EvidentIQ

evidentiq

Google Trains Its Employees To Shield Emails And Other Documents From Review 

Google Adopted Policies For Destroying or Hiding Documents

Court Rules Craig Wright Definitely Isn't Satoshi Nakamoto

আদালতের নিয়ম ক্রেগ রাইট অবশ্যই সাতোশি নাকামোতো নন

Gericht entscheidet: Craig Wright ist definitiv nicht Satoshi Nakamoto

La corte dictamina que Craig Wright definitivamente no es Satoshi Nakamoto

Le tribunal décide que Craig Wright n'est définitivement pas Satoshi Nakamoto

कोर्ट ने फैसला सुनाया कि क्रेग राइट निश्चित रूप से सातोशी नाकामोतो नहीं हैं

裁判所はクレイグ・ライトが間違いなくサトシ・ナカモトではないと判決

법원 판결에 따르면 크레이그 라이트는 확실히 나카모토 사토시가 아니다

Tribunal decide que Craig Wright definitivamente não é Satoshi Nakamoto

Суд постановил, что Крейг Райт определенно не Сатоши Накамото

Mahkeme Kararı Craig Wright Kesinlikle Satoshi Nakamoto Değildir

Phán quyết của tòa án Craig Wright chắc chắn không phải là Satoshi Nakamoto

法院裁定 Craig Wright 绝对不是中本聪

Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 16 of 21. VI Not content simply to invent an expansive criminal immunity for former Presidents, the majority goes a dramatic and unprecedented step further. It says that acts for which the President is immune must be redacted from the narrative of even wholly private crimes committed while in office. They must play no role in proceedings regarding private criminal acts. See ante, at 30–32. Even though the majority’s immunity analysis purports to leave unofficial acts open to prosecution, its draconian approach to official-acts evidence deprives these prosecutions of any teeth. If the former President cannot be held criminally liable for his official acts, those acts should still be admissible to prove knowledge or intent in criminal prosecutions of unofficial acts. For instance, the majority struggles with classifying whether a President’s speech is in his capacity as President (official act) or as a candidate (unofficial act). Imagine a President states in an official speech that he intends to stop a political rival from passing legislation that he opposes, no matter what it takes to do so (official act). He then hires a private hitman to murder that political rival (unofficial act). Under the majority’s rule, the murder indictment could include no allegation of the President’s public admission of premeditated intent to support the mens rea of murder. That is a strange result, to say the least.[5] The majority’s extraordinary rule has no basis in law. Consider the First Amendment context. Although the First Amendment prohibits criminalizing most speech, it “does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech,” including its use “to prove motive or intent.” Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U. S. 476, 489 (1993). Evidentiary rulings and limiting instructions can ensure that evidence concerning official acts is “considered only for the proper purpose for which it was admitted.” Huddleston v. United States, 485 U. S. 681, 691– 692 (1988). The majority has no coherent explanation as to why these protections that are sufficient in every other context would be insufficient here. It simply asserts that it would be “untenable” and would deprive immunity of its “‘intended effect.’” Ante, at 31 (quoting Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756). The majority hazards an explanation that the use of official-acts evidence will “raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office.” Ante, at 31. That “unique risk,” however, is not a product of introducing official-acts evidence. It is simply the risk involved in any suit against a former President, including the private-acts prosecutions the majority says it would allow. 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 retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov 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. [5] The majority suggests, in a footnote, that a “prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act,” so long as the prosecutor does not “invite the jury to inspect” the act in any way. Ante, at 32, n. 3. Whatever that suggestion is supposed to accomplish, it does not salvage the majority’s nonsensical evidentiary rule. Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 16 of 21. Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 16 of 21. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here VI Not content simply to invent an expansive criminal immunity for former Presidents, the majority goes a dramatic and unprecedented step further. It says that acts for which the President is immune must be redacted from the narrative of even wholly private crimes committed while in office. They must play no role in proceedings regarding private criminal acts. See ante, at 30–32. Even though the majority’s immunity analysis purports to leave unofficial acts open to prosecution, its draconian approach to official-acts evidence deprives these prosecutions of any teeth. If the former President cannot be held criminally liable for his official acts, those acts should still be admissible to prove knowledge or intent in criminal prosecutions of unofficial acts. For instance, the majority struggles with classifying whether a President’s speech is in his capacity as President (official act) or as a candidate (unofficial act). Imagine a President states in an official speech that he intends to stop a political rival from passing legislation that he opposes, no matter what it takes to do so (official act). He then hires a private hitman to murder that political rival (unofficial act). Under the majority’s rule, the murder indictment could include no allegation of the President’s public admission of premeditated intent to support the mens rea of murder. That is a strange result, to say the least.[5] The majority’s extraordinary rule has no basis in law. Consider the First Amendment context. Although the First Amendment prohibits criminalizing most speech, it “does not prohibit the evidentiary use of speech,” including its use “to prove motive or intent.” Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U. S. 476, 489 (1993). Evidentiary rulings and limiting instructions can ensure that evidence concerning official acts is “considered only for the proper purpose for which it was admitted.” Huddleston v. United States, 485 U. S. 681, 691– 692 (1988). The majority has no coherent explanation as to why these protections that are sufficient in every other context would be insufficient here. It simply asserts that it would be “untenable” and would deprive immunity of its “‘intended effect.’” Ante, at 31 (quoting Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 756). The majority hazards an explanation that the use of official-acts evidence will “raise a unique risk that the jurors’ deliberations will be prejudiced by their views of the President’s policies and performance while in office.” Ante, at 31. That “unique risk,” however, is not a product of introducing official-acts evidence. It is simply the risk involved in any suit against a former President, including the private-acts prosecutions the majority says it would allow. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov 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. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov 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. supremecourt.gov [5] The majority suggests, in a footnote, that a “prosecutor may point to the public record to show the fact that the President performed the official act,” so long as the prosecutor does not “invite the jury to inspect” the act in any way. Ante, at 32, n. 3. Whatever that suggestion is supposed to accomplish, it does not salvage the majority’s nonsensical evidentiary rule.

Presidential Immunity: What's an Official Act vs an Unofficial One?

Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 12 of 21. II The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution. The majority thinks he should, and so it invents an a textual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law. The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President’s exercise of “core constitutional powers.” Ante, at 6. This holding is unnecessary on the facts of the indictment, and the majority’s attempt to apply it to the facts expands the concept of core powers beyond any recognizable bounds. In any event, it is quickly eclipsed by the second move, which is to create expansive immunity for all “official act[s].” Ante, at 14. Whether described as presumptive or absolute, under the majority’s rule, a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution. That is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless. Finally, the majority declares that evidence concerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him. See ante, at 30–32. That holding, which will prevent the Government from using a President’s official acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical. Argument by argument, the majority invents immunity through brute force. Under scrutiny, its arguments crumble. To start, the majority’s broad “official acts” immunity is inconsistent with text, history, and established understandings of the President’s role. See Part III, infra. Moreover, it is deeply wrong, even on its own functionalist terms. See Part IV, infra. Next, the majority’s “core” immunity is both unnecessary and misguided. See Part V, infra. Furthermore, the majority’s illogical evidentiary holding is unprecedented. See Part VI, infra. Finally, this majority’s project will have disastrous consequences for the Presidency and for our democracy. See Part VII, infra. 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 retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov 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. [1] Article II, §4, provides: “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” [2] To note, as the majority does, see ante, at 39, that this Court has recognized civil immunities arguably inconsistent with this view is not to say that Pinckney was wrong about what the Framers had “intended.” Indeed, Pinckney’s contemporaries shared the same view during the ratification debates. See, e.g., 4 Debates on the Constitution 109 (J. Elliot ed. 1836) (J. Iredell) (“If the President does a single act by which the people are prejudiced, he is punishable himself. . . . If he commits any crime, he is punishable by the laws of his country”). Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 12 of 21. Trump v. United States Court Filing, retrieved on July 1, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 12 of 21. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here II The Court now confronts a question it has never had to answer in the Nation’s history: Whether a former President enjoys immunity from federal criminal prosecution. The majority thinks he should, and so it invents an a textual, ahistorical, and unjustifiable immunity that puts the President above the law. The majority makes three moves that, in effect, completely insulate Presidents from criminal liability. First, the majority creates absolute immunity for the President’s exercise of “core constitutional powers.” Ante, at 6. This holding is unnecessary on the facts of the indictment, and the majority’s attempt to apply it to the facts expands the concept of core powers beyond any recognizable bounds. In any event, it is quickly eclipsed by the second move, which is to create expansive immunity for all “official act[s].” Ante, at 14. Whether described as presumptive or absolute, under the majority’s rule, a President’s use of any official power for any purpose, even the most corrupt, is immune from prosecution. That is just as bad as it sounds, and it is baseless. Finally, the majority declares that evidence concerning acts for which the President is immune can play no role in any criminal prosecution against him. See ante, at 30–32. That holding, which will prevent the Government from using a President’s official acts to prove knowledge or intent in prosecuting private offenses, is nonsensical. Argument by argument, the majority invents immunity through brute force. Under scrutiny, its arguments crumble. To start, the majority’s broad “official acts” immunity is inconsistent with text, history, and established understandings of the President’s role. See Part III, infra. Moreover, it is deeply wrong, even on its own functionalist terms. See Part IV, infra. Next, the majority’s “core” immunity is both unnecessary and misguided. See Part V, infra. Furthermore, the majority’s illogical evidentiary holding is unprecedented. See Part VI, infra. Finally, this majority’s project will have disastrous consequences for the Presidency and for our democracy. See Part VII, infra. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov 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. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on July 1, 2024, supremecourt.gov 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. supremecourt.gov [1] Article II, §4, provides: “The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” [2] To note, as the majority does, see ante, at 39, that this Court has recognized civil immunities arguably inconsistent with this view is not to say that Pinckney was wrong about what the Framers had “intended.” Indeed, Pinckney’s contemporaries shared the same view during the ratification debates. See, e.g., 4 Debates on the Constitution 109 (J. Elliot ed. 1836) (J. Iredell) (“If the President does a single act by which the people are prejudiced, he is punishable himself. . . . If he commits any crime, he is punishable by the laws of his country”).

