GM just took the wraps off the Hummer EV and it looks great. The vehicle is coming to dealers in 2022, with pre-orders starting in 2021. You can watch the unveiling here.
The vehicle is detailed here. With 1,000 HP, 350 mile range, and autonomous drive modes, it’s an impressive vehicle though still significantly more than Tesla said the Cybertruck will cost.
We are about seven months into a pandemic and just two weeks from a presidential election. At this point, surprises are a dime a dozen. So it should feel very 2020 that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is about to stream Among Us, the hit game of 2020, on Twitch alongside mega-streamer pokimane and political analyst HasanAbi.
Ocasio-Cortez tweeted yesterday that she was looking for people to play the popular game with in an effort to get out the vote, noting that she’s never played before but that it looks fun.
Anyone want to play Among Us with me on Twitch to get out the vote? (I’ve never played but it looks like a lot of fun)
Streamer pokimane, who has 6 million followers on Twitch and whose YouTube videos regularly see more than 1 million views each, responded to the tweet with a figurative raised hand.
Let’s do it! I’ll set up and account and get some streaming equipment today
HasanAbi, a very popular political commentator on Twitch, who has more than 380,000 Twitter followers, also chimed in to the conversation saying that they’re already making a lobby. It wasn’t long before Rep. Ilhan Omar raised her hand, too.
A good game of Among Us (imagine that someone mixed a fairly basic multiplayer video game with a murder mystery party) usually requires 10 players, so the other six players are still TBD. But the Verge reports that a handful of other streamers (such as DrLupo, Felicia Day, Greg Miller, James Charles, and Neekolul) also lined up to play with AOC.
According to Ocasio-Cortez, the stream is all about getting out the vote. And this isn’t the first time that she’s used video games to connect with her followers. AOC opened up her DMs to all 6.8 million of her followers back in May to let them send her an invite to their island, and she visited them.
Millennial voters (and Gen Z) skew toward backing the Biden / Harris ticket, and AOC is coming to them by getting on Twitch and streaming one of the rocket ship games of this year.
The stream starts at 9pm ET/6pm PT and can be found here.
GMC has a new all-electric version of its classic Hummer oversized SUV. This thing is a beast, as you might expect, with an advertised 350-mile range and a 3-second zero to 60 mph time. It’s a bit ridiculous to be honest, which is kind of what the Hummer has always been about so that makes sense.
Alongside a teaser, GMC released a number of press photos of the 1,000 HP bruiser, so take a look below. It definitely looks like a Hummer – which may or may not be your cup of tea.
General Motors today revealed the GMC Hummer EV, its first electric pickup. The vehicle has a 350 range, 1,000 HP, and up to 11,500 pound feet of torque (through fuzzy math). And with a starting price of $80,000, it’s easily twice the cost of a gas-powered pickup. Yes, it sort of looks like the Tesla Cybertruck.
Several key stats stick above the rest. Three motors within two Ultium drive units power the vehicle and it appears to have the longest battery of any GM vehicle with an electric powertrain. GM says the Hummer EV can hit 60 mph in around three seconds. It also has all-wheel steering, which allows it drive diagonally in a mode called Crabwalk. There are removable roof panels, 35-inch tires, and an air suspension system that can raise the vehicle 6-inches.
Some details are still missing including the capacity of the battery, and towing capacity. For truck buyers, numbers around power and torque are secondary to what they mean in the real world. How much can the vehicle tow? How far can it go? How far can it go when pulling a trailer?
GM has plenty of time to answer those questions and more. The Hummer EV is not coming soon. GMC said the vehicle will be available for pre-ordering in 2021 and vehicles will be available for delivery in 2022.
The electric Hummer starts at $80,000. That gets buyers the Hummer EV2, a two-drive version that lacks key advertised features. For $100,000 buyers can get the Hummer EV3x which includes three motors and torque vectoring steering. For $90,000, and a release date of Spring 2023, buyers can get the EV2x which includes air ride and 4 wheel steer
The Hummer brand long stood for exessively large vehicles and this new incarnation is no different. It’s massive. While GM hasn’t revealed the full dimensions, it comes stock with 35-inch tires and is capable of 37-inch tires. That’s big.
