Convint.ai redefines the way assessments get done. Convint.ai is born out of a belief that the app-based approach of using applications and getting tasks done is getting disrupted with AI and Conversation-based interactions becoming the new normal. Users are getting overwhelmed with managing the various Apps they are required to install for accessing various business and personal applications on their smartphone or desktops. Another belief driving the passion of the Team is how to leverage technology and AI to make the experience more and more frictionless. With Great Resignation Wave disrupting the Talent acquisition space, the Team is focusing on how to make this space, frictionless

Convint

Esistono ancora persone che interpretano la parola in modo sbagliato, nonostante gli enormi sforzi dei veri Hacker nel cercare di spiegare come stiano veramente le cose. Hacker La cultura Hacker si fonda semplicemente sulla ricerca continua del . Non si tratta di entrare nella rete di una banca, fare truffe informatiche, rubare , accedere senza autorizzazione ai server e roba del genere. Un Hacker non deve essere necessariamente un esperto di sicurezza informatica. non deve necessariamente essere un esperto di informatica. Anzi non deve necessariamente essere un esperto. Ma un Hacker che non lo è, probabilmente vorrebbe esserlo. La distinzione è sottile. divertimento intelligente password Anzi Un vero Hacker, di quelli che questa parola hanno contribuito a definirla fin dagli anni ‘60, è . Nel suo sito c’è una interamente a questa parola. La pagina stessa è interessante solo per un vero Hacker. Chi non lo è, probabilmente la troverà banale. Molti altri rimarranno stupiti dallo scoprire che secondo Stallman, in un certo senso, anche Lady Gaga ha qualcosa di Hacker, in sé. Ed ha perfettamente senso. Richard Stallman pagina dedicata , nel senso puro del termine, è stato ai tempi delle scuole medie e non riguarda nemmeno lontanamente l’Informatica. Mi piace molto raccontare questa storia perché è estremamente esplicativa e allo stesso tempo innocente. Il mio primo Hacking All’epoca era diffuso l’apprezzamento per quelli che chiamavamo, italianizzando il termine, “ ”. Erano semplici intrecci di stringhe colorate, fini a se stesse, ma divertenti da costruire. I bambini che sapevano farli cercavano di venderli e non volevano insegnarmi le tecniche di intreccio per non perdere il mercato. Decisi quindi di comprarmene uno e lo studiai. Resomi conto che il motivo era estremamente ripetitivo ne tagliai uno a metà. Srotolandolo, compresi chiaramente l’intreccio e imparai a riprodurlo da solo. scubidù È una sorta di . Il termine è più che appropriato. Nella cultura hacker, tuttavia, lo scopo degli hacking non è necessariamente economico. Spesso lo scopo è solo quello di capire come funzionano le cose, anche in modo fine a se stesso. A volte anche se farlo costa più di quel che si ottiene effettivamente. Si viene ripagati dall’esperienza. reverse engineering Possiamo dire che l’Hacker è un . Gli Hacker odiano le regole, le vogliono aggirare e trovare strade nuove e migliori. Non amano i recinti, specialmente quelli mentali. Vogliono scoprire cosa c’è sotto, non si accontentano mai di una visione superficiale. Scavano a fondo nei problemi e si sentono insicuri se non hanno sotto controllo tutto l’iceberg, non solo la punta. Esplorano a fondo e traggono soddisfazione dalla sensazione di aver coperto tutta ciò che è ancora inesplorato. esploratore Ma soprattutto si nel farlo. divertono moltissimo Un estratto dal film “Hackers” del 1995 Per un Hacker la ricerca del divertimento intelligente è tutto. Non importa se informatico o non. Si può essere Hacker in tanti modi. È vero, alcuni di essi riguardano la . Molti di essi. Ma sono solo una parte del divertimento. Sono i media che hanno convinto le persone che Hacker e Cracker fossero la stessa cosa. sicurezza informatica Quel che è importante ricordare è che gli Hacker hanno un’ . Un codice che sottoscrivono istintivamente. E che sono le persone più interessanti di questo mondo. etica

Hacking is not about security.