Justice Sotomayor's Dissenting Opinion on Trump v United States

Is a Former President Entitled to Immunity? The U.S. Supreme Court Discusses

From stalking to hacking attempts, since I began work on researching the high failure rate of Agile projects and transformation initiatives, I’ve come face-to-face with the fundamentalism that exists amongst Agile’s most devout followers. When a faith healer’s vulnerable patients succumb to a disease as a result of a sham treatment not working (having usually ‘donated’ a considerable amount of money), the ‘healer’ will often claim it is the patient’s fault as they did not pray hard enough. This has been a topic explored at length by Derren Brown in the TV special Miracles for Sale and theatrically in his Netflix special Miracle. Such a fallacy is often described as a version of the “No true Scotsman” fallacy or an “appeal to purity.” Fundamentalists in the Agile community will often use similar claims when Agile projects will fail. For example, in the article “Failing at Agile? You're Doing It Wrong“, Greg Kihlstrom writes: As an example, you could have the most enthusiastic Scrum Master possible on your team, but if the product team has some naysayers or those who simply don’t follow through or understand what needs to get done, you are going to have challenges. Sometimes this is a matter of education or coaching, and sometimes this is a matter of team dynamics and culture. Determine what is the cause and deal with it accordingly. However, the scientific basis for such a belief does not exist. A November 2021 paper entitled ‘“Best Practice” without Evidence – Agile Software Methodology as Example’ conducted a meta-analysis of numerous reviews of scientific Agile studies and found: “The result of the tertiary study is that, indeed, the evidence for the Agile methodology is scarce at best.” However, this is far from the only cognitive bias adopted by those who take a fundamentalist stance when it comes to Agile. In this article, I would like to focus on the strawmen that are often used to justify the Agile methodology. What is an Agile Strawman? On LinkedIn’s Agile community, it’s not uncommon to see posts like the following - seemingly a conversation that makes an Agile practitioner seem quick-witted and vindicate the methodology in the face of a software engineer who dares question it. It is my personal opinion that these conversations seem to be generally fictitious: The Oxford English Dictionary provides the following as a definition of a strawman: In an argument, debate, etc.: an intentionally weak or misrepresented proposition, set up because it is easier to defeat than, or deflects attention away from, an opponent's real argument, giving the superficial impression that the original charge has been refuted or defeated. However, there are far more deep-rooted strawmen that appear to go to the very heart of the Agile proposition. An article on the SecretGeek website put forward the question: “Is 'Agile' a religion? (or merely a cult)”. Whilst the author asserted that the other dogmatic elements of Agile were indeed in place, from rituals to doctrine, the one area they were on the fence about was whether there was a ‘mythology’ in Agile. I believe these strawmen are fundamentally what forms the mythology of Agile. The Waterfall Myth It is hard to see Agile discussed without discussion of Waterfall. A supposed project management methodology that Agile stands in contrast to. A methodology that requires strictly documented steps and never making any changes. However, this begs the question, where are the Waterfall conferences or user groups, even historically? Perhaps the origins of the methodology will provide us with some clues. In Jon Pearce’s lecture notes at San Jose State University, he states: “The Waterfall Lifecycle Model is the straw man of lifecycle models. It was first described in 1970 by Wynn Royce as an example of a flawed process…” The software developer Christian Findlay made a similar point in a post on X stating: “The waterfall approach is a straw man that never really existed”. However, the situation becomes murkier as we delve further into the history of the Agile. The Toyota Myth The Toyota Production System (TPS) is the spiritual birthplace of the Agile methodology. Despite the overwhelming majority of transformation initiatives failing, many will point to the methodology used by Toyota. However, Toyota itself has a less-than-ideal history when it comes to software engineering. A report in Capitol Weekly states that, “Without admitting liability, Toyota since 2014 has settled 537 claims blaming sudden acceleration for crashes that killed or seriously injured people, according to a court document Toyota filed” in September 2019. These unintended acceleration defects were not just fatal in numerous cases, but in the case of Koua Fong Lee, the defect led not only to a car crash that killed three people and injured others when driving his pregnant wife and children home from church but also led to him being blamed and sentenced to prison. In court proceedings, Toyota had attempted to counter a theory of why the vehicle behaved erratically with claims of robust testing protocols, but shortly before trial, Toyota filed a declaration from that engineer stating that the company actually did no such testing. After refusing to take a plea deal that would have freed him but left him branded as a criminal, Lee was ultimately freed after a retrial was ordered, and the prosecution refused to put the case back to court. The case of Bookout V. Toyota brought Toyota’s software engineering practices to focus after another unintended acceleration defect led to fatalities. During these proceedings, which ultimately found that the software systems could cause unintended acceleration, evidence was shown, including internal communication within Toyota stating “in truth, technology such as failsafe is not part of the Toyota Engineering division’s DNA”: Following this case, Toyota was reported to have adopted a traditional approach to software engineering for high-reliability projects, using the SPARK Ada language where strict design contracts help mathematically verify the correctness of software - an approach adopted in high-reliability environments such as aviation and defense. This approach, known as “design-by-contract,” was originally invented by the French software engineer Bertrand Meyer, who himself wrote the book “Agile!: The Good, the Hype and the Ugly”. Amongst Meyer’s criticisms of Agile are the deprecation of upfront design and the focus on user stories over generalizable specifications. These criticisms are described in more detail in the video - “The Ugly of Agile (with Dr. Bertrand Meyer)” by Edensoft Labs: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Xi4WG-FVT6Q Conclusion The various strawmen in Agile highlight to us the importance we all must have in being critical before adopting solutions that have not yet proven their efficacy. Don’t get me wrong, we don’t need meta-analyses of systematic reviews of randomized control trials to make every judgment in life, but we should be careful when discounting evidence of a higher evidential basis than that of a lower evidential basis (such as those presented to us as dogmatic truth by authority figures). As humans, the stories of transformation, despite the odds, tug at our heartstrings, and we all want to believe there are superheroes who can heal us. However, blind cynicism too can often lead to us shielding ourselves away from the advances that progress society. By seeking to ignore these emotional aspects rather than acknowledge them, we find ourselves more at their mercy when we try to form rational decisions. One of the things I found most remarkable since I wrote the book “Impact Engineering: Transforming Beyond Agile Project Management,” is how the most dogmatic on either side of the Agile opinion divide will ignore the emotional and psychological aspects that indeed form the bulk of the book and are, what the evidence shows to me, rests at the heart of truly successful transformation initiatives. This presents a stark reminder that before we go too far down the rabbit hole, we must remember that the lessons of science and engineering are that questioning orthodoxy and collecting evidence rest at the heart of truly remarkable discoveries. From stalking to hacking attempts, since I began work on researching the high failure rate of Agile projects and transformation initiatives, I’ve come face-to-face with the fundamentalism that exists amongst Agile’s most devout followers. high failure rate When a faith healer’s vulnerable patients succumb to a disease as a result of a sham treatment not working (having usually ‘donated’ a considerable amount of money), the ‘healer’ will often claim it is the patient’s fault as they did not pray hard enough. This has been a topic explored at length by Derren Brown in the TV special Miracles for Sale and theatrically in his Netflix special Miracle . Such a fallacy is often described as a version of the “ No true Scotsman ” fallacy or an “ appeal to purity .” Miracles for Sale Miracles