Uber’s new security feature is selfies


Uber drivers will submit selfies to verify their identities.
Image: Getty Images

From now on, Uber drivers will start their shifts with selfies.

The ride-hailing company is expanding its Real-Time ID Check feature across the US, it announced in a blog post Friday. Drivers submit a selfie through the app to ensure the person driving the car matches Uber’s account on file.

The feature doesn’t connect to a background check or do anything else to ensure the underlying safety of Uber drivers. Instead, it just checks that the person in the car is the same one Uber has on file.

Drivers will be asked periodically to submit selfies before accepting rides, Uber said. The company uses Microsoft’s Cognitive Services API to compare the photo to one it has. If the photos don’t match, a driver’s account will be temporarily blocked.

Similar facial recognition technology is used by other companies, often in place of a password to identify consumers.

Uber has used the technology through a pilot program for the past few months, the company said. The main problem throughout that pilot was unclear photos or bad lighting.

Uber says it is also using GPS technology to detect dangerous driving, among other safety and security initiatives.

Read more: http://mashable.com/2016/09/23/uber-selfies-security/

Google, Salesforce may be interested in a bid for Twitter


A photo taken on September 11, 2013 shows the logo of social networking website ‘Twitter’ is displayed on a computer screen in London.
Image: LEON NEAL/AFP/Getty Images

The blue bird may finally find a new home.

Twitter has received interest in a potential purchase, CNBC reported via anonymous sources Friday, which could lead to a bid in the near future. News of the report sent Twitter shares climbing by 21 percent in early morning trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

Interested buyers include Google, Salesforce and other technology companies, according to CNBC.

The news follows a company board meeting earlier this month when Twitter directors reportedly mulled a sale as well as cost-cutting measures, Recode reported.

It’s been a tumultuous year for a Twitter, with the stock falling by 30 percent. Investors point to stagnant user growth and shrinking advertising growth. In fact, one shareholder filed a lawsuit against Twitter last week, claiming that the company misled investors on its growth metrics,Bloomberg reported.

Salesforce declined to comment on rumors.

However, Vala Afshar, chief digital evangelist at Salesforce, provided some insight on the value he sees in Twitter.

Twitter has attempted to reinvigorate the service since Twitter cofounder and product visionary Jack Dorsey retook the helm as CEO last October. Dorsey’s first push was Moments, an editorially curated feed of tweets and videos.

Recently, the company has been building out its capabilities in live-streaming video. Twitter has inked deals with several networks to host streams and create exclusive shows.

Just last night, Twitter streamed its second Thursday night football game. The first game attracted 2.1 million unique viewers, paling in comparison to television, but decent for a new effort by the struggling company. Twitter will also stream the general election debates.

The stock surge provides a good indicator that a sale could be beneficial for the company.

Twitter “has made various changes to improve its platform but earnings continue to decline. The buyout is their only hope at this point because clearly they are not able to improve their earnings on their own,” Cindy Kleinstone, portfolio manager of AnalyzeWallStreet.com, wrote in an email.

Rumors of a potential sale are common for Twitter, especially by Google.

Phil Davis, CEO Philstockworld.com and PSW Investments, told Mashable that Google may not be able to buy the company due to anti-trust measures and instead pointed to a telecom such as Verizon who is currently closing a deal with Yahoo.

“Any media company would love to have them too but, on the whole, I think it’s too early in the turnaround for them to be selling,” Davis wrote in an email.

Other analysts say that a private equity firm would make more sense, allowing the company to innovate and grow under less scrutiny.

Twitter and Google did not immediately respond to request for comment from Mashable.

Read more: http://mashable.com/2016/09/23/twitter-sale-google/

A tech journalist was secretly working for Apple


The Apple logo is shown on a screen at the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference in the Bill Graham Civic Auditorium, San Francisco, Monday, June 13, 2016. (AP Photo/Tony Avelar)
Image: AP

An editor for The Verge took a job with Apple but didn’t tell his employer.

Chris Ziegler, a founding editor at the tech-focused digital media publication, began working for Apple in July 2016. Ziegler did not tell The Verge, where he had been a deputy editor, and continued to be employed by the website, according to Editor-in-Chief Nilay Patel, who posted a note to The Verge on Friday afternoon.