GM built impressive technology into the Hummer EV. The Hummer EV comes with GM’s self-driving technology, Super Cruise, that allows the truck to drive partly autonomously. The battery pack is capable of connecting to an 800 volt charging system that will give the vehicle 100 miles in 10 minutes of charging. Buyers can order the Hummer EV with up to 18 cameras, including cameras that sit under the vehicle to help with ground clearance.
It seems GMC is positioning the Hummer EV as a quasi off-roader that’s part pickup and part SUV.
Inside a 13.4-inch touchscreen dominates the dashboard. The driver’s gauge cluster is digital as well with a 12.3-inch screen. Epic’s Unreal Engine powers both screens, which features class-leading animations. This technology is a huge leap forward over GM’s current infotainment system. The vehicle still has plenty of buttons, though, as functions such as climate control are separate from the screen.
The General’s Electric Era
The Hummer EV is a big step for General Motors and signals a market shift. GM started its EV push in the ’90s with the EV1, which was revived in spirit with the Volt in 2010. GM released the small Chevy Bolt in 2017. None of these cars sold in large numbers, frankly, because they were uninspiring and, and well, cars. General Motors and others like Ford largely stopped developing cars as the market shifted to SUVs and pickups. GM is moving past the small commuter car with the Hummer EV in favor of a large pickup — a market segment GM knows well.
The Chevy Silverado joins the Ford F-150 and Ram Pickup as the top three selling vehicles in the United States. The three pickups outsold the next six vehicles combined. Trucks are a major market for American automakers, and the Hummer EV is clearly designed to test the water. With a unibody construction, it’s easy to imagine General Motors releasing an SUV version of the Hummer EV too. This would follow GM’s recent roadmap of moving away from cars and into SUVs and crossovers.
The Hummer EV’s unusual shape speaks to engineering limitations and partly explains why the GMC Hummer EV is not branded as a Chevy Silverado or GMC Serra. Much like the Tesla Cybertruck, the Hummer EV is likely based on a unibody construction similar to a passenger car. At this time, or rather when development began on the Hummer EV, it’s likely GM could not produce a unibody pickup with the same key specifications around towing, cargo capacity, and range of its Silverado pickups. An electric Silverado (or Ford F-150) must match its internal combustion counterpart on key areas — something the Hummer EV fails to do.
An electric Silverado is in the works. GM’s Mary Barra revealed the obvious during an interview in 2019. The automaker has only released one detail about the upcoming pickup: According to a financial document from July 2020, the electric pickup will have a 400 mile range.
General Motors has another electric pickup in the works through a significant investment with Nikola. On September 8, General Motors announced a $2 million investment in Michigan-based Nikola Motors. With the investment, General Motors gained access to Nikola’s EV development while also agreeing to manufacture Nikola’s Badger pickup. However, the deal is in question after fraud claims caused the company’s chairman to step down.
GM discontinued the Hummer brand during the auto crisis of 2008. It’s largely remembered for the monstrous H1 and H2 SUVs, the first being a civilian version of the military’s Humvee and the second being an over-the-top SUV. Towards the end of Hummer’s life, the company offered a pickup version of its smaller H3 model.
Comparisons between the Hummer EV and Tesla Cybertrucks are inevitable. Much of the Cybertruck is still speculation and GM failed to reveal key details about the Hummer EV. Tesla unveiled the so-called super-truck eleven months ago and has been rather quiet since about the vehicle. In May, Elon Musk tweeted that the production version of the Cybertruck will likely be about the same size as the prototype.
At the time of the Cybertruck’s reveal, Tesla said it would be available starting at $39,000 for a single motor version capable of pulling 7,500 pounds and driving 250 miles on a charge. An AWD dual-motor and tri-motor version would also be available for $49,000 and $69,000, respectively. It’s unclear if those price points or specs will be true with Tesla releases the Cybertruck.
The Tesla Cybertruck and GMC Hummer EV share a lot in common, including a unibody construction that gives the vehicles their unusual look. Both the Hummer EV and Cybertruck feature unique C pillars that act as a flying buttress. These pillars add significant strength to the vehicle and compensate for the unibody design.
Generally, pickup trucks are built as two pieces: the body is placed on a frame. This is done for several reasons, but most notable here is because a frame can handle the significant twist caused by the drivetrain running from the front axle to the back. And in an EV, truck or car, there isn’t a drivetrain connecting the front and rear axels. This allows the automakers to employ a lighter unibody construction, which is often safer for the occupants. However, these bodies need to be as stiff as possible to help with towing and hauling. Honda leaned into this design with the unibody Ridgeline pickup.
