The notice alleges, but does not specify, violations of securities laws and misrepresentations by the gaming company.

Immutable Hit With Wells Notice as SEC Extends 'Overreach' to Web3 Gaming – Regulation Bitcoin News

While they look cool, diffraction spikes aren't necessarily desirable, since they can blot out other objects. For now, scientists will have to live with them. But future telescopes, like the planned Giant Magellan Telescope in Chile, could have no spikes at all due to its advanced configuration ...

Once You Notice This Weird Thing About James Webb Space Telescope Images, You Won't Be Able to Unsee It

Many expatriates look for ways to gain remote work flexibility to be able to move around the world and find new and exciting places to live.

Expatriate Tax Returns Notice Trends That Increase Remote Work Flexibility | PRUndergroundPRUnderground

Last week, the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (Commerce) Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) outlining a new mandatory reporting requirement for large-scale AI developers and cloud computing providers that provide compute to AI model developers.

Commerce Proposes New Reporting Requirement for Advanced AI Developers and Cloud Computing Providers | Wilson Sonsini

Notice

notice

Scientific American, Vol. XXXVII.—No. 2. [New Series.], July 14, 1877 by Various, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . Special Notice. here Special Notice. Persons who have sent numbers of the Scientific American to this office, for the purpose of having them bound, will please call or send for them immediately. Some of the volumes extend back to 1860, and as we need the room they occupy, we shall dispose of those not claimed within ten days from date of this paper. MUNN & Co., 37 Park Row, New York. 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 (2012). Scientific American, Vol. XXXVII. —No. 2. [New Series.], July 14, 1877. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/38481/pg38481-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

