation has landed at the feet of Orion Hindawi, the CEO of security started Tanium. He has allegedly been giving prospective customers a view into a hospital’s live network for years and no one seems to remember giving Tanium permission to do so, The Wall Street Journal’s Rolfe Winkler reports.
Hindawi was using the hospital in various product demos from 2010-2015, sources told the WSJ. Tanium software was allegedly installed in the hospital by one of Tanium’s partners, with videos of the demos posted on YouTube. However, after the WSJ started investigating, the videos were reportedly removed and the hospital told the Journal that it never authorized Tanium to use its live network in that manner, and wasn’t even aware of the demos. The partner also told the Journal it never gave the security startup permission to use the hospital’s data for demos.
A Tanium spokesperson told the WSJ that it didn’t do a good enough job in protecting the details of its customers’ data in those live demos, although it claims that no patient data was revealed. Neither Tanium nor the hospital named in the WSJ story immediately responded to our request for comment.
Tanium makes what’s known as end-point security, meaning it ensures that all the PCs, smartphones, tablets, and other devices connected to the network are patched and secure and can’t be used as gateways for hackers.
Just to put in context how big a deal the allegations against Tanium are, the whole reason a company buys security software is to make sure that people who aren’t authorized cannot crack open a network and peek inside. It’s a little like discovering your building doorman had been bringing strangers into your apartment to prove that he’s capable of guarding an apartment building.
What’s worse is that this report follows one published last week by Bloomberg’s Lizette Chapman and Sarah McBride, in which employees complained that Hindawi is a CEO allegedly known to humiliate them and fire people right before their stock options vested. The company denies the allegations.
Tanium was founded by Hindawi and his father a decade ago. It came to prominence after raising $287 million of venture investment at a valuation of $3.7 billion, much of that coming from the VC powerhouse Andreessen Horowitz after urging from former Microsoft executive Steven Sinofsky, an adviser for Andreessen Horowitz who once called Tanium’s technology “magic.”
Today it is one of the highest-valued security startups in the tech industry.
For more on the allegations against Tanium and the executive exodus it’s currently facing, head on over to The Wall Street Journal.
With every new Nintendo game console, you can reliably expect several franchises to make an appearance: “Super Mario,” “The Legend of Zelda,” and “Pokémon,” among others.
Prime among those others is the “Mario Kart” franchise — a beloved series that’s existed in various forms since 1992. But this isn’t 1992’s “Mario Kart” game:
The upcoming “Mario Kart 8 Deluxe” is a gorgeous, updated re-release of 2014’s “Mario Kart 8” for the Wii U. It’s got prettier graphics, more tracks to race on, and a brand new “Battle Mode.”
It is, in every way, the best version of “Mario Kart” to date.
Allow me to enumerate the ways:
- There are an absurd number of Nintendo characters to race as — from the classics seen above to bizarre newcomers like King Boo.
- There are an equally absurd number of cups to complete (a whopping 12 in total, with four courses each).
- The new Battle Mode fixes the one glaring flaw in 2014’s “Mario Kart 8” — distinct, Battle Mode-specific courses. There are eight in total in “Mario Kart 8 Deluxe,” including four classic maps that have been re-made and four brand new maps.
- The online battles just work. Instead of the usual Nintendo nonsense with online gaming, “Mario Kart 8” (and “Mario Kart 8 Deluxe”) seamlessly drops you into matches against players around the world. Want to play against the world and against a friend? You can go online with two players from a single console. It’s the best!
There’s one major change coming with the “Deluxe” version of “Mario Kart 8” that is slightly less obvious: It’s prettier than ever before.
But how pretty is the new game compared with the 2014 version? Thankfully, IGN put together a video comparing as much — check it out below. “Mario Kart 8 Deluxe” launches for the Nintendo Switch on April 28, and we’ll have a full review ahead of that. Stay tuned!
Young investors are piling into Snap.
The firm is among the top stocks of investors under 30 on the mobile trading app Robinhood. And the brokerage firm TDAmeritrade attributed a boost in activity during the first quarter of 2017 to a high number of Snap trades fueled by first-time traders.