Patel said that the website had become aware of Ziegler’s dual employment and investigated whether he had been involved in any coverage of his new employer. Strangely, Patel said that the website had not heard from Ziegler in August or September.

Vox Media, the parent company of The Verge, then verified Ziegler’s dual employment and promptly fired him.

Patel wrote that the investigation found that he had not had any impact on the site’s coverage of Apple.

After interviews with more than a dozen Verge and Vox Media employees who worked closely with Chris, and a careful review of emails, Slack logs, and various login histories, [Vox Media Editorial Director] Lockhart [Steele] determined that Chris’ conflict of interest did not have any impact on editorial decisions or journalism produced at The Verge or elsewhere in Vox Media. Chris did not attempt to steer any coverage towards or away from Apple, and any particular decisions he helped make had the same outcomes they would have had absent his involvement.

A Vox Media spokesperson confirmed Patel’s post.

“Chris is no longer an employee of The Verge or Vox Media. Chris accepted a position with Apple, stopped communicating with The Verge’s leadership, and his employment at The Verge was terminated,” the spokesperson wrote in an email. “Vox Media’s editorial director Lockhart Steele conducted an internal review of this conflict of interest, and after a thorough investigation, it was determined that there was no impact on editorial decisions or journalism produced at The Verge or elsewhere in Vox Media. We’ve shared details about this situation with The Verge’s audience and will continue to be transparent should any new information come to light.”

Apple and Ziegler did not immediately responded to emails seeking comment.

Media Twitter, with little better to do on a Friday afternoon, used the story to crack a few jokes.

Read more: http://mashable.com/2016/09/23/verge-editor-apple/

Amazon will now print your photos


Amazon will print your photos, as long as you store them on Amazon Drive.
Image: Getty Images

Amazon is moving into another sector: photo printing.

The e-commerce giant this week debuted a new service called Amazon Prints that allows customers to print their digital photos and order souvenirs like photo books, stationery and calendars.

The new Amazon Prints.

Image: screenshot/amazon

So far, that market has been dominated by companies like Shutterfly, which has offered similar options since its founding in 1999. Shutterfly’s stock plunged 12 percent in one day after news broke of Amazon’s entry into the market, Bloomberg reported.

Amazon Prints is only available to customers who use Amazon Drive, the company’s cloud storage service. Photos must be stored on the platform to be printed through Amazon Prints.

Amazon Print’s products.

Image: screenshot/amazon

Amazon’s ultimate goal might be to get more customers to sign up for Amazon Drive, rather than to take over the photo-printing market. Amazon Prime customers get free photo storage.

Still, it’s undercutting Shutterfly’s pricing at 9 cents per 4-by-6-inch photo compared to Shutterfly’s 15 cents.

Amazon Prints right now is only offering printed photos and photo books, but says more products are coming soon.

Read more: http://mashable.com/2016/09/23/amazon-prints-photos/

iHeartRadio will be offering a music subscription service


Usher performs at hi iHeartRadio Album Release Party on AT&T Live at Pier 15 on September 16, 2016 in New York City.
Image: Kevin Mazur/Getty Images for iHeartRadio

iHeartRadio has launched two new subscription options as it looks to grow its online business as a complement to its existing dominance of the U.S. radio scene.

iHeart remains a major force in the music industry thanks to its 850 radio stations. The company, formerly known as Clear Channel Communications, has been pushing into the digital realm, counting around 90 million users for its radio streaming app.

Now, the company is entering into uncharted waters. iHeart for years relied on playing music for free over the radio and making money off advertisements in between.

The streaming services mean that iHeart is now looking to charge customers to listen to music, and kick back a portion to the music industry just like Spotify, Pandora and just about every other operation.

For decades radio has remained the No. 1 medium to reach consumers, fostering a sense of community and engaging listeners through entertaining on-air personalities and curated music and content, said Bob Pittman, Chairman and CEO of iHeartMedia, in a press release. “Whileother streaming services have taken a music collection approach to digital streaming, no one has yet built a service incorporating on demand technology with real live radio and at a scale that only iHeartMedia can, with its reach of over a quarter of a billion people every month.”

The first option iHeartRadio Plus is meant to combine the company’s existing online radio offering with elements of on-demand listening. The company said it hopes that people who already have a subscription will buy this as an add-on.

The second iHeartRadio All Access is a full-on music subscription service akin to Spotify, Apple Music, Tidal and the growing raft of smaller competitors.

