Facebook pulled down 115 Instagram and Facebook accounts this week over fears they were meddling in the midterms. Now, Facebook has said the accounts may be linked to Russia's notorious troll farm.

In a statement sent to Business Insider, and first reported by TechCrunch, the company said it removed the 85 Instagram accounts and 30 Facebook profiles because of suspected ties to the Russia-based Internet Research Agency (IRA).

Although Facebook was not categorical in drawing a link between the meddling and the IRA, it pointed to the fact that a website connected to the troll farm published a list of Instagram accounts they claim to have created.

Read more: Facebook built an election 'war room' to try to avoid repeating the mistakes of 2016 — here's what it's like inside

Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook's head of cybersecurity policy, said (emphasis ours):

"Last night, following a tip-off from law enforcement, we blocked over 100 Facebook and Instagram accounts due to concerns that they were linked to the Russia-based Internet Research Agency (IRA) and engaged in coordinated inauthentic behavior, which is banned from our services.

"This evening a website claiming to be associated with the IRA published a list of Instagram accounts they claim to have created. We had already blocked most of these accounts yesterday, and have now blocked the rest.

"This is a timely reminder that these bad actors won't give up — and why it's so important we work with the US government and other technology companies to stay ahead."

It is not the first time this year that Facebook has pulled down accounts over fears they were linked to the IRA. The social network announced in July it had banned 32 pages and accounts that were engaged in "coordinated inauthentic behavior." At the time, the firm said the accounts behaved in a similar way to the IRA and had "connected with known IRA accounts."

Facebook has been much more vigilant and transparent about suspected meddling than it was during the 2016 presidential election, when Russian operatives created fake Facebook accounts that pushed both right- and left-wing narratives in an attempt to sow political division. Facebook even set up a "war room" to monitor its billions of users in an attempt to weed out inauthentic behaviour.

Starbucks' president and chief executive Kevin Johnson said on Monday that the company would look to improve its delivery services in the US after experimenting with new delivery technologies in China, CNBC reported.

Among those innovations are delivery services designed to closely resemble the experience customers enjoy inside Starbucks retail stores.

The coffee chain says it has developed methods for delivering coffee products that have the same quality customers would normally get at a Starbucks store, by utilizing tools like heat-retaining packaging and spill-proof lids.

When customers receive their orders, "the beverage is the same temperature as if the barista just prepared it and handed it to them," Johnson told CNBC.

Johnson further explained to CNBC that China's food delivery industry was growing "faster than any other part of the world."

China is Starbucks' second-largest market, after the US.

Before votes could even be counted on Tuesday in San Francisco for the highly debated Proposition C — which would tax the city's largest corporations to provide more funding to homeless services — the measure's number one backer, Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, was already on to the next issue: transportation.

This time, however, instead of personally spending over $2 million to support a ballot measure, he took to Twitter and invoked the help of none other than Elon Musk.

The tweet was a reply to the video Musk posted last Saturday, showing off the tunnel that The Boring Company (a subsidiary of Musk's SpaceX) had created under the streets of Los Angeles. The project is the company's "test tunnel," used to demonstrate how its "pod" vehicles and "lifts" will work.

The Boring Company's overall purpose is to create alternative modes of transportation to help reduce city traffic.

Read more: Elon Musk shares first look into The Boring Company's 'disturbingly long' tunnel

A little over an hour after Benioff's request to have the Boring Company build similar tunnels throughout the Bay Area — and even one that extended over 350 miles south to Los Angeles — Elon agreed, nonchalantly.

The Boring Company did not immediately respond to Business Insider's request for comment.

In 2008, California voters passed Proposition 1A which earmarked $9 billion to initiate construction on a high-speed rail system that would connect San Francisco to Los Angeles. Construction for that project has already begun.

It looks like "PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds," the game that is largely credited with sparking the popularity of battle royale shooting games like "Fortnite: Battle Royale," is set for release on PlayStation 4.

While Bluehole, the game's developer, has yet to confirm a PS4 release date, fans have discovered files on PlayStation 4 consoles and in Sony's online PlayStation Network store. Last month the South Korean Game Rating and Administration Committee leaked ratings for a PlayStation 4 version of the game as well. A representative for the game declined to comment.

"PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds," or "PUBG," was officially released on PC in May 2017 and has been console exclusive to the Xbox One since December 2017. The game was in Microsoft's Xbox Game Preview program until September 4th, when version 1.0 was officially released. The mobile version of the game is also one of the most popular video games in China.

