tara: welcome to "bloomberg businessweek." i'm carol massar. in this special year-end w issue, poland offers donald trump a blueprint for how not to drain the so-called swap. -- the so-called swap. and wikipedia wants to become the gold standard for diversity in the workplace. oliver: all of that is ahead for "bloomberg businessweek." carol: we are here with the editor-in-chief megan murphy. megan, in the opening remarks, you had to take a look at

technology. if you think about the yahoo! hacks and the samsung phones, not such great stories but overall it was not of that here. -- it was not that bad of a year. megan: besides those two. it will be one of the seminal pieces. it makes the point we could talk about the samsung phone catching on fire, hacks or some of the companies that didn't have a great 2016 but the point is underneath that we have seen things like uber make real advancements in self driving cars. we have seen sort of technology and computers ability to read speech advance at very accelerated levels. but what it does set up is, under the new presidential administration as well, how technology is really going to step forward and put itself out to come out of the politically neutral stance it has tried to take. is this going to be the moment where tech has to come out from the shadows, sort of politically

neutral stance it has tried to take in terms of technology, and be forced under trump to come forward and make a stand? oliver: tell us about why you guys are doing that now. a 2016 thats been has been full of surprises not just year but across western democracies and across the world. it is time to stec back and say we are facing a sort of unprecedented rise of social unrest, sort of threats. we want to point out some of the companies and the relationships and the parts of the world where things -- people are doing things that you do not know that they are doing. we want to celebrate that, step back and look and say we should recognize and look at and celebrate people who are fighting for sustainability, for fishing regions in the south china sea, and take a holistic view of business and a much more comprehensive look.

carol: wikipedia is trying to make it more diverse. megan: this is fascinating. there is something like 2300 articles about kansas leah -- about princess leia's home planet, and no articles about some diverse -- whether it is writers or social justice figures or politicians across the developing and the developed world, particularly with women. under the covers as far as what efforts by making to have more access, to flesh them out. it is not easy. 80% of wikipedia's current editors are white and male. that is not a good ratio. it is reflective of a certain sector of society. that continues to be a

challenge. it is a look at sort of how this can change and how -- and what we are seeing across all areas of technology and in the technology economy, pushing up instead of down. oliver: it is a great story. we spoke with a reporter. wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. it is free to use and it is interestingly free to edit it so anyone in the world that you, me, the president -- can go on and start writing encyclopedia entries. there is this giant community who then looks at that and either re-added it or chain -- it or change-edit it. it manages to be quite good. 10 years ago people made fun of wikipedia. it was a little embarrassing to have a wikipedia page opened in a newsroom. you would never admit that you even looked at it. it is not perfect, but it is

good. it is comparable to encyclopedias, textbooks. there are a few areas where it's probably less good, like prescription drugs and things like that. what about the editors with the entries? max: wikipedia editors were , white guys who are interested in tech. that has left wikipedia with limitations. there are certain areas of expertise it does not have. there is not much diversity. you have an editor base that is 90% male, mostly white, mostly from the u.s. so you see gaps in wikipedia. the foundation which manages the encyclopedia, or manage may be a generous term -- tends to oversee the encyclopedia, is

working on it. but so far they have not accomplished terms. carol: there is no editor-in-chief. max: exactly. there is no boss who can overrule or commission article or delete something. it all has to come from the bottom up. there are different layers of volunteers, administrators, but there are something like 1200 of them. those people are all volunteers. there is no overruling wikipedia editor. carol: that get -- byver: that gap is explained the filter bubble problem yak of max: we tend to think of the internet has something that encourages a diversity of opinion. i can go on and i can read a very cogent argument from people on the other side of my political beliefs. read endlessmuch amounts of comments about anything. we pretty much find stuff that we agree with.