Special Notice

I recently tested out , as the lite version was made available to Indians in September. My initial thoughts? Google’s SGE (Search Generative Experience) It feels like experiencing ChatGPT all over again, minus the wow factor. As a user, the convenience and speed at which I’m getting the AI-generated overviews are welcoming. The overviews are also accurate, and they answer the search intent very well. This just goes on to show how advanced and sophisticated the engine has become in answering the query within the context instead of relying only on keywords. But as a content marketer, I’m a little concerned with one more Search Engine Results Page (SERP) feature being added to Google’s roster of click-eating features. Case in point: Google shows the following knowledge panel for the keyword phrase “techniques” or “methods” in it. With the answers at the front and center of the SERP, the likelihood of someone clicking on a link to learn more goes down significantly. Or rich snippets for queries like these: I’ve sounded the alarm before in my article, , about how Google is slowly killing organic search. Some key takeaways from my article: Google Doesn’t Want Your Content to Succeed PPC and sponsored Ads are usurping Google SERPs. Google has become an “answer” engine, wherein it’s answering queries with rich snippets at the top of SERPs. As a result, there has been an increase in zero-click searches. In the future, getting content in front of a targeted audience will be expensive. However, not all is lost. Some of the new features might prove to be a blessing rather than a curse. Let’s look at the recent SERP changes and how they affect organic content performance. Note: I’m going to stick to my guns here and talk from the B2B/SaaS content point of view. Key SERP Feature Changes in the Recent Times First, let’s have a look at some of the commonly seen SERP features. Most of these show up “above the fold” or at the top of the SERP. This is a huge disadvantage for organic results. Why? It’s simple math. When the number of SERP features goes up, the space for organic content in the SERP comes down. This lowers the number of clicks on organic content. For example, certain branded keywords are biased towards SERP features. These include keywords like "tools,” “software,” and "platform" -- all of which have heavy buying intent and are central to many SaaS brands. Knowledge Panels for Branded Keywords I looked up “email marketing tool” and got the following knowledge panel and sponsored results. Above the fold, I don’t see any organic results. Sponsored results take the top spots, and “popular” tools get a spot on the knowledge panel. Notice how the knowledge panel contains results “from sources across the web.” Now, if you click on one of those tools, here’s what you get. On the brighter side, organic results are featured in the drop-down section for each option. Getting featured here could definitely improve impressions, but getting a click from the user will still be a shot in the dark. On a much, much brighter side, if you could get a brand feature on the knowledge panel itself, you can get in front of the audience quicker. It’s still a better shot than being stuck on page 2 of the SERPs. Continuous Scroll for Desktop Users In case you didn’t notice, SERPs have now become pageless for desktop users. You can now scroll through the results just like you scroll through Shorts and Reels. This update was made available in December last year. Since the update, users can scroll up to six pages worth of results before they need to hit “See More.” Now the question is, does this change from pagination to continuous scrolling on the desktop change anything in content performance? Most users never go beyond page 1 of Google to look for information. Can the continuous scroll really give visibility to content hidden in the deeper pages of the SERP? Unfortunately, there was no major difference for branded keywords. Analysis of the organic traffic data from before and after the continuous scroll showed no change. were still clicking on the top 3 results. 99% of the users Even for non-branded keywords, the majority of traffic and clicks went to the top 3 positions. That includes 50% of impressions and 88% of clicks on desktop. This only highlights the importance of scoring a high rank on the SERP.  Yes, CTRs for results beyond position 6 did improve after the continuous scroll update, but it was only 4% of the total clicks. With SGE now, the numbers will likely go down further. Here’s why. Search Generative Experience I ran a bunch of branded and non-branded queries to check the difference in responses. Here are my observations. SGE doesn’t display AI-generated responses for all queries. Users can decide whether to generate a response or not. SERP will display the knowledge panel even with the AI overview. The AI panel, if generated, takes up the entire screen. It provides a contextual answer for the query at hand. Plus, you get small arrowheads (toggles) to check the source cited for the answer. In the top right of the panel, you also get a carousel of 9 organic results to browse from. If a user lands here and your content gets featured in the carousel, you still have a 1/9 probability of earning a click. Now, for the non-branded queries. No rich snippet to answer the query. Unlike the branded keyword, I got a little preview of the AI panel before I clicked on “Show more” to expand the result. By design, the user can continue “browsing” through the AI panel itself. They wouldn’t have to scroll down to see the organic results. I also noticed something interesting. For certain queries, the AI panel showed an image result as well. And the order of the carousel at the top right keeps changing. But it’s mostly the top 9 organic results on the SERPs. You’ll still see a featured snippet and other SERP features for some queries, along with the AI panel preview. However, for a vague query with no specific intent, the AI-generated response was even more vague. And for some queries, there was no AI-generated response. Overall, the AI-powered overviews provide a good starting point for more in-depth research. But here’s the thing: Nearly doesn’t get any traffic from Google. Who is looking for information beyond the first page of Google? 90.53% of the content online Today, users are moving to platforms like Quora, Reddit, LinkedIn, and other social platforms and communities to look for answers and ask for help. Believe it or not, we’re well on our way to going back to a SERP-less world. As Gerald Murphy, renowned SEO and Senior Solution Business Manager at Similarweb, shares in the : Search SEO podcast What we’re now moving towards is things like voice-activated searches, for example, Alexa or Google Home, that’s bringing us into a SERP-less world again. So we’re moving away towards looking at a screen and just asking someone, and they’re talking back this time. But this time, it’s electronic rather than the neighbor on the street.

Google SERPs Have Changed: Did You Notice Yet?

Google SERPs পরিবর্তিত হয়েছে: আপনি কি এখনও লক্ষ্য করেছেন?

Google SERPs haben sich geändert: Ist Ihnen das schon aufgefallen?

Las SERP de Google han cambiado: ¿ya te diste cuenta?

Les SERP de Google ont changé : l'avez-vous déjà remarqué ?

Google SERPs बदल गए हैं: क्या आपने अभी तक नोटिस किया?

Google SERPが変化しました: もう気づきましたか?

Google SERP가 변경되었습니다: 아직 눈치채셨나요?

Os SERPs do Google mudaram: você já percebeu?

Поисковая выдача Google изменилась: вы уже заметили?

Google SERP'leri Değişti: Fark Ettiniz mi?

SERP của Google đã thay đổi: Bạn đã nhận thấy chưa?

