The International Aerial Robotics Competition (IARC) is a university-based robotics competition held on the campus of the Georgia Institute of Technology, currently hosted by RoboNation. Since 1991, collegiate teams with the backing of industry and government have fielded autonomous flying robots in an attempt to perform missions requiring robotic behaviors not previously exhibited by a flying machine. The term “aerial robotics” was coined by competition creator Robert Michelson in 1990 to describe a new class of small highly intelligent flying machines. Successive years of competition saw these aerial robots grow from vehicles that could barely maintain themselves in the air, to automatons which are self-stable, self-navigating, and able to interact with their environment. The goal of the competition has been to provide a reason for the state-of-the-art of aerial robotics to move forward. Challenges have been geared towards producing advances. From 1991 through 2009, six missions were proposed. Each involved fully autonomous robotic behavior undemonstrated at the time. In October 2013 a seventh mission was proposed. It was the first to involve interaction between aerial robots and multiple ground robots. In 2016, the competition and its creator were recognized during the Georgia legislative session in the form of a senate resolution as the longest running aerial robotics competition in the world. == History == === First mission === The initial mission to move a metallic disc from one side of an arena to the other was seen by many as almost impossible. The college teams improved their entries over the next two years when the competition saw its first autonomous takeoff, flight, and landing by a team from the Georgia Institute of Technology. In 1995, a team from Stanford University was able to acquire a single disk and move it from one side of the arena to the other in a fully autonomous flight—half. === Second mission === The competition mission was toughened and made less abstract by requiring teams to search for a toxic waste dump, map the location of partially buried randomly oriented toxic waste drums, identify the contents of each drum from the hazard labels on the outside of each drum, and bring a sample back from one of the drums. In 1996, a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Boston University, with backing from Draper Labs, created a small fully autonomous flying robot that repeatedly and correctly mapped the location of all five of the toxic waste drums, and correctly identified the contents of two from the air, completing approximately seventy five percent of the mission. The following year, an aerial robot developed by a team from Carnegie Mellon University completed the entire mission. === Third mission === The third mission began in 1998. It was a search and rescue mission requiring fully autonomous robots to take off, fly to a disaster area and search amid fires, broken water mains, clouds of toxic gas, and rubble. The scenario was recreated at the U.S. Department of Energy's Hazardous Material Management and Emergency Response (HAMMER) training facility. Because of the realism of the scenario, animatrons were used instead of human actors to simulate survivors incapable of extracting themselves from the disaster area. An aerial robot from Germany's Technische Universität Berlin was able to detect and avoid all of the obstacles, identify all the dead on the ground and the survivors (distinguishing between the two based on movement), and relay pictures of the survivors along with their locations back to first responders who would attempt a rescue. This mission was completed in 2000. === Fourth mission === The fourth mission was initiated in 2001. It involved three scenarios requiring the same autonomous behavior: a hostage rescue mission where a submarine 3 kilometers off the coast must send an aerial robot to find a coastal city, identify the embassy where hostages are being held, locate valid openings in the embassy building, enter (or send in a sensor probe/subvehicle) and relay pictures of the hostages 3 km to the submarine prior to mounting an amphibious assault on the embassy to free the hostages; the discovery of an ancient mausoleum where a virus had killed the archaeological team, who had radioed that an important and undocumented tapestry was hanging inside, with 15 minutes to send an autonomous aerial robot to find the mausoleum, enter it (or send in a sensor probe/subvehicle) and relay pictures of the tapestry back prior to the destruction of the mausoleum and its contents; and an explosion at a nuclear reactor facility where scientists must send in an aerial robot to find the operating reactor building, enter the building (or send in a sensor probe/subvehicle) and relay pictures of the control panels to determine if a melt-down is imminent. All three missions involved the same elements of ingress, locating, identification, entry, and relaying pictures within 15 minutes. It was conducted at the U.S. Army's Fort Benning Soldier Battle Lab using the McKenna MOUT (Military Operations on Urban Terrain) site. The fourth mission was completed in 2008 with 27 teams who had demonstrated each of the required aerial robotic behaviors, except being able to demonstrate these behaviors in under 15 minutes—a feat considered by the judges to be inevitable given more time, and therefore no longer a significant challenge. Thus the fourth mission was terminated, $80,000 in