ObjectBox helps app developers develop faster apps faster by ensuring data is where it is needed when it is needed

ObjectBox

objectbox

HackerNoon Reporter: Please tell us briefly about your background. My name is Vivien, I’m Co-founder and CEO of ObjectBox What's your startup called? And in a sentence or two, what does it do? . We make it easy for developers to store, manage and use decentralized data flows efficiently across edge devices (Mobile, IoT, Embedded) and all the way up to the cloud. ObjectBox is a fast database and data sync to empower Edge Computing What is the origin story? Before ObjectBox, Markus (@greenrobot_de) and I did Android apps and two of the open-source libraries Markus had developed for himself and open-sourced were doing very well. One, greenDAO, is an ORM on top of SQLite. It was always the fastest ORM around and at some point, Markus could not optimize it anymore without circumventing the underlying database… when we discussed it, we thought the ORMs were only optimizing on top of a problem; why not get rid of the problem? So, we started developing ObjectBox as a fast local database and alternative to SQLite and ORMs. What do you love about your team, and why are you the ones to solve this problem? Well, actually that’s probably a bit nerdy, but we all love “efficient and sustainable code”. We really do care about that and I think it shows… Data persistence and data flows are core challenges every digital project needs to solve. So, at scale, especially with digitalization and data growing so much, choosing the most efficient approach has a huge impact on economics as well as sustainability. Edge Computing has many advantages for many projects: Enabling new use cases, saving resources, and leaving data where it belongs (privacy by design). The cloud itself is great, but it is just not a great solution for everything. With cloud resources seeming endless and being so easy to get started, efficiency and privacy took the backseat... while energy consumption, other externalities, and plain monetary costs were ignored and kept growing. With ObjectBox, we make it easy to add an edge to any project, enabling developers to efficiently work with data across devices, while reducing resource consumption (CPU, Memory, power) and unnecessary data traversal. If you weren’t building your startup, what would you be doing? Hard to imagine anything else at the moment😂, but something that has an impact on sustainability. At the moment, how do you measure success? What are your core metrics? Usage (building apps), user satisfaction, and performance benchmarks (speed, resource-use). What’s most exciting about your traction to date? More than 800.000 developers started building apps with ObjectBox. What drew you to get published on HackerNoon? What do you like most about our platform? HackerNoon is great for developers and people in tech - and it has a wider variety of opinions and more depth on tech topics than more mainstream media. What advice would you give to the 21-year-old version of yourself? Start reading the Terry Pratchett books now (I only started them a couple of years later, but they were and are a great source of inspiration) What is something surprising you've learned this year that your contemporaries would benefit from knowing? I’d love to nudge all female readers to ask themselves: Did I already help another woman today? (inspired by: ) 🙏 https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6838466424877391872/ Vote for ObjectBox as Startup of the Year in Berlin!

ObjectBox: Empowering the Edge

240 Stories To Learn About Startups Of The Year

167 Stories To Learn About Developer Tools

369 Stories To Learn About Database

A beginner or associate level needs to know just to do something but to become an intermediate level you need to be able to do a certain thing in a certain way following best practices. I tried to list some of the things that an intermediate iOS dev should know about. Advanced knowledge in the language(Swift/Obj-C) An intermediate iOS dev should have basic fundamental knowledge along with advanced and deep knowledge in languages, preferably in Swift. Protocol Oriented Programming Generics and Protocols Values and References Types and Operations Sequences, Collections and Algorithms Memory Management Error Handling Codable Architecture For architecture most common, used and abused pattern is MVC which isn't well testable and reusable and to overcome the problem there are many popular solution like , MVP, , etc and it's up to you which one you'll follow and implement but I prefer to use MVVM along with , as I found it to be more balanced, less complex and suitable for small to medium level project and easy to implement and follow for entire team. Refer to the following posts about MVVM and design pattern: MVVM VIPER Clean Architecture MVVM Tutorials MVVM pattern with Swift application How not to get desperate with MVVM implementation Design Patterns by Tutorials: MVVM An Introduction to the MVVM Design Pattern Fantastic iOS Architecture How to use RxSwift with MVVM MVVM with RxSwift MVVM + RxSwift on iOS Clean Architecture and MVVM on iOS Example of Clean Architecture of iOS app using RxSwift Design Pattern An intermediate iOS dev must able to follow a good design pattern and should follow principal and shouldn't violate any design pattern principal.In iOS these are : SOLID “must knows” Singleton Observer Delegate Strategy Factory Iterator Builde Multicast delegate pattern Facade pattern Composite pattern Memento pattern Observer pattern Refer to , it talks about various design pattern. this tutorial Persistency Data persistency is very important for an app if the internet isn't available and the app doesn't work that's bad if the internet is slow and the app slow that's bad, calling API too many costing developer and user more data cost is bad. There are many solutions, based on your need you may choose your solution, having in mind security, speed, complexity, reusability, support. Core Data SQLite UserDefaults Realm (New Favorite) ObjectBox Concurrency A senior developer must know about , Grand Central Dispatch OperationQueue How to do , GCD OperationQueue queues. Serial or parallel Main thread, background thread Optimization The Code should be , there shouldn't be any memory leaks, retain cycles, Xcode provides and to investigate memory leaks and retain cycles. Optimized Memory Graph Debugger Instrument Security Security must be ensured and must be proper. Secret Management Reactivity Modern apps are very reactive, to handle the reactivity we will need any of the Reactive frameworks. Knowledge of , is unavoidable nowadays. RxSwfit ReactiveCocoa CI/CD CI (Continuous integration), CD (Continuous Delivery) is a must have knowledge for an intermediate level developer. Tools like , service like , , . Fastlane Jenkins Bitrise CircleCL TDD Test-Driven Development (TDD) is a programming practice that instructs developers to write new code only if an automated test has failed. Writing codes that are tastable, writing Unit Testing is part of it. Writing Unit Tests with or with third party frameworks like . XCTest Quick and Nimble Code styling and quality An intermediate dev should follow any standard style guide like Raywinderlich style guide Linkedin style guide Google style guide For linting purpose tools like , for code formating . for linting storyboard, xib files and to detect unused Swift code. SwiftLint SwiftFormat Xiblint CodePecker SwiftUI and Combine and is the latest and most exciting thing in Apple Development ecosystem, these are excellent frameworks but not so many developers uses it in production as most of them need to support devices before iOS 13, but by the end of 2020, it should be the norm (hopefully). Follow this to know about SwiftUI quickly. SwiftUI Combine Cheat sheet Not just technical skills Having a theoretical and practical sound knowledge on these topics probably will make you an Intermediate level dev and to become a senior dev you'll need some improvement on soft skills too. How To Become A Senior Developer When should you call yourself a senior-developer 6 Tips to Become a Senior Developer Let's connect on or or read or v . Twitter LinkedIn my other writings isit me

Become an Intermediate iOS Developer in 2020 [A How-To Guide]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SAMUEL BANKMAN-FRIED Court Filing Lewis A. Kaplan, December 9, 2022 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 17 of 25. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here ARGUMENT II. Mr. Bankman-Fried Has Standing to Invoke the Rule of Specialty. A. The Supreme Court Held in United States v. Rauscher that Individual Defendants Have Standing to Assert the Rule of Specialty. Supreme Court precedent supports Mr. Bankman-Fried’s standing to raise objections based on the rule of specialty here. In United States v. Rauscher, 119 U.S. 407, 7 S. Ct. 234 (1886), the Supreme Court held that the rule of specialty is a “right conferred upon persons brought from a foreign country into” the United States, even where, as there, the requesting state did not formally object to the prosecution for additional offenses. See Rauscher, 119 U.S. at 424, 430-31, 7 S. Ct. at 246 (noting that defendant may file a writ of error or writ of habeas corpus to challenge extradition treaty violations); United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655, 667, 112 S. Ct. 2188, 2195 (1992) (acknowledging Rauscher’s continuing applicability). The Rauscher Court explained that “it is impossible to conceive of the exercise of jurisdiction in such a case for any other purpose than that mentioned in the [extradition] treaty, and ascertained by the proceedings under which the party is extradited, without an implication of fraud upon the rights of the party extradited, and of bad faith to the country which permitted his extradition.” Rauscher, 119 U.S. at 422, 7 S. Ct. at 242 (emphasis added). 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 S5 22 Cr. 673 (LAK) retrieved on September 1, 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

Sam Bankman-Fried's Objections to US Charges Post Extradition Have Precedent in the Supreme Court

