• English
  • 简体中文
  • 繁體中文
  • Tiếng Việt
  • ไทย
  • Indonesia
Subscribe
Real-time News
According to Politico: Anthropic is quietly marketing its own AI security bill to lawmakers.US President Trump: Biden provided Ukraine with $350 billion worth of equipment and cash. This is bad, very bad, absolutely terrible.On October 17, local time, the Security Council held its sixth round of indicative voting on the selection of the next UN Secretary-General on the afternoon of October 16. This round of voting was the first to use colored ballots to separate the votes of the five permanent members. For a candidate to receive the Security Councils final recommendation, they must obtain at least nine "encouragement" votes and have no objections from any permanent member.US President Trump: (Regarding the Strait of Hormuz) What would the Arab countries think if we renamed it the "Trump Strait"? We can easily handle that.On October 17th, according to Axios, John Felton, CFO of Amazon Web Services (AWS), stated that spending on AI infrastructure and services is sustainable because related investments are driving substantial innovation. Felton said that AWSs AI capital expenditures are yielding returns, and businesses should view AI as a tool to improve productivity, not just a means to cut costs. Felton also stated that as of the second quarter, AWS had a backlog of nearly $500 billion in orders, with customers ranging from large enterprises and AI labs to small and medium-sized enterprises, so he is "confident" in the companys capital expenditure arrangements, emphasizing, "The demand is real." He also stated that the payback period for AWSs AI servers is less than three years. Regarding the continued profitability of AI investments, Felton said that internal AWS data shows a "roughly linear relationship" between token usage and productivity gains. AWS is currently experiencing "significant ROI and productivity gains" and plans to further expand related investments.

The Republican National Committee Is Suing Google For Its Email Spam Filters

Skylar Williams

Oct 25, 2022 14:34

11.png


The Republican National Committee (RNC) filed a complaint against Google on Friday, alleging that the search engine sent its emails to users' spam folders.


In a case filed in California's U.S. District Court, the U.S. political committee accuses the internet giant of "discriminating" against it by "throttling its email correspondence due to the RNC's political affiliation and opinions."


"Google has collectively relegated millions of RNC emails to the spam folders of prospective donors and supporters during critical election fundraising and community building times," the RNC alleged in its lawsuit.


Google refuted the claims.


"As previously indicated, we do not block communications based on their political affiliation. The spam filters in Gmail respond to user actions." Google official José Castaeda said in a statement. Referring to the FEC, he added, "We provide training and support to campaigns, and we just developed a trial program for political senders that was approved by the FEC, and we continue to work to maximize email deliverability while lowering unwanted spam."


Typically, spam filters on email systems remove and divert undesired "spam" messages to a separate folder.


The bulk of the month, nearly all of the RNC's emails end up in users' inboxes, but at the end of the month, a vital time for fund-raising, virtually all of their emails end up in spam folders.


"The RNC's fundraising has historically been most successful at the end of the month," the lawsuit argues, adding that it makes no difference if the email is about giving, voting, or community outreach.


According to the committee, "discrimination" has been occurring for roughly ten months despite its best efforts to collaborate with Google.


It added that the alleged routing of its emails to spam folders has reduced revenue and that more money will be lost in the coming weeks as a result of the upcoming midterm elections.


Republicans have long claimed that huge technology companies discriminate against conservative perspectives and stifle free speech, a notion that technology companies adamantly dispute.