Hubii

hubii

“The line separating investment and speculation, which is never bright and clear, becomes blurred still further when most market participants have recently enjoyed triumphs. Nothing sedates rationality like large doses of effortless money. After a heady experience of that kind, normally sensible people drift into behavior akin to that of Cinderella at the ball. They know that overstaying the festivities — that is, continuing to speculate in companies that have gigantic valuations relative to the cash they are likely to generate in the future — will eventually bring on pumpkins and mice. But they nevertheless hate to miss a single minute of what is one helluva party. Therefore, the giddy participants all plan to leave just seconds before midnight. There’s a problem, though: They are dancing in a room in which the clocks have no hands.” — Warren Buffett in a letter to shareholders The Most Dangerous Idea in Investing If I were to ask you what you think the most dangerous idea is in investing that investors must be wary of, what would you say that is? Bear markets? High volatility? Technical analysis? No, no, and again no. The most dangerous idea in investing is the following four words: “This time is different”. “This time is different” is a result of the hubris of an overly eager investor, the rallying cry of investors that believe they can ignore previous attitudes, beliefs, concepts, or ideas about investing because, “This time it’s different”. When you hear say somebody say that phrase, or something like it, you should run as far away as possible and don’t look back. That phrase has caused more money to be lost than at the point of a gun. I don’t care how different the latest investing craze seems, or how widely innovative some piece of technology is that you’re investing in, there is always at least some similarity between today’s investing experience and experiences of the past. In fact, these similarities may be more remarkably closer than you might think. This still holds true even in the “wild-west” field of investing in cryptocurrency. As much as we’d like this to not be true, fundamentals will still apply for cryptocurrencies in the long-term. Which cryptocurrencies/tokens will provide actual value in 10–15 years? Which tokens are designed in such a way that it actually makes sense to hold the token for a long time? Is the team behind a cryptocurrency/token experienced, reputable, and trustworthy? Is a cryptocurrency/token addressing a real-world problem, or is a token attempting to create a solution for a problem that doesn’t actually exist (i.e. putting the cart before the horse)? You must be able to answer these questions fully if you want to invest in cryptocurrencies/tokens that will provide you with strong returns in the next few years. It’s understandable, of course, why one might get into the “This time is different” mentality when it comes to cryptocurrency. After all, usually this mentality is correlated with dreams of unimaginable riches, a belief that this time truly different, and that previous times in which something similar occurred were fundamentally different (e.g. the dot-com bubble) is During the dot-com bubble, investors had the mentality of “This time is different” as well, because of the innovativeness of the technology and its long-lasting implications. During this bubble, many investors were eager to invest in any company at any valuation, that had a “.com” suffix at the end of its title. We’re seeing the same thing happening today — A British company called “ ” that invests in internet and information businesses announced that it was planning on changing its name to “On-line Blockchain Plc”. Its shares jumped 394% in one day. This isn’t some wild or extreme case either. A biotech company called “ ”changed its name to “Riot Blockchain” and its stock rose more than 50% ahead of the announcement, and 17% after they formally unveiled the name-change. On-line plc Bioptix This is concerning. The fact that a company is able to simply add a term to its name, and have its stock’s value skyrocket, should show you the irrationality that the market has for anything and everything blockchain/cryptocurrency related. It’s no different than the greater fools willing to pay massive valuations for dot-com companies. Mark Twain once said, In no field is this more true than investing. According to the book , I’ll let you, the reader, decide whether or not this holds true of the cryptocurrency market as well. “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes”. This Time Is Different “The U.S. conceit that its financial and regulatory system could withstand massive capital inflows on a sustained basis… arguably laid the foundations for the global financial crisis of the 2000s.” Known Unknowns, Unknown Knowns, and Systemic Risk Donald Rumsfeld “There are known knowns, things we know that we know; and there are known unknowns, things that we know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns, things we do not know we don’t know.” — If when you hear or see the words “systemic risk”, your eyes glaze over in confusion, then there’s a problem. So I’m going to take the following paragraph to explain exactly what systemic risk is. Systemic risk is the possibility that an event within a specific company or group could cause massive instability and uncertainty across an entire market. In this case, we’re concerned with systemic risk within the market of cryptocurrencies and tokens. Companies or groups that are systemic risks are sometimes colloquially referred to as “too big to fail”, i.e. if it fails we’re FUBAR, so it can’t fail. There are many different types of systemic risk, and it all really depends on the industry or field that we’re concerned with. A systemic risk in a particular market could be contained simply in that market, and could have no impact on the wider economy as a whole. Sometimes, systemic risk could cause instability in the entire economy. These are the ones we should be the most concerned about. What’s particularly concerning about systemic risk is how often people are blind to it, most often unwillingly but sometimes willingly. But wait, why would somebody choose to be willingly blind towards risk? Wouldn’t investors want to be aware of it so they can take caution and take actions to prevent being affected by systemic risk? The answer, simply put, is no. Cryptocurrency investors can too willingly ignore obvious systemic risk because they’re making too much money to be concerned with some stupid concept like “systemic risk”, because what in the world is “systemic risk” anyhow? Just another term that economics professors (whom they view as charlatans) use to prevent them from making more money with risky investments, in their view. To them, that’s somebody else’s problem to deal with, not theirs. One of the difficulties of systemic risk is it’s nearly impossible to make exact predictions regarding whether or not it’ll actually affect anything, and how it’ll affect the market, unless one is privy to insider information. The more precise the prediction regarding systemic risk, the less likely it is to occur, and thus people try to avoid calling something a systemic risk to avoid looking like a fool if the supposed “systemic risk” that they declare never takes place. This is one reason, I believe, why the most alarming and obvious systemic risks are willingly ignored. Let’s say I call something out as being an obvious systemic risk and make a big fuss out of it to everybody that I can so that they’re aware of it. Maybe, just maybe, I could be wrong and nothing bad materializes out of the systemic risk I kept yammering about. Now my reputation is ruined because I made such an uproar about something that, ultimately, was insignificant. Who wants that to happen to them? That’s often why people who point out the obvious systemic risks are the ones at the bottom of the totem pole: they have nothing to lose. If they’re wrong then it doesn’t affect them as much because they didn’t have a reputation in the first place. But if they’re right, they’ll have fame (or infamy) and most likely get book deals, be invited to CNBC, and maybe even be a main character in a biopic if they detect and call out systemic risk for something particularly important (e.g. ) The Big Short One aspect about systemic risk is the idea of the “Cassandra” archetype. What is this archetype? Cassandra was a woman in greek mythology who was cursed to speak true prophecies that nobody else believed. Cassandras exist to this day; these are the people calling out systemic risks in financial markets that people turn a blind-eye to. They’re viewed as obnoxious at best, and harmful at worst, and they’re not redeemed until their prophecies (i.e. systemic risks) materialize and cause catastrophe. A difficulty that investors might have is distinguishing between the Cassandras of the financial market, and the delusional hucksters. So I’d like to propose some questions you can use when attempting to assess whether somebody is a harbinger of (mis)fortune, or completely deluded. Note that these questions aren’t exhaustive, but hopefully it provides a good jumping off point to allow you to generate your own questions/criteria. Note this doesn’t just apply to cryptocurrency, but almost anything. In any case, here are the questions you should be asking: Questions to ask yourself to determine if somebody is a quack, charlatan, or con-artist Does this person have experience within this field? Has this person published any peer-reviewed papers/books on the subject? Has this person been accredited by a reputable organization as an expert in the field? Is this person knowledgeable of current literature and information in the field? 2. What is this person’s incentives? Are they ideologically motivated? Are they financially motivated? Do they have skin in the game (e.g. do they get affected if they’re wrong)? 3. How accurate is the information they’re using? Do they use facts/data to back up their arguments, or do they mostly use conjecture? Are the facts they’re using relevant to the claim they’re trying to make? Are the sources they provide reputable? 4. Who else is saying something similar? Are other reputable people saying the same thing? If so, how many people are saying it that are considered experts in their field? 5. How bad would it be to their reputation if they were wrong? 6. How adamant are they about their warnings to others? In Conclusion Be aware of systemic risks when you are investing in cryptocurrencies. Avoid excessive hubris, and stop telling yourself “this time it’s different” if the fundamentals of a cryptocurrency investment doesn’t make sense. When a so-called blockchain/cryptocurrency expert claims or predicts something, ask yourself the questions that I’ve provided above to figure out how much you should consider their opinion. Best of luck with your cryptocurrency investments. May the investment fundamentals be in your favor. You can support me by donating ETH (or ERC20 tokens) to this address: 0x0BcB78d67D8d929dc03542a5aEdef257f378e513 You can reach out to me directly at my email in my Medium bio. Please clap