Google SERP 已发生变化：您注意到了吗？

Common Sense Applied to Religion; Or, The Bible and the People by Catharine Esther Beecher, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book . JUDGMENT. here CHAPTER XIV. JUDGMENT. The term , as a mental faculty, signifies "that power of the mind by which it notices ." It is often used to signify all the intellectual powers, among which it is the most important one. Thus we hear it said that, in certain cases, the and the are in opposition, or that the and the are not in agreement. judgment relations feelings judgment heart judgment It is also used often to signify any act of the mind when a comparison is made between two things, or between the truths asserted in any proposition and a truth already believed. The act called is a conception attended with one specific act of judgment, by which a present state of mind is compared with a past, and the relation of resemblance perceived. memory The nature of our ideas of relation are very different, according to the object or purpose for which the comparison is made. If objects are compared in reference to , we learn some one of the relations of past, present, or future. No idea of time can be gained except by comparing one period of time with another, and thus noticing their relations. All are gained by comparing one point of time with some specified event, such as the birth of the Savior, or some particular period in the revolution of the earth around the sun. time dates If objects are compared in reference to the of our conceptions or perceptions, we gain the ideas of such relations as are expressed by the terms , , and . If objects are compared in reference to the of any quality, we gain an idea of such relations as are expressed by the terms , , , . If objects are compared in reference to , we gain ideas of such relations as are expressed by the terms , . If objects are compared in reference to the relation of parts to a whole, we gain such ideas as are expressed by the terms , , . succession firstly secondly thirdly degree brighter sweeter harder louder proportion an eighth a half part whole remainder The process of classifying objects and the use of language depend upon the power of judgment; for if we see an object possessing certain qualities, in order to apply the name we must compare and observe their resemblance to the qualities to which such a name has been applied in past experience, and this feeling of resemblance is an act of judgment. The application of a name, then, always implies the exercise of the power of judgment, by which a comparison is made between the present qualities observed in an object and the same qualities which affected the mind when the name has formerly been employed. It also implies the act of association, by which the perception of certain qualities recalls the idea of the sound or object with which they have been repeatedly conjoined. The mental process called is nothing but a connected succession of acts of judgment. It is a comparison of what is asserted in a given proposition with some truth which is believed, or which has been established by evidence, and then observing the agreement or disagreement. Thus the truth that "things will be in agreement with past experience unless there is some reason for the contrary," is a truth which every mind believes. Whenever, therefore, any event has been repeatedly an object of past experience, it is compared with this truth already believed, and found to be included under it, and therefore entitled to the same credit. reasoning Thus, also, the truth that "things which equal the same thing equal one another," is one which every mind believes. When any object by examination is found to be included under that class of objects which are thus equal to the same thing, it is an act of reasoning when we infer that they are equal to one another. 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. Catharine Esther Beecher (2017). Common Sense Applied to Religion; Or, The Bible and the People. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/55531/pg55531-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

"That power of the mind by which it notices relations."

