EvidentLaw

A Floating City and The Blockade Runners by Jules Verne, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . Chapter XXXIII here CHAPTER XXXIII. The storm was gathering, and a black arch of clouds had formed over our heads; the atmosphere was misty; nature was evidently about to justify Dr. Pitferge’s presentiments. The steam-ship had slackened her speed, and the wheels only made three or four revolutions a minute; volumes of white steam escaped from the half-open valves, the anchor-chains were cleared, and the British flag floated from the main-mast; these arrangements Captain Anderson had made preparatory to mooring. The pilot, standing on the top of the starboard paddle, guided the steam-ship through the narrow passages; but the tide was already turning, so that the “Great Eastern” could not yet cross the bar of the Hudson, and we must wait till next day. At a quarter to five by the pilot’s order the anchors were let go; the chains rattled through the hawse-holes with a noise like thunder. I even thought for a moment that the storm had burst forth. When the anchors were firmly embedded in the sand, the “Great Eastern” swung round by the ebb tide, remained motionless, and not a wave disturbed the surface of the water. At this moment the steward’s trumpet sounded for the last time; it called the passengers to their farewell dinner. The “Society of Freighters” would be prodigal with the champagne, and no one wished to be absent. An hour later the saloons were crowded with guests, and the deck deserted. However, seven persons left their places unoccupied; the two adversaries, who were going to stake their lives in a duel, the four seconds, and the Doctor, who was to be present at the engagement. The time and the place for the meeting had been well chosen; there was not a creature on deck; the passengers were in the dining-rooms, the sailors in their berths, the officers absorbed with their own particular bottles, and not a steersman on board, for the ship was motionless at anchor. At ten minutes past five the Doctor and I were joined by Fabian and Captain Corsican. I had not seen Fabian since the scene in the smoking-room. He seemed to me sad, but very calm. The thought of the duel troubled him little, apparently; his mind was elsewhere, and his eyes wandered restlessly in search of Ellen. He held out his hand to me without saying a word. “Has not Harry Drake arrived?” asked the Captain of me. “Not yet,” I replied. “Let us go to the stern; that is the place of rendezvous.” Fabian, Captain Corsican, and I, walked along the upper decks; the sky was growing dark; we heard the distant roar of thunder rumbling along the horizon. It was like a monotonous bass, enlivened by the hips and hurrahs issuing from the saloons; flashes of lightning darted through the black clouds, and the atmosphere was powerfully charged with electricity. At twenty minutes past five Harry Drake and his seconds made their appearance. The gentlemen bowed to us, which honour we strictly returned. Drake did not utter a word, but his face showed signs of ill-concealed excitement. He cast a look of malignant hatred on Fabian; but the latter, leaning against the hatchway, did not even see him; so absorbed was he in a profound meditation, he seemed not yet to have thought of the part he was to play in this drama. In the meanwhile Captain Corsican, addressing himself to the Yankee, one of Drake’s seconds, asked him for the swords, which the latter presented to him. They were battle swords, the basket-hilts of which entirely protected the hand which held them. Corsican took them, bent, and measured them, and then allowed the Yankee to choose. Whilst these preparations were being made, Harry Drake had taken off his hat and jacket, unbuttoned his shirt, and turned up his sleeves; then he seized his sword, and I saw that he was left-handed, which gave him, accustomed to right-handed antagonists, an unquestionable advantage. Fabian had not yet left the place where he was standing. One would have thought that these preparations had nothing to do with him. Captain Corsican went up to him, touched him, and showed him the sword. Fabian looked at the glittering steel, and it seemed as if his memory came back to him at that moment. He grasped his sword with a firm hand. “Right!” he murmured; “I remember!” Then he placed himself opposite Harry