Fountain9

fountain9

Startups of The Year 2023 Winners: North America 

Scientific American, Vol. XXXIX. No. 6. [New Series.], August 10, 1878, by Various, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . FOUNTAIN PENS. here FOUNTAIN PENS. For several days we have had in use in our office examples of the Mackinnon Fountain Pen, and find it to be a very serviceable and effective instrument. This is a handsome looking pen, with a hollow handle, in which a supply of ink is carried, and the fluid flows from the point in the act of writing. The necessity of an inkstand is thus avoided. One of the difficulties heretofore with pens of this character has been to insure a free and certain delivery of the ink, and also to bring the instrument within the compass and weight of an ordinary pen. The inventor seems to have admirably succeeded in the example before us. The ink flows with certainty, and there is no scratching as with the ordinary pen; it writes with facility on either smooth or rough paper; writes even more smoothly than a lead pencil; may be carried in the pocket; is always ready for use; there is no spilling or blotting of ink. The construction is simple, durable, and the action effective. One filling lasts a week or more, according to the extent of use. These are some of the qualities that our use of the pen so far has seemed to demonstrate; and which made us think that whoever supplies himself with a Mackinnon Pen will possess a good thing. The sole agency is at No. 21 Park Row, New York city. 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. Various (2013). Scientific American, Vol. XXXIX. No. 6. [New Series.], August 10, 1878. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/19406/pg19406-images.html 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

FOUNTAIN PENS

Moby-Dick; or The Whale, by Herman Melville is part of HackerNoon’s Book Blog Post series. You can jump to any chapter in this book here: . Chapter 85: The Fountain [LINK TO TABLE OF LINK] CHAPTER 85. The Fountain. That for six thousand years—and no one knows how many millions of ages before—the great whales should have been spouting all over the sea, and sprinkling and mistifying the gardens of the deep, as with so many sprinkling or mistifying pots; and that for some centuries back, thousands of hunters should have been close by the fountain of the whale, watching these sprinklings and spoutings—that all this should be, and yet, that down to this blessed minute (fifteen and a quarter minutes past one o’clock P.M. of this sixteenth day of December, A.D. 1851), it should still remain a problem, whether these spoutings are, after all, really water, or nothing but vapor—this is surely a noteworthy thing. Let us, then, look at this matter, along with some interesting items contingent. Every one knows that by the peculiar cunning of their gills, the finny tribes in general breathe the air which at all times is combined with the element in which they swim; hence, a herring or a cod might live a century, and never once raise its head above the surface. But owing to his marked internal structure which gives him regular lungs, like a human being’s, the whale can only live by inhaling the disengaged air in the open atmosphere. Wherefore the necessity for his periodical visits to the upper world. But he cannot in any degree breathe through his mouth, for, in his ordinary attitude, the Sperm Whale’s mouth is buried at least eight feet beneath the surface; and what is still more, his windpipe has no connexion with his mouth. No, he breathes through his spiracle alone; and this is on the top of his head. If I say, that in any creature breathing is only a function indispensable to vitality, inasmuch as it withdraws from the air a certain element, which being subsequently brought into contact with the blood imparts to the blood its vivifying principle, I do not think I shall err; though I may possibly use some superfluous scientific words. Assume it, and it follows that if all the blood in a man could be aerated with one breath, he might then seal up his nostrils and not fetch another for a considerable time. That is to say, he would then live without breathing. Anomalous as it may seem, this is precisely the case with the whale, who systematically lives, by intervals, his full hour and more (when at the bottom) without drawing a single breath, or so much as in any way inhaling a particle of air; for, remember, he has no gills. How is this? Between his ribs and on each side of his spine he is supplied with a remarkable involved Cretan labyrinth of vermicelli-like vessels, which vessels, when he quits the surface, are completely distended with oxygenated blood. So that for an hour or more, a thousand fathoms in the sea, he carries a surplus stock of vitality in him, just as the camel crossing the waterless desert carries a surplus supply of drink for future use in its four supplementary stomachs. The anatomical fact of this labyrinth is indisputable; and that the supposition founded upon it is reasonable and true, seems the more cogent to me, when I consider the otherwise inexplicable obstinacy of that leviathan in having his spoutings out, as the fishermen phrase it. This is what I mean. If unmolested, upon rising to the surface, the Sperm Whale will continue there for a period of time exactly uniform with all his other unmolested risings. Say he stays eleven minutes, and jets seventy times, that is, respires seventy breaths; then whenever he rises again, he will be sure to have his seventy breaths over again, to a minute. Now, if after he fetches a few breaths you alarm him, so that he sounds, he will be always dodging up again to make good his regular allowance of air. And not till those seventy breaths are told, will he finally go down to stay out his full term below. Remark, however, that in different individuals these rates are different; but in any one they are alike. Now, why should the whale thus insist upon having his spoutings out, unless it be to replenish his reservoir of air, ere descending for good? How obvious is it, too, that this necessity for the whale’s rising exposes him to all the fatal hazards of the chase. For not by hook or by net could this vast leviathan be caught, when sailing a thousand fathoms beneath the sunlight. Not so much thy skill, then, O hunter, as the great necessities that strike the victory to thee! In man, breathing is incessantly going on—one breath only serving for two or three pulsations; so that whatever other business he has to attend to, waking or sleeping, breathe he must, or die he will. But the Sperm Whale only breathes about one seventh or Sunday of his time. It has been said that the whale only breathes through his spout-hole; if it could truthfully be added that his spouts are mixed with water, then I opine we should be furnished with the reason why his sense of smell seems obliterated in him; for the only thing about him that at all answers to his nose is that identical spout-hole; and being so clogged with two elements, it could not be expected to have the power of smelling. But owing to the mystery of the spout—whether it be water or whether it be vapor—no absolute certainty can as yet be arrived at on this head. Sure it is, nevertheless, that the Sperm Whale has no proper olfactories. But what does he want of them? No roses, no violets, no Cologne-water in the sea. Furthermore, as his windpipe solely opens into the tube of his spouting canal, and as that long canal—like the grand Erie Canal—is furnished with a sort of locks (that open and shut) for the downward retention of air or the upward exclusion of water, therefore the whale has no voice; unless you insult him by saying, that when he so strangely rumbles, he talks through his nose. But then again, what has the whale to say? Seldom have I known any profound being that had anything to say to this world, unless forced to stammer out something by way of getting a living. Oh! happy that the world is such an excellent listener! Now, the spouting canal of the Sperm Whale, chiefly intended as it is for the conveyance of air, and for several feet laid along, horizontally, just beneath the upper surface of his head, and a little to one side; this curious canal is very much like a gas-pipe laid down in a city on one side of a street. But the question returns whether this gas-pipe is also a water-pipe; in other words, whether the spout of the Sperm Whale is the mere vapor of the exhaled breath, or whether that exhaled breath is mixed with water taken in at the mouth, and discharged through the spiracle. It is certain that the mouth indirectly communicates with the spouting canal; but it cannot be proved that this is for the purpose of discharging water through the spiracle. Because the greatest necessity for so doing would seem to be, when in feeding he accidentally takes in water. But the Sperm Whale’s food is far beneath the surface, and there he cannot spout even if he would. Besides, if you regard him very closely, and time him with your watch, you will find that when unmolested, there is an undeviating rhyme between the periods of his jets and the ordinary periods of respiration. But why pester one with all this reasoning on the subject? Speak out! You have seen him spout; then declare what the spout is; can you not tell water from air? My dear sir, in this world it is not so easy to settle these plain things. I have ever found your plain things the knottiest of all. And as for this whale spout, you might almost stand in it, and yet be undecided as to what it is precisely. The central body of it is hidden in the snowy sparkling mist enveloping it; and how can you certainly tell whether any water falls from it, when, always, when you are close enough to a whale to get a close view of his spout, he is in a prodigious commotion, the water cascading all around him. And if at such times you should think that you really perceived drops of moisture in the spout, how do you know that they are not merely condensed from its vapor; or how do you know that they are not those identical drops superficially lodged in the spout-hole fissure, which is countersunk into the summit of the whale’s head? For even when tranquilly swimming through the mid-day sea in a calm, with his elevated hump sun-dried as a dromedary’s in the desert; even then, the whale always carries a small basin of water on his head, as under a blazing sun you will sometimes see a cavity in a rock filled up with rain. Nor is it at all prudent for the hunter to be over curious touching the precise nature of the whale spout. It will not do for him to be peering into it, and putting his face in it. You cannot go with your pitcher to this fountain and fill it, and bring it away. For even when coming into slight contact with the outer, vapory shreds of the jet, which will often happen, your skin will feverishly smart, from the acridness of the thing so touching it. And I know one, who coming into still closer contact with the spout, whether with some scientific object in view, or otherwise, I cannot say, the skin peeled off from his cheek and arm. Wherefore, among whalemen, the spout is deemed poisonous; they try to evade it. Another thing; I have heard it said, and I do not much doubt it, that if the jet is fairly spouted into your eyes, it will blind you. The wisest thing the investigator can do then, it seems to me, is to let this deadly spout alone. Still, we can hypothesize, even if we cannot prove and establish. My hypothesis is this: that the spout is nothing but mist. And besides other reasons, to this conclusion I am impelled, by considerations touching the great inherent dignity and sublimity of the Sperm Whale; I account him no common, shallow being, inasmuch as it is an undisputed fact that he is never found on soundings, or near shores; all other whales sometimes are. He is both ponderous and profound. And I am convinced that from the heads of all ponderous profound beings, such as Plato, Pyrrho, the Devil, Jupiter, Dante, and so on, there always goes up a certain semi-visible steam, while in the act of thinking deep thoughts. While composing a little treatise on Eternity, I had the curiosity to place a mirror before me; and ere long saw reflected there, a curious involved worming and undulation in the atmosphere over my head. The invariable moisture of my hair, while plunged in deep thought, after six cups of hot tea in my thin shingled attic, of an August noon; this seems an additional argument for the above supposition. And how nobly it raises our conceit of the mighty, misty monster, to behold him solemnly sailing through a calm tropical sea; his vast, mild head overhung by a canopy of vapor, engendered by his incommunicable contemplations, and that vapor—as you will sometimes see it—glorified by a rainbow, as if Heaven itself had put its seal upon his thoughts. For, d’ye see, rainbows do not visit the clear air; they only irradiate vapor. And so, through all the thick mists of the dim doubts in my mind, divine intuitions now and then shoot, enkindling my fog with a heavenly ray. And for this I thank God; for all have doubts; many deny; but doubts or denials, few along with them, have intuitions. Doubts of all things earthly, and intuitions of some things heavenly; this combination makes neither believer nor infidel, but makes a man who regards them both with equal eye. 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. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved April 2022 from Melville, Herman, 2001. Moby-Dick: or The Whale. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2701/2701-h/2701-h.htm#link2HCH0085 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

