Vocatio

vocatio

SINGAPORE, Singapore, August 15th, 2024/GamingWire/--Confiction Labs, a developer of the cooperative roguelite shooter game Riftstorm, has implemented its in-game lore-integrated NFT allowlist verification process called Proof of Exposure, to combat the increasing instances of botting in web3 gaming. The process is part of an effort to verify and reward real users who want to be immersed in the gaming experience. To access the allowlist, users must apply to the game’s secretive organization, known as the Mythic Protocol, for security clearance by providing evidence of their past achievements. Proof of Exposure is a deep profiling system that determines the most suitable community members to advance the game’s storyline. As applicants go through the verification process, those who achieve the highest scores will gain access to the mint of the upcoming NFT collection, XPSR-24, which is integrated into Confiction Labs’ FICT ONE: Occultical universe. NFT holders will represent humanity’s most skilled individuals, who are called to become part of XPSR-24, a restricted program fighting cosmic and eldritch creatures called mythics. Increasing clearance levels means demonstrating influence, vocation, gaming achievements, onchain value and creativity. “Proof of Exposure is not only a safeguard against bots but a way for the community to immerse themselves in the narrative of the Occultical universe,” said Arief Widhiyasa, CEO of Confiction Labs. “A system like this ensures that passionate and committed community members are the ones who help shape our IPs moving forward. We want to build Occultical together with real audiences through verified achievements, honoring the authenticity and creativity that are core to Collaborative Entertainment.” Bots have been increasingly problematic among web3 games, with rewards meant for genuine community members being siphoned off into non-human accounts. A study by web3 marketing platform Cookie3 reveals that 70% of airdrops are frequently passed onto bot accounts, while bot prevention service provider Jigger states that 40% of web3 users, including those engaging in NFT allowlists and web3 games, have been identified as bots. As the market cap for blockchain games steadily increases, activity from bots is expected to increase without measures to prevent these accounts from participating. With Proof of Exposure, applicants will go through a comprehensive verification process using third-party APIs, LLMs, data queries, and user data submissions to ensure genuine human participants who want to be part of the FICT ONE community. This aims to prevent bots from invading the allowlist by imposing stricter requirements. Proof of Exposure was created to help set the foundation for Confiction Labs’ vision in Collaborative Entertainment. Players will be able to contribute to the gaming world by submitting user-generated content, such as writing, art and music, which can become canon to an IP’s lore or part of a future game update. Player actions are also recorded during in-game events, with the results of the player base influencing how the story progresses. NFTs in the XPSR-24 collection can also level up and evolve over time through questing. XPSR-24 holders will be able to collectively participate in quests, and owners of higher-level NFTs may be eligible for more rewards in the future. The XPSR-24 application process is in its third week, and interested parties can join through the Confiction Labs Portal (https://one.confiction.com/portal). During the first week, Confiction Labs introduced Proof of Humanity, which verifies applicants through social account linking, and Proof of Network, which measures their ability to help build communities around Occultical through referrals. These first stages of application are also rooted in Riftstorm’s lore, where XPSR-24 members must prove their humanity and establish global connections to support their mission. ABOUT XPSR-24 XPSR-24 (https://xpsr.confiction.com) is the premier collection for the FICT ONE: Occultical universe. It grants exclusive access to our ecosystem, unlocking a world of unparalleled opportunities and adventures. It features innovative features for NFTs such as questing, leveling, and evolving NFTs. XPSR-24’s initial holders were selected through a comprehensive application process measuring different aspects of an individual’s capability to contribute to Confiction Labs’ vision of Collaborative Entertainment. ABOUT CONFICTION LABS Confiction Labs, formerly known as Mythic Protocol, is a software and entertainment company pioneering Collaborative Entertainment to draw users into the creation process of immersive digital experiences. Confiction Labs has over 120 gaming veterans with diverse backgrounds who have worked on world-class titles such as Magic: The Gathering, Yu-Gi-Oh!, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, Fairy Tail, and Legends of Runeterra. Confiction Labs’ first game, Riftstorm, is a multiplayer co-op looter-shooter action RPG with roguelite elements set in the Occultical universe. Riftstorm has completed two playtests, with the most recent reaching the highest pre-alpha engagement on Steam with over 21,000 players and hitting the top spot for most streamed web3 games with 326,000 hours watched that week. The next playtest is scheduled for this Q4 2024, ahead of a commercial launch in 2025. Contact Media Relations April Cuneta Emfarsis april@emfarsis.com This story was distributed as a release by Gamingwire under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program. Learn more about the program here. SINGAPORE, Singapore, August 15th, 2024/GamingWire/--Confiction Labs, a developer of the cooperative roguelite shooter game Riftstorm, has implemented its in-game lore-integrated NFT allowlist verification process called Proof of Exposure, to combat the increasing instances of botting in web3 gaming. The process is part of an effort to verify and reward real users who want to be immersed in the gaming experience. To