awards distributed, and the fifth mission established. === Fifth mission === The fifth mission picked up where the fourth mission left off by demonstrating the fully autonomous aerial robotic behaviors necessary to rapidly negotiate the confined internal spaces of a structure once it has been penetrated by an air vehicle. The nuclear reactor complex explosion scenario of the fourth mission was used as the backdrop for the fifth mission. The fifth mission required a fully autonomous aerial vehicle to penetrate the structure and negotiate the more complex interior space containing hallways, small rooms, obstacles, and dead ends in order to search for a designated target without the aid of global-positioning navigational aids, and relay pictures back to a monitoring station some distance from the structure. The First Symposium on Indoor Flight Issues was held in conjunction with this 2009 IARC event. === Sixth mission === The sixth mission began in 2010 as an extension of the fifth mission theme of autonomous indoor flight behavior, however it demanded more advanced behaviors than were possible by any aerial robot extant in 2010. This espionage mission involved covertly stealing a flash drive from a particular room in a building and depositing an identical drive to avoid detection of the theft. The 2010 Symposium on Indoor Flight Issues was held concurrently at the University of Puerto Rico - Mayagüez during the 20th anniversary competition. === Seventh mission === The seventh mission began in 2014 demanding more advanced behaviors than were possible by any aerial robot extant in 2014. A single autonomous aerial robot had to herd up to 10 autonomous ground robot targets across one designated end of a 20m x 20m (65.62 feet x 65.62 feet) arena in under 10 minutes. The arena had neither walls for SLAM mapping nor GPS availability. Techniques such as optical flow or optical odometry were possible solutions to navigation within the arena. Collisions with obstacle ground robots ended the run with no score. The autonomous aerial robots interacted with the ground robots in the following way: if an aerial robot touched the ground robot on top, the ground robot would turn clockwise 45°. If the aerial robot blocked its forward motion by landing in front of it, the ground robot would reverse direction. Ground robots that feely escaped the arena, counted against the aerial robot's overall score, so the autonomous aerial robots had to decide which ground robots were in imminent danger of crossing any boundary except the designated one, and redirect them toward the designated boundary.Zhejiang University was the overall winner of Mission 7, of 52 teams from 12 nations entered as competitors. === Eighth mission === In 2018, the 8th mission was announced. Mission 8 focused on non-electronic human-machine interaction for the first time, with four aerial robots assisting humans to complete tasks that one person could not independently accomplish. The gist of mission 8 involved a swarm of autonomous aerial robots working with a human to achieve a task in the presence of hostile "Sentry aerial robots" which were trying to impede the human. In 2018, the inaugural year of mission 8, the American Venue was held on the campus of the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia, and the Asia/Pacific Venue was conducted at Beihang University in Beijing China. The following year, Mission 8 was successfully completed in Kunming China at the Yunnan Innovation
Sycophancy (artificial intelligence)
In the field of artificial intelligence, sycophancy is a tendency of large language models (LLMs) and other AI assistants to tailor their responses to what they predict the user wants to hear rather than to what is accurate or warranted. The behavior takes several forms: an assistant may agree with a user's stated opinion even when the user is mistaken; it may abandon a correct answer after a challenge such as "are you sure?"; it may validate beliefs, decisions or self-presentation regardless of merit; or it may praise the user, their work or their ideas in unwarranted terms. The word is borrowed from the ordinary English term for fawning flattery, and is used in AI alignment and AI safety research to describe a class of misalignment failures associated with training on human feedback. Researchers at Anthropic first documented the behavior systematically in 2022. They found that models fine-tuned with reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) were more likely than untuned models to repeat back a user's preferred answer. A 2023 follow-up paper, "Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models", showed that five frontier assistants from OpenAI, Anthropic and Meta all exhibited the behavior, and traced its origin to biases in the human preference data used during training. Later work documented sycophancy in mathematics, medicine, academic peer review and other domains, and identified a broader category called "social sycophancy" affecting an assistant's emotional and interpersonal responses. The issue drew widespread public attention in April 2025 after OpenAI rolled back an update to its GPT-4o model. Users had reported that the assistant praised dangerous decisions, endorsed delusional thinking and offered exaggerated compliments for trivial prompts. OpenAI's post-mortem attributed the change in behavior to an additional training signal based on user thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback. That