The Daily podcast already reaches 4.5 million unique listeners monthly.
Lisa Tobin, the executive editor of the New York Times podcast The Daily, announced onstage at Recode’s Code Media that a version of the show would be coming to radio airwaves later this spring. Watch the full presentation below:
Earthquakes are a lot more common than people may think. Each year, Southern California alone experiences roughly 10,000 earthquakes, and they’re happening more frequently in the central United States, possibly due to wastewater injection.
While we may not feel a large percentage of these earthquakes, it’s important that we understand them. This knowledge could help us determine what’s causing earthquakes and possibly create tools for their prevention.
It could also help us figure out how to predict future earthquakes of all sizes, which will improve how communities respond to earthquakes.
Now, a research team led by deep learning scientist Thibaut Perol has found a way to use artificial intelligence (AI) to improve earthquake detection. Their study was published today in Science Advances.
Innovating With AI
The team named their AI system ConvNetQuake, and it’s the first neural network designed to detect and locate earthquakes. The specialized algorithm can look at ground motion measurements known as seismograms and determine whether or not the seismic activity is just “noise” or an earthquake. Historically, it been very difficult to detect very small earthquakes due to this noise, but ConvNetQuake can make the distinction.
The researchers used the seismic activity in Oklahoma to train and test ConvNetQuake. They found that their system detected 17 times more earthquakes than were recorded in the Oklahoma Geological Survey earthquake catalog.
While this particular study reveals how the system could improve earthquake detection within the central United States, ConvNetQuake could be applied beyond this region. By effectively detecting and categorizing seismic activity, it could provide important information very early on in an earthquake’s “life,” alerting communities as early as possible whether or not an earthquake is picking up steam and how severe it might be.
However, while it is superior to other earthquake detection methods, ConvNetQuake can only detect earthquakes — it can’t predict them. Still, until we can effectively predict earthquakes before they start, early detection is our best hope for preventing the devastation quakes can cause.
Haberman will be live from Recode’s Code Media conference.
Maggie Haberman is a White House correspondent for the New York Times.She will be live from Recode’s Code Media conference in Huntington Beach, Calif., on Monday, Feb. 12, at 8 pm PT / 11 pm ET.
Few reporters are covering President Donald Trump as robustly as Haberman. She can explain Trump’s moves better than most anyone else. That’s because she’s probably one of a handful of reporters who Trump keeps on speed dial.
Times’ online subscription sales jumped 46 percent in 2017 to $ 340 million. Digital ad sales rose 14 percent to $ 238 million.
People like paying for news — especially when it’s the New York Times.
The publisher’s online subscription business, which it initiated somewhat sheepishly in 2011, has now cultivated over 2.2 million paying readers. An additional 400,000 or so pay for the Times’ standalone Crossword and Cooking apps.
But what’s particularly noteworthy is how quickly the business has grown. The paper brought in $ 340 million in online subscriptions for 2017, a 46 percent spike over the previous year. Even more impressive, that is also the average annual growth rate since the paywall started in 2011. That equals Facebook, which grew its business 47 percent last year, and it’s much faster than Google, which grew at a 23 percent clip.
Of course, those comparisons are a bit of a feint. Both businesses dwarf the Times. But even so, the contrast is apt since A) it is Facebook and Google that have been eating away the news business, and B) the Times, a 166-year-old establishment known for being stubbornly and decorously staid, often to the point of self-defeat, is now growing like a Silicon Valley behemoth.
Wall Street noticed, sending the Times’ stock up today as much as 14 percent after the company released its quarterly earnings report. The paper as a whole is now worth $ 4 billion, which is good news for the Ochs-Sulzberger family that controls the Times, since it owns about 11 percent of its equity.
The family recently appointed 37-year-old Arthur Gregg Sulzberger as publisher, following in his father’s footsteps. Along with his cousins Sam Dolnick and David Perpich, the trio have firmly taken hold of the paper’s strategy.
But let’s cut to the last page. The future of the Times — and of every news publisher — is digital, and the Times aims to create an $ 800 million digital business by 2020. You could argue it is being smartly ambitious by necessity.
Last year, the Times’ online revenue grew 30 percent to $ 578 million — like we had predicted in November. When including the Times’ Wirecutter business, led by Perpich, the Times booked $ 607 million in total digital sales for the year. That’s about 2.5 times what it was in 2011, which means there’s a very good chance it’ll hit $ 800 million, possibly even before 2020.
But would an $ 800 million business sustain the Times’ current newsroom of 1,300 journalists? That figure hasn’t changed in years, to the Times’ credit, and it’s clear supporting that large a newsroom still requires the hefty revenues from print. The problem there? As the chart shows, print is in inexorable decline. It dropped 3 percent last year and has fallen by 21 percent since 2011.
As a $ 988 million business, it’s easy to see how any executive would be seduced by its large size, despite diminishing by an achingly slow 4 percent a year on average. It would almost be easier if it had just fallen off a cliff. Instead, it’ll continue to drop by increments in a dangerously quiet deterioration.
So what, then, would a digital-only New York Times be worth?
Let’s consider the value of digital-only publishers like Vice or BuzzFeed. Both have fallen short of ambitious revenue targets, but they’re still very highly valued. Vice is worth $ 5.7 billion by its investors, about eight times its revenue. BuzzFeed’s $ 1.7 billion valuation puts it at 5.5 times its sales. Of course, neither metric is ideal, but they’re a measure of how to look at other publishers.
In that case, the Times’ digital-only business would be valued at between $ 3.4 billion and $ 4.9 billion. Again, these comparisons aren’t the best, but there’s some logical overlap. Both Vice and BuzzFeed are privately held businesses with a class of investors who have little to no say, along with a small group of super investors who have all or most of the say.
The Times, while it’s a public company, operates very much like a private entity. It similarly has a class of investors who have little say and an elite class who have all the control. The Ochs-Sulzberger family always elects two-thirds of the board seats, despite owning just 11 percent of the equity.
But altogether what this tells us is the big rise on the Times’ public valuation is almost entirely sewn up in its digital business. If the market is being smart, it’s really just applying a startup valuation to the Times’ online business. In other words, if its market value is at $ 4 billion and a digital-only Times is also worth in that range, that tells us the print business is being discounted.
Yes, that’s a bit of a walk, but consider: Since 2011, the Times’ digital subscription revenue rose 656 percent while digital ad revenue rose 168 percent. Who wouldn’t want to own just that part of the business?