I recently got into a discussion on Twitter where I suggested that root-level directories don't make much sense when you're creating applications that are a library. It's conventional wisdom in the community, to suggest putting any code you do not want to expose to other applications inside the directory. And it's true if you're creating something that is meant to be important to other people’s code. The truth is, however, that most people are likely not working on other libraries but rather applications (APIs, web servers, etc). internal not Go internal Take this layout, for example: - app
    - cmd
	- app
	    - main.go
    - internal
    - services
    - repository
    .git
    go.mod
    go.sum A standard repository on github, gitlab etc. What does protect against here? Literally, any other package in this application will be on the same level as the directory, all will be able to import from it. The only situation, where this would not hold is if you were to take this entire code and copy it into another repository. And, honestly, when was the last time you did that? internal internal So, yes, it's technically correct (the best kind) that using root-level directories provides encapsulation (which is good). But, in practice, you don't really get any of the benefits of . If we were to add a view package to our application and wanted to start grouping different views in a sub-package, an directory suddenly starts to make sense. internal internal internal Let me illustrate: - app
    ...omitted
    - views
	layouts.go
	- home
	    home.go
	- about
	    about.go When does internal make sense? If we had some layout components (base, dashboard, etc) in the file that aren't exported, and wouldn't be able to import it as both are no longer part of the view package. If we export it, package in the application can import it, obviously not desirable. But, we can add an directory, export the layout components and encapsulate them from the rest of the application, like so: layouts.go home.go about.go any internal - app
    ...omitted
    - views
	- internal
	    - layouts
		base.go
		dashboard.go
	- home
	    home.go
	- about
	    about.go This is kind of a pet peeve of mine; it isn't really that important now that we have gotten modules (pre-modules was one of the reasons for internal which I will get into in a bit) and as long as you stay consistent about what goes into , it's all good. I prefer to use , as that to me at least better communicates what the directory is for. And I've seen quite a few Go applications in my time now, they either use or and most often contain the same kind of code. Auxiliary packages that are needed for the application as a whole but do not contain core business logic. Code to interact with , wrappers around a library to send mails, a etc. To me, for non-library code, this is the most important thing to get right, what do you expect to find in the directory not as much the same (again, you don't get any of the benefits from internal if you place it in the root)? internal pkg internal pkg aws queue Why do we have internal? To answer that question, we have to go back quite a bit. All the way back to the time before modules, when the creators of Go thought it a great idea to force everyone into their (Google's) preferred way of structuring code. You'd be forced into something like this: - $GOPATH
	- src
	- github.com
	    - user
		- repo
		    - cmd
		    - internal
		    - pkg Before Go 1.4, you could only have local and global components which could lead to frustrating situations where you'd like to have code that is only used within the module it’s defined and not part of the public repository. And in Go 1.4, the solution to this was introduced with the introduction of the directory. The Go compiler will verify that the package doing the import is within the same module as the package being imported. internal With the above structure, using as the default makes a ton of sense as it's quite easy to accidentally expose something that otherwise should've been kept private. But with the introduction of modules, this doesn't apply. Reading makes me think of something internal to a not the application as a whole. internal internal package Does all of this really matter? No. I tend to pick this "fight" just because I think it a bit funny how some people will go out of their way to argue that is the only correct way to do it. internal As argued above, if you're building something that is not meant to be imported into other people’s code, this is good advice. If you're building an application, consider using . But most importantly, be consistent. We spend too much time in software focusing on right and wrong as black and white, but it all depends. If the code that I'm arguing should go into a directory feels more natural for to be in an directory, then by all means, do that. pkg pkg you and your team internal Just be consistent. Also published here.

Debunking the Go Community's Conventional Wisdom on Internal Directories

The Conventional Commits specification is a lightweight convention that provides a standardized format for writing commit messages. It defines a simple set of rules to structure commit messages in a consistent manner, making it easier to understand the purpose and context of each commit. It is based on the above anatomies of git. By addressing numerous “why”, “what” and “how” questions, this specification can enable an efficient understanding of past decisions and changes made in the codebase, even after months or years. They serve as an indirect wiki, offering valuable insights into the reasons behind code changes. According to this specification, a commit message should be structured as: <commit type>[optional scope]: <description>
[optional body]
[optional footer(s)] Categorization of Commit Types 1. Build This type is used for changes that affect the build system or external dependencies. For example, if you upgrade a library or modify build configurations, it falls under this category. build: update webpack configuration
build: update Hive Maven dependency to version 3 2. Chore Chore-type commits are for regular maintenance tasks, such as updating dependencies, package manager configurations, or other tasks that don’t modify the source code or affect the behavior of the application. chore: clean up unused dependencies from package.json 3. CI Commits related to continuous integration configurations or scripts. This includes changes to tools and processes used for automation and testing. ci: add vault stage to gitlab ci pipeline to fetch api secrets 4. Docs Commits that only involve documentation changes, such as updating README files, adding comments, or writing documentation for functions or classes. docs: add auth service instructions to README 5. Feat This type is for new features added to the project. If you introduce new functionality or capabilities, it’s considered a feature. feat: introduce real-time notifications for new messages 6. Fix Fix-type commits are for patches that resolve bugs or issues in the codebase. If the commit addresses a problem or bug, it falls under this category. fix: resolve issue with form submission not triggering validation 7. Performance Commits that improve the performance of the codebase without changing its external behavior. Optimization-related changes would be categorized as performance improvements. perf: optimize guest misconduct database search by reservation for faster retrieval 8. Refactor Refactoring commits involve modifications to the code that neither fix a bug nor add a feature. Refactoring aims to improve the code’s structure, readability, or maintainability without changing its external behavior. refactor: simplify validation logic in user registration 9. Revert Revert-type commits are used when reverting previous changes. It’s essential to mention the commit ID or title of the changes being reverted in the commit message. revert: revert changes made in commit abc123 10. Style Commits that are related to code style and formatting. This could include indentation changes, code reformatting, or renaming variables to follow coding conventions. style: format code according to linting rules 11. Test Commits that add or modify tests. This includes unit tests, integration tests, or any other kind of automated testing. test: add unit tests for authentication service 12. Breaking Change This is not a commit type but a section in the description as per conventional commit specification. This introduces changes that are not backward compatible with the existing codebase or API. In other words, it signifies modifications that could potentially break existing functionality or require adjustments in dependent code or configurations. feat: update API response format to include additional fields

