Trending February 2024 # Watch: Day Two Of Mark Zuckerberg’s Washington Testimony # Suggested March 2024 # Top 6 Popular

You are reading the article Watch: Day Two Of Mark Zuckerberg’s Washington Testimony updated in February 2024 on the website Achiashop.com. We hope that the information we have shared is helpful to you. If you find the content interesting and meaningful, please share it with your friends and continue to follow and support us for the latest updates. Suggested March 2024 Watch: Day Two Of Mark Zuckerberg’s Washington Testimony

10:00 am Chairman Walden’s statements are poignant and much more specific than yesterday’s. Hopefully these politicians watched yesterday’s hearing so we can avoid a lot of repitition.

Mr Pallone from New Jersey immediately continues the dive into a perceived need for regulation over internet companies. He explicitly mentions the FTC’s inability to ensure that Facebook and other companies like it actually follow the mandates it hands down. Worth noting that the repeal of net neutrality also puts the FTC in charge of policing large swaths of the internet. He’s not asking questions, but this is a very coherent statement of current affairs. The party lines are clearly drawn in this hearing already.

10:10 am Zuckerberg is giving his own opening statement. We heard this yesterday.

Chairman Walden starts his questioning by directly asking Zuckerberg if Facebook is a media company. Zuckerberg says that Facebook is a technology company, even though it pays to create content. He reiterates that the company is responsible for the content on the platform.

Walden’s second question is about whether Facebook is a financial institution because it allows friends to send each other money. Zuckerberg doesn’t think so.

Walden specifically mentions that Facebook doesn’t technically sell data to prevent Zuckerberg from falling into the “we don’t sell data” routine.

Mister Pallone is still eager to inject party politics. He asks if Facebook limits the data it collects, and Zuckerberg says yes. Pallone asks if Facebook will commit to making default user settings such that it minimizes data collection. He wants a yes or no and Zuckerberg won’t commit to one of them. This is tense.

Mister Barton from Texas reminds everyone that Zuckerberg is here because he volunteered. Barton picks up where Ted Cruz left off yesterday asking about conservative groups that he feels were unfairly targeted. Zuckerberg says the account he mentioned was subject to an “enforcement error.” Barton then proposes a total ban on data sharing on users under 18. Zuckerberg points out user controls, but the language is too vague here for this to really mean anything. Barton’s point about having to “work at it,” to make your account private is well-received, though.

Mister Rush picks up the conversation about Facebook’s ability to provide information to organizations that track and profile activists. “Why should users have to opt in” for privacy is the rally cry of this hearing so far and we’re still in the early stages.

Mister Upton asks Zuckerberg what kind of regulatory environment he would want if he was starting a small company to try and compete with Facebook. This is an important note for all of this testimony. Zuckerberg once again says it’s easy for his wealthy company to accommodate lots of regulations, but it could be hard for startups. Upton brings up a very specific ad rejection case for a State Senate candidate and Zuckerberg predictably says he isn’t familiar with the issue.

Ms. Eshoo says that American companies “owe something to America” in light of the misuses of Facebook during the 2024 election. Eshoo asked her constituents for questions to ask during the hearing. She asks a series of yay-or-nay questions, but most of them repeat yesterday’s points. Once again, her overall point is about how hard it is to find controls about data privacy.

She asks Zuckerberg if his personal data was part of the Cambridge Analytica information. He says it was. She asks if Facebook would change its business model to protect privacy. Zuckerberg hedges.

Mister Shimkus asks about Facebook as a platform. He asks who will conduct the audit on third party apps. Zuckerberg says the audit will start internally. If the company detects suspicious activity, it will bring in third-party companies.

Mister Engel from New York asks if Facebook plans to sue Kogan or Cambridge Analytica and Zuckerberg says it’s something they’re “looking into.” Zuck says there were other researchers at Cambridge University who were building similar apps that they’re looking into. Engel gives Zuckerberg the first chance to mention AI by asking if the company has made progress when it comes to preventing foreign influence on elections.

Mister Burgess shows a Dilbert comic. In his last moment, he asks whether Facebook will make the audit data available to the FTC. Zuckerberg says they’re cooperating with the FTC.

Mister Green mentions the GDPR European consumer protections that go into effect in May. This is a much earlier mention than yesterday for a very important point. Zuckerberg says “all the same controls will be available around the world.” Zuckerberg says the standards will go out across the world. This seems like a slightly different answer than he gave yesterday. He says there will be a tool that appears when people sign in.

