This week Benjamin and Zac discuss the latest MacBook update rumors, The Information’s report on Siri’s history and why Apple has struggled to scale it, a surprise Apple education event announcement mid-episode, Apple’s Texture acquisition and Eddy Cue’s appearance at SXSW, and Apple unveiling dates for WWDC 2018.
WhatsApp is one of a few messaging platforms that lets you delete a message after you’ve sent it. Skype is another one worth mentioning, though we’re sure that far more people actually use WhatsApp. The messenger platform introduced the feature back in October of last year and allows someone to delete a message “.for everyone” within 7 minutes of the message being sent. Of course, the recipient(s) would not see the message, but would see a message deleted’ placeholder replace the deleted message. WhatsApp has quietly updated this time window of which you may delete a message after…
Sometimes you need more than seven minutes to unsend a message on WhatsApp. Thankfully, with the most recent update, now we do. The most recent patch (2.18.31) extends the "delete for everyone" period to one hour, eight minutes and 16 seconds accordi… Engadget RSS Feed
WhatsApp has quietly changed the way its message deletion feature works. Originally introduced in October, the WhatsApp “delete for everyone” used to only allow you to delete messages up to seven minutes after you sent them. WABetaInfo has noticed that the latest version of WhatsApp extends that time limit significantly to one hour, eight minutes, and 16 seconds.
It’s not clear why the limit is now so specific, apart from being 2^12, and the WhatsApp support pages don’t provide any additional info on the time limit. An hour means you now have far longer to delete messages sent by mistake, or can wipe out entire conversations from a friend’s phone. WhatsApp doesn’t have a secret conversations option like rivals where it creates a…
Faster than an F1 car and named after an F5 tornado, the newest Hennessey Venom is the kind of car that unquestionably belongs at the Geneva Motor Show. It is all about raw power and radical design. It’s also about as rare as they come, with just 24 being made — half of which the company says have already been bought for a cool $ 1.6 million each.
Much of what we know about the Venom F5 are the stats that Hennessey Special Vehicles, the small company behind the car, has already shared. Teased for nearly a full year at this point, the Hennessey Venom F5’s 1,600 horsepower twin turbo V8 is supposedly capable of pushing the car to 301 miles per hour. The company’s founder, John Hennessey, said in a statement, “It’s no question of if we will…
“MIT = Mathematically Incompetent Theories (at least as it pertains to ride-sharing),” Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi tweeted.
The average Uber driver makes less than $ 4 an hour, at least according to a new paper published by MIT. In fact, the study, which coupled data from a survey of 1,100 drivers with vehicle cost information, found that 74 percent of drivers earned less than minimum wage in the state they worked in.
“Perhaps most surprisingly, the earnings figures suggested in the paper are less than half the hourly earnings numbers reported in the very survey the paper derives its data from,” Hall writes in a new post.
Even Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi sounded off on Twitter, saying MIT stood for “Mathematically Incompetent Theories.”
The Rideshare Guy survey — the underlying data used for the paper — found Uber drivers made an average of $ 15.68 an hour — but that’s before the costs of gas, maintenance and other expenses.
The MIT paper then incorporated the cost-per-mile for driving for Uber.
A brief on the study, which won’t be released in full for a few months, reads:
A Median driver generates $ 0.59 per mile of driving, and incurs costs of $ 0.30 per mile. 30% of drivers incur expenses exceeding their revenue, or lose money for every mile they drive. (Figure 1) On an hourly basis, the median profit is $ 3.37 per hour and 74% of drivers earn less than the minimum wage in the state where they operate.
Still, Uber claims the researchers’ methodology was flawed and further that drivers may not have understood the questions they were asked.
This is the crux of the company’s argument:
The Rideshare Guy survey asks a number of questions about how much drivers earn and how many hours they work per week. The most important are questions 11, 14, and 15.
Q11: “How many hours per week do you work on average? Combine all of the on-demand services that you work for.”
Q14: “How much money do you make in the average month? Combine the income from all your on-demand activities.”
Q15: “How much of your total monthly income comes from driving?”
The problem in this case is inconsistent logic on the part of the paper’s authors. Consider this: for question 14, the authors assume respondents are reporting income from *all* sources, not just on-demand work. As a result of this assumption, the authors discount the earnings from Q14 by the answer to Q15, “How much of your total monthly income comes from driving?”