The services won’t debut until January 2017, and iHeart declined to talk about how much the services would cost.

Once maligned, streaming subscription services have become the saviors of the music world, helping to pull the industry out of a steep decline.

Read more: http://mashable.com/2016/09/23/iheartradio-subscription-services/

Facebook overestimated video watch time by as much as 80%, report says


Facebook overestimated its average video watch time by as much as 80 percent, a new report says.
Image: carl court/Getty Images

Facebook overestimated how long people were watching videos on its platform by as much as 80 percent for two years, a new report from the Wall Street Journal says.

The tech company said in a post in its Advertiser Help Center a few weeks ago that a certain statistic had not included any views that were less than three seconds. That inflated the numbers to make it seem viewers were watching videos for longer than they were.

The disclosure has upset advertisers who purchase video time on Facebook in part around that metric, the Journal reports.

“Two years of reporting inflated performance numbers is unacceptable,” the ad buying agency Publicis Media wrote in a memo to its clients.

The metric that was affected by Facebook’s calculation is called Average Duration of Video Viewed.” Facebook is now replacing that statistic with a measure called “Average Watch Time.”

We recently discovered an error in the way we calculate one of our video metrics, Facebook said in a statement. This error has been fixed, it did not impact billing, and we have notified our partners both through our product dashboards and via sales and publisher outreach. We also renamed the metric to make it clearer what we measure. This metric is one of many our partners use to assess their video campaigns.

Facebook business and marketing executive David Fischer published a post responding to the Journal‘s report on Friday morning.

“This isnt just about this error,” Fischer wrote. “This is about how seriously we take our partners commitment to our platform, and how their investments with us wholly depend on the transparency with which we communicate. We know we cant have true partnerships with our clients unless we are upfront and honest with them, including when we make mistakes like this one. Our clients trust and belief in our metrics is essential to us and we have to earn that trust.”

Video ads are a huge business on Facebook. Publicis, for example, purchased $77 billion in total ads in 2015, the Journal said.

More of that money may have gone to Facebook than the agency would have chosen had Facebook’s metrics been accurately represented.

Facebook has pushed video in recent years in both its algorithms and through platforms like Facebook Live. A Facebook executive in June said the social network will be “all video” in five years.

The disclosure from Facebook also affects numbers surrounding editorial video from media companies and other publishers.

Read more: http://mashable.com/2016/09/23/facebook-overestimated-video/

Millennials still want their own startups, but they’re too worried about student debt


Millennials want to become entrepreneurs, but they’re too worried about student debt.
Image: Getty Images

Young Americans aged 18 to 34 (also known as millennials) apparently love the idea of being entrepreneurs. Since many are burdened with massive student debt, they cant afford to launch startups. So a new survey shows theyll grudgingly join Americas corporate workforce.

More than 55 percent of them think their generation is more entrepreneurial than were Generation X, or even baby boomers. In reality, not only are there fewer entrepreneurs among millennials, theyre moving in the opposite direction: More view rising through the ranks of existing companies as the best route to success.

Sixty-two percent of millennials have considered starting their own businesses, and 72 percent think startups are essential for new innovation and jobs, according to The Millennial Economy, a survey of 1,200 18- to 34-year-olds commissioned by EY and the Economic Innovation Group. At the same time, a total of 42 percent said that they dont have the means to be entrepreneurs, in part due to student debt, which 48 percent believe has limited their career prospects.

That doesnt mean that, come Mondays presidential debate, millennials will be cheering the notion of an entrepreneur-in-chief. This is a jump-ball, toss-up generation, politically, said John Lettieri, who heads EIGs policy development, economic research, and legislative efforts. They are not turned on by either party in large numbers, with more than double the number who identified in the survey as Republican or Democrat saying they are Independents.

The perception is one (and not just among millennials), but a lot of people think startups have never been hotter and particularly that young people are more engaged in startups as a generation than previous generations, Lettieri said. None of those things are true. Numbers show a long-term economic shift away from entrepreneurship and new business formation. We have a declining rate of new business formation, and that accelerated dramatically after the great recession.

This isnt good news for a generation that is already pretty jaded about its prospects. While millennials say theyre very patriotic and buy the notion that America is a place to be proud of, they’ve also been scarred by the economic uncertainty they saw their parents contend with and that they graduated amid, said Lettieri. That gives them a surprisingly conservative streak. With the presidential campaign in the final stretch, here are some of the biggest issues for this large group of voters.