This commit extends the API response format to include new fields for user profile information. 
The added fields include 'birthdate' and 'country', providing more comprehensive user data. This 
change enhances the functionality of the API and enables richer user experiences.

BREAKING CHANGE:
- The structure of the API response has been modified to include additional fields.
- Clients relying on the previous response format will need to be updated to accommodate the changes.
Another syntax for breaking change — https://www.conventionalcommits.org/en/v1.0.0/#commit-message-with--to-draw-attention-to-breaking-change Usage in Open Source One of the many open-source examples using conventional commit specification is angular. Link — angular/CONTRIBUTING.md <type>(<scope>): <short summary>
│ │ │
│ │ └─⫸ Summary in present tense. Not capitalized. No period at the end.
│ │
│ └─⫸ Commit Scope: animations|bazel|benchpress|common|compiler|compiler-cli|core|
│ elements|forms|http|language-service|localize|platform-browser|
│ platform-browser-dynamic|platform-server|router|service-worker|
│ upgrade|zone.js|packaging|changelog|docs-infra|migrations|
│ devtools
│
└─⫸ Commit Type: build|ci|docs|feat|fix|perf|refactor|test What Are the Advantages? : Helps maintain consistency and standardization across commits within the team. When everyone follows the same format, it becomes easier to understand the history of changes. Consistency : By categorizing commits into types like feat, fix, docs, chore, etc., conventional commit messages provide semantic meaning to changes. This makes it easier to understand the nature of each commit at a glance. Semantic Meaning : Encourages writing clear and descriptive commit messages, including information about the changes made, why they were made, and any associated issues or task identifiers. Clarity : Facilitates communication among team members by providing a structured way to convey information about code changes. Communication : Enables the use of automated tools that can parse commit messages to generate release notes, changelogs, or perform other tasks based on commit history. Automation What Are the Disadvantages? : Without guidelines, commit messages may vary widely in format and quality, making it harder to understand the history of changes. Inconsistency : Lack of structure can lead to vague or incomplete commit messages, which may make it difficult for team members to understand the context or purpose of certain changes. Ambiguity : Tracking changes becomes more challenging, especially when trying to understand why certain changes were made or when investigating issues. Difficulty in Tracking : Poorly written commit messages can result in miscommunication or misunderstandings among team members. Miscommunication : Tasks such as generating release notes or tracking changes may require more manual effort without structured commit messages. Manual Processes FAQ About Conventional Commit Recommended to go over this list — Conventional Commits Resources Conventional Commits Specification Commitzen tool for the teams practices This blog was originally published on https://www.pranaybathini.com/2024/03/conventional-commit-specification.html

Conventional Commit Specification Guidelines: What You Need to Know

ERIK ADOLPH vs. Uber Court Filing, retrieved on July 17, 2023, is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 8 of 15. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here A. First, Uber contends that unless Adolph’s non-individual claims are dismissed, his PAGA action will run afoul of Viking River because he will be permitted to relitigate whether he is an aggrieved employee in court to establish standing even if he has agreed to resolve that issue in arbitration as part of his individual PAGA claim. In response, Adolph explains that his PAGA action could proceed in the following manner if he were ordered to arbitrate his individual PAGA claim: First, the trial court may exercise its discretion to stay the non-individual claims pending the outcome of the arbitration pursuant to section 1281.4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Following the arbitrator’s decision, any party may petition the court to confirm or vacate the arbitration award under section 1285 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If the arbitrator determines that Adolph is an aggrieved employee in the process of adjudicating his individual PAGA claim, that determination, if confirmed and reduced to a final judgment (Code Civ. Proc., § 1287.4), would be binding on the court, and Adolph would continue to have standing to litigate his nonindividual claims. If the arbitrator determines that Adolph is not an aggrieved employee and the court confirms that determination and reduces it to a final judgment, the court would give effect to that finding, and Adolph could no longer prosecute his non-individual claims due to lack of standing. (See Rocha v. U-Haul Co. of California (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 65, 76– 82.) Uber makes no convincing argument why this manner of proceeding would be impractical or would require relitigating Adolph’s status as an aggrieved employee in the context of his non-individual claims, and we see no basis for Uber’s concern. In any event, Viking River makes clear that in cases where the FAA applies, no such relitigation may occur. (Viking River, supra, 596 U.S. at pp. [142 S.Ct. at pp. 1923–1925].) – Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case S274671 retrieved on September 22, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. courts.ca.gov