Recent news alluding to a possible led to a lot of chatter in crypto circles, resulting in the emergence of quite a few myths and misunderstandings about what FTX 2.0 would mean.  The objective of this article is to provide further info, so people have a better understanding of the implications of a rebooted FTX business. FTX exchange reboot Through his ongoing diligence relative to this bankruptcy process, the FTX 2.0 Coalition’s sleuthed his way through the latest monthly fee statements, uncovering strong indications of a possible FTX exchange restart. His tweet, pushed out on May 22, sparked quite a bit of coverage in crypto media and debate on Crypto Twitter and elsewhere. ‘AFTX Creditor’ Let’s go through all of those concerns and objections. 1. FTX2.0? Hell No! FTX is a fraud It’s beyond doubt that the was damaging,  be that for the 1.4 million creditors that are currently out of pocket, crypto projects that suffered reputational damage due to ties with FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), or simply for anyone who had an open crypto position in early November 2022, given that the market tanked at that time. collapse of FTX 1.0 Additionally, the crypto sector as a whole has suffered reputational damage and the FTX collapse has provided a great excuse for those opposed to decentralized money and systems to push for heavyhanded regulation. I understand that those wounds are fresh but all of what happened relates to FTX 1.0. The ‘ ’ is out! They’re going to be rotting in jail as FTX 2.0 powers on. The likelihood is that 1.4M creditors will take a share in the ownership of the new business. Most likely it will be taken forward by an external entity capable of handling crypto exchange operations and injecting cash into the business. That means no FTX 1.0 C-Suite executive involvement with FTX 2.0. The business will get a clean break, and will be totally disassociated from its fraudulent past ways. polycule 2. The brand is tarnished beyond repair For the most part, this take refers to the viability of the business but from the views I’ve seen expressed, it's also a more general objection as people see FTX as damaging to the broader space. One response to that is that we have an opportunity to turn this narrative around. What could be better than taking the thing that caused havoc for so many stakeholders in crypto and turning it into a positive element? Wouldn’t a successfully resurrected FTX achieving optimized recovery for 1.4 million creditors be demonstrative of a crypto sector that cleans up its own mess? As regards the branding itself, essentially this is an item that whatever entity takes on FTX 2.0 needs to consider. Sure, there is an element of risk in maintaining the FTX brand. But there’s also an opportunity. It costs countless millions to make a brand a household name. While many may find it distasteful, FTX is a well recognized brand. The following is an excerpt from the , a survey that aims to gauge the reputations of the most visible brands in America. 2023 Axios Harris Poll 100 The first thing to say is that it costs millions in marketing outlay to make that list. Not surprisingly, FTX finds itself at the tail end of that list right now. However, it’s right there alongside Bitcoin and . If crypto people are reading this, then the odds are that you highly regard Bitcoin and Twitter. People outside of crypto don’t according to the survey. Does that mean they’re done for?  Of course, it doesn’t. Twitter 3. FTX must die!..for the good of crypto The knee-jerk response from most people in the crypto space has been to immediately consign FTX to the past and move on. I understand the logic but I don’t believe it is the way. The right way to move forward for an industry pockmarked by fraud, hacks, and rug pulls is total transparency. There’s a lot that can be learned from catastrophes like FTX 1.0. If that’s the case, isn't it better not to sweep it under the carpet? Take the analogy of the Mt.Gox collapse as an example. A painful passage in crypto’s history but some good things came out of it. It led to regulation that protected customers, evidenced by the fact that FTX Japan customers have been enabled in withdrawing all of their funds. Secondly, is it really ‘for the good of crypto’ to burn 1.4 million FTX creditors and crypto space peers? All other things being equal, I can’t see that as being a positive outcome. FTX 2.0 represents the best opportunity for creditors to optimize recovery. Naturally enough, many creditors have said they’re done with crypto permanently. Are we trying to grow adoption and participation in the crypto-verse or are we trying to turn people off it? Perhaps you may come to the conclusion that you don’t have a use case for FTX 2.0 but everything else being equal, wouldn’t it be in the interests of the industry as a whole (and therefore you too) to at least be open to the idea? 4. Trust FTX 2.0? That’s a hard no! The past week has seen countless instances of folks on Crypto Twitter suggesting that FTX 2.0 can’t be trusted. Much of that is rooted in a belief that FTX 2.0 will simply carry on from where FTX 1.0 left off but it won’t: FTX 1.0 ≠ FTX 2.0 Yes, the FTX brand has an image problem. However, I can’t imagine, given what has happened, that FTX 2.0 would mirror the previous service offering of FTX 1.0 when it comes to customer protection. That may be an assumption on my part but I think it’s a reasonable assumption. The clear route for whatever entity steps in to drive FTX 2.0 to take is to move from a platform that totally disregarded customer protections and overcompensate to the other end of that spectrum. That would involve at a very minimum, properly segregated customer and corporate funds and the use of an institutional-grade custodian, and most likely greater clarity and protection written into any terms of service. 5. We don’t need it Ok, so let's refresh ourselves as regards what centralized exchange (CEX) options are available to us. Coinbase: Are you happy to pay well above the odds on fees anon? The bulk of FTX users were active traders. Fees matter when you’re constantly trading in and out of crypto positions. Binance: Is it seriously in the interests of the industry to leave the bulk of global crypto trade in the hands of this one entity? Binance and Changpeng Zhao (CZ) find themselves firmly in the cross-hairs of multiple authorities around the world. You can form an opinion on that being right or wrong but accepting it’s a threat, what happens to the crypto space if the powers that be find a way to push it out of business round about now when it accounts for the bulk of global crypto trading? We’ve had to find out the hard way but FTX has well and truly outed all of its skeletons. But what of Binance? There are serious question marks hanging over the global crypto exchange. There have been allegations of similar practices happening behind the scenes at Binance as happened at FTX 1.0. Heck, we don’t even know where Binance is headquartered! Still, if the feds don’t take Binance down and despite all the uncertainty, the exchange turns out to be squeaky clean (although when would we ever know?), even then is it healthy for crypto to have one dominant CEX? Bybit: With mandatory KYC, do you want to give the CCP your personal data? Kucoin and OKX: Aren’t these just shady bucket shops? Given what has transpired, I can understand a reluctance to use FTX 2.0 but wouldn’t it still be more progressive to let it run and see how it embraces the market (and vice versa)? There’s every reason to believe that the market would benefit from the optionality of a regulated, transparent and well functioning CEX. 6. Fuggetaboutit! DEX, not CEX. Some crypto folk have pointed out that decentralized exchanges (DEXs) are the way forward and on that basis, in no way should FTX 2.0 be considered. I don’t think there’s anyone in crypto who doesn’t see the ongoing development of DEXs as anything other than a positive move. But do they cover all users and use cases? Everything is easy when you know how and dependent upon your competence level. DEXs are an ongoing innovation but in no way do they fulfill all needs today. No doubt there are users out there who are confident that a DEX fulfills all of their needs and there’s no going back. I get that, but in the interests of facilitating mass adoption of crypto (which I believe is something that we all want), would you stand in the way of an improved iteration of a regulated CEX? . Centralized exchanges are here to stay

