Andrew Ng, a computer scientist who led Google’s AI division, Google Brain, and formerly served as vice president and chief scientist at Baidu, is a veritable celebrity in the artificial intelligence (AI) industry.
After leaving Baidu, he debuted an online curriculum of classes centered around machine learning — Deeplearning.ai — and soon after launched Landing.ai, a startup with the goal of “revitalizing manufacturing through AI.” (One of its first partners was Taiwanese company Foxconn, which produces the bulk of Apple’s iPhones.) Ng was the keynote speaker at the AI Frontiers Conference in November 2017, and this year unveiled the AI Fund, a $175 million incubator that backs small teams of experts looking to solve key problems using machine learning.
Oh, and he’s also chairman of AI cognitive behavioral therapy startup Woebot; sits on the board of driverless car company Drive.ai; and wrote a guide to AI (“Machine Learning Yearning”) which he distributed for free. Yet somehow, he found time to compile a new online training course — “AI for Everyone” — that seeks to demystify AI for business executives.
Ng has always had a passion for education. At Stanford, where he previously served as Director of the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Lab, he started the Stanford Engineering Everywhere (SEE), a compendium of freely available online courses. It served as the foundation for Coursera, an online learning platform Ng cofounded with Daphne Koller in 2012. As of June 2018, Coursera had more than 33 million registered users enrolled in more than 2,400 courses.
Ng’s new course is available through Coursera, appropriately. And while it’s open to anyone, it’s principally geared toward business professionals who want to “better understand AI” and how it can impact their business — that is to say, executives interested in learning to select AI projects that’ll yield a return.
It walks learners through the process of managing and organizing AI teams within their companies, and provides tools to help “cut through the hype” and discover the potential — and limitations — of AI as it exists today. Additionally, it supplies in-depth case studies illustrating how complex AI systems are built and maintained, all the while providing guidance on practical matters such providing data to an AI team and the process of training, developing, and testing data.
By the end of the course, Ng says, learners will not only how to navigate “both their company and their own career” through AI’s rising tide, but understand how it’s “affecting society.”
“Artificial intelligence will transform every industry, just as electricity did 100 years ago,” Ng wrote in a blog post, pointing to a study by the McKinsey Global Institute. AI will result in a 1.2 percent increase in gross domestic product growth (GDP) over the next 10 years, the researcher firm predicted this year, and help capture an additional 20-25 percent in net economic benefits — $13 trillion globally — in the next 12.
Some enterprises could use a helping hand, though. A recent PricewaterhouseCoopers survey found that only 53 percent are planning AI investments and use cases, and that a measly 4 percent said that they’ve successfully implemented the technology. That said, as many as 42 percent of executives believe AI will be of “critical importance” within two years, according to Deloitte, and by some estimates, the enterprise AI market will be worth $6.14 billion by 2022.
Ng’s course is aptly timed, it would seem.
from VentureBeat https://venturebeat.com
via IFTTT
I mean you could like Just Cause for the story. You might be interested in the dark history of the South American island nation of Solís, and its connection to Rico Rodriguez. And perhaps the hero's ongoing intercontinental tussle with the Black Hand gets you going.
But my guess is that the majority of people are into Just Cause for what happens in between the story – the ridiculous explosions, the grappling hook tethers, the complex interplay of car, building and NPCs' faces.
And somewhere, underneath it all, there's a physics engine struggling to make sense of all of this and, just occasionally, reacting in completely insane ways. My friends, if this is your thing, our latest IGN First video is for you.
Joe Skrebels is IGN's UK News Editor and, for him, makeshift wrecking balls should be an option in most games. Follow him on Twitter.
I know what you're thinking. FINALLY, The Loop is getting into competitive magic coverage. About time. And what better place to start than with the best of the best, the creme de la creme, the winning trick at the 2018 World Championships of Magic? No better place is the answer, our humble and fellow slaves to reality. So go ahead, acquaint yourself with the triumphant, victorious illusions of Eric Chien, who makes Harry Potter look like a Carnival weight guesser. Trust us, you're going want to watch this whole thing:
VIDEO
As it turns out, the International Federation of Magic Societies—a real thing, apparently—only holds the World Championships of Magic once every three years, and it shows, with Chien's routine absolutely packed with subtle tricks and big "wow" moments. Using ribbons and colors as his focal points, Chien boggles the eye and mind, turning red to blue and paper to coin seemingly at will. And as Gizmodo points out, Chien is "close-up magician", which means he's not relying on a team of interns backstage to saw a body in half or whatever.
Needless to say, somewhere deep within some middle American office park, Michael Scott has been streaming this on the conference room projector for the past six hours.
On its own, Optical Cable Corporation, a manufacturer of data communication cabling and connectivity products, is a fine -- some might say boring -- investment. Knowing Ted Weschler bought more than 5% of the stock, it becomes somewhat fascinating.