In many ways, that’s not surprising. Snapchat’s users skew younger, and many individual investors like to invest in companies they interact with as consumers. For example, Facebook and Netflix, two other millennial favorites, are also popular on Robinhood.
But in one respect, Snapchat is very different from Netflix, Facebook, and pretty much every other publicly-traded company: Investors in Snapchat don’t have any say in how the company they own is run.
Typically, shareholders can vote on big company decisions such as mergers, or for the election of new members to the company’s board, or on executive compensation packages.
But that’s not how Snap is structured. Instead, the stock Snap sold to investors in its initial public offering this year comes with no such rights.
So who has all the voting power?
Founders Evan Spiegel and Bobby Murphy, as well as a handful of original investors in the firm.
With a combined voting power of 88.5%, Spiegel and Murphy essentially have complete control over the company.
In the tech and media industries, it isn’t unusual for company founders to wield more power than other shareholders. Instead of offering all investors one vote for one share, companies like Facebook and Google give Mark Zuckerberg, Sergey Brin and Larry Page, several votes for each share the own. It means that Zuckerberg accounts for about 60% of the voting power in Facebook even though he doesn’t own that much of the company.
The argument for this is simple. Facebook wouldn’t be Facebook without Zuckerberg, so investors ought to be okay with him having final say over key decisions.
Spiegel and Murphy get to keep the monopoly of power they hold over Snap, even if they leave the company.
According to the firm’s SEC filing:
“Mr. Spiegel and Mr. Murphy, and potentially either one of them alone, have the ability to control the outcome of all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval, including the election, removal, and replacement of directors and any merger, consolidation, or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. If Mr. Spiegel’s or Mr. Murphy’s employment with us is terminated, they will continue to have the ability to exercise the same significant voting power and potentially control the outcome of all matters submitted to our stockholders for approval.”
You could argue that this is okay because the vote of a shareholder with just 10 or 100 shares doesn’t matter much anyway.
But that’s another thing about Snap. The huge institutions that own millions of dollars worth of its shares also have zero say.
As Jared Dillian of Mauldin Economics put it, “NBC Universal bought $500 million worth of stock, and Spiegel would be wise to listen to them, but if he doesn’t want to, he doesn’t have to.”
Spiegel and Murphy don’t have to listen to anyone. So, as Scott Galloway —a marketing professor at the NYU Stern School of Business and the founder of business intelligence firm L2 — put it, investors in Snap are essentially handing their money to two 20-somethings in the hopes that they alone can bring the social media company to new heights and viability.
“Investing in Snapchat is something that no one responsible should ever do. Snapchat is the equivalent of driving drunk,” Galloway said in a recent interview with Business Insider.
“When you buy a share of Snapchat you’re giving a 26-year-old money with absolutely no recourse,” he added. “No shareholder rights whatsoever and you’re investing in a company whose losses exceed its top-line and also has probably the world’s most agile and competent company in the world — Facebook has decided that they will kill Snapchat no matter what.”
Tesla is no longer suing its former Autopilot director Sterling Anderson over claims he poached employees for a new self-driving-car venture.
Tesla filed a lawsuit in January claiming Anderson teamed up with Chris Urmson, the former boss of Google’s self-driving-car project, to launch a competing company called Aurora Innovation while still serving as Tesla’s Autopilot director.
Aurora paid $100,000 to Tesla as part of a settlement, according to Tesla.
The suit claimed Anderson violated his contract by trying to poach at least a dozen Tesla engineers to work for Aurora while still leading Tesla’s Autopilot efforts. It also claimed Anderson downloaded “hundreds of gigabytes of data” with sensitive information that wasn’t returned upon his termination.
Aurora has agreed to undergo future audits to ensure Anderson isn’t keeping or using any of Tesla’s intellectual property as part of the settlement, a Tesla spokesperson told Business Insider.