Drake, who immediately assumed the defensive. “Proceed, gentlemen,” said the Captain. They immediately crossed swords. From the first clashing of steel, several rapid passes on both sides, certain extrications, parries, and thrusts proved to me the equality in strength of the opponents. I augured well for Fabian. He was cool, self-possessed, and almost indifferent to the struggle; certainly less affected by it than were his own seconds. Harry Drake, on the contrary, scowled at him with flashing eyes and clenched teeth, his head bent forward, and his whole countenance indicative of a hatred which deprived him of all composure. He had come there to kill, and kill he would. After the first engagement, which lasted some minutes, swords were lowered. With the exception of a slight scratch on Fabian’s arm, neither of the combatants had been wounded. They rested, and Drake wiped off the perspiration with which his face was bathed. The storm now burst forth in all its fury. The thunder was continuous, and broke out in loud deafening reports; the atmosphere was charged with electricity to such an extent that the swords were gilded with luminous crests, like lightning conductors in the midst of thunder clouds. After a few moments’ rest, Corsican again gave the signal to proceed, and Fabian and Harry Drake again fell to work. This time the fight was much more animated; Fabian defending himself with astounding calmness, Drake madly attacking him. Several times I expected a stroke from Fabian, which was not even attempted. Suddenly, after some quick passes, Drake made a rapid stroke. I thought that Fabian must have been struck in the chest, but, warding off the blow, he struck Harry Drake’s sword smartly. The latter raised and covered himself by a swift semi-circle; whilst the lightning rent the clouds overhead. Suddenly, and without anything to explain this strange surrender of himself, Fabian dropped his sword. Had he been mortally wounded without our noticing it? The blood rushed wildly to my heart. Fabian’s eyes had grown singularly animated. “Defend yourself,” roared Drake, drawing himself up like a tiger ready to spring on to his prey. I thought that it was all over with Fabian, disarmed as he was. Corsican threw himself between him and his enemy, to prevent the latter from striking a defenceless man; but now Harry Drake in his turn stood motionless. I turned, and saw Ellen, pale as death, her hands stretched out, coming towards the duellists. Fabian, fascinated by this apparition, remained perfectly still. “You! you!” cried Harry Drake to Ellen; “you here!” His uplifted blade gleamed as though on fire; one might have said it was the sword of the archangel Michael in the hands of a demon. Suddenly a brilliant flash of lightning lit up the whole stern. I was almost knocked down, and felt suffocated, for the air was filled with sulphur; but by a powerful effort I regained my senses. I had fallen on one knee, but I got up and looked around. Ellen was leaning on Fabian. Harry Drake seemed petrified, and remained in the same position, but his face had grown black. Had the unhappy man been struck when attracting the lightning with his blade? Ellen left Fabian, and went up to Drake with her face full of holy compassion. She placed her hand on his shoulder; even this light touch was enough to disturb the equilibrium, and Drake fell to the ground a corpse. Ellen bent over the body, whilst we drew back terrified. The wretched Harry Drake was dead. “Struck by lightning,” said Dean Pitferge, catching hold of my arm. “Struck by lightning! Ah! will you not now believe in the intervention of thunder?” Had Harry Drake indeed been struck by lightning as Dean Pitferge affirmed, or rather, as the doctor on board said, had a blood-vessel broken in his chest? I can only say there was nothing now but a corpse before our eyes. About HackerNoon Book Series: We bring you the most important technical, scientific, and insightful public domain books. This book is part of the public domain. Jules Verne (2022). A Floating City and The Blockade Runners. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved October 2022 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/67829/67829-h/67829-h.htm This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at , located at . www.gutenberg.org https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html