Hubris and Systemic Risk in Cryptocurrencies

Beat Back "Toxic Comparison" With These 4 Lifehacks

It's absolutely infuriating how cybercriminals get away with their heinous actions with little to no consequences! We’re living in a digital age where everything—from our most personal information to critical national security data—is stored online, and yet these cyber scum are free to exploit these vulnerabilities without fear. It’s like our legal and regulatory frameworks are stuck in the Dark Ages, hopelessly out of touch with the sophisticated and constantly evolving threats posed by these digital marauders. The primary danger of cybercrime is the horrifyingly low rate at which guilty criminals are caught or prosecuted. This pitifully low conviction rate leaves governments and businesses exposed to relentless, targeted attacks, creating a breeding ground for digital chaos. A measly 0.3% of all reported cybercrime complaints actually result in enforcement and prosecution. That's a pathetic 3 out of 1,000 malicious cyber incidents where the perpetrators are arrested and brought to justice. This enormous enforcement gap gives these malicious actors the boldness to carry out their nefarious activities without fear of being caught, prosecuted, or punished. To make matters worse, a significant percentage of cybercrime victims don't even bother reporting the cases, meaning the real enforcement rate might be less than a laughable 0.05%. It's also crucial to highlight that cybercrime has skyrocketed in recent years, as more and more individuals dive into this vice for the lucrative rewards. Recent research shows that some cybercriminals rake in up to $2 million annually, while others earn between $40,000 and $1 million each year. The attackers spend as much time meticulously planning and designing their malicious activities as they do devising ways to remain hidden and under the radar. The dark web serves as their perfect playground, a shadowy marketplace where they can freely engage in various cybercrime activities, further compounding the difficulty of apprehending them. I’d like to point out,  the sheer gall of these cybercriminals is beyond infuriating. They hide in the shadows, comfortably ensconced behind their screens, wreaking havoc on individuals, businesses, and governments alike. And when they do get caught? What do they face? A laughable slap on the wrist! A short prison sentence or a measly fine that does nothing to deter them. These so-called "penalties" are a joke, a disgrace considering the monumental damage these tech-savvy crooks inflict. They can easily vanish into the digital abyss, only to resurface and start their dirty work all over again. And don’t get me started on the international aspect of cybercrime. These digital parasites can operate from anywhere in the world, exploiting legal loopholes and hiding in countries that refuse to cooperate with international law enforcement. The lack of global coordination is a glaring weakness that these criminals exploit with glee. Why should they fear any repercussions when they can simply jump from one safe haven to another, always staying one step ahead of the authorities? It’s a pathetic game of cat and mouse, and the mice are winning! Then there’s the infuriating issue of underreporting. Businesses and individuals alike are often too scared to report cybercrimes, fearing damage to their reputation or believing, rightly, that the authorities are useless. This only emboldens the cybercriminals further, creating an environment where they can operate with impunity. It’s an outrage that the cumulative damage of cybercrime goes largely unacknowledged because victims are silenced by fear and helplessness. The scale of the threat is astronomical, yet it’s treated with a casual indifference that’s maddening. The financial toll is staggering. Cybercrime drains billions from the global economy every single year. Companies are forced to pay ransoms, invest heavily in cybersecurity, and deal with the fallout of data breaches, all while consumers bear the brunt through identity theft and fraud. Yet, despite these catastrophic financial implications, we allocate a pittance to combat cybercrime. We need more funding, more resources, and more political will to tackle this menace head-on. The current state of affairs is a travesty, an absolute dereliction of duty by those in power. The Human Cost The human cost is equally maddening. The victims of cybercrime suffer immensely, experiencing stress, anxiety, and a profound sense of violation. These aren’t just abstract attacks on systems; they’re brutal assaults on real people. Whether it’s an individual whose identity has been stolen or a business owner whose life’s work is being held hostage, the emotional and psychological toll is immense. And what do the cybercriminals face? Virtually nothing. It’s a gross injustice, a slap in the face to every victim. Our legal system’s response to cybercrime is pitifully slow and outdated. Laws lag behind technological advancements, and by the time we catch up, cybercriminals have already found new ways to exploit weaknesses. We need agile, forward-thinking policies that can anticipate future cyber threats and adapt quickly. This requires not just legal reform but a complete overhaul of our cultural approach to cybersecurity. Pandora's Box - Opened By Us It's downright maddening that we humans have opened Pandora's box with our insatiable drive for digital advancement, only to watch in horror as cybercriminals run rampant without facing real consequences. We created this monster, and now we're helplessly watching it tear through our lives, our businesses, and our governments, all while these digital parasites cackle from the dark corners of the internet. It’s beyond infuriating that we’ve unleashed this chaos upon ourselves and yet seem utterly incapable of reining it in. Our relentless quest for connectivity and convenience has left us exposed. We’ve put everything online—our bank accounts, our personal information, our deepest secrets—like lambs to the slaughter. We’ve built this intricate web of technology, only to be ensnared by it ourselves. It’s our own damn fault that cybercriminals are having a field day, exploiting every vulnerability we’ve created in our rush to digitize every aspect of our lives. And the worst part? We’re the ones who suffer, while the criminals laugh to their offshore accounts. Think about the absurdity of it: we’ve invented all these incredible technologies, but we’ve also handed cybercriminals the keys to our kingdoms. We’ve armed them with the tools they need to wreak havoc, and now they’re doing it with impunity. It’s like we’ve built a fortress but forgot to lock the doors, and now we’re surprised that the thieves are helping themselves to everything inside. The sheer incompetence is staggering. We’ve also created a perfect breeding ground for these criminals by being so ridiculously dependent on digital systems. We can’t go a day without our phones, our emails, our online banking. We’ve woven technology so tightly into the fabric of our lives that we’re left vulnerable at every turn. And yet, despite this dependency, we’ve done a pathetic job of protecting ourselves. It’s like we’ve built a house of cards and are now shocked that the slightest breeze is bringing it all down. Where Is The Accountability? And where is the accountability? Where are the harsh penalties, the deterrents that should be striking fear into the hearts of these cybercriminals? Nowhere to be found. Instead, we have a system that’s slow, outdated, and completely outmatched by the speed and sophistication of cybercrime. We need a radical overhaul, not just a few tweaks here and there. We need laws that are as fast and ruthless as the criminals they’re meant to catch. Until we get serious about this, we’re just spinning our wheels while the criminals race ahead. We’ve also been incredibly naive, trusting blindly in the security of our digital systems. We’ve bought into the illusion that technology is infallible, that our data is safe. Well, guess what? It’s not. Cybercriminals are constantly evolving, finding new ways to exploit our weaknesses, and we’re always playing catch-up. It’s a losing game, and we’re losing badly. Cybercriminals should be terrified of the repercussions, not laughing at the pathetic state of our current defenses. Until we tackle these issues with the urgency and seriousness they deserve, we’ll continue to live in a world where cybercriminals run rampant, causing untold damage with impunity. And that is utterly unacceptable! It’s us humans who opened Pandora’s box, and now we’re reaping the whirlwind. We’ve created the technology, we’ve built the systems, and we’ve made ourselves dependent on them, only to see it all turned against us by cybercriminals who face little to no consequences. It’s a colossal failure on our part, a stunning display of hubris and incompetence. We need to wake up, get serious about cybersecurity, and start holding these criminals accountable with real, severe consequences. Otherwise, we’re just going to keep watching as the chaos we unleashed continues