for Sale Miracle Miracle No true Scotsman appeal to purity Fundamentalists in the Agile community will often use similar claims when Agile projects will fail. For example, in the article “ Failing at Agile? You're Doing It Wrong “, Greg Kihlstrom writes: Failing at Agile? You're Doing It Wrong As an example, you could have the most enthusiastic Scrum Master possible on your team, but if the product team has some naysayers or those who simply don’t follow through or understand what needs to get done, you are going to have challenges. Sometimes this is a matter of education or coaching, and sometimes this is a matter of team dynamics and culture. Determine what is the cause and deal with it accordingly. As an example, you could have the most enthusiastic Scrum Master possible on your team, but if the product team has some naysayers or those who simply don’t follow through or understand what needs to get done, you are going to have challenges. Sometimes this is a matter of education or coaching, and sometimes this is a matter of team dynamics and culture. Determine what is the cause and deal with it accordingly. However, the scientific basis for such a belief does not exist. A November 2021 paper entitled ‘ “Best Practice” without Evidence – Agile Software Methodology as Example ’ conducted a meta-analysis of numerous reviews of scientific Agile studies and found: “The result of the tertiary study is that, indeed, the evidence for the Agile methodology is scarce at best.” “Best Practice” without Evidence – Agile Software Methodology as Example “Best Practice” without Evidence – Agile Software Methodology as Example However, this is far from the only cognitive bias adopted by those who take a fundamentalist stance when it comes to Agile. In this article, I would like to focus on the strawmen that are often used to justify the Agile methodology. What is an Agile Strawman? On LinkedIn’s Agile community, it’s not uncommon to see posts like the following - seemingly a conversation that makes an Agile practitioner seem quick-witted and vindicate the methodology in the face of a software engineer who dares question it. It is my personal opinion that these conversations seem to be generally fictitious: The Oxford English Dictionary provides the following as a definition of a strawman: In an argument, debate, etc.: an intentionally weak or misrepresented proposition, set up because it is easier to defeat than, or deflects attention away from, an opponent's real argument, giving the superficial impression that the original charge has been refuted or defeated. In an argument, debate, etc.: an intentionally weak or misrepresented proposition, set up because it is easier to defeat than, or deflects attention away from, an opponent's real argument, giving the superficial impression that the original charge has been refuted or defeated. However, there are far more deep-rooted strawmen that appear to go to the very heart of the Agile proposition. An article on the SecretGeek website put forward the question: “ Is 'Agile' a religion? (or merely a cult) ”. Whilst the author asserted that the other dogmatic elements of Agile were indeed in place, from rituals to doctrine, the one area they were on the fence about was whether there was a ‘mythology’ in Agile. Is 'Agile' a religion? (or merely a cult) Is 'Agile' a religion? (or merely a cult) I believe these strawmen are fundamentally what forms the mythology of Agile. The Waterfall Myth It is hard to see Agile discussed without discussion of Waterfall. A supposed project management methodology that Agile stands in contrast to. A methodology that requires strictly documented steps and never making any changes. However, this begs the question, where are the Waterfall conferences or user groups, even historically? Perhaps the origins of the methodology will provide us with some clues. In Jon Pearce’s lecture notes at San Jose State University, he states: “ The Waterfall Lifecycle Model is the straw man of lifecycle models. It was first described in 1970 by Wynn Royce as an example of a flawed process… ” lecture notes The Waterfall Lifecycle Model is the straw man of lifecycle models. It was first described in 1970 by Wynn Royce as an example of a flawed process… The software developer Christian Findlay made a similar point in a post on X stating : “The waterfall approach is a straw man that never really existed” . a post on X stating “The waterfall approach is a straw man that never really existed” However, the situation becomes murkier as we delve further into the history of the Agile. The Toyota Myth The Toyota Production System (TPS) is the spiritual birthplace of the Agile methodology. Despite the overwhelming majority of transformation initiatives failing, many will point to the methodology used by Toyota. However, Toyota itself has a less-than-ideal history when it comes to software engineering. A report in Capitol Weekly states that, “Without admitting liability, Toyota since 2014 has settled 537 claims blaming sudden acceleration for crashes that killed or seriously injured people, according to a court document Toyota filed” in September 2019. report in Capitol Weekly states These unintended acceleration defects were not just fatal in numerous cases, but in the case of Koua Fong Lee, the defect led not only to a car crash that killed three people and injured others when driving his pregnant wife and children home from church but also led to him being blamed and sentenced to prison. In court proceedings, Toyota had attempted to counter a theory of why the vehicle behaved erratically with claims of robust testing protocols, but shortly before trial, Toyota filed a declaration from that engineer stating that the company actually did no such testing . the company actually did no such testing After refusing to take a plea deal that would have freed him but left him branded as a criminal, Lee was ultimately freed after a retrial was ordered, and the prosecution refused to put the case back to court. refusing to take a plea deal The case of Bookout V. Toyota brought Toyota’s software engineering practices to focus after another unintended acceleration defect led to fatalities. During these proceedings, which ultimately found that the software systems could cause unintended acceleration, evidence was shown, including internal communication within Toyota stating “in truth, technology such as failsafe is not part of the Toyota Engineering division’s DNA”: Following this case, Toyota was reported to have adopted a traditional approach to software engineering for high-reliability projects, using the SPARK Ada language where strict design contracts help mathematically verify the correctness of software - an approach adopted in high-reliability environments such as aviation and defense. was reported This approach, known as “design-by-contract,” was originally invented by the French software engineer Bertrand Meyer, who himself wrote the book “ Agile!: The Good, the Hype and the Ugly ”. Amongst Meyer’s criticisms of Agile are the deprecation of upfront design and the focus on user stories over generalizable specifications. Agile!: The Good, the Hype and the Ugly Agile!: The Good, the Hype and the Ugly These criticisms are described in more detail in the video - “ The Ugly of Agile (with Dr. Bertrand Meyer) ” by Edensoft Labs: The Ugly of Agile (with Dr. Bertrand Meyer) https://youtube.com/watch?v=Xi4WG-FVT6Q https://youtube.com/watch?v=Xi4WG-FVT6Q Conclusion The various strawmen in Agile highlight to us the importance we all must have in being critical before adopting solutions that have not yet proven their efficacy. Don’t get me wrong, we don’t need meta-analyses of systematic reviews of randomized control trials to make every judgment in life, but we should be careful when discounting evidence of a higher evidential basis than that of a lower evidential basis (such as those presented to us as dogmatic truth by authority figures). As humans, the stories of transformation, despite the odds, tug at our heartstrings, and we all want to believe there are superheroes who can heal us. However, blind cynicism too can often lead to us shielding ourselves away from the advances that progress society. By seeking to ignore these emotional aspects rather than acknowledge them, we find ourselves more at their mercy when we try to form rational decisions. One of the things I found most remarkable since I wrote the book “ Impact Engineering: Transforming Beyond Agile Project Management ,” is how the most dogmatic on either side of the Agile opinion divide will ignore the emotional and psychological aspects that indeed form the bulk of the book and are, what the evidence shows to me, rests at the heart of truly successful transformation initiatives. Impact Engineering: Transforming Beyond Agile Project Management Impact Engineering: Transforming Beyond Agile Project Management This presents a stark reminder that before we go too far down the rabbit hole, we must remember that the lessons of science and engineering are that questioning orthodoxy and collecting evidence rest at the heart of truly remarkable discoveries.

