John Edwards, Technology Journalist & AuthorMay 15, 20255 Min ReadTuta via Alamy Stock PhotoGetting a new IT project off the ground requires a concept, a goal, meticulous planning, and, perhaps most importantly, a willingness to assume a certain amount of risk. It's this last point that often keeps IT leaders awake at night. Addressing risk prior to launching an IT project is crucial, since it helps to set clear expectations, identify potential obstacles, and create a roadmap for handling unforeseen challenges, says Anbang Xu, founder of JoggAI, an AI-powered video platform, and a former senior product manager at Apple and senior software engineer at Google. "Particularly when it comes to AI-driven projects, understanding the risks -- whether they're related to technology, data security, scalability, or talent -- can make the difference between a smooth launch and a failed initiative," he observes in an email interview. "By addressing these concerns early, you also ensure that resources are allocated effectively, and your team is better equipped to handle surprises." Building a strong mechanism to address risk during project planning is crucial to ensure that all decisions are made with transparency into cost, benefit, and risk, says Ola Chowning, a partner with technology research and advisory firm ISG. "Project decisions that don't estimate risk and its tangible or intangible impacts at the start, or even during a project, likely don't have the data needed to make informed decisions and balance cost, risk, and benefit," she explains in an online interview. "More importantly, failing to address risk can waste time if an event occurs and the team is left scrambling to determine how to respond." Related:There are also secondary risks, including budget, resources, and technology challenges, says Munir Hafez, CTO of Independence Pet Holdings via email (Hafez was senior vice president and CIO at credit reporting firm TransUnion at the time of the interview.) "Each of these risks should be addressed before launching an IT project to ensure that the project is starting off on a solid foundation and will gain alignment with all stakeholders." Accurate Estimations By quantifying risks, project managers can objectively assess their potential likelihood and impact, allowing efficient resource allocation and the development of appropriate mitigation strategies, Hafez says. "This structured approach ensures that no significant risks are overlooked and that the project remains on track." The best way to estimate risk is to divide the project into small components and assess the uncertainty around each unit, Xu says. This process includes examining the project's technical feasibility, the team's ability to handle complexity, and any potential dependencies on third-party tools or services. Xu states he relies on a combination of historical data from similar past projects and predictive models -- particularly when it comes to AI and machine learning applications, where it's often unknown how algorithms will perform at scale. "This allows us to develop a more nuanced risk profile, instead of relying on assumptions," he explains. Related:Many organizations use a risk scoring tool, built on previous project experiences and common risk categories, to guide project teams on risk types for their particular project, Chowning says. "Some [organizations] even have statistics on how often risks have occurred in the past and the average impact on previous projects." Risk Tips If a risk estimate appears overly optimistic, the leader should reassess the situation and adjust the project plan accordingly, Hafez says. "This may involve consulting industry experts or revisiting lessons learned from previous internal projects to accurately reflect the risk." The biggest mistake is underestimating the impact of technical debt and the complexity of scaling solutions, Xu warns. "Leaders often focus too much on the initial development phase and don’t account for the ongoing maintenance and optimization required," he explains. "Risk should be measured not only by the initial launch, but also by the long-term implications of maintaining and improving the post-launch system." Related:Final Thoughts As a project progresses, existing risks can evolve and new risks may emerge, Hafez says. "Regularly reviewing and updating the risk management plan ensures that the project will remain resilient and adaptable to these changes." Fostering a culture of open communication and encouraging team members to report potential risks early can significantly enhance a project's ability to respond effectively, Hafez says. This proactive approach helps avoid the "watermelon effect," where performance metrics appear positive (green) on the surface, but reveal underlying problems (red) when examined more closely. Embrace flexibility, Xu advises. In tech, especially in fields such as AI, things are constantly evolving. "A leader’s ability to adapt and pivot when necessary is as critical as the ability to plan," he notes. That's why it's important to continue refining risk assessments throughout the project's life. It’s important for project team and business decision-makers to understand that risks aren't a bad thing, Chowning says. "The underlying objective of risk management is to understand and mitigate risk, and to be prepared if risk events occur." Making high project risk scores a "bad thing" will simply drive team leaders and members to underestimate, ignore, or even attempt to hide potential risk. About the AuthorJohn EdwardsTechnology Journalist & AuthorJohn Edwards is a veteran business technology journalist. His work has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and numerous business and technology publications, including Computerworld, CFO Magazine, IBM Data Management Magazine, RFID Journal, and Electronic Design. He has also written columns for The Economist's Business Intelligence Unit and PricewaterhouseCoopers' Communications Direct. John has authored several books on business technology topics. His work began appearing online as early as 1983. Throughout the 1980s and 90s, he wrote daily news and feature articles for both the CompuServe and Prodigy online services. His "Behind the Screens" commentaries made him the world's first known professional blogger.See more from John EdwardsWebinarsMore WebinarsReportsMore ReportsNever Miss a Beat: Get a snapshot of the issues affecting the IT industry straight to your inbox.SIGN-UPYou May Also Like