access the allowlist, users must apply to the game’s secretive organization, known as the Mythic Protocol, for security clearance by providing evidence of their past achievements. Proof of Exposure is a deep profiling system that determines the most suitable community members to advance the game’s storyline. As applicants go through the verification process, those who achieve the highest scores will gain access to the mint of the upcoming NFT collection, XPSR-24, which is integrated into Confiction Labs’ FICT ONE: Occultical universe. NFT holders will represent humanity’s most skilled individuals, who are called to become part of XPSR-24, a restricted program fighting cosmic and eldritch creatures called mythics. Increasing clearance levels means demonstrating influence, vocation, gaming achievements, onchain value and creativity. “Proof of Exposure is not only a safeguard against bots but a way for the community to immerse themselves in the narrative of the Occultical universe,” said Arief Widhiyasa, CEO of Confiction Labs. “A system like this ensures that passionate and committed community members are the ones who help shape our IPs moving forward. We want to build Occultical together with real audiences through verified achievements, honoring the authenticity and creativity that are core to Collaborative Entertainment.” “Proof of Exposure is not only a safeguard against bots but a way for the community to immerse themselves in the narrative of the Occultical universe,” said Arief Widhiyasa, CEO of Confiction Labs. “A system like this ensures that passionate and committed community members are the ones who help shape our IPs moving forward. We want to build Occultical together with real audiences through verified achievements, honoring the authenticity and creativity that are core to Collaborative Entertainment.” Bots have been increasingly problematic among web3 games, with rewards meant for genuine community members being siphoned off into non-human accounts. A study by web3 marketing platform Cookie3 reveals that 70% of airdrops are frequently passed onto bot accounts , while bot prevention service provider Jigger states that 40% of web3 users , including those engaging in NFT allowlists and web3 games, have been identified as bots. As the market cap for blockchain games steadily increases, activity from bots is expected to increase without measures to prevent these accounts from participating. 70% of airdrops are frequently passed onto bot accounts 70% of airdrops are frequently passed onto bot accounts 40% of web3 users 40% of web3 users , With Proof of Exposure, applicants will go through a comprehensive verification process using third-party APIs, LLMs, data queries, and user data submissions to ensure genuine human participants who want to be part of the FICT ONE community. This aims to prevent bots from invading the allowlist by imposing stricter requirements. Proof of Exposure was created to help set the foundation for Confiction Labs’ vision in Collaborative Entertainment. Players will be able to contribute to the gaming world by submitting user-generated content, such as writing, art and music, which can become canon to an IP’s lore or part of a future game update. Player actions are also recorded during in-game events, with the results of the player base influencing how the story progresses. NFTs in the XPSR-24 collection can also level up and evolve over time through questing. XPSR-24 holders will be able to collectively participate in quests, and owners of higher-level NFTs may be eligible for more rewards in the future. The XPSR-24 application process is in its third week, and interested parties can join through the Confiction Labs Portal (https://one.confiction.com/portal). During the first week, Confiction Labs introduced Proof of Humanity, which verifies applicants through social account linking, and Proof of Network, which measures their ability to help build communities around Occultical through referrals. These first stages of application are also rooted in Riftstorm’s lore, where XPSR-24 members must prove their humanity and establish global connections to support their mission. ABOUT XPSR-24 XPSR-24 (https://xpsr.confiction.com) is the premier collection for the FICT ONE: Occultical universe. It grants exclusive access to our ecosystem, unlocking a world of unparalleled opportunities and adventures. It features innovative features for NFTs such as questing, leveling, and evolving NFTs. XPSR-24’s initial holders were selected through a comprehensive application process measuring different aspects of an individual’s capability to contribute to Confiction Labs’ vision of Collaborative Entertainment. ( https://xpsr.confiction.com ) https://xpsr.confiction.com https://xpsr.confiction.com ABOUT CONFICTION LABS Confiction Labs, formerly known as Mythic Protocol, is a software and entertainment company pioneering Collaborative Entertainment to draw users into the creation process of immersive digital experiences. Confiction Labs has over 120 gaming veterans with diverse backgrounds who have worked on world-class titles such as Magic: The Gathering, Yu-Gi-Oh!, Marvel: Ultimate Alliance, Fairy Tail, and Legends of Runeterra. Confiction Labs’ first game, Riftstorm, is a multiplayer co-op looter-shooter action RPG with roguelite elements set in the Occultical universe. Riftstorm has completed two playtests, with the most recent reaching the highest pre-alpha engagement on Steam with over 21,000 players and hitting the top spot for most streamed web3 games with 326,000 hours watched that week. The next playtest is scheduled for this Q4 2024, ahead of a commercial launch in 2025. Contact Media Relations April Cuneta Emfarsis april@emfarsis.com This story was distributed as a release by Gamingwire under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program. Learn more about the program here. This story was distributed as a release by Gamingwire under HackerNoon’s Business Blogging Program. Learn more about the program here . here here