For example: if a driver answered $ 1,000 to $ 2,000 to Q14, the authors would interpret that as $ 1,420.63² according to their methodology. If the respondent then answered “Around half” to Q15, the authors conclude this driver made $ 710.32 driving — half what they actually earned from driving with ridesharing platforms.
However, and perhaps just as important, the authors also assume that drivers understood Q11 perfectly well and that the hours reported only applied to on-demand work. As a result, they divide an incorrectly low earnings number by the correct number of hours.
We’ve reached out to the researchers and will update when we hear back.
The European Commission published new guidelines for social networks today and among them is a request for these sites to remove reported terrorist content within one hour. In 2016, the Commission called for Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Microsoft t… Engadget RSS Feed
This week Benjamin and Zac have a short chat about the new Apple HomePod. (Stay tuned for 9to5Mac’s official review later next week. This episode was also recorded before stain-gate, so thoughts on that next episode.)
PICTURE STORY Matt Hancock, Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and (as the BBC satire WC2 put it) “for some reason also Sport”, praised delivery company Hermes’ “commitment to innovation” with connected services, during a visit to a Hermes hub in Newmarket yesterday.
Hermes operates a number of high-tech distribution centres in the UK, such as its £31 million automated distribution facility in Rugby, opened in August 2017.
Hancock, who was formerly in charge of the (now slowly disintegrating) Government Digital Service (GDS) before being promoted/shunted sideways/kicked into touch – delete where applicable – was shown a variety of incoming technologies, including a Starship delivery robot (see picture, below).
Hermes has been trialling the printer-sized bots on city streets in the UK, as have Tesco and a number of other companies. The robots are autonomous and able to map their environments, and include a locked compartment that recipients can open with an app.
At present, the Starship robots carry an LED warning flag and – at present – have to be accompanied by human walkers on the streets for safety reasons. This is an unfortunate echo of Britain’s so-called ‘Locomotive Acts’ in the late 19th Century, which obliged the first motor cars to be accompanied by a man waving a red flag, warning pedestrians that the machines were coming. At that time, France put no such legal restrictions in place and was able to leapfrog the UK in the nascent automotive sector.
Hancock was also offered a sneak preview of Hermes’ other connected tech trials, including its planned deployment of HoloLens and facial recognition technologies.
The UK’s digital champion said, “I have been thoroughly impressed by Hermes’ commitment to innovation as a part of improving the delivery experience for online shoppers across the UK. I also look forward to seeing some of the exciting solutions currently in development soon becoming a reality.”
Earlier this month, the Secretary-of-State-for-Everything-the-Government-Doesn’t-Take-Seriously-Alas experienced the slings and arrows of outrageous digital fortune when the launch of his own ‘Matt Hancock’ app made him into an unwitting social media star.
“Matt Hancock has experienced an unidentified error and needs to be closed down”, remarked Twitter user @TheDanRobinson; one of the kinder comments of the day. “I actually met my girlfriend on the Matt Hancock app but we tell people we met at a bar” joked another.
Internet of Business says
It’s heartening to see Hancock out in the field, supporting fresh thinking and connected business, especially when the UK government’s attitude to new technologies is so disconnected and – worse – often appears to be applying 19th Century industrial thinking to 21st Century challenges and technology. Initiatives such as the G-Cloud and the GDS itself have been allowed to wither on the bureaucratic vine, as have policy decisions to favour innovative SMEs over what Frances Maude once called the “oligopoly” of systems integrators. As for robotics and AI, the UK hosts world-leading research, and the government has identified the technologies as being critical to the UK’s economic prosperity. However, its central investment in them is woefully small: up to £300 million by 2020, compared with Japan’s £161 billion in the same timescale. Meanwhile, China is automating faster than any other country on Earth, and the US and parts of Europe are way ahead of the disconnected UK. And there’s a problem with Whitehall’s existing investment, too. According to the government’s own figures – hidden in the small print of the RSA’s Age of Automation report last year – 85 per cent of its central funding for robotics and AI comes directly from the EU. With Brexit looming, the UK urgently needs a strategy to put things right.