We consider a practically motivated variant of the canonical online fair allocation problem: a decision-maker has a budget of perishable resources to allocate over a fixed number of rounds. Each round sees a random number of arrivals, and the decision-maker must commit to an allocation for these individuals before moving on to the next round. The goal is to construct a sequence of allocations that is envy-free and efficient. Our work makes two important contributions toward this problem: we first derive strong lower bounds on the optimal envy-efficiency trade-off that demonstrate that a decision-maker is fundamentally limited in what she can hope to achieve relative to the no-perishing setting; we then design an algorithm achieving these lower bounds which takes as input $(i)$ a prediction of the perishing order, and $(ii)$ a desired bound on envy. Given the remaining budget in each period, the algorithm uses forecasts of future demand and perishing to adaptively choose one of two carefully constructed guardrail quantities. We demonstrate our algorithm's strong numerical performance - and state-of-the-art, perishing-agnostic algorithms' inefficacy - on simulations calibrated to a real-world dataset.

Hop on YouTube and Have a look. It is generally pretty funny things. It is a tongue-in-cheek honor that recognizes individuals for the most complicated attempts to do something that they believe is cool. One carries a selfie using a wounded bear, yet another one screws a jet engine into a skate. These adventurous activities lead to deadly mistakes with dire effects and humorous remarks. Spoiler alert -- regrettably -- they all perish.

A session on how the industry can benefit from technology and innovation proved to be the icing on the cake. Be it AR or VR or how AI is making inroads into the industry, and why the industry can ill- afford to miss the innovation bus, were discussed at length. Alok Agrawal, the founding partner at The Growth Labs, asserted that organisations that did not continually innovate would soon become irrelevant and cease to exist. "These are interesting as well as challenging times. The need to measure up to the new benchmark – Industry 4.0 – has set the realisation about the criticality of innovation," he said.

Much mirth ensued recently when Jeremy Corbyn's crack publicity team issued a photograph of the dear leader with a compressed quote from his speech: "We now face the task of creating a New Britain from the fourth industrial revolution – powered by the internet of things and big data to develop cyber physical systems and smart factories." One may be forgiven for suspecting that Corbyn had not a clue what he was uttering, but the "fourth industrial revolution" is an actual thing, at least according to some analysts. The first was steam-powered; the second electrical; the third the birth of the computer age; and the fourth – which some argue is just a continuation of the third – is the era of wearable gadgets, 3D printing, gene editing, machine intelligence and networked devices such as street lights full of electronic sensors, or smart fridges that order eggs when you've run out. The dream of networking ordinary objects with cheap processors and wireless communication comes under the rubric of "the internet of things", which is (or ought to be) short for "the internet of things that should not be connected to the internet". Inevitably, some bored teen will hack your smart fridge to flood your kitchen while you're away; the more urban infrastructure is computerised, the more vulnerable it will be to cyber-attack.

He is better known for wrestling with the mysterious forces that shape our universe and the existential threat posed by technology. But physicist Stephen Hawking now fears greed could be the undoing of the human race. The University of Cambridge professor has warned that the unequal divide of wealth between individuals and countries is one of the most divisive issues of our time. He claims envy and isolationism is being bred by the way money is currently shared and this may have contributed to the result of the European Union Brexit referendum result in Britain. Professor Stephen Hawking (pictured) has warned the sense of inequality that drove the Brexit vote was driven by the way wealth is viewed and shared in many parts of the world.