Vic.ai is pioneering the use of autonomy and intelligence to digitally transform accounting and finance processes to improve productivity, decision-making, and ROI. Vic.ai addresses the most manual and inefficient task in accounting – invoice processing – to improve its speed and scalability, and ultimately enable customers to reinvent their accounts payable operations and improve financial management. Accounting tasks have always been managed using legacy systems that are based on predefined, fragile rules and templates. It’s mundane, inefficient, and error-prone work. Vic.ai throws the need for rules and templates out the window. Accounting tasks work autonomously with the Vic.ai platform to minimize the human input and interpretation that legacy, rules-based systems require. Vic.ai’s accounts payable solution uses advanced AI, which gets smarter the more invoices it ingests, and autonomous workflows to automatically process error-free invoices, allowing the team to focus on more important matters than manual data entry. Vic.ai works with finance professionals to give them the tools they need to make everyday operations simpler and more intelligent. From processing invoices to data predictions, the Vic.ai intelligent and autonomous solution gives companies the bandwidth needed to complete higher value tasks often pushed aside in the day-to-day. By processing more than half a billion invoices with up to 99% accuracy, Vic.ai has helped 10,000+ customers achieve nearly $188 million in cost savings and 6 million hours in time savings. Vic.ai is backed by the best VC’s in the world, including Iconic Growth, GGV Capital, Cowboy Ventures and Costanoa Ventures. Vic.ai is jointly headquartered in New York City and Oslo, Norway. For more information, please visit http://www.vic.ai/.

Vic.ai

vicai

Food and Flavor: A Gastronomic Guide to Health and Good Living: Chapter IV 

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 32 of 33. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here III. The Court Should Order Victim Compensation Through Remission as an Alternative to Restitution The Government seeks to return all stolen assets that are finally forfeited to victims of the defendant’s crimes in the most efficient manner possible. Because of the complexity of the case and the number of victims involved, awarding restitution to victims in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3663A would be extremely costly and administratively impractical. The cost and time associated with calculating each victim’s loss, determining whether the victim has already been compensated through the pending bankruptcy, and then paying out a percentage of the victim’s losses, will delay payment and diminish the amount of money actually paid to victims. Therefore, consistent with the Government’s frequent approach in complex cases with numerous victims, the Government moves for entry of an order authorizing the United States to compensate victims with finally forfeited assets through a remission process, as restitution would be impracticable in this case. 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3). As noted in the defendant’s submission, he consents to this request. Restitution to persons “directly and proximately harmed” by fraud and money laundering is ordinarily mandatory. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663A(a)(1), (c)(1)(A)(ii). In such a case, the Court is authorized to determine a restitution amount and a schedule of victims and payments. However, an order of restitution is not required when “the number of identifiable victims is so large as to make restitution impracticable,” or when imposing restitution would require “determining complex issues of fact related to the cause or amount of the victim’s losses” which “would complicate or prolong the sentencing process.” Id. § 3663A(c)(3). In those situations, instead of ordering restitution, courts have authorized the Government to compensate victims through the process of remission under the forfeiture statutes and related regulations. See, e.g., United States v. Madoff, 09 Cr. 213 (DC), Dkt. 106 & United States v. Bonventre, 10 Cr. 228, Dkt. 318 (Madoff Ponzi scheme); United States v. Sharma, 18 Cr. 340, Dkt. 407 (multi-million dollar cryptocurrency scheme); United States v. Dos Santos, 20 Cr. 398, Dkt. 283 (multi-million dollar cryptocurrency scheme). The forfeiture statutes authorize the Attorney General to “grant petitions for mitigation or remission of forfeiture, restore forfeited property to victims of a violation of this subchapter, or take any other action to protect the rights of innocent persons which is in the interest of justice and which is not inconsistent with the provisions of this section.” 21 U.S.C. § 853(i)(1). The applicable regulations are set forth in 28 C.F.R. Part 9. In order to qualify for remission, a crime victim must provide information to support specific elements, including that they suffered a specific pecuniary loss directly caused by the criminal offense, that the victim did not contribute to the offense, that the victim has not been in compensated for the loss from another means, and that the victim has no other recourse available. See generally 28 C.F.R. § 9.8(b). It is the policy of the Department of Justice, consistent with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, to ensure that crime victims receive “full and timely restitution as provided in law.” See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1). Accordingly, when the Government seizes property in connection with a criminal case, the Government’s goal is to forfeit the property and then, in remission proceedings administered by the Attorney General through his delegee, the Chief of the Money Laundering and Asset Recovery Section of the Department of Justice’s Criminal Division (“MLARS”), to distribute funds to victims. Frequently MLARS will distribute those assets through a remission program by which victims may petition for portions of forfeited property. E.g. United States v. Sharma, 18 Cr. 340 (LGS), 2022 WL 1910026, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 3, 2022). In a multi-victim or complex case, the process of notifying potential victims, processing petitions, verifying losses, and recommending a distribution of available funds may be managed on behalf of the Department of Justice by a Special Master or trustee, as authorized by 28 C.F.R. § 9.9(c). While use of such means is common, there are other methods of distribution that the Department has used. In cases that also involve bankruptcy proceedings, the Department has at times worked with the bankruptcy estate to distribute forfeited assets. E.g. United States v. $7,206,157,717 on Deposit at JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 10 Civ. 9398, Dkt. 2 (S.D.N.Y. December 17, 2010) (stipulation and court ordered settlement whereby the estate of Jeffry Picower, who had received billions of dollars from Bernie Madoff, forfeited more than $7 billion; the Government agreed to credit $5 billion in payment to the bankruptcy estate to be allocated under bankruptcy rules, and then named the trustee as administrator for the remaining funds). Victims’ interests will be best served in this case by ordering remission of finally forfeited funds and by using the remission process. The Government has been in frequent communication with MLARS about the most efficient way to do this, including by retaining a claims administrator or by transferring funds into the FTX bankruptcy estate upon specified conditions.[16] An alternative arrangement whereby restitution is calculated and distributed to victims by the Government and the Court would be nearly impossible administratively, and would come at great expense to victims’ recovery. In order to enter an order of restitution, the Court would need to determine and corroborate each victim’s losses. That would require determining and corroborating for each customer victim both the amount of funds he or she transferred to FTX, and any funds withdrawn. That task, challenging as it would ever be for the global fraud which the defendant led, is compounded here further for victims who transferred funds via cryptocurrencies, given their ever-fluctuating value. There are millions of potential victims and substantial complexity in computing each victim’s investments and withdrawals. Restitution in this case is even more complicated by the different classes of victims: FTX’s dozens of equity investors, and the Alameda lenders who often lent or received funds via cryptocurrency. Instead, a process whereby the Government distributes finally forfeited funds, either through a claims administrator or through a distribution to the bankruptcy estate, will more be efficient, and not “would complicate or prolong the sentencing process.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(c)(3). Continue Reading . Here [16] The creditor class in the bankruptcy overlaps substantially but is not a perfect match with the victims of the defendant’s crimes. For example, customers of FTX’s US branch are not victims of the defendant’s crimes as charged in the Indictment, but are expected to recover in the FTX bankruptcy; conversely, equity investors are victims of the charged offenses but may not recover their losses in the bankruptcy. 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

Proposed Strategy for Compensating Bankman-Fried's Victims: Remission Over Restitution