to destroy everything we hold dear. It's absolutely infuriating how cybercriminals get away with their heinous actions with little to no consequences! We’re living in a digital age where everything—from our most personal information to critical national security data—is stored online, and yet these cyber scum are free to exploit these vulnerabilities without fear. It’s like our legal and regulatory frameworks are stuck in the Dark Ages, hopelessly out of touch with the sophisticated and constantly evolving threats posed by these digital marauders. The primary danger of cybercrime is the horrifyingly low rate at which guilty criminals are caught or prosecuted. This pitifully low conviction rate leaves governments and businesses exposed to relentless, targeted attacks, creating a breeding ground for digital chaos. cybercrime A measly 0.3% of all reported cybercrime complaints actually result in enforcement and prosecution. That's a pathetic 3 out of 1,000 malicious cyber incidents where the perpetrators are arrested and brought to justice. This enormous enforcement gap gives these malicious actors the boldness to carry out their nefarious activities without fear of being caught, prosecuted, or punished. To make matters worse, a significant percentage of cybercrime victims don't even bother reporting the cases, meaning the real enforcement rate might be less than a laughable 0.05%. It's also crucial to highlight that cybercrime has skyrocketed in recent years, as more and more individuals dive into this vice for the lucrative rewards. Recent research shows that some cybercriminals rake in up to $2 million annually, while others earn between $40,000 and $1 million each year. The attackers spend as much time meticulously planning and designing their malicious activities as they do devising ways to remain hidden and under the radar. The dark web serves as their perfect playground, a shadowy marketplace where they can freely engage in various cybercrime activities, further compounding the difficulty of apprehending them. I’d like to point out,  the sheer gall of these cybercriminals is beyond infuriating. They hide in the shadows, comfortably ensconced behind their screens, wreaking havoc on individuals, businesses, and governments alike. And when they do get caught? What do they face? A laughable slap on the wrist! A short prison sentence or a measly fine that does nothing to deter them. These so-called "penalties" are a joke, a disgrace considering the monumental damage these tech-savvy crooks inflict. They can easily vanish into the digital abyss, only to resurface and start their dirty work all over again. And don’t get me started on the international aspect of cybercrime. These digital parasites can operate from anywhere in the world, exploiting legal loopholes and hiding in countries that refuse to cooperate with international law enforcement. The lack of global coordination is a glaring weakness that these criminals exploit with glee. Why should they fear any repercussions when they can simply jump from one safe haven to another, always staying one step ahead of the authorities? It’s a pathetic game of cat and mouse, and the mice are winning! Then there’s the infuriating issue of underreporting. Businesses and individuals alike are often too scared to report cybercrimes, fearing damage to their reputation or believing, rightly, that the authorities are useless. This only emboldens the cybercriminals further, creating an environment where they can operate with impunity. It’s an outrage that the cumulative damage of cybercrime goes largely unacknowledged because victims are silenced by fear and helplessness. The scale of the threat is astronomical, yet it’s treated with a casual indifference that’s maddening. The financial toll is staggering. Cybercrime drains billions from the global economy every single year. Companies are forced to pay ransoms, invest heavily in cybersecurity, and deal with the fallout of data breaches, all while consumers bear the brunt through identity theft and fraud. Yet, despite these catastrophic financial implications, we allocate a pittance to combat cybercrime. We need more funding, more resources, and more political will to tackle this menace head-on. The current state of affairs is a travesty, an absolute dereliction of duty by those in power. The Human Cost The human cost is equally maddening. The victims of cybercrime suffer immensely, experiencing stress, anxiety, and a profound sense of violation. These aren’t just abstract attacks on systems; they’re brutal assaults on real people. Whether it’s an individual whose identity has been stolen or a business owner whose life’s work is being held hostage, the emotional and psychological toll is immense. And what do the cybercriminals face? Virtually nothing. It’s a gross injustice, a slap in the face to every victim. Our legal system’s response to cybercrime is pitifully slow and outdated. Laws lag behind technological advancements, and by the time we catch up, cybercriminals have already found new ways to exploit weaknesses. We need agile, forward-thinking policies that can anticipate future cyber threats and adapt quickly. This requires not just legal reform but a complete overhaul of our cultural approach to cybersecurity. cyber threats Pandora's Box - Opened By Us It's downright maddening that we humans have opened Pandora's box with our insatiable drive for digital advancement, only to watch in horror as cybercriminals run rampant without facing real consequences. We created this monster, and now we're helplessly watching it tear through our lives, our businesses, and our governments, all while these digital parasites cackle from the dark corners of the internet. It’s beyond infuriating that we’ve unleashed this chaos upon ourselves and yet seem utterly incapable of reining it in. Our relentless quest for connectivity and convenience has left us exposed. We’ve put everything online—our bank accounts, our personal information, our deepest secrets—like lambs to the slaughter. We’ve built this intricate web of technology, only to be ensnared by it ourselves. It’s our own damn fault that cybercriminals are having a field day, exploiting every vulnerability we’ve created in our rush to digitize every aspect of our lives. And the worst part? We’re the ones who suffer, while the criminals laugh to their offshore accounts. Think about the absurdity of it: we’ve invented all these incredible technologies, but we’ve also handed cybercriminals the keys to our kingdoms. We’ve armed them with the tools they need to wreak havoc, and now they’re doing it with impunity. It’s like we’ve built a fortress but forgot to lock the doors, and now we’re surprised that the thieves are helping themselves to everything inside. The sheer incompetence is staggering. We’ve also created a perfect breeding ground for these criminals by being so ridiculously dependent on digital systems. We can’t go a day without our phones, our emails, our online banking. We’ve woven technology so tightly into the fabric of our lives that we’re left vulnerable at every turn. And yet, despite this dependency, we’ve done a pathetic job of protecting ourselves. It’s like we’ve built a house of cards and are now shocked that the slightest breeze is bringing it all down. Where Is The Accountability? And where is the accountability? Where are the harsh penalties, the deterrents that should be striking fear into the hearts of these cybercriminals? Nowhere to be found. Instead, we have a system that’s slow, outdated, and completely outmatched by the speed and sophistication of cybercrime. We need a radical overhaul, not just a few tweaks here and there. We need laws that are as fast and ruthless as the criminals they’re meant to catch. Until we get serious about this, we’re just spinning our wheels while the criminals race ahead. We’ve also been incredibly naive, trusting blindly in the security of our digital systems. We’ve bought into the illusion that technology is infallible, that our data is safe. Well, guess what? It’s not. Cybercriminals are constantly evolving, finding new ways to exploit our weaknesses, and we’re always playing catch-up. It’s a losing game, and we’re losing badly. Cybercriminals should be terrified of the repercussions, not laughing at the pathetic state of our current defenses. Until we tackle these issues with the urgency and seriousness they deserve, we’ll continue to live in a world where cybercriminals run rampant, causing untold damage with impunity. And that is utterly unacceptable! It’s us humans who opened Pandora’s box, and now we’re reaping the whirlwind. We’ve created the technology, we’ve built the systems, and we’ve made ourselves dependent on them, only to see it all turned against us by cybercriminals who face little to no consequences. It’s a colossal failure on our part, a stunning display of hubris and incompetence. We need to wake up, get serious about cybersecurity, and start holding these criminals accountable with real, severe consequences. Otherwise, we’re just going to keep watching as the chaos we unleashed continues to destroy everything we hold dear.