Dispelling 6 Objections to FTX 2.0

OBJECTIONS AND REJOINDERS

Hi there, my name is Oles Dibrivniy, and I'm a Unity Developer at . We create products at the intersection of EdTech and GameDev — apps and web products for children's development. Now our products have more than four million users. Keiki If someone asks you while job interview about the programming patterns you use in game development, one of the first things you should mention is ObjectPool. It is based on an elementary principle: after completing its task, the object is not deleted but moved to a separate environment and can be retrieved and reused. This pattern directly affects the user's perception of the app, that's why it is crucial. It should be the basis of 99% of game projects' optimization. This article may not be relevant for programming gurus but for beginners vice versa. Here I will use examples to explain why this pattern is essential. How do things go without ObjectPool? First, we'll analyze the project case without ObjectPool, starting with the setting. We have a relatively simple scene with the protagonist and two enemies throwing fireballs: Let's consider what the fireball itself will look like. The fields and will be responsible for the fireballs' movement; the method will work after a collision — the object with the FireBall component will be destroyed: Rigidbody2D _speed OnTriggerEnter2D public class FireBall : MonoBehaviour 2 { 3 [SerializeField] private Rigidbody2D _rigidbody; 4 [SerializeField] private float _speed; 5 6 public void FlyInDirection(Vector2 flyDirection) 7 { 8 _rigidbody.velocity = flyDirection * _speed; 9 } 10 11 private void OnTriggerEnter2D(Collider2D other) 12 { 13 Destroy(gameObject); 14 } 15 } The enemy will also look quite simple: public class Enemy : MonoBehaviour 2 { 3 [SerializeField] private FireBall _fireBall; 4 [SerializeField] private Transform _castPoint; 5 6 public void Cast() 7 { 8 FireBall fireBall = Instantiate(_fireBall, _castPoint.position, Quaternion.identity); 9 fireBall.FlyInDirection(transform.right); 10 } 11 } You can call the method from any point in your project or animation events. We have the following flow: the enemy created a fireball and launched it in the direction of his gaze. The fireball is destroyed by reaching the first obstacle on the way. Cast This approach seems optimal, but it is one of the worst options. Let's analyze everything point by point: and are expensive operations: calling them every few seconds causes delays and lags. This is especially noticeable when working with gadgets like smartphones, where saving every byte of memory is necessary. You can open the Unity Profiler and type Instantiate in the search field of the Hierarchy window to see how "painful" these operations are for the game. There will be the following: 1. Inefficient use of the CPU and memory of the device. Instantiate Destroy Sure, I’ve increased the number of fireballs created by each enemy at a time to 500 to maximize the dramatic effect. However, it's easy to imagine projects with even more constantly created and deleted objects — especially when dealing with UI elements or particles. These processes occur constantly in runtime. The player may experience a noticeable drop in frames due to the constant memory allocation after you spawn hundreds of objects on the stage. The method removes the game object from the scene, sending it to the garbage collector. You have no control over when or how the collector processes it. By the way, is very sneaky. It deletes the game object itself, but its components can continue to live separately. This may happen if another object is linked to this component. For example, it may be a subscription to a certain event. 2. Everything you've created must be destroyed and cleaned. Destroy Destroy Different classes are responsible for creating and destroying an object, and dozens of them can be in the project. Finding what and where is created or deleted isn't a trivial task sometimes — and I'm silent about controlling objects in the hierarchy now. 3. Code control. Let's integrate ObjectPool into the project! After defining the problem, let's move on to its solution. As I mentioned earlier, the principle of the ObjectPool pattern operation is simple: after finishing work with the object, it is not deleted but hides in the "pool." The object can be retrieved and reused from it: One entity will be responsible for creating, reusing, and destroying an object — we'll call it . We can make it look like this to work with a fireball: ObjectPool public class ObjectPool : MonoBehaviour 2 { 3 [SerializeField] private FireBall _fireBallPrefab; 4 5 private readonly List <FireBall> _freeFireBalls = new List <FireBall>(); 6 7 public FireBall GetFireBall() 8 { 9 FireBall fireBall; 10 if (_freeFireBalls.Count > 0 ) 11 { 12 fireBall = _freeFireBalls[ 0 ]; 13 _freeFireBalls. Remove(fireBall); 14 } 15 else 16 { 17 fireBall = Instantiate(_fireBallPrefab, transform); 18 } 19 return fireBall; 20 } 21 22 private void ReturnFireBall(FireBall fireBall) 23 { 24 _freeFireBalls.Add(fireBall); 25 } 26 } The list appears in this code. We will store the created fireballs that have done their work there. The enemy will now look like this: _freeFireBalls public class Enemy : MonoBehaviour 2 { 3 [SerializeField] private ObjectPool _objectPool; 4 [SerializeField] private Transform _castPoint; 5 6 public void Cast() 7 { 8 FireBall fireBall = _objectPool.GetFireBall(); 9 fireBall.transform.position = _castPoint.position; 10 fireBall.FlyInDirection(transform.right); 11 } 12 } The root of our problem: how can we return the fireball to the pool? We can't rely on the enemy; he does not know when the fireball will be destroyed. We also don't want to give fireball knowledge about , because it will create unnecessary connections. ObjectPool I hope you've noticed that I made the method private. Therefore, we will use one of the basic C# patterns — observer, and its implementation — . The fireball will look like this now: ReturnFireBall events public class FireBall : MonoBehaviour 2 { 3 [SerializeField] private Rigidbody2D _rigidbody; 4 [SerializeField] private float _speed; 5 6 public event Action<FireBall> Destroyed; 7 8 public void FlyInDirection(Vector2 flyDirection) 9 { 10 _rigidbody.velocity = flyDirection * _speed; 11 } 12 13 private void OnTriggerEnter2D(Collider2D other) 14 { 15 Destroyed?.Invoke(this); 16 } 17 } will subscribe to the event after passing the object to the world: ObjectPool Destroyed public class ObjectPool : MonoBehaviour 2 { 3 [SerializeField] private FireBall _fireBallPrefab; 4 private readonly List <FireBall> _freeFireBalls = new List <FireBall>(); 5 6 public FireBall GetFireBall() 7 { 8 FireBall fireBall; 9 if (_freeFireBalls.Count > 0 ) 10 { 11 fireBall = _freeFireBalls[ 0 ]; 12 _freeFireBalls. Remove(fireBall); 13 } 14 else 15 { 16 fireBall = Instantiate(_fireBallPrefab, transform); 17 } 18 fireBall.Destroyed += ReturnFireBall; 19 return fireBall; 20 } 21 22 private void ReturnFireBall(FireBall fireBall) 23 { 24 fireBall.Destroyed -= ReturnFireBall; 25 _freeFireBalls.Add(fireBall); 26 } 27 } It remains to hang the Object Pool on the object with the component — congratulations! The garbage collector will rest until you move to another scene or close the game. We have ObjectPool in its basic implementation, but we can improve it. Enemy Interfaces and generics: the perfect match to ObjectPool The isn't the only object type we'll run through the object pool. You must write a separate for each to work with other types. This will expand the code base and make the code less readable. So, let's use imitations and generics. FireBall ObjectPool Each object we run through the must be bound to a specific type. They must be processed independently of the particular implementation. Keeping the basic inheritance hierarchy of the objects that the pool will process is essential. They will inherit