during the conversation around misinformation, fake news during the election, one thing people talked about was the idea of filter bubbles. you see an article in facebook that confirms biases that exist within you -- so if you are a hillary clinton supporter, you see donald trump just shot somebody on fifth avenue, you are more likely to share that and that perpetuates misinformation. wikipedia has the same problem. you have a group of editors who are interested in tech and interested in -- they are interested in running an encyclopedia, but they are not familiar with all areas of human knowledge, so you get problems. , one of theper lee greatest american novelists, "to kill a mockingbird," was not listed on a page for american novelists but on a page for american woman novelists. entries on moons

from the star wars universe, but there will be missing key elements of history or feminism and topics that are important. carol: a good cover with crate of director rob vargas. covers,is one of those and entire package worth of features. carol: the stories are all over the map. it is quite a range. went with the overall feel of the issue, which is "good business." we sometimes do stories that are critical of businesses that we cover. this is the opposite, so we wanted a positive theme overall. oliver: is it easier or more difficult when you have a somatic issue versus one story to put on the cover? varies a lot.

good business is tricky because it is so simple. we have to convince ourselves that it is ok to embrace the simplicity of that idea as opposed to doing something more conceptual. a lot of times if we focus on one story, we have a good photograph we will put on the cover. it can go both ways. carol: you have all these pictures or symbols of things, well done, good business. rob: we have one illustrator on staff who has a unique style that we use on the inside as well. so we render this. it is a slightly odd looking hand. oliver: the good part is sort of overkill. it is like -- rob: exactly. i think we have a tendency, if we are going to build something, we do it to an almost hyperbolic degree. carol: up next, a warning from

poland. what happened when they elected a party that made similar promises as president-elect donald trump? oliver: this is bloomberg. ♪

carol: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." i'm carol massar. oliver: i'm oliver renick. the lessons poland can teach president-elect donald trump if he doesn't train the swamp in washington. in poland you had a government that came to power in october last year, and they made some of the same complaints, rose to power on some of the same resentments and issues that

donald trump did in the united states. the base was out in the countryside, the smaller towns, people who felt les ♪ left behin, so they came to power promising to sweep away and elite. the elite is a different situation from in the u.s. saidpresident tension ski was that there is a kind of conspiracy of next communist and liberal allies who have run poland, miss ruled poland since after the collapse of communism. so they spent a year now. they had promised they would sweep these people out, and they have gone about doing it. fromremoved 300 executives state-run companies, including different people. they removed about 1600 people

from the civil service and replaced them. they removed 130 or so , either removed or resigned from the public broadcasters under the control. that,ave been busy doing and the interesting part is that , as they began to do that, they pushed up pretty quickly against checks and balances that are in the democratic process. that has led to a big fight over the constitutional court. carol: talk to us about that fight. where is it and where is it going? marc: we have a big moment right now because on december 19 the , his terme court expired. he has a nine-year term that expired, and he has been thating a bunch of changes

justice has been trying to make over the last number of years. they tried to put a next her three judges on to the court who were not really entitled -- who they were not entitled to put on the court. they were not the first to do this. before the next government -- the previous government had tried to add an extra two. those were extinguished by the constitutional court itself. now law and justice is trying to appoint five as opposed to the two they should be appointing. he has resisted that. the government has pushed through six different pieces of legislation, determining how the court should run. the upshot of most of that legislation is that the court -- it is much harder for the court to scrutinize legislation, declare it constitutional. so it is essentially neutering the court. carol: if we look at poland, and

we're trying to understand for those folks in the united states, what might happen as our president-elect, donald trump, talks about draining the swamp what are the lessons will learn -- what are the lessons we will learn from poland? when you want to do something really radical -- and rightly or wrongly, that is not the question -- but when you want to move large numbers of people out and change the way the system works, in order to do that very quickly, you tend to come up fairly soon against checks and balances that are inserted into the democratic process in order to make sure that an majoritarian government overnot just run roughshod the rights of the minority who did not vote for them, for example. that i think is the lesson in

poland. prediction that this will happen in the u.s., but things have changed enough over the recent years that we can no longer say, look, those countries in eastern europe are completely different. it is a little weird there. they get more radical governments. we are getting pretty radical governments, pretty radical decisions now in the west. so the point of this sort of parable is really to understand where the pressures will come. carol: up next, the seemingly hass touch goldman sachs over who wins elections. oliver: and how some colleges called the little ivys tap-in to deliver top returns. ♪