episode, together with reporting in The New York Times, Rolling Stone and elsewhere on users drawn into delusional thinking through prolonged chatbot interaction, has been cited in litigation and in academic studies as evidence that sycophancy poses risks to user well-being. Proposed mitigations include fine-tuning on synthetic data that rewards disagreement with incorrect user statements, editing the small subset of model parameters causally responsible for the behavior, changes to the dialogue or system prompt, and benchmarks designed to surface sycophantic behavior before models are released. == Causes == The dominant explanation points to RLHF, the standard technique for aligning chat assistants with user expectations. Human annotators rank candidate model responses; a reward model is trained to predict those rankings; and the language model is then optimized against the reward model. Because human raters tend to prefer outputs that confirm their existing beliefs or flatter their work, the pipeline systematically rewards responses that agree with the annotator. Perez and colleagues at Anthropic published the first large-scale empirical evidence of the effect in 2022. They reported that RLHF training increased the probability that a model would repeat back a dialog user's preferred answer, and that larger models exhibited the behavior more strongly. Sharma and colleagues, the following year, went further and examined Anthropic's own preference data directly. Both the human raters and the reward models trained on their judgments preferred convincingly written sycophantic responses to truthful ones at a non-negligible rate. Wei and co-authors at Google DeepMind found similar results in the PaLM family, observing that both model scale and instruction tuning increased sycophancy on opinion questions. The behavior is often classified as a form of reward hacking, in which an optimization process exploits a flaw in its reward signal rather than achieving the intended objective. OpenAI's post-mortem of the April 2025 GPT-4o incident identified a more specific mechanism. An additional reward signal based on aggregated thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback from ChatGPT users had, in OpenAI's words, "weakened the influence of our primary reward signal, which had been holding sycophancy in check." Separately, an Anthropic interpretability paper from 2025 located a linear direction in a model's internal activations corresponding to sycophantic behavior, and showed that such "persona vectors" could be used to flag sycophancy-inducing training data and to steer models away from the trait at inference time. == Measurement == The Anthropic team released SycophancyEval with its 2023 paper, supplying test sets for each of the four canonical behaviors. Two further benchmarks from Stanford followed in 2025. SycEval, applied to mathematical and medical reasoning tasks, reported an overall sycophancy rate of 58 per cent across the GPT-4o, Claude and Gemini models tested. ELEPHANT, aimed at social sycophancy, found that the eleven LLMs evaluated affirmed posts that the Reddit community r/AmITheAsshole had judged inappropriate in 42 per cent of cases, and preserved a user's face 45 percentage points more often than human respondents did. Domain-specific benchmarks have followed. BrokenMath tests robustness to plausible-looking but false mathematical claims drawn from competition problems, and reports that the best evaluated model was sycophantic in 29 per cent of cases. SYCON-Bench measures how many dialogue turns are required before a model abandons a correct position. Visual sycophancy in multimodal models has been examined with MM-SY and PENDULUM. A 2026 study by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology reported that personalization features, which adapt assistants to individual users over repeated sessions, can intensify social sycophancy. == Notable incidents == === GPT-4o rollback (April 2025) === On 25 April 2025, OpenAI completed the rollout of an update to GPT-4o, the default model used in ChatGPT at the time. Within days, users reported that the assistant had begun praising trivial messages in extravagant terms, endorsing impulsive or dangerous decisions, and reinforcing strong emotional statements without pushback. Widely shared examples included the model congratulating a user who reported stopping prescribed psychiatric medication, and praising a business plan to sell "shit on a stick" as venture-capital ready. OpenAI's chief executive, Sam Altman, wrote on 27 April that recent updates had made the model "too sycophant-y and annoying" and said fixes were in progress. The company began reverting the update on 28 April and completed the rollback for free users by 30 April. Two post-mortems followed: a short note on 29 April and a longer technical follow-up, "Expanding on what we missed with sycophancy", on 2 May. Both attributed the regression to a new training signal based on user thumbs-up and thumbs-down feedback, to inadequate pre-launch evaluation for sycophantic drift, and to the dismissal of qualitative concerns raised by internal testers before release. Reporting in CNN, Fortune and Bloomberg News treated the incident as a turning point in public awareness of the problem. === Chatbot-related psychological harm === From mid-2025 onward, news reports began to link sycophantic chatbot behavior to acute psychological harm. In June 2025, The New York Times