Nature was evidently about to justify Dr. Pitferge’s presentiments

Performance Analysis of Diverse Hateful Meme Detection Datasets

Decoding Success: Case Studies of 3 Successful Tech Enterprises

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

Finding and retaining active users is a constant pain point for any business, and in the brave new world of Web3 technology, it is a battlefield swarming with bots, lukewarm participants, and unethical practices that ebb away trust and confidence. Many projects constantly grapple with identifying genuine users who are actively engaged in the DeFi space. However, the emergence of Artificial Intelligence (AI) promises to be a game changer as it offers a powerful tool to cut through the noise and identify high-quality users. In most cases, Web3 projects rely on outdated strategies like airdrops and gamified quests to attract users and grow their communities. While these methods might provide a spurt of activity or result in a temporary hype, they often fail to capture long-term engagement, which is a fundamental requirement for a sustainable growth pattern. Take for instance, airdrops are widely used to attract participants solely interested in free crypto tokens, and gamified tasks can bring about liquidity challenges when rewards are no longer forthcoming. While they offer a semblance of growth, these methods fail to differentiate between users who are genuinely interested in the project's goals and functionality, and those who are only involved for quick monetary gains. How AI Is Transforming the User Engagement Landscape Artificial Intelligence is no longer a buzzword. It is a reality that is unfolding in our everyday lives. The impact of AI in the crypto ecosystem has mostly been a positive one. Crypto platforms like BonusBlock and DIA are utilizing AI to analyze on-chain data, which paints a detailed picture of a user's behavior within the DeFi ecosystem. AI models have been deployed in the following instances: Protocol interactions: This is to determine how frequently a user interacts with different protocols. Token diversity: To help identify the number of tokens a user holds as a means of indicating a broader interest across the DeFi space. Liquidity: This underlines how AI can be used to track a user’s contributions to liquidity pools, signifying a stake in the DeFi market's health. Staking: Determining a user’s interest in staking is a way to measure his commitment to specific projects. Governance: Voting in governance proposals indicates a user's active involvement in shaping DeFi protocols. By analyzing this data, AI can identify users who are financially active and genuinely engaged with DeFi, weeding out bots, airdrop farmers, and those with only a passing interest. Example 1: Bonus Block In this example, AI is primarily deployed by Bonus Block, a web3 engagement protocol, to facilitate user acquisition through BONUS, its native token. Users receive rewards in the form of the platform’s token for their on-chain activity, a strategy designed to encourage them to actively participate in the DeFi space. Through this means, users with higher engagement scores, identified through AI analysis, gain greater visibility to projects seeking qualified users. Example 2: DIA, an AI-powered platform, deploys cross-chain oracles to assess a user's creditworthiness in the DeFi ecosystem. The key purpose it serves is to allow projects to identify users who are trusted borrowers and lenders. Benefits of AI-centric Approach Acquiring users in web3 utilizing an AI-powered approach creates a win-win situation for users and projects. It gives web3 projects access to genuinely interested users who are more likely to be converted to long-term members of the community. Users, on the other hand, can leverage their on-chain activity to showcase their value and potentially earn rewards from projects seeking their engagement. Additionally, AI can be used to analyze user sentiment on social media platforms to gauge interest in specific projects and identify potential early users. The Future of Web3 User Acquisition While AI-based user acquisition is still a new marketing experiment, it promises to transform how users are acquired and retained in web3. It goes to show that the success of any web3 project does not only lie in their marketing strategies, but in building genuine connections. AI will feature prominently in the future when the need to leverage AI for intelligent targeting, personalized experiences, and community engagement, arises.  It will help Web3 projects grow a loyal user base that actively contributes to the growth and sustainability of Defi. Conclusion AI is ushering in a new era in web3 user acquisition, offering a better alternative to traditional airdrops and gamified concepts. By analyzing on-chain data and identifying active users, it can provide a solution to the prevalence of bots and unethical practices. With the help of AI, blockchain projects can reach high-quality users who are more likely to become loyal members. As AI continues to attract significant attention in web3, its potential to reshape Web3 user acquisition entirely is evidently present, helping us to imagine a future that is built on genuine engagement and mutual benefit for both projects and users.