Stock Purchases
On September 24, 2018, Ted Weschler filed a 13G indicating he had accumulated a position over 5% (it was 5.25%) in Optical Cable Corporation (aka "OCC", letters that also represent the NASDAQ NMS stock symbol).
Often, in these circumstances, a buyer will file a 13D. But the SEC permits a 13G filing if the investment is passive. A 13G is appealing due to relatively lenient filing requirements. (For instance, if one files a 13D, then every "material" purchase or sale must be followed by an SEC filing within two business days. Not so with a 13G.) Since he filed a 13G, Ted Weschler must "file an annual amendment to the 13G if there have been any changes - immaterial or material - to your filed 13G ... within 45 days of year end" or "must amend their Schedule 13G within 10 days after the end of the first time their "beneficial ownership" exceeds 10% of the class of equity securities at month end".
Warren Buffett, in his special letter to Berkshire Hathaway stockholders titled "Berkshire -- Past, Present and Future", expressed great confidence in Ted Weschler, calling him "first rate in all respects":
Institutional Investor profiled Ted Weschler in 2016, saying he is "known to do exhaustive research before deciding to allocate to a company."
Looking at a price chart of OCC stock, it seems that the average price for Ted Weschler's purchase of 404,000 shares was likely around $3.75 per share, suggesting Weschler paid $1.5MM for his OCC shares. A fair question: how important is that compared to Weschler's net worth? DealBook reported: "Here is a quick measure of his wealth: he paid $2,626,311 in a charity auction to have lunch with Mr. Buffett in 2010. That’s how they met. A year later, Mr. Weschler paid $2,626,411 to dine with him again."
Note the high volume -- 667,600 shares in aggregate -- between September 14, 2018, the date on which the 5% threshold was exceeded, triggering the requirement to file a 13G, and the filing itself, which was made, as permitted, after the close ten days later on September 24.
In the ten-day window between triggering the requirement to file the 13G and the filing itself, average daily trading volume was 95,731. That ten-day average trading volume represented a 5.8 multiple of year-to-date (through September 14) average trading volume earlier in 2018. Was Weschler continuing to buy during the ten-day window before the 13G was filed?
Weschler is typically a passive investor, as confirmed in this case by the 13G filing for OCC. But a 2011 Wall Street Journal story "Berkshire's New Hire Bears Shades of Buffett", Jason Zweig and Mary Pilon recounted how, in 2001, Weschler "pushed for a buyout of Huddle House, a chain of family restaurants". Could Weschler convert his 13G filing to a 13D filing and push for a sale? Sure; that would be legal. Would he?
The same WSJ article affirms Weschler's analytical approach, described as "total immersion".Weschler's reported 5.25% ownership (which does not reflect further purchases after September 14, if any) is meaningful compared to other large holders.
Insider sales
On October 4, 2018, ten days after Weschler's 13G filing, OCC's Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer Neil Wilkin filed a Form 4 with the SEC, indicating he had sold 80,000 shares of OCC at $5.25 per share, marking his largest sale in the SEC's electronic filings era. While not necessarily bad, an insider sale is typically not a good sign.
This was odd.
The sale price was reported to be $5.25, but the range that day was $6.01-$6.20.
Furthermore, the sale was to David R. Goode, described as a "strategic financial investor". Please refer to the tiny green print below, which says: "These shares were exclusively offered and sold to Mr. David R. Goode of Norfolk, Virginia, as a strategic financial investor in Optical Cable Corporation."
Who is David R. Goode?
David Goode is the retired president, ceo and chairman of Norfolk Southern Corporation. He serves on the board of directors of Russell Reynolds Associates. David Goode has served on the boards of directors of Caterpillar, Inc., Delta Airlines, Inc., Texas Instruments and Georgia Pacific.
In 2005, Norfolk Southern named its 12 story building at 1200 Peachtree Street in Atlanta the David R. Goode Building, in honor of the company's chairman and chief executive officer. (See photo below.)
Is $420,000 investment in OCC a full position for a man like David R. Goode? Is David Goode being recruited for a role at OCC?
Separately, yet another insider sale may not be what it seems.
On October 15, 2018, Director Randall Frazier sold 4,534 shares to "a trust for the benefit of a long-term individual investor", at $5.30, a price above the day's range of $4.96-$5.27. Again, that is an insider sale that may not have the meaning of many typical insider sales. Who is the long-term investor?
Coming days after Ted Weschler's 13G filing, are the Goode and Frazier transactions good or bad signs? Is the Goode purchase a defense against Weschler, who filed a non-activist form 13G? Or is the Goode purchase affirmation that something good is happening at OCC? Time will tell.
Could OCC be acquired?
Yes. While that scenario is not my base case, it is instructive to note that the industry has been consolidating.
Belden, a company identified as a competitor in OCC's 2017 10-K, made 13 acquisitions in an eight year period for amounts between $7MM - $710MM.
Going forward, Belden has planned to allocate up to $1.7B to fund acquisitions during 2018-2020.
