Fix typo

Author: flegaspi700

1-Introduction/02-ethics/README.md

@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ Market trends tell us that by 2022, 1-in-3 large organizations will buy and sell
 
 Trends also indicate that we will create and consume over [180 zettabytes](https://www.statista.com/statistics/871513/worldwide-data-created/) of data by 2025. As **Data Scientists**, this gives us unprecedented levels of access to personal data. This means we can build behavioral profiles of users and influence decision-making in ways that create an [illusion of free choice](https://www.datasciencecentral.com/profiles/blogs/the-illusion-of-choice) while potentially nudging users towards outcomes we prefer. It also raises broader questions on data privacy and user protections.
 
-Data ethics are now _necessary guardrails_ for data science and engineering, helping us minimize potential harms and unintended consequences from our data-driven actions. The [Gartner Hype Cycle for AI](https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/2-megatrends-dominate-the-gartner-hype-cycle-for-artificial-intelligence-2020/) identifies relevant trends in digital ethics, responsible AI ,and AI governances as key drivers for larger megatrends around _democratization_ and _industrialization_ of AI.
+Data ethics are now _necessary guardrails_ for data science and engineering, helping us minimize potential harms and unintended consequences from our data-driven actions. The [Gartner Hype Cycle for AI](https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/2-megatrends-dominate-the-gartner-hype-cycle-for-artificial-intelligence-2020/) identifies relevant trends in digital ethics, responsible AI ,and AI governance as key drivers for larger megatrends around _democratization_ and _industrialization_ of AI.
 
 ![Gartner's Hype Cycle for AI - 2020](https://images-cdn.newscred.com/Zz1mOWJhNzlkNDA2ZTMxMWViYjRiOGFiM2IyMjQ1YmMwZQ==)
 
@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ Here are a few examples:
 
 | Ethics Challenge | Case Study  | 
 |--- |--- |
-| **Informed Consent** | 1972 - [Tuskegee Syphillis Study](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study) - African American men who participated in the study were promised free medical care _but deceived_ by researchers who failed to inform subjects of their diagnosis or about availability of treatment. Many subjects died & partners or children were affected; the study lasted 40 years. | 
+| **Informed Consent** | 1972 - [Tuskegee Syphilis Study](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study) - African American men who participated in the study were promised free medical care _but deceived_ by researchers who failed to inform subjects of their diagnosis or about availability of treatment. Many subjects died & partners or children were affected; the study lasted 40 years. | 
 | **Data Privacy** |  2007 - The [Netflix data prize](https://www.wired.com/2007/12/why-anonymous-data-sometimes-isnt/) provided researchers with _10M anonymized movie rankings from 50K customers_ to help improve recommendation algorithms. However, researchers were able to correlate anonymized data with personally-identifiable data in _external datasets_ (e.g., IMDb comments) - effectively "de-anonymizing" some Netflix subscribers.|
 | **Collection Bias**  | 2013 - The City of Boston [developed Street Bump](https://www.boston.gov/transportation/street-bump), an app that let citizens report potholes, giving the city better roadway data to find and fix issues. However, [people in lower income groups had less access to cars and phones](https://hbr.org/2013/04/the-hidden-biases-in-big-data), making their roadway issues invisible in this app. Developers worked with academics to _equitable access and digital divides_ issues for fairness. |
 | **Algorithmic Fairness**  | 2018 - The MIT [Gender Shades Study](http://gendershades.org/overview.html) evaluated the accuracy of gender classification AI products, exposing gaps in accuracy for women and persons of color. A [2019 Apple Card](https://www.wired.com/story/the-apple-card-didnt-see-genderand-thats-the-problem/) seemed to offer less credit to women than men. Both illustrated issues in algorithmic bias leading to socio-economic harms.|