Zuckerberg says Facebook might update the ability to download user data to comply with the data portability requirements in the GDPR.

Mrs. Blackburn throws out the first Trueman Show reference and asks who “owns the virtual you?” She evokes privacy documents that apply to other industries and talks about The Browser Act from 2023, which outlines privacy rules across the internet. You can read The Browser Act here. It’s similar in tone fo the GDPR.

Mrs. Blackburn

Tennessee’s Mrs. Blackburn holds up regulatory documents for other industries before bringing up The Browser Act, which would affect businesses regarding privacy online.

Ms. DeGette dives immediately into the financials. Zuckerberg says that the Cambridge Analytica scandal hasn’t caused an uptick in users quitting facebook or a reduction of interactions on the platform. She’s pointing out past breaches and Zuckerberg struggles to recall details about the cases.

Mister Scalise asks again about the Diamonds and Silk page that was taken down, using it as a stepping stone into accusing the Facebook algorithm of bias against conservatives. “I wrote algorithms before.”

“There is absolutely no directive in any of the changes that we make to have a bias,” says Zuckerberg. Scalise asks Zuckerberg to look into whether or not there was a bias.

Scalise then asks if Facebook worked with the Obama campaign in 2012. Zuckerberg says no.

Mister Doyle asks if Facebook routinely finds out about violations through the press. Zuckerberg says sometimes they do. Doyle is outright accusing Zuckerberg of attracting developers to the platform at the cost of the users.

Mister Latta asks how many apps Facebook is investigating. Zuckerberg repeats the “tens of thousands” number, saying that it will look at behavior patterns and then move to third party auditors if they find anything suspicious. Offenders will get banned, and they will try to ensure that the data is deleted. Zuckerberg says it will take many months and cost a lot.

Ms. Schakowsky starts her time by reading back Zuckerberg’s apologies in rapid succession. It’s political theater, but it’s effective. She doesn’t think self-regulation works. She asks how long the investigation into the apps will take. Zuckerberg says “many months” and hopefully not years. Zuckerberg doesn’t believe it’s a “large number” of companies that have the Cambridge Analytica data.

Mrs. McMorris Rodgers wants to talk about content. Zuckerberg says Facebook isn’t doing a good enough job of defining community standards, in part because 90 percent of users are outside the US. Her worry is about bias toward conservatives, which is a common platform point with Republican reps.

Mr Butterfield talks about diversity in Facebook and tech in general, which isn’t a topic we’ve heard a lot about today. Butterfield asks Zuckerberg to organize a meeting of tech leaders specifically to talk about the lack of diversity across the board. Zuckerberg says it’s a good idea. Butterfield points out a lack of diversity on the leadership committee.

Mister Harper asks about the difference between the 2012 Obama campaign data usage versus the Cambridge Analytica issue. Harper is mad that people aren’t as outraged about the 2012 issues vs. the 2024 issues.

Ms. Matsui brings up the idea of content ownership that has recurred throughout the testimony. Zuckerberg says that once you share a photo with someone, it belongs to both of you, which is technically wrong from a legal standpoint. They’re on different wavelengths and the answers don’t match up with the questions.

Mister Lance comes back from the break talking about censorship on the platform. He’s a co-sponsor of the Browser Act, which Zuckerberg promises to review. He flat out asks if the Cambridge Analytica scandal is an FTC violation for Facebook. Zuckerberg says he doesn’t, but Lance disagrees. He foreshadows future trials.

Ms. Castor finally asks if Facebook collects data about people who don’t have Facebook accounts. Zuckerberg stumbles hard in his response. This is the worst he has looked. Zuckerberg says that Facebook announced two weeks ago that it won’t interact with data brokers.

Zuckerberg talks about the deletion process after saying he didn’t know how long it took yesterday. He says a deleted account is immediately gone from public view but takes a while to filter out of Facebook servers.

Mister Olson compares Facebook to a Navy ship. He harkens back to experiments Facebook did with users to see how positive and negative posts affects their mood. It happened in 2014. Zuckerberg once again talks about how actively using social media is good, but passively consuming it is bad.

Mister McNerny refers back to his history as a mathematician who created algorithms. He asks if users can download all of their user information, including the tracked information like browsing history. It’s an interesting question. Now he’s asking about GDPR. Zuckerberg says “we’re working on it” when asked if it will be in place in May like in the EU.