John Edwards, Technology Journalist & AuthorMay 15, 20255 Min ReadJorge Pérez via Alamy Stock PhotoGetting a new IT project off the ground requires a concept, a goal, meticulous planning, and, perhaps most importantly, a willingness to assume a certain amount of risk. It's this last point that often keeps IT leaders awake at night. Addressing risk prior to launching an IT project is crucial, since it helps to set clear expectations, identify potential obstacles, and create a roadmap for handling unforeseen challenges, says Anbang Xu, founder of JoggAI, an AI-powered video platform, and a former senior product manager at Apple and senior software engineer at Google. "Particularly when it comes to AI-driven projects, understanding the risks -- whether they're related to technology, data security, scalability, or talent -- can make the difference between a smooth launch and a failed initiative," he observes in an email interview. "By addressing these concerns early, you also ensure that resources are allocated effectively, and your team is better equipped to handle surprises." Building a strong mechanism to address risk during project planning is crucial to ensure that all decisions are made with transparency into cost, benefit, and risk, says Ola Chowning, a partner with technology research and advisory firm ISG. "Project decisions that don't estimate risk and its tangible or intangible impacts at the start, or even during a project, likely don't have the data needed to make informed decisions and balance cost, risk, and benefit," she explains in an online interview. "More importantly, failing to address risk can waste time if an event occurs and the team is left scrambling to determine how to respond." Related:There are also secondary risks, including budget, resources, and technology challenges, says Munir Hafez, CTO of Independence Pet Holdings via email (Hafez was senior vice president and CIO at credit reporting firm TransUnion at the time of the interview.) "Each of these risks should be addressed before launching an IT project to ensure that the project is starting off on a solid foundation and will gain alignment with all stakeholders." Accurate Estimations By quantifying risks, project managers can objectively assess their potential likelihood and impact, allowing efficient resource allocation and the development of appropriate mitigation strategies, Hafez says. "This structured approach ensures that no significant risks are overlooked and that the project remains on track." The best way to estimate risk is to divide the project into small components and assess the uncertainty around each unit, Xu says. This process includes examining the project's technical feasibility, the team's ability to handle complexity, and any potential dependencies on third-party tools or services. Xu states he relies on a combination of historical data from similar past projects and predictive models -- particularly when it comes to AI and machine learning applications, where it's often unknown how algorithms will perform at scale. "This allows us to develop a more nuanced risk profile, instead of relying on assumptions," he explains. Related:Many organizations use a risk scoring tool, built on previous project experiences and common risk categories, to guide project teams on risk types for their particular project, Chowning says. "Some [organizations] even have statistics on how often risks have occurred in the past and the average impact on previous projects." Risk Tips If a risk estimate appears overly optimistic, the leader should reassess the situation and adjust the project plan accordingly, Hafez says. "This may involve consulting industry experts or revisiting lessons learned from previous internal projects to accurately reflect the risk." The biggest mistake is underestimating the impact of technical debt and the complexity of scaling solutions, Xu warns. "Leaders often focus too much on the initial development phase and don’t account for the ongoing maintenance and optimization required," he explains. "Risk should be measured not only by the initial launch, but also by the long-term implications of maintaining and improving the post-launch system." Related:Final Thoughts As a project progresses, existing risks can evolve and new risks may emerge, Hafez says. "Regularly reviewing and updating the risk management plan ensures that the project will remain resilient and adaptable to these changes." Fostering a culture of open communication and encouraging team members to report potential risks early can significantly enhance a project's ability to respond effectively, Hafez says. This proactive approach helps avoid the "watermelon effect," where performance metrics appear positive (green) on the surface, but reveal underlying problems (red) when examined more closely. Embrace flexibility, Xu advises. In tech, especially in fields such as AI, things are constantly evolving. "A leader’s ability to adapt and pivot when necessary is as critical as the ability to plan," he notes. That's why it's important to continue refining risk assessments throughout the project's life. It’s important for project team and business decision-makers to understand that risks aren't a bad thing, Chowning says. "The underlying objective of risk management is to understand and mitigate risk, and to be prepared if risk events occur." Making high project risk scores a "bad thing" will simply drive team leaders and members to underestimate, ignore, or even attempt to hide potential risk. About the AuthorJohn EdwardsTechnology Journalist & AuthorJohn Edwards is a veteran business technology journalist. His work has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and numerous business and technology publications, including Computerworld, CFO Magazine, IBM Data Management Magazine, RFID Journal, and Electronic Design. He has also written columns for The Economist's Business Intelligence Unit and PricewaterhouseCoopers' Communications Direct. John has authored several books on business technology topics. His work began appearing online as early as 1983. Throughout the 1980s and 90s, he wrote daily news and feature articles for both the CompuServe and Prodigy online services. His "Behind the Screens" commentaries made him the world's first known professional blogger.See more from John EdwardsWebinarsMore WebinarsReportsMore ReportsNever Miss a Beat: Get a snapshot of the issues affecting the IT industry straight to your inbox.SIGN-UPYou May Also Like