Sticking with a company and climbing the corporate ladder is seen as “the best way to advance their career” by 44 percent of millennials. Contrary to their rep as job-hoppers, only a quarter of those surveyed saw switching jobs frequently as the road to success. They view people associated with start-ups as successful, but only 22 percent said that “starting one’s own company offers the greatest chance of success.”

Black women in particular have thought about starting their own businesses. Seventy-one percent have considered it, compared with 66 percent of Hispanic women and 54 percent of white women. Hispanic millennials have the highest percentage saying they don’t have the “financial means” to be an entrepreneur, at 50 percent, followed by blacks at 48 percent and whites at 41 percent.

A total of 59 percent of millennials believe that government makes entrepreneurial success tough.

Millennials are not happy with where the country is going. Seventy-two percent said they had low confidence in the federal government, and 63 percent said the US is on the “wrong track.” Women were more pessimistic than men, at 68 percent to 57 percent.

Funding public education is their top priority for how the federal government should spend their tax dollars, at 64 percent. That was followed by Social Security and Medicare (46 percent) and national security (45 percent). Those priorities are shared across party lines, for the most part.

While this generation has low confidence in many established institutions, ranging from the news media to Corporate America to the federal government, they have “a great deal or a lot” of confidence in colleges and universities (51 percent) and in the military (55 percent).

Financial security is a big concern. Close to 80 percent of those surveyed worry about “having good-paying job opportunities in the future,” and 74 percent said they worry about not having enough money to pay health-care bills if they get ill.

Most think the amount they pay in taxes is “about right,” at 52 percent, while 36 percent say they pay too much in federal income tax. Seventy percent think the wealthy pay too little in taxes and that lower-income Americans pay too much.

This article originally published at Bloomberg here

Read more: http://mashable.com/2016/09/23/millennials-startups-student-debt/

8 Crazy Hidden Camera Moments Reveal What Happens When No One Is Looking

Do you ever feel like someone is watching you, ever though no other humans are around at the moment?

Well, not to freak you out, but chances are there is someone or rather, something watching you a lot of the time.

Cameras are everywhere, whether they’re someone’s personalsecurity cameras, the city’s cameras, or a private business’s cameras. You can never be totally sure that you’re alone.

Some people aren’t too savvy about the fact that businesses, hotels, and their places of employment have installed security cameras for very obvious reasons. They go about their jolly old business as if they were the only person in the world, and sometimes it backfires on them.

These eightstories of weird moments caught on security cameras are proof of just that. Security staff, other employees, and sometimes even the guilty partyall have some pretty bizarre stories that will really make you wonder what the heck these people were thinking.

Have you ever done something not-so-smart that was caught on camera? Have you ever caught a friend? Let us know in the comments and pleaseSHARE these stories on Facebook to see if your loved ones have anycrazy on-camera experiencesto tell.

[H/T: Reddit]

Thumbnail source: Instagram /ecsecuritysolutions

1.

1.

“We have a security camera in our living room. One day I slipped and busted my ass. Five seconds later I get a text from my husband (who works a very boring job so checks the camera frequently) that just said “HAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHA.” – bhsgrad2015

2.

2.

“One day there was couple walking into the store, and the gentleman saw a blueberry on the floor, did a double take and stepped over it. His wife didn’t. Slipped on the blueberry and went flying. We don’t even sell fruit, it’s a department store.” – patronising_patronus

3.

3.

“Last week I saw a guy with his pet lizard shopping for flat screens.” – Notamethdealer49

4.

4.

“The strangest thing I saw was some guy who came in the church with his dog and started drinking directly from the Holy Water font. Then he held the Holy Water dispenser button so the dog could drink from it, too.

“I went downstairs and asked if he’d like to use the men’s room instead. He said he wanted his dog to drink Holy Water to make him better behaved, rather than to drink from the toilet.” – Back2Bach

5.

5.

“I work as security in a hotel with bars on site. Mostly just naked people who get locked out of their room.” – pyroguy174

6.

6.

“I once watched a girl put on 18 pairs of thong panties under her skirt. Like, she kept looking around like the most obvious shoplifter ever, and just kept putting on thong after thong after thong. I totally lost count. I stopped her and it was like a clown car under that skirt.” – HarbingerofGloom

7.