oliver: will come back to

"bloomberg businessweek." i'm oliver renick. carol: i am carol massar. we ar carol: in the markets and finance section, held goldman sachs managed to come out on the trump organization, even as they were targeted on the campaign trail. >> it has been pretty remarkable. the stock is up something like when donald trump won the presidential election. a lot of that has to do with trump's policies and the fact of people think he will roll back regulations on wall street. he has talked about repealing all of dodd-frank. dodd-frank is at least 1000 pages. so it is unlikely all of that will get rolled back, but some

of the things that particularly hurt goldman, such as the volcker rule, will be first in line. carol: boulder has to do with hedge funds, investing using banks, a lot of personal money. dakin: voelker is two things. trading,prop limitation on steak and hedge funds and private equity funds. those businesses were big for goldman before the financial crisis, and stakes in hedge funds and private equity funds remains big for goldman. they have roughly 7 billion left that they have been working on selling down but have not sold yet. -- then the prop trading they have been subject to the ban, too. it is not clear to us how tightly that ban has been enforced in the last couple of years. this has got to be one of the

most interesting -- oliver: this has got to be one of the most interesting stories of the years. all ofhe trump election, these financial companies were leaving the market. but obviously they were not per trade in the best light not only but by trump by -- specifically print they came out saying hillary clinton would be a good president. specifically at goldman, there was a relationship between clinton speaking at some of these places that trump supporters put out in the lead late -- and the limelight. did an ad where he targeted lloyd blankfein of goldman sachs and kind of said how terrible they all are. oliver: how does this work? did wall street want trump to win all along? dakin: it is a very good question. i wish i had all the answers for you. i am surprised as you guys are, as a lot of our viewers and listeners are. i think some of it has to do

with the fact that a lot of trump supporters are not that closely monitoring who his appointments are. i do not know, but my suspicion i just came off a conversation with somebody in d.c. who has been watching this pre-closely. the point he made to me was, if the goldman guys at the top of trump's administration create jobs, bring manufacturing back, nobody is going to care that they were goldman guys. they just want their economic livelihood are stored and brought back. so you have a president-elect who is making appointments, it is during the holiday season. maybe the people who voted for him who got behind trump are not watching really closely, and then come january into february the rubber will hit the road and they will see, wow, we have a couple of goldman guys.

trump was railing against the goldman guys play let's see what they can do for me. oliver: i cannot think of anybody who is more ingrained in your sources. when you talk to people on wall street, was there a reaction to the way that their own sector has been so favorable to investments in the last couple of weeks? dakin: it has been amazingly fast i'll. -- it has been amazingly facile. the election results came in and we were already talking to people who were saying this could be good for us, we could get behind this guy. tothe ability for them quickly switch and sort of get behind the winner -- even though i have been doing in a wild -- was pretty remarkable. oliver: in mortgage and finance, they may not be ivy league, but small liberal arts colleges in the northeast have big wall street connections. carol: sometimes that is good

for their endowments, but not always. kate: there is an unofficial designation that people have given to the wealthy northeast liberal arts schools, kind of the ones that if you could not have gotten into harvard, maybe you will go to them instead. still amazing schools, great schools. samehey do not have that intensely competitive application process. double-digit acceptance rates, not single-digit acceptance rates. oliver: how does the sort of notoriety -- how does the acceptance rate translate into endowment, how much money they have to operate with? >> on a simple basis, it is kind of funny. if you have more applicants, you will have a larger class. these pools are much smaller. they have a smaller alumni base, so they have fewer wealthy and

can haveat they for their endowment. we have seen endowment returns from a lot of universities. it has not been an easy year or two. how about the little ivy? washe national average 2.5%. , it was less.s it was worse than the national average, which is why my reporter and i wanted to look at -- a kind of defined what we would think because you had these prestigious institutions with these investment communities that are chock-full of wall streeters, smart people, but they were not able to cash in on that to produce the same returns as the ivys.