The Hummer EV is a significant step for General Motors as it pushes into the electric future. Some buyers are not ready for electric vehicles, and truck buyers could be among the hardest demographic to convince.
Following the reveal of the Tesla Cybertruck in 2019, the company hooked a prototype up to the tow bar of a newer Ford F-150. The test was widely panned, as many pointed out the flaws that resulted in a Cybertruck win. Tesla was trying to demonstrate that its truck, though electric, can still do truck stuff. GMC will likely employ similar feats of strength, including commercials where gruff men proving a voiceover while the Hummer EV is towing a boat.
Truck buyers expect several things. One, the truck has to have a strong stance, which the Hummer EV has in bundles. Two, most truck buyers look at towing capacity even if they never tow anything. Towing capacity in trucks is much like horsepower in sports cars — more the better even if it’s not used. And towing capacity is only partially dictated by the powertrain’s power output. The rest comes from the design of the platform and how it can handle pulling weight. It’s unclear at this point if the Hummer EV, even with its crazy 1,000 HP, will be able to out tow a Silverado or F-150.
The Hummer falls short in several categories critical to pickup buyers: range and hauling capacity.
Pickups come with large gas tanks giving them amazing range. For instance, my 2016 Ford F-150 has a 32-gallon tank. If driven carefully, the truck can get 700 miles on one tank. When towing a trailer, the range is cut in half but exceeds 300 miles on a tank. GMC says the Hummer has a 350 range but has yet to say the range when towing a 7,000 travel trailer.
The electric pickup wars
With a release date of 2022, the Hummer EV is far from a sure bet. GM has plenty of time to rework the machine, adding or decreasing the range as technology improves before its release.
GM has competition too. The electric pickup race is just starting and Ford has the most to lose.
The Ford F-150 is the top selling vehicle in the American market, and has been for generations. The truck is the foundation of Ford’s success. In 2019 the company released a video demonstration of an early prototype electric powertrain that was able to pull (note: not tow) 1 million pounds. To help its efforts Ford invested hundreds of millions into Michigan-based Rivian, maker of an electric pickup platform. Recent reports place the viability of that partnership in question, but Ford is likely working at full tilt towards its electric pickups.
Automotive startups are also looking at building electric pickups. Rivian intends to build and sell its own pickup and SUV. Lordstown Motors, an outfit out of Lordstown, Ohio, revealed its pickup design in June and said it would retail for $52,000. And there’s more: Bollinger Motors, Workhorse, and Nikola.
Electric pickups are ripe for an electric takeover and GM just threw down a Hummer-sized hammer.
The 2020 “Support Black Lives at MIT” petition by the Black Graduate Student Association (BGSA) and Black Students’ Union (BSU): http://bgsa.mit.edu/sbl2020
The US Department of Justice and attorneys general from 11 Republican-led states filed an antitrust lawsuit against Google on Tuesday, alleging that the company maintains an illegal monopoly on online search and advertising.
The lawsuit follows a 16-month investigation, and repeated promises from President Trump to hold Big Tech to account amid unproven allegations of anti-conservative bias. But reports suggest the department was put under pressure by Attorney General William Barr to file the charges before the presidential election in two weeks’ time.
The idea of regulating Big Tech isn’t itself partisan, however. Earlier this month, House Democrats published a 449-page report looking at all the ways in which Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google are monopolistic, and arguing for increased enforcement of antitrust legislation against them. Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, has indicated that seven additional states—including her own—were close to filing their own lawsuit and might join the DOJ’s action later.
The case centers on Google’s tactics and market dominance in search. It currently receives 80% of all search queries in the United States, and the DOJ says it uses the tens of billions of dollars of annual profits from search advertising to unfairly suppress its competition.
Here’s a breakdown of how the DOJ alleges that Google has maintained its illegal monopoly:
Making Google search the default
The suit says Google maintains its advantage through exclusionary agreements worth billions of dollars that make its search engine the default on web browsers, mobile devices, and emerging search technologies like voice assistants and Internet of Things devices. Because most users do not change their default settings, the lawsuit adds, this ends up “making Google the de facto exclusive general search engine.”