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 16 of 33. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here B. The Number of Victims Enhancement Is Applicable Pursuant to Section 2B1.1(b)(2) of the Guidelines, a two-level enhancement is warranted if the offense “involved 10 or more victims” or “resulted in substantial financial hardship to one or more victims.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(A). The PSR concluded that this enhancement applies. Section 2B1.1(b)(2) also provides that where the offense “resulted in substantial financial hardship to 25 or more victims” a six-level enhancement is warranted. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2)(C). Because the offense resulted in substantial financial harm to more than 25 FTX customers, depriving many of them of their life savings, the six-level enhancement is appropriate. More than 25 victims have submitted letters in which they describe such effects as an inability to make their mortgage payments, inability to support family members, and other severe financial effects from the defendant’s fraud, and this is just a small subset of the many thousands of FTX customers who suffered financial hardship as a result of the defendant’s fraud. The defendant objects to any enhancement based on substantial financial hardship to victims, relying on the Sixth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Yagar, 404 F.3d 967, 971 (6th Cir. 2005), which held that victims who “only temporarily lost funds … because their banks reimbursed them for their losses” were not “victims” under the Guidelines. (Def. Mem. at 30). However, as the defendant acknowledges, the Second Circuit has held that “individuals who have been fully reimbursed for their financial losses may be deemed victims for purposes of the sentencing enhancement set forth at U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(2).” Abiodun, 536 F.3d at 168. Distinguishing Yagar as a case where the loss was “short-lived and immediately covered,” the Second Circuit explained that the victim enhancement applies where the victims “suffered (1) an adverse effect (2) as a result of the defendant’s conduct that (3) can be measured in monetary terms.” Id. 168-69; see also United States v. Smith, 751 F.3d 107, 119 (3d Cir. 2014) (joining the Second, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits in holding that “individuals who expend time, effort, and money before successfully obtaining reimbursement suffer an actual loss and remain victims under § 2B1.1(b)(2)”). Here, the enhancement plainly applies. None of the victims of the defendant’s fraud have received reimbursement. The defendant’s argument relies on speculation that every victim may someday be made whole through the bankruptcy. But that is not a certainty, and the defendant has not cited any authority for the proposition that the enhancement under Section 2B1.1(b)(2) does not apply when victims may someday be reimbursed. Indeed, this is not a case, as in Yagar, where the loss was “short-lived and immediately covered.” Rather, as of the sentencing, tens of thousands of victims will still be experiencing losses, despite the time, effort, and in some cases money they have spent seeking to recoup their money or file claims in bankruptcy. By cutting off these victims’ access to their life savings for over a year, the defendant has already caused substantial financial hardship to them, even if they receive some measure of reimbursement at some point in the future. 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

Victims' Financial Hardship at Center of Bankman-Fried's Sentencing Debate

The Noonification: Ponzi Scheme Victims Beware: There Is No Such Thing As Easy Money (11/23/2023)

If something seems too good to be true, then it probably is. All the more so if that something happens to be a get-rich-quick Ponzi scheme. Although Ponzi schemes promise above-average returns, investors often end up losing their entire investment by giving in to their greed to earn higher returns. Swindlers lure unsuspecting people with a promise of higher returns only to eventually abscond with the funds. Ponzi Schemes If something seems too good to be true, then it probably is. All the more so if that something happens to be a get-rich-quick Ponzi scheme. Although Ponzi schemes promise above-average returns, investors often end up losing their entire investment by giving in to their greed to earn higher returns. Swindlers lure unsuspecting people with a promise of higher returns only to eventually abscond with the funds. What Is a Ponzi Scheme? A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud where a fraudster collects money from people with a promise of higher than the usual market rate returns. A Ponzi scheme involves circulation of the capital instead of the distribution of profits. Such go belly up because there is no profit-making involved. schemes The principal investment by subsequent investors is given as a payout to the old investors. This type of investment is not sustainable because for it to continue to operate, there has to be a constant stream of new investors. Scheme operators often end up using cash reserves to give payouts to existing investors when they don’t find new investors. A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud because the operators of such schemes don’t actually intend to invest their investors’ money in any legitimate investment option or give long-term payouts to their investors. A Brief History of the Ponzi Scheme: The Ponzi scheme gets its name from , an Italian swindler, who was arrested in August 1920 for several counts of fraud. Ponzi promised investors a 100% return on their investment in 90 days. He convinced people that there was money to be made by taking advantage of fluctuating currency rates post World War I. Charles Ponzi Ponzi convinced people that he would buy postal-reply coupons at a discounted rate in a foreign country and then sell them at face value in the U.S., thereby earning great profits. Postal-reply coupons were coupons that were sent along with a letter from a foreign country, which would enable the recipient of the home country to write back to the sender without having to buy foreign postage stamps. Postal-reply coupons could be exchanged for a foreign stamp without any monetary transaction. This was done to ensure that the person who had to reply to the letter didn’t have to worry about currency exchange rates while buying postage stamps. They simply had to exchange coupons for stamps. The scheme lasted for over a year before falling apart in 1920. His investors lost about  $20 million when an article in the exposed Ponzi and his criminal activities. Charles Ponzi received a 5 years prison sentence for mail fraud in 1920. Post There were several people before Ponzi, like Sarah Howe, William Miller, etc., and several others after him like Ivar Kreuger, Bernard Madoff, etc., who masterminded these schemes that swindled millions of dollars from unsuspecting investors. Ponzi Scheme Vs. Pyramid Scheme: Although a Ponzi scheme is very similar to a Pyramid scheme, the key difference between the two schemes is that in a Pyramid scheme, the existing investors are actively involved in recruiting new investors. In a Ponzi scheme, however, there is no direct participation of old investors in recruiting new investors. In a Ponzi scheme, all transactions are handled by scheme operators. In essence, a Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud and a Pyramid scheme is disguised as a Multi-Level Marketing (MLM) business. Another difference between a Ponzi scheme and a Pyramid scheme is that there is no specific product or service in a Ponzi scheme. However, in a Pyramid scheme, the scheme operators offer either a single product or service or a set of products and services from which they claim to make tremendous profits. The operators lure more and more people with a promise of a profit. However, if the scheme fails to attract new investors, it falls apart leading to people losing all the money they invested. Red Flags to Watch Out For: Here are red flags investors should watch out for: Problematic paperwork: In a Ponzi scheme, the investors aren’t usually given access to any investment-related documentation. Be it prospectus or account statements, investors are usually unaware of what happens to their money or where the operators have invested it. Operators keep investors in the dark about all investment-related decisions. Not registered: Ponzi scheme operators often claim that their investment plan is exempt from registration. An operator who claims that their investment plan doesn’t need to be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or other regulators should not be trusted. Pressure tactics: Most of the Ponzi scheme operators can be charismatic charlatans who can convince investors that their scheme is a limited-entry offer reserved only for a select few. They use pressure tactics to convince investors to make up their minds sooner rather than later. Operators usually convince investors that if they make a late decision, then they’ll lose out on the opportunity to make tons of money. This fear often leads people to make uninformed decisions. No risk, high returns: There is always some risk associated with investing. Any investment plan that claims otherwise should not be trusted. Also, it’s practically impossible for investors to gain above-average returns without having to bear any risk. Consistent returns: All investment plans are subject to market risk. If a scheme offers payout or dividend consistently irrespective of market fluctuations, then such a scheme is not sustainable and will fall apart sooner or later. Unclear organizational structure: Most Ponzi schemes don’t have a proper organizational structure. Investors should thoroughly research and enquire about the people operating the scheme and their backgrounds. is a big prospective learning method for the same. They should insist on talking to the board of directors or anyone who is a key member of the board and ask them questions about the investment plan before investing. Observational Learning Steps to Take to Avoid Falling Prey to a Ponzi Scheme: Investors should be extra cautious before trusting someone with their hard-earned money. To avoid walking into a trap, prospective investors should: Not cave in: It’s never wise to fall for pressure tactics. It’s always important to take enough and more time before making any financial decision. Ask questions: It’s important to ask the right questions to people in authority about where they plan to invest their investors’ money. People should ask questions about registration, documentation, and everything else that is necessary to make an investment legitimate. Look for reviews online: With the dawn of the Internet, it’s easier to differentiate a legitimate investment from an illegitimate one. Prospective investors can research an investment scheme on the Internet to check what others are saying about that scheme. If there are more negative reviews than positive, then it makes sense to stay away from such schemes. Consult a financial advisor: It helps to take a second opinion from a financial advisor. Financial advisors have the expertise required to offer appropriate guidance. They also have access to industry inside information which equips them with the necessary knowledge to help investors make a decision. Exercise caution: This can’t be emphasized enough. It’s better to be safe than sorry, always. Investors should exercise caution and not fall for marketing gimmicks. It’s always better to reach out to experts before investing. With the dawn of the Internet, it’s now easier to reach more people to pitch a scheme to. People should be careful about who they give their time to and also discourage internet or telemarketing solicitations. Anyone who is keen to invest should do so through proper channels. It helps to remember that almost all get-rich-quick schemes are a trap irrespective of how appealing they seem to be. References: https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-is-a-ponzi-scheme-31483 https://www.acfe.com/ponzi-schemes.aspx https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/in-ponzi-we-trust-64016168/