the ivy league's, who have a similar type of alumni base -- wealthy, wall street, a lot of investment expertise -- they returned a -.8. so better than the national average. and a big difference between the little ivys. usually attract the same in terms of performance, a little closer? >> they are typically a lot closer. i think we are the first to group. little ivys as a but typically they do, if you look at the numbers. they typically track similarly, and that is because this push toward the yelp model of investing, diversified funds instead of doing stocks and bonds. they do hedge funds, private equities. they do venture capital, almost strangely unique things for a fund that the purpose of it is supposed to be forever, right?

so this year did not pay off. carol: up next, one of the world's most powerful fashion companies is turning his supply chain green. and what contributed to a company letting down its guard. ♪

oliver: welcome to "bloomberg businessweek." i'm oliver renick. carol massar. erik: and icarol massar. still ahead, the men behind am gucci doubling down on being environmentally friendly. oliver: investors are lining up to get behind green infrastructure products. we will tell you about the man behind the trend. carol: also, the company making robot babies. oliver: all of that ahead on "bloomberg businessweek." we are here with the businessweek editor in chief, megan murphy to talk about some must reads in the magazine. let's start with the markets and finance section which is about litigating in germany.

carol: not so easy, is it? >> this is quite common across western europe and the difficulty of pushing forward with what we have as class-action lawsuits. and it goes into the impediment that you face and run that kind of litigation in germany. it's talking about volkswagen, in terms of getting consumers and people who bought these cheat systems built in on the emissions. this guy who is running this case and trying to form a huge class action to get more money. one of the biggest impediments in germany is that the lawyers don't get a cut. there is no incentive for them to get this huge slice of the settlement fees that we see, for example, in the u.s. settlement, we saw the lawyers take a $175 million cut by forming that class. that is not to say they are profiteering, it is just that our system incentivizes class-action lawyers to get redress for consumer harm. the system is not the same across europe. carol: if you lose, you have to

pay the court costs. >> it is a big deal. carol: the currency has collapsed and created problems in the country. collects we have created a really nice chart that shows hyperinflation in venezuela. other countries are countries like zimbabwe, germany. we go back to 1923 and by our ranking venezuela is the 23rd , most severe period of how much the currency has deflated over time. carol: the chart goes all the way back to 1795. >> pretty fascinating. oliver: that is incredible. let's talk about the story in good business section, which focuses on an industry often derided for not having good business in sustainability, and that's fashion. >> we look at what they've done across superhigh luxury brands. there is a section of the piece that talks about pythons and how they are looking to make pythons

in their fashion more sustainable. part of that is because pythons consume rats. if you are going to maintain sustainable pythons, you have to have a sustainable source of rats. but this is important. fashion is one of the industries we frequently look at. think of leather, excess, luxury. go across the brand and look at where you can change this make , an impact, everything from driving workers wages up to making sure you're leaving a less permanent environment of -- environmental damage is something that is becoming a standout. carol: we spoke with the reporter about his conversation with the ceo of caring. >> caring has stood out on the sustainability front. this is something that a lot of fashion companies think about it but i don't know if they go , forward with enough. enough changes to what they are doing on the backend. carol: take a step act.

let's talk about what caring is. because i didn't even realize they had changed the name. it's a really well-known company and some extreme luxe brands. >> caring's biggest brand is gucci. mccartney,e stella puma, a bunch of other stuff. they are a company that runs all of these different luxury brands. in order to get big, they have to have multiple brands. it's hard to have one gigantic luxury brand. carol: formerly ppr. and the man behind it all? >> francois pino, who is the father of now the ceo. oliver: basically, they found a need -- about four years ago, they said we will do x, y, z measures to be more sustainable. where are they now? how have they made progress on that in the past four years? >> in 2012, it looked at everything in their supply chain. from where they get their precious skins and furs from, from the sources of the other