The lawsuit specifically singles out Google’s behavior on mobile devices, noting that while its Android operating system is free and open source, in reality it maintains control. Contracts with vendors block forking of Google’s Android software, force the pre-installation of Google apps, and include revenue-sharing agreements that are better for companies that play by Google’s rules.
The lawsuit claims that revenue-sharing agreements with Apple, worth $8 to 12 billion a year and accounting for up to 20% of Apple’s worldwide net income, ensure that Google search remains the default search engine on the Safari browser and iPhones, as well as for Siri and Spotlight, Apple’s system-wide search feature.
The exclusionary contracts cover almost 60% of search queries in the US.
High barriers to entry
Google’s dominance is such that building a competing product is prohibitively expensive. Google is one of just three generalized search companies in the US that use web crawlers—software that constantly looks for and indexes publicly available web pages. The others are Bing and DuckDuckGo. (Yahoo, which has 3% of the market, actually purchases its search results from Bing.)
Creating and maintaining such a search index would require an “upfront investment of billions of dollars,” the lawsuit alleges, and hundreds of million dollars in maintenance costs per year, effectively shutting out smaller competitors from entering the market.
Google’s alleged monopolization of search also amplifies its ability to maintain a superior product, the lawsuit alleges. It dominates the amount of data collected, and its larger data sets can be used to create more accurate algorithms, which in turn results in better search results targeted to each individual user. According to the DOJ, this cycle reinforces Google’s market dominance, unfairly protecting it from the competition.
A monopoly on advertising
Google has also monopolized online search advertisements, according to the lawsuit. Its monopoly on search gives it access to the largest potential audience for advertisers, making it by far the most attractive option. The lawsuit specifically cites the attractiveness of text and shopping ads, both of which appear higher than organic search results.
The online search advertising industry has ballooned to $50 billion, and of that, advertisers pay roughly $40 billion to Google per year.
What the DOJ is seeking to do
Despite these allegations, the Department of Justice is not explicitly looking to break up Google or impose specific fines. Rather, it is asking for “structural relief as needed to cure any anticompetitive harm.” In a press event, DoJ representatives noted that investigations into other tech companies were ongoing, and that it also had not ruled out further charges against Google.
Several hours after the lawsuit was filed, the company called the lawsuit “deeply flawed” in a statement posted to its blog.
“People use Google because they choose to, not because they’re forced to, or because they can’t find alternatives,” the statement said. “This lawsuit would do nothing to help consumers. To the contrary, it would artificially prop up lower-quality search alternatives, raise phone prices, and make it harder for people to get the search services they want to use.”
This is not the first time Google has faced scrutiny from American regulators, and it probably won’t be the last. In 2012, the Federal Trade Commission investigated the company before ultimately dropping the case without pursuing charges. In Europe, meanwhile, it has been the target of three separate antitrust lawsuits since 2010, resulting in fines of $9 billion.
What next? The DOJ lawsuit itself will likely take years to make its way through the courts. A 1970s lawsuit against IBM took 13 years to complete, while a 1997 lawsuit against Microsoft took five. In neither case were the companies forced to break up.
Maria Zuber got the word on a Friday: Harvard had shut down its research labs. As vice president for research, Zuber consulted with lead researchers across campus over whether MIT should follow suit. “Don’t you dare,” she remembers them saying. “Don’t you dare be like those Harvard people.”
As covid-19 cases continued to rise across the country, however, she and other senior administrators made the difficult decision by that Sunday: MIT would be scaling down its research to near zero for the first time since opening its doors 155 years ago. “It was a complete shock to people,” Zuber says. “We gave labs three days to come up with a plan, and another three days to execute it.”
MIT has always prided itself on being always open. Professors go into the lab at 3 a.m. to check on experiments and find that grad students may be just putting on another pot of coffee. Closing just isn’t in the Institute’s DNA. “We view ourselves as a 24/7 institution,” says Zuber, who is also the E. A. Griswold Professor of Geophysics.
Since that Friday the 13th in March, however, MIT has had to adjust to research in the time of covid. With more than 90% of its labs shut down by March 20, researchers have had to adapt to working from home and collaborating over Zoom. Meanwhile, faculty tapped to serve on the Research Ramp-Up Lightning Committee began collaborating in mid-April to solve a daunting engineering challenge: how to open up MIT’s research labs safely once more.