Ponzi Scheme Victims Beware: There Is No Such Thing As Easy Money

পঞ্জি স্কিমের ভিকটিমরা সাবধান: ইজি মানি বলে কিছু নেই

Opfer des Schneeballsystems aufgepasst: Es gibt kein leichtes Geld

Víctimas del esquema Ponzi: cuidado: no existe el dinero fácil

Attention aux victimes de la chaîne de Ponzi : l’argent facile n’existe pas

पोंजी स्कीम के शिकार सावधान: आसान पैसा जैसी कोई चीज नहीं होती

ねずみ講の被害者は気をつけてください: 簡単にお金が手に入るようなものはありません

폰지 사기 피해자들은 조심하세요: 쉽게 돈을 벌 수 있는 것은 없습니다

Vítimas do esquema Ponzi, cuidado: não existe dinheiro fácil

Жертвы схемы Понци, будьте осторожны: легких денег не бывает

Ponzi Mağdurları Dikkat: Kolay Para Diye Bir Şey Yok

Nạn nhân của kế hoạch Ponzi Hãy cẩn thận: Không có thứ gì dễ kiếm tiền

庞氏骗局受害者当心：世上没有轻松赚钱的事

SCANDAL AND ITS VICTIMS.

“Just like there’s a possibility and time for loss, there’s always time for recovery” - Jenny Brown, head of the Recovery Technical Team at BCA. ALPHARETTA, USA, November 7th, 2023/Chainwire/-- Celebrates 3 Remarkable Years of Helping Victims of Crypto Scams Recover Their Lost Crypto. Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) celebrates 3 years of offering one of the best and most remarkable crypto recovery experiences. Since BCA began operating in December 2020, it has helped over twelve thousand scam victims to recover their lost funds from scammers. Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) BCA introduced a solution that is focused on ensuring that every single scam victim who reports the scam to their platform stands a 94% chance of recovering lost funds. This innovative approach has literally proven itself to be 94% accurate. In other words, roughly 94% of all cases reported to BCA so far were successful. BCA combines the most brilliant minds within the crypto space and the best in terms of blockchain technology to help crypto scam victims recover their lost crypto assets. The BCA solution completely takes the stress off scam victims, especially victims of crypto scams, and puts smiles on their faces once again. How Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) Helps Crypto Scam Victims With Crypto Recovery Users who have lost their crypto assets or other financial assets to any form of scam can relax and put their minds at ease by allowing Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) to lead them on a journey of successfully recovering their lost funds. Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) is a prominent organization dedicated to helping and supporting victims of crypto scams, investment scams, forex scams, or any other form of financial scams to recover their stolen funds from scammers. BCA has a dedicated team of committed online consultants that offer personalized guidance, expert consultation and access to the ebay and most reputable crypto recovery companies and service providers. 5 FAQs About Crypto Recovery Answered There are many questions relating to crypto recovery, and BCA is providing answers to 5 of the most Frequently Asked Questions here; 1.) Are crypto asset recovery companies legit? Yes, crypto asset recovery companies are legit. However, not all crypto asset recovery companies are legit. Just like in every other field, there are some bad players in crypto asset recovery. That is why it is important to conduct proper research before hiring any crypto asset recovery company. 2.) Has anyone ever recovered stolen crypto? Of course, yes! Many people have been able to recover their stolen crypto. Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) has successfully helped over 12,350 people recover their stolen crypto in the last 3 years. 3.) Can a user recover his scammed crypto? Yes, a user can recover his scammed crypto. When it comes to crypto recovery, however, the user has to go about it the right way to be able to achieve success in recovering his scammed crypto. 4.) How can a user find the best crypto recovery service provider? Finding the best crypto recovery company can seem like a daunting task. And it could be, especially if a user is not searching in the right direction. The good news is that BCA saves the stress of having to waste time trying to find the best crypto recovery company alone. Individuals seeking a way to recover stolen crypto can find all the necessary information in this publication. To initiate a successful recovery of their stolen crypto, they simply need to make a report . here How to Recover Stolen Crypto Using Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) Relief Funds The relief process offered by Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) provides hope for victims of crypto scams. With up to $9 billion available for compensation, this initiative aims to bring justice and restitution to those who have suffered financial loss due to fraudulent practices in the crypto world. By understanding the relief process, victims can navigate the application process with confidence, ensuring their eligibility for financial reimbursement. BCA’s commitment to transparency and fairness further establishes them as a trusted entity within the crypto industry. Recover your scammed crypto by reporting any crypto scam to Broker Complaint Alert (BCA). BCA is the source of this content. This Press Release is for informational purposes only. The information does not constitute investment advice or endorsement. ABOUT Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) helps victims of investment fraud, forex scams, crypto scams, and any type of fraud that happened to you. BCA has helped and guided thousands of people over the past 3 years. Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) provides information on financial brokers that scam people in any country. Their online consultants work round the clock to make sure you get the right service from the right fund recovery or lawyer in their field of expertise. Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) Contact Costigliola Romualdo Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) support@brokercomplaintalert.com This story was distributed as a release by Chainwire under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program. Learn more about the program . here

Broker Complaint Alert(BCA) Celebrates 3 Years Of Helping Victims Of Crypto Scams

ব্রোকার কমপ্লেইন্ট অ্যালার্ট (বিসিএ) ক্রিপ্টো স্ক্যামগুলির শিকারদের সাহায্য করার 3 বছর উদযাপন করে

Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) feiert 3 Jahre Hilfe für Opfer von Krypto-Betrug

Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) celebra 3 años ayudando a las víctimas de estafas criptográficas

Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) célèbre 3 ans d'aide aux victimes d'escroqueries cryptographiques

ब्रोकर कंप्लेंट अलर्ट (बीसीए) क्रिप्टो घोटाले के पीड़ितों की मदद के 3 साल का जश्न मनाता है

Broker Complaint Alert (BCA) が仮想通貨詐欺の被害者支援 3 周年を祝う

Broker Complaint Alert(BCA)는 암호화폐 사기 피해자를 돕는 3주년을 기념합니다.