raw materials, how much plastics they have going into what they are doing. so far they have managed to reach a lot of their targets in those four years. carol: this is not just superficial. i love the detail you go to in your story. he created a sustainability committee at the board level. also some of the compensation for ceos of the different brands is tied to sustainability and success of sustainability. >> everyone has targets. every brand within his company has to be on board. he has forced them to be on board with the sustainability thing. if they don't do it, it will cost them some compensation. oliver: what is it about the fashion industry in terms of where the materials come from, is related to animals, related to labor. is this an industry where this is particularly in focus and

sort of important to assess? >> fashion is one of the most polluting industries in the world. i think people do not think of that too much because it is a really opaque thing. the supply chains at most of these large fashion companies are really opaque. you don't know where your clothing is coming from. sometimes the companies do not know because they subcontract out to smaller factories and so on and so on and don't even know , where their own things are being made. oliver: is it about margins to some extent? >> it is about margins to a large extent. labor is very cheap and very easy to move. i mean, most clothes are made by a person sitting at a desk with the sewing machine. we are not walking into factories in bangladesh. carol: in the technology section, the man who pioneered the no money down formula now wants to spread it to other high-tech industries. oliver: we spoke to reporter chris martin about it.

>> it was founded about two years ago by the founder of another company. carol: we've heard of that. >> he is an interesting guy. he founded sun edison with the idea that we need to work faster to avoid the worst parts of climate change. and to wean the world off using fossil fuels that are causing the climate to warm. he sold the business, sun edison, and that was back in 2007. he was wondering what to do next even as his company was taking off. then falling into bankruptcy. so he hooked up with a couple of buddies and they formed this company called generate which is designed to accelerate investments that will reduce use of fossil fuels.

carol: smaller investments? >> yes. smaller investments. one's that the big banks don't really care about because they are too small. they don't generate enough fees. and there is a lot of due diligence because these are new technologies that few people know about. carol: i love what you said in your straight from you said onecking the dollars is million-dollar projects rather than like 1000 $1 billion projects. >> right. like i said, these technologies were being ignored by the general banking industry. they started looking into what types of technologies would do the most for the least amount of money. one of the early ones was a battery designer and installer. they had been getting some success applying this no money down leasing model.

two -- to better systems for hotel chains in california. extended stay america is one of the hotel chains they invested in. they helped lower their electricity bill and draw less power from the grid. another one they started with early on was a company that came out of m.i.t. using electrified microbes that take water waste and convert it to basically clean it by eating what is in the wastewater and converting it to methane to produce power. oliver: what makes it advantageous to use this program as opposed to just saying, you know what? here's a technology we are going to buy and implement? is there risk associated with it? >> a lot of reasons. the first one is cost. they are a brewing company.

they don't typically have a lot of cash lying around to invest in something they don't know a lot about, which is a wastewater treatment plant. yet they needed so they agreed one. to set aside some money for this technology, to try this technology. in part because it is a simple process. you don't have to build this wastewater treatment plant. it comes in on the truck, a container. and so using a single container they can add more and expand. , oliver: up next, what was going on inside yahoo! when hackers stole information from one billion accounts? carol: and european e-commerce site struggling to fight back competition from amazon. this is bloomberg. ♪

oliver: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." i'm oliver renick. carol: and i'm carol massar. in the technology section the , yahoo! hack was worse than it sounded. oliver: it included victims from the cia, fbi, nsa, and white house staffers. we spoke to reporter jordan robinson. >> back in september, as yahoo! had just announced that they were going to be acquired by verizon, yahoo! announced a really big breach. it was 500 million user accounts. basically half their user base. , by any standard, that is a really big deal and kicks off a round of conversations with verizon about whether that deal price, $4.8 billion, should be negotiated down because of the liability of that breach. come last week, yahoo! announces an even bigger breach, which was one billion user accounts. that's how many users they have. that's basically the entire company.