Ramp down
Krystyn Van Vliet, a professor of biological engineering and materials science, was on a plane home from Singapore just days after the first three covid cases were identified there. She knew the outbreak would soon be hitting the US. By the time she got back to Cambridge, Van Vliet had started preparations, drafting plans to divide her team into three units that would work different shifts so if any one person contracted the virus, others would be protected.
Then, less than two months later, came the order to shut down her lab entirely. At the time of the announcement, she was working on a line of stem cells that take 80 days to grow. “We had to close down that experiment and lose three months of work,” Van Vliet says. Her team frantically gathered whatever data they could before they had to dispose of the cells. “You have to manage the disappointment,” she says.
Closing just isn’t in the Institute’s DNA. “We view ourselves as a 24/7 institution,” says geophysics professor Maria Zuber, MIT’s vice president for research.
As MIT’s associate provost, Van Vliet had the additional responsibility of managing the use of lab space on campus during the pandemic, leading nightly meetings of the Space Contingency Working Group. “MIT ramped down, but it never completely closed,” she says. Exemptions were given to labs studying the coronavirus, working on such things as developing and testing a new vaccine or designing a new ventilator.
In addition, researchers could apply for exemptions to work on ongoing experiments involving expensive materials or rare animals, such as a specialized strain of transgenic mice. Koch Institute director Tyler Jacks, a professor of biology, was about four months into experiments testing a new drug for efficacy against certain types of cancer. “Animals had been dosed multiple times, but the research wouldn’t be completed for another month or two,” he says. “To terminate abruptly would result in the irrevocable loss of data, materials, and frankly resources.” In the end, about 10% of labs, including his, stayed active.
Everyone else, however, was forced to shut down as quickly and completely as possible. Canan Dagdeviren, an assistant professor at the MIT Media Lab who designs conformable electronic devices for biomedical applications, counted herself lucky. As a junior faculty member facing space and budget constraints, she had set up her space from the start as an efficient “lean lab.” Color-coded maps in her clean room and cloud storage of data allowed her to shut down quickly. “We have standard operating procedures for emergencies, and everyone knew what to do,” Dagdeviren says. “They took it all apart from start to end in 15 minutes.”
For researchers working on complicated biological or animal experiments, turning on a dime to shift to a virtual lab wasn’t so easy. Neuroscience professor Jim DiCarlo, head of the Brain and Cognitive Sciences Department, does both computational modeling and behavioral experiments involving primates. “Our experiments with animals had to basically stop—it’s painful from a research perspective,” he says. Some types of research, for example, involve implanting electrodes into the brains of the primates and must be monitored closely for six months. While none of those experiments were then under way, the closure meant any new experiments had to be put on hold. “We couldn’t perform them from an ethical perspective unless we knew they were going to continue the entire time,” he says.
Someone, of course, also had to keep caring for the animals. The job of making sure that happened fell to Jim Fox, professor of biological engineering and director of the Division of Comparative Medicine, which oversees more than 100,000 animals—including mice and rats, zebrafish and zebra finches, pigs and primates. Some rodents were euthanized, but other mice and rats and all other animals remained on campus, spread out over seven buildings, throughout the closure. “Primates are in a special category because of cost and availability and ethical issues,” he says. “Others are specially genetically engineered animals that are very difficult to replace.”
While there was concern that some primates could contract the coronavirus, their animal technicians were already wearing full protective gear—surgical masks, face shields, lab coats, gloves—to stop transmission of any pathogens. For those caring for other animals, Fox mandated the use of masks as well as the usual gloves and lab coats, stepping up sanitation procedures too.
None of the animals contracted covid during the three-month lockdown, but three technicians did. “Fortunately, they stayed home and were retested, and all came back to work without a problem,” Fox says.
Lockdown
Having shut down their campus operations, most researchers across MIT had to shift their work to a virtual environment. Many, like DiCarlo, were still able to be productive remotely. “We’ve got plenty of data, and took advantage of the time to get it better organized and analyzed,” he says. “The silver lining of this is that we can catch up on all of the things we usually don’t have time to do.” In the time away from the lab, he says, his team was able to make headway on long-standing goals of sharing data more publicly and developing a platform for benchmarking computational models against experimental data.
Still, the three-month closure was difficult for grad students dependent upon their research for an advanced degree.
“I was in the middle of an experiment involving several monkeys, and starting to get some really good data, as coronavirus started to break out,” says Michael Lee, a grad student in DiCarlo’s lab who conducts behavioral experiments with primates to study visual computation and learning. “It was a little disappointing not being able to continue.”