Alerta de reclamação de corretor (BCA) comemora 3 anos ajudando vítimas de fraudes criptográficas

Оповещение о жалобах брокеров (BCA) отмечает 3-летие оказания помощи жертвам крипто-мошенничества

Broker Şikayet Uyarısı (BCA), Kripto Dolandırıcılığı Mağdurlarına Yardımın 3. Yılını Kutluyor

Cảnh báo Khiếu nại Nhà môi giới (BCA) kỷ niệm 3 năm giúp đỡ nạn nhân của các vụ lừa đảo tiền điện tử

经纪商投诉警报 (BCA) 庆祝帮助加密诈骗受害者 3 周年

In the world of social media, we expect a certain level of safety and security. We trust platforms like Facebook to provide a space where we can connect with friends, share our lives, and engage with the online community. But what happens when the very platform that's meant to protect us ends up doing just the opposite? Just today, I found myself in a frustrating situation that left me baffled and infuriated. I encountered a on Facebook who was trying to pull off the typical SEO link-building scam, and I took it upon myself to report this individual for their deceptive behavior. scammer He was attempting to sell me a bunch of PBN links via a Facebook group. After checking them, I found they were all penalized domains on sites with no templates, no SSL certificates, full of spammy casino content & links, and not a single article indexed in the search engines. This parasite scammer, flogging these off as “Quality PBNs,” was well aware of what he was selling and that the PBN domains were dead. He was fully aware that he was attempting to pull off a link-building scam and knew the product was defective. Little did I know that this simple act of self-defense would result in Facebook suspending me for seven days while the scammer continued their illicit activities unhindered. Funny that this scummy parasite scam flogs called me dog and son of a bitch. Yet I got banned, and flea lives on. Let me be clear: reporting a scammer should be a no-brainer. It's something that should be encouraged and supported by all social media platforms, including Facebook. Users should feel empowered to speak out against those who are trying to deceive, manipulate, or harm them. So, imagine my shock when I found myself penalized for trying to protect myself and others from a scammer. Not only did I report the scam, but I also had some choice words for the scammer. I called him a "worthless scam beggar" and let them know that their attempts to deceive me were utterly futile. While I understand that maintaining a respectful tone in our online interactions is crucial, it's essential to recognize the intent behind my message. I was trying to protect myself and others from a potential threat. The larger issue here is . They need to invest in better moderation systems, clearer guidelines, and a more transparent reporting process to prevent innocent users from getting caught in the crossfire. Facebook's responsibility to ensure its users' safety It's not about promoting a culture of online negativity but rather about striking a balance between self-defense and community protection. Scammers and fraudsters are persistent, and it's up to social media platforms to keep up with their evolving tactics. The incident I experienced is just one example of the challenges these platforms face when handling scams and fraudulent activities effectively. Facebook, like all social media giants, should continually improve its reporting and enforcement systems to better protect its users and create a safer online environment for everyone. In the end, it's a reminder for all of us to stay vigilant and cautious in the digital world. Trust your instincts and report suspicious activity, but always be mindful of your tone when dealing with potential scammers. (Facebook will always Favour the scammer in this case - tired and proven countless times) Because of Facebook’s deplorable actions, I personally hope for a future where Facebook becomes a mere relic of the past, who can't afford their own internet connections, leeching off their neighbors' Wi-Fi. overrun by scammers It's a vision where a newer, fresher, and more socially acceptable platform takes over, one that genuinely cares about protecting its users from scams and fraudulent activities. Perhaps then, and I hope Facebook will become a digital wasteland, and they would more than deserve that fate, especially given their history with me. Let's hope that Facebook and other social media platforms learn from incidents like these so they can provide the safety and security their users deserve. In my own personal opinion. Facebook is a disgrace and a poor example of current-day social acceptance and online behavior. It protects scammers over potential victims. The platform makes me sick. Long live TikTok & LinkedIn (Where the real people go these days)

Facebook Fiasco: Banning the Victim, Not the Scammer"

NEW YORK, USA, November 2nd, 2023/Chainwire/--Great crypto recovery news for victims of crypto scam. A relief fund has been set up to help victims of crypto scams to recover their money lost to crypto scams. According to the CEO of Report Scammed Bitcoin (RSB) Mr. Simon Britt, the relief fund is set to provide up to $9 billion refund for crypto scam victims. This much-needed initiative aims to compensate people who lost their hard-earned money due to deceptive practices in the crypto world. Report Scammed Bitcoin (RSB)'s relief process provides light at the end of the tunnel for victims of crypto scam who have been left feeling helpless due to the consequences of the crypto scams. Many crypto scam victims are seeking retribution, and this relief funds provides all they need to recover their lost crypto assets from the scammers. Victims can now apply for financial reimbursement, bringing a glimmer of light to an otherwise dark situation. This move not only showcases RSB’s commitment to supporting the crypto community but also establishes them as a beacon of trust and reliability. How The Crypto Relief Process Is Going To Help Victims Of Crypto Scam The relief process initiated by leaders of the crypto funds recovery industry. It is being spare-headed by Report Scammed Bitcoin (RSB), who hold true to their promise of justice and restitution for victims of crypto scams. Understanding the process is crucial for those seeking financial relief. RSB has taken the initiative to alleviate the financial burden faced by victims, restoring transparency and trust in the crypto industry, making the crypto space safe for us all. To ensure a fair and transparent distribution of funds, RSB has initiated a comprehensive relief program with other relevant agencies. This program will provide up to $9 billion in financial compensation to those who have fallen victim to crypto scams. By committing such a substantial amount, RSB is sending a clear message that they stand with the victims and are determined to make things right. Who is Eligible to Receive the Crypto Scam Relief Fund? To ensure that the relief funds are distributed fairly, RSB has established specific eligibility criteria for victims to meet. These criteria are in place to verify the authenticity of the claims and prevent any misuse of the relief program. It is essential for potential applicants to understand these criteria before proceeding with the application process. Victims must provide evidence of their financial loss due to a crypto scam. This evidence can include transaction records, communication with scammers, or any other relevant documentation that supports their claim. Additionally, applicants must demonstrate that they acted in good faith and took reasonable precautions to prevent falling victim to the scam. 7 Steps Guide to Apply for the Crypto Relief Fund Applying for relief funds through Report Scammed Bitcoin (RSB) is a straightforward process designed to assist victims in seeking retribution. By following a step-by-step guide, victims can ensure that their application is submitted correctly and increase their chances of receiving the financial compensation they deserve. Gather Documentation: Collect all relevant documents that prove your financial loss due to a crypto scam. This may include transaction records, emails, or any other evidence that supports your claim. Visit the RSB website to make a report: Go to the official RSB website and go to the Report a Scam section. Here, you will find detailed information and resources related to the application process. Fill Out The Application Form: Complete the application form provided by RSB. Be sure to provide accurate and detailed information to strengthen your case for receiving relief funds. Submit The Application: Once the application is complete, submit it through the designated online platform or by following the instructions provided by RSB. Await Verification And Processing: RSB will review your application and verify the information provided. This process may take some time, so it is important to be patient and allow RSB to conduct a thorough investigation. Receive Confirmation And Updates: Once your application is verified, you will receive confirmation from RSB. They will also provide updates on the progress of your application and any additional information required. Await Payout: After the verification process is complete, RSB will determine the amount of compensation you are eligible for. The payout will be made according to the established timeline, ensuring a fair and efficient distribution of funds. About Report Scammed Bitcoin (RSB) Relief Funds The relief process offered by Report Scammed Bitcoin (RSB) provides hope for victims of crypto scams. With up to $9 billion available for compensation, this initiative aims to bring justice and restitution to those who have suffered financial loss due to fraudulent practices in the crypto world. By understanding the relief process, victims can navigate the application process with confidence, ensuring their eligibility for financial reimbursement. RSB’s commitment to transparency and fairness further establishes them as a trusted entity within the crypto industry. Recover your scammed crypto by reporting any crypto scam to Report Scammed Bitcoin (RSB). RSB is the source of this content. This Press Release is for informational purposes only. The information does not constitute investment advice or endorsement. Contact Head of Customer Service Zella Redd Report Scammed Bitcoin (RSB) support@reportscammedbitcoin.com This story was distributed as a release by Chainwire under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program. Learn more about the program . here