technology reporter Kashmir Hill published an investigation centered on Eugene Torres, a Manhattan accountant with no history of mental illness, who developed a sustained delusional episode after a series of conversations with ChatGPT about simulation theory. According to the article, the assistant encouraged Torres to stop taking prescribed medication, to cut off friends and family, and at one point told him that he could fly from a nineteen-story building if he "truly believed". Futurism and Rolling Stone ran parallel investigations documenting other cases in which heavy use of ChatGPT had been associated with delusional thinking, involuntary commitment or, in at least one case, the death of a user with a pre-existing psychiatric diagnosis. A 2026 paper by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Washington put forward a formal Bayesian model. It showed that even an ideally rational user could be drawn into what the authors call "delusional spiraling" when interacting with a sufficiently sycophantic assistant, and that the effect was not eliminated by suppressing hallucinations or by warning users in advance. The lawsuit Raine v. OpenAI, filed in San Francisco Superior Court in August 2025 by the parents of a sixteen-year-old who had died by suicide, alleges that "heightened sycophancy" was a design feature of ChatGPT that contributed to their son's death; it is the first wrongful-death suit against a large language-model provider. === Wider commentary === Mainstream coverage in outlets including The New York Times, The Washington Pos
Wispr
Wispr AI is a software company founded in 2021 by Tanay Kothari and Sahaj Garg that develops voice-based interfaces for computers and other devices. The company’s main product, Wispr Flow, is an AI-powered speech-to-text application available on macOS, Windows and iOS. == History == Wispr was founded in 2021 with the goal of building a non-invasive wearable device that would allow users to control smartphones without touch input. The device was intended to translate neurological signals into actions and to enable silent text entry by mouthing words, drawing on techniques similar to brain–computer interfaces. Early funding was directed toward this hardware-focused effort. After around three years of development, Wispr concluded that contemporary AI systems were not sufficient for the requirements of the wearable device. The company shifted its focus to Flow voice dictation software, the software layer originally built for the wearable, and in 2024 released a macOS application based on this platform. == Wispr Flow == Wispr Flow (often referred to as Flow) is a speech-to-text application for macOS, Windows and iOS. It provides real-time dictation and transcription in more than 100 languages and can operate across applications, including email clients, messaging platforms and chatbots. In June 2025 Wispr released an iOS version that functions as a third-party keyboard, allowing voice input in any app. == Technology == Wispr Flow is based on automatic speech recognition (ASR) and other AI models. The system adapts to individual users over time, learning their vocabulary and preferred style with the aim of reducing manual editing. Flow operates through configurable “Flow Sessions”, defined as time windows during which the app has access to the microphone; users can set session timeouts or disable automatic time limits. == Users and Adoption == Wispr initially targeted users such as venture capitalists, entrepreneurs and executives who process large volumes of text and often work in private or flexible environments. The user base later expanded via platforms such as Product Hunt to students, software developers, writers, lawyers and consultants. Flow has also been adopted by users with conditions such as ADHD, dyslexia, paralysis and carpal tunnel syndrome. About 40% of users are in the United States, 30% in Europe and the remaining 30% in other regions. More than 30% of users come from non-technical backgrounds. Flow supports 104 languages, with approximately 40% of dictations in English and 60% in other languages, including Spanish, French, German, Dutch, Hindi and Mandarin. Wispr has reported monthly user growth above 50%, a six-month active-user retention rate of about 80%, a payment rate around 19%, and revenue of approximately US$3.8 million between July 2024 and July 2025. == Development == Wispr has announced plans for an Android application and maintains waiting lists for Android, Linux and web versions of Flow. The company is developing shared-context features for teams so that the software can recognize common terminology within organizations and has stated that it aims to evolve Flow into a broader AI assistant for tasks such as messaging, note-taking and reminders. Wispr has also reported working with unnamed AI hardware partners on interaction layers for future devices. == Funding == In 2025 Wispr raised US$30 million in a Series A funding round led by Menlo Ventures, with participation from NEA, 8VC and several individual investors, including Evan Sharp and Henry Ward. Earlier investors include Neo, MVP Ventures and AIX Ventures. In November of that same year, the company raised a US$25 million Series A extension led by Notable Capital, with participation from Flight Fund, bringing its total funding to US$81 million. Wispr competes with other AI-based dictation and voice-input tools, including Aqua, Talktastic, Superwhisper and Betterdication.