The Strawmen of Agile

চটপটে স্ট্রম্যান

Die Strohmannargumente von Agile

Los hombres de paja de Agile

Les hommes de paille de l'Agile

एजाइल के स्ट्रॉमैन

アジャイルの藁人形

애자일의 스트로맨

Os espantalhos do Agile

Соломенные люди Agile

Çevikliğin Çöp Adamları

Những người rơm của Agile

敏捷的稻草人

Authors:
(1) P Aditya Sreekar, Amazon and these authors contributed equally to this work {sreekarp@amazon.com};
(2) Sahil Verm, Amazon and these authors contributed equally to this work {vrsahil@amazon.com;}
(3) Varun Madhavan, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. Work done during internship at Amazon {varunmadhavan@iitkgp.ac.in};
(4) Abhishek Persad, Amazon {persadap@amazon.com}. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction
Related Works
Methodology
Experiment
Conclusion and Future Work
References References Alexander Amini, Wilko Schwarting, Ava Soleimany, and Daniela Rus. Deep evidential regression. CoRR, abs/1910.02600, 2019. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1910.02600. Sercan O Arik, Engin Gedik, Kenan Guney, and Umut Atilla. Tabnet: Attentive interpretable tabular learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 10951–10961, 2019. Christopher M Bishop. Pattern recognition and machine learning. In Springer, chapter 2, pages 36–43. 2006. Leo Breiman. Random forests. Machine learning, 45(1):5–32, 2001. Jintai Chen, Kuanlun Liao, Yao Wan, Danny Z Chen, and Jian Wu. Danets: Deep abstract networks for tabular data classification and regression. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 3930–3938, 2022. Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 785–794, 2016. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Jill Burstein, Christy Doran, and Thamar Solorio, editors, Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019. doi: 10.18653/v1/n19-1423. URL https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/n19-1423. Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. ICLR, 2021. Nick Erickson, Jonas Mueller, Alexander Shirkov, Hang Zhang, Pedro Larroy, Mu Li, and Alexander Smola. Autogluon-tabular: Robust and accurate automl for structured data, 2020. William Falcon and The PyTorch Lightning team. PyTorch Lightning, 3 2019. URL https: //github.com/Lightning-AI/lightning. Jerome H Friedman. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Annals of statistics, pages 1189–1232, 2001. Yuan Gong, Yu-An Chung, and James Glass. AST: Audio Spectrogram Transformer. In Proc. Interspeech 2021, pages 571–575, 2021. doi: 10.21437/Interspeech.2021-698. Yury Gorishniy, Ivan Rubachev, Valentin Khrulkov, and Artem Babenko. Revisiting deep learning models for tabular data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:18932–18943, 2021. Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, and Jerome Friedman. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009. Hussein Hazimeh, Natalia Ponomareva, Petros Mol, Zhenyu Tan, and Rahul Mazumder. The tree ensemble layer: Differentiability meets conditional computation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4138–4148. PMLR, 2020. Xin Huang, Ashish Khetan, Milan Cvitkovic, and Zohar Karnin. Tabtransformer: Tabular data modeling using contextual embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.06678, 2020. Guolin Ke, Qi Meng, Thomas Finley, Taifeng Wang, Wei Chen, Weidong Ma, Qiwei Ye, and Tie-Yan Liu. Lightgbm: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30:3146–3154, 2017. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014. Daniele Micci-Barreca. A preprocessing scheme for high-cardinality categorical attributes in classification and prediction problems. SIGKDD Explor. Newsl., 3(1):27–32, jul 2001. ISSN 1931-0145. doi: 10.1145/507533.507538. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/507533. 507538. Sergei Popov, Stanislav Morozov, and Artem Babenko. Neural oblivious decision ensembles for deep learning on tabular data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06312, 2019. Liudmila Prokhorenkova, Gleb Gusev, Alexey Vorobev, Anna Dorogush, and Andrey Gulin. Catboost: unbiased boosting with categorical features. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31:6638–6648, 2018. Gowthami Somepalli, Micah Goldblum, Avi Schwarzschild, C Bayan Bruss, and Tom Goldstein. Saint: Improved neural networks for tabular data via row attention and contrastive pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.01342, 2021. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 5998–6008, 2017. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. Authors: (1) P Aditya Sreekar, Amazon and these authors contributed equally to this work {sreekarp@amazon.com}; (2) Sahil Verm, Amazon and these authors contributed equally to this work {vrsahil@amazon.com;} (3) Varun Madhavan, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. Work done during internship at Amazon {varunmadhavan@iitkgp.ac.in}; (4) Abhishek Persad, Amazon {persadap@amazon.com}. Authors: Authors: (1) P Aditya Sreekar, Amazon and these authors contributed equally to this work {sreekarp@amazon.com}; (2) Sahil Verm, Amazon and these authors contributed equally to this work {vrsahil@amazon.com;} (3) Varun Madhavan, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur. Work done during internship at Amazon {varunmadhavan@iitkgp.ac.in}; (4) Abhishek Persad, Amazon {persadap@amazon.com}. Table of Links Abstract and Introduction Related Works Methodology Experiment Conclusion and Future Work References Abstract and Introduction Abstract and Introduction Related Works Related Works Methodology Methodology Experiment Experiment Conclusion and Future Work Conclusion and Future Work References References References Alexander Amini, Wilko Schwarting, Ava Soleimany, and Daniela Rus. Deep evidential regression. CoRR, abs/1910.02600, 2019. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1910.02600. Sercan O Arik, Engin Gedik, Kenan Guney, and Umut Atilla. Tabnet: Attentive interpretable tabular learning. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 10951–10961, 2019. Christopher M Bishop. Pattern recognition and machine learning. In Springer, chapter 2, pages 36–43. 2006. Leo Breiman. Random forests. Machine learning, 45(1):5–32, 2001. Jintai Chen, Kuanlun Liao, Yao Wan, Danny Z Chen, and Jian Wu. Danets: Deep abstract networks for tabular data classification and regression. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, volume 36, pages 3930–3938, 2022. Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pages 785–794, 2016. Jacob Devlin, Ming-Wei Chang, Kenton Lee, and Kristina Toutanova. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In Jill Burstein, Christy Doran, and Thamar Solorio, editors, Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, NAACL-HLT 2019, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2-7, 2019, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers), pages 4171–4186. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019. doi: 10.18653/v1/n19-1423. URL https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/n19-1423. Alexey Dosovitskiy, Lucas Beyer, Alexander Kolesnikov, Dirk Weissenborn, Xiaohua Zhai, Thomas Unterthiner, Mostafa Dehghani, Matthias Minderer, Georg Heigold, Sylvain Gelly, Jakob Uszkoreit, and Neil Houlsby. An image is worth 16x16 words: Transformers for image recognition at scale. ICLR, 2021. Nick Erickson, Jonas Mueller, Alexander Shirkov, Hang Zhang, Pedro Larroy, Mu Li, and Alexander Smola. Autogluon-tabular: Robust and accurate automl for structured data, 2020. William Falcon and The PyTorch Lightning team. PyTorch Lightning, 3 2019. URL https: //github.com/Lightning-AI/lightning. Jerome H Friedman. Greedy function approximation: a gradient boosting machine. Annals of statistics, pages 1189–1232, 2001. Yuan Gong, Yu-An Chung, and James Glass. AST: Audio Spectrogram Transformer. In Proc. Interspeech 2021, pages 571–575, 2021. doi: 10.21437/Interspeech.2021-698. Yury Gorishniy, Ivan Rubachev, Valentin Khrulkov, and Artem Babenko. Revisiting deep learning models for tabular data. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34:18932–18943, 2021. Trevor Hastie, Robert Tibshirani, and Jerome Friedman. The elements of statistical learning: data mining, inference, and prediction. Springer Science & Business Media, 2009. Hussein Hazimeh, Natalia Ponomareva, Petros Mol, Zhenyu Tan, and Rahul Mazumder. The tree ensemble layer: Differentiability meets conditional computation. In International Conference on Machine Learning, pages 4138–4148. PMLR, 2020. Xin Huang, Ashish Khetan, Milan Cvitkovic, and Zohar Karnin. Tabtransformer: Tabular data modeling using contextual embeddings. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.06678, 2020. Guolin Ke, Qi Meng, Thomas Finley, Taifeng Wang, Wei Chen, Weidong Ma, Qiwei Ye, and Tie-Yan Liu. Lightgbm: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30:3146–3154, 2017. Diederik P Kingma and Jimmy Ba. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980, 2014. Daniele Micci-Barreca. A preprocessing scheme for high-cardinality categorical attributes in classification and prediction problems. SIGKDD Explor. Newsl., 3(1):27–32, jul 2001. ISSN 1931-0145. doi: 10.1145/507533.507538. URL https://doi.org/10.1145/507533. 507538. Sergei Popov, Stanislav Morozov, and Artem Babenko. Neural oblivious decision ensembles for deep learning on tabular data. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06312, 2019. Liudmila Prokhorenkova, Gleb Gusev, Alexey Vorobev, Anna Dorogush, and Andrey Gulin. Catboost: unbiased boosting with categorical features. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 31:6638–6648, 2018. Gowthami Somepalli, Micah Goldblum, Avi Schwarzschild, C Bayan Bruss, and Tom Goldstein. Saint: Improved neural networks for tabular data via row attention and contrastive pre-training. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.01342, 2021. Ashish Vaswani, Noam Shazeer, Niki Parmar, Jakob Uszkoreit, Llion Jones, Aidan N Gomez, Lukasz Kaiser, and Illia Polosukhin. Attention is all you need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 5998–6008, 2017. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. This paper is available on arxiv under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 DEED license. available on arxiv

Unveiling the Power of Self-Attention for Shipping Cost Prediction: References

শিপিং খরচ পূর্বাভাসের জন্য স্ব-মনোযোগের শক্তি উন্মোচন: তথ্যসূত্র

Die Macht der Selbstaufmerksamkeit zur Vorhersage von Versandkosten enthüllen: Referenzen

Revelando el poder de la autoatención para la predicción de costos de envío: referencias

Dévoiler le pouvoir de l’auto-attention pour la prévision des coûts d’expédition : références

शिपिंग लागत की भविष्यवाणी के लिए स्व-ध्यान की शक्ति का अनावरण: संदर्भ

配送コスト予測における自己注意の力を明らかにする: 参考文献

배송비 예측을 위한 자기주의의 힘 공개: 참고자료

Revelando o poder da autoatenção para previsão de custos de envio: referências

Раскрытие силы самовнимания для прогнозирования стоимости доставки: ссылки

Nakliye Maliyeti Tahmininde Kişisel Dikkatin Gücünü Ortaya Çıkarma: Referanslar

Khám phá sức mạnh của sự chú ý trong việc dự đoán chi phí vận chuyển: Tài liệu tham khảo