Confiction Labs Introduces Proof Of Exposure, a New NFT Allowlist Verification System

কনফিশন ল্যাবস প্রুফ অফ এক্সপোজার প্রবর্তন করে, একটি নতুন এনএফটি অ্যালোলিস্ট যাচাইকরণ সিস্টেম

Confiction Labs führt Proof Of Exposure ein, ein neues NFT-Allowlist-Verifizierungssystem

Confiction Labs presenta Proof Of Exposure, un nuevo sistema de verificación de listas de permitidos de NFT

Confiction Labs présente Proof Of Exposure, un nouveau système de vérification de la liste d'autorisation des NFT

कन्फ़िक्शन लैब्स ने प्रूफ़ ऑफ़ एक्सपोज़र, एक नई NFT अनुमति सूची सत्यापन प्रणाली पेश की

Confiction Labs、新しいNFT許可リスト検証システム「Proof Of Exposure」を導入

Confiction Labs, 새로운 NFT 허용 목록 검증 시스템인 Proof Of Exposure 출시

Confiction Labs apresenta Proof Of Exposure, um novo sistema de verificação de lista de permissões de NFT

Confiction Labs представляет Proof Of Exposure — новую систему проверки разрешенного списка NFT

Confiction Labs, Yeni Bir NFT İzin Listesi Doğrulama Sistemi Olan Proof Of Exposure'ı Tanıttı

Confiction Labs giới thiệu Proof Of Exposure, một hệ thống xác minh danh sách cho phép NFT mới

Confiction Labs 推出新的 NFT 许可列表验证系统“曝光证明”

The Contribution of U.S. Broadband Infrastructure Subsidy and Investment Programs to GDP

