Unique and Affordable clothing specifically designed for lizards but modeled by humans in human sizes. The actual clothes you receive will actually be lizard size.

FASHION – Fashion Brand Company

This is most challenging, of course, when the product is essentially identical to cheaper competitors. Advil, for example, is a brand name for ibuprofen. Through effective advertising and packaging, its parent company attempts to convince consumers that Advil&#x27;s ibuprofen is a better choice ...

Brand: Types of Brands and How to Create a Successful Brand Identity

While it’s likely you’re not running a tech company, there are still lessons service-based businesses can take from Dell’s branding failure. Building your business can yield the results you’re shooting for, but your success will be fleeting without a brand to hang it on.

what's the difference between a business and a brand name?

Understand the difference between a company and a brand by learning the key differences between company and brand goals, images and purposes.

Company vs. Brand: What Are the Differences? | Indeed.com

It&#x27;s the collective imagery, feeling, and reputation of a company that follows it everywhere. When built properly, your brand can help your company reach new heights of success. But when built improperly, your brand might push customers away and make turning a profit nearly impossible.

business - The Basics of Branding - Entrepreneur

In simple terms, there is a difference between company and brand. Company refers to the organization that markets or produces products or services; brand refers to the image and “personality” a company applies to its products.

Difference Between Company & Brand | Small Business - Chron.com

At The Brand Company we offer a variety of sustainable merchandising for events. The largest variety of customizable bottles. More than 20 years with you.

The Brand Company

We cannot provide a description for this page right now

The Brand Company on Behance

Having a good brand eliminates the need to compete on price alone. All things being equal, the company with a stronger brand will win any sale, even if they’re more expensive. Consumers will pay a premium to have brand name products.

What is a Company’s Brand? What’s Your Brand?

Your company is different than your brand, but they are intertwined. Read on to learn about a brand vs company.

Brand vs Company: What's the Difference? - MAD GROUP

The Branx

thebranx

I had the amazing opportunity to speak to Brandon Wu, the co-founder of BattleTabs, a browser-based video game that started as a Chrome plugin. Despite the death of flash games, browser-based games still have a high demand. While playing games with friends is easier than ever, both console and PC multiplayer do come with some occasional headaches. Try cross playing on Warzone or Fortnite between PC and console and you're bound to run into problems once in a while. Rather than ensure both you and your friend have the same system/console, buy the same game, and party up correctly, it's much easier to send someone a URL and start playing instantly. This is what browser-based games provide. In this Slogging interview, I speak to Brandon about the development of BattleTabs and how browser-based games are still viable in today's gaming market. This Slogging thread by Brandon Wu and Limarc Ambalina occurred in slogging's official #gaming channel, and has been edited for readability. Brandon Wu Sep 14, 2021, 8:14 PM Hi all, happy to be here! 😄👋 👍 2 Limarc Ambalina Sep 15, 2021, 3:46 AM Thanks for joining us! Limarc Ambalina Sep 15, 2021, 3:53 AM To start, maybe you can give us a summary of the game your team is developing, what it's about and what sets it apart from other browser based games out there. https://www.battletabs.com/ Brandon Wu Sep 16, 2021, 9:35 AM Thanks Limarc! We are working on BattleTabs, a bite-sized PVP strategy game of wits and luck! BattleTabs is a casually competitive, turn-based multiplayer game inspired by the simplicity of classic boardgames like Battleship and the depth of modern collectible card games like Hearthstone. The game is easy to pick up and play, with unique ship abilities and deck-building systems where players can create their own fleets to bring to battle. The most unique thing about BattleTabs is that it started life as a Chrome browser extension. After having built several browser extensions in the productivity space, my co-founder Mike and I wanted to get back to our roots and experiment with games as browser extensions. The browser is a unique platform. For most people, the browser is always open whenever the computer is on, making it a place where you can be always connected to a game world. Furthermore, BattleTabs is a new tab extension, meaning every time a player opens a new tab, they can see what’s going on in the game world, and are reminded to play. What started out as an experiment quickly turned into a full-time project when more and more players joined in. We have started leveraging other “add-on” platforms for the game as well, creating a Discord bot that facilitates matchmaker for our 12k Discord members, broadcasts in-game events (for example, when a player is on a winning streak), and announces to the game whenever a streamer starts streaming on Discord. The great thing about the game built with web technology is that we can make it very easy to share. We’ve continued to add virality features where people can invite their friends to a match, watch replays, and check out other players’ profiles via easily shareable links. Limarc Ambalina Sep 16, 2021, 5:15 PM Very interesting Brandon! Is there a reason why you haven't decided to port this game over to Steam, PlayStation and other major platforms? Or is that one of your plans in the future? Brandon Wu Sep 17, 2021, 2:29 PM We consider the game to still be in “early access” as we continue to develop in the open with our players. The very first version of BattleTabs was released after a 6-week development time, and over the past year and a half, the game has evolved drastically, influenced by our active and vocal player community. We’d definitely consider other major platforms when the game is ready. The goal for us is first to go to where our players are spending time online, platforms where they hangout. (Discord, Twitch, Steam, iOS/Android…etc.). Players had also suggested Nintendo Switch which could be a great fit with its touch interface. On the other hand, playing the game with a gamepad is not an optimised experience right now — we’d consider it if enough players want to play BattleTabs on their big TV. :) Limarc Ambalina Sep 18, 2021, 4:45 AM Awesome to hear! So when I first started diving into Battletabs, my first thought was "ok so it's a battleships clone". Which I was fine with because that was one of my favorite "boardgames" growing up 😄 😄 😄 But after playing the game twice, I realized how addicting it was. I'm not just saying this, I planned to play 2-3 games to get a feel for it to ask you questions for this interview, but I ended up playing 8-10. The reason being your UX is incredibly well-designed and you have created a very powerful gameplay loop that keeps me wanting to play more. Similar to the addictiveness of today's popular mobile games, or the "next video" autoplay features in YouTube, you keep players engaged well. How did you figure out the best way to keep players "wanting more" ? Do you and your team have a background in mobile game design that helped you craft this? Brandon Wu Sep 21, 2021, 12:58 PM Progression, social engagement, and balancing the game for new and experienced players are 3 important areas for us when it comes to design. People want to play “one more game” when they feel like they are close to unlocking the next thing (progression), when they feel they are getting better at the game (balancing/mastery), and when they feel part of a group (social engagement). Although everyone in the team has fairly extensive experience making mobile games, I’d say we look at other competitive games on both desktop and mobile for inspirations when it comes to progression design. It’s a key part of F2P competitive gaming, an area we continue to work on to create more goals for players to work towards. The game is also designed in a way that even a new player can have fun playing against a more seasoned player. There is a natural “catch-up” mechanic in the game - the fewer ships you have left, the harder it is to find them. And we deliberately designed randomness and luck into the game so it’s beginner friendly without being too luck driven - we think of these like the random items you get in Mario Karts. In terms of social engagement, we want to keep the game feeling alive for players to feel like they are part of a living community. Little icons and prompts show up when there are people queueing for the game, in-game notifications show up when top players are streaming the game on our Discord server, and the “Rematch” button you see at the end of each match is a strong social pull for people to continue playing with the same opponent. We saw battle invites went up 3 times when the rematch button went live - a small feature with a strong result! :) Limarc Ambalina Sep 22, 2021, 7:19 AM Super interesting insights Brandon Wu!!! Especially your points on the "catch-up" mechanic. There is lots of strategy involved, despite the simpler main gameplay mechanics. These can include where to position your ships, when to use abilities, whether you go for ships with more tiles or ships with even just 1 time (making them harder to hit but easier to sink). Limarc Ambalina Sep 22, 2021, 7:20 AM HackerNoon's audience is mainly software developers and we do have game devs that read our content. What were some of the mistakes or headaches you encountered early on that you can potentially save other devs from repeating? Any advice for the game devs reading this post? Brandon Wu Sep 23, 2021, 2:32 PM There have definitely been a ton of learnings throughout this whole project, from development all the way to fundraising and community management. From a development perspective, two of the biggest learnings for me were: Focusing on what moves the needle There are a million things you can work on when you make games: UI tweaks, animation updates, new content, optimising performances…etc. What we’ve learned is that, most of the improvements we add to the game have very little impact on our core metrics. We now review features and prioritise through the lens of impact - will these features move the needle for us in terms of growth, retention, or community engagement? We’ve learned that to have meaningful impact on metrics, we have to make big bets and be open to making huge changes that could potentially alter the fundamentals of the game. The focus on impact has helped us build a much better game and an engaging community. 2. Distribution BattleTabs is a unique gaming project in that we did a lot of the “building” of the game after we’ve acquired players. Distribution is incredibly important - how and where you find players should be part of the pre-production, alongside the actual game itself. We have been integrating distribution into the game itself with sharing, and the upcoming streaming/spectating features. Distribution is and should be an integral part of your games - I’d suggest working on it from day one. One side note for people working on browser extensions. Last year, we found a bug in a build that we had submitted to the Chrome Web Store. The build was still being reviewed, so we thought we’d unpublished the extension to prevent the bug from going into the players hands and submit an updated build. Unfortunately, when you unpublished an extension, you will be put to the back of the queue for reviews, which meant the game was not available for downloads for over 3 weeks, just as growth was starting to really kick in. Lesson learned! Limarc Ambalina Sep 28, 2021, 1:52 PM What would you say are the biggest differences when it comes to developing and building a browser-based and chrome plugin game vs. traditional game development for console and regular PC games? Brandon Wu Sep 29, 2021, 11:01 PM The great thing about building browser-based games is that with the web being an open platform, you can get the game out to players and iterate very quickly. Even with browser extensions, which are typically distributed through marketplaces and stores (such as the Chrome Web Store), it’s still a much faster process to publish when compared to other major gaming platforms. Player behaviour can also be very different with web games. A lot of our players play the game on the side while they are browsing the web, watching YouTube, or working/studying. Web games live in a browser tab, co-existing with all the other tabs the player has open, and that makes for an interesting environment for a game to be played in. Web games in general also see a drop in usage on weekends, and tend to have seasonality alongside school holidays. As a browser extension game, we had to make sure the game is small enough to download, and very quick to load (particularly since BattleTabs is a New Tab extension). I’d say browser games in general need to load very fast (before the player decides to switch to YouTube 😉 ). This has implications on what tech stack, libraries, or game engines you might choose to use. Limarc Ambalina Sep 30, 2021, 12:45 PM Thanks for the super thorough answers to all my questions Brandon Wu!!!! Do you have any final words or upcoming features to announce before we call it a wrap and publish this on site? Brandon Wu Sep 30, 2021, 11:10 PM Thanks! There’s a lot of new content coming in the next few months, new customisation options, unique new ships, and more social features…etc. And we can’t be on Hackernoon without thinking of crypto… 😉 If anyone likes bite-sized PVP madness, give BattleTabs a go! You can find links to the extension and the web app on . We are also looking for TypeScript front-end developers so please email me if you are interested in learning more. ( ) It’s always fun to share our learnings. Thanks for the interview again and feel free to reach out if anyone has any other questions! (Find me on ) https://battletabs.com/ mailto:brandon@markd.ltd https://twitter.com/thebrandonwu This article is part of The hosted by HackerNoon in partnership with Gaming Metaverse Writing Contest The Sandbox . Submit your today for your chance to win up to $2000. #gaming-metaverse story