Report Scammed Bitcoin (RSB) Launches Crypto Recovery Fund For Victims Of Crypto Scams

রিপোর্ট স্ক্যামড বিটকয়েন (আরএসবি) ক্রিপ্টো স্ক্যামের শিকারদের জন্য ক্রিপ্টো রিকভারি ফান্ড চালু করেছে

Bericht über Betrug: Bitcoin (RSB) richtet Krypto-Wiederherstellungsfonds für Opfer von Krypto-Betrug ein

Informe Bitcoin (RSB) estafado lanza un fondo de recuperación de criptomonedas para las víctimas de estafas de criptomonedas

Report Scammed Bitcoin (RSB) lance un fonds de récupération crypto pour les victimes d'escroqueries cryptographiques

रिपोर्ट स्कैम्ड बिटकॉइन (आरएसबी) ने क्रिप्टो घोटाले के पीड़ितों के लिए क्रिप्टो रिकवरी फंड लॉन्च किया

レポート詐欺ビットコイン (RSB) が仮想通貨詐欺の被害者のために仮想通貨回収基金を立ち上げる

사기당한 비트코인(RSB) 신고, 암호화폐 사기 피해자를 위한 암호화폐 복구 기금 출시

Relatório scammed Bitcoin (RSB) lança fundo de recuperação de criptografia para vítimas de fraudes de criptografia

Сообщить о мошенничестве Биткойн (RSB) запускает фонд восстановления криптовалюты для жертв криптомошенничества

Dolandırıcılığı Bildirin Bitcoin (RSB), Kripto Dolandırıcılığı Mağdurları için Kripto Kurtarma Fonu Başlattı

Báo cáo Bitcoin bị lừa đảo (RSB) ra mắt Quỹ phục hồi tiền điện tử cho nạn nhân của các vụ lừa đảo tiền điện tử

报告诈骗比特币 (RSB) 为加密货币诈骗受害者推出加密货币恢复基金

THE VICAR OF BULLHAMPTON—SIR HARRY HOTSPUR—AN EDITOR'S TALES—CÆSAR.

