Skip to toolbar

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
  • Margherita Tambussi
    Participant
    @margheritatambussi
    #11429

    Hi everyone!

    I have never been to the US before and I can’t wait to be there. I think that SVST is a unique experience. It will give us the opportunity to get in touch with people who have reached their goals. Moreover, we are going to visit one of the most important places in the world, where the biggest firms are based.

    My goals are to know the stories of these people and to understand their mentality and constancy.

    I would like to share my ideas and receive important advice and suggestions.

    I think that this experience will change my mind.

     

    See you in San Francisco!

     

    Margherita

    Margherita Tambussi
    Participant
    @margheritatambussi
    #3783

    Hello everyone!

     

    In response to Giovanni, I think that the world of medicine has taken a step forward with the introduction of personalized medicines. They consider every patient individually because people can respond differently to treatment even if the disease is the same. Precision medicine means personalizing the therapeutic strategy, using the best possible science to treat patients. It considers the patient’s biological profile and his personal, social and cultural dimension.

    There have been important technological developments and the sector that has most benefited is oncology.

    Moreover, these new technologies allow patients to be monitored remotely in order to assess the effectiveness of care in real time.

    Obviously, personalized medicines are criticized: the costs are too high, and, for this reason, pharmaceutical companies were accused of speculating in the past. Another criticism concerns the experimentation on patients: these tests involve only 300 people while traditional experiments involve thousands of people. This difference could cause serious side effects.

    The introduction of personalized medicine in EU is complex: the European Alliance for Personalized Medicine (EAPM) has been working since 2003 on integrating personalized medicines into the European healthcare system. The EAPM would like to identify the main critical issues that prevent the right care for the right patient at the right time.

    Generally speaking, the goals of personalized medicines would require an alignment between the different standards of health care in the various member countries and within each individual country.

     

    Personalized medicines are a revolution in the medical field but, in my opinion the most important aspect is to guarantee the possibility for all patients to access them.

    This topic is crucial, and we should find a solution as soon as possible. In the US it is not difficult to introduce the personalized medicines.

    According to you, is it possible to find a common solution among member countries in order to put the health of European patients first?

     

    Have a nice Sunday!

     

    Margherita

    Margherita Tambussi
    Participant
    @margheritatambussi
    #3770

    Hello guys!

     

    Today’s conference was interesting!

    We have already talked in this forum about the gender gap and today we have got in touch with an association that is trying to solve this problem.

    This association, called “SheTech”, is dedicated to female entrepreneurship. It is was born as a community with the aim of making women more familiar with tech and digital.

    SheTech is based on three main activities like bootcamp, networking, female founders. These activities are important because they help women to speak in public, to develop their ideas and to meet entrepreneurs.

    If you are a member, these activities are free because they are sponsoring by big firms like Google, Apple, Microsoft and LinkedIn.

    There are very few female developers, and this is a problem for the companies.

    This association was created by women, but it isn’t only focused on empowering women in entrepreneurship. It is opened also to men. Indeed, the 93% of member are women, and the remaining 7% are men.

     

    I think that the second part of the conference was fascinating.

    During her PhD, Alice had an incredible idea. She wanted to use 3D printing to create complex and personal medicines.

    We have already discussed about 3D printings and their utility in every sector.

    Nobody has ever had this idea. She succeeded in patenting her idea and she created a start – up.

    Moreover, she had to write article and publications about her start – up in order to have credibility and to attract more investments. Indeed, in the US there is a big interest around start – ups but there is not much knowledge and transparency.

     

    These two girls told us their experiences and their stories, and It was a pleasure to meet them.

    Thanks to SVST that gave us this opportunity!

     

    What do you think about today’s conference?

     

    Have a nice evening!

     

    Margherita

    Margherita Tambussi
    Participant
    @margheritatambussi
    #3761

    Hello there!

     

    In response to Nicole, I want to focus on the relationship between 3D printings and environment.