Read more:The company behind 'PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds' has reportedly dropped its lawsuit against the wildly popular 'Fortnite'

Like "Fortnite: Battle Royale" and other games that it inspired, "PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds" throws 100 players onto a single map with scattered resources. Players need to find weapons and items to defend themselves as the safe areas of the map begin to shrink. The last player or team surviving at the end of the round is the winner.

Though "PUBG" helped pioneer the battle royale genre, the game has seen its star wane, even as rivals like "Fortnite" have skyrocketed to success and challengers like "Call of Duty's" Blackout and "Battlefield V's" Firestorm continue to crop up. and. "PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds" has a smaller development team than those games and has struggled to keep up with the demands of a massive community.

In November of 2017, "PUBG" was averaging 1.3 million players each day, according to SteamCharts, which tracks players on Steam, the most popular platform for PC games. The average number of daily "PUBG" players has since dwindled to about 450,000 over the last 30 days.

Still, "PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds" remains one of the three most popular games on Steam by a wide margin, alongside "Dota 2" and "CounterStrike: Global Offensive."

With "PUBG" available on multiple platforms, players are wondering if Bluehole will be able to implement cross-platform play. Earlier this year "Fortnite" became the first game to offer cross-platform play between the Xbox One, PlayStation 4, Nintendo Switch, PC, and mobile devices. Bluehole has expressed interest in allowing cross-platform play in the past, but nothing has been confirmed.

"PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds" is currently available on PC and Xbox One for $29.99. This hypothetical PS4 version will likely carry a similar price.

While Greg Poulin, co-founder and CEO of Goodly, was attending Dartmouth, his father passed away unexpectedly. On top of the emotional toll, he also ended up having to borrow $80,000 in student loans to pay his tuition.

Poulin has since moved to San Francisco, the thriving-but-pricey hub of the startup world, and he's still chipping away at his loans with a monthly payment of about $900 a month. Frustrated by his experiences, he founded Goodly, a platform for companies to offer employees assistance with their student loans as a benefit.

Goodly allows companies to make a monthly contribution to their employees' student loans, similar to how companies often match 401(k) contributions. Based in San Francisco, Goodly was founded just this April, launched with a $120,000 seed investment as a part of the summer batch from famed startup program Y Combinator.

"Most employers don't know that student loan benefits exist. It's both a challenge and an opportunity for us," Poulin told Business Insider. "It's helped us completely define a new category of benefits."

Companies often offer perks like gym memberships, massage chairs and snacks, but the money can be better allocated to helping employees pay student loans, Poulin says. That way, student loan repayment won't be a large expense for companies. This benefit, he says, could help with both recruiting and retention.

"The problem is those employees are saddled with crippling student loan debt," Poulin said. "Gym memberships aren't going to cut it when it comes to recruiting employees."

Hemant Verma, co-founder and CTO of Goodly, also had to pay off debts from his own education in India.

"This is a massive problem for people," Verma told Business Insider. "It's the biggest problem our generation is facing...This was a mission we were energized with."

The scale of the problem

Today, 70% of college students graduate with debt, and over 44 million Americans collectively owe $1.5 trillion in student debt. An American Student Assistance survey reported that 76% of respondents said student loan repayment benefit would be a deciding or contributing factor to accepting a job offer.

The average college graduate has $37,172 in student loans, by some estimates, up $20,000 from 13 years ago. It makes sense that the demand for student loan benefits is rising.

"For millennials, they bear the grunt of student loans," Poulin said. "It's an issue where we see people of all backgrounds."

This could potentially impact diversity and inclusion at companies as well, as student loans disproportionately affect women and people of color. For example, research shows that women carry two-thirds of the nation's student debt load, and that African American students are four times more likely to default on their student loans than their white peers.

Poulin has seen Goodly's customers make contributions of $25 to $300 a month to repaying their employees' student loans. On average, employers contribute $100 a month.

"We've had companies of all sizes reach out to us," Poulin said. "We've been really blown away by the interest of companies we've seen. It's not surprising when so many are leaving the company in debt. This is a problem they've struggled with. It's exciting to see companies that are working to proactively help their employees solve this challenge."

Get started early

For Poulin, one thing that has helped him was making bi-weekly payments instead of monthly payments.