from , at least. Let's use the IPoolable interface: ObjectPool MonoBehaviour public interface IPoolable 2 { 3 GameObject GameObject { get ; } 4 event Action<IPoolable> Destroyed; 5 void Reset (); 6 } We inherit from it: FireBall public class FireBall : MonoBehaviour, IPoolable 2 { 3 [SerializeField] private Rigidbody2D _rigidbody; 4 [SerializeField] private float _speed; 5 public GameObject GameObject => gameObject; 6 7 public event Action<IPoolable> Destroyed; 8 9 private void OnTriggerEnter2D(Collider2D other) 10 { 11 Reset (); 12 } 13 public void Reset () 14 { 15 Destroyed?.Invoke(this); 16 } 17 18 public void FlyInDirection(Vector2 flyDirection) 19 { 20 _rigidbody.velocity = flyDirection * _speed; 21 } 22 } The last task is to teach to work with any objects. IPoolable will not be enough because Instantiate can only create a copy of the object with the property. We will use ; each such object inherits from this class. is also inherited from it. As a result, we will get the following : ObjectPool gameObject Component MonoBehaviour ObjectPool public class ObjectPool<T> where T : Component, IPoolable 2 { 3 private readonly List <IPoolable> _freeObjects; 4 private readonly Transform _container; 5 private readonly T _prefab; 6 7 public ObjectPool(T prefab) 8 { 9 _freeObjects = new List <IPoolable>(); 10 _container = new GameObject().transform; 11 _container. name = prefab.GameObject. name ; 12 _prefab = prefab; 13 } 14 15 public IPoolable GetFreeObject() 16 { 17 IPoolable poolable; 18 if (_freeObjects.Count > 0 ) 19 { 20 poolable = _freeObjects[ 0 ] as T; 21 _freeObjects. RemoveAt(0); 22 } 23 else 24 { 25 poolable = Object.Instantiate(_prefab, _container); 26 } 27 poolable.GameObject.SetActive(true); 28 poolable.Destroyed += ReturnToPool; 29 return poolable; 30 } 31 32 private void ReturnToPool(IPoolable poolable) 33 { 34 _freeObjects.Add(poolable); 35 poolable.Destroyed -= ReturnToPool; 36 poolable.GameObject.SetActive(false); 37 poolable.GameObject.transform.SetParent(_container); 38 } 39 } Now we can create an for any object that fulfills the conditions of inheritance from and IPoolable. I removed the inheritance from , thus reducing the number of components we will hang on objects. ObjectPool Component ObjectPool MonoBehaviour There is a problem that needs to be solved. Several enemies can be on the stage at the same time, and each of them spawns the same fireballs. It would be great if they all went through the same — there can never be too much resource savings! Having one class ask for a specific object type is also quite convenient. Such a class will take over the object's generation, control, and eventual disposal. This option is the best choice as managing every individually in the project is challenging. ObjectPool ObjectPool To complete the basic requirements of , we need to generate a set number of objects when the scene loads. To avoid any resource consumption issues, we will include a loading window. Let's start implementing this now. ObjectPool We will create an additional entity in the final implementation of . This class will control work with objects created from one prefab: PoolTask ObjectPool public class PoolTask 2 { 3 private readonly List <IPoolable> _freeObjects; 4 private readonly List <IPoolable> _objectsInUse; 5 private readonly Transform _container; 6 7 public PoolTask(Transform container) 8 { 9 _container = container; 10 _objectsInUse = new List <IPoolable>(); 11 _freeObjects = new List <IPoolable>(); 12 } 13 14 public void CreateFreeObjects<T>(T prefab, int count) where T : Component, IPoolable 15 { 16 for (var i = 0 ; i < count; i++) 17 { 18 var poolable = Object.Instantiate(prefab, _container); 19 _freeObjects.Add(poolable); 20 } 21 } 22 23 public T GetFreeObject<T>(T prefab) where T : Component, IPoolable 24 { 25 T poolable; 26 if (_freeObjects.Count > 0 ) 27 { 28 poolable = _freeObjects[ 0 ] as T; 29 _freeObjects. RemoveAt(0); 30 } 31 else 32 { 33 poolable = Object.Instantiate(prefab, _container); 34 } 35 poolable.Destroyed += ReturnToPool; 36 poolable.GameObject.SetActive(true); 37 _objectsInUse.Add(poolable); 38 return poolable; 39 } 40 41 public void ReturnAllObjectsToPool() 42 { 43 foreach (var poolable in _objectsInUse) 44 poolable. Reset (); 45 } 46 47 public void Dispose() 48 { 49 foreach (var poolable in _objectsInUse) 50 Object.Destroy(poolable.GameObject); 51 52 foreach (var poolable in _freeObjects) 53 Object.Destroy(poolable.GameObject); 54 } 55 56 private void ReturnToPool(IPoolable poolable) 57 { 58 _objectsInUse. Remove(poolable); 59 _freeObjects.Add(poolable); 60 poolable.Destroyed -= ReturnToPool; 61 poolable.GameObject.SetActive(false); 62 poolable.GameObject.transform.SetParent(_container); 63 } 64 } PoolTask will have additional features: 1. Tracking the objects we have released into the world so that, if necessary, they can be destroyed or returned to the pool at a specific moment; 2. Generating a predetermined quantity of free objects. Finally, let's create an ObjectPool that will meet all our needs and completely take over the control and generation of objects: public class ObjectPool 2 { 3 private static ObjectPool _instance; 4 public static ObjectPool Instance => _instance ??= new ObjectPool(); 5 6 private readonly Dictionary<Component, PoolTask> _activePoolTasks; 7 private readonly Transform _container; 8 9 private ObjectPool() 10 { 11 _activePoolTasks = new Dictionary<Component, PoolTask>(); 12 _container = new GameObject().transform; 13 _container. name = nameof(ObjectPool); 14 } 15 16 public void CreateFreeObjects<T>(T prefab, int count) where T : Component, IPoolable 17 { 18 if (!_activePoolTasks.TryGetValue(prefab, out var poolTask)) 19 AddTaskToPool(prefab, out poolTask); 20 21 poolTask.CreateFreeObjects(prefab, count); 22 } 23 24 public T GetObject<T>(T prefab) where T : Component, IPoolable 25 { 26 if (!_activePoolTasks.TryGetValue(prefab, out var poolTask)) 27 AddTaskToPool(prefab, out poolTask); 28 return poolTask.GetFreeObject(prefab); 29 } 30 31 public void Dispose() 32 { 33 foreach (var poolTask in _activePoolTasks.Values) 34 poolTask.Dispose(); 35 } 36 37 private void AddTaskToPool<T>(T prefab, out PoolTask poolTask) where T : Component, IPoolable 38 { 39 var taskContainer = new GameObject 40 { 41 name = $ "{prefab.name}_pool" , 42 transform = 43 { 44 parent = _container 45 } 46 }; 47 poolTask = new PoolTask(taskContainer.transform); 48 _activePoolTasks.Add(prefab, poolTask); 49 } 50 } The use of Singleton may catch your eye — it is only an example. You can customize the usage in your project — it can be running through constructors or injection through Zenject. ObjectPool We have the final version of our method in : Cast Enemy public class Enemy : MonoBehaviour 2 { 3 [SerializeField] private FireBall _prefab; 4 [SerializeField] private Transform _castPoint; 5 6 public void Cast() 7 { 8 FireBall fireBall = ObjectPool.Instance.GetObject(_prefab); 9 fireBall.transform.position = _castPoint.position; 10 fireBall.FlyInDirection(transform.right); 11 } 12 } We get an object of the type we need for processing immediately because of using generic. will group internal tasks according to the prefab — if there are several with the component, the pool will process them correctly and give you the right one. This approach will help generate any object for the game scene. ObjectPool FireBall However, be careful when working with UI elements: when moving an object between parent transforms with different , the of the object itself will change. If you have an adaptive UI in your project, transforms with the canvas component will change their depending on the extension. I advise you to do this simple operation: localScale localScale localScale poolable.GameObject.transform.localScale = Vector2. on e ; You can use 3 scripts in other options: , , and . So feel free to add them to your project and use the Object Pool pattern for 100%! ObjectPool PoolTask IPoolable