A Deeper Look At What Uber Is Claiming: Is It Convincing Enough?

The Art of Naming Conventions in JavaScript Development

Who had killed the convicts?

This story was originally published on by , ProPublica, and Mike Hayes for . ProPublica Jake Pearson ProPublica As members of the New York City Council convened last month to discuss the Law Department’s budget, they asked the city’s top lawyer to account for the rising cost of police misconduct. The topic had been driving headlines for weeks. In February, an analysis of payout data had shown that in NYPD-related settlements and judgments in 2022, a five-year high. the city shelled out $121 million Weeks later, officials announced that millions more in taxpayer dollars would go toward what lawyers for demonstrators called a to settle claims involving the NYPD’s violent response to racial justice protests in 2020. “historic” deal Of particular concern to of the council’s Committee on Governmental Operations was and New York Magazine on how city lawyers aggressively fight these kinds of misconduct claims, even in the face of compelling evidence that officers crossed the line. some members reporting by ProPublica “I found it really troubling,” said Council Member Lincoln Restler of ProPublica’s reporting, which focused on the unit that handles the most high-profile police misconduct cases, the Special Federal Litigation Division, or Special Fed. “And I am concerned about the approach of the Law Department over many years.” In response, Sylvia Hinds-Radix, the head of the Law Department, told Restler and the committee that she “vociferously” disagreed with any characterization that agency lawyers fought claims tooth and nail “without evaluating what is before us.” “We have the obligation to defend those things we do,” she said. “And the cases that need to be settled, we evaluate them and settle them.” Left unmentioned in Hinds-Radix’s March 22 testimony was any reference to Jawaun Fraser, whose case provided an almost textbook example of her department’s hardball approach, a strategy that confounded even the judge overseeing the lawsuit. Just a day earlier, a federal jury in Manhattan had awarded Fraser $2 million after city lawyers spent the previous three years fighting him in civil court. Fraser had sued New York and three NYPD detectives after spending two years in prison on a robbery conviction that was later overturned. A jury found not just that officers had fabricated evidence against him but that the city itself was liable for massive failures in NYPD training. Yet for years, city lawyers had treated it as what’s called a “no-pay” case, steadfastly refusing to settle while labeling Fraser a “drug dealer” who was unworthy of “a dime.” They maintained that position even as Fraser’s lawyers revealed numerous inconsistencies and contradictions in the arresting officers’ own testimonies — and as evidence mounted that the NYPD had, for decades, failed to properly train its 35,000-officer force on their legal obligations to disclose certain material, like past lawsuits, that could impact officers’ credibility in court. That violation flew in the face of bedrock legal protections codified by Supreme Court rulings from a half-century ago, beginning with the marquee 1963 case Brady v. Maryland, which requires the government to turn over information favorable to the accused. Amid the revelations, the senior district court judge overseeing the case took the rare step of declaring that she’d “never understood why this was a no-pay case, and I understand it less now.” The judge, Colleen McMahon, went on to say that in her 22 years on the bench, she’d never seen documentation of the city’s constitutional failures “like the evidence I’ve heard in this case.” “I am pretty appalled by what I have heard,” the judge said. A Law Department spokesperson defended Special Fed’s litigation of Fraser’s lawsuit, saying in a statement that after evaluating “all the facts and evidence” agency lawyers “challenged this case all the way to trial.” “While we are disappointed with the verdict, we respect it,” said department spokesperson Nick Paolucci. But Thomas Giovanni, who served as a top official in the Law Department from 2014 until last December, said the agency’s police defense practice too often seeks to justify misconduct after the fact, rather than proactively identifying problems, settling them early and pushing its client to reform. “Are we the oncologist,” he asked of the city lawyer, “or are we the janitor?” Some civil rights lawyers in the city say the Law Department’s conduct in the Fraser case suggests the latter. Fraser’s civil lawsuit centered on a botched buy-and-bust operation that NYPD narcotics officers conducted in a Manhattan public housing project on Oct. 21, 2014 — and the lawsuit history of the detectives who played key roles in Fraser’s arrest. In sworn filings, the police said Fraser confronted an undercover police officer that day, robbing him of a fake New York state license and $20 in drug buy money. Fraser, then 18, denied this, saying that the officer offered up his ID as proof that he wasn’t a cop, and that the detectives framed Fraser for robbery after he merely took a photo of it. Even though no drugs or buy money were discovered on Fraser that day, he was charged based on the detectives’ claims that he stole the undercover officer’s ID. The case hinged on the officers’ testimony versus Fraser’s, and a jury eventually convicted him of a robbery charge. He was sentenced to two years in prison. What that jury didn’t know, and what Fraser’s appellate lawyers , was that six officers involved in his arrest had been named in a total of 35 civil lawsuits. only discovered years after his conviction Yet Fraser’s defense lawyer said he only received two cases from a prosecutor ahead of trial — a lack of disclosure that would later prompt a judge to overturn Fraser’s conviction in 2019. The following year he filed a lawsuit in civil court seeking accountability — and compensation — for the actions of the NYPD detectives who had put him behind bars. In her opening statement last month, though, Special Fed attorney Caroline McGuire’s pitch to jurors was that Fraser was actually guilty of the robbery and was now trying to “trick you into awarding him money.” She pointed to comments Fraser had made to a parole board in which he appeared to accept responsibility for his “crime” — a position Fraser said he only took after older inmates counseled him to express remorse if he wanted to get paroled. McGuire argued that Fraser had been lucky to get his conviction overturned, going so far as to say that his own defense lawyer was partly at fault for the whole ordeal because he hadn’t looked up lawsuits against the officers “despite the fact that it would have taken him only five minutes.” McMahon stopped her. “My first instruction of law, under the Brady rule, a defense lawyer has no obligation to look for lawsuits,” the judge explained. “You had better watch it,” she warned McGuire. After the city lawyer finished, the judge went even further, excusing the jury and summoning to the podium the chief of Special Fed, Patricia Miller, who was watching from the gallery. “Ms. Miller, do you have an explanation for why one of your assistants would come into my courtroom and suggest that a defense lawyer has an obligation to go look up material that he doesn’t have any obligation under Brady to look up?” she asked. Miller told the judge that McGuire hadn’t intended to mislead the jury and was in fact trying to make a point about the relevance of the lawsuits — an argument McGuire’s co-counsel then reiterated. But the judge rejected the city’s position entirely: “I’m here to tell you what came out of Ms. McGuire’s mouth was not permissible,” McMahon said. Over the next week, Fraser’s lawyers pointed out multiple inconsistencies in the various police accounts of Fraser’s