If you know how to use your GI bill, it could pay for your schooling, certifications, or tests, catapulting you into the tech field. Do you know what to do to make the most out of it? Using Your GI Bill to Transition Into a Tech Career Frankly, there’s rarely been a better time to enter the tech field. For example, information security analysts’ job outlook is growing 32% from 2022 to 2032 — one of the fastest growth rates among all professions. Plenty of adjacent industries are also short-staffed and looking for help. Right now, the cybersecurity unemployment rate is at zero percent since over 3.4 million job openings exist. In response, tons of employers are lowering their expectations and job requirements. Better yet, you’re likely bound to make much more than you are now. The average tech worker earned $100,615 in 2022, with compensation ranging from $56,000 at the low end to $161,400 at the high end. Depending on your rank, that’s probably a huge increase. The GI Bill gives you the perfect opportunity to pursue a job in tech since it pays for almost everything you’ll need. Whether you want to enter cybersecurity, software development, computer engineering, or information technology, you have plenty of options. Which Educational Programs Are Covered? According to the United States Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), your GI Bill covers multiple program types: Undergraduate or Graduate Degrees: Your GI Bill covers tuition, fees, books, and housing at pre-approved schools — public or private. You can also study abroad. Certifications: You can get licenses and certifications covered if they’re required for work — retakes included. The VA says it’ll pay for as many tests as you want to take. On-the-Job Training and Apprenticeships: Depending on your program, you can get your books paid for and receive a monthly housing allowance. High-Cost High-Tech Programs: You qualify for accelerated payments — 60% of the $27,120 tuition and fees allowance — if you pursue fields like computer engineering, electronics, data science, or cybersecurity. Work Study Programs: If you’re enrolled in a technical school program and working, the VA provides a number of financial benefits. Non-College Degree Programs: The VA will pay up to $27,120 — the same amount as it does for college — for the net tuition and mandatory fees for special tuition programs. The VA has a GI Bill comparison tool you can use to see which education and training institutions are approved. You can also get an estimate of how much the benefits would cover. Tips for Aligning Education With Career Aspirations How do you pick a school or coding boot camp that aligns with your career aspirations in tech? Here are some tips to help you figure it out. Build Your Network Nowadays, many people find careers through networking rather than job ads. To better align your education with your career, get close to your classmates, professors, and mentors to build your professional network early on. Do Your Research What degree do most professionals in your chosen field have? Are certifications required or just helpful? Watch videos, take free classes online, listen to other graduates, and browse job boards to see whether your education will align with your career. Which GI Bill Is Right for You? The Montgomery GI Bill Active Duty is for service members with at least two years of active duty and a high school diploma — or General Education Development. If you served at least 90 days after September 10, 2001, you can use the Post-9/11 GI bill. ho w You might’ve heard a lot about the Veterans Technology Education Courses. The initiative was made to pair people like you with high-tech careers. Unfortunately, it ended on April 1, 2024. However, a bill set to extend it through 2028 passed the House and is headed to the Senate, so there’s hope. How to Apply for GI Bill Benefits How you apply for GI Bill benefits varies depending on how long you were on active duty, how you were discharged, and when your service ended. Whether it concluded before or after January 1, 2013, affects whether you have a 15-year time limit or your benefits don’t expire. You can apply in person at your local VA office, by mail to their official processing office address, or online. You need to provide details about your service and your current contact information. You’ll probably be able to finish the application pretty quickly. According to the VA, your application will take about 30 days to process. When you get approved, they’ll contact you. You then show your official approval letter to the school, company, or training professional you want to work with and kickstart the application process there. It’s Time to Start a New Life Chapter Whether you’re finished with active duty or are in the reserves, getting a free ride to college, an apprenticeship or a vocational school could be life-changing. Make the most of this opportunity by researching your options and working hard to achieve your goals. If you know how to use your GI bill, it could pay for your schooling, certifications, or tests, catapulting you into the tech field. Do you know what to do to make the most out of it? Using Your GI Bill to Transition Into a Tech Career Frankly, there’s rarely been a better time to enter the tech field. For example, information security analysts’ job outlook is growing 32% from 2022 to 2032 — one of the fastest growth rates among all professions. job outlook is growing 32% job outlook is growing 32% Plenty of adjacent industries are also short-staffed and looking for help. Right now, the cybersecurity unemployment rate is at zero percent since over 3.4 million job openings exist. In response, tons of employers are lowering their expectations and job requirements. over 3.4 million job