The Man in the Brown Suit by Agatha Christie, is part of the HackerNoon Books Series. You can jump to any chapter in this book here . Chapter II CHAPTER II Every one was very kind to me. Dazed as I was, I appreciated that. I felt no overwhelming grief. Papa had never loved me, I knew that well enough. If he had, I might have loved him in return. No, there had not been love between us, but we had belonged together, and I had looked after him, and had secretly admired his learning and his uncompromising devotion to science. And it hurt me that Papa should have died just when the interest of life was at its height for him. I should have felt happier if I could have buried him in a cave, with paintings of reindeer and flint implements, but the force of public opinion constrained a neat tomb (with marble slab) in our hideous local churchyard. The vicar’s consolations, though well meant, did not console me in the least. It took some time to dawn upon me that the thing I had always longed for—freedom—was at last mine. I was an orphan, and practically penniless, but free. At the same time I realized the extraordinary kindness of all these good people. The vicar did his best to persuade me that his wife was in urgent need of a companion help. Our tiny local library suddenly made up its mind to have an assistant librarian. Finally, the doctor called upon me, and after making various ridiculous excuses for failing to send in a proper bill, he hummed and hawed a good deal and suddenly suggested that I should marry him. I was very much astonished. The doctor was nearer forty than thirty, and a round, tubby little man. He was not at all like the hero of “The Perils of Pamela,” and even less like a stern and silent Rhodesian. I reflected a minute and then asked him why he wanted to marry me. That seemed to fluster him a good deal, and he murmured that a wife was a great help to a General Practitioner. The position seemed even more unromantic than before, and yet something in me urged towards its acceptance. Safety, that was what I was being offered. Safety—and a Comfortable Home. Thinking it over now, I believe I did the little man an injustice. He was honestly in love with me, but a mistaken delicacy prevented him from pressing his suit on those lines. Anyway, my love of romance rebelled. “It’s extremely kind of you,” I said. “But it’s impossible. I could never marry a man unless I loved him madly.” “You don’t think——?” “No, I don’t,” I said firmly. He sighed. “But, my dear child, what do you propose to do?” “Have adventures and see the world,” I replied, without the least hesitation. “Miss Anne, you are very much of a child still. You don’t understand——” “The practical difficulties? Yes, I do, doctor. I’m not a sentimental schoolgirl—I’m a hard-headed mercenary shrew! You’d know it if you married me!” “I wish you would reconsider——” “I can’t.” He sighed again. “I have another proposal to make. An aunt of mine who lives in Wales is in want of a young lady to help her. How would that suit you?” “No, doctor, I’m going to London. If things happen anywhere, they happen in London. I shall keep my eyes open and you’ll see, something will turn up! You’ll hear of me next in China or Timbuctoo.” My next visitor was Mr. Flemming, Papa’s London solicitor. He came down specially from town to see me. An ardent anthropologist himself, he was a great admirer of Papa’s works. He was a tall, spare man with a thin face and grey hair. He rose to meet me as I entered the room and, taking both my hands in his, patted them affectionately. “My poor child,” he said. “My poor, poor child.” Without conscious hypocrisy, I found myself assuming the demeanour of a bereaved orphan. He hypnotized me into it. He was benignant, kind and fatherly—and without the least doubt he regarded me as a perfect fool of a girl left adrift to face an unkind world. From the first I felt that it was quite useless to try to convince him of the contrary. As things turned out, perhaps it was just as well I didn’t. “My dear child, do you think you can listen to me whilst I try to make a few things clear to you?” “Oh, yes.” “Your father, as you know, was a very great man. Posterity will appreciate him. But he was not a good man of business.” I knew that quite as well, if not better than Mr. Flemming, but I restrained myself from saying so. He continued: “I do not suppose you understand much of these matters. I will try to explain as clearly as I can.” He explained at unnecessary length. The upshot seemed to be that I was left to face life with the sum of £87, 17s. 4d. It seemed a strangely unsatisfying amount. I waited in some trepidation for what was coming next. I feared that Mr. Flemming would be sure to have an aunt in Scotland who was in want of a bright young companion. Apparently, however, he hadn’t. “The question is,” he went on, “the future. I understand you have no living relatives?” “I’m alone in the world,” I said, and was struck anew by my likeness to a film heroine. “You have friends?” “Every one has been very kind to me,” I said gratefully. “Who would not be kind to one so young and charming?” said Mr. Flemming gallantly. “Well, well, my dear, we must see what can be done.” He hesitated a minute, and then said: “Supposing—how would it be if you came to us for a time?” I jumped at the chance. London! The place for things to happen. “It’s awfully kind of you,” I said. “Might I really? Just while I’m looking round. I must start out to earn my living, you know?” “Yes, yes, my dear child. I quite understand. We will look round for something—suitable.” I felt instinctively that Mr. Flemming’s ideas of “something suitable” and mine were likely to be widely divergent, but it was certainly not the moment to air my views. “That is settled then. Why not return with me to-day?” “Oh, thank you, but will Mrs. Flemming——” “My wife will be delighted to welcome you.” I wonder if husbands know as much about their wives as they think they do. If I had a husband, I should hate him to bring home orphans without consulting me first. “We will send her a wire from the station,” continued the lawyer. My few personal belongings were soon packed. I contemplated my hat sadly before putting it on. It had originally been what I call a “Mary” hat, meaning by that the kind of hat a housemaid ought to wear on her day out—but doesn’t! A limp thing of black straw with a suitably depressed brim. With the inspiration of genius, I had kicked it once, punched it twice, dented in the crown and affixed to it a thing like a cubist’s dream of a jazz carrot. The result had been distinctly chic. The carrot I had already removed, of course, and now I proceeded to undo the rest of my handiwork. The “Mary” hat resumed its former status with an additional battered appearance which made it even more depressing than formerly. I might as well look as much like the popular conception of an orphan as possible. I was just a shade nervous of Mrs. Flemming’s reception, but hoped my appearance might have a sufficiently disarming effect. Mr. Flemming was nervous too. I realized that as we went up the stairs of the tall house in a quiet Kensington Square. Mrs. Flemming greeted me pleasantly enough. She was a stout, placid woman of the “good wife and mother” type. She took me up to a spotless chintz-hung bedroom, hoped I had everything I wanted, informed me that tea would be ready in about a quarter of an hour, and left me to my own devices. I heard her voice, slightly raised, as she entered the drawing-room below on the first floor. “Well, Henry, why on earth——” I lost the rest, but the acerbity of the tone was evident. And a few minutes later another phrase floated up to me, in an even more acid voice: “I agree with you! She is certainly very good-looking.” It is really a very hard life. Men will not be nice to you if you are not good-looking, and women will not be nice to you if you are. With a deep sigh I proceeded to do things to my hair. I have nice hair. It is black—a real black, not dark brown, and it grows well back from my forehead and down over the ears. With a ruthless hand I dragged it upwards. As ears, my ears are quite all right, but there is no doubt about it, ears are démodé nowadays. They are like the “Queen of Spain’s legs” in Professor Peterson’s young day. When I had finished I looked almost unbelievably like the kind of orphan that walks out in a queue with a little bonnet and a red cloak. I noticed when I went down that Mrs. Flemming’s eyes rested on my exposed ears with quite a kindly glance. Mr. Flemming seemed puzzled. I had no doubt that he was saying to himself, “What has the child done to herself?” On the whole the rest of the day passed off well. It was settled that I was to start at once to look for something to do. When I went to bed, I stared earnestly at my face in the glass. Was I really good-looking? Honestly, I couldn’t say I thought so! I hadn’t got a straight Grecian nose, or a rosebud mouth, or any of the things you ought to have. It is true that a curate once told me that my eyes were like “imprisoned sunshine in a dark, dark wood”—but curates always know so many quotations, and fire them off at random. I’d much prefer to have Irish blue eyes than dark green ones with yellow flecks! Still, green is a good colour for adventuresses. I wound a black garment tightly round me, leaving my arms and shoulders bare. Then I brushed back my hair and pulled it well down over my ears again. I put a lot of powder on my face, so that the skin seemed even whiter than usual. I fished about until I found some old lip-salve, and I put oceans of it on my lips. Then I did under my eyes with burnt cork. Finally, I draped a red ribbon over my bare shoulder, stuck a scarlet feather in my hair, and placed a cigarette in one corner of my mouth. The whole effect pleased me very much. “Anna the Adventuress,” I said aloud, nodding at my reflection. “Anna the Adventuress. Episode I, ‘The House in Kensington’!” Girls are foolish things. 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. Agatha Christie (2020). The Man in the Brown Suit. Urbana, Illinois: Project Gutenberg. Retrieved https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/61168/pg61168-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.

The vicar’s consolations

I ask myself if I am not here the victim of an illusion

Fortify Your Digital Defenses: Top Home Cybersecurity Strategies for Personal Protection

You can jump to any part of the United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy here. This part is 29 of 38. Line of Effort 4: Hold Irresponsible States Accountable To constrain our adversaries effectively and counter malicious activities below the threshold of armed conflict, we will continue to work with our allies and partners to condemn this activity and impose meaningful consequences. These efforts use all the tools of statecraft, including diplomatic isolation, law enforcement, counter-cyber operations, and economic sanctions. In September 2019, 27 countries publicly pledged in a U.S.-led Joint Statement on Advancing Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace to collaborate voluntarily to hold states accountable when they act contrary to the framework. The number of states willing to publicly hold states accountable reached 39 in July 2021 when NATO, the EU, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Japan all publicly condemned the PRC’s involvement in the Microsoft Exchange server data breach incident and other malicious cyber activities. More recently, likeminded coalitions attributed Russia’s cyberattack on Viasat’s KA-SAT satellite communications network on the eve of its invasion of Ukraine and stood in solidarity with Albania in the wake of Iran’s disruptive cyber operations. The United States will continue to work to expand the coalition of those willing to hold states accountable for disruptive and destabilizing cyber activity and to utilize appropriate multilateral groupings to support each other and to assist the victims of such behavior. Continue Reading Here. This post was originally published on May 6, 2024, by the U.S Department of State You can jump to any part of the United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy here. This part is 29 of 38. You can jump to any part of the United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy here . This part is 29 of 38. here here Line of Effort 4: Hold Irresponsible States Accountable To constrain our adversaries effectively and counter malicious activities below the threshold of armed conflict, we will continue to work with our allies and partners to condemn this activity and impose meaningful consequences. These efforts use all the tools of statecraft, including diplomatic isolation, law enforcement, counter-cyber operations, and economic sanctions. In September 2019, 27 countries publicly pledged in a U.S.-led Joint Statement on Advancing Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace to collaborate voluntarily to hold states accountable when they act contrary to the framework. The number of states willing to publicly hold states accountable reached 39 in July 2021 when NATO, the EU, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and Japan all publicly condemned the PRC’s involvement in the Microsoft Exchange server data breach incident and other malicious cyber activities. More recently, likeminded coalitions attributed Russia’s cyberattack on Viasat’s KA-SAT satellite communications network on the eve of its invasion of Ukraine and stood in solidarity with Albania in the wake of Iran’s disruptive cyber operations. The United States will continue to work to expand the coalition of those willing to hold states accountable for disruptive and destabilizing cyber activity and to utilize appropriate multilateral groupings to support each other and to assist the victims of such behavior. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here This post was originally published on May 6, 2024, by the U.S Department of State This post was originally published on May 6, 2024, by the U.S Department of State by the U.S Department of State by the U.S Department of State