"Over the course of the year, you'll make an additional payment," Poulin said. "It could shave off two years over the repayment period."

Still, student loan repayments can impede employees from making future investments such as graduate school, buying a house, marriage and retirement. Poulin sees investing in retirement as his biggest challenge, especially when he first started working after graduation.

"I was contributing very little, if at all," Poulin said. "Student loan debt is a major barrier. When you delay contributing to the 401(k), there's a large compounding effect."

Having faced the issue of paying off student debt themselves, Poulin and Verma hope Goodly can help people slash the amount of time it takes to pay off loans.

"We want to make student loans obsolete," Verma said. "Student loans get a bad rep for most people. In terms of investments, it's still a good thing basically. You're able to upgrade your life. Our goal is not to get rid of it completely, but make sure you can pay it off as fast as possible."

I just got to put my hands on what's supposed to be the future of smartphones.

My first impression: The future still needs some work.

The ostensible gadget of tomorrow is a foldable phone with a flexible screen. Samsung is widely expected to unveil its idea for just such a device at a conference on Wednesday. But it was beaten to the punch Monday night by Royole, a startup display and device maker.

Bill Liu, CEO of Royole, with a selection of devices that use his company's flexible displays.Troy WolvertonAt a small press event, company CEO Bill Liu showed off the FlexPai, which he dubbed the world's first commercially available flexible screen foldable phone. The device, when folded, looks something like a small notebook with a wraparound screen. When opened, it looks like a small tablet.

"We've been working on this a long time," Liu told Business Insider.

Royole designed the FlexPai to address two significant shortcomings of traditional smartphones — their screens are fragile, and they're not really big enough for many tasks, such as watching movies or editing documents.

Unlike nearly all smartphones, the FlexPai screen isn't encased in glass. Its display is an OLED screen that's printed on a thin plastic material. The screen is scratch resistant and, because it doesn't use any glass, it's shatter-proof. It can be bent 200,000 times without breaking, Liu said.

"It's a significant breakthrough," he said. He continued: "Say goodbye to broken screens."

The FlexPai can act as a phone or a tablet

The FlexPai has a hinge in its middle that allows you to fold it to the point where its two ends touch or unfold it to a 180-degree angle. The hinge is stiff enough that it will maintain any angle in between those two points. So, one thing you can do with it is to fold it part-way to form an "A" shape and have it stand up on its two ends.

The device runs a custom version of Android that Royole calls Water OS that it designed specifically for the FlexPai's flexible screen. One thing it allows you to do is to show a different video on each side of the device's screen when its folded, so you and a friend could potentially watch two different things at the same time.

Read this: This Stanford grad's startup can make screens that are thinner than a sheet of copy paper — and he's gearing up to take on Samsung and LG in the display market

The FlexPai supports dual SIM cards. When it's folded in half, you can use the screens on the front and back as, essentially, two different phones, each associated with a different SIM.

The FlexPai's hinge will maintain any angle between 0 and 180 degrees. Royole But the flexible screen is perhaps most useful when you actually unfold it and you can see the full 7.8" display in its entirety. In that configuration, it's almost the exact size as the iPad mini. It's only slightly heavier and thicker.

So, basically, the FlexPai is a miniature tablet that actually fits in your pocket. It will allow users to save money and weight, because they won't need as many devices, Liu said.

You'll need "less and less devices to get the same user experience," he said.

Royole is already mass producing the device and taking preorders for it. It plans to start shipping it at the end of December.

The gadget is pricey and clunky

But you may want to wait before you buy one.

For one thing, the device is expensive. It starts at $1,318 for a version with 128 gigabytes of storage. If you want the 256-gigabyte version, it will set you back $1,469. That's more than the priciest iPhone XS Max — and that model comes with 512 gigabytes of storage.

For another, Royole doesn't yet have any U.S. carrier partners and isn't really selling the FlexPai to consumers here. Right now, it's targeting consumers in China instead.

Unfolded, the FlexPai is about the same size and shape as Apple's iPad mini. Royole But the gadget has more fundamental problems. It feels like a first-generation device. Although it's small and thin for a tablet, it feels big and clunky when folded in half. That's because it doesn't fold down flat. Instead it has a relatively thick bulge at its hinge. That could be annoying if you're trying to carry it around in your pocket.