BattleTabs Proves the Potential of Browser-Based Games

Investors and business leaders are always drawn to the next big thing. While joining in on a project early is always exciting and may result in massive returns, there are still potential pitfalls to be aware of. With every thrilling venture, there are just as many (if not more) . From Enron to the mortgage-backed security failures, to Theranos, and the massive ups and downs in the crypto market, hype, greed, and ignorance make it easier for investors to fall into schemes and scams. fraudulent companies Despite the FUD surrounding it, blockchain technology and crypto do have a viable, long-term future. So, how can investors steer clear of making a potentially bad investment in blockchain-based projects? Yep, due diligence comes with the job Theranos’s founder and CEO, Elizabeth Holmes, seemingly presented endless red flags throughout the existence of the Edison machine. The numbers weren’t adding up and she made empty promises with no viable value-added as time went on. Combine these initial red flags with the fact that - at the executive level - there was a total lack of relevant experience in the biotech fields, and we can see indicators of fraud, or at the very least, widespread misrepresentation. Sure, there is a fair share of crypto companies and projects either created by celebrities, prominent political figures, or individuals who don’t actually have subject matter expertise wanting to take advantage of the current hype. There are also, many companies and projects founded by economists and technologists who are upfront with their expertise on the market. or endorsed It’s up to investors to examine the technology, use-case(s), organizational structure, and leadership of projects to best evaluate the future and determine if or how these projects can create value beyond speculative hype before any investments are promised or made. Look at the C-Suite, board of directors, and any existing investors – are the people who could, realistically, work on a project of this type and bring it to its true potential? Charisma is Charming Until it’s Not Get rich quick promises and other forms of charisma are overwhelmingly enticing and seductive, but when there isn’t any value created over a period of years after investments are made, it’s hard to determine the exact sunk cost. Even worse, it’s equally just as hard to admit that fraud is taking place. When the first group of investors begins to ask questions it's usually far too late for the rest to get out. As Enron grew to popularity in the 90s, investors and onlookers alike were dazzled by the charismatic leadership of Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling. They were seen as magnetic and effective leaders who transformed a Texas company into the seventh-largest organization in the world with a market capitalization beyond $60 billion. This charisma also created an environment of where leaders expected loyalty and questions were met with . “corporate cultism” charming and vague answers Despite its culture of knowledge, crypto is not immune to the seduction of charm. To ensure that you are making a sound investment, look beyond the alluring leadership and ask hard-hitting questions. Is the leadership saying anything of value through industry expertise and subject matter knowledge? Have they returned on initial investment either in the current company or in any previous ventures? Your hubris is showing Hubris was a major contributor to the many issues surrounding the banks and mortgage-backed security failures of 2006 to 2008. These levels of self-confidence relied on banks believing they were too big to fail, having irrational amounts of leverage, and relying on misuse of trust between leadership and the public. When the Lehman Brothers released its financial report in 2008, it cited revenues of . The report went on to list its achievements in great detail but failed to mention that they had closed BNC Mortgage and the Korea Central Mortgage business and that their share price had dropped. Rather, CEO Dick Fuld stated that they had “successfully navigated difficult markets before.” During that same year, cracks in the company’s hubris began to show. $60 billion and earnings of $4 billion The scandal of 2022 can, mostly, be attributed to the hubris of leadership. While inner circles may claim crypto is not “too big to fail”, certain projects may certainly be “too good to be true.” Luna Terra/ UST Crypto isn’t a brand-new facet of technology, but the excitement around the community continues to grow each day. As we enter the current bear market it’s essential now, more than ever, to remain optimistically cautious by performing due diligence, looking beyond the charisma, and seeing through the hubris. Also Published here