Moby-Dick; or The Whale: Chapter 85 - The Fountain

Fortune Cookies For The Fortune 500? Waymo Thinks So — But Should You?

Fortuinkoekies vir die Fortune 500? Waymo dink so - maar moet jy?

¿Galletas de la suerte para las empresas Fortune 500? Waymo cree que sí, pero ¿debería hacerlo usted?

Bonbon Fortune pou Fortune 500 la? Waymo panse konsa - Men, ou ta dwe?

フォーチュン 500 企業向けのフォーチュン クッキー? Waymo はそう考えています — でも、あなたもそう思うべきでしょうか?

Fortune Cookies dla Fortune 500? Waymo tak uważa — ale czy Ty też powinieneś?

د فارچون 500 لپاره فارچون کوکیز؟ وایمو داسې فکر کوي - مګر تاسو باید؟

Biscoitos da sorte para a Fortune 500? Waymo pensa assim — mas você deveria?

Fursecuri Fortune pentru Fortune 500? Waymo crede că așa - dar tu ar trebui?

Колачићи среће за Фортуне 500? Ваимо тако мисли - али да ли бисте требали?

Fortune Cookies för Fortune 500? Waymo tycker det - men borde du det?

ፎርቹን ኩኪስ ን ፎርቹን 500? ዋይሞ ከምኡ ይሓስብ — ግን ክትገብሮ ኣለካ ድዩ?

Swikhukhi Swa Fortune Swa Fortune 500? Waymo U Ehleketa Sweswo — Kambe Xana U Fanele?

These days, most companies offer public APIs you can access with a special token generated straight from their dashboard. Similarly, many online projects provide public endpoints to fetch data. The problem? If you send too many requests, you'll hit a rate limiter wall. Discover how to circumvent API rate limiting! Dive into the world of API rate limit measures—learn what they are, how they work, and the tricks to get around them! 🥷 What's API Rate Limiting? API rate limiting is a handy technique used by web services to control the number of requests a client can make to their public endpoints within a specified time frame. ⌛ To better understand how this works, imagine you're at a theme park on a sunny Saturday. ☀️ The park offers a refill station for soda cups, but there’s a catch: you can only refill one cup every 10 minutes🥤. Why? To prevent chaos and ensure everyone gets a drink without hogging the fountain. That’s exactly how API rate limiting works! 💡 Think of an API rate limit as a speed limit for your data requests—keeping things in check. 🛑 It controls how often users can make requests to a server within a specific timeframe. Wait… But Why Do Web Services Even Limit Their APIs? The answer is straightforward: web services limit their APIs to ensure fair usage, prevent abuse, avoid security issues like DDoS attacks, and maintain the overall performance and stability of their services. 🦸‍♂️ Most companies, social media platforms, and online services provide access to a subset of their data through public endpoints. (Is that really the best way to access their data? 🤔 Not quite! For more insights, check out our article on web scraping vs API). To access those endpoints, all you need to do is sign up, create an API key, and use it to authenticate yourself against their public endpoints, as detailed in their documentation. 🔑 Sounds easy, right? 😄 Sure, but there are other factors at play, just like API rate limiting! But why is that complex mechanism really necessary? ❓❓❓ Imagine a few users start bombarding the servers with hundreds of thousands of requests per second. The servers would struggle to handle the load, causing slowdowns for all users. Companies definitely want to avoid that, even for free public endpoints! 🚫 Users typically aren’t fans of downtime or slow services—especially if they’re paying for access to those APIs 💸. To prevent that, web services implement API rate limit measures to restrict the number of requests a specific user can make within a given timeframe. ⏰ You can usually find these API rate-limiting policies in the provider's documentation. Here are some useful pages for popular web services with public APIs: GitHub API rate limiting policies
OpenAI rate limiting policies
Zoom API rate limits What Happens When You Ignore API Rate Limits For a rate limiter to work, the system needs to count all the incoming requests from a user. But how does it know it’s the same user spamming those requests? 🔍 By keeping an eye on the user’s API key or IP address (or both). That’s how the server can track who’s hitting up the web service! Now, keep in mind that API rate limit measures vary wildly from provider to provider. Some cap you at X requests per Y seconds with the same API key, while others slap on additional limits for requests from the same IP. There are even services that consider things like endpoint-specific quotas! Regardless of the implementation, if you hit that limit, expect a “429 Too Many Requests” error response. Basically the server's way of saying, “Whoa there, slow down! Give others a chance too!” 😅 Hitting an API rate limit can range from a simple 429 error to a full-blown IP ban. (⚠️ Pro tip: Follow our guide on how to avoid an IP ban!) And trust me, getting banned is no fun—it can bring your entire automation operation or services relying on those endpoints to a screeching halt. 😱 API Rate Limit Exceeded: What to Do? How to circumvent API rate limiting? Explore the most effective ways! Pay More It’s sad, but like most problems in life, you can just buy your way out of API rate limits 💰. Companies profit by capping requests based on your plan tier. The more you pay, the more requests you can fire off—plain and simple. But let’s be real… while this isn't exactly the most ethical or infinitely scalable solution, it makes sense from a business perspective. It’s like paying for extra luggage on a flight—you want more room, you gotta cough up more cash. ✈️ Create More API Keys Some providers track your incoming requests by looking at the API key you use to authenticate. Since each API key has a limit on the number of requests it can produce in a given timeframe, the magic trick here seems obvious: create multiple API keys! 🎩 ✨ Paying more for a plan is like scaling vertically, but the idea is to scale horizontally instead—creating multiple keys with different purposes and running them concurrently. Sounds foolproof, right? Well, not so fast… Providers know that trick and have countermeasures in place: They can link each API key to an account, so the rate limit might count all requests from your account, not just individual keys.


They could cap the number of API keys you can create. Want more keys? Pay more!