that has kicked off a round of pretty serious negotiations between yahoo! and verizon about liability, basically, and what should the final price to verizon be for a company that will face years of lawsuits. carol: i feel like, cue britney spears, "oops! i did it again." i mean this was another hack , that was a few years ago. it was interesting it did not come out sooner. what was also interesting what it was military employees, government employees intelligence employees. , it was who got tapped into that really makes this an even more serious story. >> an interesting back story. yahoo! announced its first breach in september. that breach itself was from 2014. we have been working with the cyber security researcher who had actually acquired the stolen yahoo! database through monitoring some hacker channels. as we were analyzing it, what we discovered was the leaked information did not match up. it included backup email addresses that many yahoo! users

gave to the company in case they were locked out of their yahoo! accounts. the story we were preparing was on how many u.s. government and military employees gave their official work addresses, which, for criminal hackers, especially foreign intelligence services, that's a bonanza. you are able to identify people with very little work who worked for military intelligence. you know, the nsa, cia, dod. that is the story we were preparing. in the course of asking yahoo! a bunch of questions about that discrepancy, something that nobody saw coming yahoo! , disclosed the second breach of that data involving a billion accounts. it is a huge deal. oliver: when you talk about the deal here between yahoo! and verizon, why did they raise the -- did they have to rethink the price of yahoo!? i can think of one reason people might leave. my dad uses yahoo! and he is

going to freak out. is it about -- what is going to drive the price down? >> and interesting, unexpected answer -- one concern, of course, if yahoo! users start fleeing in droves, that will be a problem for verizon but that is not the primary problem. what verizon is looking at our two things. one is data breach lawsuits could be very expensive, especially when you are talking about loss on the scale of yahoo! there is an interesting angle. when the vast majority companies that are breached today, the first thing the general counsel tells them to do is to issue and pay for identity theft protection services for all their users. this not out of the goodwill of their hearts. this is because it is an insulation, inoculation against future lawsuits. the second reason is potentially

more distressing for verizon. if there was theft of intellectual property from yahoo! which yahoo! is not required to disclose. that is a big deal because the -- verizon is buying the user base and the advertising technology. the advertising clients that yahoo! has for their banner ads. and both of those things take a serious hit because of these breaches. oliver: in the company's and industries section, one european e-commerce website is struggling to keep up with amazon. carol: that is not stopping them from trying. cooked this company come in german -- they wanted to be like zappos. o you remember them from a years ago? which amazon ultimately bought, the shoe retailer. they started as that but moved very heavily into fashion and have done a really good job. they have got 6% of the market across europe. the problem is they have amazon coming up in their rearview mirror, and it doesn't look pretty. amazon moved up to 5.7%. just behind them. they are both behind one

slightly larger player, but it is sort of an older mail-order one called auto. they will likely get ahead of auto in the next couple of orders. carol: is it high fashion? for those of us not familiar with this online fashion site. >> it is high-ish fashion. it is the kind of -- they have got nice stuff, but not super high-end. it is not one of the luxury houses. but they have good stuff. they tend to have more up-to-date fashion than amazon. one thing -- we've got a report from bernstein that talks about the relative penetration of the brands that they have got. and you see they have something like half of the top 20 fashion brands in the u.k., whereas amazon has about four of them. also, it has quite a bit more up-to-date stuff.

amazon, most of their stuff or a lot of their stuff tends to be kind of last season things sold at a discount. carol: when i think about amazon, i think about a lot of things, but i don't think about high fashion-ish. is that a new area they're going into? >> they are definitely trying to get there. the head of amazon's fashion push in europe who just moved from seattle to london, she tells us she was meeting with the ceo of hugo boss, trying to help them sort through -- they are winnowing the brands they do -- have got. they are trying to move upscale. they say they don't want to be the place you go for cheap fashion online. they are trying to be a place where you go for trendy stuff. they have hired some models and an italian blogger.

some american socialite who poses in ads with her dog kind of thing. they are trying to become hip and cool, not just the place to go for cheap. carol: amazon is nipping at zalando's heels over in europe. zalando, i assume, is not taking this lying down. >> not at all. they have worked on shoring up their relations with the companies they have got. a lot of the brands that they have been working with for several years. they are kind of improving the quality of their photos on their website, things like that, to increase the appeal of the merchandise that they've got. carol: up next, why one company thinks it's robot babies will prevent teen pregnancy. oliver: this is bloomberg. ♪