On the 2018 Q3 earnings conference call, Belden parsed its acquisition strategy by saying that M&A will focus on the industrial segment and smaller acquisitions in the fiber optic segment, two areas to which OCC has exposure.
Other companies are focused on acquisitions as well, as the industry consolidates.
In a deal stuck last December, Prysmian SpA paid 13.5 times trailing EBITDA for OCC-competitor General Cable, accounting for debt. Bloomberg reports that "Four groups were involved in bidding, including a Chinese company, pushing up the price." (For OCC, a 13.5 multiple of my FY2019 projected EBITDA would come to over $10/share, after accounting for debt.) Bidding for General Cable was competitive. Again, an acquisition is not my base case.
As a small player in the industry, OCC may not attract as much interest. But note that, in 2006, Superior Essex Inc. offered to acquire OCC for $6/share. OCC rejected the offer. Superior Essex in turn was acquired two years later.
If OCC were to be acquired, I would expect Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer Wilkin would either: 1) be severed with a big pay package; or, 2) be given much larger role at the acquiring company. Given Wilkin's total compensation in FY2017 of $780,469 when the company recorded a net loss, and given Wilkin's obvious talents (see degrees from both University of Virginia's Darden School of Business and School of Law), an acquiring company could benefit from promoting Wilkins.
As Bloomberg columnist Matt Levine writes below "Sometimes, however, being acquired is the best thing for a company (and its shareholders). And if the CEO doesn’t want the company to be acquired, he generally has lots of ways to prevent it." I have no opinion as to whether Matt Levine's NYC-lawyer cynicism (which I like) applies in this case. Does the introduction of an investor with the gravitas of Ted Weschler change the calculus regarding an acquisition? If Warren Buffett's guy supports an acquisition, could OCC's board possibly resist?
Note that OCC itself made two acquisitions a decade ago: SMP Data Communications in 2008 and Applied Optical Systems in 2009.
OCC's Industry
OCC manufactures fiber optic and copper data communication cabling and connectivity solutions for the enterprise market, various harsh environment and specialty markets, and the wireless carrier market. OCC’s product offerings include designs for uses ranging from enterprise networks, datacenters, residential and campus installations to customized products for specialty applications and harsh environments, including military, industrial, mining, petrochemical, wireless carrier and broadcast applications.
Anixter, a global distributor, highlights this PVC fiber optic cable below as the only designated OCC "best seller" that Anixter distributes:
At its Annual Meeting of Shareholders held in March, 2018, OCC featured the following video regarding Passive Optical LAN as an example one of its product initiatives:
Financial projections
Building off OCC's past financials, including strong results driven by defense and wireless sectors in FY2018 (ended October 31), moderated by winding down of material contract(s) in FY2018, and informed by management goals expressed in the 2018 Annual Meeting, along with insights from competitors (largely Belden and Amphenol), I have projected OCC's income statement for FY2019. Note that, since OCC management was unresponsive to repeated inquires via phone calls and emails, as is any company's right so long as it doesn't violate the SEC's Reg FD, the estimate for FY2018 and the projection for FY2019 should be considered a best guess at this time, decidedly not a rigorous model developed after detailed questions answered by management. (Note: As I continue research coverage OCC in the future, I continue to welcome a dialogue with management. I would like to understand more fully management's side of the story, if they cared to share.) Note that FY2019 results are expected to be back-end loaded.
In management's defense, given a base of OCC's FY2018 Q3 revenue of $23MM compared to an industry dominated by competitors such as Amphenol with 2018 Q3 revenues of $2.1B, a small change in the timing of fulfillment of a minor order (by industry standards) can make a huge difference in OCC's results. Lumpy is difficult to forecast.
For FY2019 (ended October 31), my OCC revenue projection shows an increase of 22.4% year over year, down from 39.0% estimated increase for FY2018 YoY. Driven by operating leverage, OCC's EBITDA margins are projected to increase from 6.3% (FY2018 E) to 7.0% (FY2019 P).
OCC competitor Belden's 3-year financial goals are below, including an EBITDA margin three times my projection for OCC's FY2019 EBITDA margin:
OCC competitor Amphenol provides a breakdown of its revenue growth by segment, as shown below. The drivers for strong revenue growth are partly segment strength and partly market share increase or decrease. The table below is tabulated from Amphenol's Q3 conference call:
Amphenol guided to aggregate 12% organic revenue growth for 2018. Focusing on OCC's strong segments, Amphenol is guiding "high teens" in APH's military segment and "low double digit sales growth" in APH's mobile networks segment. Including stock-based compensation expense (to make it an apples-to-apples comparison with my OCC EBITDA calculation), APH's EBITDA margin for the nine months through September 30, 2018 was 24.5%.
Contrast that to OCC's estimated FY2018 EBITDA margin is 6.3%. There could be room to grow!