They may also use IP-based rate limiting, preventing multiple keys from bypassing the limit. So yeah, the game is rigged! 😔 Use Proxies A proxy server acts like a middleman between you and the web service’s endpoints. It receives your requests, routes them to the target server, grabs the response, and sends it back to you. This way, the web server sees the requests coming from the proxy's IP, not your IP. 🕵️‍♂️ This mechanism lets you cloak your identity behind the proxy’s server. Considering that top-tier proxy providers offer networks of millions of proxy IPs, that's basically unlimited firepower! When providers enforce IP-based rate limits, proxies are your go-to solution for bypassing API rate limiting. ⚡ Want to integrate proxies into your OS, browser, HTTP client, or scripts? Piece of cake! 🍰 Just a few clicks or a couple of lines of code, depending on your setup. For more guidance, follow our integration guides. If you’re looking for the best proxy provider on the market, look no further than Bright Data. Check out our proxy offerings or watch the video below to find the perfect fit for your needs—and your wallet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuIl5J2nR3U&embedable=true Final Thoughts Now you know how to circumvent API rate limiting like a pro. Web services cap your requests to nudge you toward higher-priced tiers, but there’s a trick up your sleeve: proxy servers! Need to avoid blocks when hitting public APIs? Bright Data’s suite of tools has got your back! Join the mission to make the Internet accessible for all. 🌐 Until next time, keep surfing the Web with freedom! These days, most companies offer public APIs you can access with a special token generated straight from their dashboard. Similarly, many online projects provide public endpoints to fetch data. The problem? If you send too many requests, you'll hit a rate limiter wall. Discover how to circumvent API rate limiting! Dive into the world of API rate limit measures—learn what they are, how they work, and the tricks to get around them! 🥷 What's API Rate Limiting? API rate limiting is a handy technique used by web services to control the number of requests a client can make to their public endpoints within a specified time frame. ⌛ API rate limiting To better understand how this works, imagine you're at a theme park on a sunny Saturday. ☀️ The park offers a refill station for soda cups, but there’s a catch: you can only refill one cup every 10 minutes🥤. Why? To prevent chaos and ensure everyone gets a drink without hogging the fountain. That’s exactly how API rate limiting works! 💡 Think of an API rate limit as a speed limit for your data requests—keeping things in check. 🛑 It controls how often users can make requests to a server within a specific timeframe. Wait… But Why Do Web Services Even Limit Their APIs? The answer is straightforward: web services limit their APIs to ensure fair usage, prevent abuse, avoid security issues like DDoS attacks , and maintain the overall performance and stability of their services. 🦸‍♂️ DDoS attacks Most companies, social media platforms, and online services provide access to a subset of their data through public endpoints. (Is that really the best way to access their data? 🤔 Not quite! For more insights, check out our article on web scraping vs API ). web scraping vs API To access those endpoints, all you need to do is sign up, create an API key , and use it to authenticate yourself against their public endpoints, as detailed in their documentation. 🔑 API key Sounds easy, right? 😄 Sure, but there are other factors at play, just like API rate limiting ! But why is that complex mechanism really necessary? ❓❓❓ API rate limiting Imagine a few users start bombarding the servers with hundreds of thousands of requests per second. The servers would struggle to handle the load, causing slowdowns for all users. Companies definitely want to avoid that, even for free public endpoints! 🚫 Users typically aren’t fans of downtime or slow services—especially if they’re paying for access to those APIs 💸. To prevent that, web services implement API rate limit measures to restrict the number of requests a specific user can make within a given timeframe. ⏰ You can usually find these API rate-limiting policies in the provider's documentation. Here are some useful pages for popular web services with public APIs: GitHub API rate limiting policies OpenAI rate limiting policies Zoom API rate limits GitHub API rate limiting policies GitHub API rate limiting policies OpenAI rate limiting policies OpenAI rate limiting policies Zoom API rate limits Zoom API rate limits What Happens When You Ignore API Rate Limits For a rate limiter to work, the system needs to count all the incoming requests from a user. But how does it know it’s the same user spamming those requests? 🔍 By keeping an eye on the user’s API key or IP address (or both). That’s how the server can track who’s hitting up the web service! API key IP address Now, keep in mind that API rate limit measures vary wildly from provider to provider. Some cap you at X requests per Y seconds with the same API key, while others slap on additional limits for requests from the same IP. There are even services that consider things like endpoint-specific quotas! Regardless of the implementation, if you hit that limit, expect a “ 429 Too Many Requests ” error response. 429 Too Many Requests Basically the server's way of saying, “Whoa there, slow down! Give others a chance too!” 😅 Hitting an API rate limit can range from a simple 429 error to a full-blown IP ban. (⚠️ Pro tip : Follow our guide on how to avoid an IP ban !) And trust me, getting banned is no fun—it can bring your entire automation operation or services relying on those endpoints to a screeching halt. 😱 Pro tip how to avoid an IP ban API Rate Limit Exceeded: What to Do? How to circumvent API rate limiting? Explore the most effective ways! Pay More It’s sad, but like most problems in life, you can just buy your way out of API rate limits 💰. Companies profit by capping requests based on your plan tier. The more you pay, the more requests you can fire off—plain and simple. But let’s be real… while this isn't exactly the most ethical or infinitely scalable solution, it makes sense from a business perspective. It’s like paying for extra luggage on a flight—you want more room, you gotta cough up more cash. ✈️ Create More API Keys Some providers track your incoming requests by looking at the API key you use to authenticate. Since each API key has a limit on the number of requests it can produce in a given timeframe, the magic trick here seems obvious: create multiple API keys! 🎩 ✨ Paying more for a plan is like scaling vertically, but the idea is to scale horizontally instead—creating multiple keys with different purposes and running them concurrently. Sounds foolproof, right? Well, not so fast… Providers know that trick and have countermeasures in place: They can link each API key to an account, so the rate limit might count all requests from your account, not just individual keys. They could cap the number of API keys you can create. Want more keys? Pay more! They may also use IP-based rate limiting, preventing multiple keys from bypassing the limit. They can link each API key to an account, so the rate limit might count all requests from your account, not just individual keys. They can link each API key to an account, so the rate limit might count all requests from your account, not just individual keys. They could cap the number of API keys you can create. Want more keys? Pay more! They could cap the number of API keys you can create. Want more keys? Pay more! They may also use IP-based rate limiting, preventing multiple keys from bypassing the limit. They may also use IP-based rate limiting, preventing multiple keys from bypassing the limit. So yeah, the game is rigged! 😔 Use Proxies A proxy server acts like a middleman between you and the web service’s endpoints. It receives your requests, routes them to the target server, grabs the response, and sends it back to you. This way, the web server sees the requests coming from the proxy's IP, not your IP. 🕵️‍♂️ proxy server This mechanism lets you cloak your identity behind the proxy’s server. Considering that top-tier proxy providers offer networks of millions of proxy IPs, that's basically unlimited firepower! top-tier proxy providers millions When providers enforce IP-based rate limits, proxies are your go-to solution for bypassing API rate limiting. ⚡ Want to integrate proxies into your OS, browser, HTTP client, or scripts? Piece of cake! 🍰 Just a few clicks or a couple of lines of code, depending on your setup. For more guidance, follow our integration guides . integration guides If you’re looking for the best proxy provider on the market, look no further than Bright Data. Check out our proxy offerings or watch the video below to find the perfect fit for your needs—and your wallet: proxy offerings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuIl5J2nR3U&embedable=true https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuIl5J2nR3U&embedable=true Final Thoughts Now you know how to circumvent API rate limiting like a pro. Web services cap your requests to nudge you toward higher-priced tiers, but there’s a trick up your sleeve: proxy servers! Need to avoid blocks when hitting public APIs? Bright Data ’s suite of tools has got your back! Join the mission to make the Internet accessible for all. 🌐 Bright Data Until next time, keep surfing the Web with freedom!

How to Circumvent API Rate Limiting

Jak obejít omezení rychlosti API

Cómo evitar la limitación de velocidad de la API

API レート制限を回避する方法

როგორ ავიცილოთ API სიჩქარის შეზღუდვა

API ылдамдыгын чектөөнү кантип айланып өтсө болот

Tsela ya go Efoga go Lekanyetša Seelo sa API

د API نرخ محدودولو څرنګوالی

Imaynatataq API Tasa Limitación nisqamanta muyuy

Как обойти ограничение скорости API

Hur man kringgår API-hastighetsbegränsning

Jinsi ya Kuzuia Kikomo cha Kiwango cha API

Paano Iwasan ang Paglilimita sa Rate ng API

Michael Saylor Wants To Turn MicroStrategy Into a Trillion-Dollar Bitcoin Bank

মাইকেল স্যালর মাইক্রোস্ট্র্যাটেজিকে ট্রিলিয়ন-ডলার বিটকয়েন ব্যাংকে পরিণত করতে চান

Michael Saylor will MicroStrategy in eine Billionen-Dollar-Bitcoin-Bank verwandeln

Michael Saylor quiere convertir a MicroStrategy en un banco de Bitcoin de un billón de dólares

Michael Saylor veut transformer MicroStrategy en une banque Bitcoin d'un milliard de dollars

माइकल सैलर माइक्रोस्ट्रेटजी को एक ट्रिलियन डॉलर के बिटकॉइन बैंक में बदलना चाहते हैं

マイケル・セイラーはマイクロストラテジーを1兆ドルのビットコイン銀行にしたいと考えている

Michael Saylor, MicroStrategy를 1조 달러 규모의 비트코인 은행으로 만들고 싶어

Michael Saylor quer transformar a MicroStrategy em um banco de Bitcoin de um trilhão de dólares

Майкл Сэйлор хочет превратить MicroStrategy в биткоин-банк стоимостью триллион долларов