Iron Man was a resounding success when it opened in 2008, earning more than half a billion dollars and declaring in no uncertain terms that Marvel Studios—and the Marvel Cinematic Universe, as it later came to be known—had arrived. Although Marvel was also developing movies about Thor, Captain America, and Ant-Man at the time, Iron Man 2 was pushed to the front of the line and set for release in May 2010, just two years after the first film. The idea was to cash in on the surprise success of Iron Man and give the other movies a little more time to breathe and develop, with the ultimate goal of teaming all the characters up in The Avengers. But perhaps due to its rushed production schedule, studio growing pains, and the need to lay down breadcrumbs for the stories to come, Iron Man 2 was a shaky affair when it eventually came out. Not that this hurt its box office potential. It grossed more than the first film. Still, it did not escape the notice of critics and hardcore fans, resulting in a film that still regularly lands near the bottom of MCU movie rankings. Strangely, however, Marvel Studios has repeated many of the same mistakes it made on Iron Man 2 in later films while also taking some of the wrong lessons from the troubled production of the MCU’s first sequel. A Rushed Development With Iron Man 2 announced days after the release of Iron Man (even before the relative failure of The Incredible Hulk that same year), Marvel had to scramble to come up with a story and lock down its principal players. Robert Downey Jr., of course, was signed to reprise the role of Tony Stark at a much higher salary. Gwyneth Paltrow was also confirmed to return, as was director Jon Favreau (who would also once again play Stark security chief Happy Hogan). Also returning were Samuel L. Jackson and Clark Gregg as Nick Fury and Agent Phil Coulson, respectively, expanding the presence of S.H.I.E.L.D. that was briefly established in the first film. Downey and Favreau tapped writer/actor Justin Theroux to pen the screenplay, which would introduce villains Justin Hammer and Whiplash (actually a sort of hybrid of that character and the Crimson Dynamo) into the story after comic book arch-nemesis The Mandarin was nixed as both too fantastical and potentially racist. Also slated to make her debut in the movie: Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), a nod to the impending creation of the Avengers but one of the many elements of a movie that was potentially piling up too many plot threads. Although initial reports suggested that at least part of the film would adapt the famous “Demon in a Bottle” storyline, in which Tony Stark becomes a full-blown alcoholic, that aspect of the narrative was toned down due to concerns over toy sales and younger viewers’ perception of Iron Man. The movie reportedly began filming without a finished script, something that would hamper future Marvel movies and lead the studio to make reshoots a permanent part of every film’s production schedule. This necessitated Theroux having to do daily rewrites on the set with Favreau and Downey, with the latter’s ad-libbing and improvisatory style of acting further muddying what was already a confusing and tonally uneven plot. New Faces, New Problems As mentioned, Downey, Paltrow, Favreau, Gregg, and Jackson (the latter after some torturous negotiations) all returned to their roles in Iron Man 2, but Terence Howard, who co-starred in Iron Man as Tony Stark’s best friend, Col. James “Rhodey” Rhodes, did not. Depending on who you ask, Howard was either too difficult or too expensive—or both—to keep around for the sequel. He was replaced by Don Cheadle, who’s played Rhodey (and become a fan favorite, at least until Secret Invasion retconned him as a Skrull) ever since. Ironically Marvel should have learned from this and the recasting of Bruce Banner (from Edward Norton to Mark Ruffalo) that it was okay to recast a major role once in a while. But the biggest mistake Marvel made in this regard was arguably announcing that T’Challa/Black Panther would not be recast after the tragic death of Chadwick Boseman, which left the MCU without one of its most potentially important superheroes (Marvel has since seemingly eased up on this, with Harrison Ford replacing the late William Hurt as “Thunderbolt” Ross and rumors circulating that a new T’Challa from a different universe will soon appear). Still, the casting of Iron Man 2’s villains, Justin Hammer and Ivan Vanko/Whiplash, set some precedents that would later haunt the MCU in a different way. Hammer was played by Sam Rockwell (an early candidate for Iron Man himself) and acquitted himself well, but his role was in some ways superfluous to a story already packed with new characters and themes and his function in the movie was not always clear (he’s also yet to reappear in the MCU). But it was Mickey Rourke being courted to play Whiplash that perhaps caused the most angst. With Rourke coming in hot off his Oscar-nominated, Golden Globe-winning comeback performance in The Wrestler, Marvel wanted to seize a prestige casting coup—a move similar to its hiring of recent Oscar winner Brie Larson years later to play Captain Marvel. It could be argued that neither Rourke nor Larson was ultimately the right fit for their roles, but luring award winners to a comic book universe was too tempting for Marvel to pass up. In retrospect, they might have even dodged a bullet when Joaquin Phoenix passed on playing Doctor Strange given the actor’s reportedly mercurial methods. Rourke allegedly made bizarre demands to Marvel on Iron Man 2. This included that Vanko have a pet bird and wear his hair in a bun. He also reportedly clashed with Favreau during filming. Later he would say publicly he was unhappy with the final product, claiming that a lot of his performance was left on the cutting room floor. Whiplash in the finished film is certainly a strange character and the first of many undercooked Marvel villains to come. But that didn’t stop the studio from pursuing other actors and filmmakers basking in the glow of a high-profile awards run. Too Much of Everything Whereas the first Iron Man was a sleek, crisply told origin story, Iron Man 2 was, narratively speaking, a mess. The film dealt with Tony Stark’s inability to reconcile his personal identity with his new public persona as Iron Man, his lingering issues with his father, Howard Stark (John Slattery), his burgeoning drinking problem (less visible in the finished film, but still there), and his discovery that the core element in his arc reactor was slowly poisoning him. Join our mailing list Get the best of Den of Geek delivered right to your inbox! And that was just Tony; the rest of the film introduced Black Widow and the beginnings of the Avengers, put Rhodey in his War