Cyber Scum Are Free To Exploit Vulnerabilities Without Fear

The Anti-Luck, Decision Making Framework: Mastering the Art of Making Smart Choices

ভাগ্য বিরোধী, সিদ্ধান্ত নেওয়ার কাঠামো: স্মার্ট পছন্দ করার শিল্পে দক্ষতা অর্জন

Das Anti-Glück-Framework zur Entscheidungsfindung: Die Kunst meistern, kluge Entscheidungen zu treffen

El marco de toma de decisiones anti-suerte: dominar el arte de tomar decisiones inteligentes

Le cadre de prise de décision anti-chance : maîtriser l’art de faire des choix intelligents

भाग्य-विरोधी, निर्णय लेने का ढाँचा: स्मार्ट विकल्प बनाने की कला में निपुणता

運に左右されない意思決定フレームワーク: 賢い選択をする技術を習得する

행운 방지, 의사 결정 프레임워크: 현명한 선택을 하는 기술 익히기

A estrutura anti-sorte para tomada de decisões: dominando a arte de fazer escolhas inteligentes

Система принятия решений против удачи: освоение искусства принятия разумных решений

Şans Karşıtı Karar Verme Çerçevesi: Akıllı Seçimler Yapma Sanatında Ustalaşmak

Khung ra quyết định, chống may mắn: Nắm vững nghệ thuật đưa ra lựa chọn thông minh

反运气决策框架：掌握做出明智选择的艺术

When James Cameron first teased Terminator 2 back in the day, it was through a 90-second teaser that showed an automated robot factory pumping out endless rows of robots, ending with a shot of Arnold as the build process completed. Pure pulp fiction. Or was it? Fast forward to 2024, and we are now entering the era of the hyperfactory, where the main body of cars is autonomously assembled every 76 seconds. No, that’s not a mistype because Xaoimi, the smartphone OEM, has entered the electric vehicle arena with the SU7 and with it, a factory setup that is 91% automated with 400 robots armed with HD cameras and can operate in the dark. It reminds me of the time I spent on stage at the Big Data Expo in China with the chairman of Foxconn, and we debated the merits of running a smartphone factory with the lights off — because who needs lights when it’s just the robots running the show? The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment.
— Warren Bennis Watching the keynote reveal is an eye-opening vision of the future of manufacturing but not in the way you think. “We have 269 welding machines to achieve 100% automated production and have the 36 robots to achieve 0.5 millimeters of assembly precision” “…industry leading seven axis coating robots with 70,000 RPM, it can make the paint coverage extremely fine balanced. This produces a natural flat and smooth finish..” “AMR robots that can replace forklifts/internal transport around the factory…” The best part is that the cars can then drive themselves off the factory line with the autopilot software that the company has introduced. In all, it’s a fascinating look at the future of car manufacturing. But there’s something else to consider. We are looking at the precursor of mass-produced, highly automated robot and drone production, something that I can’t help but compare to that dystopian movie. Because, let’s face it, everything is starting to point towards it. We have major AI players all rushing to give their hyperbolic algorithms some form of physical embodiment to contextually understand the world around them in a new dimension. The idea that military, DARPA, or even startup funding won’t find its way to a hyperfactory of this kind is ludicrous because they’ll be eyeing this up as a way to mass-produce killer drones and robotic tech in the blink of an eye if it means flooding the market with robotic slaves. One of the best (read: accurate) dystopian movies of the future to this day is Elysium by Neill Blomkamp, but even then, his vision of a robotic factory is forcing human labor to manufacture the military machines that take the piss on a daily basis. It just won’t be like that. It’s time to pay close attention to other industries for clues as to how stuff like Terminator or The Matrix could feasibly come true — our hubris in automating the human out of every job role and process will ultimately lead us to a path where automation can be easily retooled and reprogrammed to manufacture something else. And it won’t be a Roomba. When James Cameron first teased Terminator 2 back in the day, it was through a 90-second teaser that showed an automated robot factory pumping out endless rows of robots, ending with a shot of Arnold as the build process completed. Pure pulp fiction. Or was it? Fast forward to 2024, and we are now entering the era of the hyperfactory, where the main body of cars is autonomously assembled every 76 seconds. Fast forward to 2024, and we are now entering the era of the hyperfactory , where the main body of cars is autonomously assembled every 76 seconds. hyperfactory No, that’s not a mistype because Xaoimi, the smartphone OEM, has entered the electric vehicle arena with the SU7 and with it, a factory setup that is 91% automated with 400 robots armed with HD cameras and can operate in the dark. It reminds me of the time I spent on stage at the Big Data Expo in China with the chairman of Foxconn, and we debated the merits of running a smartphone factory with the lights off — because who needs lights when it’s just the robots running the show? It reminds me of the time I spent on stage at the Big Data Expo in China with the chairman of Foxconn, The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment. — Warren Bennis The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment. The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment. — Warren Bennis — Warren Bennis Watching the keynote reveal is an eye-opening vision of the future of manufacturing but not in the way you think. keynote reveal keynote reveal “We have 269 welding machines to achieve 100% automated production and have the 36 robots to achieve 0.5 millimeters of assembly precision” “…industry leading seven axis coating robots with 70,000 RPM, it can make the paint coverage extremely fine balanced. This produces a natural flat and smooth finish..” “AMR robots that can replace forklifts/internal transport around the factory…” The best part is that the cars can then drive themselves off the factory line with the autopilot software that the company has introduced. In all, it’s a fascinating look at the future of car manufacturing. But there’s something else to consider. We are looking at the precursor of mass-produced, highly automated robot and drone production, something that I can’t help but compare to that dystopian movie. We are looking at the precursor of mass-produced, highly automated robot and drone production, something that I can’t help but compare to that dystopian movie. that dystopian movie. Because, let’s face it, everything is starting to point towards it. We have major AI players all rushing to give their hyperbolic algorithms some form of physical embodiment to contextually understand the world around them in a new dimension. The idea that military, DARPA, or even startup funding won’t find its way to a hyperfactory of this kind is ludicrous because they’ll be eyeing this up as a way to mass-produce killer drones and robotic tech in the blink of an eye if it means flooding the market with robotic slaves. The idea that military, DARPA, or even startup funding won’t find its way to a hyperfactory of this kind is ludicrous because they’ll be eyeing this up as a way to mass-produce killer drones and robotic tech in the blink of an eye if it means flooding the market with robotic slaves. One of the best ( read: accurate ) dystopian movies of the future to this day is Elysium by Neill Blomkamp, but even then, his vision of a robotic factory is forcing human labor to manufacture the military machines that take the piss on a daily basis. It just won’t be like that. read: accurate It’s time to pay close attention to other industries for clues as to how stuff like Terminator or The Matrix could feasibly come true — our hubris in automating the human out of every job role and process will ultimately lead us to a path where automation can be easily retooled and reprogrammed to manufacture something else. And it won’t be a Roomba.