Mister McKinley ask if Facebook should be allowed to promote illegal online pharmacies, then outlines some of the statistics about the possible 90,000 outlets for illicit drugs. He shows a screenshot of illegal drugs for sale from last week. I wonder if this is related to Market Place, which no one has mentioned yet. This is one of the first times we’re hearing about AI tools to find these dealers today. Much less of that today than yesterday.

Mister Welch asks a series of yes/no questions about what Zuckerberg believes regarding consumer rights. It’s retreading things we’ve been hearing. Weltch wants to know who has the final say for privacy, the government or private companies. He asks whether Zuckerberg or not will help the committee create legislation to govern privacy. Not much new information here.

Mister Kinzinger asks what information Facebook makes available to foreign state agencies like Russia. Zuckerberg says he has no knowledge of any time Facebook gave information to Russia. Kinzinger says that people have stolen his pictures and data to create fraudulent accounts. Zuckerberg is talking about AI tools again.

Mister Lujan is the first to mention the public information scraping that was possible on Facebook by searching names and phone numbers. He traces the issue back to 2013 and asks why it took until 2023 to turn off the feature. Facebook has detailed profiles of people who have never signed up for Facebook. Zuckerberg says they keep data on those users for security reasons. Can someone who doesn’t have a Facebook account opt out of Facebook’s data collection.

Mister Griffith from Virginia asks about plans for rural broadband plans. Zuckerberg explains Facebook’s fight against Fake news. There are several types of bad actors.

He asks if Zuckerberg has considered something like Underwriters Laboratory, which helps regulate utilities.

Mister Johnson from Ohio starts off telling Zuckerberg he’s an American success story. Seems like that exact phrase has shown up a lot. He asks about how Facebook determines the propriety of user content. He mentions AI, then Johnson asks about accountability. He wants to know if anyone has been fired because of it.

Mister Loesback talks about Zuckerberg’s world tour and the time he went to Iowa. Loebsack is back to the issue of accountability. All of this feels like it undermines the FTC, at least a little. A constituent question asks if Facebook could exist without collecting data. Zuckerberg says Facebook could exist without a developer platform, but it couldn’t exist without people putting in their data.

Mister Long asks about Facesmash, which Zuckerberg calls a prank website. It has been gone since 2003. Long says Zuckerberg should get ready for Congress to overreact to these issues. Long takes up the banner for Diamonds and Silk.

Mister Schrader asks about the specifics of Cambridge Analytica deleting data. Schrader wants to ensure that Facebook or the auditors won’t delete Cambridge Analytica data before law enforcement can see it. Zuckerberg says that the UK government is doing its investigation first and the Facebook investigation is on suspension.

Mister Flores from Texas doesn’t hesitate to say the word “monopoly” which has been sparse during this testimony. He finally asks if technology platforms should be ideologically neutral. Zuckerberg obviously answers yes.

Mister Cardenas from California says it feels like we’ve been here forever. He’s right. He tells Zuckerberg about the news that the CEO of Cambridge Analytica stepped down today. Zuckerberg shrugs it off. Zuckerberg ends with a “broader responsibility” remark that we’re used to hearing by now. Cardenas asks about Facebook’s interaction with The Guardian before the Cambridge Analytica story broke and Zuckerberg says he thought there was a factual error. He doesn’t say specifically what that error was.

Mister Cardenas from California

Here’s a graph of Facebook’s growth.

Mrs. Brooks from Indiana starts off the post-break session asking about how Facebook prevents terrorist organizations from using the platform to recruit members. Zuckerberg has been proud to say that 99 percent of the terrorism content gets taken off by the AI systems. Zuckerberg also says they have a counter-terrorism team with 200 people working solely on this issue. Brooks points out that Whatsapp (which Facebook owns) is sometimes used by terrorists to communicate because of its encrypted nature.

Mister Ruiz from California asks about why Facebook didn’t notify users in 2024 when Cambridge Analytica first broke. Zuckerberg says he wasn’t legally required to disclose it to users, but he should have because it was the right thing to do. Ruiz is hinting at the fact that there need to be stronger rules that make companies protect privacy in specific ways without trusting companies to self-regulate. Ruiz proposes forming an organization like a digital user protection agency.

Mister Mullin from Oklahoma says he assumes everything he does on the internet is tracked. It’s weird that we haven’t heard anything about Facebook’s VPN service, Onavo during all of this. That’s an app that clearly tracks people when they’re not explicitly using Facebook. In fact, we’ve barely heard the name “Instagram” here either.