Machine armor for the first time, expanded the role of Nick Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D., set out easter eggs for Thor and Captain America, and tried to balance the roles of two villains whose motivations and tones were not at all well-defined or complementary. It was, in short, a hodgepodge of ideas, plot points, and hints at future movies that all but dragged itself over the finish line without a coherent structure—a problem that would crop up again in the MCU. The franchise’s obsession with world-building at the expense of focus and logic reared its head in Avengers: Age of Ultron, which brought four new characters into an already crowded ensemble (Scarlet Witch, Quicksilver, Vision, and the title villain) while also planting seeds about Asgard, Wakanda, and the Infinity Stones (some of which, to be fair, did pay off later). Even the underrated Black Panther: Wakanda Forever, released years later, acted partly as a commercial for the still-unaired Ironheart TV series (ironically The Marvels worked in reverse, requiring audiences to watch two TV shows to understand some of what was happening). Part of the charm of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, of course, is watching out for those many easter eggs, post-credit scenes, and surprise cameos that remind us that it is indeed a universe, one that’s constantly evolving and expanding. But some of those universe-building elements have worked better than others over the years, and with Iron Man 2, it felt like sensory overload—not that that stopped Marvel from doing it again and again in the years since. Iron Man 2: The Gift That Keeps on Giving? Iron Man 2 was an even bigger success at the box office ($624 million) that its predecessor ($585 million), but it also cost more ($200 million as opposed to $140 million) and was less enthusiastically received by critics. It was a troubled, patchwork project from the start, but even as Marvel Studios went on to hit heights of success no one could have possibly imagined for a filmed comic book universe, the studio continually made the same mistakes that dogged the production of Iron Man 2 and kept it from being the sequel it could have been. In some cases those mistakes may have temporarily dinged the brand (Age of Ultron), but in the long run, their impact has not done permanent damage to the MCU or the vast majority of its output. Still, with the last few years being particularly rocky ones for the MCU in terms of quality and coherence, it might not hurt Kevin Feige and company to fire up Iron Man 2 once in a while and remember it as a cautionary tale of what not to do.

In comments to press this morning, President Donald Trump said he has an issue with Apple’s handling of the tariff policy in regard to iPhone production. Trump wants Apple to build iPhones domestically in the United States, but has clearly seen the recent news that Apple will source most of the iPhones sold in the US quarter from India, rather than China. “I don’t want you building in India”, he said … It has been reported that within the next couple of years Apple is trying to import all iPhones intended to be sold in the US, from India, rather than China, in a diversification of its production pipeline. Right now, that means avoiding the higher tariff rates imposed on Chinese exports. Indeed, on the latest company earnings call, Apple said most iPhones sold in the June quarter will have India as their country of origin. Naturally, the Trump administration see the tariff policy as a way to incentivize companies to manufacture more locally, and Apple has so far shown no signs of doing so. Cook has previously indicated it is simply unfeasible, due to the lack of U.S. manufacturing facilities and talent. Here’s what Trump said: “I had a little problem with Tim Cook yesterday. I said to him, my friend, I treated you very good. You’re coming here with $500 billion, but now I hear you’re building all over India. I don’t want you building in India.” “I said, Tim look, we treated you really good, we put up with all the plants that you build in China for years, now you got build us. We’re not interested in you building in India. India can take care of themselves, we want you to build here.” The $500 billion number refers to U.S investment Apple has pledged for the next four years, covering infrastructure projects like a new factory for Apple Intelligence servers, R&D, data centers, Apple TV+ productions, and more. It does not include any plans to manufacture Apple consumer devices domestically. For US sales, Apple’s public statements to investors indicate it will source most iPhones from India, and products like Mac, iPad and AirPods from Vietnam. iPhones produced in China will be sold locally and exported to other countries around the world that do not impose tariffs. Apple previously indicated that tariff policy would cost the company almost a billion dollars in the April – June quarter, however this was before the recent US-China trade deal amnesty. But with these interim deals set to expire in 90 days, the future impact on U.S. businesses remains very much uncertain. Add 9to5Mac to your Google News feed.  FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel

In the world of entity resolution (ER), one of the central challenges is managing and maintaining the complex relationships between records. At its core, Tilores models entities as graphs: each node represents a record, and edges represent rule-based matches between those records. This approach gives us flexibility, traceability, and a high level of accuracy, but it also comes with significant storage and computational challenges, especially at scale. This article explains the details about efficiently storing highly connected graphs using clique-based graph Compression. The Entity Graph Model In Tilores, a valid entity is a graph where every record is connected to at least one other via a matching rule. For instance, if record a matches record b according to rule R1, we store that as an edge "a:b:R1". If another rule, say R2, also connects a and b, we store an additional edge "a:b:R2". These edges are kept as a simple list, but could alternatively be modeled using an adjacency list structure for more efficient storage. Why Retain All Edges? Most Entity Resolution systems or master data management systems don’t retain the relationships between records, but only store a representation of the underlying data and typically a generic matching score, leaving the user uncertain about how the entity was formed. Even worse, the user has no way to correct errors made