OCC could surprise on the upside. For example, 5G is an exciting technology that, if it fulfills expectations, could help to drive sales growth in OCC's wireless carrier market. But, as transcribed by SeekingAlpha, on APH's Q3 earnings conference call, Amphenol's President and CEO Norwitt was cagey regarding 5G:
OCC has a fair amount of operating leverage. As the company states in its FY2018 Q3 10-Q: "Our gross profit margin percentages are heavily dependent upon product mix on a quarterly basis. Gross profit margin in the first nine months of fiscal year 2018 was negatively impacted by a shift in product mix toward the sale of certain lower margin products in the first nine months of fiscal year 2018 compared to the first nine months of fiscal year 2017. However, the significant increase in net sales levels during the first nine months of fiscal year 2018 for our fiber optic cable products helped to offset the impact of the decrease in gross profit margin on gross profit, as certain fixed manufacturing costs were spread over higher sales and we benefited from our operating leverage."You can see from the projected income statement below that EBITDA margins jumped from 1.94% in FY2017 to 6.32% in FY2018 (estimated) even though gross margin dropped from 32.45% in FY2017 to 30.68% in FY2018 (estimated). Two reasonable comparable companies are Belden and Amphenol. Both those companies enjoy EBITDA margins that are at least triple OCC's EBITDA margins. That suggests OCC's EBITDA margin will have room to improve if they continue to boost revenues, as I expect. That is the base case.
Valuation
Based on trailing P/E ratio, as shown below, OCC is expensive. Based on projected FY2019 EPS, at $5.10 per share (the close on November 8th, hours after which this piece was resubmitted), OCC's projected FY2019 P/E is a more reasonable 16.5.
Regarding potential price targets for OCC stock, a rounded number of $10 seems reasonable couple years from now. While I have not shown projections for FY2021, if we think of valuing OCC stock two years from now, twenty times $0.50 FY2021 EPS seems reasonable.
And, $10 as an acquisition price a year from now also seems reasonable, using Prysmian SpA's acquisition's trailing EBITDA multiple of 13.5 on $7.0MM of OCC's FY2019 EBITDA (after normalizing OCC's non-cash compensation to industry norms), and subtracting anticipated debt of $12.5MM, using 8.25MM shares as the divisor. A multiple of 13.5 times might seem high, but typically a small company target lends itself to synergies through economies of scale. An acquisition of OCC could produce synergies in a number of ways, including: 1) boosting sales by adding channels while at the same time improving efficiencies; 2) boosting capacity utilization at OCC's three plants, which would increase margins; and, 3) spreading out other SG&A expenses over greater sales. For example, as noted above, OCC Chairman, President and CEO Wilkin is a very talented guy; by elevating him to a bigger management position at a bigger company, his (rather large in my opinion for a small company, but not large for his talents) compensation could be spread over greater sales, benefiting margins not only at the legacy OCC business but also the larger portfolio he could manage.
On the downside, I would expect that, so long as Weschler is not selling, $3.50 - $4.00 would be a floor if OCC encounters temporary disappointment.
The favorable backdrop is: 1) solid demand for data communications including potential excitement regarding the roll-out of 5G; and, 2) Weschler's ownership.
What could go wrong with the investment thesis?
Following Weschler's 13G requirement trigger on September 14, but before the filing itself on September 24, volume was high, equaling 5.8X volume earlier in 2018. Who was buying? My guess: Weschler continued to buy, knowing the 13G disclosure would send OCC's share price higher, forcing him to pay more (if he wanted to buy more). Indeed, volume spiked following the filing. But, what if Weschler had changed his mind and the high volume in late September or in October was Weschler selling? I doubt it. But that would be a big problem for the investment thesis!!!
While acquisitions are not my base case, an acquisition does represent upside. On the other hand, OCC could receive but reject a takeover offer that many stockholders might want. But the addition of Weschler to the mix might introduce more analytical, data driven response to a takeover suitor, boosting the prospects for a completed acquisition On the other hand, OCC might eagerly search out acquisitions of its own, potentially reducing its appeal to potential acquirers.
The competitive landscape could change. Big competitors might swamp OCC.
A word of caution: the equity market capitalization of OCC is tiny: $40MM. Average trading volume for the past 65 days is 41,896 shares. Patience and limit orders are advisable if buying or selling OCC stock.
If you don't like the chairman and the ceo to be one and the same, you might not like the organizational structure of OCC. (Studies are mixed.)
If you don't like the only two executive officers being the former cfo and the current cfo, you might not like the organizational structure of OCC.
Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer Wilkin was named CFO in September, 2001. Chief Financial Officer Smith was named CFO in September, 2003. Both Wilkin and Smith were practicing CPAs employed by Coopers & Lybrand (a predecessor to PricewaterhouseCoopers) and KMPG LLP, respectively.
From 2011 to 2018, proxies for every OCC annual meeting held have identical language: "The current executive officers of the Company are: Neil D. Wilkin, Jr., Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer and Tracy G. Smith, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer."
The most recent executive officer directly responsible for marketing and/or sales, Senior Vice President of Sales--USA William R. Reynolds, retired on December 17, 2010.