Right before Apple introduced that iPad, I met with a small Silicon Valley company that showed off one of the first modern touchscreen tablets. I had been skeptical about tablets before then, but after seeing device — even in its rough shape — it was immediately clear why someone would want a gadget like it.

I was hoping to have the same experience with the FlexPai. I've been excited about the coming era of flexible screen devices since the first time I saw a demo of such a display around a decade or so ago. The idea of having a large screen device that you can fit in your pocket or roll up into a pen-like tube is really appealing in theory.

It feels like a gimmick

But right now, this flexible screen device feels more like a gimmick than a vision of the future.

I didn't really get to test the device, so I can't say how it performs or what it's like to use on a daily basis. But I'm dubious that in practice its flexible screen feature is really that compelling. Other companies have tried dual-screen phones, and they've never really caught on with consumers. I'm skeptical that people are going to like the trade off of having a thicker gadget in their pocket.

Sure, its larger screen can offer a better movie-watching experience. But the display still isn't big enough for the device to replace a laptop or a full-sized tablet. You're not going to want to edit documents or do other work on that sized screen.

Solving the problem of fragile screens is an important advance. But not at a $1,300 price point.

It was cool to see the FlexPai in person. I'm just hoping that future foldable devices do a better job of living up to the hype.

Now read:

Less than 24 hours after an advertisement that was widely condemned as racist aired during a Sunday Night Football game on NBC, the network issued a sweeping reversal, vowing to immediately remove the ad. NBC cited the ad's "insensitive" nature as the reason for its removal.

Shortly after, both Fox and Facebook, which aired the ad on their respective platforms, issued similar statements and pulled the ad.

The 30-second primetime advertisement released by President Trump's campaign attempted to draw a connection between convicted cop killer Luis Bracamontes, an undocumented Mexican immigrant who is now on death row, and the so-called migrant caravan now traveling up through Mexico toward the US border. There is no known connection, and Trump has frequently used the migrant caravan — a group of several thousand Central American migrants fleeing violence and poverty in their home countries — as a talking point to stoke fears about immigration in the US.

So how did the ad pass muster?

For one, it actually wasn't cleared by all the companies to which it was submitted. CNN, for example, rejected the ad, calling it racist.

NBC, Fox, and Facebook all have their own advertising standards teams that evaluate ads and originally accepted the Trump ad. Federal agencies, which have varying degrees of jurisdiction regulating ads, didn't flag anything as impermissible. It was a public rebuke that prompted a second review and the eventual pulling of the ad.

The original airing, outcry, and then reversal by the networks show both the difference in rules around enforcement between commercial and political ads, and the growing indication that networks and platforms must appreciate the brand-safety issues that come with political advertisements.

Standards and practices

The teams at a network or cable company that review an ad for a commercial product and for a political candidate or cause tend to be the same. But the evaluation process is different, according to people familiar with it.

"I have to believe that in a sane world when a political party or candidate buys time, the assumption is you don't have to scrutinize ads same way you have to if someone is selling something," Preston Beckman, former NBC and Fox executive, told Business Insider. "Political ads are selling policy."

Ad agencies also note a perceived difference in the way ads are reviewed for commercial products and political issues.

"The FCC, the FTC, and the FEC leave the American people for dead when it comes to political advertising," Sarah O'Leary, lead strategist at Methods & Madness, told Business Insider. "They allow our public airwaves to be used to lie to us without any regulation."

The FCC administers political programming rules for TV, but it doesn't evaluate messaging in ads. Both the FEC and FTC oversee campaign finance laws, including the disclosure of funds raised to influence federal elections.

The network is the real evaluation point on ad messaging, according to O'Leary, who owns an ad agency.

In her experience, the process of getting a commercial ad submitted involves reading product research to understand what facts can be included in an advertisement, multiple layers of review by lawyers, and a final review by networks or cable companies to decide if the ad is legal and fact based, or misleading.

"The people at the networks know this process inside and out," O'Leary said. "They figured they'd take a chance."

Money is part of the equation, she said, and primetime slots fetch significant ad dollars. Trump spent $2.7 million on national TV ads last week alone, according to iSpot.TV.

The Trump ad was created by Jamestown Associates, a corporate advertising firm based in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with National Media as the ad-buying agency, and aired three times on NBC properties and 14 times on Fox properties over the last week before it was pulled. At the time it was removed, it had been viewed more that 21 million times, according to iSpot.TV.