by the automatic matching system. Hence, retaining all edges in an entity graph serves multiple purposes: Traceability: Allows the user to understand why two records were grouped into the same entity. Analytics: Insights such as rule effectiveness and data similarity can be extracted from edge metadata. Data Deletion & Recalculation: When a record is deleted or a rule is modified, the graph must be recalculated. Edge information is essential to understand how an entity was formed and how it should be updated. The Scaling Problem: Quadratic Growth When discussing potential scaling issues in entity resolution, this typically refers to the challenge of matching each record with all other records. While this is a challenge on its own, retaining all edges of an entity results in similar issues on the storage side. Entities where many records are connected with each other create a multitude of edges. In the worst case every new record is connected to all existing records. This quadratic growth can be expressed with the formula: n * (n - 1) / 2 For small entities, this is not an issue. For example, an entity with 3 records can have a maximum of 3 edges. For n = 100, this increases to 4,950 edges and for n = 1,000 this results in up to 499,500 edges. This creates an immense storage and computational overhead, especially since entity resolution graphs often exhibit this kind of dense connectivity. Solution: Clique-Based Graph Compression (CBGC) A clique in a graph is a group of nodes where every node is connected to every other node in that group. A clique can also be called a complete subgraph. The smallest possible clique contains a single node and no edges. A pair of nodes connected by an edge also forms a clique. And three nodes, such as the one below, form a triangle shaped clique. A Simple Clique: Triangle(image by the author) A maximal clique is a clique that cannot be extended by adding any adjacent node, and a maximum clique is the clique with the largest number of nodes in the whole graph. For the purpose of this article, we’re going to use the term clique only to refer to cliques with at least three nodes. The previously shown triangle could be represented in Tilores by the following edges: [ "a:b:R1", "a:c:R1", "b:c:R1" ] Because a triangle is a clique, we could also represent the graph by storing only the nodes in this clique and the associated rule ID: { "R1": [ ["a", "b", "c"] ] } Let’s consider the following slightly more complicated graph: Complete Subgraph with 6 Nodes(image by the author) Based on its appearance, we can easily spot that all nodes are connected to each other. So instead of listing all 15 edges [remember n*(n-1)/2], we can simply store this clique in the following form: { "R1":[ ["a", "b", "c", "d", "e", "f"] ] } However, in a realistic graph, not all records are connected to each other. Consider the following graph: A Complex Graph with Three Highlighted Cliques(image by the author) There are three larger cliques highlighted: yellow, red and blue (teal if you’re picky). There is also a single remaining node. While those are probably the largest cliques, you might spot dozens of others. For example, do you notice the 4-node clique between the two red and two yellow nodes? Sticking with the colored cliques, we could store them in the following way (using y, r and b for yellow, red and blue): { "R1": [ ["y1", "y2", "y3"], ["r1", "r2", "r3", "r4", "r5"], ["b1", "b2", "b3", "b4", "b5", "b6"] ] } Additionally, we can store the remaining 10 edges (p for purple): [ "y1:r1:R1", "y1:r2:R1", "y2:r1:R1", "y2:r2:R1", "r4:p1:R1", "r5:p1:R1", "r5:b1:R1", "b2:p1:R1", "y3:b5:R1", "y3:b6:R1" ] This means that the whole graph can now be represented with only three cliques and ten edges, instead of the original 38 edges. Compressed Graph(image by the author) This clique-based graph compression (CBGC) is loss-free (unless you need edge properties). In a realistic dataset, we identified massive storage savings. For one customer, CBGC reduced edge storage by 99.7%, replacing hundreds of thousands of edges with just a few hundred cliques and sparse edges. Performance Benefits Beyond Storage CBGC is not just about compression. It also enables faster operations, particularly when handling record and edge deletion. Any sane entity resolution engine should split an entity into multiple ones if the only link between two subgraphs was deleted, for example, due to regulatory or compliance reasons. Identifying separate, unconnected subgraphs is typically done using a connected components algorithm. In short, it works by grouping all nodes that are connected via edges into separate subgraphs. As a result each edge needs to be checked at least once. However, if a graph is stored as a compressed graph, then there is no need to traverse all edges of a clique. Instead it is sufficient to add a limited number of edges for each clique, for example a transitive path between the nodes of a clique, treating each clique as a pre-connected subgraph. Trade-Offs: Clique Detection Complexity There is a trade-off: clique detection is computationally expensive, particularly when attempting to find the maximum cliques, a well-known NP-hard problem. In practice it is often sufficient to simplify this workload. Approximate algorithms for clique detection (e.g. greedy heuristics) perform well enough for most uses. Additionally, CBGC is recalculated selectively, usually when an entity’s edge count surpasses a threshold. This hybrid approach balances compression efficiency with acceptable processing cost. Beyond Cliques Arguably, the most common pattern in entity resolution is the complete subgraph. However, further optimization could be achieved by identifying other recurring patterns such as stars: store as a list of nodes where the first entry represents the central node paths: store as an ordered list of nodes communities: store like a clique and mark the missing edges Closing Thoughts Entity resolution systems often face the challenge of managing dense, highly interconnected graphs. Storing all edges naively quickly becomes unsustainable. CBGC provides an efficient way to model entities by exploiting structural properties of the data. Not only does it reduce storage overhead, but it also improves system performance, especially during data deletion and reprocessing. While clique detection has its computational costs, careful engineering choices allow us to reap the benefits without sacrificing scalability. The post Efficient Graph Storage for Entity Resolution Using Clique-Based Compression appeared first on Towards Data Science.