Mister Peters from California points out the disparity between maximizing ad revenue for shareholders while emphasizing privacy for users. Zuckerberg says that the decisions come down to differences between people on the service. That might make sense without the Cambridge Analytica scandal sharing data that never should have gotten as far as it did. Zuck then says he has to think about what, if anything, GDPR gets wrong about blanket security regulation online.

Mister Hudson from North Carolina points out the importance of a platform like Facebook for members of the military. Zuckerberg says he’s not aware of a specific concern about revealing the location information about military users, which could be dangerous. This isn’t the first time something like this has come up. A few months ago, data from fitness app Strava revealed location and behavior data about military bases.

Mister Collins asks specifically about the 2014 platform shift that now prevents third-party developers from gathering data about friends unless they both authorized the app to do so. Now the politicians are starting to argue amongst themselves, if passive aggressively.

Mister Walberg asks about the bad actors from the platform days. Zuckerberg doesn’t call out specific apps, but says lots of apps were asking for things that they didn’t need to function. Walberg once again evokes the 2012 Obama campaign’s use of the platform to gather data. It has less of a bite after Zuckerberg explicitly said Oabama’s campaign didn’t break any rules.

Mrs. Walters from California digs into the difference between the app platform permissions and the user settings. She asks about whether users should have to understand what they’re giving up when they sign up for a site using the platform. She makes a good point about the UX and the fact that it’s hard to tell what your settings actually are when you’re using Facebook. I wish someone had brought this up earlier because it would be great to hear more questions about it.

Mrs. Dingell is worried that Mark Zuckerberg didn’t know about key facts and court cases regarding the company of which he’s a CEO. She asks how many sites are using “like” buttons, share buttons, and pixels. Zuckerberg doesn’t have that information either. Dingell thinks it’s over 100 million. She suggests that internet services like this should be regulated like clean air and water as time expires.

Mister Costello from Pennsylvania starts in with talk about GDPR. There’s way more talk about this than yesterday. Zuckerberg has been careful to say that the thinks “parts” of the legislation are good. No one has been able to get him to give a flat acceptance, though. Costello asks if Facebook should be able to use facial recognition AI on non-Facebook users. Zuckerberg goes back to the idea of special consent.

Costello specifically asks if Facebook is ever a publisher that’s legally responsible for content on its platform. Zuckerberg says yes if it’s something they have created. Otherwise, its responsibility is to make sure that it’s not harmful.

Mister Carter from Georgia goes back to the issue of illicit drug sales. He goes on to mention that Facebook is one of the biggest contributors to the illegal ivory market. Carter then mentions the Motion Picture Association of America’s claim that piracy on Facebook is hurting its business, which has less bite than the ivory argument. Carter makes it clear that he doesn’t want regulations from a governmental perspective. “I don’t want Congress to have to act.”

Mister Duncan from South Carolina is primarily concerned with free speech. He’s literally waving around a copy of the Constitution. Duncan considers Facebook part of the press, which is a huge conversation.

Mister Cramer is the last speaker of the day and uses his spot to share his fear that Congress will overreact to this situation. Cramer wonders how quickly Facebook would take down drug selling accounts if there was a million dollar penalty for missing it.

It’s over. Now comes the discussion.

You're reading Watch: Day Two Of Mark Zuckerberg’s Washington Testimony

Two Bu Profs Inducted Into Institute Of Medicine

Two BU Profs Inducted into Institute of Medicine MED’s Jack, SPH’s Jette earn honor for research, service

MED’s Brian Jack (left) helped develop reengineered discharge steps to reduce hospital readmissions. SPH’s Alan Jette chaired the IOM project that led to the release of a landmark report shaping national priorities in the disability field. Jack photo by Melody Komyerov. Jette photo by Kalman Zabarsky

Two BU professors have been inducted into the Institute of Medicine (IOM), a branch of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that confers membership on people in the health and medical fields who combine outstanding professional achievements with a commitment to service. Among the 70 new IOM members nationwide are Brian Jack, a School of Medicine professor and chair of family medicine and chief of family medicine at Boston Medical Center, and Alan Jette, a School of Public Health professor of health policy and management and director of the Health & Disabilities Research Institute. They join IOM’s active membership of just 1,753, a respected body that offers independent analysis and recommendations on important health issues.

“Election to the IOM is considered one of the highest honors in the fields of health and medicine,” says Karen Antman, dean of MED and provost of the Medical Campus, who is also a member. “Dr. Jack has made invaluable contributions to the field of medicine, specifically his extensive research regarding hospital readmissions.” Robert Meenan (MED’72, GSM’89), dean of SPH, who has worked closely with Jette for three decades, lauded his colleague for his longtime leadership in the field of disability. “Through Alan’s insightful studies, disability has become better understood by being more measurable, and his findings have led to important changes in major government policies and programs,” Meenan says.