How to Enhance Your Game Project Using the ObjectPool Pattern (A Unity Guide)

অবজেক্টপুল প্যাটার্ন ব্যবহার করে আপনার গেম প্রজেক্টকে কীভাবে উন্নত করবেন (একতা নির্দেশিকা)

So verbessern Sie Ihr Spielprojekt mithilfe des ObjectPool-Musters (ein Unity-Leitfaden)

¿Cómo mejorar su proyecto de juego utilizando el patrón ObjectPool? (Una guía de unidad)

Comment améliorer votre projet de jeu à l'aide du modèle ObjectPool ? (Un guide d'unité)

ऑब्जेक्टपूल पैटर्न का उपयोग करके अपने गेम प्रोजेक्ट को कैसे बढ़ाएँ? (एक एकता गाइड)

ObjectPool パターンを使用してゲーム プロジェクトを強化する方法(Unity ガイド)

ObjectPool 패턴을 사용하여 게임 프로젝트를 향상하는 방법(Unity 가이드)

Como aprimorar seu projeto de jogo usando o padrão ObjectPool? (Um Guia de Unidade)

ObjectPool Desenini Kullanarak Oyun Projenizi Nasıl Geliştirirsiniz (Birlik Kılavuzu)

Làm cách nào để nâng cao dự án trò chơi của bạn bằng cách sử dụng mẫu ObjectPool? (Hướng dẫn thống nhất)