You might want to see a Senior Vice President of Sales in an executive officer position. So would I. If done correctly, elevating sales and marketing to an executive officer position, or even a board position, could enhance results.
Does the lack of response to my questions by Wilkin, Smith and OCC's investor relations provide insight into OCC's sales and marketing culture, or lack of one? There is little published investment research on OCC. (For example, Seeking Alpha has published two pieces, one in 2017 and one in 2012.) With so little research available, how does one explain management's apparent disinterest in offering to help shape a narrative to be published for an audience of investors? (OK, this author is not a big deal compared to Weschler and Goode! Point well taken!) The SEC's Reg FD might come into play; Wilkin is well versed in the law. Or perhaps OCC is in a quiet period, during which no conversations with investors are allowed. A disinterest in helping to shape a narrative might suggest a deficient sales and marketing culture, or it might suggest something different. Hard to say. Easy to fix.
Disclosure: I am/we are long OCC.
Additional disclosure: In addition to Seeking Alpha's Terms of Use: Read this article at your own risk. Under no circumstances should this article be construed to be investment advice. You agree to do your own research and your own due diligence. Always consult a financial advisor. In no event should Great Quarter be liable for any losses. I make mistakes and I've been wrong many times. While, to the best of Great Quarter's ability and belief, great care was put into its research, analysis, opinion, and writing, and while this article and the information herein is believed to be accurate and reliable and does not omit material facts, it is presented “as is” and without representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied. Great Quarter makes no promise to update articles or any information, analysis, or opinion herein. Following the publication of this article, Great Quarter reserves the right to make any trade at any time in any securities mentioned; in the future, I may be long, short, or neutral regardless of any information, analysis, or opinion herein; furthermore I will not report when a security position is initiated or exited. Humans are bad at predicting the future. Part of this article attempts to predict the future. Great Quarter's goal to be more right about the future than wrong. But, the future will hold many surprises. Please be aware that at least part of this article will prove to be wrong. Since Great Quarter is not receiving compensation for this article from Seeking Alpha, Great Quarter retains the copyright. Great Quarter welcomes readers to comment or ask questions in the comment section below. If you enjoyed this article, please follow Great Quarter by clicking Follow above.
Editor's Note: This article covers one or more microcap stocks. Please be aware of the risks associated with these stocks.
from Seeking Alpha Editors' Picks stocks https://ift.tt/2a97jA2
via IFTTT
Lifting weights is often about the challenge: can I really lift this much? Or, I already lifted this for eight reps, but can I do a ninth? So you need to prepare for what happens if you fail.
If you’re following along with our bench press challenge, then you probably want to try to push your limits—but safely.
Advertisement
With barbell bench press, if you fail, the weight could crush your chest, neck, or face. That’s why people often do this exercise with a spotter, a friend who can help you get the weight back up if your arms start to buckle. But what if you’re friendless, or you’re just not sure if you trust anyone with this life-saving job?
You can avoid the situation entirely by pressing dumbbells instead, like we discussed last week, or by using a machine that mimics the bench press movement (like a Smith machine, or a chest press machine). But if you want to do a genuine barbell bench press without the help of a human being, all you need is a power cage with adjustable stops.
How to Set Up a Cage for Bench Press
The first time I tried this, it seemed impossible. You want to bring the bar down to touch your chest when you bench, but if you set up stops above your chest, how is that possible?
Advertisement
The trick is to bench with an arch in your back. Powerlifters can take this to an extreme, doing what looks like a yoga cobra pose turned 90 degrees. But to bench safely in a rack, you just need a few inches of arch.
Don’t forget that the bar should touch your sternum (right under your boobs, if you have boobs) on each rep—not your upper chest or your shoulders.
So you set the stops where they are even with the surface of your chest when your back is flat, and then you arch your back so your chest is just slightly above the stops.
First, drag a bench into the rack. (This isn’t always easy, but look for a rack with wheels on one end. Pick up the other end and it will pivot and steer nicely when you hold it almost-vertical.)
Then, set the stops a chest-width above the bench, and the rack to hold the bar a few notches above that.
Lie down on the bench to check positioning with the empty bar. You should be able to easily grab the bar with bent elbows, press it up so your arms are straight, and lower it down to touch your puffed-out chest.
Try escaping from under the bar: let it rest on the stops, and flatten your back and try to slide out from under it. It’s fine to slide or roll the bar toward your hips so you can comfortably sit up.
Once you have everything adjusted properly, jot down which notches you used so you can set up quickly next time. Some racks have numbered settings, but with others you’ll have to write, say, “fourth one from the bottom and then six notches above that.” Do what works.
Advertisement
If you need a visual, this video breaks it down nicely. (Fair warning: the beginning of the video shows the narrator dropping 315 pounds on his chest without a rack, but he doesn’t die. Skip to 0:42 if you don’t want to see that.)
So, how are you feeling about your bench press? Ready to try it with a barbell, or ready to ditch your spotter for some metal bars that will be less likely to get distracted when you’re in your moment of need?