Although his election came as a pleasant surprise, Jette, who from 1996 to 2004 was dean of Sargent College of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, has been working with IOM for several years. He chaired the institute’s Future of Disability in America project, which led to the release of a landmark report in 2007 that shaped national priorities in the field of disability. Trained as a physical therapist, he worked with patients in the clinical setting before earning a doctorate in public health, hands-on experience that informs his work helping communities and the Social Security Administration to develop assessment tools. Jette, whose work embraces several fields, recently completed a study of older people who have fractured a hip, and did a clinical trial looking at the benefits of extending traditional rehabilitation.

“We work with social scientists, physicians, nurses, epidemiologists, physical and occupational therapists,” says Jette. He sees the aging of the American population—a major focus of the IOM panel he chaired—as a huge challenge to researchers studying prevention and management of late life disability.

“Election to the IOM is a great honor,” says Jack, whose team has earned international recognition for developing Project RED, a set of 12 detailed steps for reengineered discharge, which reduces hospital readmissions. The IOM membership also recognizes Jack’s work with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which presented him with its External Partner award for his role on a panel on preconception care. Jack has devoted much of his career to improving global health, working on family medicine training programs in Hungary, Romania, Albania, and Lesotho. He believes that preventing “poor maternity outcomes is indeed possible, and in developing family medicine training programs around the world that meet the needs of society, all came about from observations in my clinical work and my reflections on how we can do better.”

The IOM is one of several branches of the National Academy of Sciences, along with the National Academy of Engineering and the National Research Council. It seeks to help both government and the private sector make informed health decisions. Every year, thousands of professionals, IOM members and nonmembers, volunteer their expertise to work on studies launched as specific mandates from Congress or at the request of federal agencies and independent organizations.

Explore Related Topics:

Program To Check The Similarity Of Given Two Triangles

In this problem, we will learn to check the similarity of two given triangles, which have many real-world use cases from the viewpoint of a programmer.

To construct and manage 2D and 3D models of things, CAD systems are utilized, and one key function is the capability to compare two triangles.

For instance, engineers working in design and construction may need to make that the foundational measurements of a building match the blueprint. Engineers can rapidly evaluate whether the angles and sides of the foundation game the layout by utilizing a CAD tool that has a built-in feature to check the resemblance of two triangles. This can aid in ensuring the building’s structural stability and safety.

In addition, 3D models of objects are produced using CAD software by 3D printing technology. To make sure that the model is printed precisely and to the desired scale in this situation, similarity checking can be helpful. This is crucial for complicated models because manually verifying similarity can be tedious and error-prone.

The precision of robot motions can be ensured by programmers in the field of robotics by using similarity-checking tools. Checking the similarity of two triangles can be useful in ensuring that complex movements made by robot arms, which frequently have numerous joints, are precise and constant.

Explanation

Now let us understand some mathematics involved in calculating the similarity of triangles.

Two triangles are similar if they share the following characteristics −

The angles of both triangles are equal.

Corresponding sides of the triangle share the same ratio.

There are three ways to determine whether two triangles are similar: SSS, SAS, and AA. Let’s discuss each of the theorems in brief.

SSS (Side-Side-Side) Criteria

In two given triangles, if the three pairs of sides are in the same ratio then the two triangles are similar.

Let us consider the two triangles given above. The above two triangles can be similar by SSS criteria if the ratio of the three pairs of sides are equal, i.e. AC/PR = AB/PQ = CB/RQ

SAS (Side-Angle-Side) Criteria

In two given triangles, if the two pairs of sides are in the same ratio, and the angle between the two sides are same in both triangles, then the two triangles are similar.

If we take the above triangle as an example, then if AB/PQ = BC/QR and <B = <Q then both the triangles are similar by SAS criteria.

AA (Angle-Angle) Criteria

In two given triangles, if any two angles of the two triangles are equal, then the two triangles are similar.

If we take the above triangle as an example, then if <A =<P and <B=<Q or <A=<P and <C=<R or any such combinations exist then the two triangles are similar by AA criteria.

Normally, we are given the coordinates of the three points of the triangle and then we need to check similarity. In such cases, we will use this formula to calculate the distance.

Program to check the similarity of given two triangles when the coordinates are provided.

Approach

Let’s decode the entire program into step by step algorithm

Take the coordinates of the three points of both triangles as input.