Skynet Is Not the One You Should Be Fearing - Fear Your Favourite Car Manufacturer Instead

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 1 of 33. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here The Government respectfully submits this memorandum in advance of the sentencing of Samuel Bankman-Fried, presently scheduled for March 28, 2024, and in response to the defendant’s sentencing memorandum dated February 27, 2024 (“Def. Mem.”). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Samuel Bankman-Fried was convicted of orchestrating one of the largest financial frauds in history, and what is likely the largest fraud in the last decade. The enormous scale of the fraud at FTX is measured not just by the amount of money that was stolen, although the more-than-$8 billion of customer money that was misappropriated puts this crime in a class of cases that can be counted on one hand. The unprecedented scope of the fraud at FTX may also be measured in the number and types of victims, in the fraud’s geographic reach, and in the breadth and frequency of the unlawful and unethical acts undertaken by the defendant in service of a scheme to use other people’s money for his own benefit and influence. The defendant victimized tens of thousands of people and companies, across several continents, over a period of multiple years. He stole money from customers who entrusted it to him; he lied to investors; he sent fabricated documents to lenders; he pumped millions of dollars in illegal donations into our political system; and he bribed foreign officials. Each of these crimes is worthy of a lengthy sentence. The losses from each of the defendant’s frauds—on customers, investors, and lenders—would alone put the defendant’s advisory sentencing range at the top of the Guidelines. His unlawful political donations to over 300 politicians and political action groups, amounting to in excess of $100 million, is believed to be the largest-ever campaign finance offense. His bribe of Chinese government officials—totaling $150 million—was one of the single largest by an individual. Even following FTX’s bankruptcy and his subsequent arrest, Bankman-Fried shirked responsibility, deflected blame to market events and other individuals, attempted to tamper with witnesses, and lied repeatedly under oath. With all the advantages conferred by a comfortable upbringing, an MIT education, a prestigious start to his career in finance, and a worthy idea for a startup business, Bankman-Fried could have pursued the rewarding, productive, and altruistic life he has sketched out in his sentencing submission. But instead, his life in recent years has been one of unmatched greed and hubris; of ambition and rationalization; and courting risk and gambling repeatedly with other people’s money. And even now Bankman-Fried refuses to admit what he did was wrong. Having set himself on the goal of amassing endless wealth and unlimited power—to the point that he thought he might become President and the world’s first trillionaire—there was little BankmanFried did not do to achieve it. While he did not spend the money he stole on nice clothes or cars, that does not mean his life has not been defined by excess. The trial record puts the lie to the statements in his submission that he was “never motivated by greed” and “eschews materialistic trappings.” Using customers’ and investors’ money, the defendant bought luxury real estate; he made risky investments that he otherwise could not afford; he made charitable donations (for which he still takes credit) using other people’s money; he made political contributions using other people’s money to get unrivaled access to political leaders; he promoted his company in a Super Bowl ad; he named a basketball arena after his company; and he paid for access to celebrities, to name just a few of the things on which he spent money. And unlike so many defendants before this Court, there are no persuasive mitigating conditions to explain his criminal conduct. His crimes are not the product of dire financial circumstances, passion or impulse, or a momentary lapse of judgment. Unlike other white collar offenders, the losses the defendant is responsible for are not borne exclusively by sophisticated investors or extrapolated based on a stock price drop. The victims, on the other hand, include tens of thousands of everyday people. People who entrusted the defendant with their money, and relied on it being there when they wanted to withdraw it. The victims in this case include people who deposited their retirement funds and nest eggs with FTX; they include people in war-torn or financially insecure countries, who counted on FTX as a place to keep money safe; they include people who could not afford to have their money taken or rendered unavailable. They include people who lost their “entire life savings,” no longer have money to pay for a sick family member or children’s education, were deprived of the chance to “break generational poverty,” and are “devastated” and “heartbroken.” So the fact that two years later victims may receive some money back through FTX’s bankruptcy is of little comfort for those victims who needed the money in November 2022. The suffocating sense of dread and despair that victims felt when they could not withdraw their money, their shame and embarrassment, and the resulting damage to lives and businesses, cannot be undone through the bankruptcy. The assertions that customers will be repaid in full omit critical context about the nature of the claims allowed in the bankruptcy. And even as victims are repaid, that is the result of extensive work in the bankruptcy process and criminal forfeiture, not the result of the defendant’s actions, which in many respects have been counterproductive. All of this conduct was willful. In every part of his business, and with respect to each crime committed, the defendant demonstrated a brazen disrespect for the rule of law. He understood the rules, but decided they did not apply to him. He knew what society deemed illegal and unethical, but disregarded that based on a pernicious megalomania guided by the defendant’s own values and sense of superiority. And he knew his customers’ expectations—that he would hold their money safe—but he disregarded them based on a callous belief that he could put their money to better use. The scope, duration, nature, and sheer number of Bankman-Fried’s crimes, the resulting harm they have caused, the willful disregard of the rule of law, and the absence of countervailing mitigating circumstances render him exceptionally deserving of a sentence that is sufficiently severe to provide justice for the defendant’s crimes and to dissuade others from committing similar crimes, and that will permit the defendant to return to liberty only after society can be assured that he will not have the opportunity to turn back to fraud and deceit. Although it is unlikely (but not impossible) that the defendant will work in finance again, and will likely forfeit all of his ill-gotten gains, justice requires that he receive a prison sentence commensurate with the extraordinary dimensions of his crimes. For these reasons, the legitimate purposes of punishment require a sentence of 40 to 50 years’ imprisonment. 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 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 Lead image source: Lam Yik/Bloomberg via Getty Images