Austin Russell, who became a billionaire after his lidar startup Luminar went public, appears to be out as CEO, according to the company’s board. Luminar’s board announced Wednesday — the same day of its first-quarter earnings report — it had replaced Russell and appointed Paul Ricci to the role. Ricci is the former chairman and CEO of Nuance. The press release states that Russell resigned as president and CEO and as the chairperson of the board, effective immediately. The board said in the press release the resignation followed a code of business conduct and ethics inquiry for the audit committee of Luminar’s board. Russell will remain on the board and be “available to the incoming Chief Executive Officer on transition and technology matters,” according to the release. However, it’s not clear if Russell was forced out or if he resigned willingly. Russell could not be reached for comment. The board did not provide further details of this ethics inquiry except that it “does not impact any of the company’s financial results.” In a further twist, the company’s earnings report and slide presentation makes no mention of the change of leadership. The first-quarter press release even includes an upbeat statement from Russell that outlines the company’s strategy to drive down cost with its new Halo product. “In a world of macro uncertainty and adversity, we’re firing on all cylinders to ramp up production, ramp down costs, and capitalize on the future, as evidenced by our announcements today,” Russell said in the statement. “This kicks off our new operating plan for Luminar with a unified product platform, enabling radical focus and streamlining of the business, as well as unlocking value throughout our organization.” Meanwhile, the press release from the board tells another story. Techcrunch event Join us at TechCrunch Sessions: AI Secure your spot for our leading AI industry event with speakers from OpenAI, Anthropic, and Cohere. For a limited time, tickets are just $292 for an entire day of expert talks, workshops, and potent networking. Exhibit at TechCrunch Sessions: AI Secure your spot at TC Sessions: AI and show 1,200+ decision-makers what you’ve built — without the big spend. Available through May 9 or while tables last. Berkeley, CA | June 5 REGISTER NOW “We are excited to announce Paul as our next CEO,” board member Matt Simoncini said in a statement. “His track record speaks for itself. He is a visionary leader with a rare combination of technical insight and operational excellence. His commitment to innovation, his ability to scale organizations, and his instinct for anticipating where technology is heading make him the ideal person to lead us into our next chapter of growth. The Board has full confidence in his leadership, and we are excited about what lies ahead.” Simonici, who retired as CEO of Lear in 2018, is chair of the board’s audit committee, which also includes Jun Hong Heng, who is the founder and chief investment officer of technology investment firm Crescent Cove Advisers, Evergreen Capital Partners founder Dominick Schiano, and Daniel Tempesta, who served as executive VP and CFO at Nuance.Luminar burst onto the autonomous vehicle scene in April 2017 after operating for years in secrecy. Russell, who was just 22 years old at the time, was thrust into the spotlight and became a Silicon Valley success story. Luminar was founded by Russell in 2012, but it would be years before his company would be known by the public. He worked on the Luminar technology as a Thiel fellow, which gives young people $100,000 over two years to drop out of college and pursue their ideas. In 2021, Luminar merged with special purpose acquisition company Gores Metropoulos Inc., with a post-deal market valuation of $3.4 billion. Luminar raised $250 million prior to the SPAC announcement.

May 14, 20254 min readRemember VIPER, NASA’s Off-Again, On-Again Lunar Rover? It’s Still in LimboNASA’s nearly complete yet canceled lunar rover VIPER isn’t going to get carried to the moon by a private space exploration company—but it’s also not quite dead yetBy Stephanie Pappas edited by Jeanna BrynerNASA's VIPER, or the Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover, can be seen in this artist's impression. Geopix/Alamy Stock PhotoThe only consistent thing about NASA’s VIPER lunar rover is that the road to the moon has been a rocky one. And now the space agency has nixed its attempt to find a commercial partner to launch VIPER moonward, leaving the nearly complete little space vehicle in a continued state of limbo.VIPER (Volatiles Investigating Polar Explorer Rover) was intended to launch this year to explore the lunar south pole in search of buried ice and other chemical compounds. But NASA canceled it in July 2024 after delays led to cost overruns. This is the second time NASA has nixed a lunar rover mission in recent years, says Philip Metzger, a planetary physicist at the University of Central Florida (UCF). In 2018 NASA axed the Resource Prospector rover, which would have done similar exploration.In January NASA raised hopes that VIPER might somehow still see space when it put out a call for proposals for private aerospace companies to launch and operate the rover. On May 7, however, NASA canceled that call for proposals.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The agency says it is exploring new strategies for VIPER in the future.