如何使用 ObjectPool 模式增强您的游戏项目？ （统一指南）

The Earth's Beginning by Robert S. Ball is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book here . OBJECTIONS TO THE NEBULAR THEORY CHAPTER XVII. OBJECTIONS TO THE NEBULAR THEORY There are Difficulties in the Nebular Theory—The General Conformity of the Movements—Details of the Uranian Movements—The Anomaly in the Satellite of Neptune—Where the Difficulty Lies—The Fundamental Principle which Dynamics Offers for our Guidance—The Immense Contrast between the Nebula in its Original Form and its Final Form—Energy that could be Obtained by a rearrangement of our System—Probable Nature of the Present Change in the Plane of the Orbits of the Satellites of Uranus—The Similar Explanation in the Case of Neptune. No one will deny that there are points in connection with the nebular theory which present difficulties which to some seem important. We shall endeavour to estimate the significance of these difficulties in this chapter. They are certain anomalous phenomena presented by the planets Uranus and Neptune. The satellites which attend upon the planets exhibit a general conformity with those movements of the planets themselves on which we have dwelt in Chapters , , The planes in which the orbits of the satellites are contained are usually not much inclined to the plane of the ecliptic, and the directions in which the satellites revolve also agree with the general direction of the planetary movement. We find these conditions in the one satellite of the earth, in the two satellites of Mars, in the five satellites of Jupiter, in the eight or nine satellites of Saturn; but, when we come to Uranus and Neptune, the two outermost planets, we observe a striking but most instructive violation of the laws which we have found so consistently prevailing in the other parts of the solar system. XIV. XV. XVI. Let me first mention the special circumstances of Uranus. It is now known that this planet has four satellites. Of these, Titania and Oberon were both discovered by Sir William Herschel on January 11th, 1787. The two remaining satellites, named Ariel and Umbriel, were not discovered for more than half a century later by Mr. Lassell, on October 24th, 1851. It is, however, just possible that they were previously seen by Sir William Herschel. The innermost of the four satellites, Ariel, accomplishes a revolution in a day and a half, Umbriel goes round in four days and three hours, Titania in eight days and seventeen hours, and Oberon in thirteen days and eleven hours. We have already mentioned how the investigations of Newcomb show that these four satellites of Uranus revolve in the same direction and in the same plane; but this plane, instead of lying in or near the ecliptic, is very nearly perpendicular thereto, the actual angle being eighty-three degrees. This is one of the features in which the satellites of Uranus are in startling disobedience to the laws which have been so rigidly observed in most other parts of the system. But there is also a second anomaly. The direction in which the satellites move, when projected on the plane of the ecliptic, is found to be opposite to the universal direction in which all the other movements in the solar system are performed. Of course the fact that the plane of the orbits of the satellites lies so nearly at right angles to the plane of the ecliptic detracts somewhat from the significance of this circumstance. If the two planes were absolutely at right angles, there would be, of course, no projection at all, and, in the actual circumstances, the moment of momentum, when projected, loses nineteen-twentieths of its amount. It follows that in the actual position of the plane the abnormal direction in which the satellites are moving is not very material. It must be admitted that, in the position of the plane of their orbits and the direction of their movements, the satellites of Uranus are in contrast to what a hasty consideration of the nebular theory might have led us to expect. If the orbits of those satellites had all lain close to the plane of the ecliptic, and if the direction in which the satellites revolved had also conspired with that of the revolution of Uranus round the sun, and with all the other hundreds of movements which are in the same direction, there can be no doubt that we should in this place have been appealing to the satellites of Uranus as confirmatory evidence of the truth of the nebular theory. The fact that they move in a manner so totally at variance with what might have been expected cannot therefore be overlooked. Neptune, the outermost planet of our system, presents us also with difficulties of an analogous character. So far as the orbit of Neptune itself is concerned, it agrees entirely with the general planetary convention; the inclination of that orbit to the plane of the ecliptic is no more than six degrees, and the direction in which the outermost planet revolves round the frontier of our system is not different from the directions in which all the other planets revolve. We know nothing about the axis of rotation of Neptune except that it may be reasonably presumed to be in the same plane as the movement of its satellite. On October 10th, 1846, Lassell, with the help of his great telescope, suspected the existence of a satellite to Neptune, and he announced it definitely on July 7th, 1847. We are indebted to Newcomb for a careful investigation of the orbit of this satellite. It moves in a track which is practically circular, and it requires about five days and twenty-one hours to accomplish each revolution. Its inclination to the ecliptic is not so anomalous as in the case of Uranus, the inclination being in this case not more than thirty-five degrees. This is not much greater than the inclinations of the orbits of some of the asteroids, and it might have passed without much comment had it not been for the circumstance that the direction of motion of the satellite in this track is antagonistic to all the other movements in the solar system. This is indeed a more startling fact in some respects than the movements of the satellites of Uranus, for, as we pointed out, the plane of the orbits of the satellites of Uranus is so nearly perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic that the direction of the movement could not be held to be of much significance. The satellite of Neptune, having an orbital inclination barely more than a third of a right angle, exhibits a retrograde movement which is in some respects the most anomalous feature in the solar system. These circumstances connected with the satellites of Uranus and Neptune have been sometimes brought forward as arguments against the nebular theory. What Laplace would have said to them we can only conjecture, for, at the time he brought out his theory, Neptune was entirely unknown, and none of the satellites of Uranus had been observed. But it has sometimes been urged that the movements of these two systems are inconsistent with the principles of the nebular theory, and that, therefore, the nebular theory must be abandoned. I have no desire to minimise the difficulties, but I think the considerations to which I now invite attention may help to lessen them even if they do not altogether remove them. I trust, at least, we may be able to show that even those anomalous movements are not incompatible with the acceptance of the account of the origin of our solar system given by the nebular theory. The primæval nebula may be regarded as chaotic in its earliest stages; perhaps it was like the nebulous wisps in Fig. . It was chaotic in the arrangement of the material of which it is formed, and in the movements of that material. Before a disorganised nebula can become evolved into a nebula with any definite form like that in Fig. , or into anything resembling a solar system, an immense period of time must elapse, and during that time the operation of the laws of dynamics gradually impresses certain well-marked features on the nebula, and disposes it to assume an orderly form. We have explained that no matter how the nebula originated, or no matter what may have been the irregularities in its extent or distribution, and no matter how diverse may have been the agitations of its various parts, the principles of dynamics assure us that each such nebula must, for all time, stand in some special relation to a certain particular plane. The moment of momentum which the nebula has with respect to this plane, exceeds the moment of momentum that it has with respect to any other plane. We have pointed out how, notwithstanding the vicissitudes and transformations to which, in the course of illimitable ages, the nebula must submit, its moment of momentum relatively to this plane will remain absolutely unaltered. We have shown how the energy of the nebula becomes gradually exhausted. The collisions between various particles, the frictions that will necessarily arise, and the actions which we may sufficiently describe by saying that they are of a tidal character, will all result in the transformation of energy into heat. This heat is radiated away and lost, and there is a corresponding decline in the energy of the system. To preserve its moment of momentum unaltered in the course of ages, notwithstanding the continuous reduction of energy, the materials of the nebula will ever find themselves more and more approximating to the plane, and will ever find themselves more and more compelled to revolve in the same direction. If the original size of the nebula be compared with the area of the Atlantic Ocean, the condensed form which the nebula may ultimately assume may be no larger than a coral island. If the nett moment of momentum, diffused over the space as large as the ocean, has still to be preserved in the space as large as the island, we need not be surprised that the spin of the system in its condensed form is its dominating characteristic. 51 52 In the evolution of our solar system from the primæval nebula, this operation of reducing the movements to the same plane and of requiring that all the movements shall take place in the same direction, having had play for unmeasured ages, has in the main accomplished its end. All the important bodies of the system do go round in the same direction; that much, at least, has been attained. All of them also go round in planes which are nearly coincident, but, as we have already noted, they are not yet absolutely coincident. The greatest planets have, however, very nearly become reconciled, so far as the planes of their orbits are concerned, to the condition which dynamics imposes. The same is true of the rotation of the sun on its axis. That axis is inclined at an angle of eighty-three degrees to the plane of the ecliptic, so that the sun’s equator would have to be shifted only through an angle no greater than seven degrees, if it were to be placed in the plane in which it should be situated, if the condition of the smallest quantity of energy for a given amount of moment of momentum was to be realised. We find a greater discrepancy in the plane of the earth’s equator. This is inclined by about twenty-three degrees to the plane of the ecliptic. Here there is some energy which might yet be expended without a diminution of the amount of moment of momentum in the system; for if the earth’s axis were to be made perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic, then the velocity of rotation of the earth about its axis might undergo a corresponding abatement, and yet keep up the requisite moment of momentum. We thus see that even with the older planets the conditions which would be enforced, if the moment of momentum was to be sustained with the least quantity of energy, are not absolutely complied with; which simply means that there has not yet been time enough for our system to arrive at the perfect state, to which it must be approximating. If we have found that in the rotations of the earth and of the sun, and in the revolutions of the planets round the sun, the conditions ultimately aimed at have not yet been reached, why should we feel surprised that in the outer planets of our system, Uranus and Neptune, the conditions which evolution tends to produce have not yet been fully attained? That the operation of the conservation of moment of momentum is in progress in the internal economy of the Uranian system, we have already had occasion to explain in Chapter XI. The fact which Newcomb demonstrated, that the four satellites revolve in the same plane, can only be accounted for by the supposition that in that system the conservation of moment of momentum, with declining energy, has gradually imposed this condition on the system belonging to Uranus. With reference to the position of the plane of the satellites, in the case of Uranus and Neptune, we would say, that though at present their arrangement appears anomalous, it will probably not always remain so. The fact that the satellites of Uranus are in a plane nearly perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic really implies that there is a certain amount of energy still disposable in our system, if by readjustment of the plane of the Uranian satellites the necessary moment of momentum in the system is still preserved. Fig. 52.—Two-branched Spiral (n.g.c. 7479; in Pegasus). (Lick Observatory.) The laws of dynamics tell us that the orbits of planets must be gradually, if with excessive slowness, tending still further to the same plane. In this process energy can be expended by the system, while the moment of momentum is unabated. We can at least suggest what seems to be at this moment in progress in the system belonging to Uranus. It will readily be admitted that there may be a difficulty in seeing how the movement of a planet, which is going in the wrong direction, could be stopped and turned into the right direction. But we need not suppose that so violent a change as this would imply is to be expected in our system. We are quite accustomed to find the planes of the orbits of all planets in gradual movement. The plane containing the orbits of the four satellites of Uranus is at this moment probably moving gradually upwards. It will in due course become actually at right 346angles to the ecliptic, and we may then reasonably assume that it will advance further in the same direction. At the moment the right angle is passed, this continuous movement will have the effect of changing the directions of the satellites’ movement from retrograde to direct. The present anomaly will then tend to become evanescent, for, as the exhaustion of the energy continues, the planes of the satellites of Uranus will gradually come into conformity with the plane of the ecliptic. We make no doubt that there may be a similar explanation of the movements of the satellite of Neptune. The inclination of the plane of the orbit of the satellite to the ecliptic is probably now increasing. It will ultimately come to be at right angles thereto, and then the next advance of the plane will convert, by a continuous action, the retrograde motion of the satellite, at present so disconcerting, into a direct motion. The change of the plane will still continue until it, too, may ultimately coalesce with the ecliptic. The fact appears to be, that though an enormous quantity of energy must have been lost by radiation from our system during the illimitable ages through which the evolution has been running its course, the disposable energy is not yet quite exhausted. There are certain adjustments in our system which may still be made and which will allow of yet further radiation of energy, while still preserving sufficient to keep up the necessary moment of momentum. It seems obvious that the system is tending towards a condition in which the planes of all the orbits shall be coincident, and in which all the directions shall be absolutely unanimous. If we were at once to alter the system by moving all the orbits into the plane of the ecliptic, but making no change in the dimensions of those orbits, or the velocities concerned; if we were also to adjust the rotations of the earth, as well as of the other planets, so that all the axes of rotation should be perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic; if we were to turn the plane of the satellites of Uranus through that angle of 97°, which would suffice at the same time to bring it into coincidence with the ecliptic, and lay the movements of the satellites in the right direction; if we were also to turn the orbit of the satellite of Neptune through 145°, thus bringing that orbit to coincide with the plane of the ecliptic, in such a manner that the direction of the movement of the satellite of Neptune conspired with all the other movements of the system, then this rearrangement of the system would increase the moment of momentum, while the quantity of energy was not altered. But this is the same thing as saying that some energy yet remains to be disposed of, while the system still preserves the requisite moment of momentum. The conclusion we come to may be thus expressed: the movements of the satellites of Uranus and Neptune do not disprove the nebular hypothesis. They rather illustrate the fact that the great evolution which has wrought the solar system into form has not yet finished its work; it is still in progress. The work is very nearly done, and when that work shall have been completed, the satellites of Uranus and Neptune will no longer be dissociated from the general concord. 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. Robert S. Ball (2019). The Earth's Beginning. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved October 2022 https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/59080/pg59080-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 www.gutenberg.org , located at https://www.gutenberg.org/policy/license.html .