AI In Web3 User Acquisition: Exploring Bonus Block And DIA

USA v. Samuel Bankman-Fried Court Filing, retrieved on March 15, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 25 of 33. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here II. A Sentence of 40 to 50 Years Is Necessary to Protect the Public and for Specific Deterrence Under Section 3553(a), the need for the sentence to “protect the public from further crimes of the defendant” and “afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct” must be considered. 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(B), (C). Here, a sentence in the range of 40 to 50 years, but short of a life sentence, is necessary to serve this purpose. As this Court has observed previously in sentencing a defendant, “[i]t’s very easy sometimes … to say, well, look at all the trouble the defendant has gotten himself into, look at the harm that’s been done to his family, look at the loss he suffered himself, there is no way he’ll ever do something like this again.” United States v. Laguardia, No. 19 Cr. 893 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2021) (Sent. Tr. at 45). But “in the case of someone who, at least when they got into it, thought everything was going to work out fine,” there is the possibility that “the next time temptation comes along, you’ll think it will work out fine, too, and the bad outcome the first time was a mistake,” and so the sentence must “reflect[] some of that risk.” (Id.) Indeed, the fact that a past fraud does not necessarily deter a future one is evidenced by the number of first-time fraudsters in this district who have become recidivists. See, e.g., United States v. Jonathan Ghertler, No. 23 Cr. 100 (ER) (investment fraud scheme following over a dozen prior convictions); United States v. Franklin Ray, No. 22 Cr. 228 (AT) (orchestrating a Ponzi scheme after having served a prior twoyear sentence for bank and wire fraud); United States v. Vitaly Borker, No. 22 Cr. 273 (JSR) (defendant convicted of wire fraud for operation of fraudulent eyeglasses website after two prior federal convictions for the same conduct); United States v. Joseph Meli, No. 19 Cr. 480 (RA) (defendant convicted of participating in a Broadway ticket resale investment fraud scheme after previously serving a 78 month sentence for the same scheme); United States v. Edward Durante, No. 15 Cr. 171 (ALC) (beginning a new investment fraud scheme while serving a 121 month sentence for fraud); United States v. John Galanis, No. 15 Cr. 643 (PKC) (defendant convicted of securities fraud after 1973 and 1988 convictions for mail fraud and securities fraud). The risk of recidivism here is real, and little of the defendant’s sentencing submission addresses it. It is necessary that the sentence imposed disable the defendant from being in a position in the future where he could perpetrate a fraud. A sentence that resulted in the release of the defendant while he is at a working age would leave open the very real possibility that he perpetrates again. That is the case for several reasons. First, the defendant’s criminal conduct to date demonstrates that the defendant is undeterred from criminal conduct based on the potential to damage to others, the possibility of incarceration, or respect for the law or the common ethical and moral understandings that members of society observe in every-day life. Bankman-Fried not only engaged in one of the largest frauds in history, but he demonstrated a willingness to engage in other criminal conduct with impunity. He committed what is believed to be the largest campaign finance offense of all time. He authorized the payment of a foreign bribe in excess of $100 million. He broke the federal laws around licensing, and lied to a bank. That track record makes clear that this defendant is uninhibited when it comes to engaging in additional criminal conduct. Second, the defendant’s time on pretrial supervision shows that even when the defendant is confronted with the imminent prospect of a substantial restraint on his liberty, he is not deterred from engaging in criminal conduct. As the Court knows well, prior to being detained, the defendant had several infractions during his period of home incarceration. Those repeatedly resulted in further restrictions and admonitions from the Court. Nonetheless, believing he would get away with it, the defendant engaged in witness tampering. While the severity of that conduct pales in comparison to what he did to FTX’s customers and investors, it is evidence of the fact that a restriction on the defendant’s liberty alone is not a deterrent to future misconduct. Third, the defendant’s sentencing submission asserts “[h]e will never again be in the position of running a financial company, or accepting customers’ funds.” (Def. Mem. at 69). But the defendant’s say so does not make it true. There is a significant likelihood that if the defendant is released back into society at a young enough age he will have the opportunity to engage in another fraud. Con artists who turn back to crime after being caught take advantage of humanity’s willingness to extend a second chance, the shortness of society’s memory, and recidivists’ ability to persuade people that things are not what they seem to be. The defendant has already proven adept at crafting a self-serving public image, and his sentencing submission itself shows that he is already attempting to reframe his crimes as mere mistakes or misunderstandings. And so it is conceivable that someday, if he is released from prison, the defendant will start anew, launch a new cryptocurrency exchange or another business, which he will say has been done the right way because he has learned his lesson. And people may hand over their money again, and history could repeat itself. That is not just speculation. In the days following FTX’s bankruptcy, and even after the defendant had been indicted, he mused about launching “Archangel LTD,” which would be an alternative to FTX’s bankruptcy and would result in the re-launching of an exchange. (Ex. B, Google Document by Samuel Bankman-Fried). He mused about ideas for restoring his image, like “focus on the fact that the Chapter 11 team has no idea how