Although he wasn’t completely stuck, since some of his work involves coding and analysis he could perform remotely, it was nerve-wracking to pause his research. “Like many graduate students, I feel pressure to always be striving toward graduation, so there was some feeling of anxiety about how long my experiments would be on hold,” Lee says.
Other researchers had to figure out new ways to continue their work virtually. “As a junior faculty member, I don’t have the luxury to stop or slow down,” says Dagdeviren, “so I said to my students, ‘We can’t go inside the clean room physically, so why don’t we do experiments in simulations?’”
She reached out to theoretical physicists at the University of Buffalo, who collaborated on simulations for the materials they were studying in the lab. “Now our students are not only experimentalists,” she says, “but they are starting to be theorists as well.”
For researchers at the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL), staying out of the lab posed other challenges. “There are some students and researchers who need access to special equipment like robots and 3D printers,” says CSAIL director Daniela Rus. Some were able to send files to a fabrication company to print designs, while others bought their own desktop 3D printers. “We’ve been able to fabricate in our homes, but not as extensively and not with as wide a range of materials as in the lab,” she says.
Her team, however, has also used the time away from the lab to develop new simulations. For a project involving new control systems for autonomous driving, the researchers were able to work with an existing data set to simulate various driving conditions, such as different lighting or weather. “All of these things are actually quite difficult to implement in simulation, but we have made a great deal of progress and are very excited about getting more capable in training a [machine-learning model] starting with one data set,” Rus says.
Of course, researchers also had to deal with new communication techniques for a world in which they couldn’t just scribble equations and formulas on the nearest whiteboard. “Even though the work can be done online, the thinking is often done in person,” says Van Vliet, whose lab already had some experience using online tools to share screens with colleagues in Singapore.
Adjusting to a covid world, in which many researchers were juggling their work with other issues like caring for children at home, meant having to plan much of that formerly spontaneous conversation in advance. “We had to use Slack or a group calendar to say ‘We’re going to get together and talk about this’—not just leave it to email or chance,” she says.
Ramp up
“How do you manage access to MIT’s buildings in a campus that’s been historically open?” asks Joe Higgins, vice president for campus services and stewardship. It isn’t a rhetorical question. “There are some doors on campus that have never had locks on them,” he says.
But if researchers were ever going to return to campus, then controlling access to the buildings would be critical to keeping them safe. Tackling that was one of many issues on the agenda for the group of faculty researchers and administrators Zuber appointed to the Lightning Committee, so named because they were charged with swiftly proposing guidelines for safely reopening MIT’s research labs.
“How do you manage access to MIT’s buildings in a campus that’s been historically open? There are some doors on campus that have never had locks on them.”
“We had to work at lightning speed,” says Jacks, who chairs the committee. Other members include heads of the biggest departments, labs, and centers on campus, including DiCarlo and Rus. “These are people who are used to not only doing research but also planning and overseeing research activities,” Jacks says. “We could get input from other faculty and disseminate information so the guidelines came from the ranks, if you will. I think for MIT at least, it was a more appropriate strategy than having them come from above and be imposed on all the labs.”
Together, Zuber, the committee, and Van Vliet and the MIT Space Contingency Working Group ultimately decided on 42 exterior doors that would allow access into the buildings—with other entryways locked for the foreseeable future.
Once inside, researchers would be expected to head straight to their labs, avoiding the usual serendipitous encounters in the Infinite Corridor that often spark collaborations. To limit opportunities for the coronavirus to spread, Van Vliet’s Space Contingency Working Group divided the campus buildings, many of which are interconnected, into 13 clusters, and essentially cut them off from each other.
“We had to create artificial neighborhoods,” says Van Vliet. “We’d say, ‘Your lab is in Cluster 1, and you guys are going to go in and out of this door, and this door only.’” (Of course, it wasn’t practical to block off the many connections of the Infinite Corridor itself. “This is an honor system,” Higgins says.)
Unlike many universities, however, MIT had used key cards to control access only to certain buildings; others were never locked. So a pilot program was set up for three buildings housing most of the work that continued on campus during the lockdown: Buildings 76 (the Koch Institute), 68 (Biology), and E17-E25, which houses many administrative and academic groups, including the Institute for Medical Engineering and Science. People were given access to particular buildings, tapping their IDs at temporary card readers to get in. Greeters also staffed check-in desks to confirm that those entering were on the approved access list, and to provide face coverings if needed.