Canucks center Elias Petterson just keeps conjuring more magic early in his rookie season, scoring two goals and three assists Friday night in a 7-6 overtime victory over the Colorado Avalanche at Rogers Arena in Vancouver.
Elias Pettersson is off to a dazzling start to his NHL career. (Amy Irvin / The Hockey Writers)
The 19-year-old super Swede scored with 36 seconds left in the third period to force overtime, making him the 16th player in NHL history to notch nine or more goals in his first nine career games. And he’s the sixth player to achieve that outside of the league’s inaugural season, according to the NHL public relations department.
Earlier this week he was named NHL Rookie of the Month for October, and he is off to a flying start two days into November. In becoming the first Canucks rookie and the youngest player in franchise history notch a five-point game, Pettersson displayed more examples of his incredible hockey sense.
Slick-Passing Swede Sparks Brock Boeser
In the first period, Pettersson zipped a pinpoint pass to Brock Boeser that sprung him for a breakaway goal to put the Canucks up 1-0.
Then with the game tied 1-1 in the second Pettersson topped that pass with a beautifully smart play from behind the red line that was reminiscent of similar plays made by the now-retired Henrik and Daniel Sedin. With direct passing options closed in the neutral zone, Pettersson deftly banked the puck off the end boards and into the path of a speeding Boeser who ripped a shot past Avalanche goalie Philipp Grubauer.
“I saw (Boeser with) more speed than the defender …” Pettersson, who leads his team with 15 points, modestly told Canucks TV. “I made a play, and it worked out.”
Listed as 6-foot-2 and 176 pounds, much has been made of Pettersson’s slight frame and how he will handle the punishment of a full NHL season. He’s already missed six games because of a concussion from a senseless bodyslam by Florida Panthers defenseman Mike Matheson, but Pettersson isn’t showing any fear of playing in the dangerous areas. From just outside the top of the crease, he buried a loose puck past Grubauer to tie the game at four late in the second period.
Elias Pettersson Rises To The Challenge
Going head-to-head with 2017-18 Hart Trophy finalist Nathan MacKinnon and current NHL leading scorer Mikko Rantanen, the young Canucks star outshined his more experienced foes by stepping up late in a wildly entertaining game. After a Colorado turnover behind its net, Bo Horvat passed to Pettersson in the slot for the tying goal in the last minute of the third.
Hauled down on an overtime breakaway, Pettersson drew a slashing penalty by Colorado’s Alex Kerfoot. Although a penalty shot wasn’t awarded, Pettersson picked up an assist on Derrick Pouliot’s game-winning power-play goal at 4:38 of OT and a pile of accolades from fans and media.
NHL PR noted that just 17 different players in league history have scored five or more points in a game at a younger age than Pettersson’s 19 years, 355 days.
Elias Pettersson (19 years, 355 days) is the youngest player in @Canucks history to record 5+ points in a regular-season game.
He has failed to score at least one point in just two games so far this rookie season. We’re just nine games into his NHL career, and Pettersson has become a fixture on the nightly highlight shows and has lifted the surprising Canucks (9-6-0) to first place in the Pacific Division after Friday’s games.
Every night he finds a way to do something special, and after the team’s dismal record in recent years he’s spearheading a revived enthusiasm about the team in this city. Through nine games, Pettersson has an incredible 39.1 shooting percentage.
“We knew he was supposed to be a pretty good player. And he’s been all of that,” Canucks head coach Travis Green told CP (via TSN.ca).
I make an average living (low six figures, have savings, house, no loan, etc) but for the last 2-3 years my greed for money has been unstoppable.
I keep reading about these people who are making millions of dollars and I want to be like them too. It is turning into an obsession. I used to love what I do but now it's all about money.
Every minute I'm not working is me not working towards my goal. I'm either working or criticizing myself for not working.
It is making me very unhappy and I realize that it's all because of this stupid obsession but I just can't shake it. It's not just greed but I'm also scared because I feel if I don't make a lot of money now I will miss my chance and I will be poor when I'm old (it's not 100% true since I have good savings but this thought keeps bugging me over and over).
Some major questions remain unanswered by Facebook’s Oculus team regarding how open and accessible its Oculus Quest hardware will be to buyers. With some prompting this weekend, one of the gaming industry’s thought leaders commented with some strong language on the situation.
Critically, it is unclear how easy it will be for the average Oculus Quest buyer in 2019 to become developers so they could load up software that runs on the headset without going through Facebook’s Oculus Store. That’s the way it is done today with the standalone Oculus Go headset.
Signs are there that Oculus Quest will have a dev mode for sideloading apps. How accessible will that developer mode be to all buyers? Can a company like @epicgames get a hypothetical Fortnite VR installed this way? What about an alternate store? @TimSweeneyEpic@ID_AA_Carmackhttps://t.co/5nxhmgNPLL
While it is important for developers to get full access to all the computation and graphics power in a standalone headset, certain services might kept active and beyond user or developer control for safety, security or privacy reasons. For example, we know Quest includes a visible external light that is wired directly to the power rail of the headset, and we expect its operation not to be changeable by apps or the end user.