What the Tech Community Can Learn From the Scams at Enron and Theranos

I used to think that Hamlet said that something was rotten in the state of Denmark. Guess what? It was Marcellus, a guard, who turned out to be a bearer of bad news. He was the one to tell Hamlet about his father's ghost appearance. And, Hamlet had never been the same. What else did I get wrong? I used to think that Silicon Valley was a dreamland with rainbows and unicorns. Guess what? According to , it is. Elizabeth Holmes “Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup” The HBO documentary “The Inventor: Out for Blood in Silicon Valley” can be an entrepreneur's horror story or a manual. If you plan to fake till you make it, then this documentary can come in handy. If you are a straight-business-arrow, then you're going to read the book too. I'm talking about ," written by , a Pulitzer Prize Winner for Investigative Reporting. “Bad Blood: Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup John Carreyrou Did Elizabeth Holmes corrupt Silicon Valley, or was it the other way around? I don't know. What I do know for sure, though, is that fake-it-till-you-make-it, which is the unofficially official Silicon Valley's "culture" and MO, will have to change for good. Elizabeth hasn’t been the first self-proclaimed startup founder to have her own version of the crime-without-punishment story in Silicon Valley. However, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California would have to make sure she is the last one who played this fake-it-till-you-make-it game and lost. The case of showed the ugly side of Silicon Valley. There's nothing glamorous or worth admiring about founders who only dress to impress. Those who shine during presentations, but blush when the time comes to show inventions. You know, just because you choose the black turtleneck as your fashion statement, it doesn't make you Steve Jobs. U.S. v. Holmes, et al. Can a startup's "faking it" be justified? Yes, but it's a fine line between faking and making it in Silicon Valley. Every founder boldly goes where no startup has gone before. There's no way of knowing if your idea is going to work. There are no guarantees. But, there are temptations of the investors' dance floors. You just need a small financial stimulus for your startup to make end meets. Then, you would need a little bit more. If it works, you will say, it's OK, it's been worth it, I had to fake it for the right reasons. My startup's success proved me right. If it doesn't work, you have two options. You can admit a business defeat or become a serial startup faker. Here we go again. Let's try the same approach, but with a different startup, and understandably, different investors. Theranos, Not To Be Mistaken With Thanos In ancient Greek mythology Theranos was the god of health, who stole medicine from the gods for the good of mankind and was sentenced to eternal punishment by Zeus for his troubles. In Marvel Cinematic Universe, Thanos was the man with the plan who stole Infinity Stones and was sentenced and punished by Avengers. In our universe, Elizabeth is (was) a goddess of presentation and manipulation, who raised more than . When she snapped her fingers, Theranos' . What about her sentence and punishment? $700 million from the investors valuation went as high as $10 billion Holmes faces a maximum sentence of twenty years in prison, and a fine of $250,000, plus restitution, for each count of wire fraud and for each conspiracy count. A jury was selected on September 2, 2021. The trial is expected to last at least 13 weeks. (Wikipedia) I couldn't find a single word about who would be remembered as the chief scientist of Theranos rather than an award-winning biochemist. He had more years in his impressive resume than his CEO years of life in her birth certificate. Ian Gibbons A top British scientist committed suicide amid fears the 32-year-old CEO of Theranos was about to fire him - because he was having trouble getting her one-prick blood tests to work, his wife has claimed. To add insult to injury (plural would be more appropriate), means that we are more likely to see Elizabeth Holmes on the big screen, rather than in a small prison cell, first. Theranos movie based on ‘Bad Blood’ book to star Jennifer Lawrence So, my fellow entrepreneurs and startup founders, you can choose to fake it, with no guarantees that you will make it with the exception of making headlines and documentaries. Or, you can try to make it until you make it for real. As you can see my , , , and Noonies2021 nominations are real, and they call for real votes on November 15. Business Entrepreneur Entrepreneurship COVID-19

Elizabeth Holmes, Theranos, and Fake-It-Till-You-Make-It Silicon Valley Startup Culture

The dramatic improvements in medicine over the past hundred years have been one of the most defining factors of modern civilization. What used to be life-threatening diseases are now mild annoyances that we only wait out because of modern medicine. Undiagnosable diseases back then are now identifiable thanks to modern techniques and testing. This article will take a look at Theranos, a company that claimed to be able to revolutionize how blood testing is done. We will see how the company grew and how it ultimately crumbled because of its high claims. How Theranos Began Imagine you are taking a blood test for general diagnostics. General practice is to take multiple draws of blood to accomplish several tests. Theranos, however, offered an alternative to this. A health technology company, Theranos . Only using a few drops of blood for blood work means a more efficient healthcare system: one that is cheaper and faster. claimed to be able to conduct a multitude of tests with only a few drops of blood This was all said to be possible through Theranos’ proprietary technology. Through Theranos’ “invention,” the Edison, up to 200 tests can be performed using only a few drops of blood. A breakthrough like this had great implications for how healthcare is accomplished across the world. Continued Growth Within a relatively short time frame, Theranos expanded quickly. With the company’s claims, a lot of people had their eyes on the potential of Theranos. There were practical applications and financial opportunities that people wanted to achieve with Theranos. A Good Image Back in 2003, Elizabeth Holmes was taking up a degree in Chemical Engineering at Stanford University. Eventually, in the same year, she dropped out of Stanford to pursue her ideas of new ways of doing blood tests. Holmes was the founder of the start-up, Real-Time Cures. This start-up eventually became Theranos as we know it. While serving as CEO for Theranos, Holmes was well known for her charisma, image, and aura. Holmes proved to be crucial for how Theranos grew. Through Holme’s commanding presence, she took Theranos forward — serving both as face and leader for Theranos. Approaching the Right People Elizabeth Holmes approached different venture capitalists to fund her vision for Theranos. A key point here is that Holmes approached venture capitalists that were not well-versed in medical technology or health technology. Theranos got around $6 million in funding by late 2004. The promise of a revolutionary way of doing blood work enticed different entities to partner up with Theranos. Besides the original venture capitals which funded Theranos, others helped Theranos grow up to a top worth of $9 billion. Partners included Safeway and Walgreens, plus other funding firms and stakeholders. A House of Secrets Theranos was secretive, not only with its technology but also with how the company worked. As it was known in the industry, Theranos worked via “stealth mode.” This means Theranos did not generally publicize its findings and research, nor did it have press releases. This enabled Theranos to acquire more and more partners to expand itself without explaining what they were working on. By claiming Theranos could not say how exactly their blood testing works — because it was a trade secret — partners got into agreements where they took Theranos’ word for it. Claiming Something Revolutionary By claiming to have revolutionized how blood testing was done, Theranos brought something new to the table. Using Edison, Theranos would have made traditional blood testing obsolete. This would have carved a new practice in the healthcare industry. Tests would not only be cheaper, but they would also be automatically processed, more accurate, and portable. This attracted a lot of attention: from media hype, investors, and business partners. The Beginning of The End While Theranos was growing rapidly, multiple people became skeptical of the company. For example, a Stanford professor publicly raised suspicions about Theranos’ claims because there were no peer-reviewed articles about Theranos’ technology. In the health sciences, this was a highly unusual practice. However, a turning point for Theranos was when journalist . In this article, Carreyou published that Theranos was not using its technology for their demonstrations — instead, normal blood testing techniques were used. John Carreyou published his article about Theranos There was never any innovative technology, and the supposed “Edison” was allegedly never even real. Though Theranos tried to defend itself, the damage was already done. Other people within the company spoke out on Theranos’ false claims. The exposure of Theranos’ lies about their technology severed ties with Walgreens and Safeway. Plus, Theranos received repercussions from the FDA, SEC, and multiple lawsuits. Eventually, in 2018, . From a valuation reaching up to $9 billion, Theranos dropped to being worth nothing. In that same year, Elizabeth Holmes and her COO Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani were charged by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California. Theranos dissolved after years of legal trouble Several accusations were made throughout the years. In February 2021, Holmes was accused by federal investigators of destroying evidence during the last days of Theranos. What Can We Learn From Theranos? Theranos did some things that we should imitate, but it also did some things we should avoid. What should we pick up from the story of Theranos? The first is that bringing something to the table is crucial. Theranos provided something revolutionary in their industry. Otherwise, there would be no attracting factor for customers or partners for your business. Second, how you present yourself is important. Elizabeth Holmes led Theranos as its face and CEO with a certain presence. Charisma, image, and aura all help with how people approach and think of you. Third, always choose who you approach for your business. Elizabeth Holmes got millions in funding early on by choosing people who did not understand the health technology industry well. Choosing who you approach helps increase your chances of getting a good deal for your business, but can hurt the success of your business immensely. Choose to raise money from people who may be harder to raise money from, but know your industry intimately. This will allow you to leverage their experience when push comes to shove. Most importantly, always back your claims. Theranos continuously made false claims about its technology and effectiveness. Do not make claims you cannot follow up on — it may come to backfire on you later down the line. The Bottom Line Theranos was a company that grew quickly because of the value its claims created. A new way of doing blood tests meant a drastic change for the healthcare industry. However, false promises led to Theranos losing everything it had built up. While claiming something to differentiate your business from competitors is crucial, making claims you cannot follow up on will only harm your business. Theranos relied on false claims to create value. Once its lies were exposed, everything fell. How Theranos grew its business and how it lost everything is something businesses and companies should learn from. Also published here

The Ups and Downs of the Theranos Saga

Here's Why Talent Isn't Rare. This Is.