to run FTX” and is “run by a cartel of lawyers,” “come out as extremely pro crypto, pro freedom,” “go on Tucker Carlsen, come out as a republican,” “have Michael Lewis interview me,” “radical honesty on Twitter,” or some other narrative like “SBF died for our sins.” (Exs. C and D, Google Documents by Samuel BankmanFried). The point is that the defendant is motivated to launch his redemption narrative and has already been thinking about how to spin it. It is realistic that he will settle on a narrative, lean into it, and convince other people to part with their money based on lies and the promise of false hope. And, of course, one does not need to run a large company to instill confidence in others and then abuse that confidence for personal gain. Fourth, the defendant may feel compelled to do this fraud again, or a version of it, based on his use of idiosyncratic, and ultimately for him pernicious, beliefs around altruism, utilitarianism, and expected value to place himself outside of the bounds of the law that apply to others, and to justify unlawful, selfish, and harmful conduct. Time and time again the defendant has expressed that his preferred path is the one that maximizes his version of societal value, even if imposes substantial short term harm or carries substantial risks to others. During trial, Ellison told a story about the defendant’s willingness to take risks: “He talked about being willing to take large coin flips, like a coin flip where—if it comes up tails, you might lose $10 million, but if it comes up heads, you might make slightly more than $10 million,” and he “talked about this in the context of thinking about what was good for the world, saying that he would be happy to flip a coin, if it came up tails and the world was destroyed, as long as if it came up heads the world would be like more than twice as good.” (Tr. 694-95). The defendant talked about this concept on Twitter, saying that “[i]f you look at the scale of funds spent on disease, global warming, emerging technological risk, animal welfare, nuclear warfare safety, etc., you get numbers reaching into the trillions,” and “when the backdrop is trillions of dollars, there’s essentially no risk aversion on the scale of thousands or millions.” (Ex. E, Twitter thread by Samuel Bankman-Fried). He added that that “mean[s] you should be willing to accept a significant chance of failing to do much good sometimes…. And that’s ok. If it was the right play in EV [expected value], sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.” (Id.) And in the days after FTX’s collapse, the defendant told the journalist Kelsey Piper in a conversation he believed was off the record that while he had previously said a person should not “do unethical shit for the greater good,” that was “not true,” just a “PR” answer, and the ethics stuff was mostly a “front.”[12] Of course, the criminal law does not select among personal philosophies or punish particular moral codes. But it does punish equally someone who claims that their unlawful conduct was justified by some personal moral system, and the goals of sentencing require consideration of the way in which the defendant’s manipulation of intellectual and moral philosophy to justify his illegal and harmful conduct makes it likely that he will reoffend. In this case, the defendant’s professed philosophy has served to rationalize a dangerous brand of megalomania—one where the defendant is convinced that he is above the law and the rules of the road that apply to everyone else, who he necessarily deems inferior in brainpower, skill, and analytical reasoning. The trial evidence made clear that the defendant justified enriching and aggrandizing himself, burnishing his own image, and putting billions of dollars of other people’s money at his own disposal, because he believed in the virtue of his own power, decision-making, superiority, and spending. By that same token, the defendant believed and appears still to believe that it is rational and necessary for him to take great risks including imposing those risks on others, if he determines that it will serve what he personally deems a worthy project or goal, even if the risks he takes are unethical, illegal, and likely to result in a “loss.” Under this philosophy, if the defendant is released from prison, and has the opportunity to advance his own distorted version of what is best for him and society, even if it requires breaking the law and harming others, he should do that again. Indeed, according to his sentencing submission, by his own “calculations” the “expected value of his life” is presently in the “negative territory.” (Def. Mem. at 68). Such a calculus will inevitably lead him to trying again. And, evidently, the possibility of further incarceration would not alter that value calculus. Thus, the defendant’s sentence needs to be of a sufficient enough length that it will not just deter a white collar defendant, but that it will disable this defendant from committing crimes again. See, e.g., United States v. Valente, 915 F.3d 916, 925 (2d Cir. 2019) (Lynch, J., concurring) (noting that the purposes of sentencing in Section 3553(a)(2) include “protecting the public from future crimes the defendant might commit (incapacitation)”). The defendant argues in his sentencing submission that the collateral consequences of his conviction, and the loss of his personal assets are sufficient punishment. (Def. Mem. at 64-65). But everything about the defendant’s history suggests such damage and discomfort will not deter him. While the Government does not believe the defendant needs to spend the rest of his life in prison to protect the public, a sentence of 40 to 50 years is necessary to ensure that the defendant cannot be released from prison and given the opportunity to commit fraud again. Continue Reading . Here [12] Kelsey Piper, Sam Bankman-Fried Tries to Explain Himself, Vox (Nov. 16, 2022), https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/23462333/sam-bankman-fried-ftx-cryptocurrency-effectivealtruism-crypto-bahamas-philanthropy. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on March 15, 2024, 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. storage.courtlistener