Calculate the length in between the coordinates using the formula discussed above i.e. distance= Math. sqrt(Math. pow(y2-y1,2)+Math.pow(x2-x1,2))

After calculating the length of all the sides of both triangles, calculate the ratio of all the pairs.

Next, check if all three ratios are the same, if they are the same, then print the triangles are similar otherwise print the triangles are not similar.

Now, we will write the code implementing the above algorithm

Example

C++ Program to check the similarity of given two triangles when the coordinates are provided.

using namespace std;

int main() { double x1 = 0, y1 = 0, x2 = 3, y2 = 0, x3 = 0, y3 = 4; double p1 = 0, q1 = 0, p2 = 6, q2 = 0, p3 = 0, q3 = 8;

double dist1 = sqrt(pow((x2 – x1), 2) + pow((y2 – y1), 2)); double dist2 = sqrt(pow((x3 – x2), 2) + pow((y3 – y2), 2)); double dist3 = sqrt(pow((x1 – x3), 2) + pow((y1 – y3), 2));

double dist4 = sqrt(pow((p2 – p1), 2) + pow((q2 – q1), 2)); double dist5 = sqrt(pow((p3 – p2), 2) + pow((q3 – q2), 2)); double dist6 = sqrt(pow((p1 – p3), 2) + pow((q1 – q3), 2));

double ratio1 = dist1/dist4; double ratio2 = dist2/dist5; double ratio3 = dist3/dist6;

if ((ratio1 == ratio2) && (ratio2 == ratio3)) { cout << “The two triangles are similar.” << endl; } else { cout << “The two triangles are not similar.” << endl; }

return 0; }

Output The two triangles are similar. Complexities

Time complexity: O(1), As this code performs a fixed number of calculations, regardless of the size of the input.

Space complexity: O(1), As the code uses a fixed number of variables to store input values and results, regardless of the size of the input.

Program to check the similarity of given two triangles when the coordinates are provided.

Approach

Let’s decode the entire program into step by step algorithm

Take the angles of the triangles as input.

Compare the angles to check if any two angles of the triangle are the same, here we are using AA criteria.

If any two angles are the same then print the triangles are similar else print the triangles are not similar.

Now, we will write the code implementing the above algorithm.

Example

C++ Program to check the similarity of given two triangles when the angles are provided.

using namespace std;

bool check_aa(int a1,int a2,int a3,int a4,int a5,int a6){ return true; else return false;

} int main(){

double a1 = 30, a2 = 60, a3 = 90; double a4 = 60, a5 = 90, a6 = 30;

bool similar= check_aa(a1,a2,a3,a4,a5,a6);

if (similar) cout << “The two triangles are similar.” << endl; else cout << “The two triangles are not similar.” << endl; }

Output The two triangles are similar. Complexities

Time complexity: O(1), As this code performs a fixed number of calculations, regardless of the size of the input.

Space complexity: O(1), As the code uses a fixed number of variables to store input values and results, regardless of the size of the input.

Conclusion

In this article, we have tried to explain the approach to check the similarity of two triangles based on two situations, one where the sides are provided as input and another where the angles are provided as input. I hope this article helps you to learn the concept in a better way.

5 Of The Best Day One Journal Alternatives For Mac

Just recently daily journaling application Day One transitioned to a (kind of expensive) monthly subscription model, charging a yearly fee to use and maintain your records within the application. And considering the entire purpose of the application is to maintain a long-term archive of your daily life, such a subscription fee could rack up major charges over a lifetime of use. It’s left many users seeking Day One alternatives for Mac. We’ve scoured the web for worthy replacements and come up with the list below.

1. Evernote

While Evernote is far from a dedicated journaling application, it contains many of the features you’ve come to expect from Day One. Rich text is fully supported, as are audio, images and even video. You can create multiple journals and edit them on a Mac and iOS application or use the web interface if you don’t have access to the apps.

And since Evernote has been around for years and seems to be doing well, a sudden shutdown or change in monetization strategy seems unlikely. Plus, Evernote is hands-down the best note-taking application for the Mac.

Unfortunately, your notes are saved in an obfuscated format, so it’s hard to figure out what’s what without the application. That’s a major strike against longevity, but the application has ease of use on lock.

Evernote apps can expand the app’s base functionality, too: pair it with Alternote to get a more minimal UI or with digi.me to pull updates and images from your social media accounts. The paid version is on a subscription, but unless you like media-heavy journal updates, the free version should cover your journaling needs.