In January 2024, OpenWater announced that it would make all of its patents, as well as the blueprints and software of the devices they developed, open source. This was an unusual yet justified step from the company, as their goal was nothing less than to initiate a revolution in healthcare. There has already been a company in the history of startups that promised a revolution in healthcare, Theranos, which ended in disgrace. Why can we still trust in the success of OpenWater? One guarantee is the company’s CEO, Mary Lou Jepsen. From Wikipedia: She was the co-founder and first chief technology officer of One Laptop per Child (OLPC), and later founded Pixel Qi in Taipei, Taiwan, focused on the design and manufacture of displays. She founded and led two moonshots at Google X, and was an executive at Facebook / Oculus VR, leading an effort to advance virtual reality. Time magazine named her in their list of the hundred most influential scientists and thinkers in the world (The 2008 Time 100). CNN named her as one of their 2013 top 10 thinkers in science and technology for her work in display innovation. She has over 200 patents published or issued. It's not a bad portfolio, right? But most importantly, Jepsen survived a brain tumor, giving her firsthand experience of the current healthcare system's problems and a strong will to change it. But what is wrong with the healthcare system? In the current system, we typically see a doctor when we have symptoms. However, in many cases, symptoms only appear in the advanced stages of a disease. Cancer is a typical example of this. Many types of cancer are easily treatable in the early stages, while they are difficult to treat or may even be untreatable in advanced stages. Prevention is very important. If we had up-to-date information about the condition of our bodies, we could stop these diseases in time. This would not only drastically increase the chances of recovery but also significantly reduce the cost of healthcare, as there would be no need for treatments required in the advanced stages. Therefore, the development of diagnostic systems is at least as important, if not more so, than the development of treatments. But diagnostics are also very important in the case of already-developed diseases. A good example is a stroke. If the patient is diagnosed within 2 hours, appropriate treatment can completely restore their condition. However, if time runs out, they may suffer very serious, permanent damage. So, in this case, too, diagnostics are crucial. The OpenWater team is working on a device that can provide information about the condition of our bodies using near-infrared light and ultrasound. Their prototype system, named OpenMotion, for example, is capable of monitoring blood flow, thus aiding in the detection of strokes. I have written a complete article about the system's operation, so I will only outline it here. The system is based on the ability of near-infrared light to penetrate deeply into the human body. It can pass through soft tissues and even bones, allowing us to see inside the human body (a TED video on the topic is available here). The problem is that the light scatters in the tissues, making it difficult to extract information, but it's not impossible! OpenWater uses an acousto-optic solution where focused ultrasound alters the wavelength of the light passing through it, effectively marking the important light rays for observation. The phase of these marked light rays can be captured with a special camera and the necessary information can be extracted using the appropriate software. A major advantage of the solution is that it can be built from relatively inexpensive components (a few-dollar laser, CCD chip, and ultrasound source), making it accessible to anyone as opposed to expensive medical equipment. However, the role of this technology is not limited to prevention and diagnostics. Advanced experiments are underway where focused ultrasound can destroy brain tumors. The everyday ultrasound technology used for examining pregnant women, when properly tuned, is capable of bursting glioblastoma cells. Additionally, experiments are being conducted on the direct ultrasound stimulation of neurons, which could successfully treat depression in the future, a condition currently only treatable with medication. It's worth considering the possibilities of the future if we combine this technology with others, such as nanotechnology or genetic engineering. For example, with the help of suitable contrast agents, it could become possible to detect diseases that previously required serious medical equipment. We could mark cancer cells, and then package the cancer cell-destroying poison using nanotechnology in such a way that it only disintegrates where we focus the ultrasound. This would allow us to target the effects of the drugs very precisely. Experiments are also underway aiming to restore vision in blind people by genetically modifying the neurons in the visual cortex so that they can be mechanically activated, allowing images to be directly transmitted into the brain using ultrasound. Moreover, we can read the state of neurons using near-infrared light, potentially restoring the ability to speak for paralyzed patients, such as those with ALS. It is evident how versatile this technology can be. That's why OpenWater is not focusing on a single disease. Instead, they are building a platform. The goal is to develop general-purpose devices based on ultrasound and near-infrared light that can be used in many areas of healing, whether for diagnostic purposes or specific treatments. This is a huge development, as from this point on, healing becomes a software problem! Imagine these general-purpose wearable devices that are accessible to everyone and include the necessary components such as near-infrared lasers or ultrasound sources. The same hardware can be used for detecting strokes or cancer, or even for treating clinical depression. It's merely a matter of programming what we use it for. A few weeks ago, I searched online to see how complicated it is to process these images with software. I found an MRI dataset and open-source software that can recognize brain tumors in MRI images with 99% effectiveness (this is my article about this). The system is a relatively simple neural network, which the developer created just as a hobby. I just want to point out that if there are appropriate tools and data, the open-source software development community can work wonders. Imagine the explosive development that could happen in healthcare with such a device and the open-source ecosystem combined. Jepsen and OpenWater see this potential, which is why they decided to build the entire platform on open-source foundations. The patents are freely usable by anyone, but the blueprints, software components, medical data, and everything needed for development are also open-source. The company's business model is to profit from manufacturing the hardware, not from the technology itself. Jepsen has experience in this area, making the model seem viable. Reforming healthcare is a monumental task. It's not something that a single traditional startup can achieve, so if Jepsen is serious about this—and she indeed is—then there was no other option but to go open source. It is evident, then, that we are talking about a revolutionary technology. One that is capable of exponential growth, potentially reforming the entire healthcare system within a few years. The only question is when it will reach the critical mass necessary for exponential explosion, and when a community will build up around the technology, similar to the one that has developed around open-source AI, which makes the progress unstoppable. I encourage everyone who works in similar fields to assist in this development and to be part of the revolution. This technology truly holds historic potential. A general healthcare hardware platform accessible to everyone, coupled with artificial intelligence-based software, could fundamentally change healthcare. This new healthcare platform is the Silicon Hospital. For more info, read Jepsen’s article about the topic, or watch her presentation on YouTube. In January 2024, OpenWater announced that it would make all of its patents, as well as the blueprints and software of the devices they developed, open source. This was an unusual yet justified step from the company, as their goal was nothing less than to initiate a revolution in healthcare. OpenWater There has already been a company in the history of startups that promised a revolution in healthcare, Theranos, which ended in disgrace. Why can we still trust in the success of OpenWater? One guarantee is the company’s CEO, Mary Lou Jepsen . Mary Lou Jepsen From Wikipedia: She was the co-founder and first chief technology officer of One Laptop per Child (OLPC), and later founded Pixel Qi in Taipei, Taiwan, focused on the design and manufacture of displays. She founded and led two moonshots at Google X, and was an executive at Facebook / Oculus VR, leading an effort to advance virtual reality. Time magazine named her in their list of the hundred most influential scientists and thinkers in the world (The 2008 Time 100). CNN named her as one of their 2013 top 10 thinkers in science and technology for her work in display innovation. She has over 200 patents published or issued. She was the co-founder and first chief technology officer of One Laptop per Child (OLPC), and later founded Pixel Qi in Taipei, Taiwan, focused on the design and manufacture of displays. She founded and led two moonshots at Google X, and was an executive at Facebook / Oculus VR, leading an effort to advance virtual reality. Time magazine named her in their list of the hundred most influential scientists and thinkers in the world (The 2008 Time 100). CNN named her as one of their 2013 top 10 thinkers in science and technology for her work in display innovation. She has over 200 patents published or issued. It's not a bad portfolio, right? But most importantly, Jepsen survived a brain tumor, giving her firsthand experience of the current healthcare system's problems and a strong will to change it. But what is wrong with the healthcare system? In the current system, we typically see a doctor when we have symptoms. However, in many cases, symptoms only appear in the advanced stages of a disease. Cancer is a typical example of this. Many types of cancer are easily treatable in the early stages, while they are difficult to treat or may even be untreatable in advanced stages. Prevention is very important. If we had up-to-date information about the condition of our bodies, we could stop these diseases in time. This would not only drastically increase the chances of recovery but also significantly reduce the cost of healthcare, as there would be no need for treatments required in the advanced stages. Therefore, the development of diagnostic systems is at least as important, if not more so, than the development of treatments. But diagnostics are also very important in the case of already-developed diseases. A good example is a stroke. If the patient is diagnosed within 2 hours, appropriate treatment can completely restore their condition. However, if time runs out, they may suffer very serious, permanent damage. So, in this case, too, diagnostics are crucial. The OpenWater team is working on a device that can provide information about the condition of our bodies using near-infrared light and ultrasound. Their prototype system, named OpenMotion, for example, is capable of monitoring blood flow, thus aiding in the detection of strokes. I have written a complete article about the system 's operation, so I will only outline it here. I have written a complete article about the system The system is based on the ability of near-infrared light to penetrate deeply into the human body. It can pass through soft tissues and even bones, allowing us to see inside the human body (a TED video on the topic is available here). The problem is that the light scatters in the tissues, making it difficult to extract information, but it's not impossible! OpenWater uses an acousto-optic solution where focused ultrasound alters the wavelength of the light passing through it, effectively marking the important light rays for observation. The phase of these marked light rays can be captured with a special camera and the necessary information can be extracted using the appropriate software. TED video acousto-optic A major advantage of the solution is that it can be built from relatively inexpensive components (a few-dollar laser, CCD chip, and ultrasound source), making it accessible to anyone as opposed to expensive medical equipment. However, the role of this technology is not limited to prevention and diagnostics. Advanced experiments are underway where focused ultrasound can destroy brain tumors. The everyday ultrasound technology used for examining pregnant women, when properly tuned, is capable of bursting glioblastoma cells. Additionally, experiments are being conducted on the direct ultrasound stimulation of neurons, which could successfully treat depression in the future, a condition currently only treatable with medication. It's worth considering the possibilities of the future if we combine this technology with others, such as nanotechnology or genetic engineering. For example, with the help of suitable contrast agents, it could become possible to detect diseases that previously required serious medical equipment. We could mark cancer cells, and then package the cancer cell-destroying poison using nanotechnology in such a way that it only disintegrates where we focus the ultrasound. This would allow us to target the effects of the drugs very precisely. Experiments are also underway aiming to restore vision in blind people by genetically modifying the neurons in the visual cortex so that they can be mechanically activated, allowing images to be directly transmitted into the brain using ultrasound. Moreover, we can read the state of neurons using near-infrared light, potentially restoring the ability to speak for paralyzed patients, such as those with ALS. It is evident how versatile this technology can be. That's why OpenWater is not focusing on a single disease. Instead, they are building a platform. The goal is to develop general-purpose devices based on ultrasound and near-infrared light that can be used in many areas of healing, whether for diagnostic purposes or specific treatments. This is a huge development, as from this point on, healing becomes a software problem! This is a huge development, as from this point on, healing becomes a software problem! This is a huge development, as from this point on, healing becomes a software problem! Imagine these general-purpose wearable devices that are accessible to everyone and include the necessary components such as near-infrared lasers or ultrasound sources. The same hardware can be used for detecting strokes or cancer, or even for treating clinical depression. It's merely a matter of programming what we use it for. A few weeks ago, I searched online to see how complicated it is to process these images with software. I found an MRI dataset and open-source software that can recognize brain tumors in MRI images with 99% effectiveness ( this is my article about this ). The system is a relatively simple neural network, which the developer created just as a hobby. I just want to point out that if there are appropriate tools and data, the open-source software development community can work wonders. Imagine the explosive development that could happen in healthcare with such a device and the open-source ecosystem combined. this is my article about this Jepsen and OpenWater see this potential, which is why they decided to build the entire platform on open-source foundations. The patents are freely usable by anyone, but the blueprints, software components, medical data, and everything needed for development are also open-source. The company's business model is to profit from manufacturing the hardware, not from the technology itself. Jepsen has experience in this area, making the model seem viable. Reforming healthcare is a monumental task. It's not something that a single traditional startup can achieve, so if Jepsen is serious about this—and she indeed is—then there was no other option but to go open source. It is evident, then, that we are talking about a revolutionary technology. One that is capable of exponential growth, potentially reforming the entire healthcare system within a few years. The only question is when it will reach the critical mass necessary for exponential explosion, and when a community will build up around the technology, similar to the one that has developed around open-source AI, which makes the progress unstoppable. I encourage everyone who works in similar fields to assist in this development and to be part of the revolution. This technology truly holds historic potential. A general healthcare hardware platform accessible to everyone, coupled with artificial intelligence-based software, could fundamentally change healthcare. This new healthcare platform is the Silicon Hospital. For more info, read Jepsen’s article about the topic , or watch her presentation on YouTube . read Jepsen’s article about the topic watch her presentation on YouTube