Michael Saylor, MicroStrategy'yi Trilyon Dolarlık Bir Bitcoin Bankasına Dönüştürmek İstiyor

Michael Saylor muốn biến MicroStrategy thành một ngân hàng Bitcoin trị giá nghìn tỷ đô la

Michael Saylor 希望将 MicroStrategy 打造成一家价值万亿美元的比特币银行

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 8 of 21. I The Constitution sets forth how an office may be created and how it may be filled. The Appointments Clause provides: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Department.” Art. II, §2, cl. 2. The constitutional process for filling an office is plain from this text. The default manner for appointing “Officers of the United States” is nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate. Ibid. “But the Clause provides a limited exception for the appointment of inferior officers: Congress may ‘by Law’ authorize” one of three specified actors “to appoint inferior officers without the advice and consent of the Senate.” NLRB v. SW General, Inc., 580 U. S. 288, 312 (2017) (THOMAS, J., concurring). As relevant here, a “Hea[d] of Department”—such as the Attorney General— is one such actor that Congress may authorize “by Law” to appoint inferior officers without senatorial confirmation. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. Before the President or a Department Head can appoint any officer, however, the Constitution requires that the underlying office be “established by Law.”[1] The Constitution itself creates some offices, most obviously that of the President and Vice President. See §1. Although the Constitution contemplates that there will be “other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,” it clearly requires that those offices “shall be established by Law.” §2, cl. 2. And, “established by law” refers to an office that Congress creates “by statute.” Lucia v. SEC, 585 U. S. 237, 254 (2018) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see also United States v. Maurice, 26 F. Cas. 1211, 1213 (No. 15,747) (CC Va. 1823) (Marshall, C. J.). The limitation on the President’s power to create offices grew out of the Founders’ experience with the English monarchy. The King could wield significant power by both creating and filling offices as he saw fit. He was “emphatically and truly styled the fountain of honor. He not only appoint[ed] to all offices, but [could] create offices.” The Federalist No. 69, p. 421 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961); see also 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 271 (T. Cooley ed. 1871) (“[A]s the king may create new titles, so may he create new offices”). That ability to create offices raised many “concerns about the King’s ability to amass too much power”; the King could both create a multitude of offices and then fill them with his supporters. J. Mascott, Who Are “Officers of the United States”? 70 Stan. L. Rev. 443, 492 (2018) (Mascott); see also G. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic 1776–1787, p. 143 (1969) (describing “the power of appointment to offices” as “the most insidious and powerful weapon of eighteenth-century despotism”); T. Paine, Common Sense (1776), reprinted in The Great Works of Thomas Paine 11 (1877) (explaining that “the crown . . . derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions”). In fact, one of the grievances raised by the American colonists in declaring their independence was that the King “ha[d] erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” Declaration of Independence ¶12. The Founders thus drafted the Constitution with “evidently a great inferiority in the power of the President, in this particular, to that of the British king.” The Federalist No. 69, at 421. The Founders broke from the monarchial model by giving the President the power to fill offices (with the Senate’s approval), but not the power to create offices. They did so by “imposing the constitutional requirement that new officer positions be ‘established by Law’ rather than through a King-like custom of the head magistrate unilaterally creating new offices.” Mascott 492–493 (footnote omitted); see also 1 Annals of Cong. 581–582 (1789) (“The powers relative to offices are partly Legislative and partly Executive. The Legislature creates the office, defines the powers, limits its duration, and annexes a compensation”); see also ibid. (describing the power to “designat[e] the man to fill the office” as “of an Executive nature”). The Constitution thus “giv[es] Congress broad authority to establish and organize the Executive Branch.” Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. 197, 266 (2020) (KAGAN, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). By keeping the ability to create offices out of the President’s hands, the Founders ensured that no President could unilaterally create an army of officer positions to then fill with his supporters. Instead, our Constitution leaves it in the hands of the people’s elected representatives to determine whether new executive offices should exist. Longstanding practice from the founding to today comports with this original understanding that Congress must create offices by law. The First Congress, for instance, routinely and explicitly created offices by statute. See, e.g., §35, 1 Stat. 92–93 (creating the offices of Attorney General and U. S. Attorney for each district); see also §§1–2, id., at 50 (creating offices of Secretary of War and his Chief Clerk); ch. 12, §1, id., at 65 (creating offices within the Department of Treasury for Secretary of the Treasury, a Comptroller, Auditor, Treasurer, Register, and Assistant to the Secretary). Still today, Congress creates the offices that the Executive Branch may fill. For example, Congress has created several offices within the Department of Justice, including the offices of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, Solicitor General, and Assistant Attorneys General. See 28 U. S. C. §§503–506. For some agencies, Congress has also granted the agency head the power to “appoint such officers and employees . . . as are necessary to execute the functions vested in him.” 7 U. S. C. §610(a) (Department of Agriculture); see also, e.g., 20 U. S. C. §3461 (Department of Education); 42 U. S. C. §913 (Department of Health and Human Services). In the past, Congress has at times expressly created offices similar to the position now occupied by the Special Counsel. Congress created an office for a “special counsel” to investigate the Teapot Dome Scandal and pursue prosecutions. See ch. 16, 43 Stat. 6. And, a statute provided for “the appointment of an independent counsel” that we addressed in Morrison v. Olson. See 28 U. S. C. §592. That statute lapsed, and Congress has not since reauthorized the appointment of an independent counsel. See §599.[2] We cannot ignore the importance that the Constitution places on who creates a federal office. To guard against tyranny, the Founders required that a federal office be “established by Law.” As James Madison cautioned, “[i]f there is any point in which the separation of the Legislative and Executive powers ought to be maintained with greater caution, it is that which relates to officers and offices.” 1 Annals of Cong. 581. If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to create and fill an office of his own accord. 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] Although a Government official may also be a “nonofficer employe[e],” I set aside that category because it is difficult to see how an official exercising the Department of Justice’s duties to enforce the criminal law by leading a prosecution could be anything but an officer. Lucia v. SEC, 585 U. S. 237, 253, n. 1 (2018) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see SW General, 580 U. S., at 314 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). If the Special Counsel were a nonofficer employee, the constitutional problems with this prosecution would only be more serious. For now, I assume without deciding that the Special Counsel is an officer. [2] To be sure, a few Presidents have appointed “special prosecutors” without pointing to any express statutory authorization. See generally T. Eastland, Ethics, Politics and the Independent Counsel 8–9 (1989) (describing past uses of special prosecutors). But, this Court had no occasion to review the constitutionality of those prosecutors’ authority. 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 8 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 8 of 21. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here I The Constitution sets forth how an office may be created and how it may be filled. The Appointments Clause provides: “[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Department.” Art. II, §2, cl. 2. The constitutional process for filling an office is plain from this text. The default manner for appointing “Officers of the United States” is nomination by the President and confirmation by the Senate. Ibid. “But the Clause provides a limited exception for the appointment of inferior officers: Congress may ‘by Law’ authorize” one of three specified actors “to appoint inferior officers without the advice and consent of the Senate.” NLRB v. SW General, Inc., 580 U. S. 288, 312 (2017) (THOMAS, J., concurring). As relevant here, a “Hea[d] of Department”—such as the Attorney General— is one such actor that Congress may authorize “by Law” to appoint inferior officers without senatorial confirmation. Art. II, §2, cl. 2. Before the President or a Department Head can appoint any officer, however, the Constitution requires that the underlying office be “established by Law.”[1] The Constitution itself creates some offices, most obviously that of the President and Vice President. See §1. Although the Constitution contemplates that there will be “other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for,” it clearly requires that those offices “shall be established by Law.” §2, cl. 2. And, “established by law” refers to an office that Congress creates “by statute.” Lucia v. SEC, 585 U. S. 237, 254 (2018) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see also United States v. Maurice, 26 F. Cas. 1211, 1213 (No. 15,747) (CC Va. 1823) (Marshall, C. J.). The limitation on the President’s power to create offices grew out of the Founders’ experience with the English monarchy. The King could wield significant power by both creating and filling offices as he saw fit. He was “emphatically and truly styled the fountain of honor. He not only appoint[ed] to all offices, but [could] create offices.” The Federalist No. 69, p. 421 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961); see also 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 271 (T. Cooley ed. 1871) (“[A]s the king may create new titles, so may he create new offices”). That ability to create offices raised many “concerns about the King’s ability to amass too much power”; the King could both create a multitude of offices and then fill them with his supporters. J. Mascott, Who Are “Officers of the United States”? 70 Stan. L. Rev. 443, 492 (2018) (Mascott); see also G. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic 1776–1787, p. 143 (1969) (describing “the power of appointment to offices” as “the most insidious and powerful weapon of eighteenth-century despotism”); T. Paine, Common Sense (1776), reprinted in The Great Works of Thomas Paine 11 (1877) (explaining that “the crown . . . derives its whole consequence merely from being the giver of places and pensions”). In fact, one of the grievances raised by the American colonists in declaring their independence was that the King “ha[d] erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.” Declaration of Independence ¶12. The Founders thus drafted the Constitution with “evidently a great inferiority in the power of the President, in this particular, to that of the British king.” The Federalist No. 69, at 421. The Founders broke from the monarchial model by giving the President the power to fill offices (with the Senate’s approval), but not the power to create offices. They did so by “imposing the constitutional requirement that new officer positions be ‘established by Law’ rather than through a King-like custom of the head magistrate unilaterally creating new offices.” Mascott 492–493 (footnote omitted); see also 1 Annals of Cong. 581–582 (1789) (“The powers relative to offices are partly Legislative and partly Executive. The Legislature creates the office, defines the powers, limits its duration, and annexes a compensation”); see also ibid. (describing the power to “designat[e] the man to fill the office” as “of an Executive nature”). The Constitution thus “giv[es] Congress broad authority to establish and organize the Executive Branch.” Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, 591 U. S. 197, 266 (2020) (KAGAN, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). By keeping the ability to create offices out of the President’s hands, the Founders ensured that no President could unilaterally create an army of officer positions to then fill with his supporters. Instead, our Constitution leaves it in the hands of the people’s elected representatives to determine whether new executive offices should exist. Longstanding practice from the founding to today comports with this original understanding that Congress must create offices by law. The First Congress, for instance, routinely and explicitly created offices by statute. See, e.g., §35, 1 Stat. 92–93 (creating the offices of Attorney General and U. S. Attorney for each district); see also §§1–2, id., at 50 (creating offices of Secretary of War and his Chief Clerk); ch. 12, §1, id., at 65 (creating offices within the Department of Treasury for Secretary of the Treasury, a Comptroller, Auditor, Treasurer, Register, and Assistant to the Secretary). Still today, Congress creates the offices that the Executive Branch may fill. For example, Congress has created several offices within the Department of Justice, including the offices of the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, Associate Attorney General, Solicitor General, and Assistant Attorneys General. See 28 U. S. C. §§503–506. For some agencies, Congress has also granted the agency head the power to “appoint such officers and employees . . . as are necessary to execute the functions vested in him.” 7 U. S. C. §610(a) (Department of Agriculture); see also, e.g., 20 U. S. C. §3461 (Department of Education); 42 U. S. C. §913 (Department of Health and Human Services). In the past, Congress has at times expressly created offices similar to the position now occupied by the Special Counsel. Congress created an office for a “special counsel” to investigate the Teapot Dome Scandal and pursue prosecutions. See ch. 16, 43 Stat. 6. And, a statute provided for “the appointment of an independent counsel” that we addressed in Morrison v. Olson. See 28 U. S. C. §592. That statute lapsed, and Congress has not since reauthorized the appointment of an independent counsel. See §599.[2] We cannot ignore the importance that the Constitution places on who creates a federal office. To guard against tyranny, the Founders required that a federal office be “established by Law.” As James Madison cautioned, “[i]f there is any point in which the separation of the Legislative and Executive powers ought to be maintained with greater caution, it is that which relates to officers and offices.” 1 Annals of Cong. 581. If Congress has not reached a consensus that a particular office should exist, the Executive lacks the power to create and fill an office of his own accord. 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] Although a Government official may also be a “nonofficer employe[e],” I set aside that category because it is difficult to see how an official exercising the Department of Justice’s duties to enforce the criminal law by leading a prosecution could be anything but an officer. Lucia v. SEC, 585 U. S. 237, 253, n. 1 (2018) (THOMAS, J., concurring); see SW General, 580 U. S., at 314 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). If the Special Counsel were a nonofficer employee, the constitutional problems with this prosecution would only be more serious. For now, I assume without deciding that the Special Counsel is an officer. [2] To be sure, a few Presidents have appointed “special prosecutors” without pointing to any express statutory authorization. See generally T. Eastland, Ethics, Politics and the Independent Counsel 8–9 (1989) (describing past uses of special prosecutors). But, this Court had no occasion to review the constitutionality of those prosecutors’ authority.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas: Why The U.S. President Deserves Immunity