arrest, casting doubt on the official narrative of events. Among them: The undercover officer claimed that Fraser had stolen his ID, but no officer testified seeing a detective recover it from Fraser. In fact, only a photocopy of it was later submitted as evidence. Fraser’s lawyers also elicited testimony that went to several officers’ credibility, showing that the undercover officer and another detective had never told the prosecutor in Fraser’s case about a combined eight lawsuits they’d been named in, which alleged false arrest and other civil rights violations, and which settled for $246,500 in total. (The district attorney’s office, which has its own obligation to search for such material, also conducted an incomplete search in Fraser’s case, failing to turn up all the lawsuits the office knew about, a prosecutor testified in Fraser’s civil trial.) As it turned out, the NYPD itself had for decades failed to train its employees on their legal duties to inform the people they arrest of important information that might help their cases. Thousands of pages of internal training materials turned over in the Fraser case revealed that it wasn’t until 2014 — 51 years after Brady was decided and only after New York’s highest court affirmed that records of civil lawsuits had to be turned over — that the NYPD put in writing officers’ disclosure obligations. And even then, the department at first mischaracterized them, not clarifying its instructions until 2017 to include not just information which could exonerate an accused person, but also material that goes to officers' own credibility, such as civil lawsuits. The failure of basic disclosure became all the more remarkable when Fraser’s lawyers learned that the department maintained an extensive database of civil lawsuits against officers — though it would remain largely inaccessible to the cops referenced in it, as well as to prosecutors. A top NYPD lawyer in charge of the database testified that officers and assistant district attorneys interested in finding out about lawsuits could email her. To raise awareness about its existence, she started giving oral presentations to cops about their obligations to know their lawsuit histories beginning in 2014, instructing them about “Googling yourself.” The supervisors who received those training sessions were then supposed to tell rank-and-file officers at roll calls ahead of their tours about their legal responsibilities, the NYPD lawyer said on the stand, a scenario that Judge McMahon likened to the 1980s police procedural “Hill Street Blues.” “I’m flabbergasted by what I have heard in the last two days, I got to tell you, I’m flabbergasted,” McMahon said on March 17. In response to all this, Special Fed’s closing arguments to the jury were fairly straightforward: If they believed that Fraser had committed the 2014 robbery, and thus hadn’t been framed, the rest was moot. To bolster their position, the attorneys returned to Fraser’s two parole board appearances in 2017 and his comments there, including what seemed to be an acknowledgement that he was dealing drugs on the day of his arrest. By his own admission, Fraser had as a teenager sold crack. But he maintained at his civil trial that he’d given up the trade by the time of his arrest and was proud to have landed a job as a sheet metal union apprentice. The jury believed Fraser, and after the weeklong trial deliberated for about a day before finding unanimously in his favor. The city’s approach to the Fraser case may now cost taxpayers more than double what they would otherwise have been liable for. Two years before the jury verdict, Fraser’s lawyers say, they offered to put the matter to rest for $1.6 million, inclusive of attorneys fees. “From then until time of trial, they told us they had no interest in discussing settlement,” said Joel Rudin, one of Fraser’s lawyers. When he asked his adversary at Special Fed why, the answer that came back was revealing. According to Rudin, the city lawyer said he had been told that “higher-ups had made a decision it was a no-pay case,” and that the NYPD “didn’t want to settle.” While the NYPD can offer its opinion on proposed settlements to city lawyers, former Special Fed attorneys say the decision to offer a deal is exclusively theirs — and the city charter gives the city’s chief financial officer, the comptroller, the ultimate authority on whether to cut checks. (The Law Department did not address ProPublica’s questions about the settlement discussions in Fraser’s case.) With attorneys’ fees, the total city cost in Fraser’s case could now jump to $4 million, including a total of $425,000 in punitive damages assigned to three officers in the case. The NYPD did not say whether the detectives have faced any internal disciplinary action or changes to their duties. In a statement, a department spokesperson said officials are “disappointed in the verdict, and remain committed to meeting our disclosure obligations.” The police and law departments also noted that the NYPD has enhanced its efforts to raise awareness around discovery rules in the past decade and took steps to ensure that disclosures are “complete and timely.” As for its approach to civil litigation, the Law Department “takes seriously its obligation to carefully evaluate the merits of each case and challenge claims at trial as necessary,” the agency spokesperson said. But to Fraser’s lawyers and others in the city’s civil rights bar, Special Fed’s posture — and its apparent deference to the NYPD — helps enable the kind of police misconduct at the heart of cases like Fraser’s. A report released this month by the city comptroller found that citywide last fiscal year and that its settlement costs — $237.2 million — were the highest among all city agencies. the NYPD accounted for a third of all tort payouts “There’s still this kind of dismissive approach” in the NYPD about being sued, said Michael Bloch, another of Fraser’s attorneys. “And that is a really fundamental problem that, unfortunately, I think is going to continue to result in people like Jawaun being falsely convicted of crimes.” Indeed, the verdict in Fraser’s case also exposes the city to additional liability in future cases involving NYPD officers’ failure to turn over impeachment material. (Fraser’s lawyers have already identified at least three convictions that were overturned in recent years because of such disclosure failures.) Meanwhile, prosecutors are also dealing with the fallout from the civil case. Given the finding that the undercover officer and another detective had fabricated evidence in Fraser’s case, a spokesperson for the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office said officials in a post-conviction review unit are examining current and past cases that have relied on the officers. Defendants in about 20 open cases brought by the city’s Special Narcotics Prosecutor are being notified of the jury’s verdict, and officials in that office are reviewing past cases as well, a spokesperson there said. Both officers are still on the job. A lawyer for their union didn’t respond to questions. For his part, Fraser said measuring cost is harder than tallying amounts on a verdict sheet. The whole ordeal forced him to leave New York, which he said is no longer “my happy place,” and where he is wary of the police. He now lives in quieter surroundings in suburban New Jersey. He has no plans to return to the city that he called home before he was imprisoned. But the worst part by far was losing those formative years with his children. From his son’s first day of day care to his daughter’s first song and dance at school, these are times with his kids that he said he can never get back. “Sometimes the kids don’t remember it, but I don’t even have that memory to tell them about it,” he said. “Because we didn’t get to do it, because I was incarcerated.” Photo by on Tingey Injury Law Firm Unsplash