揭示自注意力机制在运输成本预测中的作用：参考文献

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Ayei E. Ibor, Trustworthy Digital Infrastructure for Identity Systems, The Alan Turing Institute, United Kingdom; (2) Mark Hooper, Trustworthy Digital Infrastructure for Identity Systems, The Alan Turing Institute, United Kingdom; (3) Carsten Maple, Trustworthy Digital Infrastructure for Identity Systems, The Alan Turing Institute, United Kingdom; (4) Gregory Epiphaniou, WMG, University of Warwick, United Kingdom. Table of Links Abstract & Introduction Background Review of Literature Methodology Discussion of Findings Conclusion and Future Work & References 4. Methodology To underscore the importance of interoperability in developing countries, an investigation and comparison of current interoperability solutions in the identity ecosystem was performed. This investigation identified the current limitations of existing solutions and provided the basis for our findings, which are relevant to achieving interoperability for foundational identity systems in developing nations. As a guide, we have presented an approach for the investigation of requirements in Figure 2. The approach in Figure 2 is an easy stepwise guide. The steps include: i) Identify key processes against which baseline requirements should be derived: these processes are already identified in this work. ii) Define common interoperability criteria for eID schemes in candidate countries: this is an important step that must be fulfilled based on the identified key processes of step 1. iii) Baseline requirements against common interoperability criteria, select and compare country-specific eID schemes with current interoperability solutions such as eIDAS and X-Road: this step allows for the identification of common functionalities among eID schemes relative to defined common interoperability criteria. iv) Decide on the benchmarking requirements: it is important to decide on the benchmarking requirements to adequately scope the functional requirements useful for a fully functional interoperable system. v) Use benchmarking requirements against specific eID schemes: using benchmarking requirements against specific eID schemes is useful for identifying missing requirements and functionalities. vi) Identify and scope common functional requirements between eID schemes: this is a significant step that ensures that all requirements for interoperability are adequately captured. vii) Perform requirements gap analysis by identifying missing requirements between eID schemes for all processes defined and recording the differences between eID schemes: the missing requirements must be identified in this step concerning the processes defined in step 1. All significant differences between eID schemes must be recorded (e.g. in Africa and Europe). viii) Define missing capabilities to fulfil newly established requirements: it may be necessary to define missing capabilities in the investigated eID schemes that are relevant to the identified requirements to realise an interoperable identity system. However, this may not be the case where such eID schemes fulfil most of the baseline requirements for interoperability. 4.1 Current Interoperability Solutions For the creation of effective, long-lasting, and usable identity ecosystems, interoperability is essential. Two major interoperability solutions in the identity ecosystem are discussed in this research. These include the Estonian X-Road and the electronic identification and trust services (eIDAS) of the European Union. X-Road is a data exchange layer solution that implements the interoperability of information systems. It allows organisations to exchange data through a secure channel over the Internet. This solution is centrally managed but supports a distributed exchange layer that provides a standardised and secure channel for producing and consuming services (X-Road, 2023a, 2023b). X-Road enhances the confidentiality, integrity, and interoperability between organisations that rely on it for data exchange (Bakhtina et al., 2022; Saputro et al., 2020). Jointly implemented by Estonia and Finland, it has been adopted by several countries and organisations (Saputro et al., 2020). As stated in Solvak et al. (2019), X-Road establishes online connections between service providers and data registries (such as the Population Register, Health Insurance Register, etc.). The citizens who use the X-Road system only give their information to the government once, and the public authority then stores and exchanges the information among itself via the X-Road system (Bhattarai et al., 2019). By signing the messages with the X-Road member's signature key and using a mutually authorised Transport Layer Security (TLS) channel, security servers guarantee the integrity and secrecy of the exchanged messages. By recording the exchanged messages and routinely timestamping the message logs, the signed communications' long-term evidential value is protected. To obtain information on the validity of certificates and timestamp-signed messages, the security servers communicate with trust services. In terms of message exchange, the trust service calls are asynchronous (X-Road, 2023c, 2023d). To exchange messages between a service client and a service provider, three protocols are used. These include X-Road message protocol, X-Road message transport protocol, and OCSP response retrieval protocol (X-Road, 2020). When an interested party such as an organisation joins an X-Road ecosystem, certificates issued by a reputable Certification Authority (CA) are used to verify the identification of each organization and security server. Each security server serves as the technical entry point that manages access control on the organisation level during the data exchange process between registered X-Road members (European Commission, 2023a; X-Road, 2023a). The combination of timestamping and a digital signature ensures that data delivered via X-Road cannot be disputed. On the other hand, eIDAS is a European Union’s framework to ensure that electronic transactions between businesses, citizens, and public agencies are safer and more efficient, regardless of the European country they take place in. It is established by a European Regulation that was implemented in 2014. By introducing a common framework for eID and trust services, the eIDAS regulation makes it easier to supply business services across the EU. It encourages interoperability across the 28 EU nations, making certain that nations mutually recognise each other's electronic identities and trust services across borders (Mocanu et al., 2019). The goal of electronic identification is to completely transform how customers engage with online services. The Member States of the EU may choose to identify citizens electronically. A small number of Member States have created national programs to provide their citizens with electronic identity (eID), with greatly diverse architectures (Lips, Bharosa and Draheim, 2020). National systems, therefore, vary not only in the volume of citizen data they process but also in the degree of data protection they provide to this data. As claimed by Cuijpers and Schroers (2014) and Hölbl, Kežmah and Kompara (2023), businesses and customers can more easily access services or conduct commercial transactions by using electronic identity, or eID, to identify who they are (identification process) and demonstrate that they are who they claim to be (authentication process). Similarly, the regulation stipulates that it will be necessary for all EU nations to accept notified eID systems from other nations by September 2018. When conducting electronic transactions, especially those between firms and clients who are based in another EU country, trust services attempt to improve the trust of EU residents and enterprises (Sharif et al., 2022). The trust services in eIDAS as discussed in ANSSI (2023) and European Commission (2023b) include Electronic Signature (eSignature), Electronic Seal (eSeal), Electronic Timestamp (eTimestamp), Website Authentication Certificates (WACs), and Electronic Registered Delivery Service (eDelivery). eIDAS has been exploited by both the public and private sectors in the EU. Some of the sectors that have benefited from the regulation include the financial services, online retail, transport, and professional services sectors. One of the largest potential beneficiaries of eID and trust services is the financial services industry due to the possibility of enormous commercial opportunities and enhanced cross-border services (Cuijpers and Schroers, 2014; European Commission, 2023b). To meet rising client demand for online services as well as stricter compliance requirements, the identification, authentication, and safeguarding of transactions in the financial services sector are becoming increasingly digitised. 4.2 Comparison of X-Road and eIDAS as Interoperability Solutions The comparison of X-Road and eIDAS is given in Figure 3. This comparison is performed based on identity creation and management, proof of identity, creating and issuing identity credentials, issuing a derived credential, managing the identity credential lifecycle, granting access to an identity holder, data exchange mechanism, security of identification data, and privacy of identification data. This paper is available on under CC 4.0 license. Arxiv

The Methods We Used to Investigate and Compare Cross-Border Interoperable Identity Systems