openings over 3.4 million job openings Better yet, you’re likely bound to make much more than you are now. The average tech worker earned $100,615 in 2022, with compensation ranging from $56,000 at the low end to $161,400 at the high end. Depending on your rank, that’s probably a huge increase. average tech worker earned $100,615 average tech worker earned $100,615 The GI Bill gives you the perfect opportunity to pursue a job in tech since it pays for almost everything you’ll need. Whether you want to enter cybersecurity, software development, computer engineering, or information technology, you have plenty of options. Which Educational Programs Are Covered? According to the United States Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), your GI Bill covers multiple program types : covers multiple program types covers multiple program types Undergraduate or Graduate Degrees: Your GI Bill covers tuition, fees, books, and housing at pre-approved schools — public or private. You can also study abroad. Undergraduate or Graduate Degrees: Your GI Bill covers tuition, fees, books, and housing at pre-approved schools — public or private. You can also study abroad. Certifications: You can get licenses and certifications covered if they’re required for work — retakes included. The VA says it’ll pay for as many tests as you want to take. Certifications: You can get licenses and certifications covered if they’re required for work — retakes included. The VA says it’ll pay for as many tests as you want to take. On-the-Job Training and Apprenticeships: Depending on your program, you can get your books paid for and receive a monthly housing allowance. On-the-Job Training and Apprenticeships: Depending on your program, you can get your books paid for and receive a monthly housing allowance. High-Cost High-Tech Programs: You qualify for accelerated payments — 60% of the $27,120 tuition and fees allowance — if you pursue fields like computer engineering, electronics, data science, or cybersecurity. High-Cost High-Tech Programs: You qualify for accelerated payments — 60% of the $27,120 tuition and fees allowance — if you pursue fields like computer engineering, electronics, data science, or cybersecurity. 60% of the $27,120 tuition 60% of the $27,120 tuition Work Study Programs: If you’re enrolled in a technical school program and working, the VA provides a number of financial benefits. Work Study Programs: If you’re enrolled in a technical school program and working, the VA provides a number of financial benefits. Non-College Degree Programs: The VA will pay up to $27,120 — the same amount as it does for college — for the net tuition and mandatory fees for special tuition programs. Non-College Degree Programs: The VA will pay up to $27,120 — the same amount as it does for college — for the net tuition and mandatory fees for special tuition programs. will pay up to $27,120 will pay up to $27,120 The VA has a GI Bill comparison tool you can use to see which education and training institutions are approved. You can also get an estimate of how much the benefits would cover. has a GI Bill comparison tool has a GI Bill comparison tool Tips for Aligning Education With Career Aspirations How do you pick a school or coding boot camp that aligns with your career aspirations in tech? Here are some tips to help you figure it out. Build Your Network Nowadays, many people find careers through networking rather than job ads. To better align your education with your career, get close to your classmates, professors, and mentors to build your professional network early on. many people find careers through networking many people find careers through networking Do Your Research What degree do most professionals in your chosen field have? Are certifications required or just helpful? Watch videos, take free classes online, listen to other graduates, and browse job boards to see whether your education will align with your career. Which GI Bill Is Right for You? The Montgomery GI Bill Active Duty is for service members with at least two years of active duty and a high school diploma — or General Education Development. If you served at least 90 days after September 10, 2001, you can use the Post-9/11 GI bill. ho w You might’ve heard a lot about the Veterans Technology Education Courses. The initiative was made to pair people like you with high-tech careers. Unfortunately, it ended on April 1, 2024. However, a bill set to extend it through 2028 passed the House and is headed to the Senate, so there’s hope. set to extend it through 2028 set to extend it through 2028 How to Apply for GI Bill Benefits How you apply for GI Bill benefits varies depending on how long you were on active duty, how you were discharged, and when your service ended. Whether it concluded before or after January 1, 2013, affects whether you have a 15-year time limit or your benefits don’t expire. You can apply in person at your local VA office, by mail to their official processing office address, or online. You need to provide details about your service and your current contact information. You’ll probably be able to finish the application pretty quickly. According to the VA, your application will take about 30 days to process. When you get approved, they’ll contact you. You then show your official approval letter to the school, company, or training professional you want to work with and kickstart the application process there. will take about 30 days will take about 30 days It’s Time to Start a New Life Chapter Whether you’re finished with active duty or are in the reserves, getting a free ride to college, an apprenticeship or a vocational school could be life-changing. Make the most of this opportunity by researching your options and working hard to achieve your goals.