US Prosecutor Argues that SBF Deserves 40-50 Years in Prison

ইউএস প্রসিকিউটর যুক্তি দেন যে SBF 40-50 বছরের কারাগারের যোগ্য

US-Staatsanwalt argumentiert, dass SBF 40 bis 50 Jahre Gefängnis verdient

Fiscal estadounidense sostiene que SBF merece entre 40 y 50 años de prisión

Le procureur américain affirme que SBF mérite 40 à 50 ans de prison

अमेरिकी अभियोजक का तर्क है कि एसबीएफ 40-50 साल की जेल का हकदार है

米検察、SBFは懲役40～50年に値すると主張

미국 검찰, SBF가 40~50년 징역형을 받아야 한다고 주장

Promotor dos EUA argumenta que SBF merece 40-50 anos de prisão

Прокурор США утверждает, что SBF заслуживает 40-50 лет тюрьмы

ABD Savcısı SBF'nin 40-50 Yıl Hapis Cezasını Hak Ettiğini Savundu

Công tố viên Hoa Kỳ lập luận rằng SBF đáng phải nhận mức án 40-50 năm tù

美国检察官辩称SBF应被判处40-50年监禁

143 Stories To Learn About Data Visualization

253 Stories To Learn About Data Analysis

Safeguarding Your Digital Realms with OWASP's Arcane Security Practices 🛡️🌟 (Along with Gandalf the Grey🧙‍♂️) In every developer’s saga, genuine might lies in their unwavering commitment to , as resilient and watchful as the Elves of yore. This chronicle imparts upon thee, the true guardians of the code, the sacred and guarded tutorials to shield your containers from all that lurk in the digital shadows. 🛡️🌟 mastering the arcane security practices bestowed by OWASP In the silvery domains of our servers lies the heart of our craft: the containers, akin to the One Ring in their significance. And just as Gandalf the Grey mustered the Fellowship, —to safeguard these vessels as Gollum guards his treasured ‘precious’. OWASP unites developers under a singular banner "My Precious! 💍" - The Art of Container Protection with OWASP's Secret Runes Evoke the treasures hidden within the deep mines of OWASP, ensuring that not a soul taints your digital 'precious.’ Here's the enchanted armory awaiting thine summoning: 1. Defensive Spells & Potions 🧙‍♂️🧪 (Best Practices) These are tried and tested methods that provide security for your containers. Some of the best practices include: Implementing to prevent common vulnerabilities like SQL injection and cross-site scripting (XSS). secure coding practices to address known security vulnerabilities. Regularly updating and patching your container images and dependencies to protect sensitive data. Enforcing strong authentication and access controls Implementing secure communication protocols, such as HTTPS, to ensure data privacy and integrity. , such as using secure configurations and hardening Implementing secure deployment practices container runtime environments. : 2. Alerts of the Citadel 🚨🏰 (Vulnerability Alerts) These alerts notify you about emerging security threats and vulnerabilities. Stay informed and prepared by: Subscribing to to receive timely updates about new vulnerabilities. security mailing lists and vulnerability databases from relevant software and container image repositories. Monitoring security advisories and alerts for known vulnerabilities using security scanning tools. Regularly scanning your container images and dependencies Establishing a to quickly identify and remediate vulnerabilities in your containers. vulnerability management process : 3. Sword and Shield ⚔️🛡️ (Security Tools and Techniques) These tools and techniques provide additional layers of security for your containers. Consider using: that provide runtime defense mechanisms, such as container isolation, access control, and behavior monitoring. Container security platforms that analyze container images for vulnerabilities and provide recommendations for remediation. Container image scanning tools Intrusion detection and prevention systems (IDPS) that monitor and protect containerized applications from malicious activities. that centralize log data and provide real-time threat detection and response capabilities. Security information and event management (SIEM) tools Elven Enchantments 🧝✨ (Advanced Prevention Techniques): To further enhance container security, consider implementing the following advanced prevention techniques: Utilizing to detect and mitigate vulnerabilities that are unknown or have not yet been patched. zero-day protection mechanisms Implementing sandboxing mechanisms to within the container environment. isolate and restrict the execution of untrusted code Utilizing to secure the interfaces and endpoints your containerized applications expose. API protection measures Remember, implementing these technical details in your container security practices will help fortify your code against potential threats andprotectf your digital assets. At the Council of OWASP: Where the Wise Converge 📜🔍 Even as the wise of Middle-earth gathered in solemn conference to safeguard their realm, so too does the Council of OWASP bring forth a grand conclave of security loremasters. In their united prowess lies the salvation of code and container alike, as they bestow upon us their sacred knowledge: Scriptures of Power (OWASP Top Ten): is a widely recognized and regularly updated list of the most critical web application security risks. It serves as a comprehensive guide for developers, security professionals, and organizations to prioritize and address common vulnerabilities. The top ten risks include: The OWASP Top Ten : Involves malicious code being injected into an application Injection : Flaws in authentication and session management Broken Authentication : Failure to properly protect sensitive information Sensitive Data Exposure : Disclosure of internal files and denial of service attacks XML External Entities (XXE) : Unauthorized access to resources Broken Access Control : Misconfigurations that lead to vulnerabilities Security Misconfigurations : Injection of malicious scripts into web pages Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) : Remote code execution Insecure Deserialization : Using outdated or vulnerable third-party components Using Components with Known Vulnerabilities : Hinder detection and response to security incidents Insufficient Logging and Monitoring Guiding Maps (Cheat Sheets): are invaluable resources that provide . They offer concise information, tips, and code examples on various security topics, including: OWASP Cheat Sheets practical guidance and best practices for secure coding Input Validation Authentication Session Management Secure Communication Secure Deployment By following the recommendations outlined in these cheat