Anderson wrote in a Medium post Wednesday that Aurora commissioned a forensic audit after the lawsuit was initially filed, which didn’t find any evidence of confidential Tesla information existing on Aurora computers or being accessed by Aurora employees.
“Today, less than three months after filing (and even before we were permitted to file a response) Tesla has withdrawn its claims, without damages, without attorney’s fees, and without any finding of wrongdoing,” Anderson wrote in the post.
A Tesla spokesperson confirmed the suit had been settled:
“Tesla’s lawsuit against Mr. Anderson, Mr. Urmson, and Aurora has been settled. Under the settlement, Mr. Anderson’s contractual obligations to Tesla will remain in place and will also be extended to Aurora, with additional specific protections being added to ensure there are no further violations. The settlement also establishes a process to allow Tesla to recover all of the proprietary information that was taken from the company, and it provides for Aurora’s computer systems to be subject to ongoing audits to monitor for any improper retention or use of Tesla’s property. Finally, $100,000 was paid to Tesla.”
Who killed Sister Cathy? That’s the question Netflix’s new true-crime TV series, “The Keepers,” will strive to answer.
Netflix released the first trailer for the seven-part series on Wednesday, and already people are comparing it to the streaming company’s runaway hit docuseries, “Making a Murderer.”
In “The Keepers,” which will be available May 19, director Ryan White (“The Case Against 8”) tries to find the answer to one of Baltimore’s most memorable unsolved mysteries.
Sister Cathy Cesnik, a 26-year-old nun and a beloved Baltimore Catholic schoolteacher, suddenly disappeared in 1969. Her murder case is still unsolved.
Speaking with friends, relatives, journalists, government officials, and Baltimore citizens, White peels back the layers of the mystery to reveal a potential clergy abuse cover-up by the Catholic Church, the police, and the government.
Watch the trailer below:
There are really two Facebooks: One, the social network that billions of people use to share baby photos and political opinions; and two, the future factory that’s building autonomous helicopters, artificial brains, and metaphysical selfie sticks.
Right now, they’re still treated as very separate entities. When we talk about the effects of, say, fake news stories or so-called “filter bubbles” under the Trump administration, we’re really talking about that first Facebook, the social network we’re familiar with, and how it informs our interactions with the real world.
Maybe it’s time we stopped thinking like these two different Facebooks are different companies. After all, it seems like Facebook already has.
In 2016, Mark Zuckerberg revealed his ambitious 10-year plan for the company, calling his shot for a future where artificial intelligence, virtual and augmented reality, and ubiquitous connectivity are all core to the social network’s strategy.
At this week’s Facebook F8 conference, Zuckerberg underscored that roadmap: His vision for Facebook brings the social network closer to the real world than ever before, using your phone’s camera to project digital imagery into the real world. It’s another milestone on the smartphone’s very slow march to the grave, and a new chance to ask questions we need to think about now, before it’s too late.
Welcome to 2026
On the one hand, Facebook’s vision of 2026 sounds kind of cool: As Facebook loves to point out, you’ll no longer be limited to physical proximity if you want to spend time with anyone from all over the world; just meet them in virtual reality. And your McDonalds cashier could actually be an artificially-intelligent computer program, with a human-looking avatar beamed into the augmented reality glasses Facebook hopes you’ll be wearing.
To Facebook, this is the natural extension of its mission to help people connect with other people — even the potential commercial applications are to help companies talk to their customers in a more natural way, Facebook has said.
And as Zuckerberg himself noted at F8, it has the potential to replace every screen in your home, including the TV and, one day, the smartphone, as the combination of the digital and physical worlds replaces the need for an additional device. The eventual goal, he says, is for Facebook to build innocuous augmented reality glasses.
But Facebook had a lot of stumbles over the last year or so, which means this vision is worth taking a very close look at.
From the controversy over allegedly censoring conservative news sources from Facebook’s trending topics, to the recent discussion over “fake news” and fact-checking in the wake of the presidential election, we’re starting to explore how social media, and this company in particular, affect what we read, and perhaps what we think.