7.

“I watched a guy almost get run over while peeing in our parking lot. He took off so fast I don’t think he got his pants on before driving away.” – lightworkday

8.

8.

“I used to ride a scooter to work… I wasn’t permitted to ride it in the actual building though.

“One night I did anyway. It was like 8pm on a Friday and nobody was around and it was like 20 meters or so to the door.

“The next day my boss walked up to me with a print out of a screenshot the security people had sent of me mid-scoot on that Friday night, breeze in my hair and giddy smile on my face. Is still one of the most amazing pictures of me. I should scan it.” – smdcdiaf

Have you ever done something not-so-smart that was caught on camera? Have you ever caught a friend? PleaseSHAREthese stories on Facebook to see if your loved ones have anything crazier to tell.

Read more: http://www.littlethings.com/caught-on-security-camera/

Charlotte Protesters Take To Streets In 4Th Night Of Demonstrations

DEVELOPING: A crowd of demonstrators briefly shut down Charlotte’s Interstate 277 Friday evening as a fourth night of protests over the shooting of a black man by police unfolded.

An estimated 300 protesters took to the streets, leaving the freeway within a short time. Earlier Friday, they gathered at a park and then marched through Charlotte’s business district.

One marcher carried a sign that said “Just Stop The Killing,” while another had a banner that said “Just Release the Tapes.” Protesters have sought the release of police footage of the shooting earlier this week of Keith Lamont Scott by a police officer.

National Guard members posted in front of many downtown buildings watched the demonstrators marching.

Three previous nights of protests included two that were chaotic, with more than a dozen officers wounded and one other person killed. But Thursday, people marched through downtown in a largely peaceful protest.

Police say Officer Brentley Vinson, who is also black, shot Scott because the man posed a threat. Some in Scott’s family claimed he was merely holding a book, but police said he was refusing to drop a gun.

Relatives on Friday afternoon released cellphone video recorded by Scott’s wife, with their attorney saying “people can draw their own conclusions” about his death. The video recorded by Rakeyia Scott does not show whether the man had a gun.

Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Chief Kerr Putney says there is footage from at least one police body camera and one dashboard camera. He has so far declined to release that video.

Fox News’ Donald Fair and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/23/charlotte-protesters-take-to-streets-in-4th-night-demonstrations.html

The tech titans wont beat disease itll be the little people

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan may feel good about donating $3bn to medical research, but its a drop in the ocean

So, is $3bn a lot of money? Of course it is. Is $3bn enough to banish or manage all disease in the world within the next 84 years? Of course it isnt. Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan have announced a plan to invest 3bn in medical research over the next 10 years. They claim this sum will enable them to play a key role in curing, preventing or managing all disease by the end of this century.

In comparison to what governments spend on basic medical research, $3bn is, of course, a negligible amount. From 2015 to 2016, the UK government is investing 5.8bn in science and research funding. Making a conservative assumption that this amount stays broadly stable for a decade the government will have contributed 58bn (or $75bn) towards science and medical research during the same time-span that Zuckerberg and Chan have pledged $3bn.

Then theres the US government. Most of its basic medical research is channelled through the National Institutes of Health (NIH), federally funded health institutes that have been responsible for some of the biggest medical breakthroughs in history. The NIHs budget from 2014 to 2016 was more than $30bn annually $90bn in three years. Assuming this stays fixed, the US government will direct more than $300bn towards medical research and science over the next 10 years.

Zuckerberg and Chans hearts might be in the right place. They may genuinely believe that their money is exceptional, that their pledged $3bn is imbued with some sort of entrepreneurial elixir that will magically transform the figure from what it represents in reality less than 1% of the US governments budget for health research to what they proclaim their money will do: render disease obsolete by 2100.

But there are justifiable reasons to treat their proclamations with scepticism. Not from a place of resentment or a Scrooge-like dislike of charity, but because the refusal to examine the plausibility of their claims risks a disservice to the millions whose charitable donations amount to a sum that is far greater than what US tech billionaires contribute.

The vast majority of charitable expenditure in the US comes from the millions of poor and middle-income citizens scrimping and saving and putting aside proportionally more money from their take-home salaries than the US rich contribute as a ratio of their incomes.