sheets, developers can significantly reduce the risk of common security vulnerabilities and strengthen the overall security posture of their applications. Congregation of the Stewards (Community and Conferences): is a vibrant and inclusive network of developers, security professionals, and enthusiasts who are passionate about application security. Engaging with this community provides developers with valuable opportunities to learn, collaborate, and share experiences. serve as platforms for knowledge exchange, where experts in the field share insights, present research findings, and discuss emerging security trends. By actively participating in these gatherings, developers can: The OWASP community OWASP conferences, meetups, and online forums Expand their network! Stay updated on the latest security practices! Gain practical insights from real-world experiences! The collective wisdom and collaboration within the OWASP community contribute to continuously improving application security practices and developing innovative solutions to combat evolving cyber threats. With the guidance of OWASP's mighty council, developers become Embrace their wisdom, for it is through their teachings that we shall prevail against the ever-looming darkness. May the fellowship of developers unite, armed with the knowledge bestowed by OWASP, and together, we shall forge a secure future for the realms of code. guardians of their code and protectors of their digital domains. https://hackernoon.com/the-7-pillars-of-zero-trust-security-a-developers-zero-trust-christmas-carol?embedable=true Within the cavernous belly of Moria dwell the multifaceted securities of your Docker quest. Traverse each layer with caution and strategy: 1. The Beacons Are Lit: Foresight of the Threat Landscape 🔥✨ To anticipate the ever-evolving cyber threats, staying ahead of the game is crucial. , developers can receive timely notifications about emerging security risks. These signals serve as a signal flare against the encroaching dusk of cyber dangers. Developers can ensure that the darkness shall find no purchase in their container environments by heeding these calls and promptly addressing the identified vulnerabilities and threats. By closely monitoring the warning lights of Gondor, which represent the alerts from OWASP 2. The Tragic Flaw: Anticipating the Mortal Blunders of Man 💔🔮 Just like Boromir's fall in the saga of Middle-earth, every developer has the potential for missteps regarding Container Security. Recognizing this inherent humanity, By doing so, they can weave their protections all the stronger, ensuring the resilience and integrity of their containerized applications. developers should proactively anticipate possible mistakes and implement robust security measures. https://hackernoon.com/rbac-the-bouncer-with-a-code-of-conduct-in-the-devops-dance-hall?embedable=true 3. Vision from the Great Eagles: Supervision with Advanced Spellcraft 🦅🔍 To achieve a comprehensive view of the container environment, developers should trust OWASP's higher sight, which is facilitated through . Like the great eagles of Middle-earth that have a superior vantage point, these methodologies allow developers to detect even the slightest rustlings in the shadow. By employing threat modeling techniques and leveraging automated security tools, developers can gain valuable insights into their containerized applications' vulnerabilities and adopt proactive measures to safeguard against potential threats. and threat modeling automated security tools 4. Coronation of Order: The Return of Regulation to the Digital Realms 👑⚙️ Just as the rule of Elessar brought order to the Age of Men, developers should ensure that their . Developers can enforce secure deployment practices by implementing robust governance mechanisms, maintaining proper access controls, and adhering to regulatory compliance requirements. By upholding order in the digital realm, developers can ensure the integrity and security of their containers and the applications they support. governance of container environments adheres to established security regulations and best practices Conclusion - The Dawn of a Secured Age: Ensuring the Sanctity of Middle-Internet 🌅🔐 In a riveting conclusion, it is essential to emphasize the significance of securing containers to protect the dominion of code. Developers can fortify their container environments against ever-evolving threats by implementing a multi-layered approach to container security. It is crucial to remain vigilant and avoid the twin traps of inattention and hubris. By continuously monitoring, updating, and strengthening container security practices, developers can safeguard their digital assets and ensure the sanctity of the “Middle-Internet”. Fellow developers, the journey's end for our tale is nigh, but thine own adventure is just at the dawn's edge. OWASP will be your guiding star and steadfast companion in the quest to fortify the sacred containers. So gird up your loins, take up your tools, and into the fray you march—silent watchers over the vast realms of code. For indeed, "not all those who commit to code are lost"; some are graced by the guiding hand of OWASP, ensuring the sanctity of our digital Middle-Earth against the ever-looming darkness. Tread carefully, code bravely, and 🌟🎇 may the light of the Eldar shine upon your pathways. "In every line of code, the light of OWASP; protecting, guiding, unyielding in the digital quest." 🧙‍♂️💻 Lore of Frequently Asked Questions: Q: Is absolute security attainable for my containers with these scrolls from OWASP? A: Alas, in absolutes, the wise do not deal. Yet, adhere to OWASP's scripts, and your containers shall be as guarded as the fortress of Barad-dûr—close to impregnable. 🏰 Q: As time's river flows, how often must I return to the enchantments for updates? A: As the seasons change in a perpetual cycle, so too must you revisit and renew your defenses. Reforge your incantations to strengthen your fortifications with each new moon or upon news of updates from OWASP's sages. 🌒⏳ Q: Do not some counsels of OWASP seem too burdensome for my humble code? A: Fear not the breadth of their wisdom. In truth, their counsels, though vast, are but shields overlapping to cover every flank. Their strength lies not in their individual weight but in their unity. Embrace them wholeheartedly; let no Orc's blade pierce through. 🛡️🧝