    I think that there are today two key elements that have given 3D printing the quality of being green technology. The first point concerns the accessibility of 3D technology: it is possible to decrease travel and logistics problems because products can be printed directly in the firm. The second element refers to the fact that 3D printing reduces waste because it uses only the materials it needs.

    Nevertheless, a study suggests that 3D printings could have a negative impact on the environment. According to this study, it can potentially lead to an increase in the number of disposable consumer products.

    There are two other points of view to analyze that consider 3D printing unsustainable: the first point is the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that can be dangerous in the closed work spaces. However, researchers believe that it is easy to find a solution and to take the right precautions. The second one concerns the material used to create the 3D printed products.

    Moreover, another problem to stress regards the creation of products within the home using 3D printing technology because everyone will soon have a personal 3D printing. These products will be made from plastic.

    Luckily, these problems could be solved: researchers are trying to make 3D printing more eco – friendly. For example, an experiment at the Pennsylvania State University is looking to make 3D printable thermoplastic derived from squid DNA.

    I share with you the article about this experiment:

    https://news.psu.edu/story/338374/2014/12/15/research/squid-supplies-blueprint-printable-thermoplastics .

     

    3D printing can revolutionize the world, but it still isn’t perfect.

     

    I look forward to attending tomorrow’s conference!

     

    Have a nice afternoon!

     

    Margherita

    Margherita Tambussi
    Participant
    @margheritatambussi
    #3755

    Hello there!

     

    Throughout history, Innovations have changed our lifestyle, our relationships with other people and the world around us.

    The steam engine started the first industrial revolution while the second industrial revolution was drive by discovery of electricity and the spread of mass production, transports and telephone. The third one began with the transition from analogue to digital.

    We are going to witness to the fourth industrial revolution, also called “Industry 4.0”. It concerns the birth of new models, strategies and paradigms. It refers to a new concept of industry, to the development of new products and services, to R&S with a high degree of automation and interconnection.

    The evidence of Industry 4.0 is all around us. What makes this industrial revolution different from previous ones is that it is merging the physical, digital and biological realities in a way which re-defines us as humans.

    According to Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum (WEF) “Compared to the previous industrial revolution, the fourth is developing exponentially and it is transforming more or less every sector in each country”.

    Technology adoption is faster than ever, thanks to the accessibility of information and to the use of internet.

    In response to Valerio, we should adapt quickly to innovations. New generations can use technology easier than the older ones. New generations are growing up surrounded by technology like computers, phones and internet and they learn soon how to use them.

     

    To answer to Giovanni’s question, 3D printed food offers new possibilities like automated cooking, personalized meal and mass manufacturing. It will become a common feature in restaurant kitchens and in the commercial enterprises.  Moreover, we’ll be able to make our own ingredients and print them ourselves.

    I want to share with you an article about the possibility to create food with 3D printing:

    https://www.techrepublic.com/article/heres-how-3d-food-printers-are-changing-the-way-we-cook/ .

    According to this article, fresh food retailers or even big supermarkets will have 3D-printable food freshly made on-site, just like when you go to a cheese counter or a deli counter today.

    With 3D printing, the entire process of making a food idem could be initiated solely by a single click of the mouse or a single tap on a touchscreen on a website.

     

    As incredible as this topic sounds, is 3D printing ever going to replace the traditional methods we know today?

     

    Have a nice afternoon!

     

    Margherita

     

    Margherita Tambussi
    Participant
    @margheritatambussi
    #3744

    Hello everyone!

     

    Today’s visit to the 3D lab at the faculty of engineering was interesting.

    I didn’t know much about this topic and this visit opened my eyes. I had already heard about 3D printings, but I hadn’t realized their importance before.

    Moreover, I couldn’t imagine that they could be used in many different sectors like surgery and architecture.

    I was impressed by the models of body parts. They are obtained from MRI scans of patients and so doctors can study the disease easier and can find a solution.

    In this lab, engineers are also working on infrastructure. They are trying to print a strong material which will be used to build big structures. For example, the world’s first 3D – printed stainless steel bridge was built last year in the Netherlands.