OBJECTIONS TO THE NEBULAR THEORY

OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF DESCENT WITH MODIFICATION CONSIDERED

SOME COMMON OBJECTIONS TO SOCIALISM

Wilkins makes Certain Objections

How to Start a Career in Product Marketing: 10 Expert Tips (2024)

Navigation with Large Language Models: Discussion and References

X Corp. v. Center for Countering Digital Hate, INC. Court Filing, retrieved on March 25, 2024 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This part is 11 of 19. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here 1. State Contract Law CCDH’s first argument about damages relies on state contract law. Under state contract law, when there is a breach, “the plaintiff is entitled to damages that are equivalent to the benefit of the plaintiff’s contractual bargain.” Lewis Jorge Constr. Mgmt., Inc. v. Pomona Unified Sch. Dist.. 34 Cal. 4th 960, 967–68 (2004). But a plaintiff’s damages “cannot . . . exceed what it would have received if the contract had been fully performed on both sides.” Id. at 968 (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 3358). “This limitation of damages for breach of contract ‘serves to encourage contractual relations and commercial activity by enabling parties to estimate in advance the financial risks of their enterprise.’” Id. (quoting Applied Equip. Corp. v. Litton Saudi Arabia Ltd., 7 Cal. 4th 503, 515 (1994)). While tort damages are intended to award a plaintiff for all injury suffered, “[c]ontract damages are generally limited to those within the contemplation of the parties when the contract was entered into or at least reasonably foreseeable by them at that time.” Erlich v. Menezes, 21 Cal. 4th 543, 550 (1999). This is a key “distinction between tort and contract.” Id. There are two types of contractual damages: “general damages (sometimes called direct damages) and special damages (sometimes called consequential damages).” Lewis Jorge Constr. Mgmt., 34 Cal. 4th at 968. General damages “flow directly and necessarily from a breach of contract . . . or . . . are a natural result of a breach.” Id. (citing Cal. Civ. Code § 3300). X Corp.’s theory of damages—that CCDH violated the ToS by scraping the X platform, that CCDH used the data that it scraped to publish deliberately misleading publications criticizing X Corp., that those publications caused X Corp.’s advertisers to pause spending, and that the pause in spending caused X Corp. to lose “at least tens of millions of dollars” in revenue, see, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 70, 78[12]—do not flow directly and necessarily from CCDH’s breach of the ToS’s scraping provision. The question is whether they constitute special damages. “[S]pecial damages are those losses that do not arise directly and inevitably from any similar breach of any similar agreement. Instead, they are secondary or derivative losses arising from circumstances that are particular to the contract or to the parties.” Lewis Jorge Constr. Mgmt., 34 Cal. 4th at 968. They “are recoverable if the special or particular circumstances from which they arise were actually communicated to or known by the breaching party (a subjective test) or were matters of which the breaching party should have been aware at the time of contracting (an objective test).” Id. at 968–69.[13] X Corp. agreed at the motion hearing that its damages had to be foreseeable at the time of contracting. See Tr. of 2/29/24 Hearing at 10:7–14. But X Corp.’s complaint does not allege that CCDH knew at the time of contracting, or should have known at the time of contracting, that breach of the ToS’s scraping provision would result in damages of “at least tens of millions of dollars.” X Corp. alleges that “CCDH engaged in its unlawful scraping with the intent to improperly obtain data that would be used to cause X Corp. to lose significant advertising revenues.” FAC ¶ 78. It alleges nothing about CCDH’s intent or knowledge when it agreed to the ToS in 2019. This is a fatal flaw. X Corp. argues that “the Motion . . . impermissibly demands that the Court engage in a fact-intensive analysis without the benefit of any discovery to determine what CCDH knew or could have known at the time of contracting and what CCDH knew or could have known would result from its actions.” Opp’n at 18. But cognizable damages are an element of a breach of contract claim, and either they have been plausibly pled or they have not. See King v. Facebook, Inc., 572 F. Supp. 3d 776, 790 (2021) (dismissing a claim for breach of contract in part because “much of the injury allegedly suffered . . . is injury to reputation” and “this kind of injury is generally not compensable for a breach of contract.”); Modden v. Ticketfly LLC, No. 18-cv-6450-RS, 2019 WL 4738237, at *3 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (“Nowhere has Modden alleged that Ticketfly knew or should have known about his special damages at the time of contracting. Regardless of whether he has shown the other elements, Modden has not sufficiently pled his damages. The breach of contract claim must therefore be dismissed.”) (emphasis in original). It is not facially plausible that “CCDH could have known, [when] it accepted the ToS [in 2019], that (for instance) the Twitter/X platform would abruptly change course to restore accounts that it had banned for spreading hate speech, misogyny, and conspiracy theories . . . ; that the CCDH Defendants would collect and review public posts on the platform to shed light on these issues . . . and that the CCDH Defendants’ subsequent reporting based on this data would allegedly affect advertiser revenue to the tune of ‘at least tens of millions of dollars.’” MTD&S at 16. One might respond that CCDH—an organization that “prepare[s] and publish[es] what it refers to as ‘research’ reports and articles” about “organizations and individuals . . . who express viewpoints via social media platforms that differ from CCDH’s own views on widely debated topics including COVID-19 vaccinations, reproductive healthcare, and climate change,” FAC ¶ 17—could or should have known in 2019 that it was planning to report on objectionable posts on the X platform and encourage advertisers to flee. But when CCDH joined Twitter in 2019, id. ¶ 8, Twitter looked quite different. Elon Musk had not yet taken over and turned Twitter into the X platform. See Wile Timeline. The COVID pandemic (one of the subjects that the speech here concerned) had not yet occurred. See Derrick Bryson Taylor, “A Timeline of the Coronavirus Pandemic,” N.Y. Times, March 17, 2021, http://nytimes.com/article/coronavirus-timeline.html. Twitter had “content-moderation policies . . . designed, among other things, to minimize the reach of harmful and misleading information.” See O’Handley v. Padilla, 579 F. Supp. 3d 1163, 1172 (N.D. Cal. 2022). As late as January of 2022, this Court was still fielding lawsuits from right-leaning users arguing that Twitter’s content-moderation policies discriminated against them. See, e.g., id., 579 F. Supp. 3d 1163.[14] Indeed, the February 9, 2023 CCDH report that admitted scraping the X platform was about how Twitter had changed. The report states that Musk had declared a “general amnesty” for banned Twitter users in November of 2022, thereby reinstating “tens of thousands of accounts, including neo-Nazis, white supremacists, misogynists and spreaders of dangerous conspiracy theories.” Toxic Twitter at 3. And it claimed that Twitter was generating millions of dollars in advertising revenue from the previously banned accounts. See id. Musk was not at the helm of Twitter reinstating previously banned accounts in 2019. Nor was it foreseeable that he would be. At the motion hearing, the Court observed that “it’s a very different thing to say” that CCDH understood the terms of the ToS in 2019 than it is to say that CCDH “understood that actually X Corporation would start allowing all of these people back on, which was different from the policy that was in place at the time that they entered the [ToS].” Tr. of 2/29/24 Hearing at 13:2–8. X Corp. responded that “the policies do say they’re subject to change, and users, when they stay on the platform, agree to the subsequent policy.” Id. at 14:24–15:1. This argument does not save the breach of contract claim, for at least three reasons. First, the FAC alleges that the time of contracting was 2019—it does not allege that CCDH agreed to subsequent versions of the ToS. See FAC ¶ 8. Second, the argument that “it is foreseeable that we might change our policy” would work an absurd extension of the law, essentially eliminating the requirement of foreseeability altogether. Any change of policy would be foreseeable because it is always foreseeable that policy can change. Unsurprisingly, X Corp. offers no legal support for that reasoning. Third, the argument that logging back into the Twitter/X platform constitutes a reaffirmation of the ToS (and therefore that the Court must assess foreseeability at a later point in time than 2019) fails because it appears that the ToS in effect at the time of the February 9, 2023 report was in place from June 10, 2022 to May 18, 2023, and June 10, 2022 predated Musk’s purchase of Twitter. See Tr. of 2/29/24 Hearing at 29:3–14; see also Kaplan Decl. Ex. A; see also X, Previous Terms of Service, https://twitter.com/en/tos/previous (listing one version dated June 10, 2022 and a next version dated May 18, 2023). So there does not appear to have been a reaffirmation of the ToS at the time when Musk was changing the platform’s policies and reinstating “tens of thousands of anti-Semites and white supremacists and other people to the platform.” See Tr. of 2/29/24 Hearing at 29:11–13. Accordingly, X Corp. has not plausibly pleaded that CCDH had knowledge at the time of contracting in 2019 of the “tens of millions of dollars” X Corp. now seeks in connection with advertisers’ decisions to pause spending in response to CCDH’s February 9, 2023 report. b. Reputation Damages Another reason that the damages X Corp. seeks—“at least tens of millions of dollars” of lost revenue that X Corp. suffered when CCDH’s reports criticizing X Corp. caused advertisers to pause spending, see FAC ¶ 70—are problematic is that X Corp. has alleged a breach of contract but seeks reputation damages. Of course, the main problem with X Corp.’s theory is that the damages alleged for the breach of contract claim all spring from CCDH’s speech in the Toxic Twitter report, and not its scraping of the X platform. See Reply at 7 (“Because X Corp. seeks (impermissibly) to hold CCDH U.S. liable for speech without asserting a defamation claim, it is forced to allege damages that are (impermissibly) attenuated from its claimed breach.”). One way we know that this is true is that if CCDH had scraped the X platform and never spoken, there would be no damages. Cf. ACLU Br. at 12. (“Had CCDH U.S. praised rather than criticized X Corp., there would be no damages to claim and therefore no lawsuit.”). Again, X Corp. conceded this point at the motion hearing. See Tr. of 2/29/24 Hearing at 7:22–8:3. CCDH’s reputation damages argument is another way of saying that the damages X Corp. suffered when advertisers paused their spending in response to CCDH’s reporting was not a foreseeable result of a claimed breach. There is certainly support for that point. See Frangipani v. Boecker, 64 Cal. App. 4th 860, 865–66 (1998) (“The invariable rule is pronounced by a legion of cases that damages are not recoverable for . . . injury to reputation resulting from breach of contract”) (internal quotation marks omitted; cleaned up); see also Rice v. Cmty. Health Ass’n, 203 F.3d 283, 287–88 (4th Cir. 2000) (reputational damages “universally rejected” for breach of contract because they are “too speculative and could not reasonably be presumed to have been contemplated by the parties when they formed the contract.”). X Corp. argues that this reputation argument is inapposite because X Corp. did not suffer amorphous reputational damages, but “tangible, economic losses . . . e.g., advertising revenue.” Opp’n at 18 (citing Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., 501 U.S. 663, 671 (1991); Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. v. Newman, 51 F.4th 1125, 1134 (9th Cir.2022); Nat’l Abortion Fed’n v. Ctr. for Medical Progress, No. 15-cv-3522-WHO, 2018 WL 5879786, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2018))[15]; see also Opp’n at 19 (the FAC “pleads specific and measurable harm”). But even if X Corp. can quantify its reputational harms (and “at least tens of millions of dollars” is not terribly specific or measured), it has not plausibly alleged that such harm was “contemplated by the parties when they formed the contract.” See Rice, 203 F.3d at 288. c. “Specifically Stated” One last reason that the breach of contract claim fails to adequately allege special damages is that Rule 9(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that “[i]f an item of special damage is claimed, it must be specifically stated.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(g). “A specific statement of special damages requires not just the total lump sum, but a statement of the specific items which make up the lump sum.” City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Tutor-Saliba Corp., No. 02-5286 CW, 2005 WL 645389, at *17 (N.D. Cal. March 17, 2005). Here, X Corp. does not attempt to identify the specific items that make up the lump sum of “at least tens of millions of dollars.” See FAC ¶ 70. Indeed, the “at least tens of millions of dollars” amount is the same amount X Corp. alleges as to all three state law claims, even though the first cause of action is about CCDH’s scraping of the X platform, and the third and fourth causes of action are about CCDH accessing X Corp. data held by Brandwatch. See id. ¶¶ 78, 93, 99. This deficiency in the pleading, which X Corp. ignores in its opposition brief, see Opp’n at 18 (“These allegations satisfy the pleading requirements under Rule 8”); Reply at 6 (deeming this “an incomplete argument about a different rule”), is fixable in one sense. In an amended complaint, X Corp. could probably come up with a list of advertising revenues that it lost out on, and that add up to “tens of millions of dollars.” But in another sense, it would be hard for X Corp. to tie those losses back to CCDH’s alleged scraping, as opposed to CCDH’s speech based on that scraping, or CCDH’s accessing of the Brandwatch data, or its speech based on the Brandwatch data, or the speech of other X Corp. critics, or other things happening in the market.[16] For all of these reasons, the complaint fails to allege recoverable damages for the breach of contract under state contract law. Continue Reading . Here [12] In its opposition brief, X Corp. asserts that it had further alleged that “CCDH’s conduct forced X Corp. to ‘conduct internal investigations,’” “‘allocate[] significant employee resources,’” and “‘incur[] attorneys’ fees.’” Opp’n at 18 (citing FAC ¶ 71). But those other sources of X Corp.’s damages appear in the complaint as allegations of harm caused by “CCDH’s unauthorized access to the [Brandwatch] data”—something not at issue in the first cause of action. See FAC ¶ 71. [13] The classic case discussing special damages is an 1854 English case called Hadley v. Baxendale, in which, “[a]fter Hadley’s mill shut down because of a broken crankshaft, he entered into a contract to have a new one built.” Id. at 969 (citing Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 156 Eng.Rep. 145). Hadley took the broken shaft to Baxendale, to deliver it to the builder to use as a model. Id. When Baxendale did not deliver the shaft for seven days, Hadley sued Baxendale for lost profits. Id. The court held that Hadley’s lost profits were not recoverable, because Hadley had not communicated the special circumstance—that the mill could not operate without the shaft—to Baxendale. Id. [14] Interestingly, the plaintiff in that case, Rogan O’Handley, is behind one of the “ten reinstated accounts” highlighted in CCDH’s Toxic Twitter report. See Toxic Twitter at 4 (“Rogan O’Handley, a Hollywood former entertainment lawyer turned far-right conspiracy theorist, who has been criticized for fanning the flames of vaccine conspiracies in the wake of the NFL athlete Damar Hamlin’s heart attack.”). [15] X Corp. cites to a number of cases involving constitutional law in response to CCDH’s arguments under state contract law. The Court will address these cases in the next section. [16] See, e.g., Reply at 16 (noting that “X Corp. has now carried out [its threat to bring suit] against yet another social-media-monitoring nonprofit, see X Corp. v. Media Matters for Am., No. 23 Civ. 1175 (N.D. Tex), all while engaging in conduct that plainly refutes its own theory of harm in both cases, see, e.g., Lora Kolodny, Elon Musk Claims Advertisers Are Trying to ‘Blackmail’ Him, Says ‘Go F---Yourself,’ CNBC (Nov. 29, 2023).”). 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 25, 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