Using Your GI Bill for Tech Education: What You Need To Know

The New Classroom: The Role of AI in Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development

Tiktok Inc., and ByteDance LTD., v. Merrick B. Garland Update Court Filing, retrieved on May 7, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 8 of 11. Ground 2: Unconstitutional Bill of Attainder 95. The Act is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. 96. Article I of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from passing any bill of attainder. U.S. Const. art. I § 9, cl. 3 (“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”). A bill of attainder is “legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or groups.” United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 447 (1965). The protection against bills of attainder is “an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function, or more simply — trial by legislature.” Id. at 442. 97. By singling out Petitioners for legislative punishment, the Act is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. 98. The Act inflicts “pains and penalties” that historically have been associated with bills of attainder. See Nixon v. Adm’r of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 474 (1977). Historically, common “pains and penalties” included “punitive confiscation of property by the sovereign” and “a legislative enactment barring designated individuals or groups from participation in specified employments or vocations,” among others. Id. As described above, the Act confiscates Petitioners’ U.S. businesses by forcing ByteDance to shutter them within 270 days or sell on terms that are not commercially, technologically, or legally feasible. See supra ¶¶ 26‒29. For the same reason, the Act bars Petitioners from operating in their chosen line of business. 99. “[V]iewed in terms of the type and severity of burdens imposed” on Petitioners, the Act’s treatment of Petitioners cannot “reasonably . . . be said to further nonpunitive legislative purposes.” Nixon, 433 U.S. at 475–76. The Act transforms Petitioners into a “vilified class” by explicitly prohibiting their current and future operations in the United States, without qualification or limitation, but does not extend the same treatment to other similarly situated companies. Foretich v. United States, 351 F.3d 1198, 1224 (D.C. Cir. 2003). 100. Moreover, in light of the less restrictive alternatives discussed above, there is no justification for automatically barring Petitioners’ current and future operations in the United States (or those of its subsidiaries or successors) in perpetuity without providing them a meaningful opportunity to take corrective action. See Kaspersky Lab, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 909 F.3d 446, 456 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Indeed, the Act imposes this punishment uniquely on Petitioners without the process, and presidential determination of a significant national security threat, that Congress has afforded to everyone else. Expressly singling out Petitioners for these punitive burdens while at the same time adopting a statutory standard and decision-making process applicable to every other entity makes clear that Petitioners are subjected to a prohibited legislatively imposed punishment. 101. Moreover, while Petitioners can avoid the Act’s prohibitions only via a wholesale divestment, all other companies — even those with Chinese ownership and determined by the President to present a “significant threat” to U.S. national security — can avoid prohibition simply by operating a website or an application “whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.” Sec. 2(g)(2)(b). 102. Indeed, any other “adversary-controlled” company that operates an application exactly like TikTok, but also operates a website the primary purpose of which is to post product reviews, is left untouched, leaving a ready path for any company but those affiliated with Petitioners to circumvent the Act’s prohibitions altogether. For all practical purposes, then, the Act applies to just one corporate group — it is a “TikTok bill,” as congressional leaders have described it.[30] 103. For all of these reasons, the Act constitutes an unconstitutional bill of attainder. 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 May 7, 2024, from sf16-va.tiktokcdn.com 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. [30] Rachel Dobkin, Mike Johnson’s Letter Sparks New Flood of Republican Backlash, Newsweek (Apr. 17, 2024), https://perma.cc/Z5HD-7UVU (quoting letter from Speaker Johnson referencing the “TikTok bill”); Senator Chuck Schumer, Majority Leader, to Colleagues (Apr. 5, 2024), https://perma.cc/J7Q4-9PGJ (referencing “TikTok legislation”). Tiktok Inc., and ByteDance LTD., v. Merrick B. Garland Update Court Filing, retrieved on May 7, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series. You can jump to any part in this filing here. This part is 8 of 11. Tiktok Inc., and ByteDance LTD., v. Merrick B. Garland Update Court Filing, retrieved on May 7, 2024, is part of HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series . You can jump to any part in this filing here . This part is 8 of 11. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here Ground 2: Unconstitutional Bill of Attainder 95. The Act is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. 96. Article I of the U.S. Constitution prohibits Congress from passing any bill of attainder. U.S. Const. art. I § 9, cl. 3 (“No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”). A bill of attainder is “legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or groups.” United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 447 (1965). The protection against bills of attainder is “an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function, or more simply — trial by legislature.” Id. at 442. 97. By singling out Petitioners for legislative punishment, the Act is an unconstitutional bill of attainder. 98. The Act inflicts “pains and penalties” that historically have been associated with bills of attainder. See Nixon v. Adm’r of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425, 474 (1977). Historically, common “pains and penalties” included “punitive confiscation of property by the sovereign” and “a legislative enactment barring designated individuals or groups from participation in specified employments or vocations,” among others. Id. As described above, the Act confiscates Petitioners’ U.S. businesses by forcing ByteDance to shutter them within 270 days or sell on terms that are not commercially, technologically, or legally feasible. See supra ¶¶ 26‒29. For the same reason, the Act bars Petitioners from operating in their chosen line of business. 99. “[V]iewed in terms of the type and severity of burdens imposed” on Petitioners, the Act’s treatment of Petitioners cannot “reasonably . . . be said to further nonpunitive legislative purposes.” Nixon, 433 U.S. at 475–76. The Act transforms Petitioners into a “vilified class” by explicitly prohibiting their current and future operations in the United States, without qualification or limitation, but does not extend the same treatment to other similarly situated companies. Foretich v. United States, 351 F.3d 1198, 1224 (D.C. Cir. 2003). 100. Moreover, in light of the less restrictive alternatives discussed above, there is no justification for automatically barring Petitioners’ current and future operations in the United States (or those of its subsidiaries or successors) in perpetuity without providing them a meaningful opportunity to take corrective action. See Kaspersky Lab, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 909 F.3d 446, 456 (D.C. Cir. 2018). Indeed, the Act imposes this punishment uniquely on Petitioners without the process, and presidential determination of a significant national security threat, that Congress has afforded to everyone else. Expressly singling out Petitioners for these punitive burdens while at the same time adopting a statutory standard and decision-making process applicable to every other entity makes clear that Petitioners are subjected to a prohibited legislatively imposed punishment. 101. Moreover, while Petitioners can avoid the Act’s prohibitions only via a wholesale divestment, all other companies — even those with Chinese ownership and determined by the President to present a “significant threat” to U.S. national security — can avoid prohibition simply by operating a website or an application “whose primary purpose is to allow users to post product reviews, business reviews, or travel information and reviews.” Sec. 2(g)(2)(b). 102. Indeed, any other “adversary-controlled” company that operates an application exactly like TikTok, but also operates a website the primary purpose of which is to post product reviews, is left untouched, leaving a ready path for any company but those affiliated with Petitioners to circumvent the Act’s prohibitions altogether. For all practical purposes, then, the Act applies to just one corporate group — it is a “TikTok bill,” as congressional leaders have described it.[30] 103. For all of these reasons, the Act constitutes an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Continue Reading Here. Continue Reading Here . 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 May 7, 2024, from sf16-va.tiktokcdn.com 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. About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case retrieved on May 7, 2024, from sf16-va.tiktokcdn.com 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. sf16-va.tiktokcdn.com [30] Rachel Dobkin, Mike Johnson’s Letter Sparks New Flood of Republican Backlash, Newsweek (Apr. 17, 2024), https://perma.cc/Z5HD-7UVU (quoting letter from Speaker Johnson referencing the “TikTok bill”); Senator Chuck Schumer, Majority Leader, to Colleagues (Apr. 5, 2024), https://perma.cc/J7Q4-9PGJ (referencing “TikTok legislation”).