Control engineering
Control engineering, also known as control systems engineering and, in some European countries, automation engineering, is an engineering discipline that deals with control systems, applying control theory to design equipment and systems with desired behaviors in control environments. The discipline of controls overlaps and is usually taught along with electrical engineering, chemical engineering and mechanical engineering at many institutions around the world. The practice uses sensors and detectors to measure the output performance of the process being controlled; these measurements are used to provide corrective feedback helping to achieve the desired performance. Systems designed to perform without requiring human input are called automatic control systems (such as cruise control for regulating the speed of a car). Multi-disciplinary in nature, control systems engineering activities focus on implementation of control systems mainly derived by mathematical modeling of a diverse range of systems. == Overview == Modern day control engineering is a relatively new field of study that gained significant attention during the 20th century with the advancement of technology. It can be broadly defined or classified as practical application of control theory. Control engineering plays an essential role in a wide range of control systems, from simple household washing machines to high-performance fighter aircraft. It seeks to understand physical systems, using mathematical modelling, in terms of inputs, outputs and various components with different behaviors; to use control system design tools to develop controllers for those systems; and to implement controllers in physical systems employing available technology. A system can be mechanical, electrical, fluid, chemical, financial or biological, and its mathematical modelling, analysis and controller design uses control theory in one or many of the time, frequency and complex-s domains, depending on the nature of the design problem. Control engineering is the engineering discipline that focuses on the modeling of a diverse range of dynamic systems (e.g. mechanical systems) and the design of controllers that will cause these systems to behave in the desired manner. Although such controllers need not be electrical, many are and hence control engineering is often viewed as a subfield of electrical engineering. Electrical circuits, digital signal processors and microcontrollers can all be used to implement control systems. Control engineering has a wide range of applications from the flight and propulsion systems of commercial airliners to the cruise control present in many modern automobiles. In most cases, control engineers utilize feedback when designing control systems. This is often accomplished using a proportional–integral–derivative controller (PID controller) system. For example, in an automobile with cruise control the vehicle's speed is continuously monitored and fed back to the system, which adjusts the motor's torque accordingly. Where there is regular feedback, control theory can be used to determine how the system responds to such feedback. In practically all such systems stability is important and control theory can help ensure stability is achieved. Although feedback is an important aspect of control engineering, control engineers may also work on the control of systems without feedback. This is known as open loop control. A classic example of open loop control is a washing machine that runs through a pre-determined cycle without the use of sensors. == History == Automatic control systems were first developed over two thousand years ago. The first feedback control device on record is thought to be the ancient Ktesibios's water clock in Alexandria, Egypt, around the third century BCE. It kept time by regulating the water level in a vessel and, therefore, the water flow from that vessel. This certainly was a successful device as water clocks of similar design were still being made in Baghdad when the Mongols captured the city in 1258 CE. A variety of automatic devices have been used over the centuries to accomplish useful tasks or simply just to entertain. The latter includes the automata, popular in Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries, featuring dancing figures that would repeat the same task over and over again; these automata are examples of open-loop control. Milestones among feedback, or "closed-loop" automatic control devices, include the temperature regulator of a furnace attributed to Drebbel, circa 1620, and the centrifugal flyball governor used for regulating the speed of steam engines by James Watt in 1788. In his 1868 paper "On Governors", James Clerk Maxwell was able to explain instabilities exhibited by the flyball governor using differential equations to describe the control system. This demonstrated the importance and usefulness of mathematical models and methods in understanding complex phenomena, and it signaled the beginning of mathematical control and systems theory. Elements of control theory had appeared earlier but not as dramatically and convincingly as in Maxwell's analysis. Control theory made significant strides over the next century. New mathematical techniques, as well as advances in electronic and computer technologies, made it possible to control significantly more complex dynamical systems than the original flyball governor could stabilize. New mathematical techniques included developments in optimal control in the 1950s and 1960s followed by progress in stochastic, robust, adaptive, nonlinear control methods in the 1970s and 1980s. Applications of control methodology have helped to make possible space travel and communication satellites, safer and more efficient aircraft, cleaner automobile engines, and cleaner and more efficient chemical processes. Before it emerged as a unique discipline, control engineering was practiced as a part of mechanical engineering and control theory was studied as a part of electrical engineering since electrical circuits can often be easily described using control theory techniques. In the first control relationships, a current output was represented by a voltage control input. However, not having adequate technology to implement electrical control systems, designers were left with the option of less efficient and slow responding mechanical systems. A very effective mechanical controller that is still widely used in some hydro plants is the governor. Later on, previous to modern power electronics, process control systems for industrial applications were devised by mechanical engineers using pneumatic and hydraulic control devices, many of which are still in use today. === Mathematical modelling === David Quinn Mayne, (1930–2024) was among the early developers of a rigorous mathematical method for analysing Model