Understanding Damages in Contract Law: A Closer Look at Special Damages and Breach Claims 

Hey, Hackers. Here, I will share how you can solve 50+ marketing tasks with a single click. is a tool I and my business partner created for ourselves, but after we made it public, thousands of people use it every week. Aiter.io First, how it started. ChatGPT helped me a lot with marketing work but at some point in time, I faced these problems: If I need to launch many different campaigns, I get stuck in with AI. boring ping-pong chat and strategy models, I needed to spend at least half an hour to get everything needed. To experiment with different types of ads As a result, I asked my friend to run a script that used some advanced prompt-management methods to deliver the marketing stuff required. After showing the tool and getting positive feedback, we made public. By far, it helped 50k people. So, maybe it can help you too. Aiter.io How Aiter Boosts Your Marketing. Ads Tailored to Your Product for LinkedIn, Google, Instagram, and Facebook Campaigns The algorithm is pretty easy – just insert a URL of your product and get ads and content tailored to your brand. For example, here are need-specific ads Aiter generated for HackerNoon: Also, you can get need-specific ads (JTBD) or ads that target different customer objections. It delivers for Facebook, LinkedIn, Google, and Instagram. The cool thing is to use the proposed ads to find a data-driven and powerful brand message for you. For example, you can leverage a data-driven way to define which customer is the most profitable to target in your messaging. The algorithm is: Generate ten unique need-specific ads for your product. Launch all of them targeting the same audience. Spread your budget evenly, so that each ad receives an equal number of views. The ad with the highest conversion rate and CTR appeals to your audience the most. Use it as the main point in your brand positioning and product management. Voila! The same principle works for barrier-specific ads that target customer pains and objections. They are especially good for retargeting. Another topic is the strategy features. Defining Your Marketing Strategy With Aiter Another feature our customers often use is strategy ideas generation. With Aiter, you can easily define the key customer needs or Jobs To Be Done, customer objections, and user persona. Also, you can get ideas for your positioning and value proposition. These are the major blocks for your marketing campaigns. For example, you can run an A/B test on your website using value propositions Aiter wrote for your brand. As a result, you can greatly increase the conversion of your landing page. Another good stuff is testing which customer barrier stops them from buying your product the most. You can take the ones Aiter provided and write your objection on your landing or payment page. Another approach is to use them to modify your sales script, which is highly effective. For example, here is the list of value propositions which Aiter generated for HackerNoon: What You Can Achieve for Your Marketing With Just a Click With Aiter: In a nutshell: we built a very robust and simple tool that saves your time and gets sh*t done: Get different kinds of ads, like need- or objection-targeted, for major marketing channels, like Google, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn. Look at your messaging and audience from more angles by using the strategy tool. It generates marketing persona, value propositions, positioning hypotheses, customer needs, and barriers analysis. Generate content to promote your product, like YouTube ad scripts, social media posts, or blogs. has a free version – feel free to try and provide your feedback in the comments. We will be happy to implement it, as well if it helps you achieve your goals. Cheers! Aiter.io

How to Save Time on Marketing: 50+ Tasks Done With a Click 

মার্কেটিং-এ কীভাবে সময় বাঁচানো যায়: এক ক্লিকে 50+ টাস্ক সম্পন্ন

So sparen Sie Zeit im Marketing: Über 50 Aufgaben mit einem Klick erledigt

Cómo ahorrar tiempo en marketing: más de 50 tareas realizadas con un clic

Comment gagner du temps sur le marketing : plus de 50 tâches effectuées en un clic

मार्केटिंग पर समय कैसे बचाएं: एक क्लिक से 50+ कार्य पूरे

マーケティングの時間を節約する方法: 50 以上のタスクを 1 クリックで完了

마케팅 시간을 절약하는 방법: 클릭 한 번으로 완료되는 50개 이상의 작업

Como economizar tempo em marketing: mais de 50 tarefas realizadas com um clique

Как сэкономить время на маркетинге: более 50 задач, выполняемых одним щелчком мыши

Pazarlamada Zamandan Nasıl Tasarruf Edilir: Bir Tıklamayla 50'den Fazla Görev Tamamlanır

Cách tiết kiệm thời gian tiếp thị: Hơn 50 nhiệm vụ được thực hiện chỉ bằng một cú nhấp chuột

如何节省营销时间：只需点击一下即可完成 50 多项任务

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 F. The Enhancement for Abuse of Trust Is Applicable The defendant objects to the two-level enhancement for abuse of a position of public or private trust. (Def. Mem. at 25-26). A defendant’s offense level is increased by two levels pursuant to Section 3B1.3(a) of the Guidelines “[i]f the defendant abused a position of public or private trust … in a manner that significantly facilitated the commission or concealment of the offense.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3. “A position of trust ‘is held by one who was accorded discretion by the victim and abused a position of fiduciary or quasi-fiduciary status.’” United States v. Lebedev, 932 F.3d 40, 57 (2d Cir. 2019) (quoting Huggins, 844 F.3d at 124). The enhancement applies, for example, “in the case of an embezzlement of a client’s funds by an attorney serving as a guardian” or “a bank executive’s fraudulent loan scheme.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, cmt. 1. Indeed, courts routinely apply the abuse of trust enhancement when a defendant embezzles customer or client funds. See, e.g., United States v. Friedberg, 558 F.3d 131, 133-35 (2d Cir. 2009) (enhancement appropriate where secretary of fraternal order embezzled organization’s funds); United States v. Christiansen, 958 F.2d 285, 288 (9th Cir. 1992) (enhancement appropriate where credit union manager embezzled funds). The evidence at trial established that FTX’s customers entrusted their money to the defendant’s care (through FTX) with the understanding—based on the defendant’s representations and conduct—that the assets in the defendant’s care belonged to them and would be held safely for their benefit. The defendant’s embezzlement and misappropriation of customers’ funds in connection with the wire fraud scheme therefore abused the trust of those customers. Arguing otherwise, the defendant asserts that he was in a “purely arm’s-length contractual relationship.” (Def. Mem. at 25). The trial evidence proved the contrary—as the jury concluded. Can Sun, an attorney at FTX, testified that “customer assets [were] held in trust,” meaning “that you hold them, that you are not the beneficial owner of them, and you are holding it for the benefit of someone else; in this case, customers.” (Tr. 1941). The FTX customers who testified similarly stated that they believed their assets were being held in trust—in other words, a fiduciary-like relationship existed. (Tr. 80-81, 1289-90). The same can be inferred from FTX’s policies that existed at the time. (GX-340; GX-558). Indeed, FTX policy documents shared with FTX customers stated that “customer assets are held in trust.” (GX-513). To support his argument that there was no fiduciary-like relationship—a conclusion contrary to the jury’s verdict—the defendant cites FTX’s terms of service (GX-558), highlighting language disclaiming the existence of a fiduciary relationship. But Huggins instructs that the existence of a fiduciary relationship should be assessed from the standpoint of the victim, not by what is in the terms of service, which victims may not have (and indeed in some cases did not) read. Furthermore, the general disclaimer of a fiduciary relationship in a portion of the terms of service does not eliminate such a relationship. See United States v. Weaver, 860 F.3d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 2017). Accordingly, the defendant’s objection should be denied. 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

Bankman-Fried's Abuse of Trust Enhancement and Embezzlement of Customer Funds

Stories, News & Mentions about OBJECTBOX

Objectbox’s Stories on HackerNoon