The first reason to temper the hype around Zuckerberg and Chans gift is the obvious: it hasnt been spent yet. Its a mere pledge. And there are precedents for not taking philanthropists at their word when they vow to surrender their fortunes.

The last 10 years have been littered with examples of philanthropists reneging on promised billions. Richard Branson made a much-publicised pledge in 2006 to spend $3bn on clean energy technologies over 10 years . By 2014, as Naomi Klein reported, his outlay was less than $300m.

Chan and Zuckerberg may well be acting in good faith. They seem sincere. And its touching the way they speak about their daughters life and the way she inspires them.

But theres also reason to worry well never know how much money theyre actually contributing to charitable causes, regardless of how many press conferences or TED talks were treated to over the next decade.

The entity they have established to disburse their wealth the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is legally insulated from the disclosure requirements that traditional US philanthropic foundations face. We may never know and we have no legal right to know whether any of the promised money is actually going to charity at all.

Bill
Bill Gates, the Microsoft co-founder, with his wife, Melinda, at a meeting in 2011 with villagers in Jamsot, near Patna, India. Photograph: Aftab Alam Siddiqui/AP

How is this possible? Because the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative is a for-profit limited liability company. By establishing such a vehicle for their giving, the couple are legally able to direct all of their so-called philanthropic gifts towards for-profit investment ventures. They could legally offer an unknown amount to, say, a golf buddy to set up a string of fast-food franchises and then brand this venture as charitable even when its not.

This might seem outlandish, but there are plenty of precedents to suggest that it could happen. The last 20 years have seen the philanthropic landscape shift in strange ways, permitting the unfathomable to become commonplace with unclear benefits for the most impoverished people living in wealthy nations and for those in poor countries.

The biggest change in philanthropy has been the emergence of something that the sociologist Darren Thiel and I term rich-to-rich giving. Increasingly, philanthropists such as Bill and Melinda Gates are choosing to offer massive, non-repayable charitable grants to some of the worlds wealthiest corporations, driven by the assumption that enriching already rich companies will lead to trickle-down benefits for the poor.

Scholastic, Mastercard, Sanofi these are just three companies picked at random from the Gates Foundations public registers of grants disbursed over its 16-year existence. In Scholastics case, the Gates Foundation offered millions to the company, positioning it to profit handsomely from providing educational materials to high schools; when it comes to Mastercard, the money is aimed at helping the credit card company to expand its business operations in Nairobi; in Sanofis case, on medical research towards underfunded diseases.

Pharmaceutical R&D, education materials, expansion in Nairobi these are just causes, but are the recipients worthy of the gifts, given how little financial risk theyre actually assuming? In each of these cases, the money was a direct grant with no onus on the companies to repay the donations, regardless of how profitable the grants become.

Even as corporate America shirks from its tax obligations, lobbying for ever greater tax exemptions across the world, corporate populists like the Gateses seem determined to reward highly lucrative pharmaceutical and credit card companies with free money.

The economist JK Galbraith used to scornfully compare trickle-down economic policies to what he described as the horse and sparrow theory of economic growth: the idea that if you feed the horses enough oats, something will pass through to the road for the sparrows.

The new philanthropist kings are generous with their oats. The horses are certainly well fed. But what about the sparrows? Remarkably, even as wealth gaps between the rich and the poor grow more alarming, even as average wages stagnate, the unsung multitude of everyday citizens manage mini-miracles of giving every day.

In 2014, Americans gave more than $350bn to charity. It was the highest total amount in 60 years. Of that amount, foundations such as the Gates Foundation cumulatively offered only 15%. The vast majority 72%, more than $258bn in total came from individual donations. And of those individuals donations, a great deal came from those who could afford to give the least. For decades, study after study has shown that lower-income Americans give proportionally more of their incomes to charity than do upper-income Americans, as Judith Warner has pointed out in the New York Times.

And thats on top of what citizens already contribute through simply paying their tax. Its the struggling sparrows bolstering the budgets of bodies such as the National Institutes for Health, leading to impressive gains in life expectancy, in drops in global maternal mortality, in major breakthroughs in HIV/Aids research, in improvements in cutting malaria and polio deaths.

Yes, wealthy philanthropists have contributed. But if you look at what governments spend on medical research, gifts from individual philanthropists stack up in only the tiniest way.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/23/mark-zuckerberg-priscilla-chan-bill-gates-charity-philanthropy