Likewise, Oculus uses what it calls a “Guardian” system which defines safe boundaries for play. Facebook uses the system on Rift today while Valve offers its own “Chaperone” system with adjustable settings on PC. Even Microsoft uses the concept of “Boundaries” on PC with its inside-out tracking system to define play areas that are clear from floor to ceiling. Google’s Daydream OS running on Lenovo’s standalone Mirage Solo automatically restricts head movement to a very small area, but that feature can be deactivated by developers for a dangerous testing session.
The issue here is the same path used by developers to test their apps on computers is also often used by enthusiastic early adopters to become the first to test those apps. On the standalone Oculus Go headset, for instance, you can install stuff from a connected PC, but that’s not nearly as easy as, say, installing Fortnite on an Android phone and bypassing the Google Play Store to do it. The argument could be made that security, safety, and privacy of whomever is using a VR headset demands a more restrictive console-like platform similar to an Xbox, Nintendo or PS4.
It certainly seems like Oculus is heading toward a console approach for Quest, but the company still hasn’t clarified its plan for some of these things. Company representatives, however, made it clear earlier this year that they are aware of the issues at stake when it comes to how they run current and future platforms.
“It’s an existential crisis for us to make sure we get data handling right,” said Max Cohen, head of product for the Oculus Platform, during a phone interview at the time. Jenny Hall, who leads privacy programs for the Oculus legal team, also said “privacy is something that we need the entire community of think about, we can’t just fix it or think about it on our own.”
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney is not one to mince words when it comes to these kinds of questions because his company makes both games, like Fortnite, and the tools for other developers to make games, namely Unreal Engine. When creators use Unreal Engine — and some of the biggest game development teams do — “you pay Epic 5% of gross revenue after the first $3,000 per product per calendar quarter.”
Since Apple, Valve, Google and Microsoft are usually taking about 30 percent of the sale price of each game for the privilege of selling products on those respective digital storefronts, it makes sense why it matters so much to Sweeney that when he has a hit like Fortnite he can get it onto PC or Android while paying 0% of the revenue from that digital universe to Google or Microsoft.
A permission-based security model like iOS and Android is the first and strongest line of protection. Locked-down stores do nothing significant to prevent malware; that’s just the old excuse they use to justify their monopoly on digital distribution and commerce.
A reply to Sweeney suggested “users don’t read the permission warnings and you can’t push security patches without a central store. I think developer mode is a reasonable compromise.”
When it was suggested that security and privacy are more important than that, Sweeney replied, “Apple’s lousy software distribution and commerce monopoly isn’t the key to the safety of apps; the real driver is their excellent OS security model. The web will always lag hopelessly far behind what’s possible natively.”
Young people who spend seven hours or more a day on screens are more than twice as likely to be diagnosed with depression or anxiety than those who use screens for an hour a day, finds a new study published in the journal Preventive Medicine Reports.
The data came from more than 40,000 kids ages two to 17 and was collected as part of the Census Bureau’s 2016 National Survey of Children’s Health. While spending seven or more hours a day on screens was not typical among the younger kids in the study, roughly 20% of 14- to 17-year-olds spent this amount of time on screens each day. (This dovetails with a recent Pew Research Center report that found teens use the Internet “almost constantly.” They’re likely following their parents’ lead: some estimates show that U.S. adults now spend roughly 10 hours a day staring at TVs or digital devices.)
Along with the associations between screen time and diagnoses of depression and anxiety, the study found that young people who spent seven hours or more a day on screens (not including schoolwork) were more easily distracted, less emotionally stable and had more problems finishing tasks and making friends compared to those who spent just an hour a day on screens (not including schoolwork).
Many of these same negative trends also turned up to a lesser degree among young people who used screens for four hours a day. Also, adolescents seemed to have more problems than younger kids as a result of heavy screen use.
“At first, I was surprised that the associations were larger for adolescents than for younger children,” says Jean Twenge, the study’s first author and a professor of psychology at San Diego State University. “However, teens spend more time on their phones and on social media, and we know from other research that these activities are more strongly linked to low wellbeing than watching TV and videos, which is most of younger children’s screen time.”
TIME Health Newsletter
Get the latest health and science news, plus: burning questions and expert tips.
Twenge has spent the last few years examining the effects of digital technologies on the health and wellbeing of kids, many of which are documented in her book iGen. Some of her recent work has linked newer forms of media—particularly smartphones and social media—with sleep problems among adolescents. She’s also found that kids who spend more time on screens tend to be less happy than kids who engage in non-screen activities like playing sports, reading traditional printed media or spending time socializing with friends face-to-face.
Her work has contributed to growing concerns among some parents, teachers, guidance counselors and doctors that too much time spent on screens—especially on smartphones—may be linked to recent increases in teen depression and suicide.