Many years ago when I was in my teens, I lived in a small Kentucky, USA town and one of my requirements in school was to learn Spanish. I enjoyed learning this new language, but I became discouraged. I struggled to understand the point of learning Spanish. A much younger me thought, "Why? No one here speaks Spanish... And I won't have the money or ability to travel in the near future or maybe even at all...." I think I voiced this to my 10th grade Spanish teacher, Susan Stucker, who tried to encourage me. She found a way for me to participate at little cost in a two week student exchange living with a host family in the northern suburbs of Madrid.\ “Estoy harta de tu queja.” I vaguely remember her saying this. “I am tired of your complaining.” My talkative teacher arranged for me to go on this trip. I never thought I would be going to Spain, but she found some unknown funds from generous donors. Suddenly, I was on an airplane to Spain with her and 5 or 6 other students.\ I was a good student and rather than being someone whose comportment my teacher worried about, she was encouraging me to be less uptight. \ “Try the sangria.”\ I know she thought this experience would change my life, but I don’t think she knew when that would happen. \ My Spanish was just a little better at the time than the other students. I remember being a human dictionary for them (a teen Google Translate of sorts) when they wanted to tell a shopkeeper what flavor of candy or ice cream they wanted. “Fresa.”   “Strawberry”\ I remember the smell of fried sardines the mother of my host family made. It was so delicious! And I recall the pounds I gained from the rich chorizo and chocolates she packed for me to take in a sack lunch. Though our student budget was slim, we did go into the urban areas of Madrid once or twice to see the Prado Museum and Fountain of Cibeles. I remember having very little pocket money. I did not buy any souvenirs. I was able to buy a Spanish chocolate candy bar to bring back home for a “best” friend who was disappointed when she saw it. “You got me a chocolate bar from Spain? That’s it?”\ I was not a hardy traveler and it took me a while to get over the strenuous emotional changes that happen sometimes with international travel. Wanderlust lay dormant for decades, but ultimately, I decided to travel again. My experiences led me to return to Spain this year. I have been studying Spanish part time and online for the past 2 years. My ability to understand and even speak Spanish has increased some. I have a greater appreciation for learning this and any language as well as the cultures of the Spanish speaking world. While I am far from fluent in Spanish even with continued study, I am improving and I greatly appreciate my high school teacher, Susan Stucker, for her encouragement and for broadening my worldview at an early age. I was worried about going on this trip but it was not because I did not want to go. I was experiencing a fear of leaving my comfort zone. My short trip with a tour group took me again to the northern suburbs of Spain and to the Prado Museum, but I also traveled to a few other cities and experienced a Spain much different than the one from my youth. Though it was not on the itinerary, someone on my trip convinced me to go with her and others to a bullfight. This would not have been something I chose to do ordinarily, but I tried to go into this experience with an open mind and see what I could learn. I got a ticket for the bullfight but because we had waited until the last minute to get seating, there were no seats together. I bought a seat far away from the others. As I tried to climb the stadium steps to my seat, I asked other spectators along the way for help finding my spot. I did sit in the wrong place (awkward as ever) and had to be notified by my neighbors. Ultimately, I found a spot to sit on the concrete and I watched the bullfight respectfully and peacefully, taking occasional pictures like a tourist, and speaking whatever garbled Spanish I knew with my kind neighbors to either side. I won’t pretend I know much about the history or actual meaning of bullfighting. I also can’t comment on the animal safety aspects of this because I don’t know much about that. I tried to show respect for the cultural event and come to the stadium with a beginner’s mind. With these caveats in mind, I just want to share what I felt internally and what I learned about confidence from the bullfight. The bullfight occurs in a large arena in a stadium. This arena seemed to me like a metaphor for life. Death likely occurs in the arena and comes for someone. There is a living being that will not get out of the arena alive. Will it be the bull? Will it be the matador? There are more humans in the arena that work together to stack the deck against the bull. It's not fair? Life isn’t fair. The circumstances that bring the bull and the matador to the arena are governed by chance as well. Both the matadors and the bull have the potential to kill each other in the arena. I found that I could not look away. The reason I could not look away was that I felt connected to the bull and matador in their actions to relive what I felt were the lessons of the arena, the lessons of life. In the arena, the matadors must distract the bull from hurting them and also actively seek the bull’s death. I was told that the bull must be naive to the ways of bullfighting to participate. During the process, the matador leads with confidence and hides whatever fear he might have of the bull’s size, aggression and ferocity. There is a potential for severe disability and even death if the bull harms the matador, but it is crucial that the matadors never break character. They work as a team to distract, confuse and wound the bull. The matadors play to an audience of hundreds drawing all eyes to them in a spectacle who bellow “Olé" in a pleased fashion if they are doing well. The 5 rules of the matador:

Lead with confidence
Never break character
Work in a team
All eyes on you In life, I can see how important it is to lead with confidence no matter how afraid you might feel. Confidence comes with experience and failure. Never break character to show vulnerability. It's only if you break character that anyone might notice if you messed up or that things have not gone as planned.  Good teamwork can prevent failure in many situations. Finally, there is always an audience that judges you on everything you try. I can only imagine that if I was the bull what I would learn. The bull is a tremendously strong and dangerous animal that I was told was bred to be aggressive. During the course of the bullfight, the matadors confuse and wound the bull several times. But even in its most reduced state, the bull has tremendous power to hurt the matador. First and third lesson of the bull: Never forget your power and It's not over until it's over. If the bull runs after the matadors, it takes the bait and begins the bullfight. If the bull does not run towards the matadors and is pacifist it will be set free. Second lesson of the bull: Don't take the bait. If the bull is able to gore and harm a matador, it can make a severe injury. Fourth lesson of the bull: Make your mark. And finally the more aggressively the bull attacks the matadors, the more they work in a team to cause death for the bull.  Fifth lesson of the bull: Aggression quickens death. 5 lessons of the bull

Never forget your power
Don’t take the bait
It's not over until it's over
Make your mark
Aggression quickens death Strangely, I felt during the bullfight that I was participating or that this experience was part of my life experience as well. I felt connected to the matadors and bulls. I tried to learn from the experience so that their sacrifices would teach me something. What I learned about confidence from this experience was so valuable to me. We are all dancing a dance of mindset when we are trying to be confident. We don’t want to show the enemy our fears so that we can vanquish them. Whether it's facing a micromanaging boss or an ex that hates your guts and is sashaying with their new girlfriend in your direction, there are people with whom and times at which it's important to show how unafraid you are. The bravado protects you more than actually not feeling afraid. Being genuine and vulnerable has its place, but so does hiding your flaws and exhibiting confidence like a shiny coat of armor. My trip to Spain was short, but what I learned from my experiences might last a long time.  I don't think my high school Spanish teacher would have expected that I would learn my Spanish lessons decades later. They are life lessons instead. I don’t think she expected her good deed to help me get to Spain for the student exchange would have this effect. But then again, neither did I. I got a Spanish candy bar as a souvenir this time - for myself. Many years ago when I was in my teens, I lived in a small Kentucky, USA town and one of my requirements in school was to learn Spanish. I enjoyed learning this new language, but I became discouraged. I struggled to understand the point of learning Spanish. A much younger me thought, "Why? No one here speaks Spanish... And I won't have the money or ability to travel in the near future or maybe even at all...." I think I voiced this to my 10th grade Spanish teacher, Susan Stucker, who tried to encourage me. She found a way for me to participate at little cost in a two week student exchange living with a host family in the northern suburbs of Madrid.\ “Estoy harta de tu queja.” I vaguely remember her saying this. “I am tired of your complaining.” “Estoy harta de tu queja.” I vaguely remember her saying this. “I am tired of your complaining.” “Estoy harta de tu queja.” I vaguely remember her saying this. “I am tired of your complaining.” My talkative teacher arranged for me to go on this trip. I never thought I would be going to Spain, but she found some unknown funds from generous donors. Suddenly, I was on an airplane to Spain with her and 5 or 6 other students.\ I was a good student and rather than being someone whose comportment my teacher worried about, she was encouraging me to be less uptight. \ “Try the sangria.”\ “Try the sangria.”\ I know she thought this experience would change my life, but I don’t think she knew when that would happen. \ My Spanish was just a little better at the time than the other students. I remember being a human dictionary for them (a teen Google Translate of sorts) when they wanted to tell a shopkeeper what flavor of candy or ice cream they wanted. “Fresa.”   “Strawberry”\ “Fresa.”   “Strawberry”\ I remember the smell of fried sardines the mother of my host family made. It was so delicious! And I recall the pounds I gained from the rich chorizo and chocolates she packed for me to take in a sack lunch. Though our student budget was slim, we did go into the urban areas of Madrid once or twice to see the Prado Museum and Fountain of Cibeles. I remember having very little pocket money. I did not buy any souvenirs. I was able to buy a Spanish chocolate candy bar to bring back home for a “best” friend who was disappointed when she saw it. “You got me a chocolate bar from Spain? That’s it?”\ “You got me a chocolate bar from Spain? That’s it?”\ I was not a hardy traveler and it took me a while to get over the strenuous emotional changes that happen sometimes with international travel. Wanderlust lay dormant for decades, but ultimately, I decided to travel again. My experiences led me to return to Spain this year. I have been studying Spanish part time and online for the past 2 years. My ability to understand and even speak Spanish has increased some. I have a greater appreciation for learning this and any language as well as the cultures of the Spanish speaking world. While I am far from fluent in Spanish even with continued study, I am improving and I greatly appreciate my high school teacher, Susan Stucker, for her encouragement and for broadening my worldview at an early age. I was worried about going on this trip but it was not because I did not want to go. I was experiencing a fear of leaving my comfort zone. My short trip with a tour group took me again to the northern suburbs of Spain and to the Prado Museum, but I also traveled to a few other cities and experienced a Spain much different than the one from my youth. Though it was not on the itinerary, someone on my trip convinced me to go with her and others to a bullfight. This would not have been something I chose to do ordinarily, but I tried to go into this experience with an open mind and see what I could learn. I got a ticket for the bullfight but because we had waited until the last minute to get seating, there were no seats together. I bought a seat far away from the others. As I tried to climb the stadium steps to my seat, I asked other spectators along the way for help finding my spot. I did sit in the wrong place (awkward as ever) and had to be notified by my neighbors. Ultimately, I found a spot to sit on the concrete and I watched the bullfight respectfully and peacefully, taking occasional pictures like a tourist, and speaking whatever garbled Spanish I knew with my kind neighbors to either side. I won’t pretend I know much about the history or actual meaning of bullfighting. I also can’t comment on the animal safety aspects of this because I don’t know much about that. I tried to show respect for the cultural event and come to the stadium with a beginner’s mind. With these caveats in mind, I just want to share what I felt internally and what I learned about confidence from the bullfight. The bullfight occurs in a large arena in a stadium. This arena seemed to me like a metaphor for life. Death likely occurs in the arena and comes for someone. There is a living being that will not get out of the arena alive. Will it be the bull? Will it be the matador? There are more humans in the arena that work together to stack the deck against the bull. It's not fair? Life isn’t fair. The circumstances that bring the bull and the matador to the arena are governed by chance as well. Both the matadors and the bull have the potential to kill each other in the arena. I found that I could not look away. The reason I could not look away was that I felt connected to the bull and matador in their actions to relive what I felt were the lessons of the arena, the lessons of life. In the arena, the matadors must distract the bull from hurting them and also actively seek the bull’s death. I was told that the bull must be naive to the ways of bullfighting to participate. During the process, the matador leads with confidence and hides whatever fear he might have of the bull’s size, aggression and ferocity. There is a potential for severe disability and even death if the bull harms the matador, but it is crucial that the matadors never break character. They work as a team to distract, confuse and wound the bull. The matadors play to an audience of hundreds drawing all eyes to them in a spectacle who bellow “Olé" in a pleased fashion if they are doing well. The 5 rules of the matador: Lead with confidence
Never break character
Work in a team
All eyes on you The 5 rules of the matador: Lead with confidence Never break character Work in a team All eyes on you Lead with confidence Never break character Work in a team All eyes on you In life, I can see how important it is to lead with confidence no matter how afraid you might feel. Confidence comes with experience and failure. Never break character to show vulnerability. It's only if you break character that anyone might notice if you messed up or that things have not gone as planned.  Good teamwork can prevent failure in many situations. Finally, there is always an audience that judges you on everything you try. I can only imagine that if I was the bull what I would learn. The bull is a tremendously strong and dangerous animal that I was told was bred to be aggressive. During the course of the bullfight, the matadors confuse and wound the bull several times. But even in its most reduced state, the bull has tremendous power to hurt the matador. First and third lesson of the bull: Never forget your power and It's not over until it's over. If the bull runs after the matadors, it takes the bait and begins the bullfight. If the bull does not run towards the matadors and is pacifist it will be set free. Second lesson of the bull: Don't take the bait. If the bull is able to gore and harm a matador, it can make a severe injury. Fourth lesson of the bull: Make your mark. And finally the more aggressively the bull attacks the matadors, the more they work in a team to cause death for the bull.  Fifth lesson of the bull: Aggression quickens death. 5 lessons of the bull Never forget your power
Don’t take the bait
It's not over until it's over
Make your mark
Aggression quickens death 5 lessons of the bull Never forget your power Don’t take the bait It's not over until it's over Make your mark Aggression quickens death Never forget your power Don’t take the bait It's not over until it's over Make your mark Aggression quickens death Strangely, I felt during the bullfight that I was participating or that this experience was part of my life experience as well. I felt connected to the matadors and bulls. I tried to learn from the experience so that their sacrifices would teach me something. What I learned about confidence from this experience was so valuable to me. We are all dancing a dance of mindset when we are trying to be confident. We don’t want to show the enemy our fears so that we can vanquish them. Whether it's facing a micromanaging boss or an ex that hates your guts and is sashaying with their new girlfriend in your direction, there are people with whom and times at which it's important to show how unafraid you are. The bravado protects you more than actually not feeling afraid. Being genuine and vulnerable has its place, but so does hiding your flaws and exhibiting confidence like a shiny coat of armor. My trip to Spain was short, but what I learned from my experiences might last a long time.  I don't think my high school Spanish teacher would have expected that I would learn my Spanish lessons decades later. They are life lessons instead. I don’t think she expected her good deed to help me get to Spain for the student exchange would have this effect. But then again, neither did I. I got a Spanish candy bar as a souvenir this time - for myself.

