Reply Brief for Petitioners, Gonzalez v. Google, 143 S.Ct. 1191 (2023) (No. 21-1333)

QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 203(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an “interactive computer service” (such as YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter) for “publish[ ing] ... information provided by another” “information content provider” (such as someone who posts a video on YouTube or a statement on Facebook). This is the most recent of three court of appeals’ decisions regarding whether section 230(c)(1) immunizes an interactive computer service when it makes targeted recommendations of information provided by such another party. Five courts of appeals judges have concluded that section 230(c)(1) creates such immunity. Three court of appeals judges have rejected such immunity. One appellate judge has concluded only that circuit precedent precludes liability for such recommendations. The question presented is: Does section 230(c)(1) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information

Brief for Petitioners, Gonzalez v. Google, 143 S.Ct. 1191 (2023) (No. 21-1333)

QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 203(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an “interactive computer service” (such as YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter) for “publish[ ing] ... information provided by another” “information content provider” (such as someone who posts a video on YouTube or a statement on Facebook). This is the most recent of three court of appeals’ decisions regarding whether section 230(c)(1) immunizes an interactive computer service when it makes targeted recommendations of information provided by such another party. Five courts of appeals judges have concluded that section 230(c)(1) creates such immunity. Three court of appeals judges have rejected such immunity. One appellate judge has concluded only that circuit precedent precludes liability for such recommendations. The question presented is: Does section 230(c)(1) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information

Reply Brief for Petitioners, Gonzalez v. Google, 143 S.Ct. 1191 (2023) (No. 21-1333)

QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 203(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an “interactive computer service” (such as YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter) for “publish[ ing] ... information provided by another” “information content provider” (such as someone who posts a video on YouTube or a statement on Facebook). This is the most recent of three court of appeals’ decisions regarding whether section 230(c)(1) immunizes an interactive computer service when it makes targeted recommendations of information provided by such another party. Five courts of appeals judges have concluded that section 230(c)(1) creates such immunity. Three court of appeals judges have rejected such immunity. One appellate judge has concluded only that circuit precedent precludes liability for such recommendations. The question presented is: Does section 230(c)(1) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Gonzalez v. Google, 143 S.Ct. 1191 (2023) (No. 21-1333)

QUESTION PRESENTED: Section 203(c)(1) of the Communications Decency Act immunizes an “interactive computer service” (such as YouTube, Google, Facebook and Twitter) for “publish[ ing] ... information provided by another” “information content provider” (such as someone who posts a video on YouTube or a statement on Facebook). This is the most recent of three court of appeals’ decisions regarding whether section 230(c)(1) immunizes an interactive computer service when it makes targeted recommendations of information provided by such another party. Five courts of appeals judges have concluded that section 230(c)(1) creates such immunity. Three court of appeals judges have rejected such immunity. One appellate judge has concluded only that circuit precedent precludes liability for such recommendations. The question presented is: Does section 230(c)(1) immunize interactive computer services when they make targeted recommendations of information provided by another information content provider, or only limit the liability of interactive computer services when they engage in traditional editorial functions (such as deciding whether to display or withdraw) with regard to such information

A robust and reliable method for detecting signals of interest in multiexponential decays

The concept of rejecting the null hypothesis for definitively detecting a signal was extended to relaxation spectrum space for multiexponential reconstruction. The novel test was applied to the problem of detecting the myelin signal, which is believed to have a time constant below 40ms, in T2 decays from MRI's of the human brain. It was demonstrated that the test allowed the detection of a signal in a relaxation spectrum using only the information in the data, thus avoiding any potentially unreliable prior information. The test was implemented both explicitly and implicitly for simulated T2 measurements. For the explicit implementation, the null hypothesis was that a relaxation spectrum existed that had no signal below 40ms and that was consistent with the T2 decay. The confidence level by which the null hypothesis could be rejected gave the confidence level that there was signal below the 40ms time constant. The explicit implementation assessed the test's performance with and without prior information where the prior information was the nonnegative relaxation spectrum assumption. The test was also implemented implicitly with a data conserving multiexponential reconstruction algorithm that used left invertible matrices and that has been published previously. The implicit and explicit implementations demonstrated similar characteristics in detecting the myelin signal in both the simulated and experimental T2 decays, providing additional evidence to support the close link between the two tests. [Full abstract in paper]Comment: 23 pages with 8 figure

Comparative efficacy of long-acting β2-agonists as monotherapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a network meta-analysis

Long-acting β2-agonists (LABAs) have demonstrated efficacy in patients with COPD in clinical trials. The purpose of this study was to assess the comparative efficacy of all available dosages of all LABA monotherapies using a network meta-analysis

Chemically Related 4,5-Linked Aminoglycoside Antibiotics Drive Subunit Rotation in Opposite Directions

Dynamic remodelling of intersubunit bridge B2, a conserved RNA domain of the bacterial ribosome connecting helices 44 (h44) and 69 (H69) of the small and large subunit, respectively, impacts translation by controlling intersubunit rotation. Here we show that aminoglycosides chemically related to neomycin-paromomycin, ribostamycin and neamine-each bind to sites within h44 and H69 to perturb bridge B2 and affect subunit rotation. Neomycin and paromomycin, which only differ by their ring-I 6\u27-polar group, drive subunit rotation in opposite directions. This suggests that their distinct actions hinge on the 6\u27-substituent and the drug\u27s net positive charge. By solving the crystal structure of the paromomycin-ribosome complex, we observe specific contacts between the apical tip of H69 and the 6\u27-hydroxyl on paromomycin from within the drug\u27s canonical h44-binding site. These results indicate that aminoglycoside actions must be framed in the context of bridge B2 and their regulation of subunit rotation