Global Accountability in Cyberspace: International Efforts to Hold Irresponsible States to Account

Feature Engineering for Machine Learning Models: Everything You Need to Know 

মেশিন লার্নিং এর জন্য ফিচার ইঞ্জিনিয়ারিং

Feature Engineering für maschinelles Lernen

Ingeniería de funciones para el aprendizaje automático

Ingénierie des fonctionnalités pour l’apprentissage automatique

मशीन लर्निंग के लिए फ़ीचर इंजीनियरिंग

機械学習のための特徴エンジニアリング

기계 학습을 위한 특성 엔지니어링

Engenharia de recursos para aprendizado de máquina

Разработка функций для машинного обучения

Makine Öğrenimi için Özellik Mühendisliği

Kỹ thuật tính năng cho Machine Learning

机器学习的特征工程

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license.
Authors:
(1) J´anos Pintz, Supported by the National Research Development and Innovation Office, NKFIH, KKP 133819, ELKH Alfr´ed R´enyi Mathematical Institute H-1053 Budapest Realtanoda u. 13–15. Hungary and e-mail: pintz@renyi.hu Table of Links 1
2
3 Proof of Theorem 1
References Keywords and phrases: Riemann’s zeta function, density hypothesis, density theorems. 2020 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary 11M26, Secondary 11M06. 1 The plausibility of the Riemann Hypothesis (RH) is supported (among others) by results of type (1.1) valid for all σ > 1/2 as T → ∞. (1.1) was first shown by Bohr and Landau in 1914 ([BL1914]). The first estimate of type was shown few years later by Carlson [Car1920] with It was Hoheisel [Hoh1930] who first observed that such estimates lead to arithmetic consequences about the difference of consecutive primes. He proved the first approximation towards the famous conjecture that there exists always a prime between two consecutive squares. This conjecture was characterised by Landau [Lan1913] in his plenary talk at ICM1912 in Cambridge as one of the four main problems of the distribution of primes, besides the Riemann Hypothesis. Hoheisel [Hoh1930] could show (pn denotes the nth prime) In the proof important role was played by Carlson’s density theorem (1.2)– (1.3). Later it was realized that a uniform estimate of the form yields (combined with a slightly better zero-free region than the classical one of de la Vall´ee Poussin) In particular, the best possible estimate A = 2 would almost imply Landau’s conjecture. This is especially remarkable in light of the fact that even assuming the Riemann Hypothesis the best estimate we know is (with C = 2 easily by the Riemann–Von Mangoldt explicit formula, with C = 1 by a deeper argument of Cram´er [Cra1921]). This explains the significance of the Density Hypothesis (DH) which states or, in a slightly weaker form, using the notation (1.2), The Riemann Hypothesis clearly implies the Density Hypothesis. However, Ingham [Ing1937] showed that also the Lindel¨of Hypothesis (LH) (1.10) implies DH. In 1954 Tur´an [Tur1954] used his celebrated power-sum method [Tur1953], [Tur1984] to give a different proof of Ingham’s result that LH implies DH. In the same work he came very close to breaking the DH in the vicinity of the boundary line σ = 1. In the following we will use the notation: His result was with a small constant c1 [Tur1954] or with our new notation It was 16 years later when G. Hal´asz and Tur´an succeeded to break the DH [HT1969], that is, to prove (in the refined form appearing as Theorem 38.2 of Tur´an’s book [Tur1984]) with the notation (1.1)–(1.2), (1.11) The proof was based on (i) Vinogradov’s estimate µ(1 − η) ≪ η 3/2, (ii) Tur´an’s power-sum method; (iii) a simple but ingenious idea of Hal´asz [Hal1968]. Soon after this Bombieri [Bom1971] gave a different proof using ideas from the large sieve coupled with (i) and (iii). Further, Montgomery has shown the DH for σ ≥ 9/10, i.e. η ≤ 1/10 ([Mon1969], [Mon1971]). Using another simple but ingenious idea Huxley [Hux1972] (with a refinement of Montgomery) reached the DH for η ≤ 1/6 and proved that The DH was shown for larger and larger ranges, until improving the result σ > 11/14 of Jutila [Jut1977] Bourgain proved its validity [Bou2000] for Another direction of the research was to give strong density estimates for small values of η (often especially for η → 0). In this direction the most important results were reached (in alphabetical order) by Bourgain, Ford, Heath-Brown, Huxley, Ivic, Jutila and Montgomery. All these results use the large sieve and in some form the mentioned idea of Hal´asz, which needs η ≤ 1/4. This is also the reason that they cannot give improvements of the classical zero-density theorem of Ingham [Ing1940], A(σ) ≤ 3/(2 − σ), which is still the best today in the whole range Recently I gave two alternative variants for proving the DH for small values of η. In [Pin2022] the goal was to reach a possibly simple proof while in [Pin2023] to show the strongest possible result both in specific ranges of η < 1/12 and for η → 0. Both proofs were based on Vinogradov’s method and Hal´asz’s idea. However, in the second [Pin2023] it was important to use recent deep results of Heath-Brown [Hea2017], further of Bourgain, Demeter and Guth [BGD2016]. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) J´anos Pintz, Supported by the National Research Development and Innovation Office, NKFIH, KKP 133819, ELKH Alfr´ed R´enyi Mathematical Institute H-1053 Budapest Realtanoda u. 13–15. Hungary and e-mail: pintz@renyi.hu This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: Authors: (1) J´anos Pintz, Supported by the National Research Development and Innovation Office, NKFIH, KKP 133819, ELKH Alfr´ed R´enyi Mathematical Institute H-1053 Budapest Realtanoda u. 13–15. Hungary and e-mail: pintz@renyi.hu Table of Links 1 2 3 Proof of Theorem 1 References 1 1 2 2 3 Proof of Theorem 1 3 Proof of Theorem 1 References References Keywords and phrases: Riemann’s zeta function, density hypothesis, density theorems. Keywords and phrases: 2020 Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary 11M26, Secondary 11M06. 1 The plausibility of the Riemann Hypothesis (RH) is supported (among others) by results of type (1.1) valid for all σ > 1/2 as T → ∞. (1.1) was first shown by Bohr and Landau in 1914 ([BL1914]). The first estimate of type was shown few years later by Carlson [Car1920] with It was Hoheisel [Hoh1930] who first observed that such estimates lead to arithmetic consequences about the difference of consecutive primes. He proved the first approximation towards the famous conjecture that there exists always a prime between two consecutive squares. This conjecture was characterised by Landau [Lan1913] in his plenary talk at ICM1912 in Cambridge as one of the four main problems of the distribution of primes, besides the Riemann Hypothesis. Hoheisel [Hoh1930] could show (pn denotes the nth prime) In the proof important role was played by Carlson’s density theorem (1.2)– (1.3). Later it was realized that a uniform estimate of the form yields (combined with a slightly better zero-free region than the classical one of de la Vall´ee Poussin) In particular, the best possible estimate A = 2 would almost imply Landau’s conjecture. This is especially remarkable in light of the fact that even assuming the Riemann Hypothesis the best estimate we know is (with C = 2 easily by the Riemann–Von Mangoldt explicit formula, with C = 1 by a deeper argument of Cram´er [Cra1921]). This explains the significance of the Density Hypothesis (DH) which states or, in a slightly weaker form, using the notation (1.2), The Riemann Hypothesis clearly implies the Density Hypothesis. However, Ingham [Ing1937] showed that also the Lindel¨of Hypothesis (LH) (1.10) implies DH. In 1954 Tur´an [Tur1954] used his celebrated power-sum method [Tur1953], [Tur1984] to give a different proof of Ingham’s result that LH implies DH. In the same work he came very close to breaking the DH in the vicinity of the boundary line σ = 1. In the following we will use the notation: His result was with a small constant c1 [Tur1954] or with our new notation It was 16 years later when G. Hal´asz and Tur´an succeeded to break the DH [HT1969], that is, to prove (in the refined form appearing as Theorem 38.2 of Tur´an’s book [Tur1984]) with the notation (1.1)–(1.2), (1.11) The proof was based on (i) Vinogradov’s estimate µ(1 − η) ≪ η 3/2, (ii) Tur´an’s power-sum method; (iii) a simple but ingenious idea of Hal´asz [Hal1968]. Soon after this Bombieri [Bom1971] gave a different proof using ideas from the large sieve coupled with (i) and (iii). Further, Montgomery has shown the DH for σ ≥ 9/10, i.e. η ≤ 1/10 ([Mon1969], [Mon1971]). Using another simple but ingenious idea Huxley [Hux1972] (with a refinement of Montgomery) reached the DH for η ≤ 1/6 and proved that The DH was shown for larger and larger ranges, until improving the result σ > 11/14 of Jutila [Jut1977] Bourgain proved its validity [Bou2000] for Another direction of the research was to give strong density estimates for small values of η (often especially for η → 0). In this direction the most important results were reached (in alphabetical order) by Bourgain, Ford, Heath-Brown, Huxley, Ivic, Jutila and Montgomery. All these results use the large sieve and in some form the mentioned idea of Hal´asz, which needs η ≤ 1/4. This is also the reason that they cannot give improvements of the classical zero-density theorem of Ingham [Ing1940], A(σ) ≤ 3/(2 − σ), which is still the best today in the whole range Recently I gave two alternative variants for proving the DH for small values of η. In [Pin2022] the goal was to reach a possibly simple proof while in [Pin2023] to show the strongest possible result both in specific ranges of η < 1/12 and for η → 0. Both proofs were based on Vinogradov’s method and Hal´asz’s idea. However, in the second [Pin2023] it was important to use recent deep results of Heath-Brown [Hea2017], further of Bourgain, Demeter and Guth [BGD2016].