    In my opinion, 3D printing is innovation. It will change the world of production. 3D printing can create a part of a machine in a few days, while this part can be produced in a month using the “traditional” process.

    As always, the costs are high at first, but then it will be more convenient to use 3D printings than the old process.

    Everyone can use 3D printing, “It’s democratic”. There are different types of printings depend on which material is used to create the desired object.

    People can make experiments with new and sustainable materials and everyone is free to express their creativity and imagination.

    Finally, NASA is developing two projects using the 3D printing: one concerns the possibility to print a design for habitants on Mars and the other is about the opportunity for astronauts to create materials that need during the journey in space.

    3D printing is changing the production process and it is revolutionizing the world of industries because it represents an innovation.

     

    I share with you this article about the sectors where 3D printings are used:

    https://www.archdaily.com/909306/the-golden-age-of-3d-printing-innovations-changing-the-industry .

     

    What do you think about this topic? Is 3D painting an innovation, isn’t it?

     

    Thank you,

    Have a nice evening!

    Margherita

    Margherita Tambussi
    Participant
    @margheritatambussi
    #3739

    Hello there!

     

    In response to Lorenzo’s question, I think that folding phones are the future, but I don’t know if they will have success in the short period.

    They are new and very expensive: the 4G LTE version will cost 2000 euros while the 5G model will cost more.

    Innovations haven’t often an immediate success because they are expensive and haven’t a demand in the market yet.

    In my opinion, folding phones will be sold in the long run when the costs of innovation and technology will be low, and the demand will go up.

    I think this is a revolution like the introduction of Iphones in 2007.

    Obviously, there are skeptics who highlight the problems of folding phones like the high costs and excessive size (“they will never be as thin as regular phones”). They crease, and this could be another problem because we are still used to “traditional” phones.  Finally, many people believe that they might be a little too much.

    The first two companies to launch the new folding phones are Samsung and Huawei. The two phones have different characteristics: for example, Samsung made a folding phone that keeps the bigger tablet screen protected inside the device, adding a secondary screen to the front. Huawei, meanwhile, went for a single, bigger screen that wraps around the outside.

    Xiaomi and Motorola are also developing their models, while Apple is working on the patent of its new device, the Iphone X Flod.

    But folding screens are coming. Companies can put display technology into other devices like games console and laptops.

    I found an article about this idea:

    https://www.laptopmag.com/articles/samsungs-foldable-laptop-rumors-release-date .

     

    The smartphone market is changing, and innovation is the way for companies to survive in a very competitive market. In fact, the folding phone is considered the crucial product for Samsung because it tries to remain the most important phone manufacturer against the tough competition of Chinese rivals.

     

    Have a nice evening!

     

    Margherita

    Margherita Tambussi
    Participant
    @margheritatambussi
    #3733

    Hello there!

     

    Today’s conference was extremely interesting.

    Thanks to SVST that gave us the opportunity to meet an important entrepreneur. Della Porta told us his story through challenges, dangers and victories. It is increasingly difficult to find a person in Italy who can still invest in R&D. According to him, innovation is a process that involves the entire company that starts from real or perceived needs on the market, and the firm tries to satisfy them through research and development.

    Innovation is the engine for the survival of companies. The companies disappeared because the market was changing, and they didn’t adapt to the change. Innovation serves to anticipate events, to adapt to changes but we need to understand what will happen. A company should gain a dominant position in the market thanks to patents, R&D, diversification and modification.

    Innovation is a long process, and for this reason it is important to invest in technologies that can be used in different sectors.

    Thanks to planning and the diversification of production, the entrepreneur was able to face two major challenges due to the development of competing technologies and the economic crisis of 2008.

    According to Della Porta, to be a good entrepreneur a person should be aware of the business risk and should also have culture and personal ethics. The economic aspect is in the background. Moreover, an entrepreneur should adapt to changes in the market, should invest in R&D and should also be lucky.