It very quickly became clear that such a system was not scalable to the entire campus, so the Information Systems & Technology (IS&T) team began to look into access control applications, using hospitals as a model. The IS&T engineers then designed Covid Access, a system tying identifying information for each person requesting campus access to the results of a covid test. Everyone coming to campus must get tested regularly (as often as twice a week), and attest to being symptom-free each morning through the Covid Pass app, which feeds into the Covid Access system.
“We had this eureka moment, where instead of having people claim they were healthy at a station, we could link that to an access card that wouldn’t work without it,” Higgins says. IS&T had to program researchers’ MIT IDs to serve as keys that would allow access only to their particular building clusters, a process that required some tweaking. They also provided key-card access to specific buildings for vendors and contractors, including those servicing labs and lab equipment.
To ensure proper social distancing, Massachusetts had set guidelines of eight people per 1,000 square feet of space, or 125 square feet per person. The Lightning Committee recommended that MIT start with 160 square feet per person, which would leave lab capacity at approximately 25% of pre-covid numbers. The question was how to get labs to adhere to the requirements. “Everybody at MIT wants to know what the rules are so they can break them,” Higgins jokes.
Early on, they considered giving principal investigators the option of getting to 25% lab density by thinking about it in terms of hours worked or lab space. “We said, let’s gamify it and give them space and time, and they can solve for either equation,” Higgins says. In the end, they had PIs calculate the maximum number of researchers who could be in their lab at once, given the 160-square-feet rule, and divvy up the available hours as they saw fit.
As both an administrator and a researcher, Van Vliet appreciated being able to schedule her team’s work this way: “It gave me flexibility as a PI to say, okay, I have a bundle of hours—how can I schedule them? Like I was scheduling shifts of staff of a diner.” In addition, if a particular lab needed more hours in a particular week, it could trade with a neighboring lab for hours in the following week.
The Lightning Committee worked through countless such issues, collaborating closely not only with IS&T, Higgins and the Campus Operations team, and Van Vliet and the Space Contingency Working Group, but also with such groups as MIT Medical, the Environmental Health and Safety group, the procurement team, and MIT Emergency Management.
Keeping everyone safe meant requiring everyone in the buildings to wear masks at all times—except when they were eating or drinking, or alone in a closed-door office. So the team that had collected personal protective equipment from the Institute’s labs to donate to frontline health-care workers in the early days of the pandemic shifted its focus to preparing for the repopulation of campus. They called upon alumni and research networks in Asia and South America, where equipment is manufactured, to help restock PPE. And since the usual decentralized approach to ordering supplies wouldn’t work in a pandemic, they also worked with MIT’s procurement team to set up the MIT Covid-19 Store, which delivers free PPE in a day or two to any department requesting it.
Meanwhile, a faculty team on campus and researchers at Lincoln Laboratory’s Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Systems Group began developing the MIT Covid-19 Response System (better known as MCRS), which includes a dashboard to help MIT’s medical and operational leaders understand infection risk on campus. Integrating de-identified data from multiple sources—such as Covid Access, daily records of campus badge readers, and PIs’ floor plans for the research ramp-up—the system models building density and traffic patterns and will eventually incorporate predictive analytics. An initial version launched in September.
As Zuber and the Lightning Committee prepared to open laboratories again in early June, a shortage of disinfectant wipes forced a one-week delay. “We got all the key cards changed and the app written, and everything worked perfectly,” says Zuber, “and then the wipes didn’t arrive.” But on June 15, after the team had sourced a reliable supply of spray disinfectants, MIT’s labs officially ramped up to 25% capacity again. With many researchers leery of using public transportation, the MIT leadership team made parking free on campus. “It was just about being realistic and doing a little to reduce people’s anxiety,” he says.
A new normal
The measures put in place appear to have paid off—between mid-June and mid-August, just four cases of covid were detected on campus. After a month of 25% density, the Lightning Committee allowed labs to increase capacity to 50% of their previous person-hours, decreasing the required space per researcher to 125 square feet. (An anticipated third phase this fall would in theory open labs up to 100% capacity, though researchers will still be encouraged to do whatever work they can at home.)
