CEO Pay Packages Rose to Median $14.7 Million in 2021, a New High WSJ
The tax trick everyone earning more than $45,000 needs to know
Facial Recognition May Not Be Banned After All Gizmodo
Nations Aim to Secure Supply Chains by Turning Offshoring Into ‘Friend-Shoring’ WS
MakeUseOf: “Finding a completely unlimited music listening experience can be a real challenge.
Most music streaming services offer free and paid tiers, but place restrictions on the features available in the free plan. Spotify’s free package, for example, doesn’t offer the highest quality audio and only lets you listen on shuffle when using mobile. If you want to listen to free music without limitations, these are the music streaming services with no restrictions…We end with Soundzabound. It is the top unrestricted music streaming service for anyone involved in education who needs music for their project, presentation, podcast, or video yearbook…”
How to Stay Informed Without Getting Paralyzed by Bad News - Wired – “Every time we look at our phones, it seems something terrible has happened. Here’s how to monitor current events in a healthy way…Although technology can produce bad-news paralysis, online tools can also help you make productive contributions within your various roles. As an organization junkie who juggles four part-time jobs with college classes and a private life, here’s how I balance responsibilities…”
University of Colorado Law Review > Printed> Volume 93 > Issue 1 > Robophobia by Andrew Keane Woods
“Robots—machines, algorithms, artificial intelligence—play an increasingly important role in society, often supplementing or even replacing human judgment. Scholars have rightly become concerned with the fairness, accuracy, and humanity of these systems. Indeed, anxiety about machine bias is at a fever pitch. While these concerns are important, they nearly all run in one direction: we worry about robot bias against humans; we rarely worry about human bias against robots. This is a mistake. Not because robots deserve, in some deontological sense, to be treated fairly—although that may be true—but because our bias against nonhuman deciders is bad for us.
For example, it would be a mistake to reject self-driving cars merely because they cause a single fatal accident. Yet all too often this is what we do. We tolerate enormous risk from our fellow humans but almost none from machines. A substantial literature—almost entirely ignored by legal scholars concerned with algorithmic bias—suggests that we routinely prefer worse-performing humans over better-performing robots. We do this on our roads, in our courthouses, in our military, and in our hospitals. Our bias against robots is costly, and it will only get more so as robots become more capable. This Article catalogs the many different forms of antirobot bias and suggests some reforms to curtail the harmful effects of that bias. The Article’s descriptive contribution is to develop a taxonomy of robophobia.
Its normative contribution is to offer some reasons to be less biased against robots. The stakes could hardly be higher. We are entering an age when one of the most important policy questions will be how and where to deploy machine decision-makers.”
Alex Raskolnikov (Columbia) presents Should Only the Richest Pay More? today as part of the OMG Transatlantic Tax Talks Series (OMG = Oxford-Michigan-MIT-Munich-Georgetown):