The Silicon Hospital: Silicon and Software Could Replace Drugs

সিলিকন হাসপাতাল: সিলিকন এবং সফটওয়্যার ওষুধ প্রতিস্থাপন করতে পারে

Das Silicon Hospital: Silizium und Software könnten Medikamente ersetzen

The Silicon Hospital: El silicio y el software podrían sustituir a los medicamentos

The Silicon Hospital : le silicium et les logiciels pourraient remplacer les médicaments

सिलिकॉन अस्पताल: सिलिकॉन और सॉफ्टवेयर दवाओं की जगह ले सकते हैं

シリコン病院：シリコンとソフトウェアが医薬品に取って代わる可能性

실리콘 병원: 실리콘과 소프트웨어가 약물을 대체할 수 있음

O Hospital do Silício: Silício e Software Podem Substituir Medicamentos

Силиконовая больница: кремний и программное обеспечение могут заменить лекарства

Silikon Hastanesi: Silikon ve Yazılım İlaçların Yerini Alabilir

Bệnh viện Silicon: Silicon và phần mềm có thể thay thế thuốc

硅医院：硅和软件可以取代药物

As a society, we've always been drawn to a good story. From ancient myths to modern-day blockbusters, the power of narrative has the ability to captivate, inspire, and transform. In the world of technology, where innovation is the name of the game, storytelling has become the secret weapon behind some of the most buzzed-about startups. And the unexpected heroes of this new era? None other than the creative directors, the ad agency alchemists turned tech founders who have traded in their storyboards for the chance to rewrite the future. Armed with a knack for storytelling and a flair for the dramatic, these former ad agency stars are trading in their Cannes Lions for the chance to launch the next big thing. But as the hype around projects like Humane's AI Pin reaches fever pitch, it's worth asking: are these visionaries revolutionizing the tech landscape, or are they just spinning tales? Take Humane's AI Pin, for example. This little device, dreamt up by former Apple creative directors Imran Chaudhri and Bethany Bongiorno, has made quite the splash with its promise of a screenless, AI-driven future. But let's be real - it's not just the tech that's got everyone talking. It's the story. The vision of a world where technology seamlessly integrates into our lives, as natural as breathing. That's the kind of narrative that gets investors reaching for their checkbooks, the media clamoring for a headline and secures millions in funding. And Humane is far from alone in this new world order. Just look at the rise and fall of Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos. Sure, the revolutionary blood-testing technology never quite materialized, but damn if Holmes didn't spin one hell of a story. With her Steve Jobs-esque turtlenecks and promises of disruption, she had Silicon Valley eating out of the palm of her hand. Or what about Adam Neumann and WeWork? The man could sell a vision like no other, painting a picture of a workplace revolution that would “elevate the world's consciousness” (and the company's valuation to a cool $47 billion). But here's the thing about stories - they're only as good as the reality they're built on. When the curtain gets pulled back and the wizard is revealed to be just a guy with a smoke machine, things can get ugly fast. Just ask the folks who bought into the Theranos dream or the WeWork hype. When the story doesn't match the substance, it's not just disappointment that follows - it's disaster. Moreover, storytelling is not just about hype. Used responsibly, it can be a powerful tool for education and inspiration. When Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone, he didn't just sell a product; he painted a picture of how it would transform our lives. That narrative resonated because it was grounded in a genuine, revolutionary product. So what's the lesson here for the creative directors turned tech visionaries? The use of narrative as a launchpad is not without its risks: with great storytelling power comes great responsibility.The ability to craft a compelling narrative is a gift, but it's one that needs to be used wisely. The best stories, the ones that truly change the game, are the ones that are grounded in something real. Something tangible. Something that doesn't just tickle the imagination but actually follows through on its promises. This is the tightrope that creative directors in the tech world must walk. As for Humane's AI Pin? Only time will tell if it can live up to the hype. But one thing's for sure - in the wild west of tech startups, the storytellers are the new sheriffs in town. They're the ones who can make us believe in a brighter future, a more connected world, a reality where anything is possible. And in a world that can often feel like it's spinning out of control, that's a pretty powerful thing. But as we watch these narratives unfold, it's on us to remember that not every story has a happy ending, like . We've got to approach each new tale with a healthy dose of wonder and a hearty helping of skepticism. Because in the end, the most compelling story isn't always the most true - but it might just be the one that changes everything. As a society, we've always been drawn to a good story. From ancient myths to modern-day blockbusters, the power of narrative has the ability to captivate, inspire, and transform. In the world of technology, where innovation is the name of the game, storytelling has become the secret weapon behind some of the most buzzed-about startups. And the unexpected heroes of this new era? None other than the creative directors, the ad agency alchemists turned tech founders who have traded in their storyboards for the chance to rewrite the future. Armed with a knack for storytelling and a flair for the dramatic, these former ad agency stars are trading in their Cannes Lions for the chance to launch the next big thing. But as the hype around projects like Humane's AI Pin reaches fever pitch, it's worth asking: are these visionaries revolutionizing the tech landscape, or are they just spinning tales? Take Humane's AI Pin, for example. This little device, dreamt up by former Apple creative directors Imran Chaudhri and Bethany Bongiorno, has made quite the splash with its promise of a screenless, AI-driven future. But let's be real - it's not just the tech that's got everyone talking. It's the story. The vision of a world where technology seamlessly integrates into our lives, as natural as breathing. That's the kind of narrative that gets investors reaching for their checkbooks, the media clamoring for a headline and secures millions in funding. And Humane is far from alone in this new world order. Just look at the rise and fall of Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos. Sure, the revolutionary blood-testing technology never quite materialized, but damn if Holmes didn't spin one hell of a story. With her Steve Jobs-esque turtlenecks and promises of disruption, she had Silicon Valley eating out of the palm of her hand. Or what about Adam Neumann and WeWork? The man could sell a vision like no other, painting a picture of a workplace revolution that would “elevate the world's consciousness” (and the company's valuation to a cool $47 billion). But here's the thing about stories - they're only as good as the reality they're built on. When the curtain gets pulled back and the wizard is revealed to be just a guy with a smoke machine, things can get ugly fast. Just ask the folks who bought into the Theranos dream or the WeWork hype. When the story doesn't match the substance, it's not just disappointment that follows - it's disaster. Moreover, storytelling is not just about hype. Used responsibly, it can be a powerful