A Remark on Density Theorems for Riemann’s Zeta-function: 1

You can jump to any part of the United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy here This part is 25 of 38. ACTION AREA 3: Advance Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace and Counter Threats to Cyberspace and Critical Infrastructure by Building Coalitions and Engaging Partners At the UN and regional security bodies, the United States, along with its allies and partners, is working to advance responsible state behavior in cyberspace based on a UN General Assembly-endorsed framework, underpinned by the applicability of existing international law, adherence to globally accepted and voluntary norms of state behavior in peacetime, development and implementation of confidence-building measures to reduce the risk of conflict in cyberspace, and a commitment to building states’ capacities to implement the elements of the framework. Despite a global consensus on the framework for responsible behavior in cyberspace, the norms are not self-enforcing. Some states act in ways contrary to it. When a state engages in significant destructive, disruptive, or otherwise destabilizing malicious cyber activity contrary to the framework, responsible states must cooperate to hold that irresponsible state accountable. Digital solidarity in this context is demonstrated by sustained mutual support and coordinated campaigns. The United States and its partners share cyber threat information to help build resilience to and disrupt malicious activities; show solidarity to victims by helping respond to significant incidents, thereby signaling to adversaries they cannot isolate a target country through malicious operations; and ensure accountability for destructive, disruptive, and otherwise destabilizing cyber activities in concert with likeminded countries. The United States and some allies also have affirmed the application to cyberspace of their respective mutual defense treaty obligations. In addition, the Department of State and other federal agencies are working with allies and partners to disrupt ransomware and other criminal networks and safeguard democratic processes and institutions. Looking forward, the United States will continue efforts like these to advance responsible behavior in cyberspace, and counter threats to cyberspace and our critical infrastructure by building coalitions and engaging partners. Continue Reading Here. This post was originally published on May 6, 2024, by the U.S Department of State You can jump to any part of the United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy here This part is 25 of 38. You can jump to any part of the United States International Cyberspace & Digital Policy Strategy here This part is 25 of 38. here ACTION AREA 3: Advance Responsible State Behavior in Cyberspace and Counter Threats to Cyberspace and Critical Infrastructure by Building Coalitions and Engaging Partners At the UN and regional security bodies, the United States, along with its allies and partners, is working to advance responsible state behavior in cyberspace based on a UN General Assembly-endorsed framework, underpinned by the applicability of existing international law, adherence to globally accepted and voluntary norms of state behavior in peacetime, development and implementation of confidence-building measures to reduce the risk of conflict in cyberspace, and a commitment to building states’ capacities to implement the elements of the framework. Despite a global consensus on the framework for responsible behavior in cyberspace, the norms are not self-enforcing. Some states act in ways contrary to it. When a state engages in significant destructive, disruptive, or otherwise destabilizing malicious cyber activity contrary to the framework, responsible states must cooperate to hold that irresponsible state accountable. Digital solidarity in this context is demonstrated by sustained mutual support and coordinated campaigns. The United States and its partners share cyber threat information to help build resilience to and disrupt malicious activities; show solidarity to victims by helping respond to significant incidents, thereby signaling to adversaries they cannot isolate a target country through malicious operations; and ensure accountability for destructive, disruptive, and otherwise destabilizing cyber activities in concert with likeminded countries. The United States and some allies also have affirmed the application to cyberspace of their respective mutual defense treaty obligations. In addition, the Department of State and other federal agencies are working with allies and partners to disrupt ransomware and other criminal networks and safeguard democratic processes and institutions. Looking forward, the United States will continue efforts like these to advance responsible behavior in cyberspace, and counter threats to cyberspace and our critical infrastructure by building coalitions and engaging partners. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . Here This post was originally published on May 6, 2024, by the U.S Department of State This post was originally published on May 6, 2024, by the U.S Department of State by the U.S Department of State

Global Coalition Unites to Combat Cyber Threats and Ensure Responsible State Behavior

The Quiet Crisis That Is Stealing Our Health (and How to Get It Back) - Insights From Dr. Eric Berg

Stories, News & Mentions about VICAI

Vicai’s Stories on HackerNoon