    I agree with him about the Italian education. Most of his company is abroad but the sector dedicated to research is in Italy because, according to him, Italian education is one of the best in the world.

     

    I want to share with you this article about the importance of R&D in firms. According to this article, the innovation becomes more and more important due to globalization and to the market competitiveness.

    https://businesshub.ge/en/innovation/increase-rd/why-research-and-development-is-important .

     

    Have a nice evening!

     

    Margherita

    Margherita Tambussi
    Participant
    @margheritatambussi
    #3712

    Hello there!

     

    I think that Lorenzo was very lucky to have worked in a comfortable and stimulating place.

    In my opinion, big companies like Google and Apple are examples to follow because they have developed a circular process: a dynamic and innovative firm has happy and stimulated workers, and satisfied employees work in a modern company.

    However, most companies don’t try to improve this aspect although recent studies have shown that the most important factor for employees satisfaction is the work environment.

    Negativity is contagious, and it can easily spread in a working environment. As said in my previous comment, the unhappiness and dissatisfaction make the workers less productive and they can cause employees to consider resigning or looking for a new job.

    It is complicated to find a reason why a small-medium company shouldn’t focus on a developing a good working environment in order to put employees in the best conditions to work.

    A consequence of a negative work environment can be absenteeism. A study has shown that there is relationship between work environment and workers’ health: the more the working conditions are negative, the more the employees get sick.

    One of the causes of diseases is the fact that the workload is increasing because the productivity demands keep growing. However, research displays that employees who have control over their own workday rarely get sick.

     

    Small-medium enterprises obviously don’t have the same profits as Silicon Valley firms and therefore an improvement in the working environment requires higher costs.

    I think it is impossible that medium companies can reach the level of Google and Apple, but they could take inspiration from them in order to obtain more profits.

     

    Yesterday I found this article about the importance of a positive working environment:

    https://anz.businesschief.com/leadership/143/The-Importance-of-a-Positive-Working-Environment .

     

    What do you think about this? According to you, why shouldn’t small-medium companies improve the working environment?

     

    Have a nice evening!

     

    Margherita Tambussi

    Margherita Tambussi
    Participant
    @margheritatambussi
    #3685

    Hello everyone!

     

    “Brotopia is the idea that Silicon Valley is a modern utopia where anyone can change the world or make their own rules, if they are a man. But if you are a woman it is incomparably harder”.

    According to this article, women hold only 25% of jobs in Silicon Valley.  It seems impossible that such advanced, dynamic and innovative companies may have a problem of gender discrimination.

    I agree with the journalist when she explains the motivation of having more men than women: programmers don’t like people, so they hire more men than women because they are more anti-social. I think this stereotype really existed also because especially men studied engineering and computer science at university years ago.

    Now things are changing: many more women have graduated in engineering and have reached the best levels in their fields. However, it is not enough.

    According to a study, “women in Silicon Valley not only earn less than their male counterpart but are awarded far less equity as well”. There is not only a problem of gender gap but also racial discrimination: women of color generally earn less than white woman.

    Moreover, Silicon Valley leaders should contribute to eliminating discrimination and prejudice in the investment process: women receive seven times less funding than men do, making it far more challenging to grow and scale their companies.

    Gender and racial discriminations are serious problems in every country. The big companies, like Google and Twitter, are examples to follow for the quality of work but, as regards the gender gap, they have not improved, and they are similar to the other smaller and less famous companies.

    I think that we will see a decrease in gender gap in the coming years and, even in this case, the big firms could be a useful example to follow for the whole society.

     

    I have just read this very interesting article about the various attempts to achieve gender equality in Silicon Valley: https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/19/in-silicon-valley-women-face-an-equity-gap-that-is-far-larger-than-the-pay-gap.html .

     

    Have a nice evening!

     

    Margherita Tambussi

    Margherita Tambussi
    Participant
    @margheritatambussi
    #3677

    Hello there!

     

    In response to Lorenzo’s question, I don’t think that there is a secret receipt.