SEC v. Ripple Court Filing, retrieved on July 13, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 16 of 18. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here DISCUSSION II. Analysis B. Defendants’ Offers and Sales of XRP 5. Defendants’ Due Process Defenses Defendants each assert a “fair notice” defense, claiming that the SEC violated their due process rights; Larsen and Garlinghouse also assert an as-applied vagueness defense based on the same due process principles. See Defs. Opp. at 43 & n.28; see also ECF No. 51 at 97–99; ECF No. 462 at 97–99; ECF No. 463 at 103–05. “A fundamental principle in our legal system is that laws which regulate persons or entities must give fair notice of conduct that is forbidden or required.” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 567 U.S. 239, 253 (2012). This clarity requirement is “essential to the protections provided by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment,” and “requires the invalidation of laws that are impermissibly vague.” Id. Laws fail to comport with due process when they (1) “fail[] to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited,” or (2) are so standardless that they authorize or encourage “seriously discriminatory enforcement.” Id. (citation omitted). This “assessment cannot be conducted in the abstract; rather . . . the party claiming a lack of notice [must] show[] ‘that the statute in question provided insufficient notice that his or her behavior at issue was prohibited.’” ECF No. 440 at 8 (quoting Copeland v. Vance, 893 F.3d 101, 110 (2d Cir. 2018)). “[T]he evaluation of any fair notice defense is objective—it does not require inquiry into ‘whether a particular [party] actually received a warning that alerted him or her to the danger of being held to account for the behavior in question.’” Id. at 10 n.5 (quoting United States v. Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d 547, 587 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), aff’d sub nom. United States v. Halloran, 664 F. App’x 23 (2d Cir. 2016)). The Court rejects Defendants’ fair notice and vagueness defenses as to the Institutional Sales. First, the caselaw that defines an investment contract provides a person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to understand what conduct it covers. See Copeland, 893 F.3d at 114. Howey sets forth a clear test for determining what constitutes an investment contract, and Howey’s progeny provides guidance on how to apply that test to a variety of factual scenarios. See Smith, 985 F. Supp. 2d at 588 (“[I]t is not only the language of a statute that can provide the requisite fair notice; judicial decisions interpreting that statute can do so as well.”). That is constitutionally sufficient to satisfy due process. See United States v. Zaslavskiy, No. 17 Cr. 647, 2018 WL 4346339, at *9 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2018) (“[T]he abundance of caselaw interpreting and applying Howey at all levels of the judiciary, as well as related guidance issued by the SEC as to the scope of its regulatory authority and enforcement power, provide all the notice that is constitutionally required.”). Second, the caselaw articulates sufficiently clear standards to eliminate the risk of arbitrary enforcement. Howey is an objective test that provides the flexibility necessary for the assessment of a wide range of contracts, transactions, and schemes. Defendants focus on the SEC’s failure to issue guidance on digital assets and its inconsistent statements and approaches to regulating the sale of digital assets as investment contracts. See Defs. Opp. at 45–52. But the SEC’s approach to enforcement, at least as to the Institutional Sales,[20] is consistent with the enforcement actions that the agency has brought relating to the sale of other digital assets to buyers pursuant to written contracts and for the purpose of fundraising. See, e.g., Telegram, 448 F. Supp. 3d 352; Kik, 492 F. Supp. 3d 169. Moreover, the law does not require the SEC to warn all potential violators on an individual or industry level. See Dickerson v. Napolitano, 604 F.3d 732, 745–46 (2d Cir. 2010) (“Courts ask whether the law presents an ordinary person with sufficient notice of or the opportunity to understand what conduct is prohibited or proscribed, not whether a particular [party] actually received a warning that alerted him or her to the danger of being held to account for the behavior in question.” (cleaned up)). Accordingly, the SEC’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to the Institutional Sales and otherwise DENIED, and Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to the Programmatic Sales, the Other Distributions, and Larsen’s and Garlinghouse’s sales, and DENIED as to the Institutional Sales. [20] Because the Court finds that only the Institutional Sales constituted the offer and sale of investment contracts, the Court does not address Defendants’ asserted fair notice defense as to the other transactions and schemes. The Court’s holding is limited to the Institutional Sales because the SEC’s theories as to the other sales in this case are potentially inconsistent with its enforcement in prior digital asset cases. See Upton v. SEC, 75 F.3d 92, 98 (2d Cir. 1996). 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 1:20-cv-10832-AT-SN retrieved on September 7, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. dropbox

SEC v. Ripple: Court Rejects Defendants' Fair Notice and Vagueness Defenses

DOE v. GITHUB Court Filing, retrieved on January 26, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 1 of 21. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 4, 2023 at 2:00 p.m., or at a different time and date set by the Court, Defendants OPENAI, INC., OPENAI, L.P., OPENAI GP, L.L.C., OPENAI STARTUP FUND GP I, L.L.C., OPENAI STARTUP FUND I, L.P. AND OPENAI STARTUP FUND MANAGEMENT, LLC (hereinafter “OPENAI ENTITIES”), by and through counsel, will and hereby do move the Court to dismiss all claims asserted in the Complaint against the OpenAI Entities: (1) violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”), 17 U.S.C. § 1202, et seq.; (2) breach of contract; (3) “tortious interference in a contractual relationship”; (4) false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125; (5) unjust enrichment under common law and California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; (6) unfair competition under common law, the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125, and California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.; (7) violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act (“CCPA”), California Civil Code § 1798.150; (8) negligence; (9) civil conspiracy; and (10) declaratory relief. This Motion is made pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), and is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the Memorandum of Points and Authorities included herewith, the Declaration of Michael Jacobs and attached exhibits, the Proposed Order submitted herewith, all pleadings and papers on file in this action, and such further evidence that may be submitted to the Court or before the hearing. 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 4:22-cv-06823-JST retrieved on September 8, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. DocumentCloud.org