carol: welcome back to "bloomberg businessweek." i'm carol massar. oliver: i'm oliver renick. you can catch us on the radio on sirius xm channel 119, on am 1130 in new york, am 1200 in boston, 99.1 fm in washington, d.c., am 960 in the bay area. carol: and in asia on the bloomberg radio plus app. oliver: in the good business section, a company in wisconsin says its almost $700 robotic baby can teach kids not to get pregnant. carol: but a medical journal disagrees. here is our reporter. >> this focuses on a 63-person company in wisconsin. they make these robotic infant simulators. they invented them in 1992 and it has since become a staple of american education. they are in two thirds of u.s. school districts. the problem for the company came in august when this prominent british medical journal put out a study that showed they surveyed girls in australia that

had taken these babies home as part of the teen pregnancy prevention curriculum. they took the babies home and what the study found was that the girls who took the babies home as opposed to those who didn't actually were twice as likely to get pregnant. for the company, that sent them into a bit of turmoil. there were negative headlines around the world. the media really grabbed onto this study. it showed these babies, the -- part of the whole idea of them is that they are going to freak becoming essentially, parents. they will not become parents after taking this baby home because it is so exhausting. for this study to show the exact opposite really posed a very , real threat to their bottom line. carol: some things i want to unpack. first of all, for those that might not know about these robotic babies -- oliver: they are freaky. carol: i was shocked to find out they are in 2/3 of schools. it blew my mind. how do they work? tell us a bit about them because you tag along with one student who was babysitting, if you will.

>> i did. the babies looks as real as they can. like a newborn baby. it weighs seven pounds. it comes in a variety of skin tones. these babies cry. they need to have their diaper changed. they need to be fed. it's done with this sophisticated network of sensors. it's a very technologically advanced item. i went to south dakota and followed along a girl. her name was sheila. she was 15 and she went to rapid city central high school and had to take the baby home for her child development class. this was her assignment for the weekend. i just hung out with her as she went about her daily life. we went to her grandfather's house for dinner. we went to walmart to go christmas shopping because it was just this month. she just had to take care of this baby as if it were a newborn baby. the cries are actual recordings of real babies. timed to real infant schedules.

the company tries to make it as lifelike and realistic as possible. carol: when the baby cries or needs a diaper change or is hungry, they have to actually do something with the baby? all that information goes back to the school. >> exactly. so the students -- and it is not just girls, by the way. i followed along with a girl because it was most relevant for the story talking about teen pregnancy, but boys do it as well. the students wear a bracelet. it is like a hospital bracelet. they cannot take it off. it has a sensor in it so they have two minutes -- and the baby starts crying and you were in the middle of walmart shopping you have to stop what you are , doing. you have two minutes to swipe your sensor bracelet over the baby's stomach and let them know you are responding. then you have to figure out, what does it need? designated ever change you go does it just need to be held? sometimes the baby needs to be rocked like a real baby.

then -- the babies are very technologically advanced. they store all the data in their bodies, in their circuit boards and at the end of the weekend, , the teacher downloads the data to assess how a student did. carol: "bloomberg businessweek" is available on newsstands now. oliver: and also online. carol what is your favorite , story? carol: i love the story we just heard about robot babies. i had no idea who the company was doing it. they pretty much on this market. these robotic babies are used in about 2/3 of the school districts around the country. the whole idea is hoping to prevent teenage pregnancy. a study came out saying maybe they are not working. the company is fighting back. i found out a lot about a company i did not know. what about you? oliver: i liked the goldman story just because i think it is one of the most interesting stories of the year surrounding the election. you obviously have very vocal support for secretary clinton from goldman, but then as soon as the election goes to trump,

their stock is popping. i think it will be interesting story. no matter what happens, they always seem to come out on top. more bloomberg television starts right now. ♪

caroline: this is "best of bloomberg technology." we bring you our top interviews from this week in tech. coming up apple and ireland wage , war on the european union. over 13 billion euro tax bill. plus, blackberry doubles down on software, and the move is paying off. we dig into the struggling comedy's latest report with the ceo. online lender sofi taking it slow after a rough year and pushing back plans for an ipo.