"Not All Those Who Commit to Code Are Lost": Strengthen Your Containers with OWASP🧝‍♂️

Let’s start with a simple experiment. I’ll tell you the equation that can get us to Net Zero. For free. I’m the savior of human civilization, and it’s extraordinarily simple. Stop Existing There. I can now retire on this monumental achievement and display of scientific, political, and economic prowess. Of course, I’m joking, but then again, I am not. The very simple act of reading this passage so far has contributed to the problems we face, but you can’t ‘offset’ this by simply planting a tree sapling or buying a “carbon credit” from a website that didn’t exist last month to fund a green project that either doesn’t exist or cannot prove any positive environmental impact. The system is rigged after all. Now, before you go off half-cocked and claim I am a denialist, be assured that I am nothing of the sort. ; you’ll understand the thought process behind all of this c̶y̶n̶i̶c̶i̶s̶m̶ realism. Go read Part 1 Let’s start with the latest COP itself. We’re to believe that suddenly and without provocation, over 200 leaders of the world decided to unilaterally phase out fossil fuels by 2050? We’re to believe that 200+ people sitting around a 10-course dinner who flew over on private jets managed to agree to phase out fossil fuel when they know full well they’d go to war with each other if one insulted their god or grandmother at the drop of a hat? And then there’s the argument that we shouldn’t call it “phase out” because that’s quite scary to some people, so we should find another softer term, like “phase down” instead, because that way, we can get away with not meeting a target because we’re just rounding down another accounting error on the balance sheet not removing it entirely. Remember — by 2050, not one of them will still be around to take accountability for the false promises they’ve made, so words come as easy as the money sitting in a Cayman Islands account to them. It’s also worth noting some of the phrasings of this historic climate kumbaya. You have to remember that the President of COP himself has openly admitted that he does not believe in the science. Now, context is useful here because he too was also discussing why phase-out is not a scientific goal — — we can just bring our oil and so we have Get-Out Clause #1 projections and consumption down but we don’t need to turn off the tap completely. The president of Cop28, Sultan Al Jaber, has claimed there is “no science” indicating that a phase-out of fossil fuels is needed to restrict global heating to 1.5C, the Guardian and the Centre for Climate Reporting revealed earlier this month. Al Jaber also said a phase-out of fossil fuels would not allow sustainable development “unless you want to take the world back into caves.” It’s funny because he’s actually speaking the truth here. Civilization and the world of capitalism aren’t prepared for the changes needed in how society functions. It’s not just fossil fuels and the evil internal combustion engine that has to go; we’ve got to find replacements for pretty much everything else that the byproducts and derivatives of oil are used in — from the 99% of plastic that’s saturating the oceans and in our bloodstream, the tens of “bags for life” you’ve collected this year from the supermarket that are sitting in your kitchen, the plastic that covers the interior of the cheap EV you bought from China because EVs will save the planet, and the plastic parts in every item around your house….the list is endless. But it’s always only about cars. Because cars are easier to paint as ‘bad’ for the environment. You can’t stage a Just Stop Oil protest outside a shop selling toasters after all. Let’s not forget that the road you drove along today in your Audi TDI, potholes and all, especially in the UK, was made from crude oil. Or the crap you coated the top of the roof of your fucking shed with so your precious garden tools wouldn’t get wet and rust. — “in keeping with the science” — and so, the scientists once more will be vilified by the press and public and averting blame from the politicians because it was them who got the science wrong innit. And if we can’t trust the science to get it right, then why should we bother in the first place? And then we have Get-Out Clause #2 And the thing is, we can’t trust the science because there’s no supercomputer in the world that can accurately model what is going to happen. And it will happen. It’s happening now. We are in the middle of a climate shift of our own making but no amount of phasing out or phasing down is going to make a blind bit of difference because the whole concept around Net Zero is a fundamental lie. It defies even the most basic laws of physics. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction — ergo, for everything you do, you are impacting the world around you; no matter how small, and it all adds up. Even if you were the most altruistic and giving person on Earth, the very act of making a decision costs in an unending chain of events you have no control over. What’s worse is that all these initiatives take fuck all account of the livelihoods of everyone on the planet in their various emotional, personal, and financial states; something no climate scientist or supercomputer really understands or would be expected to. They’re only interested in modeling and simulating climatological impacts and effects over the next century. They don’t care about the millions of families with absolutely no choice but to make the same decisions every day because they live in poverty and cannot afford to make the right choices. They live day by day, quite literally in some cases, but they’re being asked to change because they must think about the next 50 years instead. And think about the 50 million other people around them. The idea of Net Zero is as offensive as Carbon Offsetting, that Excel spreadsheet exercise claiming that the billion tonnes of CO2 you output last year in the UK can be written down by planting trees in Jamaica. That’s not how the fucking planet works. The people we are supposed to believe know what is happening overestimate the impact and underestimate the apathy to take action in the first place. I’m not saying don’t bother; I’m saying be realistic because there are planetary-scale forces at work that we still don’t understand. If we can’t predict the weather, you’re telling me we can predict climate change that consists of thousands of unpredictable patterns, plus events like volcanic eruptions and pandemics, a potential atomic explosion or another reactor meltdown in the next 30 years, and so on and so on? Now, go back and read Part 1 again. Go on. Our hubris is our downfall. Do you honestly believe that (1) small changes will amount to anything when every single action in a single second of every single day by every single human being that has a knock-on effect and climate impact can reach this imaginary and civilization-saving threshold called Net Zero, and/or (2) there will be some magical technological breakthrough like skyscraper-sized carbon scrubbers or artificial intelligence to usher in a last-minute Hail Mary and save the climate and human race from extinction, and/or (3) we harness the power of the sun and give away free energy for everyone. Do you hear yourself when you read these words back and how foolish it all sounds? For a start, any technological solution will have its own impact on the climate; the resources have to come from somewhere after all. The idea of having massive carbon scrubbers that suck meager amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere to turn into another type of fuel that contributes back to climate change, only to have been made from materials and effort that negates the value of its existence in the first place is something that is constantly overlooked. And let’s tackle (2) here because there’s an awful lot of bullshit being peddled that AI will solve this and create abundance for all. No. No, it won’t. An AI does not solve the problems of capitalism or an ever-growing species that continues to consume resources faster than the planet can replenish. Not only consume but continue to demand the superfluous and frivolous because we want to be distracted from the truths. These supercharged chatbots won’t solve global inequality, increase food production, or find miraculous ways to generate free energy because if they could, and we all had access to it, then why would we bother with the society we’ve built? That’s a step change too far, and those 200-odd folks living it up at COP are not going to want that for you. In Star Trek, society thrives in a post-capitalist, post-scarcity world driven by a magical MacGuffin called The Replicator. In The Orville, it’s the same thing. Human civilization peaks when we finally figure out how to make shit from nothing. But it’s not going to happen; there are no brightly colored food cubes for you or a hot Earl Grey on command. It’s more likely you’ll be fed Soylent Green at the local food bank and wonder why you’ve not seen your neighbor for over a week…but according to some of the biggest names in venture capital and pop-culture futurists, AI will make this a reality. We will have money for all, medicare for all, want for nothing, and the robots will seize the means of production and do everything for us. We will become a renaissance society, a protopian or utopian future driven by art and humanity and creativity and striving to better ourselves. But we won’t. Because that’s not how humans operate. The ability to have whatever we want will fuel the desire to possess whatever we want and quell the desire to strive for anything. Without a struggle or a challenge, we’ll grow ever more hungry for whatever someone else managed to create from nothing and seek to own it too. A never-ending cycle of needs and wants in a capitalist society is replaced by an unending cycle of wanting more in a post-scarcity society. The idea that ‘life owes me a living’ will become an exponentially louder cry for help that becomes ‘living owes me a life.’ And the capitalists will welcome you back with open arms. Now, add to this the current impacts of climate change, which are happening around us as we speak, and add those already infinite wants and needs, and things are going to get as heated as the planet is when swathes of people start trying to migrate to better corners of the world that won’t be hit as hard. Because climate change doesn’t care about your fucking society, or religion, or political leanings. It will continue to do what it’s doing now regardless — which is changing because we will continue to do what we’re doing now regardless — which is impacting it. I’d go as far as saying that post-scarce societies are the last thing we need right now. The first step is a post-status society, one where we’re not driven to level up material consumption because Janice has a better SUV and OLED TV than you do, or the man in the advert told you that having a 5.0 V8 to drive to and from the school 400 yards away from your whopping 6-bed house for a family of 3 was the ultimate expression of manhood. When Steve Jobs uttered ‘just one more thing’ at the end of every Apple keynote, or when Columbo said the same as he questioned the suspect he knew committed the murder, they may as well have been talking about our inbred push to achieve status. Status will be the undoing of UBI, that other silver bullet-tipped panacea to solve all of our societal woes on top of artificial intelligence. There isn’t a money printer going brrrrr big enough to take on that challenge, and then, when the middle managers find out that the bottom of society has a foot on the ladder they worked so hard to climb, they’ll be pissed off. And when that UBI doesn’t stretch to support the middle management lifestyle they've built by stepping on the lower runged, they’ll be even more pissed off. That poor money printer will be working so hard it’ll eventually contribute more CO2 than the fucking human race it’s meant to support. And let’s not get onto the possibilities of a Personal Carbon Tax; this is not a joke. It’ll happen. It’ll be included in your medical bills, your food shopping, and higher rates applied if you still drive an ICE….it won’t be just a monthly tax on your salary; it’ll be across everything you do. You’ll probably have some kind of digital tracker applied to payments so the Government can get a sense of how obedient or reckless you are with our precious atmosphere. The rich will enjoy their continued existence, but the poor will not. Sound familiar? There is no utopian vision coming. No Star Trek MacGuffin to save the day and the human race. It doesn’t matter if COP succeeds in this latest version of an ever-changing mission statement — one that will be rewritten next year when a new bunch of leaders sit at the table anyway — or if the next one does or the next. There is no, “Oh but if we all make small changes, it will help us get to Net Zero” because there is no such thing; you cannot switch off the impact and attitudes of 8 billion people living on this planet without switching off the people. And so we’re back to the start and our little thought experiment. You can either stop existing, or you can start living with the knowledge that we are a civilization living on the brink of an environmental collapse, and there are forces in motion that we will not prevent from cycling to its next inevitable conclusion. The best we can do is prepare for it. Also published here

Climate Change: There Is Nothing You Can Do About It - Part 2

Stories, News & Mentions about HUBII

Hubii’s Stories on HackerNoon