OpenAI's Motion to Dismiss: The Notice They Put Out to the World

DOE vs. Github (amended complaint) Court Filing (Redacted), June 8, 2023, is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 23 of 38. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here VII. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS G. Codex and Copilot Were Designed to Withhold Attribution, Copyright Notices, and License Terms from Their Users 129. Codex and Copilot have no way to determine whether license text or other Copyright Management Information (“CMI”)[21] is part of the code it appears immediately before or after. Unless instructed otherwise, it will assume that CMI that usually appears just before a given block of code is an important part of that code or otherwise necessary for it to function. 130. It is a common practice to provide the applicable license text at the top of every source file in the codebase. The purpose of this practice is to avoid the code from being divorced from the license. This may occur via “vendoring,” a method of creating a derivative work by including source files from a copyrighted project directly into another project without following the terms of the license or providing attribution or a copyright notice. Copilot circumvents this protective measure to mask the degree of vendoring it engages in. 131. Early iterations of Copilot reproduced license text. For example, in a blog post, GitHub noted “In one instance, GitHub Copilot suggested starting an empty file with something it had even seen more than a whopping 700,000 different times during training–that was the GNU General Public License.”[22] Copilot no longer suggests licenses in this way because it has been altered not to. As GitHub explains: “GitHub Copilot has changed to require a minimum file content. So some of the suggestions flagged here would not have been shown by the current version.” 132. In July 2021, near Copilot’s launch, it would sometimes produce license text, attribution, and copyright notices. This CMI was not always accurate. Copilot no longer reproduces these types of CMI, incorrect or otherwise, on a regular basis. It has been altered not to. 133. In July 2022, in response to public criticism of Copilot’s mishandling of Licensed Materials, GitHub introduced a user-settable Copilot filter called “Suggestions matching public code.” If set to “block,” this filter claims to prevent Copilot from suggesting verbatim excerpts of “about 150 characters” that come from Licensed Materials. But even assuming the filter works as advertised, because it only checks for verbatim excerpts, it does nothing to impede the Outputs from Copilot that are modifications of Licensed Materials. Thus, as a device for respecting the rights of Plaintiffs and the Class, it is essentially worthless. 134. In GitHub’s hands, the propensity for small cosmetic variations in Copilot’s Output is a feature, not a bug. These small cosmetic variations mean that GitHub can deliver to Copilot customers unlimited modified copies of Licensed Materials without ever triggering Copilot’s verbatim-code filter. AI models like Copilot often have a setting called temperature that specifically controls the propensity for variation in their output. On information and belief, GitHub has optimized the temperature setting of Copilot to produce small cosmetic variations of the Licensed Materials as often as possible, so that GitHub can deliver code to Copilot users that works the same way as verbatim code, while claiming that Copilot only produces verbatim code 1% of the time. Copilot is an ingenious method of software piracy. 135. In December 2022, GitHub launched Copilot for Business. The initial terms of service included one notable extra provision compared to ordinary Copilot: a “Defense of Third Party Claims” that read: GitHub will defend you against any claim by an unaffiliated thirdparty that your use of GitHub Copilot misappropriated a trade secret or directly infringes a patent, copyright, trademark, or other intellectual property right of a third party, up to the greater of $500,000.00 USD or the total amount paid to GitHub for the use of GitHub Copilot during the 12 months preceding the claim. GitHub’s defense obligations do not apply if (i) the claim is based on Code that differs from a Suggestion provided by GitHub Copilot, (ii) you fail to follow reasonable software development review practices designed to prevent the intentional or inadvertent use of Code in a way that may violate the intellectual property or other rights of a third party, or (iii) you have not enabled all filtering features available in GitHub Copilot. 136. If Copilot had been designed to reproduce the attribution, license terms, and copyright notices of the Licensed Materials, this kind of contractual reassurance wouldn’t be necessary. With this provision (since removed), GitHub acknowledged that Copilot disrupts— possibly with legal consequences—the relationship between authors and users of open-source software. 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 4:22-cv-06823-JST retrieved on August 26, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Storage Courtlistener

Was GitHub's Copilot Designted to Withold Attribution and Copyright Notices?
License