    In my opinion many aspects are important to have happy employees, for example a high salary, many recesses, the possibility to have free time, to work with modern and efficient machines and to work in pleasant and comfortable places. Moreover, the health insurance and the retirement pension play a crucial role. Last but not least, an enterprise could incentivize work from home in order to have happier and less stressed employees.

     

    Regarding the second question, the development of the aspects mentioned could contribute to the permanence of the most talented workers.

    The companies should also be able to value the smartest employees and to make them feel important.

    All enterprises should want to have not only the best employees but also workers who are happy to work there. Having happy employees means high productivity and therefore high profits.

    In my opinion, a company should be dynamic, invest in R&D, innovate and look to the future: this is the best way to have the most qualified and happy workers.

    Google is a great example, but it is not the only one: having happy workers is a feature of almost all big companies, especially those in the US. Google was the first to understand the importance of having satisfied and valued workers. Unfortunately, there are still many companies in which this concept does not exist, and this causes the loss of the smartest employees.

    Do you think it is better to work in a single company and climb the ladder, or change the workplace often?

     

    As regards the last point discussed by Chiara, I think that the EU is doing its utmost to prevent Google’s monopolistic behavior.

    There is no doubt that EU prefers to help technology companies open to competition because EU wants “benefit millions of users, boost the economy and constrain tech giants that have gathered immense power without a commensurate sense of responsibility”.

    If you would like to discover more about the last chapter of the complicated story between Google and the European Union, you can read this article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/annatobin/2019/03/20/why-has-the-european-union-just-slapped-google-with-a-billion-dollar-fine/#7cc718e92f01 .

     

    Have a nice weekend!

     

    Margherita

    Margherita Tambussi
    Participant
    @margheritatambussi
    #3648

    Hello there!

     

    “Amazon pays all required taxes in the United States and in the countries where it operates”.

     

    In the last two years Amazon has not paid federal taxes and has received repayments from the Government thanks to tax credits.

    However, experts defend Amazon because the tax rules are backward. It is respecting the fiscal rules because the law wanted by Trump has reduced the tax rate to incentivize big companies to pay taxes.

    The man who benefited most from the Trump presidency was Jeff Bezos, despite the numerous attacks by the American president against Amazon.

    As Nicole said, it doesn’t pay taxes because it invests in property and R&D but we should also focus on the “stock option”, which is the practice (widespread in Silicon Valley) for which many employees receive company shares.

    However, this controversy is not just about Amazon. Many big companies, for example Netflix or General Motors, do not pay federal taxes, despite the enormous profits generated.

    If all the big companies didn’t have to pay huge taxes for many years, how would a country deal with schools, hospitals, roads and the army?

     

    In response to Chiara’s question, I think e – commerce has already undermined the relationship between customers and storekeepers. The small shops were the first to suffer from the arrival of Amazon but now even the shopping malls are in crisis because buying on the Net is more convenient and faster.

    In my opinion, a decrease in socialization due to e – commerce couldn’t be a weak point: some shops and malls could survive if they could modernize to have a part of the market.

     

    I’d like to share with you this article about the relationship between e-commerce and shopping malls:

    https://bostonrealestatetimes.com/e-commerce-vs-malls-will-malls-survive-in-e-commerce-age/

     

    Have a good evening!

     

    Margherita Tambussi

     

     

    Margherita Tambussi
    Participant
    @margheritatambussi
    #3636

    Hello everyone!

     

    In response to Valerio, I think that FB should not be nationalized, but in this case a collaboration between Facebook and police should be necessary because we are talking about terrorism and national security.

    As I said in my previous comments, regulation and the protection of big data are important. In my opinion countries should have laws in order to safeguard the big data from the leak of personal information.

    It is not a simple problem: it is a very difficult and demanding challenge that could take some time.

     

    I think the world can change drastically over the next 10 years. In this millennium the world has experienced many transformations and many revolutionary discoveries thanks to technological innovation (new products on the market but also new production processes that have made possible a greater production with lower costs).