In the virtual reality world that Facebook is building, the company could actually control what we see, and what we experience. Facebook’s mysterious algorithms will be at work in ways we’ve never really experienced before, interfacing directly with our senses.
In the short term, as Buzzfeed’s Nitasha Tiku points out, this is going to make it even harder to tell fantasy from reality on social media: In a world of painstakingly-staged Instagram photos, augmented reality is going to make it even easier to present a version of your life that doesn’t exist. As Zuckerberg says, “you can add a second coffee mug, so it looks like you’re not having breakfast alone.”
If you really take it to the extreme, things could get even weirder. For instance, a Facebook glitch in November suddenly caused two million or so users, including Zuckerberg himself, to be declared dead. That’s distressing when it’s just on a screen. Now, as Facebook’s next big bets infiltrate our daily habits, these kind of algorithm failures could have tremendous consequences.
What happens if a Facebook glitch in augmented reality causes some people to become invisible in your field of vision? What if you start seeing people who aren’t there? Or an audio error accidentally means you can only communicate in Tagalog until your reset your glasses?
What if a Facebook algorithm change means that people who disagree with you are literally rendered invisible?
It’s a weird, science-fictional thing to worry about, but it’s increasingly a weird, science-fictional sort of world. Remember that Facebook, once thought about as a toy, is now so crucial to the dialogue that we’re talking about its role in global politics. With virtual reality and augmented reality, Facebook is hoping to repeat the trick.
Facebook deserves at least a little credit here. Zuckerberg hasn’t always been perfect when it comes to matters of social responsibility and giving, as evidenced by the difficulty the Newark schools had in taking full advantage of his $100 million donation. But his heart seems to be mostly in the right place, and he’s definitely put his money where his mouth is with the Zuckerberg-Chan charity initiative, where he vowed to give 99% of his fortune to social causes. There are worse people to lead the charge into an algorithmically-defined reality.
Still, Zuckerberg won’t be in control of Facebook forever. If he leaves or dies, his super-voting powers do not transfer to his heirs; the company’s investors have seen to that. So, as Facebook enters the third stage of its ambitious 10-year plan, here’s my fondest wish: While we argue about the role of Facebook in our lives today, I’d love for the company to really think — and talk — about the role it might play tomorrow.
There’s a Donald Trump tweet for every occasion.
When news broke Wednesday that Bill O’Reilly wouldn’t be returning to Fox News, many on Twitter were quick to unearth a tweet from last year in which Trump, who was at the time running for president, defended the primetime host:
Why does the liberal media think Bill O’Reilly (@oreillyfactor) is a complete and total vulgarian? I don’t think so!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 11, 2016
Earlier this month after the White House ordered missile strikes on Syria, some people passed around old tweets that illustrated how the president’s views on intervening in the Syrian civil war have changed:
We should stay the hell out of Syria, the “rebels” are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS?ZERO
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 16, 2013
What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 29, 2013
It turns out, there’s a super easy way to find out what Trump has said in the past on virtually any given subject.
This is TrumpTwitterArchive.com.
The website’s homepage features a bunch of Trump tweets organized into categories, like “Fake News,” “Personal Superlatives,” and “Media Disdain.” There’s also a long list of tweets from Trump about his predecessor, President Barack Obama.
Perhaps most useful is the website’s search function.
Here’s what it looked like when I searched, “Bill O’Reilly.”
The website also features an archive of tweets from many in Trump’s inner circle, including Ivanka Trump, House Speaker Paul Ryan, and former Trump advisor Roger Stone.
According to an FAQ page on TrumpTwitterArchive.com, the website now captures Trump’s deleted tweets. This wasn’t always the case, however, so many tweets that Trump deleted before January 27 are missing from the archive. That includes an infamous tweet in which the president spelled the word unprecedented incorrectly. Thankfully, we’ve got a screenshot of that tweet for posterity’s sake:
In only four-and-a-half years, Tinder has become one of the most widely-used dating platforms in the world. But despite 1.6 billion swipes per day and over 20 billion total matches, the app has been unable to escape its reputation of being a sleazy pla…