tool for education and inspiration. When Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone, he didn't just sell a product; he painted a picture of how it would transform our lives. That narrative resonated because it was grounded in a genuine, revolutionary product. So what's the lesson here for the creative directors turned tech visionaries? The use of narrative as a launchpad is not without its risks: with great storytelling power comes great responsibility.The ability to craft a compelling narrative is a gift, but it's one that needs to be used wisely. The best stories, the ones that truly change the game, are the ones that are grounded in something real. Something tangible. Something that doesn't just tickle the imagination but actually follows through on its promises. This is the tightrope that creative directors in the tech world must walk. As for Humane's AI Pin? Only time will tell if it can live up to the hype. But one thing's for sure - in the wild west of tech startups, the storytellers are the new sheriffs in town. They're the ones who can make us believe in a brighter future, a more connected world, a reality where anything is possible. And in a world that can often feel like it's spinning out of control, that's a pretty powerful thing. But as we watch these narratives unfold, it's on us to remember that not every story has a happy ending, like . We've got to approach each new tale with a healthy dose of wonder and a hearty helping of skepticism. Because in the end, the most compelling story isn't always the most true - but it might just be the one that changes everything.

Narrative as a Launchpad: How Creative Directors Propel Tech Ventures Like Humane's AI Pin

একটি লঞ্চপ্যাড হিসাবে আখ্যান: কিভাবে ক্রিয়েটিভ ডিরেক্টররা হিউম্যানের এআই পিনের মতো টেক ভেঞ্চারকে এগিয়ে দেয়

Erzählung als Startrampe: Wie Kreativdirektoren Technologieunternehmen wie Humanes KI vorantreiben Pin

La narrativa como plataforma de lanzamiento: cómo los directores creativos impulsan empresas tecnológicas como la IA de Humane

Le récit comme rampe de lancement : comment les directeurs créatifs propulsent les entreprises technologiques comme l'IA de Humane

लॉन्चपैड के रूप में कथा: कैसे क्रिएटिव डायरेक्टर्स ह्यूमेन के एआई पिन जैसे तकनीकी उपक्रमों को आगे बढ़ाते हैं

物語を発射台として: クリエイティブ ディレクターが Humane の AI Pin のようなテクノロジー ベンチャーを推進する方法

런치패드로서의 내러티브: 크리에이티브 디렉터가 Humane의 AI 핀과 같은 기술 벤처를 추진하는 방법

Narrativa como plataforma de lançamento: como os diretores criativos impulsionam empreendimentos tecnológicos como o AI Pin da Humane

Нарратив как стартовая площадка: как креативные директора продвигают технологические предприятия, как пин от Humane об искусственном интеллекте

Bir Başlatma Paneli Olarak Anlatı: Yaratıcı Yönetmenler, Humane'nin Yapay Zeka Pinini Benzeri Teknoloji Girişimlerini Nasıl İlerletir?

Tường thuật như một bệ phóng: Cách các Giám đốc Sáng tạo Thúc đẩy các dự án mạo hiểm công nghệ giống như Ghim AI của Humane

叙事作为启动板：创意总监如何推动 Humane 的 AI Pin 等科技企业的发展

The Humane AI pin debacle is making waves as consumers reject the device as not living up to their standards – or even the hype. Its physical limitations and software flaws have left buyers upset that the product does not justify the $700 price tag. But the Humane AI pin is not the first tech gadget to fail. The Apple Newton, Nintendo Virtual Boy, Microsoft Zune, and Sony Betamax are just some of the many examples of technologies that didn’t quite make it. Netscape, Windows 8, and AOL are more examples of internet technologies that started out strong but failed to hold on to their market share, instead ceding users to other technologies. Google Glass was a $1,500 gadget meant to offer users the ability to access information simply by looking through the lens, but its ability to discreetly record meant that many private venues refused wearers access. The Pebble smartwatch was a fine idea, but it was unable to hold onto its market position once Apple and Samsung entered the smartwatch market. Among the more recent and infamous companies in the health and pharmaceutical realm is Theranos. The company, headed by its founder Elizabeth Holmes, claimed to have a machine that had blood diagnostic technology, which could allegedly detect numerous diseases with just one drop of blood. Unfortunately for Holmes, she got caught up in her lies and has been jailed for fraud. Crazy ideas like Colgate’s Lasagna, Evian’s Water Bra, or the Face Trainer demonstrated that some products are best left on the drawing board. Perhaps the Humane AI Pin is a complete flop due to its many faults. Or it is simply ahead of its time and may just need a few tweaks and a different technological time frame to fit into and make more sense. The founders and creators of any technology company and product must be aware of the competition, the market, consumer moods with regard to the economy, and most importantly, whether there is actually a need for whatever is being made. There are many inventions that never had any real or practical use. The ones that succeeded are those that consumers wanted or needed and were able to afford. Tech companies need to pay attention to these factors and operate accordingly. This way, debacles like the Humane AI pin can be avoided. The Humane AI pin debacle is making waves as consumers reject the device as not living up to their standards – or even the hype. Its physical limitations and software flaws have left buyers upset that the product does not justify the $700 price tag. But the Humane AI pin is not the first tech gadget to fail. The Apple Newton, Nintendo Virtual Boy, Microsoft Zune, and Sony Betamax are just some of the many examples of technologies that didn’t quite make it. Netscape, Windows 8, and AOL are more examples of internet technologies that started out strong but failed to hold on to their market share, instead ceding users to other technologies. Google Glass was a $1,500 gadget meant to offer users the ability to access information simply by looking through the lens, but its ability to discreetly record meant that many private venues refused wearers access. The Pebble smartwatch was a fine idea, but it was unable to hold onto its market position once Apple and Samsung entered the smartwatch market. Among the more recent and infamous companies in the health and pharmaceutical realm is Theranos. The company, headed by its founder Elizabeth Holmes, claimed to have a machine that had blood diagnostic technology, which could allegedly detect numerous diseases with just one drop of blood. Unfortunately for Holmes, she got caught up in her lies and has been jailed for fraud. Crazy ideas like Colgate’s Lasagna, Evian’s Water Bra, or the Face Trainer demonstrated that some products are best left on the drawing board. Perhaps the Humane AI Pin is a complete flop due to its many faults. Or it is simply ahead of its time and may just need a few tweaks and a different technological time frame to fit into and make more sense. The founders and creators of any technology company and product must be aware of the competition, the market, consumer moods with regard to the economy, and most importantly, whether there is actually a need for whatever is being made. There are many inventions that never had any real or practical use. The ones that succeeded are those that consumers wanted or needed and were able to afford. Tech companies need to pay attention to these factors and operate accordingly. This way, debacles like the Humane AI pin can be avoided.