2. Journey

If using a note-taking app for journaling feels odd, you can use Journey instead. It’s a dedicated journaling app and is the app most similar to Day One on this list. Like Day One, the stand-alone Mac application reminds you to make daily journal entries.

If you decide to stop using the application, you can bulk export your memories as .docx or .pdf files. You can even import from Day One and Day One Classic to keep continuity. There’s no iOS app, unfortunately. Journey costs $12.99 for the Mac application, or you can use the free Journey.cloud web application in any browser.

3. MacJournal

MacJournal is a slightly older journaling application built by long-time Mac developers Mariner Software. The user interface might look a little dated. Even so, it offers many of the same features as other journaling applications on this list. You’ll find multimedia support for audio, video and images alongside a robust rich text editor, and users can create as many journals as they want to categorize their entries.

The app is built to be easy to use, so you can start journaling the second you open it, and it syncs with a MacJoural iOS app over Dropbox. The app is sold for a slightly-hefty $40.

4. Mémoires

Mémoires is billed as “the easiest way to keep a journal or diary on your Mac.” Its user interface is slightly more streamlined than some of our other options, but it still contains many of the same excellent features.

Entries can be saved in multiple journals and include photos, rich text and hand-drawn doodles. If privacy is a concern, entries can be encrypted with AES-256 encryption. Everything is saved in rich text files in a non-obfuscated SQLite database for longevity. Even if the app shuts down, you’ll still have your entries in a fully-usable format.

There’s a one-time fee of $30 for a single license or $50 for a “family pack” of five licenses. And if you want to add video to your entries, you can also pay a one-time $10 charge.

5. Reminisce

Reminisce is a lightweight journaling application for the Mac. It ties together what are essentially TextEdit files attached to calendar days. But for being fairly simple at its core, it contains a surprising list of features.

Conclusion

If you’re willing to give it a try, Evernote is an excellent daily companion. But if that rubs you the wrong way, Journey is flexible and inexpensive. It supports a variety of media and reminds you daily to make entries. However, the only thing holding it back is the lack of an iPhone app. If you need iPhone support, check out MacJournal or Reminisce.

Alexander Fox

Alexander Fox is a tech and science writer based in Philadelphia, PA with one cat, three Macs and more USB cables than he could ever use.

Subscribe to our newsletter!

Our latest tutorials delivered straight to your inbox

Sign up for all newsletters.

By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and European users agree to the data transfer policy. We will not share your data and you can unsubscribe at any time.

When Is The Best Time Of Day To Send An Email?

Examples from testing the best time of day for email broadcast in different sectors

Sending emails at the right time to reach your subscribers when they are actively using their email will affect overall campaign response. Given the ongoing interest in this topic I’ve updated this post based on some of latest research from Pure360 where they looked at emails from 40,000 different campaign the last year from 150 of their clients (900 million email delivered). As you would expect the best time varies by sector, but they do recommend a best time for consumer emails:

 ’In fact, the best time to send an email is now during the ‘Post Work Peak’, as people are finishing up at work and heading home. Over a quarter (26%) of marketing emails that are sent in the most successful hour, 5pm to 6pm, are opened, which is 9% above average. ’

Optimal time to send your email by sector

Here is their insight about the best time to send emails, showing variances by sector. You can read more about the methodology in their report.

Best and worst times to send emails?

The Inbox Abyss 

Emails distributed in the early hours of the morning enter the ‘Inbox Abyss’. Only 4% of emails sent between midnight and 7am then go on to be opened. B2B marketing bucks this trend, with emails sent between 1am and 2am being opened almost half the time (45%).

The Practical Pinnacle

Before work starts is an effective time to send emails about issues that could have been worrying people overnight. Finance and Healthcare, for instance, both have their most successful hour in the ‘Practical Pinnacle’ before 10am.

The Mountain of Opportunity 

Recruitment emails are most likely to be opened if they are sent as people prepare for the day ahead: a third (33%) of those distributed between 6am and 7am are opened compared to 17% on average.

The Hike of Hope 

People are receptive to opening emails sent at the start of the workday on more relaxing, leisure-based topics, during the ‘Hike of Hope’. Almost a quarter (24%) of hotel offers sent between 10am and 11am are opened.

The Lunchtime Ledge 

There is a lull between noon and 3pm, on the ‘Lunchtime Ledge’. However, emails sent on functional concerns such as green issues, energy and technology perform best during these hours.

The Gradual Ascent 

There is a ‘Gradual Ascent’ in opening rates for emails sent between 3pm and 5pm. Travel emails sent at 3pm are more likely to be opened than at any other point of the day (41%).