I like to draw and I like to write and I like to code. Happily, these “three joys” can be combined in the creation of web pages of representational speculative fiction. The particular genre that I prefer is hard sci-fi comics or illustrated stories that present a “plausible reality”. An important aspect of hard sci-fi and other genres of fiction is the concept of believability; does the story present a plausible reality? The hope is that the story presents a circumstance or situation that the reader will assume could represent a possible actuality. That leads us to the familiar notion of denial presented as a notice on the front pages of most published works of fiction, i.e., any resemblance to actual reality is purely coincidental. work of fiction disclaimer Yet, the most important aspect of any of these works is surely their entertainment value, and in that regard, the common disclaimer notices have at best a diminished value as contributors to the reader’s entertainment. Note well that the notices make certain stipulations designed to protect the author and publisher, and thus, they DO serve an important purpose under law, partly because of the legal nature of these disclaimers, virtually all of these notices appear in the format I refer to as “banal legalese.” I think even lawyers don’t find them very entertaining. So, I’m determined to present a “Works of Fiction Disclaimer” that embodies the concept of having some entertainment value in addition to its desired “suitability to purpose”: Fictitious Works Disclaimer The stories, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in these literary works are fictitious and entirely imaginary. All persons, living, dead, and undead, are purely coincidental, and should not be construed. No identification with actual persons, places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred. All characters and events in these works – even those based on real people – are entirely fictional. Most of the past events described herein actually happened, though on occasion the author has taken certain liberties with chronology. Most of the future events described herein also actually happened, though here again on occasion the author has taken certain liberties with chronology. Any resemblance to actual robots or AIs would be really cool. Nobody in these works, and no outfit or corporation, thank God, is based upon similarities to any actual person or outfit in the real world. However, while these similarities to actual events are neither intended nor coincidental, the similarities may be inevitable. In fact, by comparison with anticipated realities, these stories may be as tame as a holiday postcard. No person or entity associated with this work received payment or anything of value or entered into any agreement in connection with the depiction of any products. No animals were harmed in the making of these works. The authors do not encourage harmful, illegal, or criminal activities of any sort. The author, that’d be me, hopes you found this useful and above all entertaining, This disclaimer notice is used on my . Comics page As always criticism, comments, and suggestions are appreciated.

Fictitious Works Disclaimer Notice: If You Have to Use One, Use This One

The past few months have been fascinating in the crypto and Decentralized Finance (DeFi) community. DeFi is an innovative technology that provides easy and efficient access to financial markets and instruments via permissionless blockchain technology. However, DeFi is notorious for facilitating financial crimes due to its decentralized nature. According to a , about $8 billion has been laundered through DeFi. report Sidenote: This had been in drafts for months and forgotten. However, I decided to publish it now. It’s a preliminary to a much more extensive article I’m working on. Tornado Cash - War on Code On the 8th of August 2022, The United States Department of Treasury sanctioned Tornado Cash, a cryptocurrency mixer on the Ethereum blockchain. A crypto mixer is a tool that hides the origin of crypto transactions, making it a vital tool for those dealing with illicit funds. On the 10th of August, Alexey Perstev, the co-founder of Tornado Cash, was arrested on His arrest sparked outrage in the DeFi community. The argument was that Tornado Cash is a tool, and you can't hold a creator for how his tools are used. People dubbed this a "war on code" and, by extension, a war on decentralization. suspicion of facilitating money laundering and hiding the criminal flow of money. Do Kwon Wanted for Financial Crimes Following the Luna/Terra crash, and about a month after Alexey Perstev's arrest, the government of South Korea issued an arrest on charges of violating the country's financial laws and subsequently requested crypto exchanges to freeze all Bitcoins tied to him. Following accusations by the South Korean government that he was on the run and evading arrest, Do Kwon took to his Twitter account to debunk the claim, saying he isn't hiding from the government and is willing to cooperate with law enforcement. warrant for Do Kwon https://twitter.com/stablekwon/status/1571197156907679745?s=20&t=q2U3q_a7OR3-RkQzLCN71Q?embedable=true A few days back, reports of a Red Notice being issued for the arrest of Luna's CEO, Do Kwon, started making rounds. A Red Notice is a request by Interpol to law enforcement worldwide to locate and arrest international fugitives. What this Means for DeFi Decentralization, anti-censorship, and ease of transactions are the main selling points of DeFi and blockchain technology, of which Terra and Tornado Cash were a fundamental part. A government crackdown on both of their founders has resounding implications for DeFi and signals a paradigm shift with a sense of urgency. We can infer that regulation might not be so far off, and crypto isn't as decentralized as people believe. This also means malicious actors would no longer be free to operate unchecked. DeFi platforms would be forced to do their due diligence in handling transactions, which is a net positive for crypto and the world. However, cryptocurrency is about having , and central authorities like governments and banks. As such, it is anti-establishment and anti-censorship. So it seems it is now a war between decentralization and centralized establishment. autonomy over your finances and keeping your assets free from regulation Further legislation from the government would mean privacy provided by crypto would also be challenged. It is too early to say where it all ends. However, one thing is sure: there would be more government interference in DeFi operations, which may birth more innovation in DeFi, bringing us to a truly decentralized world.