How fear can be transformed into confidence

Before Ryan Holiday was a viral blogger, he was a stellar marketer with always a finger on the pulse of what ‘worked audiences.’ He erected billboards, defaced them, got them set on fire, and then called up journos to cover it - all to show controversy - and people love them controversies and scandals.Now, you can’t set fire to billboards. Can you?(P.S.A. Do. Not. Burn. Billboards)If you’re a Marketer reading this article, your audience hardly ever goes out, so read on!Closer to the digital billboards - Social Media Hashtags, KPop Stans completely decimated #WhiteoutWednesday, which was a reactionary response to B.L.M.s #BlackoutTuesday.While Ryan Holiday manufactured controversy to earn coverage in the news, KPop idols leveraged their ‘Stan Army’ of millions to drown out everything else on one social media hashtag - earning coverage in the news!In Digital Marketing, you can earn coverage via Blogging and advertising.While both come with distinct pros and cons, a better understanding of what you (or your boss) want from a digital marketing campaign will help you choose the one that yields the best results. Bold Blogging If you’ve used gen-AI to write your blogs or hired content creators that charged the least, this option is not for you. For those who understand Blogging is like storytelling and are/hired amazing storytellers, you’re already halfway to Bold Blogging nirvana. The three kinds of stories that always worked with the 3M+ HackerNoon Readership are: How Stuff Works: Not tutorials but also about how certain technologies work. If you’re using PayPal, write about how Internet Payments work, how fraud is detected, and how errors are minimized.
Why It Happened: Even though economists will tell us tomorrow why the Markets crashed yesterday, we still love reading their ‘hindsight.’ Insights are great—hindsight is excellent content, too!
What’s It Really About: Who doesn’t immediately click on stories that connect the dots across scalars, vectors, and whatnot? Go cross-domain, cross-industry, and even cross-discipline, and watch the readers flock in. Freakonomics sold 4M+ copies in as many years doing exactly that. Deviating away from company updates and tutorials as content marketing requires getting bold, and if that’s your cup of tea, go for it! Blog Boldly on HackerNoon Bold Advertising This term usually gets a bad rep, but here’s where you trade money for direct leads. The trick is to drink from the fewest fountains before reaching the Elixir of Life. If Blogging is a Branding campaign, advertising is a Performance Campaign.If you’re looking for impressions, you pick Programmatic and Social ADs.But, your safest bet for conversions is advertising on niche platforms.Strictly from a C.T.R. standpoint, you’ll get the best results by advertising on the niche platform where most of your audience is.For example, a $5 C.P.M. campaign with a $10,000 budget on Google AD will get you about 2000 clicks, out of which, if you’re lucky, 200 clicks will come from your target audience. For that $10k budget, you’ll get 600 clicks on a niche platform, but about 300 will be from your target audience.But ironically, in your internal marketing meetings, niche platform advertising will be considered a bold decision.If you now have a better idea of how you’d like to earn that coverage,book a call with HackerNoon and try it out! Before Ryan Holiday was a viral blogger, he was a stellar marketer with always a finger on the pulse of what ‘worked audiences.’ He erected billboards, defaced them, got them set on fire, and then called up journos to cover it - all to show controversy - and people love them controversies and scandals. Now, you can’t set fire to billboards. Can you? (P.S.A. Do. Not. Burn. Billboards) If you’re a Marketer reading this article, your audience hardly ever goes out, so read on! Closer to the digital billboards - Social Media Hashtags, KPop Stans completely decimated #WhiteoutWednesday, which was a reactionary response to B.L.M.s #BlackoutTuesday. While Ryan Holiday manufactured controversy to earn coverage in the news, KPop idols leveraged their ‘Stan Army’ of millions to drown out everything else on one social media hashtag - earning coverage in the news! In Digital Marketing, you can earn coverage via Blogging and advertising. While both come with distinct pros and cons, a better understanding of what you (or your boss) want from a digital marketing campaign will help you choose the one that yields the best results. Bold Blogging If you’ve used gen-AI to write your blogs or hired content creators that charged the least, this option is not for you. For those who understand Blogging is like storytelling and are/hired amazing storytellers, you’re already halfway to Bold Blogging nirvana. The three kinds of stories that always worked with the 3M+ HackerNoon Readership are: How Stuff Works: Not tutorials but also about how certain technologies work. If you’re using PayPal, write about how Internet Payments work, how fraud is detected, and how errors are minimized. Why It Happened: Even though economists will tell us tomorrow why the Markets crashed yesterday, we still love reading their ‘hindsight.’ Insights are great—hindsight is excellent content, too! What’s It Really About: Who doesn’t immediately click on stories that connect the dots across scalars, vectors, and whatnot? Go cross-domain, cross-industry, and even cross-discipline, and watch the readers flock in. Freakonomics sold 4M+ copies in as many years doing exactly that. How Stuff Works: Not tutorials but also about how certain technologies work. If you’re using PayPal, write about how Internet Payments work, how fraud is detected, and how errors are minimized. Why It Happened: Even though economists will tell us tomorrow why the Markets crashed yesterday, we still love reading their ‘hindsight.’ Insights are great—hindsight is excellent content, too! What’s It Really About: Who doesn’t immediately click on stories that connect the dots across scalars, vectors, and whatnot? Go cross-domain, cross-industry, and even cross-discipline, and watch the readers flock in. Freakonomics sold 4M+ copies in as many years doing exactly that. Deviating away from company updates and tutorials as content marketing requires getting bold, and if that’s your cup of tea, go for it! Blog Boldly on HackerNoon Blog Boldly on HackerNoon Blog Boldly on HackerNoon Bold Advertising This term usually gets a bad rep, but here’s where you trade money for direct leads. The trick is to drink from the fewest fountains before reaching the Elixir of Life. If Blogging is a Branding campaign, advertising is a Performance Campaign. If you’re looking for impressions, you pick Programmatic and Social ADs. But, your safest bet for conversions is advertising on niche platforms. Strictly from a C.T.R. standpoint, you’ll get the best results by advertising on the niche platform where most of your audience is. For example, a $5 C.P.M. campaign with a $10,000 budget on Google AD will get you about 2000 clicks, out of which, if you’re lucky, 200 clicks will come from your target audience. For that $10k budget, you’ll get 600 clicks on a niche platform, but about 300 will be from your target audience. But ironically, in your internal marketing meetings, niche platform advertising will be considered a bold decision. If you now have a better idea of how you’d like to earn that coverage, book a call with HackerNoon and try it out! book a call with HackerNoon book a call with HackerNoon

Can You Set A Billboard on Fire For Marketing Points?

আপনি মার্কেটিং পয়েন্টের জন্য আগুনে একটি বিলবোর্ড সেট করতে পারেন?

Können Sie eine Plakatwand für Marketingzwecke in Brand setzen?

¿Se puede prender fuego a una valla publicitaria para obtener puntos de marketing?

Pouvez-vous mettre le feu à un panneau d’affichage pour des points marketing ?

क्या आप मार्केटिंग पॉइंट्स के लिए बिलबोर्ड पर आग लगा सकते हैं?

マーケティングポイントのために看板に火をつけることはできますか?

마케팅 포인트를 얻기 위해 광고판에 불을 붙일 수 있나요?

Você pode colocar fogo em um outdoor para pontos de marketing?

Можете ли вы поджечь рекламный щит ради маркетинговых очков?

Pazarlama Puanı Kazanmak İçin Bir Billboard'u Ateşe Verebilir misiniz?

Bạn có thể đốt cháy bảng quảng cáo để thu hút các điểm tiếp thị không?