His Conviction Was Overturned After Two Years in Prison - The City Refused to Admit It Was Wrong

দুই বছর কারাগারে থাকার পরে তার দোষী সাব্যস্ত করা হয়েছিল - শহরটি ভুল ছিল স্বীকার করতে অস্বীকার করেছিল

Seine Verurteilung wurde nach zwei Jahren Gefängnis aufgehoben – die Stadt weigerte sich, die Unrichtigkeit einzugestehen

Su condena fue anulada después de dos años de prisión; la ciudad se negó a admitir que estaba equivocada

Sa condamnation a été annulée après deux ans de prison – La ville a refusé d'admettre que c'était faux

दो साल जेल में रहने के बाद उनकी सजा पलट दी गई - शहर ने यह मानने से इनकार कर दिया कि यह गलत था

彼の有罪判決は2年間の懲役後に覆された - 市はそれが間違っていたと認めることを拒否した

그의 유죄 판결은 감옥에서 2년 만에 뒤집혔습니다 - 시는 그것이 틀렸다는 것을 인정하지 않았습니다

Sua condenação foi anulada após dois anos de prisão - a cidade se recusou a admitir que estava errado

Его приговор был отменен после двух лет тюремного заключения – город отказался признать, что это было неправильно

Mahkumiyeti İki Yıl Hapis Sonrası Bozuldu - Şehir Yanlış Olduğunu Kabul Etmeyi Reddetti

Bản án của anh ta đã được lật lại sau hai năm ngồi tù - Thành phố từ chối thừa nhận điều đó là sai

