You may have heard that two self-driving cars had a "close call" on a California road this week. Don't be alarmed.
One of Google's self-driving Lexus RX450h's (incorrectly reported as a RX400h) cut in front of an Audi Q5 equipped with Delphi's self-driving technology on the streets of Palo Alto, California, Reuters reported. It characterized the incident as a "close call," but representatives for the companies say it was simply normal, everyday driving. Delphi's Audi was attempting a lane change at the time of the encounter.
SEE ALSO: Get out of the driver's seat, human
"Our car saw the Google car move into the same lane as our car was planning to move into, but upon detecting that the lane was no longer open it decided to terminate the move and wait until it was clear again," a Delphi representative told Mashable in an email.
"Our car did exactly what it was supposed to."
"Our car did exactly what it was supposed to."
The report came about when a Delphi executive visited a Reuters office and described the scenario to a reporter as an example of "an actual interaction that we encounter all the time in real-world driving situations," according to the company.
"The headline here is that two self-driving cars did what they were supposed to do in an ordinary everyday driving scenario — one car yielded to another," a Google spokesperson toldMashable.
In an email sent to Mashable a company spokesperson said "Reuters stands by the accuracy of its story."
The incident comes just weeks after Google launched a website with the aim of educating the public about its self-driving car research. Google is now issuing monthly reports on any accidents that have occurred involving its self-driving cars.
Since starting the program in 2009, Google's cars have been involved in 12 accidents, none of which were the fault of the autonomous cars, according to a May 2015 report conducted by Google. The report also notes that the company averages around 10,000 miles of testing per week on public roads.
Just minutes after the Supreme Court announced its landmark decision to strike down bans on gay marriage nationwide, the White House showed its support on Facebook.
The image is a vibrant illustration of the White House colored in with the bright stripes of the iconic Rainbow Flag.
SEE ALSO: Same-sex marriage is the law of the land in America
The White House also shared a screenshot of President Barack Obama's tweet in support of the historic decision:
Obama has been a public supporter of same-sex marriage since 2012.
In an interview with Robin Roberts of Good Morning America that year, he said that he personally felt that gay couples should be allowed to marry. He's since come out with more forceful stance on the issue, and addressed the issue during his second inaugural speech.
"Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law, for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well," he said, according to the New York Times
Women help women. At least that is what happens in the ideal workplace, particularly as women rise to management positions and use their power and influence to promote female employees whose careers and earnings may have been stifled by gender discrimination.
Research shows that women in the United States make 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, partly as a result of bias. Experts have watched women climb the managerial ranks and noticed a subsequent decline in the wage gap between female and male employees. The two trends, they have argued, appear related.
SEE ALSO: Women still make less than men, and it costs them billions every year
A forthcoming study in the American Journal of Sociology, however, suggests female managers don't necessarily aid their female employees. In some cases, women might fare worse under female managers.
The study, co-authored by U.C. Berkeley Haas School of Business Assistant Professor Sameer B. Srivastava, looked at the employment records of 1,701 employees at an unnamed information services company. Their records included salary and performance evaluations.
The female employees earned $56,920 on average compared to $72,295 for men. When the researchers controlled for factors like experience and age, they found that women made 17% less than men.
After analyzing performance reviews and salary data between 2005 and 2009, they discovered that there was no statistically significant advantage for women when they switched from a male to a female manager. A smaller subset of lower-performing female employees actually made 30% less than their male peers, when assigned to a higher-performing female boss.
The findings are not necessarily surprising. Researchers have long debated whether or not female managers are “agents of change” or “cogs in the machine.”
When women are agents of change, they are eager to make the workplace less hostile to their female subordinates, and reward their hard work with pay equity.
When women are agents of change, they are eager to make the workplace less hostile to their female subordinates, and reward their hard work with pay equity. But when female managers are “cogs” they have no effect on the wage gap, and may even exacerbate it. In this scenario, women may believe that men are more competent than women, whether they realize it or not.
All of this is complicated by women's relationships to their female co-workers, which are often influenced by what is known as “competitive threat” and “collective threat.” A low-performing female manager might treat an employee harshly or less fairly if she’s being outperformed by her –- hence the threat by competition.
On the other hand, a low-performing female employee might make her superior look bad, and her boss is already worried about being perceived as less competent than her male peers. As a result, she deems that employee as less valuable, and likely underserving of a raise or promotion.
Srivastava told Mashable that it’s not clear if the high-performing female managers in his study treated the lower-performing women differently because of collective threat, though it is a strong possibility.
While the study, which focused on a single company, can’t be generalized to all female managers, Srivastava said that the findings suggest businesses must do more than just appoint more women to leadership positions.
“It’s probably wishful thinking that that, by itself, will close the gender wage gap,” he said.
"It's one thing to have more women in management and another to have an organizational culture that promotes gender equality."
"It's one thing to have more women in management and another to have an organizational culture that promotes gender equality."
Catherine Hill, vice president of research for the American Association of University Women, a nonprofit organization that promotes gender equality, said that she wasn't surprised by Srivastava's findings. Previous research has shown that both men and women believe stereotypes about gender, often unconsciously.