The review of a political ad shouldn't be any less stringent than it is for a commercial product, O'Leary said. "They're selling the most important thing to our society they are selling ideas and principles that are going to determine our government."

Reputational risk

Since federal agencies don't thoroughly review political ad messages, that leaves the evaluation of whether an ad is appropriate to broadcasters and cable companies. And that determination has proven difficult. NBC, Fox, and Facebook all removed the ad not because it spouted factual inaccuracies, but for less quantifiable reasons.

NBC used the term "insensitive." Facebook said the content was "sensational." In either case, the platforms seemed to designate the ad as a violation of social mores. And that may leave them exposed to a future mishap.

In the case of the most recent Trump ad that was removed, the damage seems contained.

"I don't think there's a reputational risk for the network and its other advertisers either way, unless an ad is so egregious that it somehow causes consumers to view other advertisers or the network negatively," Brian Wieser, senior analyst Pivotal Research, told Business Insider in an email. "Advertisers are concerned more about the content they are associated with than the brand company they keep."

YouTube is an example of a platform that faced backlash after advertisers noticed their ads running next to offensive or extremist content. It resulted in hundreds of advertisers pulling their ads from YouTube even though ads only rarely ran next to questionable content, Wieser said.

But advertisers usually only act when there's a direct correlation between content or brand safety and an ad.

Take Facebook's role in the genocide against the Rohingya, a persecuted Muslim minority group. On Monday, Facebook admitted it didn't do enough to prevent its platform being used to incite violence and hate against the Rohingya. But advertisers aren't boycotting Facebook the way they did YouTube.

"No advertiser has concern at this time because, I think, the connection is too indirect for most consumers to appreciate even if it seems plain as day to someone studying the business closely," Wieser said.

It may take someone putting together a clear argument that resonates with large groups of people for the connection to become more problematic, he said.

But brand-safety issues for networks and platforms could become more of an issue in the future because of changing expectations of consumers.

"I think millennials and young people want to align with platforms and brands that are extensions of their values and their principles," Joseph Anthony, CEO of New York based advertising firm Hero Group, told Business Insider.

"I think that the networks are not insulated from that, especially as you see more young people cut the cord and starting to look at more on demand platforms and there are a lot more options out there."

The top trending Google search on Tuesday morning was unsurprisingly about the midterm elections — but the leading term wasn't in English.

Google reported that its top trending search the morning of Election Day was "dónde votar," Spanish for "where to vote."

According to a post on Twitter from Google Trends, the search engine saw a 3,350% spike in queries using this term.

Google doesn't report the number of times this term was searched, but the increase in traffic around "dónde votar" is significant.

A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that Latino voters were more tuned in and enthusiastic about this year's election than the 2014 midterms.

About 7.8 million Latinos are expected to vote in Tuesday's election, according to estimates the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Education Fund.

That would a 15% increase in voter turnout from midterm elections four years ago, which saw 6.8 million Latinos cast a ballot.

LIVE UPDATES: Follow our live coverage of the 2018 midterm elections here

In the days leading up to Election Day, immigration has been a hot-button issue. President Donald Trump has stepped up his rhetoric on the matter, with the announcement of a plan to end birthright citizenship and verbal attacks against the caravan of Central American migrants.

MoviePass, the movie-ticket subscription service, raised howls of anger from customers after it capped the number of movies they can see every month and introduced other restrictions.

But while 18% of MoviePass current subscribers are planning to cancel, a large percentage are still happy with the service despite the new limits on movies and showtimes.

According to a new survey conducted by on-demand insights platform AlphaHQ for Business Insider, MoviePass has a surprisingly large group of loyalists who have not been turned off by the new restrictions. Out of 165 people surveyed who had subscribed to MoviePass in the last six months, 56% said they were either extremely or moderately satisfied with the service, while 18% had a neutral reaction.

As MoviePass has struggled to gain financial footing in recent months, it has rolled out new features designed to control its cash burn. The main ones still in a effect are a cap at three movies per month, and limitations on which movies (and showtimes) subscribers can go to.

"There are always movies that I want to see," one respondent said. "I feel it is a great value for the amount paid. Other friends have purchased based on my great experience."

Another, however, said they had become disenchanted with MoviePass: "It was amazing at first but became too restrictive at the end."

Despite laments about the product going downhill, these survey results are a far cry from the doomsday scenario social media would suggest was happening to MoviePass.