Let's learn about via these 63 free stories. They are ordered by most time reading created on HackerNoon. Visit the to find the most read stories about any technology. Space /Learn Repo 1. Exodus from Mars Mother Earth, the womb of the solar system. Every other place, foster homes for her unwanted children. What is next? 2. The Impact of Web3 and Blockchain on the Space Industry How can Web3 and Blockchain, two new technologies that are more associated with grifting and scams have anything to do with the space race? 3. Lets Go Beyond Nuclear Fusion and Extract Energy from Blackholes I actually have been thinking about this for many years, and up until recently it has been confirmed. This is nothing new, as cosmologist and thermonuclear physicist Yakov Zeldovich have discussed this nearly half a century ago. 4. The Westall UFO Incident Explained In Under 5 Minutes The Westall UFO [incident] occurred on April 6, 1966, in the Melbourne suburb of Westall, Victoria, Australia. The incident involved multiple reports of... 5. DIY Tutorial: Building a System to Track and Communicate with Satellites in Orbit The purpose of my project is to build a system for tracking satellites in orbit and will make it possible to communicate with the satellites 6. Why Every Company Will Eventually Become a Space Company At some point, every company will become a space company. Sounds stupid at the moment but soon all companies will want to be part of the industry. Here's how. 7. How Twilio Sent Code to Space In a first of its kind mission, Twilio invited participants to launch their code into the stratosphere, and have it run in space. 8. “A robot army isn’t an ideal opponent, but I would have a water gun” Naturally, another good portion of the population would be trying to destroy everything around them for stupidity’s sake. 9. I'll pick up the check - from space! Everyone is all like, don't come back from space Jeff, but let me you tell you something, I am single and ready to mingle. 10. Can Mankind Survive as an Interplanetary Species? Humanity is well on the way to becoming an interplanetary species, but can we overcome the challenges of survival on another planet? 11. With Close to $100 million in Total Sales in Metaverses, NFTs Are Boosting Commerce in Metaverses Space is a 3D virtual world experience which provides its citizens powerful tools to create content, build businesses, interact collaboratively, and own and mon 12. Nominee Paul Bailey is Building the Future of Automated Space Systems Paul Bailey from the United States has been nominated for a 2020 Noonie in the Software Development category. He is a System Architect at CognitiveSpace, a company performing R&D in the field of aerospace engineering. 13. How to Build SpaceX’s Starship The Starship is a reusable heavy-lift launch vehicle (rocket) designed to travel to space with cargo and humans on board. 14. What Is Elon Musk's Deal with Space Colonization and Underpopulation? Elon Musk is just too busy to explain why we should worry more about underpopulation than the overpopulation problem. 15. Videos About Space We Shouldn't Undervalue ▶️ Ok, let's explore a few cool videos that I think a lot of addicted to space people should watch. 16. This Swiss Company is Building a Constellation of Nano-Satellites Astrocast is a company working to provide 100% of global coverage for IoT with an innovative constellation of nano-satellites. 17. Student Spaceshot Rocket Clubs — Part 1 (USA) In the past few years, liquid propulsion and spaceshot rocket clubs have popped up at high schools and colleges worldwide. Let's take a look at some of them. 18. Everything You Need to Know About Nasa's Perseverance Rover NASA's latest and greatest $2.7 Billion rover, Perseverance, was launched on July 30, 2020. It was a huge deal, and you're probably confused as to why. NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab manufactured Percy, and it is expected to land on Mars on February 18, 2021. Though it looks like a tiny robot to the eye, it is the size of an SUV and weighs 1025 kg (2260 lb). Let's start with the purpose of the whole mission. Perseverance serves four purposes. 19. Starship Transformer: Launch And Land Anywhere  Even In Wind The moment SpaceX mastered rocket engine vectoring all kinds of cool new space ship design possibilities suddenly opened. 20. What is SpaceX's Starlink Project? - A Brief Summary SpaceX is preparing to deliver high-speed internet to the world by sending about 30 thousand satellites into the Earth's orbit. 21. Tesla Cybertruck: Built for Mars, Available on Earth Elon Musk is known for his incredibly ambitious, multi-year visions for the future. Tesla’s initial Master Plan, funding cheap vehicles with expensive ones, was realized with the Model 3. Now the Cybertruck is part of a whole new Master Plan that has much more to do with SpaceX than Tesla. You might love the Cybertruck, or you might hate it, but it was never designed for you. Cybertruck was designed to be extremely rugged, Mars rugged. 22. Merging The Galaxies With The Metaverse Space research meets the metaverse using advanced technologies like blockchain, AI, VR and cryptocurrency. Explore multiple use cases of metaverse in space and 23. We Need Some SPACE: What Is Missing From DORA? The SPACE framework offers a holistic approach which takes into account wellbeing, collaboration and satisfaction alongside the usual performance metrics. 24. Fermi Paradox: Is Earth on Quarantine? Someone asks me a year ago about what Fermi Paradox is. And it's not a simple question, especially when you dig deeper. So I'm sharing a list of excellent clips that you might enjoy. Especially with recent news from our science friends - I think this article should be published. 25. Sustainable Agriculture, Space Colonization, And Food Security Challenges As humans colonize space, advances in key agricultural technologies are key to achieving long term survivability and also help Earth at the same time. 26. On MoonDAO's Unending Ambition to Decentralize The Space Industry MoonDAO will stop at nothing to decentralize the space industry, or so it seems, and with a consortium of 1,000 crypto investors throwing 2,620 ETH behind it 27. A Beginner's Guide for Alien Invaders Exclusively on HackerNoon! An original never-before-published science fiction story! 28. The Minkowski's Four-Dimensional Space Relativity: The Special and General Theory by Albert Einstein is part of HackerNoon’s Book Blog Post series. 29. Always Bet Musk's Oxen! Fresh off the Virgin Martian Express, Jackson had a layover at the Blue Origin moon base. He was trying to get to the Starbase Autonomous Zone 30. Why SpaceX’s Historic Starship Flight Wasn't a “Failure” This week, the coverage of one of humanity’s most impressive milestones was reduced to a climax of fire. Starship didn’t fail. Science divulgation, however, might have. 31. The Noonification: Can Mankind Survive as an Interplanetary Species?  (10/20/2022) 10/20/2022: Top 5 stories on the Hackernoon homepage! 32. Advancements in Airplane Tech Could Lead Major Airports to Become Spaceports Hypersonic aviation is going to open up more opportunities than it realises and airports need to be on the ball to become spaceports themselves. 33. Why Netflix’s Squid Game is NOT Close to Reality I'm not thrilled, and I'm far away from being obsessed with Netflix's Squid Game. 34. The Universe is So Big, Aliens Must Exist This Slack discussion by Utsav Jaiswal, Arthur, Patrick Lee (Mentor) and Limarc occurred in hackernoon's official #slogging-beta channel. 35. Spacecraft Engineering Models: How to Migrate UML to TypeQL How to map UML to TypeQL. Read how the European Space Agency migrated their spacecraft engineering models from UML to TypeQL for use in a TypeDB database. 36. Big ‘Earth Observation’ Data: Challenges and Applications As nearly a thousand Earth observation satellites currently orbit the planet, terabytes of remote sensing data and satellite imagery of land, vegetation, water bodies, glaciers, urban landscapes, and other geographic features become available for end users across multiple industries. Modern GIS systems allow the collection of all such geospatial data in one place for a comprehensive analysis of the area under study. 