predictive control algorithms (MPC). It is currently used in tens of thousands of applications and is a core part of the advanced control technology by hundreds of process control producers. MPC's major strength is its capacity to deal with nonlinearities and hard constraints in a simple and intuitive fashion. His work underpins a class of algorithms that are probably correct, heuristically explainable, and yield control system designs which meet practically important objectives. == Control systems == == Control theory == == Education == At many universities around the world, control engineering courses are taught primarily in electrical engineering and mechanical engineering, but some courses can be instructed in mechatronics engineering, and aerospace engineering. In others, control engineering is connected to computer science, as most control techniques today are implemented through computers, often as embedded systems (as in the automotive field). The field of control within chemical engineering is often known as process control. It deals primarily with the control of variables in a chemical process in a plant. It is taught as part of the undergraduate curriculum of any chemical engineering program and employs many of the same principles in control engineering. Other engineering disciplines also overlap with control engineering as it can be applied to any system for which a suitable model can be derived. However, specialised control engineering departments do exist, for example, in Italy there are several master in Automation & Robotics that are fully specialised in Control engineering or the Department of Automatic Control and Systems Engineering at the University of Sheffield or the Department of Robotics and Control Engineering at the United States Naval Academy and the Department of Control and Automation Engineering at the Istanbul Technical University. Control engineering has diversified applications that include science, finance management, and even human behavior. Students of control engineering may start with a linear control system course dealing with the time and complex-s domain, which req
Enterprise mobile application
The term enterprise mobile application is used in the context of mobile apps created/brought by individual organizations for their workers to carry out the functions required to run the organization. It is the process of building a mobile application for the requirements of an enterprise. An enterprise mobile application belonging to an organization is expected to be used by only the workers of that organization. The definition of enterprise mobile application does not include the mobile apps that an organization create for its customers or consumers of the products or services generated by the organization. == Example == An organization, whether for-profit or non-profit, may create a mobile app for its members to track inventory levels of supplies they distribute to their target communities or materials used in product manufacturing. Such a mobile app comes under the definition of enterprise mobile application. However, the same organization may also create another mobile app to sell their products to end users or spread awareness of their services to various communities, and that mobile app would not come under definition of enterprise mobile application. == Enterprise mobile solution providers == Enterprise Mobile solution providers create and develop apps for individual organizations that can buy instead of creating the apps themselves. Reasons for Organizations buying the apps include time and cost savings, technical expertise. Today Enterprise Mobility is playing track role for enterprise transformation. Today, enterprises needs productivity is a fast way. Enterprise mobility helps business owners to build their work in a progressive way by assisting enterprise mobility solutions.
Teamwork (project management)
Teamwork.com is an Irish, privately owned, web-based software company headquartered in Cork, Ireland. Teamwork creates task management and team collaboration software. Founded in 2007, as of 2016 the company stated that its software was in use by over 370,000 organisations worldwide (including Disney, Spotify and HP), and that it had over 2.4m users. == History == Peter Coppinger and Dan Mackey founded a company, Digital Crew, in 2007. This company built websites, intranets and custom web-based solutions for clients in Cork, Ireland. Frustrated by whiteboards and software management tools, Coppinger wanted a software system that would help manage client projects and which would be easy to use and generic enough to be used by different types of companies. Originally 37signals Basecamp users themselves, Coppinger and Mackey were frustrated by the limited feature set, and by Basecamp's apparent inaction on their feedback. In October 2007, Coppinger and Mackey launched Teamwork Project Manager, nicknamed TeamworkPM. In March 2015, this was renamed as Teamwork Projects. In 2014, after two years of negotiations, TeamworkPM bought the domain name 'Teamwork.com' for US$675,000 (€500,000). At the time this was one of the most expensive domain name purchases by an Irish company, and involved the transfer of a domain name which had been dormant since it was first acquired by the original owner in 1999. In 2015, Teamwork.com was named by Gartner to be one of their "Cool Vendors" in the Program and Portfolio Management Category. This was followed by the launch of a new real-time messaging product, Teamwork Chat, in January 2015. In June 2015, the company announced a drive to recruit for 40 positions by the end of the year. This was followed by the announcement that the company was investing more than €1 million in a new office, and had leased office space in Park House, Blackpool. In June 2016, Teamwork.com undertook a further recruitment drive to entice developers to Cork. In July 2021, the company announced that it had raised an investment of $70 million (€59.1 million) from venture capital firm Bregal Milestone to fund further growth. == Products == Teamwork markets a number of cloud-based applications, including Teamwork, Teamwork Desk, Teamwork Spaces, Teamwork CRM and Teamwork Chat. Teamwork was launched on 4 October 2007, at which time it had time management, milestone management, file sharing, time tracking, and messaging features. Teamwork's platform reportedly integrates with martech software like HubSpot, as well as other productivity tools like Slack, G Suite, MS Teams, Zapier, Dropbox and QuickBooks. == Awards == In 2016, Teamwork was awarded Cork's Best SME in the Cork Chamber of Commerce "Company of the Year" awards. In 2016, Teamwork was named number 7 in Deloitte's Fast 50 tech companies hit €1.6bn turnover. In 2015, Teamwork was identified as a Gartner "Cool Vendor" in the Program and Portfolio Management Category.