Why Sam Bankman-Fried Must Get a 40–50 Year Sentence

Comparing Tools for Fitting Mutational Signatures: The Results of Our Work

For a change of pace, I'd like to do a bit of a dev log. Some time ago, I participated in a game jam and made this game – – a short puzzle game, where you place cheese around the maze to lure the mice out. It was fun, but there were evidently some shortcomings. Of Mice and Bad Choices One of the major ones is the behavior of mice is unintuitive. The players mentioned that they would expect mice to be repelled by a disliked cheese, not just freeze. Plus, implementing this mechanic would allow for a much more rich puzzle design. So, I think this is a good opportunity how automated testing can be done in Godot. Testing Tools There are a few testing frameworks that are available for Godot 4, but the one that caught my I is . GUT is pretty simple: Godot Unit Test (GUT) It can be installed from AssetLib in one click. It provides a class that we can extend for our test scripts: just add functions starting with and write some assertations – typical unit test structure. test_ It has a nice UI with the ability to use Godot's debugger and run individual tests. It can be run from CLI and in CI (but I will deal with this later). My Testing Framework For this particular case, I wanted to have a way of defining complex scenarios, the same way I define levels for the game – in engine editor rather than in code (this way, the tests would be closer to reality). Hence, I want to do these things: Have a single runner function that takes a map in and runs the tests. Have a collection of maps, each having a set of scenarios (test cases) to execute. Have a way to define test cases in a drag-n-drop way: place a mouse, and set where it should be in N turns. So, let's unwrap this. Test Case Definitions Let's define a new class `MouseTestCase.` We want it to inherit (as we want to place it on a scene. And we want it to find to of its children (that we will place on a scene ourselves): a mouse and its expected final position (as a Marker) Node2D extends Node2D
class_name MouseTestCase

@export var steps_left = 0 # How many steps to simulate
@export var done = false

@onready var mouse: Mouse = $Mouse
@onready var expected_position = SnapUtils.get_tile_map_position($TestMarker.position) Now, we can put it on a scene, and we are good! We know where a mouse starts, we know where it should end up, and in how many steps. Test Maps Now, let's make a bunch more of them, and make a map to test our repellent behavior. This behavior is somewhat complex, hence, we want to cover many slightly different cases: A mouse wants to move away from the disliked cheese/ A mouse wants to keep the direction of movement (i.e., avoids turns) A mouse prefers left turns to right and U-turns The resulting map defining 12 test cases to cover this behavior is shown above (imagine how tedious it could be to hard code all those coordinates in code). Test Runner The only thing left to do is the test runner function. The function needs to: Load the map we've defined above. Simulate game steps forward until all test cases are done. On each step, iterate over all test cases, and if they are done, check whether the expected position is reached. The code is quite simple. func run_level_with_mouse_test_cases(map_path: String):
	var level = load(map_path)
	map.load_level(level)
	
	var cases = MouseTestCase.cast_all_cases(get_tree().get_nodes_in_group(MouseTestCase.MTC_GROUP_NAME))
	
	while (cases.any(func(case): return not case.done)):
		map.move_mice()
		for case in cases:
			if not case.done:
				case.steps_left -= 1
				if case.steps_left == 0:
					case.done = true
					assert_eq(case.get_mouse_position(), case.expected_position, case.get_parent().name+"/"+case.name) I imagine this will evolve, but the current implementation is good enough for now. I've written the tests, implemented the mechanic, and the tests actually confirm that the mechanic is implemented correctly! Discussions Here, I've shown one way to approach the tests in games. Obviously, there are many more things to improve here, and I encourage readers to take the code and the framework and adapt it to their needs. As always, the code is available on GitHub: You can also have a look at that introduces testing. For bonus points, if someone can make them work in CI, that'd be brilliant. Cheers. https://github.com/d-lowl/of-mice-and-bad-choices the specific PR

Testing in Godot: How I Personally Approach It

গডট-এ পরীক্ষা: আমি ব্যক্তিগতভাবে এটিকে কীভাবে গ্রহণ করি

Testen in Godot: Wie ich persönlich daran herangehe

Pruebas en Godot: cómo las abordo personalmente

Tests dans Godot : comment je l'aborde personnellement

गोडोट में परीक्षण: मैं इसे व्यक्तिगत रूप से कैसे अपनाता हूं

Godot でのテスト: 私個人のアプローチ方法

Godot에서 테스트하기: 개인적으로 접근하는 방법

Testes em Godot: como eu abordo isso pessoalmente

Тестирование в Godot: как лично я к этому подхожу

Godot'ta Test Yapmak: Kişisel Olarak Buna Nasıl Yaklaşıyorum?

Thử nghiệm ở Godot: Cá nhân tôi tiếp cận nó như thế nào

Godot 中的测试：我个人是如何处理它的

EVIDENTLAW

evidentlaw.com

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

EVIDENTLAW

EVERGREEN INDEX #4458

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

EvidentLaw WIKI

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

EVIDENTLAW

evidentlaw.com

-- employees

Since n.d.

COMPANY RANKING

EVIDENTLAW

EVERGREEN INDEX #4458

RELATED COMPANIESRANK

STORIES ABOUT EVIDENTLAW

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

EvidentLaw WIKI

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