37. SpaceX Starlink Master Plan A parody, not written by Elon Musk 38. The Computational Infrastructure Behind Habidatum Location Risk Score Learn about space-time indexing at scale using quadkeys and clickhouse. 39. UFOs: Five things we can be pretty sure about technologically superior civilizations If we believe in evolution then, however, sophisticated form of life they are. They probably evolved from the simplest life forms  daily fighting for survival. 40. Main Reasons To Build Intelligent Space Stations With An Artificial Gravity It’s been the dream of many space enthusiasts from the 1960s to live in an intelligent artificial gravity space station ever since it was popularized by NASA chief scientist Von Braun and the legendary film: ‘Space Odyssey: 2001’. Unfortunately, generating artificial gravity for astronauts was not a priority for NASA as astronauts were able to reduce some of the impact of weightlessness on their bodies thanks to a ruthless exercise regimen. Further, a ship that contains a centrifuge for generating artificial gravity would be extremely expensive to launch to orbit. So, NASA ended up sticking with a compact and modular station that is more affordable with their budget and that doesn’t deal with weightlessness risk and accepted the risks it posed to astronauts in the international space station. Below is a comprehensive list of health risks astronauts face in the zero-g space station. Weightlessness risks are highlighted in the red box. 41. Quantum Origin, CosmicOS, and Lambda Calculus In regards to Quantum Origin, you may have read my post from June. This is a follow up to it. In our observable universe, it seems infinite in terms of the scale everything is in, whether going on in the micro, nano or cosmic scales and beyond. I followed up on the fact that there are certain mathematical patterns in regards to everything and I'm evidentially wanting to make a theory of everything. Proof in regards to my mathematical proposals in terms of computation would be solving the holy grail of man's biggest questions. While I'm confident in regards to the math and the way things are structured, there are things I have thought about in regards to taking things a step further. 42. About Man's Need to Go to Space Human Expansion: the space industrialization 43. Building a Decentralized and Uncensorable Internet — The Nexus Protocol Building a Decentralized and Uncensorable Internet — The Nexus Protocol 44. NASA Discovers Evidence of ‘Water Worlds’ in Deep Space Scientists have spotted two water worlds, Kepler-138 c and Kepler-138 d, that they think could be teeming with water. 45. How Starlink is Disrupting the Internet Starlink, by SpaceX, will provide internet from the constellation of low Earth orbit satellites with low latency and high speed compared to submarine cables. 46. The United States Lost the Space Race With the discovery of water ice on the moon, a self-sufficient base becomes a real possibility. We're going to the moon, but only if some corporation takes us. 47. In Memoriam: the Fallen Defenders of G'oldurree When We Are Gone, Will There Be Anyone to Mourn Our Passing? 48. First-ever Image Of A Multi-planet System Around A Sun-like Star In this thread, the HackerNoon Community discusses their thoughts on scientific evolution, its consequences, and our favorite Hubble images. 49. Spacetex: Clothes Made for Space, the Fiber Behind Gravity Spacetex textile is changing the game in fashion introducing subcategories such as Dystopian Fashion and Techwear. 50. Latin America Seeks its Riches in Space by Reaching Jupiter in 30 Days JOVE is a novel solar-powered mission that will use the solar wind's momentum, speed, and direction as the propulsive thrust to reach Jupiter in 30 days 51. The REAL Life of Pi: Ethereal, Romantic, Mysterious And Completely Memorizing “Probably no symbol in mathematics has evoked as much mystery, romanticism, misconception and human interest as the number Pi” ~William L. Schaaf, Nature and History of Pi. π 52. Space Exploration: New Frontier For Technological Innovations From the earliest known periods of human history, people have always been fascinated by the big yellow ball that provided light and heat, the tiny light dots shimmering in and regularly recurring tailed streaks dashing across the night sky. We wanted to know more about those objects, but the crippling limitations in our knowledge and technology didn’t allow that. 53. Starhopper: The Prototype Of Starship By SpaceX SpaceX is a space exploration company owned by a genius and a visionary Elon Musk who’s also the CEO of Tesla Inc. The main goal of SpaceX is to make space travel and exploration easy and efficient. Throughout the years, Elon Musk has done a lot of amazing things and has stayed completely open to the questions of the people. I think that Elon Musk’s transparency is his best quality. Anyways, let’s take a closer look at the latest advancement of SpaceX. 54. Can Satellites Help Combat Global Warming? In this slogging thread, our technology channel took the chance to discuss this news about the possibility of satellites helping fight global warming. 55. The Ongoing Mars Missions: Are We Ready to Live on the Red Planet? Back in the '60s, we saw the biggest and heated space race to the moon and now we are in the space race to Mars. The coming year is going to bring some exciting news and adventures about life on Mars. NASA is not alone this time either, there are several other space agencies sending Mars missions. But why are these space organizations spending their millions on such missions? Just to know one thing— could humans live on Mars? Does life exist on the red planet? 56. What 2021 Scientific Discovery Excited You the Most? In this slogging thread, our community shared their favorite scientific discoveries of the year. 57. The Long Game in the Space Industry: Why the Need to Transcend Requires Time and Effort Monica’s log, Stardate… I have been wanting to articulate some of my thoughts about the notion of time and effort for the space industry. Allow me to state some of my premises in advance. 58. Houston, We Have a Problem. There’s Not Enough Women on this Spaceship! Celebrate this Intentional Holiday with Girls that Rule the World! 59. The Space Tech Startup Making Our Internet A Better Place With Lasers🖖 Greetings, humans. I remote chat this afternoon with Rohit Jha, the CEO & Co-Founder of Transcelestial Technologies, a startup building light speed communications infrastructure for the next 100 years. 60. Visualizing Asteroids in Python with Bokeh and NASA APIs A GET request to the Astronomy Picture of the Day (APOD) web service on September 18, 2020, returned the above photo of the spiral galaxy Arp 78.  APOD is one of many APIs available through NASA Open APIs.  Like APOD, some include imagery, such as the Earth Polychromatic Imaging Camera (EPIC) API, which returns images like this: 61. Into Space MANY of my readers will remember the mysterious radio messages which were heard by both amateur and professional short wave operators during the night 62. NexOS, Internet of Things (IoT), And Beyond: Part I Understanding the inspiration and history behind Nexus helps convey the current vision. This is the first of three articles covering pertinent aspects of Nexus’ history in which the context is set for the burgeoning NexOS (Nexus Operating System), and its innovative security principles are introduced. 63. Argentina’s Steady And Visionary Path To Space Is An Inspiring Tale Which path is required for us to reach new worlds? Argentina’s history in the space industry shows an unwavering course of perseverance and resilience. Thank you for checking out the 63 most read stories about Space on HackerNoon. to find the most read stories about any technology. Visit the /Learn Repo

63 Stories To Learn About Space

Stories, News & Mentions about EVIDENTIQ

Evidentiq’s Stories on HackerNoon