Consumers Don’t Want Useless Gadgets

গ্রাহকরা অকেজো গ্যাজেট চান না

Verbraucher wollen keine nutzlosen Gadgets

Los consumidores no quieren dispositivos inútiles

Les consommateurs ne veulent pas de gadgets inutiles

उपभोक्ता बेकार गैजेट नहीं चाहते

消費者は役に立たないガジェットを欲しがらない

소비자는 쓸모없는 장치를 원하지 않습니다

Os consumidores não querem gadgets inúteis

Потребители не хотят бесполезных гаджетов

Tüketiciler Yararsız Cihazlar İstemiyor

Người tiêu dùng không muốn những tiện ích vô dụng

消费者不想要无用的小玩意

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 28 of 33. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here V. A Sentence of 40 to 50 Years Is Necessary to Avoid Sentencing Disparities Among the factors a sentencing court must consider in imposing sentence is “the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.” 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(6). Congress adopted Section 3553(a)(6) “to eliminate unwarranted disparities nationwide.” United States v. Williams, 524 F.3d 209, 215 (2d Cir. 2008). No scheme to defraud since Madoff can be compared to this one in terms of its size, scope, and amount of loss. The PSR notes that sentencing data from the last five years shows that the average sentence for a defendant sentenced under the fraud Guidelines with offense level (43) is approximately 24 years’ imprisonment. The United States Sentencing Commission’s Judiciary Sentencing Information database does not indicate, however, what conduct resulted in these sentences. Nor does it indicate what the largest sentences were. Because of the range of potential white collar crimes that fall under the Guidelines in Section 2B1.1, the Government submits that a more focused approach is necessary to avoid unwanted sentencing disparities. Specifically, the Government submits that other fraud cases where the loss amounts were at the top of the loss table—and in particular, those involving embezzlement—is the relevant body of cases to evaluate. Below is a table of sentences imposed since Booker on defendants where the loss amount exceeded $100 million, and the money was stolen through a Ponzi scheme or some other form of misappropriation or embezzlement. As the table makes clear, most defendants who steal their clients’ or customers’ money with $100 million dollars in losses or more receive sentences ranging from 40 to 50 years’ imprisonment. Indeed, in cases with $200 million or more in losses, courts have typically imposed a sentence of 50 years imprisonment or more. For instance, in a case with similar facts to those here, Russell Wasendorf, the CEO of a futures commission merchant, embezzled more than $215 million in customers’ funds, and was sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment. There are exceptions, of course, but it also bears noting that the defendant’s fraud would rank second, right below Madoff, in terms of total losses. Accordingly, to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities amongst like defendants, a sentence of 40 to 50 years’ imprisonment is necessary. The defendant’s submission cites and then distinguishes several other fraud prosecutions involving large losses. Starting with Madoff, the defendant says it is not an apt comparison because Madoff embezzled more money, engaged in fraud from the beginning, was older, and used millions in stolen funds for himself. (Def. Mem. at 75). Bankman-Fried is right that there are differences between his and Madoff’s case, but those do not justify disregarding the Madoff sentence as a benchmark. Like Madoff, the defendant misappropriated billions of dollars of customer money over a multi-year period, spending much of it on his own ventures, and causing massive harm to his victims. United States v. Madoff, Nio. 09 Cr. 213 (DC), Dkt. 92 (Gov’t Sentencing Mem.). And unlike Madoff, Bankman-Fried has not accepted responsibility; rather, he obstructed justice, he perjured himself, and he committed other significant crimes. The defendants’ ages are certainly a distinguishing factor. Age, of course, cuts both ways. A shorter sentence because the defendant is relatively young means he will have an opportunity to commit fraud again when released. And a shorter sentence because of his age also undermines general deterrence, as it could signal to would be young fraudsters that it is worthwhile to attempt a massive fraud, because either they will get away with it, or the prison sentence will allow them a second chance to make money. Even if age were a reason why this Court should impose a shorter sentence than the one imposed on Madoff— a sentence that gives Bankman-Fried the possibility of release someday—it is not a reason to disregard the Madoff sentence given the similarities to the case. Next, the defendant distinguishes Judge Ramos’s recent 20-year sentence of Karl Greenwood, who was involved in the fake cryptocurrency scheme OneCoin. (Def. Mem. at 76- 77). That sentence is distinguishable, but not for the reasons in the defendant’s brief. Greenwood received a sentence shorter than what Bankman-Fried deserves, not a longer one. Greenwood pled guilty and was remorseful for his conduct. At sentencing, Judge Ramos stated that while the defendant’s criminal conduct “compelled” a substantial sentence, there were “substantial reasons” for granting “some measure of lenity, including “horrific conditions” that the defendant endured in a Thailand jail. United States v. Greenwood, No. 17 Cr. 630 (ER) (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 2023), Sent. Tr. at 39. Those conditions included being “stripped naked,” “shaved down,” “chained to other inmates for 24 hours,” “forced to sleep on the floor full of cockroaches and rodents,” “food filled with magots,” “forced to sit outside in the heat for hours,” and some particular circumstances, which are under seal, that “resulted in lasting health effects and health consequences.” (Id. at 18- 19).[13] The particular circumstances of Greenwood’s case distinguish it, and make it an imperfect precedent for the sentence here. Bankman-Fried argues that the sentences imposed on defendants from the public company scandals from the early 2000s are poor comparisons. (Def. Mem. at 77). The Government agrees. Bernard Ebbers of WorldCom and John Rigas of Adelphia Communications were convicted of perpetrating large accounting frauds that resulted in losses to the companies’ investors. These were securities fraud cases, but the nature of the losses was different: the losses did not involve the theft of customers’ or clients’ funds that were entrusted to the defendant. Rather, in both cases, there was ambiguity as to whether the companies’ losses were fully attributable to the fraud. United States v. Ebbers, 458 F.3d 110, 127 (2d Cir. 2006) (“The loss to investors who hold during the period of an ongoing fraud is not easily quantifiable because we cannot accurately assess what their conduct would have been had they known the truth,” and recognizing that “the dot-com bubble burst and its likely negative future effect on WorldCom’s business was public knowledge,” which caused “a downward pressure on share price not attributable to the defendant.”); United States v. Rigas, 583 F.3d 108, 119–20 (2d Cir. 2009) (recognizing that “[t]he loss must be the result of the fraud, as opposed to other, non-fraudulent occurrences”) (citation omitted). That distinguishing feature is critical because, as the above table indicates, courts have routinely imposed lengthier sentences on defendants who have stolen from people who trusted them. Bankman-Fried acknowledges similarities to Elizabeth Holmes. (Def. Mem. at 78-79). But the similarities are superficial. Bankman-Fried stole billions from customers who entrusted him with money. The loss amount in Holmes’s case was less than $150 million, and those losses were borne by private investors, not the general public. United States v. Holmes, 18 Cr. 258 (N.D. Cal.), Dkt. 1712 (Court Order on Sentencing), at 1 (“the loss in this case can be reasonably found to be $120,146,247”), 6 (list of investors). The defendant claims that Holmes’s conduct was worse because her scheme resulted in parties receiving inaccurate medical information. But BankmanFried caused a similar type of trauma to his victims, but at a grander scale. He led victims to believe their money was safe and in accounts, to be used as needed. As the witness statements above make clear, people put their life savings in the defendant’s hands. So like the Theranos patient who got inaccurate medical results and was traumatized, the FTX customers have experienced devastating emotional and psychological trauma from the defendant’s fraud. The difference is, however, that the Theranos patients ultimately learned that the tests were junk and were able to right their lives. The same is not true for FTX’s customers, who have not gotten their money back. Finally, the defendant settles on Michael Milken as the “best comparison” for this case. There is very little about the defendant’s fraud that is any way like the crimes for which Milken was prosecuted. Although Milken was associated with Drexel Burnham’s leveraged buyouts and “junk bonds,” the charges to which Milken pled guilty had nothing to do with those practices; nor did they involve insider trading associated with Ivan Boesky. While Milken pled guilty to six offenses, they related to the following: Milken guaranteed Boesky against loss and helped him evade the net-capital rules in some transactions, he made adjustments in the price of securities bought and sold for another client without disclosing this to the fund’s customers, and he helped the same client lower his takes by arranging unprofitable trades. Milken’s convictions neither involved theft of customers’ funds, nor did they involve anything close to the amount of losses sustained here. Milken’s sentence is not a fair comparison for the conduct here. Arguing otherwise, Bankman-Fried cites to personal similarities to Milken—they were both young, had a “meteoric rise” in their industry, were “geniuses,” and had an interest in charity. (Def. Mem. at 81-82). But Section 3553 requires consideration of whether a sentence will create an unwarranted sentence disparity among defendants “who have been found guilty of similar conduct,” not defendants who may or may not be similar. Milken did not steal customers’ money. He did not steal over $10 billion dollars. He did not perpetrate multiple frauds with losses in the billions. He did not refuse to accept responsibility, obstruct justice, and perjure himself. A sentence equivalent to the one imposed on Milken of 10 years (let alone the two-year sentence he later received based on his cooperation) would be unreasonable here given the facts. At bottom, defendants who are in a position of trust and steal $100 million or more appropriately are sentenced to 40 to 50 years, or more. Such a sentence is necessary here and would be in line with the sentences meted out to other defendants who engaged in similar conduct. Continue Reading . Here [13] The specifics of these circumstances are sealed. If the Court believes the details of those circumstances are necessary in determining how, if at all, to consider the sentence in Greenwood, the Government will provide the information to the Court on a sealed basis. 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