他的定罪在入狱两年后被推翻——市政府拒绝承认这是错误的

In recent years, the gaming world has revolutionized with the rise of cryptocurrencies. This innovative blend of gaming and blockchain technology has opened up a new frontier for gamers, developers, and investors alike. As the industry continues to evolve, what can we expect from this exciting intersection of crypto and gaming? Decentralized gaming platforms, powered by blockchain technology, are at the forefront of the crypto-gaming revolution. These platforms offer players true ownership of in-game assets through the use of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). NFTs allow gamers to buy, sell, and trade digital items with real-world value, creating a thriving economy within the game ecosystem. Expect to see more decentralized gaming platforms emerge, offering players unprecedented control over their gaming experience. One of the most revolutionary aspects of crypto gaming is the concept of play-to-earn. Unlike traditional games where players spend countless hours grinding for virtual rewards, crypto games reward players with cryptocurrency for their time and effort. This creates new opportunities for gamers to monetize their skills and gameplay, turning gaming into a lucrative income stream. As play-to-earn mechanics become more prevalent, expect to see a shift in the way gamers approach gaming as both a hobby and a profession. Developers themselves aren’t backing down. They’re creating games that fans can find attractive, with the goal being that these games will become leaders in the field. This interview is with the CCO of iCandy, Lim Jenn Yu, heading the Cryptant Crab Prime Project - a new, groundbreaking blockchain game that is looking to transform the industry in its own way. 1. What is the concept behind your game, and what makes it different? While many have ported web2 games directly into web3, CryptantCrab Prime is made to cater to the unique nature of the web3 community. This expands beyond the somewhat unsustainable play-to-earn mechanics and gets players directly involved in the ecosystem. It revolves around the simple concept of having pairs of elemental crabs that are matched with thousands of other crabs as they rise to the top of the arena. One of the distinctive features of our game is that each Crab is generally hatched with a mish-mash of different parts and each one has a heart that hides a hidden strength that they have. Over time, players are able to either mutate or xenograft these parts or create a perfect Crab combination. By bringing a fusion of Pokemon x Hearthstone x RPG x Web 3, it will create a uniquely different gaming experience. 2. Will CryptantCrab incorporate native tokens? How will they be used? Yes. The Crab Token will serve as the native token on Arbitrum to facilitate our ecosystem. The Crab Token will serve as the key entry ticket for the ETH prize pool Tournament; it is also used to fuel various transactions in empowering CryptantCrabs in our new features Fossil Binding and Stamina Restoration. The new Elemental Enchanter features allow not just involved players but also spectators to have an active stake in the Arena and Tournament results. This opens up a new avenue for involving Token holders in the ecosystem outside the GameFi aspect. 3. Are there any additional prospects for blockchain gaming that you see? The way that I see it, for blockchain gaming, is that it will continue to grow toward a player’s control of their assets and how they can modify, track, and store information. This will be an integral part of the next level of the gaming ecosystem that includes the trade between players. The economic component in the gaming ecosystem is one of the crucial parts that blockchain gaming brings. Opening up greater involvement of player-to-player trade in a transparent manner, the use of the public ledger for assets will greatly benefit players who have to resort to black markets and peer-to-peer trading in conventional web2 games. 4. How do you see blockchain gaming evolving in the future, and the impact this might have on the gaming industry? From the coming trends developing in the gaming industry, we believe that there will be an increase in adoption that will make blockchain gaming indistinguishable from web2 gaming. A lot of blockchain integrations will be on the backend and players will benefit from these with almost no barrier. We are seeing a lot of developers working on Web 3 integration into OAuth2, and we look forward to this development that will truly make full use of blockchain technology for the general masses. Web3 gaming will also introduce new transformative ways for the overall gaming experience. We foresee that Web 3 games will return to having a solid foundation, making sure that they build strong game ecosystem designs while keeping them easily accessible to Web3 audiences. Conclusion Following a market downturn and subsequent recovery, crypto gaming is looking to make a comeback. However, for it to truly be actualized, this sub-industry itself will need to evolve significantly. And with the future itself looking bright, all eyes will be on audacious developers looking to take the landscape by storm. In recent years, the gaming world has revolutionized with the rise of cryptocurrencies. This innovative blend of gaming and blockchain technology has opened up a new frontier for gamers, developers, and investors alike. As the industry continues to evolve, what