“We look forward to accomplishing future volatiles science with VIPER as we continue NASA’s Moon to Mars exploration efforts,” said Nicky Fox, associate administrator of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, in a recent statement.Why can’t VIPER get off the ground? The rover’s budget problems started with supply chain disruptions during the COVID pandemic, says Casey Dreier, chief of space policy at the Planetary Society. It was also slated to launch on a platform built by aerospace company Astrobotic, which failed its first landing of a scaled-down version of that platformThe mission was unusually far along when NASA pulled the plug: the rover was fully assembled and was in the final stages of testing for a launch. By that point, NASA had sunk nearly $800 million into its construction and the contract with Astrobotic.It’s not clear why NASA has been unable to find a private partner to launch the rover, but such a company would have assumed the costs of the mission and agreed to share the data freely with the space agency. That made for a tough business case for private companies, SpaceNews reported earlier this month.What kind of science was VIPER supposed to do?The 2.5-meter-tall rover was designed to search for resources such as water ice, carbon dioxide and helium in the lunar subsurface. The goal, says Clive Neal, a lunar expert at the University of Notre Dame, is to find resources that humans could use to establish a permanent research base on the moon. The data on where such volatiles might be and whether they’re accessible and extractable are crucial for the Artemis program’s plans for long-term human presence on the moon.The rover carries four instruments: a neutron spectrometer to detect water as deep as a meter below the surface, a near-infrared spectrometer to determine the makeup of samples, a mass spectrometer to analyze gases in the environment at touchdown and a drill called TRIDENT (The Regolith and Ice Drill for Exploring New Terrains). The drill is one of VIPER’s blockbuster features, designed to pull samples from up to a meter deep.The cancelation of VIPER, after 2018’s loss of Resource Prospector, is short-sighted, given NASA’s goals, Neal says. “Is NASA actually serious about getting humans back to the moon?” he says. “Are they actually serious about enacting our current space policy? Have they actually read it?”VIPER could also answer basic science questions about the origin of the water on the moon, says UCF’s Metzger. It may have been part of the lunar core from the moment of its formation, or the water could have arrived with planetary dust or large impactors over time, among other possibilities. “Understanding those processes is crucial for understanding our solar system,” Metzger says. The answers could reveal more about how common water-rich bodies are in the galaxy and how many planets or moons might host life.What’s next for VIPER?That’s the big question. Until NASA releases more details on potential future partnership structures, the project remains in a state of suspended animation.“I don’t know what to make of it because there is so little information,” Dreier says.It’s possible NASA could reopen negotiations with Astrobotic, the company that was originally going to launch the rover, Neal says. Or, Metzger suggests, the agency might be seeking international partners that could take on some of the operational costs.There are no other U.S. missions on the horizon with the drilling capabilities of VIPER. If the rover doesn’t find a way to the moon, Neal says, two other lunar explorers from China could pick up the banner of volatiles science: Chang’e 7 and 8.As uncertain as things are looking for VIPER, though, it’s an optimistic sign that NASA hasn’t dropped the rover outright, Dreier says, given that the White House has proposed a 50 percent cut to NASA’s science programs and a more than 20 percent cut to the agency overall in 2026. “If it’s not openly identified as being canceled,” Dreier says, “you are winning as a NASA science mission right now.”

The dust has finally settled in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, following a whirlwind of controversy that arose amid efforts to preserve Frank Lloyd Wright’s only built skyscraper: Price Tower. The 1956 building was sold to McFarlin Building, a Tulsa-based company that says it plans to restore the copper and concrete beauty in the heart of the town.  Originally designed for Harold C. Price Sr., the mixed-use tower housed corporate headquarters for H.C. Price Pipeline Company, leasing space for smaller firms, and luxury apartments. After Price’s corporate headquarters relocated to Dallas, Phillips Petroleum took over from 1981 until 2001 when the Tower was donated to the Price Tower Arts Center (PTAC), a private nonprofit. After ensuing restorations, the Tower housed the Price Tower museum; The Price Tower Arts Center; and The Inn at Price Tower, a ritzy hotel.  In 2011, the PTAC board donated a preservation easement to the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy, four years after the Price Tower became a National Historic Landmark. The easement protects the tower itself along with artwork, furnishings, and other features within it specifically designed by Wright as part of the Tower. As the PTAC struggled to maintain the building’s expenses, the board decided to terminate the organization and sold the Tower to Green Copper Holdings in March 2023 for $10 and the assumption of the building’s $600,000 debt. All was well, until it wasn’t.   The 19-story building primarily features concrete and copper. (Leonid Furmansky) Going Once Financial hurdles persisted. In the spring of 2024, alerted the Conservancy that valued ephemera protected by the easement had been sold to a midcentury design collector in Dallas without the Conservancy’s knowledge or approval.  Cynthia Blanchard of Copper Tree contended that the sale was imperative due to a lack of funding. By that point, the Towers’ debt had allegedly accumulated to over $2 million. The Conservancy argued Blanchard had no right to make that decision independently, and that the sale of the protected items jeopardized the space’s historic value.  Legal communications were sent by the Conservancy to Blanchard, Green Copper Holdings, and others alerting them of the items’ protection with hopes to settle matters internally. However, Copper Tree later filed a lawsuit against the Conservancy claiming the preservation easement was null and void due to the transfer of ownership in 2023—despite the easement’s attachment to the property deed. As the Conservancy fought back, the future of Wright’s work still remained uncertain.  