The Post-Work Peak 

The best time to send a marketing email is during the ‘Post-Work Peak’, between 5pm and 7pm. Over a quarter (26%) of marketing emails that are sent in the most successful hour, 5pm to 6pm, are opened. That’s 9% more than on average.

The Little Rock 

There is another smaller peak in opening rates of emails sent between 7pm and 9pm. This is the best time to send emails on topics requiring a lot of consideration, such as cars, education and insurance.

The Steep Descent 

There is then a ‘Steep Descent’ in opening rates of emails sent in the evening, although leisure and travel emails sent between 10pm and 11pm remain effective, with over a third being opened.

Business-to-business enewsletter timing

The next example is one from SmartFocus Digital (now Emailvision) – interesting since it gives quite a different result to the B2C focused results above. The results speak for themselves – AM is definitely superior than PM for this B2B audience. We can speculate that if you broadcast AM you have an opportunity to reach the audience late morning, over lunch and into the afternoon.

Has anyone completed any B2C tests which shows similar?

Test methodology kindly supplied by Tim Watson:

“The AM vs PM send test ran over six issues of Gauge. Recipients were split into A and B halves, each getting the same newsletter but one half at around 10.30am and the other half at around 3.30pm.

We chose the times to avoid the first thing in the morning inbox deluge and the post-lunch email backlog and delivered both emails at times when we believed recipients stood a reasonable chance of engaging with the content.

The key to a successful A/B test is only changing one thing so each issue was always sent out on a Tuesday to avoid any variable caused by different days of the week.

I’ve been in touch with Tim while writing this post. He said he wouldn’t be surprised if the situation has changed now, since with more mobile use email reading patterns have changed. He went onto say that he recently ran a structured test plan across days and times for a client and found that time of day was not so important for their emails but the day of week email sent can be more significant.

B2C campaign example

Individualised Email broadcast example

A really sophisticated approach to determining the best time of day is to personalise!  Retailer eBags individually calculated the best time to send the email by looking at the behaviour of each user within the email list, recording the exact time when they signed up to the list. A test they ran found using this broadcast time found that…

Conversion rates increasing by 65%.

Average value per order increasing by 45%.

Overall average revenue per recipient increased by 187%.

Overall, these tests show that hitting the sweet spot for email broadcast time does still matter. Once you have tested to find the best timing for your audience, it’s good practice to keep the time of day consistent, particularly for enewsletters, since then there will be an expectation from enthusiastic, regular readers.

Investing Too Much On Html Is Zuckerberg’s Biggest Mistake

What Makes HTML5 a Big Mistake?

Creating mobile Web apps was based on the idea that HTML5 would make it easy to develop a single application for multiple platforms and screen sizes. Facebook also thought that the overall experience would be similar to a native app, and it didn’t account for stability or speed.

The biggest mistake we made as a company was betting too much on HTML5 as opposed to native … It just wasn’t ready.

For the last two years, the social networking giant was focused on HTML5. When asked about their lack of official app for iPad in 2010, the CEO replied that “the iPad isn’t mobile.” That was before they found out that HTML5 can be a better solution for delivering Facebook experience to tablets.

In fact, CTO Bret Taylor said that the mark-up language played a critical role in creating consistent user experience across the social network’s mobile sites and applications. However, it still can’t outweigh the downsides of HTML5. This includes being less stable and pulling in data slower than native apps. Perhaps this is the reason why Facebook completely overhauled its iOS app last August.

Last month, Facebook rolled out a massive update for its iOS app, saying that it is “rebuilt so it’s faster and easier to use.” Its iOS application has faced criticism for the past 18 months because it is slow and unresponsive. It was said that the culprit behind its drawback is its reliance to HTML5.

Facebook on Mobile Web

Zuckerberg stated that they are now focused on continuously improving the native mobile experience for iOS users, while an Android app is coming soon. Since the social network giant had spend so much time building its system to efficiently process mobile apps data, it lost precious time that it could have spent in focusing and developing bigger and greater applications.

But this doesn’t mean that Facebook will no longer work with HTML5, especially when it comes to its mobile website for non-iOS and non-Android devices. It’s just that it won’t buy the “write once, run everywhere” bandwagon anymore.

Update the detailed information about Watch: Day Two Of Mark Zuckerberg’s Washington Testimony on the Achiashop.com website. We hope the article's content will meet your needs, and we will regularly update the information to provide you with the fastest and most accurate information. Have a great day!