您能为了营销点而焚烧广告牌吗？

In 2017, a got tired of its job and committed . Then, in 2022, a , after interacting with LaMDA, the company's chatbot, that technology had become conscious. Recently, it was reported that in 2021, a Tesla software engineer was attacked by an uncontrolled robot. This is without considering the fear that machines will steal jobs, or the classic fiction that machines will take over the world. robot suicide in a water fountain Google engineer declared Although we don't see machines as replicants in Blade Runner, people are predisposed to anthropomorphizing or attributing human qualities to non-humans [1]. It's a way of being able to analyze a scenario and bring it into our understanding: we give names to our boats and tornadoes, we talk to our pets, and say that the pleasant feeling they give us is love. It's easier to understand a system that declares in the first person "I'm sorry, I don't know how to help you" than to accept that the model we're talking to may be nothing more than a stochastic parrot. [2] The anthropomorphized interaction, therefore, relates to the phenomenon of "illusion of agency", a psychological concept that refers to the tendency to attribute autonomous action or control to entities that, in reality, do not possess such capabilities. In other words, it's the mistaken perception that an agent (be it a person, an animal, or a machine) is acting of its own free will, when in fact its actions are being determined by external factors (in the computational case, development rules). In situations where AI systems make flawed decisions or actions, there is a tendency to see these errors as "choices" of the entity rather than results of its programming and design by humans, not least because it has been reported that the selfish bias of a human being that leads someone to see the cause and responsibility for a negative outcome as not attributable to themselves can be observed even in human-machine interactions [3]. This change in perception is dangerously inclined to absolve human creators, operators, and regulators of their responsibility, not as a matter of judicial regulation (which remains a gap and has challenges in its realization not only because of the complexity of the subject but because Artificial Intelligence is often understood only as machine learning and the premise is not properly structured. Do we need stricter regulation? Do we need to take more risks?), but on a techno-ethical issue. Let's take a more extreme but true event from 2023: a user who was sentimentally attached to a chatbot committed suicide after sharing his thoughts with the bot and r to "turn your words into actions", as well as other messages. Would a court conviction of the developers of this product cause another user to behave in the same way with another chatbot, assuming this one has been deactivated, if the content of the messages and the affection are the same? It's not just a legal situation. It's a social, psychological, and technological education issue. eceiving the response The concept of humanizing AI is ambiguous, and a significant challenge lies in the absence of a universally accepted approach that dictates the best practices for designing and utilizing AI. While an interface that mimics human behavior can be more approachable, no clear boundaries are defining what should or shouldn't be done in a product. Ultimately, user rejection becomes the only limiting factor, although potential harm may manifest before the interface becomes too unfamiliar. A user-friendly interface is a reduction in the complexity of the system that operates behind it. But as long as there is no education about how systems work, the user will not be able to think critically about what they use. This doesn't mean that everyone should become a programmer, but at least understand that the output on their screen comes from a path of data collection, model development, and design. There is a set of rules taking place. Since humanization is an almost unconscious act on the part of us users, let's at least limit it with a little knowledge. And it's not easy to avoid anthropomorphism when communicating about AI, especially considering the standard language of the industry, the media, and everyday life itself: machine , computer , generative . Perceptions of Artificial Intelligence can be influenced by the specific use of language. learning vision modelling How AI is presented has "concrete impacts", particularly on the way people distribute responsibility and recognition for the work done. When described merely as a tool in the hands of humans, it tends to attribute greater responsibility and merit to certain individuals - such as the person operating the code. On the other hand, if AI is characterized with human traits - such as the ability to create - then it is seen as deserving of greater credit and responsibility, like an agent with independent thought and mental capacity. [4] When we read news stories about incidents or atypical events involving Artificial Intelligence, we often come across these terms. Also, the attribution of "intelligence" means that more blame or credit for the outcome of a task was attributed to a robot with autonomous behavior than to a non-autonomous robot, even if the autonomous behavior did not directly contribute to the task. [3] These studies therefore suggest that humans can assign responsibility to a computer or robot based on the machines' anthropomorphised mental capacities. The humanization of machines not only shifts the distinction between the responsibility of the device and that of its human creator, but the attribution of intentions or consciousness to a machine at the same time blurs the boundaries of what constitutes true autonomy and consciousness. However, the difficulty in imputing humanity and sentience to a machine lies not only in the fact that Artificial Intelligence is not capable of having it and when it says, for example, that it feels fear, it is actually emulating what it has learned, repeating that phrase without any kind of essence behind it. Even today, there is a heated debate about how to define consciousness. Our consciousness, as humans. Our understanding of how the brain works is still quite limited. We have considerable knowledge about fundamental chemistry: the way neurons activate, and the transmission of chemical signals. We also have a good understanding of the main functions of various brain areas. However, we have very little knowledge about how these functions orchestrate us. To some extent, theoretical speculation has supplanted detailed neurophysiological studies of what  happens in the brain. But what about beyond that? [5] Why do we have this magical notion of ourselves? Why does the same experience affect us differently? Is the same feeling felt in the same way by all of us? If being a human is something that, although we experience it, we still don't have a full understanding of what it is as a whole, how can we say that a machine also experiences this complexity? By elevating machines to human capabilities, we diminish the special character of people. For the 2023 Jabuti Prize, one of the highest honors in Brazilian literature, the Brazilian Book Chamber (CBL) decided to disqualify Frankenstein, an edition of the 1818 classic, from the Best Illustration category, since the artist reported having used AI solutions to develop the art. Ironically, one of the books recognized by the Prize in the Non-Fiction category deals with the impact of Artificial Intelligence on human beings (“Humanamente digital: Inteligência artificial centrada no humano”, something like "Humanly Digital: Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence" in English, by Cassio Pantaleone). On the one hand, we recognize the intertwining of the human experience with machines. On the other hand, we still haven't managed to validate whether an algorithm used as an art tool can be considered a valid method of creation or not, even though the artistic process, even if carried out by machine learning, requires the action (and appreciation of beauty and aesthetics) of a human being. Machines don't steal jobs if they aren't used indiscriminately to do so. Machines don't kill unless they are used as weapons. Nor do machines suffer or empathize, although their texts emulate this since they have been trained with data from us, loaded with feelings that only we can truly feel. They are almost the modern version of the Golem myth. How can humans relate to non-human intelligence? Anthropomorphism is a valid answer, but not the only one. And when it is used, it cannot absolve us of the real responsibility for its consequences, whether appropriate or not: us. Artificial Intelligence is, in the end, a mirror of ourselves. And if we're afraid of where it's going, it's actually because we're afraid of the path we're going to create. REFERENCES [1] Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864 [2] Shneiderman, B. & Muller, M. (2023) . On AI Antropomorphism https://medium.com/human-centered-ai/on-ai-anthropomorphism-abff4cecc5ae [3] Kawai, Y., Miyake, T., Park, J. et al. Anthropomorphism-based causal and responsibility attributions to robots. Sci Rep 13, 12234 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-39435-5 [4] Epstein, Z., Levine, S., Rand, D. G., & Rahwan, I. (2020). Who Gets Credit for AI-Generated Art? In iScience (Vol. 23, Issue 9, p. 101515). Elsevier BV. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101515 [5] Goff, P. (2023). Understanding Consciousness Goes Beyond Exploring Brain Chemistry. Scientific American https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/understanding-consciousness-goes-beyond-exploring-brain-chemistry/ The following prompt generated the image used in this article: “Create a man looking in a mirror, but the mirror is shaped like a robot.” Sofia × DALL·E

No, You Are Not Afraid of Artificial Intelligence. You’re Afraid of Other People

না, আপনি কৃত্রিম বুদ্ধিমত্তাকে ভয় পান না। আপনি অন্য লোকেদের ভয় পান

Nein, Sie haben keine Angst vor künstlicher Intelligenz. Du hast Angst vor anderen Menschen

No, no le tienes miedo a la inteligencia artificial. Tienes miedo de otras personas

Non, vous n'avez pas peur de l'intelligence artificielle. Vous avez peur des autres

नहीं, आप आर्टिफिशियल इंटेलिजेंस से नहीं डरते। आप अन्य लोगों से डरते हैं

いいえ、人工知能を恐れることはありません。他人が怖い

아니요, 당신은 인공지능을 두려워하지 않습니다. 당신은 다른 사람을 두려워합니다

Não, você não tem medo da inteligência artificial. Você tem medo de outras pessoas

Нет, вы не боитесь искусственного интеллекта. Вы боитесь других людей

Hayır, Yapay Zekadan Korkmuyorsunuz. Başkalarından Korkuyorsunuz

Không, bạn không sợ trí tuệ nhân tạo. Bạn sợ người khác

不，你并不害怕人工智能。你害怕别人

Stories, News & Mentions about FOUNTAIN9

Fountain9’s Stories on HackerNoon