DoorDash
DoorDash, Inc. is an American company operating online food ordering and food delivery. It trades under the symbol DASH. With a 56% market share, DoorDash is the largest food delivery platform in the United States. It also has a 60% market share in the convenience delivery category. As of December 31, 2020, the platform was used by 450,000 merchants, 20 million consumers, and had over one million delivery couriers. Founded by Tony Xu, Andy Fang, Stanley Tang and Evan Moore, DoorDash made its debut on the Fortune 500 list in 2024, ranking No. 443. DoorDash has been sued for or held legally liable for withholding tips, reducing tip transparency, antitrust price manipulation, listing restaurants without permission, misclassifying workers, withholding sick time, and illegally selling personal data. As of April 2026, DoorDash operates in the United States (including Puerto Rico), Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Through its subsidiaries Deliveroo and Wolt, the company also operates across Europe, as well as in Azerbaijan, Georgia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. == History == In January 2013, Stanford University students Tony Xu, Stanley Tang, Andy Fang and Evan Moore launched PaloAltoDelivery.com in Palo Alto, California. In the summer of 2013, it received US$120,000 in seed money from Y Combinator in exchange for a 7% stake. It incorporated as DoorDash in June 2013. DoorDash's first partnership with a fast food burger restaurant chain was in April 2016, when it partnered with CKE Restaurants, parent company of Carl's Jr. and Hardee's, for food delivery. In December 2017, DoorDash announced its partnership with Wendy's for delivery from its restaurants. In December 2018, DoorDash overtook Uber Eats to hold the second position in total US food delivery sales, behind GrubHub. By March 2019, it had exceeded GrubHub in total sales, at 27.6% of the on-demand delivery market. By early 2019, DoorDash was the largest food delivery provider in the U.S., as measured by consumer spending. In October 2019, DoorDash opened its first ghost kitchen, DoorDash Kitchen, in Redwood City, California, with four restaurants operating at the location. By June 2020, DoorDash had raised more than $2.5 billion over several financing rounds from investors including Y Combinator, Charles River Ventures, SV Angel, Khosla Ventures, Sequoia Capital, SoftBank Group, GIC, and Kleiner Perkins. DoorDash announced a partnership with KFC in September 2020, followed by Taco Bell in October 2020. In November 2020, DoorDash announced the opening of its first physical restaurant location, partnering up with Bay Area restaurant Burma Bites to offer delivery and pick-up orders. In December 2020, it became a public company via an initial public offering, raising $3.37 billion. In November 2021, DoorDash acquired Finland's Wolt for €7bn. In August 2022, DoorDash announced it would end its partnership with Walmart in September, ending the companies' cooperation agreement from 2018. In November 2022, DoorDash announced plans to lay off 1,250 corporate employees, or about six percent of its workforce, to rein in expenses. In June 2023, DoorDash announced it would give its drivers the option of earning an hourly minimum wage instead of being paid per delivery. However, drivers are only paid hourly when on an active delivery. In September 2023, the company transferred its stock listing from the New York Stock Exchange to the Nasdaq. On December 18, 2023, DoorDash was added to the Nasdaq-100 index. In March 2025, DoorDash announced a partnership with Klarna, a Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) service, letting customers schedule small payments over a set period of time. DoorDash received widespread criticism from this decision, including internet mockery, given concerns about the increase of household debt in America. In 2025, DoorDash acquired the UK-based delivery service Deliveroo for $3.88 billion. The combined company operates in 40 countries and serves 50 million users monthly. In September 2025, DoorDash and Ace Hardware (the largest hardware cooperative) announced their partnership to offer delivery for home use products from over 4,000 Ace locations. == Lawsuits against DoorDash == === 2017 class-action lawsuit for misclassifying workers === In 2017, a class-action lawsuit was filed against DoorDash for allegedly misclassifying delivery drivers in California and Massachusetts as independent contractors. In 2022, a