The Defi Red Notice 

It's an out-going concern for every marketer to deliver their message effectively and succinctly to their customers. That's where explainer videos come in like a breath of fresh air. It comes as no surprise that explainer videos have quickly gained in popularity and becomes a must-do type of video that marketers use as their potent marketing tool. The best thing about explainer videos is that it turns complex ideas into bite-sized pieces– makes it much easier for the audience to understand act upon the information. In this case, it's safe enough to say that nothing comes close to explainer videos when it comes to delivering a message in a snackable way. But a well-made explainer video alone may not get you anywhere without some know-how to go along with it. You might have just created an Oscar-standard explainer video, but without anyone see it, what's the point? That is why you need to know the next steps to get the best results from it. In this article, we're going to dive into some of the often-overlooked essential techniques after you've created your explainer video. 1. Choose the Right Platforms your explainer video is a crucial part you should seriously consider to get your video noticed by the audience out there. Hosting With ever-increasing vendor choices and a myriad of options from features to integrations, it can be hard to decide the best platform to host your explainer video. However, the most reliable way to start is by knowing your goals. Do you want to raise your brand awareness? Do you want to increase the click-through rate? Do you want to boost your traffic? Each platform has its own demographics that brings certain impacts on your business. So, it’s wise to know which platforms best align with your goals and how to tailor your explainer video for each platform. Here are the commonly-known video platforms that stand out in the crowd and worth considering: - YouTube As the second-largest search engine in the world, YouTube has 1.5 billion active users. It can be your best go-to platform if you're aiming for viewers and boost your online visibility. - Vimeo It's the best suited for a marketer who prioritizes high-quality content over whatever happens to be trending. If your explainer video has something to do with arts, films, designs, etc., Vimeo is the best platform you can try to reach your target customers. - Vidyard It's the best option you have if you're very serious about driving traffic to your website. Vidyard also provides analytics so you can mainly analyze the success rates of your explainer videos. - Wistia If you're looking for a platform that driving conversions, Wistia may be the top choice to host your explainer video. With its turnstile feature, Wistia offers you an excellent way to identify high-quality leads with video, which is one of the most critical aspects of the marketing process. - Instagram The constant rise of IGTV and Stories play a significant role in ever-growing video online usage and consumption. With 800 million daily active users, Instagram is the best place to put your short video of your product and get it discovered. It also allows you to hook your followers and convert them into loyal customers– which means it helps you to drive more purchases. - Facebook With an average of 8 billion videos viewed daily, Facebook offers you a massive opportunity to you gain immediate access to a broader audience. It helps your business to increase engagement with your audience more than ever before. For more insights into the video platform, you can check on . Video Platforms: Business Growth That's One Click Away 2. Optimize the Explainer Video for Mobile Users According to the latest : https://breadnbeyond.com/video-marketing/video-marketing-strategies-statistics/, internet users are 1.5 times more likely to access and watch online videos through mobile devices. video marketing statistics Another mind-blowing number is that online video consumption through mobile devices doubles every year! It's obvious now that you'd better never overlooked mobile optimization. If your explainer video doesn't work on mobile, then it won't do the trick. Now, the question is: how do you make your explainer video mobile friendly? Here are some tips you should try to make your explainer video fits in mobile devices so nicely: 1. Keep It Short It's essential to keep your explainer video concise– no longer than 90 seconds. Considering that mobile users are always on the go, they prefer quick and straightforward video content. 2. Add Strong Intro Grabbing your audiences' attention from the get-go can drive them to watch the video all the way through. Addressing the problem that your audience can relate from the first few seconds is the best way to engage busy mobile users. 3. Shareability Considering that 92% of mobile users share video daily, it would be wise to make your video shareable social media networks. 3. Create Clear CTA Great! Now you've hosted your explainer video on the right platform and already optimized for mobile users. But do your audience take action? Here comes another challenge... Once you've grabbed your audiences' attention with your top-notch explainer video, you have to direct that interest toward the next step immediately– to get the conversion. You don't create and put your explainer video online without a plan, do you? So you need to include a clear and strong call-to-action (CTA) in your explainer video to drive the audience to do "something." What do you want your audience to do after watching your video? Do you want them to visit your website? Do you want them to buy or download your product? Do you want them to watch your other videos? Creating an explainer video without a CTA is like fishing without bait. Hence, a compelling and clear call-to-action helps your audience to do your desired action. Remember, a vague CTA can make your audience confused and neglecting your focal message. Also, if you get too pushy, you won't get the results you want. So, how do you create a loud and clear CTA? Here are some handy tips you should try: - Be Specific The CTA should always leave your audience with a clear idea of what they should do next and why should they do it. Make sure you address and stress a problem and offer your product as the end-to-end solution. Avoid to use the generic "Download" or "Click Here." Tell your audience how your product is going to make their lives better. - Make It Obvious Just in case your audience doesn't watch your video until the end, don't bury your CTA at the end of your video. It's safe to say your CTA early and often using words that provoke emotion or enthusiasm. If you don't want to say it through voice-over, you can put the CTA as a catchy text on the screen. - Your Audience Is All That Matters It's not all about you nor your business. Your audience is the priority. It's wise to fix their problems and save their money. Offer them a handy, easy solution. Keep in mind that your product should be the only reason to make their life better. - Be Realistic Don't go overboard. Your CTA might sound convincing and attention-grabbing, but they can't disappoint. Make sure you set the right expectations and don't over-promising, now that's a smart move to between you and your customers. build trust Final Thoughts If it’s done right, explainer videos are undoubtedly a potent tool to meet your marketing objectives and reach your goals. To do it "right," both the creative and technical implementation of the explainer video needs to look out for each other. Your goals might be driving more traffic to your website, but if you rely on YouTube alone, it's like asking a dermatologist to remove your wisdom teeth – it's not well-equipped, and there's very little chance to succeed. So, make sure you understand the know-how before you jump into the explainer video bandwagon to bring you the rewards you deserve.

