Os problemas da empresa coreana com seu celular Galaxy Note 7 - que estaria explodindo, segundo alguns relatos - pode ter influencia sobre o resultado da empresa:
A Samsung reduziu sua estimativa de lucro do terceiro trimestre em um terço nesta quarta-feira, 12, absorvendo um impacto de US$ 2,3 bilhões ao descartar o smartphone que é seu carro-chefe – o que pode representar uma das falhas de segurança de produto mais custosas da história da tecnologia.
A estimativa é somente para redução da receita da empresa. Eventuais danos para marca e a venda de produtos da empresa é mais difícil de ser quantificado.
As anyone who follows election polling can tell you, when you survey 1,000 people, the margin of error is plus or minus three percentage points. This roughly means that 95 percent of the time, the survey estimate should be within three percentage points of the true answer.
If 54 percent of people support Hillary Clinton, the survey estimate might be as high as 57 percent or as low as 51 percent, but it is unlikely to be 49 percent. This truism of modern polling, heralded as one of the great success stories of statistics, is included in textbooks and taught in college classes, including our own.
But the real-world margin of error of election polls is not three percentage points. It is about twice as big.
In a new paper with Andrew Gelman and Houshmand Shirani-Mehr, we examined 4,221 late-campaign polls — every public poll we could find — for 608 state-level presidential, Senate and governor’s races between 1998 and 2014. Comparing those polls’ results with actual electoral results, we find the historical margin of error is plus or minus six to seven percentage points. (Yes, that’s an error range of 12 to 14 points, not the typically reported 6 or 7.)
People's fairness preferences are an important constraint for what constitutes an acceptable economic
transaction, yet little is known about how these preferences are formed. In this paper, we provide clean
evidence that previous transactions play an important role in shaping perceptions of fairness. Buyers
used to high market prices, for example, are more likely to perceive high prices as fair than buyers
used to low market prices. Similarly, employees used to high wages are more likely to perceive low
wages as unfair. Our data further allows us to decompose this history dependence into the effects of
pure observation vs. the experience of payoff-relevant outcomes. We propose two classes of models
of path-dependent fairness preferences—either based on endogenous fairness reference points or based
on shifts in salience—that can account for our data. Structural estimates of both types of models imply
a substantial deviation from existing history-independent models of fairness. Our results have implications
for price discrimination, labor markets, and dynamic pricing.
The results are in, and the world’s elite higher education institutions have a new champion. The University of Oxford is the best university in the world, according to the results of the 2016-2017 Times Higher Education World University Rankings.
It is the first time that a university from outside the United States has topped the table. It leapfrogs last year’s number one, the California Institute of Technology, and becomes the first new number one in six years. CalTech is number two. Before we look at what this means, here’s the top 10.You can access the full ranking of 980 universities here.
Remarkably, vice-chancellor of the University of Oxford, Louise Richardson, describes the practice of securing the number one spot as “really quite simple”. It’s all about recruiting the best scholars, she says, since “any university is only as good as the academics it can attract”.
And she's right – at least in part. Research performance and academic reputation form a huge part of what makes an institution successful.
But the Times Higher Education rankings are the most comprehensive global rankings going, drawing on 13 separate performance indicators and assessing institutions on their core missions – not only research, but also teaching, knowledge transfer and international outlook.
This allows universities that excel in measures such as staff-to-student ratio, international research collaboration, and income from industry to perform well in the rankings too, and the result is a global ranking that celebrates excellence in higher education across the world. This map shows the range of countries that have an institution in the table this year.
So what do these rankings tell us about the global academic landscape? Times Higher Education has been publishing rankings since 2004, and the 13 datasets published since then tell the story of higher education’s evolution.
Despite Oxford’s headline-grabbing rise to the top of the pile, the rankings’ upper echelons are remarkably stable. While the top two institution’s swapped places, all of the institutions from third down to ninth remain exactly the same year on year. The University of Chicago also hold on to its position (10th) although it is joined this year by the University of California, Berkeley, which rises three places.
Once again, it is the US that has the most institutions in the ranking (148) followed by the United Kingdom (91), Japan (69) and China (52). But it is when you cream off the top 200 positions that you perhaps get a better picture of where the world’s truly elite universities are based.
Here you can see that while China has overtaken everyone but the US, the UK and Japan, when all 980 institutions are considered it slips down to number 10 in the top 200 list. The established European giants – Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland – may have fewer institutions in the overall table, but the calibre of their universities is clear to see.
However, although Western countries continue to dominate the top tier, Asia is becoming increasingly visible as a higher-education power. It is a trend that is well established: since the first rankings were published, Asia’s position has been steadily gaining momentum.
China (mainland) takes four places in this year’s top 200 – up from two last year. South Korea also has four, the same as last year, but every one of its top 200 institutions has climbed to a higher position. Hong Kong, for the record, has five top 200 universities, compared with three in last year’s table.
A big reason for this is money. East Asia, in particular, has invested heavily in higher education in recent years. But reputation also plays a huge part. The Times Higher Education reputation scores are allocated based on 20,000 responses from academics across the world. Year on year, more of them are naming Chinese institutions as the best universities in their field.
Postagens