Hill said that female managers should honestly assess their opinions on gender in the workplace, and maybe even take animplicit bias test to learn if they have biased attitudes about women's competency. (Men, of course, can take the test too.) They should also use objective measures to evaluate employees, particularly when looking at the contributions of a female charge who seems to be contributing less than her co-workers.
These situations deserve special attention, Hill said, because supervisors frequently rely on their gut reaction when making a decision about a less-than-impressive employee. The only problem is that those instincts may actually be shaped by bias. "Use evidence whenever possible," she said.
Closing the pay gap has become a popular issue. It was the subject of Patricia Arquette's Oscarspeech, Hillary Clinton has mentioned it on the campaign trail, and even the Pope has called for fair pay.
Now the challenge is translating that support into real change at the most basic level: the relationship between a manager and her employee.
Women help women. At least that is what happens in the ideal workplace, particularly as women rise to management positions and use their power and influence to promote female employees whose careers and earnings may have been stifled by gender discrimination.
Research shows that women in the United States make 78 cents for every dollar a man earns, partly as a result of bias. Experts have watched women climb the managerial ranks and noticed a subsequent decline in the wage gap between female and male employees. The two trends, they have argued, appear related.
SEE ALSO: Women still make less than men, and it costs them billions every year
A forthcoming study in the American Journal of Sociology, however, suggests female managers don't necessarily aid their female employees. In some cases, women might fare worse under female managers.
The study, co-authored by U.C. Berkeley Haas School of Business Assistant Professor Sameer B. Srivastava, looked at the employment records of 1,701 employees at an unnamed information services company. Their records included salary and performance evaluations.
The female employees earned $56,920 on average compared to $72,295 for men. When the researchers controlled for factors like experience and age, they found that women made 17% less than men.
After analyzing performance reviews and salary data between 2005 and 2009, they discovered that there was no statistically significant advantage for women when they switched from a male to a female manager. A smaller subset of lower-performing female employees actually made 30% less than their male peers, when assigned to a higher-performing female boss.
The findings are not necessarily surprising. Researchers have long debated whether or not female managers are “agents of change” or “cogs in the machine.”
When women are agents of change, they are eager to make the workplace less hostile to their female subordinates, and reward their hard work with pay equity.
When women are agents of change, they are eager to make the workplace less hostile to their female subordinates, and reward their hard work with pay equity. But when female managers are “cogs” they have no effect on the wage gap, and may even exacerbate it. In this scenario, women may believe that men are more competent than women, whether they realize it or not.
All of this is complicated by women's relationships to their female co-workers, which are often influenced by what is known as “competitive threat” and “collective threat.” A low-performing female manager might treat an employee harshly or less fairly if she’s being outperformed by her –- hence the threat by competition.
On the other hand, a low-performing female employee might make her superior look bad, and her boss is already worried about being perceived as less competent than her male peers. As a result, she deems that employee as less valuable, and likely underserving of a raise or promotion.
Srivastava told Mashable that it’s not clear if the high-performing female managers in his study treated the lower-performing women differently because of collective threat, though it is a strong possibility.
While the study, which focused on a single company, can’t be generalized to all female managers, Srivastava said that the findings suggest businesses must do more than just appoint more women to leadership positions.
“It’s probably wishful thinking that that, by itself, will close the gender wage gap,” he said.
"It's one thing to have more women in management and another to have an organizational culture that promotes gender equality."
"It's one thing to have more women in management and another to have an organizational culture that promotes gender equality."
Catherine Hill, vice president of research for the American Association of University Women, a nonprofit organization that promotes gender equality, said that she wasn't surprised by Srivastava's findings. Previous research has shown that both men and women believe stereotypes about gender, often unconsciously.
Hill said that female managers should honestly assess their opinions on gender in the workplace, and maybe even take animplicit bias test to learn if they have biased attitudes about women's competency. (Men, of course, can take the test too.) They should also use objective measures to evaluate employees, particularly when looking at the contributions of a female charge who seems to be contributing less than her co-workers.
These situations deserve special attention, Hill said, because supervisors frequently rely on their gut reaction when making a decision about a less-than-impressive employee. The only problem is that those instincts may actually be shaped by bias. "Use evidence whenever possible," she said.
Closing the pay gap has become a popular issue. It was the subject of Patricia Arquette's Oscarspeech, Hillary Clinton has mentioned it on the campaign trail, and even the Pope has called for fair pay.
Now the challenge is translating that support into real change at the most basic level: the relationship between a manager and her employee.
Have something to add to this story? Share it in the comments.
The U.S. Treasury's decision to add a woman to the $10 bill has drawn applause for the long-overdue move — but also sadness from fans of the country's first Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton.
To mollify the Hamiltonians, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew emphasized what seemed like a good compromise: Putting both Hamilton and a woman on the bill. It seemed a suitable outcome, especially given that Hamilton was a huge advocate for women. (Hamilton was so irresistible to the ladies in his day that Martha Washington wryly named her overly affectionate tomcat Hamilton).