Read more: MoviePass competitor Sinemia has a new cheaper 'weekday-only' plan starting at $3.99 per month.

That said, 18% of 119 current MoviePass subscribers surveyed said they had plans to cancel, with 6% saying they already tried but were not allowed to (a common complaint Business Insider has heard).

Of 46 previous MoviePass subscribers who had already canceled, 54% cited the limitations on which movies they could go to as a reason.

"They changed it too much and you basically couldn't see movies when you wanted to which is why I stopped subscribing," one respondent said.

MoviePass announced in June that it had passed three million subscribers, so even with a double-digit drop the company would still have a sizeable user base.

But the more proximate worry for MoviePass and its parent company, Helios and Matheson Analytics, is angry shareholders, some of whom have seen the value of their stakes drop over 99% in recent months.

Helios has twice delayed a crucial shareholders meeting where it will ask for authorization to perform a 1-for-500 reverse stock split to avoid getting delisted from the Nasdaq exchange. The meeting is now scheduled to take place on November 14.

Following is a transcript of the video.

Döpfner: But, your most prominent critic at the moment is the President of the United States. People are even saying that he may be willing to prepare initiatives to break up Amazon, because it's too big, it's too successful, it's too dominant in too many sectors, or for varied other reasons, including the fact that he doesn't like the "Post". Is this break up scenario something that you take seriously, or do you think it's just a fantasy?

Bezos: For me again, this is one of those things where I focus on and ask our teams to focus on what we can control, and I expect — whether it's the current US administration or any other government agency around the world — Amazon is now a large corporation and I expect us to be scrutinized. We should be scrutinized. I think all large institutions should be scrutinized and examined. It's reasonable. And one thing to note about is that we have gotten big in absolute terms only very recently. So we've always been growing very fast in percentage terms, but in 2010 just 8 years ago, we had 30,000 employees. So in the last 8 years we've gone from 30,000 employees to 560,000 employees. You know in my mind I'm still delivering the packages to the post office myself. You see what I'm saying? I still have all the memories of hoping that one day we could afford a forklift. So obviously my intellectual brain knows that's just not the case anymore. We have 560,000 employees all over the world. And I know we should be scrutinized and I think it's true that big government institutions should be scrutinized, big non-profit institutions should be scrutinized, big universities should be scrutinized. It just makes sense. And that's, by the way, why the work at the "Washington Post" and all other great newspapers around the world do is so important. They are often the ones doing that initial scrutiny, even before the government agencies do.

Döpfner: The general sentiment concerning the big innovative tech companies has changed. Facebook, Google, Amazon, Apple — they used to be seen as the nice guys in T-shirts that are saving the world. Now they are sometimes portrayed as the evil of the world. And the debate about the Big 4 or the Big 5 is heating up: Professors like Scott Galloway and "The Economist" are suggesting a split-up, other powerful people like George Soros are giving very critical speeches at Davos, and the EU Commission is taking pretty tough positions here. Do you think that there is a change in the mindset of society, and how should the big tech companies, how should Amazon deal with that?

Bezos: I think it's a natural instinct, I think we humans, especially in the western world, and especially inside democracies are wired to be skeptical and mindful of large institutions of any kind. We're skeptical always of our government in the United States, state governments and local governments. I assume it's similar in Germany. It's healthy, because they're big, powerful institutions — the police, the military, or whatever it is. It doesn't mean you don't trust them, or that they're bad or evil or anything like that. It's just that they have a lot of power and control, and so you want to inspect them. Maybe that's a better word. You kind of want to always be inspecting them. And if you look at the big tech companies, they have gotten large enough that they need and are going to be inspected. And by the way, it's not personal. I think you can go astray on this if you're the founder of a company — one of these big tech companies, or any other big institution. If you go astray on this, you might start to take it personally. Like "Why are you someone inspecting me?" And I wish that people would just say, "Yes, it's fine".

EDITOR'S NOTE: This video was originally published on May 4, 2018.

Amazon will reportedly bring its second headquarters, HQ2, to two separate locations: the Long Island City neighborhood of Queens, New York, and the Crystal City area of Arlington, Virginia, The New York Times reported on Monday.

The two locations would house 25,000 employees each, instead of the 50,000 that was originally planned for HQ2.

The reported decision follows more than a year of speculation and lobbying by communities around the US and Canada.

There had been less speculation about New York City than Northern Virginia, but New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo recently made his desire to host Amazon clear.