can we expect from this exciting intersection of crypto and gaming? Decentralized gaming platforms, powered by blockchain technology, are at the forefront of the crypto-gaming revolution. These platforms offer players true ownership of in-game assets through the use of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). NFTs allow gamers to buy, sell, and trade digital items with real-world value, creating a thriving economy within the game ecosystem. Expect to see more decentralized gaming platforms emerge, offering players unprecedented control over their gaming experience. One of the most revolutionary aspects of crypto gaming is the concept of play-to-earn. Unlike traditional games where players spend countless hours grinding for virtual rewards, crypto games reward players with cryptocurrency for their time and effort. This creates new opportunities for gamers to monetize their skills and gameplay, turning gaming into a lucrative income stream. As play-to-earn mechanics become more prevalent, expect to see a shift in the way gamers approach gaming as both a hobby and a profession. Developers themselves aren’t backing down. They’re creating games that fans can find attractive, with the goal being that these games will become leaders in the field. This interview is with the CCO of iCandy, Lim Jenn Yu, heading the Cryptant Crab Prime Project - a new, groundbreaking blockchain game that is looking to transform the industry in its own way. 1. What is the concept behind your game, and what makes it different? While many have ported web2 games directly into web3, CryptantCrab Prime is made to cater to the unique nature of the web3 community. This expands beyond the somewhat unsustainable play-to-earn mechanics and gets players directly involved in the ecosystem. It revolves around the simple concept of having pairs of elemental crabs that are matched with thousands of other crabs as they rise to the top of the arena. One of the distinctive features of our game is that each Crab is generally hatched with a mish-mash of different parts and each one has a heart that hides a hidden strength that they have. Over time, players are able to either mutate or xenograft these parts or create a perfect Crab combination. By bringing a fusion of Pokemon x Hearthstone x RPG x Web 3, it will create a uniquely different gaming experience. 2. Will CryptantCrab incorporate native tokens? How will they be used? Yes. The Crab Token will serve as the native token on Arbitrum to facilitate our ecosystem. The Crab Token will serve as the key entry ticket for the ETH prize pool Tournament; it is also used to fuel various transactions in empowering CryptantCrabs in our new features Fossil Binding and Stamina Restoration. The new Elemental Enchanter features allow not just involved players but also spectators to have an active stake in the Arena and Tournament results. This opens up a new avenue for involving Token holders in the ecosystem outside the GameFi aspect. 3. Are there any additional prospects for blockchain gaming that you see? The way that I see it, for blockchain gaming, is that it will continue to grow toward a player’s control of their assets and how they can modify, track, and store information. This will be an integral part of the next level of the gaming ecosystem that includes the trade between players. The economic component in the gaming ecosystem is one of the crucial parts that blockchain gaming brings. Opening up greater involvement of player-to-player trade in a transparent manner, the use of the public ledger for assets will greatly benefit players who have to resort to black markets and peer-to-peer trading in conventional web2 games. 4. How do you see blockchain gaming evolving in the future, and the impact this might have on the gaming industry? From the coming trends developing in the gaming industry, we believe that there will be an increase in adoption that will make blockchain gaming indistinguishable from web2 gaming. A lot of blockchain integrations will be on the backend and players will benefit from these with almost no barrier. We are seeing a lot of developers working on Web 3 integration into OAuth2, and we look forward to this development that will truly make full use of blockchain technology for the general masses. Web3 gaming will also introduce new transformative ways for the overall gaming experience. We foresee that Web 3 games will return to having a solid foundation, making sure that they build strong game ecosystem designs while keeping them easily accessible to Web3 audiences. Conclusion Conclusion Following a market downturn and subsequent recovery, crypto gaming is looking to make a comeback. However, for it to truly be actualized, this sub-industry itself will need to evolve significantly. And with the future itself looking bright, all eyes will be on audacious developers looking to take the landscape by storm.

CONVINT

convint.ai

1-10 employees

Since 2021

COMPANY RANKING

CONVINT

EVERGREEN INDEX #2816

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Convint WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!

CONVINT

convint.ai

1-10 employees

Since 2021

COMPANY RANKING

CONVINT

EVERGREEN INDEX #2816

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT CONVINT

Representing this company? Click here to claim and customize this page!

Convint WIKI

Apply to get your Tech Company News Page live on HackerNoon.com today!