Twenge says her study shows “a clear and strong association” between more screen time and lower wellbeing. “At the moment, the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines set specific time limits on screen time only for children [ages] five and younger,” she says. “These findings and others suggest the AAP should consider extending these specific limits to older children and adolescents.” The AAP currently recommends that kids ages 2 to 5 use screens for no more than one hour a day, not including time spent video chatting with family or friends. But they do not recommend specific screen-time restrictions for older kids.
Not everyone agrees with the conclusions of Twenge’s new study. “The authors appear to have cherry picked outcome measures in terms of what results they could find that are statistically significant,” says Andrew Przybylski, an associate professor and director of research at the Oxford Internet Institute at the University of Oxford in the UK.
Last year, Przybylski published a study that examined an older (2011-2012) version of the same Census Bureau dataset that Twenge and her coauthor analyzed in their new paper. Based on the 2011-2012 data, Przybylski’s study concluded that the AAP’s advice to limit the screen time of young kids was not warranted.
“It is true that there is a very small and consistent correlation in many datasets between screen time and a range of outcomes,” he says. But the correlation some studies have found between increased screen time and outcomes like depression do not prove one is to blame for the other, he says. It may be that kids who are anxious or depressed are just more likely to spend a lot of time using screens. “For the research [in this] area to mature, people need to sort out these factors before making expansive claims,” he adds.
Other researchers not affiliated with Twenge’s new paper believe that the findings are important.
“This is a very impressive study,” says Dr. Brian Primack, a professor of medicine and pediatrics and director of the Center for Research on Media, Technology, and Health at the University of Pittsburgh. “This study goes beyond prior work in terms of giving a more fine-grained picture, which suggests that one hour of daily screen time may be an important threshold. It also provides relatively consistent patterns around multiple different concerning outcomes, such as depression, anxiety, problems completing tasks, and increased arguing.”
Primack says that no single study can provide “a complete picture” on the effects of screens on young people’s mental health, and that more research is needed. But when it comes to some screen-based activities—especially those related to social media and smartphones—parents have reason to be worried. “I would say that we now have enough evidence of concern that we should be exerting more caution than we are,” he says.
A landmark case brought by a group of young people attempting to force the federal government to take action on climate change will proceed despite efforts from the Trump administration to stop the lawsuit in its tracks.
On Friday night, the Supreme Court declined to halt the lawsuit, Juliana vs. United States, after briefly delaying it last month to consider an emergency request from the government.
The suit alleges that the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to life and liberty has been compromised by the government’s decision to create an energy system reliant on fossil fuels, in addition to arguing that it has failed to protect public trust resources like U.S. waters and general atmosphere.
In a three-page order, the court denied the stay while declaring that the Trump administration can still seek a stay in the 9th Circuit Court. The government contends that the lawsuit is “based on an assortment of unprecedented legal theories” and that the issues at play do not belong in the courtroom. But the Supreme Court kicked the case back to the lower court after initially granting the government the stay.
“[T]he Government’s petition for a writ of mandamus does not have a ‘fair prospect’ of success in this Court because adequate relief may be available in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit,” read the order on Friday, noting that the case could still return to the Supreme Court.
The 2015 lawsuit has survived multiple efforts to have it dismissed under both the Obama and Trump administrations. Filed by 21 children and young adults who range in age from 11 to 22, the suit is one of the most closely-watched legal efforts targeting climate change in the country.
Legal experts have pointed to the suit as potentially groundbreaking climate litigation, given that it seeks to hold the federal government accountable for its role in perpetuating climate change. A final decision could shape the future of litigation on climate issues for years to come.
Supporters of the suit lauded the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday as a crucial step forward.
“These young people have clinched a critical victory in the fight to preserve a livable planet,” said Kassie Siegel, who directs the Center for Biological Diversity’s Climate Law Institute, in a statement sent to ThinkProgress and other outlets. “Thanks to the brave plaintiffs, the Trump administration’s climate denial and obstruction is now on trial. Our money is on the kids.”
Julie Olson, the executive director and chief legal counsel for Our Children’s Trust, which is supporting the lawsuit, greeted the news in a statement.
“The youth of our nation won an important decision today from the Supreme Court that shows even the most powerful government in the world must follow the rules and process of litigation in our democracy,” said Olson. “We have asked the District Court for an immediate status conference to get Juliana v. U.S. back on track for trial in the next week.”
Both Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch indicated they would have stopped the lawsuit entirely, while other justices did not indicate their views. If the case were to return to the Supreme Court, it is unclear how a majority of the bench would rule.
Kelsey Juliana, the 22-year-old plaintiff whose name leads the lawsuit, said Friday that she hoped the latest round of litigation would finally allow the case to head towards a conclusion.
“I’m tired of playing this game. These petitions for stay and dismissal are exhausting,” Juliana said. “To everyone who has invested in this case, to those who’ve followed along our journey for the past three years and counting: stay with us, in hope and in the pursuit of justice.”