"I'll change my name to Amazon Cuomo if that's what it takes," Cuomo told reporters on Monday. "Because it would be a great economic boost."

According to NY1, Cuomo reportedly met with Amazon executives in Seattle two weeks ago.

Long Island City's proposal to Amazon included boasts about "a creative, mixed-use neighborhood," more than 13 million square feet of real estate, and speedy commute times.

Here's what Long Island City is like:

It's been 55 years since President John F. Kennedy signed the Equal Pay Act into law, calling out the "unconscionable practice of paying female employees less wages than male employees for the same job." That law helped millions of women close the wage gap between them and their male colleagues. Yet, others have been less fortunate.

Women all over the country still suffer from this "unconscionable practice." In the past decade, the pay gap for black and Latina women has hardly changed, while white and Asian women have made significant gains.

According to the Institute for Women's Policy Research, Hispanic women experience a greater pay gap than any other racial group. In 2017, Latinas earned 54 cents for every dollar earned by white men, which means it would take more than 22 months for a Latina to earn what a typical white man could make in a year.

We launched Phenomenally Latina last week to call attention to this inequity. We partnered with organizations like Justice for Migrant Women and the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA) who fight on the ground every day to right this wrong — because we know that the accumulated hardships faced by Latinas mean they need more resources, not fewer.

I also write this as thousands of workers at Google walked out of their offices across the country last week, angered by a $90 million exit package received by a male executive accused of sexual harassment.

Having worked in the tech industry for much of my career, I know tech workers more than most have the opportunity to witness and speak out against this inequality every day of their professional lives. When I looked around, I saw that those guarding the doors, driving the shuttles, making our breakfast, lunch, and dinner — many who were women, many who were Latinas — were often not in a position to do so. That's because a lot of them are part of an invisible workforce that, through subcontracting, is hidden from the tech industry's supply chain and from the public eye.

Some of the wealthiest corporations on the planet decided to pay miserly wages, contracting workers out to third parties and providing no access to corporate benefits like health care and retirement savings. Many contractor workers at big tech companies cannot afford to go to the doctor. Security workers recounted being unable to afford groceries and eating all their meals at work, where they were covered by the company. Others said they were told to protect the corporate campus from homeless people, despite many of them being homeless themselves — living in vans or tent encampments — completely locked out of the housing market.

More than half of Latina mothers are the primary breadwinners for their families, which rely heavily on their wages to make ends meet. Three million households in this country are headed by Latinas, and about 36 percent of them are below the poverty level. The median annual salary difference between Latinas and white men is $26,403 a year.

If the wage gap were eliminated, a typical Latina working full-time would have enough money for three more years of child care, three years of tuition at a four-year university, almost four years' worth of food for her family, 18 months of mortgage, or two years' rent.

Any of these could irrevocably change a family's fortune for generations — sending a kid to college or getting a starter home is worth thousands and thousands in wealth over time. In contrast, the loss of any, which happens right now, every year, to millions of families, would harm them for years.

I stand in solidarity with every Google employee who left work last week. I also hope those who walked out center the concerns of the low-paid workers, and others who encounter the same type of harassment and abuse as female software engineers at Google, but none of the benefits. These workers are often Latinas, sole breadwinners for their families, one eviction away from total ruin. One of the promises of Phenomenally Latina is emphasizing these voices while drawing attention to structural sexism — these women must be protected, represented, and heard.

Meena Harris is an entrepreneur and the founder of the Phenomenal Woman Action Campaign. She started her career in tech right out of college, when she worked at Facebook. Most recently she ran policy at Slack, and before that, she practiced law at Covington & Burling, where she advised major tech companies in the areas of data privacy and cybersecurity.

Human error is to blame in the case of a Waymo autonomous car side-swiping a motorcycle in California, the company says, in an accident that sent the rider to the hospital last month.

The incident occurred on October 19 near the company's Mountain View headquarters, according to the official state accident report, when a car began merging into the same lane as a Waymo vehicle that was operating autonomously at 21 miles per hour. The driver took control of the car and began to merge to the right, when it collided with a Honda Rebel motorcycle that had just begun to pass the Waymo car.

There were no unusual weather conditions on the clear morning, the report says, and Waymo CEO John Krafcik was quick to pin the crash on human error.