Get Your Explainer Video Noticed: 3 Actionable Techniques Overlooked Often [A How To Guide]

Most of us can say, with reasonable confidence, which digital services we have signed up to and so expect to be using our data. But can you recall with the same confidence every company that you have provided to use your data as you pass through a website or sign-up to a ‘free’ service? Consider as well, have you read the privacy notices you have encountered in detail? Have you looked through the list of entities (if they are explicitly listed at all) that your data may be passed to if you consent? Do you have any indication of how your shared data will be used? consent The reality here may surprise you. Many businesses will have been able to obtain something that passes for consent via click-throughs, relying on what you haven’t read about ‘our partners’. Worse still, if your data has become part of a data set that’s sold on by data brokers (that you consented to without realising) you may have lost control of that data – even if the receiver does what they should and provide you with a privacy notice. All-in-all, consent is an excuse for someone to process your data when you don’t have any other relationship with them and processing it benefits them and not you. The ICO will tell you that each of the six bases for processing (contract, legal obligation, vital interests, public task, legitimate interest, and consent), are equally valid – and, of course, legally they are. However, from a personal sovereignty perspective, I would argue consent is weak and provides a legalised avenue for the unscrupulous to profit. The GDPR was supposed to bring on the concept of informed consent where a data processor needs to show that you have taken an explicit action and made a real choice – but in the real world, nobody reads all the legal notices (assuming they contain all the devilish detail you actually need). Moreover, the way data sharing has grown into a complex web between organisations that operate effectively in the background without real visibility to citizens makes it practically impossible to present this information in an understandable way to a person in a simple privacy notice. I would argue therefore that we should . make a break from consent as a basis Therefore, if a commercial organisation is processing your data, they should be providing with some useful benefit. They should sign a contract and provide you some benefit – it shouldn’t just be your data providing benefit to them. you If you are a commercial organisation, you can help the community improve their data sovereignty by moving away from consent as your basis and look to offer a service as an equal exchange. If your organisation cannot move away from consent, consider helping by improving the transparency of what you are doing with peoples’ data, ensuring everyone has received a proper privacy notice. As individuals we can work to improve the ownership and sovereignty of our data by lobbying authorities to be tighter on when and how consent is used as a basis for processing. We can also let our regulators know we want them to be much stricter on deciding that when consent is used it is only on a demonstrably informed basis and our data is not forever in the hands of those we did not intend it to be. Also published . here

Stories, News & Mentions about NOTICE

Notice’s Stories on HackerNoon

Notice's News & Mentions