Understanding Sentencing Guidelines in White Collar Crimes

Circa. 2100 CE A silicon-littered Web 2.5 world. You now have a mobile/handheld server. You no longer just carry a smartphone. Don’t know if it is a “good” future, but it is more powerful and useful for everyone. In this future, there is a digital social contract, and governments are the ones who have to play by the rules. Else, we wring the financial arm. What Bitcoin Did I know you hardly want to serve anybody. You want to be served. Great content at that. But have you ever stopped to think that our decision to forever choose to be clients and never servers, is probably why there is gross income inequality on this planet? 3 people own more money than 3 billion people, while 1 billion are starving, and this is poised to get worse now that the Transformer AIs are in town. However, the future in 2100 will see this wealth inequality solved by more equalized ownership of internet hardware. And once you solve gross wealth inequality, you supercharge civilization for greatness. I’ll explain. First, let’s hack back to Bitcoin - foundational technology to everything Web 2.5. Before Bitcoin existed, you would only build your server to host your website in-house. Or in your garage. It was a risky business move because you likely do not have a big fat CISCO networking certification in your back pocket nor a lot of money buried in your backyard. It had to take something profitable enough to prompt you to start running your server locally. Clunky software downloading skills and all. A genius website idea. But what? Satoshi Nakamoto, that guy again, came around and told you you could run a special server called a ‘Bitcoin node miner’ and voila, make bank. You did, you got a nice profit. Your friends heard about it, got aboard and they too got a nice profit. Now in 2023, over 1 million people are running servers/money printers. Serving the Web 2.5 world with scarce bitcoins while they make a nice profit. It is a stretch, calling a Bitcoin node miner a server. But given the many devices relying on and relaying with these miners to run all sorts of  Layer 2 applications including the Lightning Network, Ordinal NFTs, and all sorts of DApps e.g. BitVM, these are servers. The future power lies in digital self-sovereignty Recall my story on what it would mean , and . if governments had been orange-pilled first the one on financial implications Those stories are a smaller piece of a greater narrative. Imagine the people of the world had been server-pilled first, instead of desktop-pc-pilled. Server-pilled means more Gen Y being more like Steve Wozniak. Active users of computers, and not passive users sitting in the comfort of their desks. Moving around a mouse. Exploring the genius of Bill Gates and Steve Jobs to only improve their financial data with a spreadsheet. and builders Don’t get me wrong. MS Excel is awesome. The desktop computer, and its successor, the smartphone, have exponentially grown the world economy and given me a world that my great-grandparents wouldn’t have recognized. A great world. But there is an exponential, then there is an eXPONENTIAL! N^2 is a good mode. 2^N is god mode. Server-pill the world, and orange-pilling governments no longer sounds like big mind game theory gymnastics. Server-pill the world, and you effectively behead the Hydra that is central banks running inflationary money servers with all sorts of projects for the rest of us, their clients. Hence the 2008 financial crash doesn’t happen, we’d smell it a mile away. Our powers of smelling from afar oppressive digital technologies would be impressive. As things stand today, we are easy prey for scammers like Theranos, FTX, anybody who can put together a juicy-sounding business deal with the right buzzwords, gets our heads spinning. Like teenage girls, giggling and falling for the guy in the fancy sports car, pockets full of cash, flashing a big sexy smile. Except he borrowed it all from his cousin, who is out of town for the weekend. Meanwhile, we get used and dumped like a shitty coin after its cheap bull run is over. But we never learn. We cannot learn. It is the world we grew up in. Like silly teenage girls who giggle and fall for boys that flash cars and cash. Server-pilling the world is the that should have elevated the individual as well as centralized computer systems did for his social contract. novus actus interveniens The Social Contract To cap our retro-futurist journey, let’s dial back to the beginning. The first time governments, Kingdoms, and any such political entity were encapsulated within the pages of a theoretical dispensation. What can be clear is that we are in the 18th century no more, and what we, you and I, would call an Age of Enlightenment is one where the classical definitions of the social contract were expanded to take into account our digital reality today. A digital social contract must give the individual powers to rival government surveillance technologies today. Writing as many articles as possible will not stop surveillance technology, the government needs it to ‘stop terrorists’. Speaking against the fraud of big banks will not stop them from engineering financial instruments so sweet you can’t help investing all your chips and being a slave to signal watching. Like a cat chasing a laser light spot. If human beings cannot stop themselves from betting on the lottery, they have no hope against the sophistication of financial market engineers. Oops, there is also AI financial engineers. Bitcoin has already happened, and it is pushing us there one block at a time. What will happen by 2100 though, to put us in an entirely new age, will be something to make everyone own a server. It could be climate change. It could be a reboot of Bitcoin as version 2.0. I don’t know. It may be because quantum computers have mercilessly hacked everything and we have to start over. It could be that all our transistors have been fried by a magnetic storm from a massive solar flare. It could be a good thing too. We finally invent nuclear fusion, we invent a carbon capture and storage miracle, we invent a battery miracle, we become buddies with an alien from a UFO that finally lands. I just know people will run servers and be retro-futurist hardware heads, with millions tinkering with MRI scans and 5G boosters and rocket launch pads and whatever. It will be the dawn of a digital social contract, and the governments that will emerge in this world will respect the individual. Politicians of this future will be the children tinkering with Bitcoin, Ethereum, DApps, quantum computing, climate change science, data science, AI, today. They’ll actually know something. They’ll know what it means to own your own server farm, or how hard it is to deal with externalities that your ancestors swept under the rug. Owning a personal farm has always been crucial to maintaining a responsible, growing civilization. Can’t keep trusting to be fed well by people from the other side of the world. Be it real food or digital food.

Stories, News & Mentions about THEBRANX

Thebranx’s Stories on HackerNoon

Thebranx's News & Mentions