Read more: Waymo is the first company that's allowed to test autonomous cars without a backup driver in California

"Our review of this incident confirmed that our technology would have avoided the collision by taking a safer course of action," he said in a blog post Monday. "Our simulation shows the self-driving system would have responded to the passenger car by reducing our vehicle's speed, and nudging slightly in our own lane, avoiding a collision."

The incident happened about 10-days before Waymo, a subsidiary of Google-parent Alphabet, won approval from state regulators on October 30 to test cars without human backup drivers on California roads. State law requires permit holders to report any collisions involving autonomous cars to the Department of Motor Vehicles with 10 days as well as an annual report of "disengagement" or instances like this crash where a human driver intervenes with the self-driving mode, The Verge reported.

Uber, one of Waymo's many self-driving competitors, is also attempting to get back to autonomous testing after one of its cars killed a pedestrian in Arizona over the summer. That incident, the first death attributable to autonomous cars, sent shockwaves through the industry as it races to launch commercial self-driving services.

Waymo plans to launch a ride-hailing service with its autonomous vehicles in Arizona this year, and General Motors is also on track to roll out a similar service next year, Reuters reported.

"Incidents like this are what motivate all of us at Waymo to work diligently and safely to bring our technology to roads," said Waymo's Krafcik, "because this is the type of situation self-driving vehicles can prevent."

Two years ago, hackers aligned with the interests of the Russian government created chaos within Hillary Clinton's election campaign when they hacked and stole the emails of Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta.

Attacks like that aren't going to stop anytime soon. In the past few years, the public has seen an increase in targeted hijacking — usually toward politicians, activists, business leaders, cryptocurrency users, and journalists. So last October, Google launched the Advanced Protection Program to protect these people who are most at risk.

The program, which Google offers to users free, is the highest form of personal-account security the company offers. This managed security program deals with phishing, malware, hijacking, and cryptographic techniques.

Guemmy Kim, product manager of Google's Account Security Team, told Business Insider about some of the recent trends her team has encountered in the months leading up Tuesday's US midterm elections, and shared her advice for staying safe.

Politically motivated "hijackers" will often ramp up attacks agains politicians and their campaign staffers in the months leading up to a big election such as Tuesday's, Kim said. But, she noted, there are many misconceptions of what kind of people hijackers are.

"There's this notion of a hijacker being some guy in a dark room typing at night," Kim said. "Hijacking activities actually follow a regular schedule. These are sophisticated hackers targeting politicians."

Read more: Google drops out of contention for a $10 billion defense contract because it could conflict with its corporate values

That's important to know because these hackers usually target politicians during business hours, when it's more realistic and easier to trick people, rather than in the middle of the night.

Don't expect to find obvious typos

Hijackers often personalize attacks for high-profile people. Using techniques like spear phishing, they may imitate a politician and send emails to the campaign subscribers. They might also try to embarrass a candidate or spearhead an attack that undermines the candidate's credibility, like looking through emails for embarrassing information or posting personal pictures.

And the emails sent to victims look very professional — these aren't the typo-filled junk emails people usually see in their spam inboxes.

Guemmy Kim is a product manager on Google's Account Security team. Google

"Security is always evolving," Kim said. "We constantly monitor what's happening on the landscape. Our goal is to evolve that program to keep you constantly and automatically protected."

The Advanced Protection Program requires that users have two security keys, which are devices that use two-factor authentication to protect from phishing. It protects personal email accounts, which can be a gateway to other accounts.

The program can also protect users using OAuth, or Open Authorization, which allows a user to use an account for third-party services like Facebook without exposing the account's password. Otherwise, politicians may be tricked into granting access to email and contact data to malicious apps.

"Campaign apps often use third-party services," Joe Hall, chief technologist of the Center for Democracy and Technology, told Business Insider. "They can share people's information with marketers. That's more of a privacy problem."

Never let your guard down

To stay secure, Kim recommends that users at least sign up for two-factor authentication. In addition, they should create unique passwords and make sure they're not reusing them.

She also recommends a Chrome extension called Password Alert, which detects when users enter their Google password into any websites other than the Google's login page.

Although Election Day is in full swing, the 2020 election is just around the corner, and politicians are already thinking about their upcoming campaigns. Still, attackers are always evolving, and the team must make sure it stays ahead of that curve.

"People were really vigilant in 2016 after high-profile attacking," Kim said. "Some talk about helping politicians with security. I kind of want to emphasize that we can't let that guard down. People have to keep vigilant."