The option of a space-sharing agreement between Hamilton and a heroic American woman was widely reported — but sad to say, it is misleading.
SEE ALSO: 10 kickass women who deserve a place on the new $10 bill
"Mr. Hamilton will remain on the bill in a diminished way," the Wall Street Journal wrote, likely to the relief of Hamilton-revering readers.
Speculation spread that half of the $10 bills would feature Hamilton, or that he would be facing a woman.
This is completely wrong, a person familiar with the matter tells us.
"There are a number of ways he could be preserve on the $10 but the portrait itself would be a woman," a source familiar with the options told Mashable.
In fact, Hamilton would be so diminished on the bill that he would be nearly invisible. You would have to be a robot with bionic eyes to see Hamilton on the bill after a woman is added.
Here's why: One option is to keep Hamilton as a watermark against counterfeiting, where his face will only show up if the bill is held up to the light or checked by a special pen.
The other option is to point people to take a magnifying glass to the engraved drawing of a Treasury building pictured on the $10 bill. A small statue of Alexander Hamilton stands in front of the actual building. That means Hamilton will stay on the $10 bill in minuscule form — about two pixels high, a shadow of his former glory.
The idea of keeping Hamilton as a watermark may be less than satisfying symbolically, but it does bring the newly hip statesman — also the star attraction of a popular Broadway show named after him — closer to the real reason for the whole redesign in the first place. That is, to thwart counterfeiters.
That at least is something the real Hamilton, who was principled on financial matters, would have appreciated. And yet the glamorous Founding Father, never wary of the spotlight, would have loved even more to keep his face on the bill.
For generations, San Francisco has been home to the rest of the country’s misfits, whether free-loving hippies or leather-daddy gay men. San Francisco could be counted on to welcome the "freaks," the sexual deviants. The city told them, “Don’t pay attention to what the rest of them say. Here is where you belong.”
Most artificial trans fats have already been removed from the food supply.
IMAGE: CARLOS OSORIO/ASSOCIATED PRESS
BY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is cracking down on artificial trans fats, calling them a threat to public health.
The Food and Drug Administration said Tuesday that it will require food companies to phase out the use of artificial trans fats almost entirely. Consumers aren't likely to notice much of a difference in their favorite foods, but the administration says the move will to reduce coronary heart disease and prevent thousands of fatal heart attacks every year.
SEE ALSO: Taco Bell throws out artificial flavors and ingredients in new health kick
Scientists say there are no health benefits to trans fats, which are used in processing food and in restaurants, usually to improve texture, shelf life or flavor. They can raise levels of "bad" cholesterol and lower "good" cholesterol, increasing the risk of heart disease, the leading cause of death in the United States. The fats are created when hydrogen is added to vegetable oil to make it more solid, which is why they are often called partially hydrogenated oils.
Once a staple of the American diet — think shortening and microwave popcorn — most artificial trans fats are already gone.
Once a staple of the American diet — think shortening and microwave popcorn — most artificial trans fats are already gone.The FDA says that between 2003 and 2012, consumer trans fat consumption decreased an estimated 78 percent as food companies have used other kinds of oils to replace them.
Still, the FDA says that those trans fats remaining in the food supply are a public health concern. To phase the fats out, the FDA made a preliminary determination in 2013 that trans fats no longer fall in the agency's "generally recognized as safe" category, which covers thousands of additives that manufacturers can add to foods without FDA review. The agency made that decision final Tuesday, giving food companies three years to phase them out.
Now that trans fats will be off the list of safe additives, any company that wants to use them will have to petition the agency to allow it. That would phase them out almost completely, since not many uses are likely to be allowed.
Still, food companies are hoping for some exceptions. The Grocery Manufacturers Association, the main trade group for the food industry, is working with companies on a petition that would formally ask the FDA if it can say there is a "reasonable certainty of no harm" from some specific uses of the fats. A spokesman for the group would not specify what the industry plans to ask for, but said the FDA encouraged food companies to submit a petition.
Trans fats are widely considered the worst kind for your heart, even worse than saturated fats, which also can contribute to heart disease. Over the years, they have been used in foods like frostings, which need solid fat for texture, or in those that need a longer shelf life or flavor enhancement. Popular foods that have historically contained trans fats are
pie crusts, biscuits, microwave popcorn, coffee creamers, frozen pizza, refrigerated dough, vegetable shortenings and stick margarines
pie crusts, biscuits, microwave popcorn, coffee creamers, frozen pizza, refrigerated dough, vegetable shortenings and stick margarines.
Trans fats also have been used by restaurants for frying. Many larger chains have stopped using them, but smaller restaurants may still get food containing trans fats from suppliers.
The industry's reduction in trans fats was helped along by FDA's decision to force labeling of trans fats on food packages in 2006. There have also been local laws, like one in New York City that restricts the fats in restaurants. Retailers like Wal-Mart have reduced the amount they sell.
The FDA has not targeted small amounts of trans fats that occur naturally in some meat and dairy products, because they would be too difficult to remove and aren't considered a major public health threat on their own.