At the time of its construction, Price Tower was the tallest building in Bartlesville. (Leonid Furmansky) Going Twice McFarlin Building signed a contract in May 2024 to buy Price Tower for $1.4 million, however, Blanchard claimed this contract was canceled due to “extensive and unreasonable last-minute demands.” In October 2024, Copper Tree put the building up for auction, seeking a new buyer, and McFarlin stepped in again, filing a lawsuit that cited its previous sale. News of all this also came to light after the Blanchards had evicted all the tenants; laid off Tower staffers; and barred public access to the museum, inn, and arts center seemingly in preparation for auction. Amid the legal proceedings, Price Tower was pulled from the auction block. The lawsuit added a layer of urgency to the matter, citing the lack of insurance and current fire protections as putting the building at risk.   Sold! In January, a judge ruled to approve the sale to McFarlin, per the original contract, and required the utilities be immediately reinstated to protect the building against freezing temperatures. In one final twist, Copper Tree filed for bankruptcy, putting the building up for auction. When the resulting bankruptcy auction failed to pull other bidders, McFarlin ended up with the building. John Snyder, who manages McFarlin, has taken part in the revitalization of multiple properties in Tulsa, including the Mayo and Aloft Hotels. His daughter, Macy Snyder-Amatucci, is the president of Brickhugger, a restoration company that is the principal owner of McFarlin. Prior to the auction, the Conservancy and McFarlin signed a Memorandum of Understanding to ensure the easement would be protected should McFarlin win the bid. While the fate of the items sold off last spring remains in the wind, the new agreement secures the rightful place of  the rest of the collection.  During an easement visit this March, the Conservancy concluded that while the collections and key historic interiors at Price Tower were “overall in fair to good condition,” significant investments would need to be made to the building upon purchase, mainly due to water damage. At this time, it seems McFarlin is ready to take on the task.  “We look forward to this next chapter for the Price Tower, and to building a strong preservation partnership with its new owners,” the Conservancy shared in a recent statement. “There is significant work ahead, but the infusion of new financial resources, together with a sustainable business plan, gives us great optimism for the tower’s future.”

It already feels like BEYOND Expo 2024 wrapped just yesterday – with its sprawling exhibition halls, a kaleidoscope of cutting-edge tech, and buzzwords ricocheting off every panel discussion. But here we are again, prepping for the return of Asia’s premier tech pilgrimage. BEYOND Expo 2025 is officially on the calendar: May 21 to 24, 2025, hosted once more at the Venetian Macao Cotai Expo. The theme? “Unveiling Possibilities”, a theme that’s perfect for today’s fast-paced world. In the face of uncertainties, BEYOND Expo aims to unveil possibilities – for progress, innovation, and trade. BEYOND has earned its stripes as the central node for startups, unicorns, Fortune 500s, and future-first thinkers who know how to speak fluent AI, blockchain, biotech, and green tech without breaking a sweat. The numbers speak volumes – 2024 clocked in with 820 companies and 20,000+ attendees, including 35% international guests and a surprisingly welcome 30% female participation. For 2025, organizers are aiming for a 40% international exhibitor share out of 1,200 participating companies. Click Here to know more about the BEYOND Expo 2025 At the core of the event are its signature exhibition areas: ConsumerTech, ClimateTech, and Healthcare. Each zone is a hands-on, immersion-heavy playground. Think smart wearables alongside AI-driven diagnostics. Carbon-neutral power systems sharing floor space with next-gen mobility. Everything here feels like it was prototyped in the year 2030. You’ll find familiar titles like the Global Investment Summit, where deal-making isn’t whispered in back rooms but happens in pitch sessions like “FUND AT FIRST PITCH,” which matched 150 startups with 100 VCs in 2024. ConsumerTech, ClimateTech, and Healthcare Summits bring vertical-specific depth, while the Asia-Latam, Asia-Euro, and ORIGIN: Asia forums spotlight the unique tech tensions and opportunities across regional ecosystems. Even the SheTech Summit returns to amplify global female innovation, alongside the wealth-centric BEYOND Wealth Summit and founder-focused Founder Forum. The opening day is expected to pull heavyweight speakers offering deep industry insight, while the closing event is a hybrid of TED Talk and cultural carnival. Expect keynote wisdom, the BEYOND Awards spotlighting future-forward solutions across four categories, and yes, the kind of nightlife Macao’s reputation thrives on – food markets, yoga pop-ups, eSports showdowns, and likely another charity poker faceoff. This year’s narrative, “Unveiling Possibilities,” signals a commitment to embracing chaos, using innovation as a counterweight to uncertainty. BEYOND 2025 sees volatility as a resource, not a risk. And in an age where tech cycles shift faster than government policies, that mindset feels appropriately radical. The backdrop of Macao – cosmopolitan, cross-cultural, and geographically strategic – makes it the ideal launchpad for ideas that refuse to stay regional. If you’re a founder, investor, engineer, or just someone who geeks out at the thought of tech’s bleeding edge, blocking those dates now might be the smartest calendar move you’ll make in 2025. Registration links for Super Early Bird passes are already live. Exhibition slots are filling. Whether you’re showcasing a product or seeking the next one to bet on, BEYOND Expo 2025 promises both visibility as well as momentum.The post BEYOND Expo 2025 Wants to Transform Uncertainty Into A Trigger for Innovation first appeared on Yanko Design.