    I think that the AI, robotics and electric car sectors will grow and develop more than any other sector in the next 10 years.

    Many people think that the development and the spread of robots will cause a decrease in employment, but according to some economists it can lead to an increase in labor productivity and therefore economic development.

    However, “it is impossible to predict what will work, much less how well it will work. Some products stick — for a while. Some services flourish — and then don’t”.

     

    Have a nice day!

     

    Margherita Tambussi

     

     

     

     

    Margherita Tambussi
    Participant
    @margheritatambussi
    #3629

    Hello everyone!

     

    In response to Lorenzo, I think that it is impossible to have to pay to use social networks. They are famous and so much used because they are free. Some of them offer special packages with additional services for payment.

    In my opinion, social networks are able to pay taxes thanks to the money they get from advertisement. Moreover, if Facebook was no longer free, it could lose many users.

    Everyone has social networks and we have them because they are free and easy to use.

     

    About political campaigns, I think that politicians use social networks because they want to reach as many people as possible. Nowadays people use them more often than television. On Facebook and Twitter politicians can write short and simple sentences and post photos and videos frequently. Moreover, politicians use social networks so much because they want to reach young people more easily.

     

    I agree with Alessia, who says that “Facebook helps us to make decisions quickly”. I think that social networks suggest us what to buy, which friends to follow and where to go based on what we do on the Net.

    For example, if you watch a person’s profile on Facebook several times, his posts will be highlighted or if you want to buy something, social networks will advise you to buy it.

    They help you to make decisions in a short time based simply on surfing the Net.

    Thanks to the Web, trade has crossed borders and the demand for goods has grown exponentially. On internet you can find everything with a click and in one day you can receive it at home.

    It is not a coincidence that the richest man in the world is Jeffrey Bezos, the man who managed to create the largest and most important e-commerce site.

     

    I found an article about the importance of Amazon and “the way it touches our everyday lives”:

    https://edition.cnn.com/2018/10/03/tech/amazon-effect-us-economy/index.html .

     

    What do you think about Amazon? Amazon revolutionized commerce, didn’t it?

     

    Have a nice day!

     

    Margherita Tambussi

    Margherita Tambussi
    Participant
    @margheritatambussi
    #3595

    Hello everyone!

     

    As I said in my previous comment, I think that Facebook and the other social network should not be nationalized because “Our data would be in much greater danger in the hands of the Government”.

    About big data, I think that, it has a huge impact on our lives even if we don’t realize it. Big data is becoming more and more important and it is changing the way the world uses all kinds of information.

    Obviously big data has risks, for example the erosion of privacy and this makes individuals and societies more open to manipulation. Regarding Paolo’s comment, the problem is that the big data is not always protected effectively.  In fact, nowadays, data breaches are a regular occurrence and one of the most famous is the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

    Big data is essential, but it can be used in a dangerous and bad way.

    People should use social network in a better way: people should be aware that every post will remain on the Net forever. However, a more careful use of Internet is not enough, because scandal and leak of data may occur.

     

    Facebook was created to overcome earthly boundaries and connect people: FB “allow humans to share whatever they want, whenever they want, to as many people as they want”.

    Regarding the use of Facebook by terrorists for propagandistic purposes, I think that Zuckerberg must find a solution. I think he should find a way to block the sharing of certain posts and share information on terrorists with the police in each country.

    In my opinion it is important to develop a collaboration between FB and the police to find more easily the people who make violence their propaganda.

    Freedom is importance but also the concept of non – violence.

    Yesterday I read that social-media companies have struggled to block violent content despite public outcry and pressure from New Zealand politicians (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/15/tech/new-zealand-shooting-video-facebook-youtube/index.html).

     

    What do you think about this problem?

    Can a solution be found?

     

    Have a nice day,

    Margherita Tambussi

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)
Lost Password

Margherita Tambussi

Profile picture of Margherita Tambussi

@margheritatambussi

active 7 months ago