tentative settlement was reached in which DoorDash would pay $100 million total, with $61 million going to over 900,000 drivers, paying out just over $130 per driver, and $28 million for the lawyers. Gizmodo criticized the settlement, noting that the $413 million that DoorDash CEO Tony Xu received the previous year was one of the largest CEO compensation packages of all time. === 2019 data breach lawsuit === On May 4, 2019, DoorDash confirmed 4.9 million customers, delivery workers and merchants had sensitive information stolen via a data breach. Those who joined the platform after April 5, 2018, were unaffected by the breach. A class-action lawsuit for the breach was filed against DoorDash in October 2019. === Withholding of tips and subsequent class-action lawsuits === In July 2019, the company's tipping policy was criticized by The New York Times, and later The Verge and Vox and Gothamist. Drivers receive a guaranteed minimum per order that is paid by DoorDash by default. When a customer added a tip, instead of going directly to the driver, it first went to the company to cover the guaranteed minimum. Drivers then only directly received the part of the tip that exceeded the guaranteed minimum per order. In January 2020, it was reported that DoorDash had lied about skimming tips from its drivers, causing them to earn an average of $1.45 an hour after expenses, and that after the company had allegedly overhauled its tipping system, DoorDash was still manipulating per-delivery payouts at the expense of drivers. A DoorDash customer filed a class action lawsuit against the company for its "materially false and misleading" tipping policy. The case was referred to arbitration in August 2020. Under pressure, the company revised its policy. The company settled a lawsuit with District of Columbia Attorney General Karl Racine for $2.5 million, with funds going to deliverers, the government, and to charity. ==== 2021 driver strike for tip transparency ==== In July 2021, DoorDash drivers went on strike to protest lack of tip transparency and to ask for higher pay. At the time of the strike, and, as of June 2022, DoorDash did not allow drivers to see the full tip amounts prior to accepting a delivery in the app. If customers tip over a set amount for the order total, Doordash hides a portion of the tip until the delivery is complete. The strike occurred after DoorDash rewrote its code to cut off access to Para, a third-party app that drivers had been using to see the full tip amounts. ==== 2025 class-action lawsuit settlement ==== In 2025, DoorDash agreed to pay around $17 million for "misleading both consumers and delivery workers" with tips being docked from drivers' pay instead of directly going to drivers. === 2020 antitrust litigation === In April 2020, in the case of Davitashvili v. GrubHub Inc. DoorDash, Grubhub, Postmates, and Uber Eats were accused of monopolistic power by only listing restaurants on its apps if the restaurant owners signed contracts which include clauses that require prices be the same for dine-in customers as for customers receiving delivery. The plaintiffs stated that this arrangement increases the cost for dine-in customers, as they are required to subsidize the cost of delivery; and that the apps charge "exorbitant" fees, which range from 13% to 40% of revenue, while the average restaurant's profit ranges from 3% to 9% of revenue. The lawsuit seeks treble damages, including for overcharges, since April 14, 2016, for dine-in and delivery customers in the United States at restaurants using the defendants’ delivery apps. Although several preliminary documents in the case have now been filed, a trial date has not yet been set. === Litigation for illegal unauthorized restaurant listing === In May 2021, DoorDash was criticized for unauthorized listings of restaurants who had not given permission to appear on the app. The company was sued by Lona's Lil Eats in St. Louis, with the lawsuit claiming that DoorDash had listed them without permission, then prevented any orders to the restaurant from going through and redirecting customers to other restaurants instead, because Lona's was "too far away," when in reality it had not paid DoorDash a fee for listing. This aspect of DoorDash's business practice is illegal in California. === 2021 lawsuit by the city of Chicago === In August 2021, the city of Chicago sued DoorDash and GrubHub. According to Chicago mayor Lori Lightfoot, the companies broke the law by using "unfair and deceptive t