To accommodate more researchers on campus and the arrival of seniors for the fall term, MIT Medical ramped up its testing capability significantly in mid-August. Of the more than 22,000 tests given to those seeking campus access between August 17 and 31, just 10 (or 0.05%) were positive, resulting in prompt quarantining and the usual protocol of contact tracing.
In ramping up, labs have had to make adjustments for a research environment in which members are required to wear masks and stay six feet apart. “People are much more careful about how they allocate their time,” says Rus. “Their time on campus is much more intentional—they come in to make a surgical strike to use the 3D printers or run a robot experiment that was tested in simulation.”
DiCarlo agrees. “It’s sort of come in, get the data, get out,” he says. In former days, a part of his space in Building 46 was the “wet lab” where researchers suited up with masks and gloves to perform experiments, while the rest was “dry space” where they could have a cup of coffee and socialize. “Now it’s like the entire building is a wet lab,” he says. “You may see a few people walking by wearing masks, but otherwise it’s pretty quiet.”
When Lee started to work again with his monkeys, he says, “I was amazed at how shiny the floors were.” He was able to pick right back up with the experiments. “Luckily, my monkeys still knew how to do the behavioral tasks I had given them,” he says. Still, he misses the camaraderie and long conversations with lab mates. “I do miss being with my lab friends and colleagues,” he says. “It’s pretty lonely.”
Researchers have had to make numerous adjustments. Van Vliet says she can no longer work side by side with students even though “you need to be looking into the same microscope to help them.” Her team has taken to wearing head-mounted GoPro cameras while working under the hood, so that colleagues can watch virtually on a screen. “The cell types we work with are precious—we have to work with them just right,” Van Vliet says. “Our brains are getting rewired as we go.”
For all the inconveniences and difficulties, the experience has not been without its serendipitous benefits—in new virtual ways of working, enhanced simulations for experiments, or different perspectives on how the research will ultimately be used.
“We never would have done an experiment in which we told people to work at home for long periods of time,” says Zuber. In any good research, however, sometimes the biggest discoveries come from the results you never expected. “People have shown themselves to be incredibly productive and worked really effectively at home,” she says. “I think there is going to be a lot more flexibility in the future in how people work.”
In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, Frederick Goff, SM ’01, and his teammates from a machine-learning-based hedge fund decided to apply their technology to job search engines, for which there was widespread demand. In 2015, they created a new platform, Jobcase, to help people “manage their own future of work with a set of open tools.” The result: a social-media platform where strangers help strangers get jobs.
While Jobcase was built to be inclusive of all workers, Goff says its focus is on the 67% of people in the US without a four-year degree, who are likely to face such challenges as frequent job changes and displacement by automation. Free to all users, the site has no premium memberships or paywalls; Jobcase’s revenue comes from employers who pay to list jobs and hiring events.
Jobcase applies machine learning and search engine optimization to help users find jobs and explore career paths related to their current work. For instance, it might alert someone searching for cashier positions that medical billing specialists have an 80% overlap in talents and skills, then suggest related openings and additional skill-building opportunities.
But it’s the community that really sets the platform apart, says Goff. Its algorithms connect users to other users they can learn from—pulling from the more than 112 million registered Jobcasers. “We’re just a bunch of quants and computer and data scientists; we know we don’t have all the answers,” says Goff. “We want the platform to provide the connective tissues so that people can help each other navigate.”
Goff gives the example of an early adopter with attention deficit disorder who had struggled to find work. After joining Jobcase, she wrote about the experience of suddenly having a community of people assisting her search and even pointing her to companies with programs that could accommodate her needs.
With covid-19 pushing the US from a 3.5% unemployment average in February to 10.2% in July, Goff knows how urgently job seekers need support. Within two weeks of the pandemic’s start, Jobcase launched an unemployment resource microsite, including specifics on each state’s benefits and articles on topics such as the difference between furloughs and layoffs and managing personal finances while unemployed.
“We built Jobcase to try to minimize anxiety and maximize success,” says Goff. “When anxiety is at its absolute peak in our country, specifically with regard to work life, there’s no mission I’d rather be on right now.”
Want a deeper connection with your audience? Have you considered communicating stories visually in your marketing? In this article, you’ll discover five ways to use visual content to tell stories that engage your audience. What Is Visual Storytelling? It’s common knowledge among psychologists, visual marketers, and behavioral specialists that around 93% of communication is nonverbal, hence […]