Apple is about to take to the stage and reveal the future of the iPhone – and a whole lot more. But what might really show the future of the company might be what it chooses not to announce. The iPhone is its biggest and most important product – but not, at least this year, the one that will really show off its future. As well as keeping a close eye on the iPhone and everything else that Apple chooses to unveil this week, there is plenty more to come. Here's a look at what Apple won't announce this week – and why it matters. The I.F.O. is fuelled by eight electric engines, which is able to push the flying object to an estimated top speed of about 120mph.

Listen to Secret History of the Future via Apple Podcasts, Overcast, Spotify, Stitcher, or Google Play. It's 1783, and Paris is gripped by the prospect of a chess match. One of the contestants is François-André Philidor, who is considered the greatest chess player in Paris, and possibly the world. Everyone is so excited because Philidor is about to go head-to-head with the other biggest sensation in the chess world at the time. This story may sound a lot like Garry Kasparov taking on Deep Blue, IBM's chess-playing supercomputer. But that was only a couple of decades ago, and this chess match in Paris happened more than 200 years ago.

When Adrian Owen, a neuroscientist at the University of Western Ontario, asked Scott Routley to imagine playing a game of tennis, any acknowledgement would have been surprising. After all, Routely had been completely unresponsive for the 12 years since his severe traumatic brain injury. He was thought to be in a vegetative state: complete unawareness of self or environment. But, as Owen watched Routley's brain inside a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scanner, he saw a region of the motor cortex called the supplementary motor area--thought to play a role in movement--light up with activity. When he told Routely to relax, the activity ceased.

Video Friday is your weekly selection of awesome robotics videos, collected by your Automaton bloggers. We'll also be posting a weekly calendar of upcoming robotics events for the next few months; here's what we have so far (send us your events!): Let us know if you have suggestions for next week, and enjoy today's videos. Built by Engineered Arts, 2 Mesmer Heads perform a synchronised sequence. One is complete with lifelike skin and hair, the other is showing it's mechanical workings.

Square Enix's mysterious Left Alive project has been pushed back from an ambiguous "2018" release date to February 28th, 2019 in Japan. The delay isn't a huge surprise given how little we've seen of the game. Square Enix did, however, show a new cinematic trailer today during Sony's pre-Tokyo Game Show event. Set in the fictional city of Nova Slava, it follows three characters as they try to endure a futuristic warzone filled with soldiers and mechs. The teaser had no gameplay (boo) but did show some impressive-looking robots sliding around.

Samsung now has an artificial intelligence center in New York City -- its third in North America and sixth in total -- with an eye on robotics; a first for the company. It opened in Chelsea, Manhattan on Friday, walking distance from NYU (home to its own AI lab) boosting Samsung's hopes for an academic collaboration. The electronics giant is no stranger to academic team-ups: its UK research center is housed in Cambridge and led by the head of the university's Microsoft lab, Professor Andrew Blake. The same goes for rivals Sony, which tapped Carnegie Mellon for robotics research, and Toyota, which has poured a billion dollars into a research center for droids next to Stanford University. Samsung has quietly been investing in fledgling robotics startups (including the makers of a bot that cares for the elderly) through its SamsungNext Q Fund.

Tomorrow, key figures at leading Silicon Valley technology companies will appear on Capitol Hill. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, and a Google representative (lawmakers want Alphabet CEO Larry Page, the company wants to send lawyer Kent Walker) will answer questions from various members of Congress about bias, artificial intelligence, and, we suspect, whether these mammoth companies should continue to be the dominant communication platforms for most Americans. Here are some of the main themes to look out for in the discussions--and one overarching question that really should frame the debate. Key question: Why shouldn't you be broken up? Background: The economic clout of the tech giants--and its implications for other areas of their influence--has sparked considerable debate already this year.

Tomorrow, key figures at leading Silicon Valley technology companies will appear on Capitol Hill. Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, and a Google representative (lawmakers want Alphabet CEO Larry Page, the company wants to send lawyer Kent Walker) will answer questions from various members of Congress about bias, artificial intelligence, and, we suspect, whether these mammoth companies should continue to be the dominant communication platforms for most Americans. Here are some of the main themes to look out for in the discussions--and one overarching question that really should frame the debate. Key question: Why shouldn't you be broken up? Background: The economic clout of the tech giants--and its implications for other areas of their influence--has sparked considerable debate already this year.

Not all requests are waved through. In a related case that will also be heard Tuesday, the EU court will be asked to weigh in on a request by four people in France who want their search results to be purged of any information about their political beliefs and criminal records, without taking into account public interest. Google had rejected their request, which was ultimately referred to the ECJ.

Equality of opportunity (EOP) is an extensively studied conception of fairness in political philosophy. In this work, we map recently proposed notions of algorithmic fairness to economic models of EOP. We formally show that through our proposed mapping, many existing definition of algorithmic fairness, such as predictive value parity and equality of odds, can be interpreted as special cases of EOP. In this respect, our work serves as a unifying moral framework for understanding existing notions of algorithmic fairness. Most importantly, this framework allows us to explicitly spell out the moral assumptions underlying each notion of fairness, and also interpret recent fairness impossibility results in a new light. Last but not least and inspired by luck egalitarian models of EOP, we propose a new, more general family of measures for algorithmic fairness. We empirically show that employing a measure of algorithmic (un)fairness when its underlying moral assumptions are not satisfied, can have devastating consequences on the subjects' welfare.