TikTok U.S. Lawsuit: Understanding the Prohibition of Bills of Attainder in Constitutional Law

Part 1: Odell vs Saylor It was only last week, exact date and time unknown given how well-protected is the individual data. A Nostr client and Cypherpunk going by ODELL, unleashed a seething post from the depths of his Post Office. The post started by saying it was not controversial, in capital letters. Then proceeded to say something controversial. This, in addition to other, capital-lettered posts. In brief, Odell claims that Michael Saylor, a prominent Bitcoin whale and renowned hodler, is against the funding of Bitcoin developers. Let Bitcoin “ossify”, believes Saylor (says people on his side). So the code can become something so usual humans sing it in an anthem. Like, unchanged. *** Meanwhile, Mr. Saylor hasn't said anything to either deny or verify the aforementioned claims nee sayings in his name. The Advantage of Not Funding Bitcoin Developers Aside from the snide remarks and memes on X comparing BTC Devs to busybodies, the biggest threat of the ‘Dev Funding Race’, goes the argument, is that it incentivizes fiat overlords to bulldoze Bitcoin into the shape and form that they want. Masked as “maintenance” and “upgrades”, perpetual changes to Bitcoin's code could leave vulnerabilities. Currently, Bitcoin is still struggling, and the price won't stop dancing around $69k. It is barely a trillion-dollar asset. Meanwhile, the fiat world boasts hundreds of trillions of dollars, and Bitcoin ETF companies alone are bench-pressing north of 100 billion dollars. And they want to dangle all those carrots in front of our developers. Evil. But it might be true. Jack Dorsey mentioned names. Bitcoin developers have lived for years like the Fremen of Dune. Modestly quenching their financial thirst with drops of donated water-satoshis. Recycling each sat they get their hands on while leveraging more circularity than a hamster on a new wheel. Yes, while we all reap the benefits. Now, the promise of big money raining down on their well-honed skills is a big threat to the core code. Like lawyers, they are itching to change the Constitution. But hey, what is a developer who does not develop new tools? The devs in the wider cryptocurrency community must be cracking their ribs with laughter. And counting their lucky altcoins, grateful for the fact that they can buidl. A Developer Shall Develop. What do you call a developer who does not develop on a whim? A Watcher. A Waiter. Waiting for the call to help. Like a Lone Ranger in a Western. But that is painfully lonely. And sounds segregative af if we enforce it on other people. Honestly? Developing is a form of free speech. So no one can actually stop developers from speaking their speech. Go ahead, develop. It is the highest form of individual autonomy known to humans in this digital age. Paid or Not paid. For if you can develop, you can maintain your digital privacy (which is just privacy), maximum autonomy, and making a few bucks for people who want features isn't too bad either. Win-win-win. I dare say, if we could all develop (We cannot. It is a vocation some of us shall only inch towards. Slowly), this would not even be an issue. It would be strange for Saylor, anybody, to even suggest that Bitcoin developers try not to develop too much. However, Bitcoin being what it is, a global community project of extreme importance, actually constrains hacker ethos so much there won't be any cypherpunks like the pre-Bitcoin OGs. Forget flipping it to centralized systems anymore by engineering some arcane codex. Now, it is a game of sitting and waiting and watching. Praying that the price stops dancing around $69k. Saylor and his crew imply that the price of freedom is to follow the majority. And the majority says just sit, wait, and watch. But do they? The conversation is still evolving. Here is more data so that you have an informed opinion. How Odell and His Crew Are Right Here is a listicle of all the good points supporting Mr. Odell and his band of merry devs. The First Bitcoiner was a Bitcoin Developer. He was called Satoshi Nakamoto. You might have heard of him. 2. The Last Bitcoiner will be a Bitcoin Developer. When the Bitcoin is finally dead (a nuclear holocaust will end it), only a developer listening for its faint signals in the cold dark nuclear winter shall help keep the flame of freedom alive. 3. When in doubt, we ask Bitcoin Developers. Don't know why Michael Saylor is so confident that the US government cannot hack his bitcoins? Ask a Bitcoin Developer. 4. Developer Wars birth great stuff. Like the Lightning Network. Once Upon a Time, Bitcoin Developers fought for 2 bitter years over how much storage space should be held by Bitcoin. In the end, they doubled the storage space from 1MB to 2MB, invented Segwit which kept fees very low for a long time, and work on Segwit helped birth the Lightning Network. When developers fight, good things happen. When politicians fight, … 5. If ETF people want arcane-looking wallets with features from the year 3000, they have a right to pay for them. I think the key problem in this battle between Odell and Saylor is the fear that deep-pocket ETF funds may corrupt most Bitcoin developers. Otherwise, Bitcoin developers have been funded forever, and no one has been complaining. Indeed, Ark Invest should tell us what they need to pay OG Bitcoin developers some eye-popping sums of money for. If they want features, they could pay this to anybody else who is into UI. Bitcoin core devs are OUR lawyers, and they unravel weird shit like weird fee hikes and why LN nodes need a balance before any money can be received at all from other nodes. Bullshit. OG Bitcoin core devs have a right to build what they want and that does not mean they are corrupt. If a job developing UIs pays more than one developing arcane zk proofs, I'm taking the UI job. Let's not put evil intent into people's praxeologic actions. Give Ark and Bitcoin devs a chance. Then judge them when they mess shit up. Coz it could be magic. It can always be unmessed up. It is software, and we have all the commits in the GitHub repo. (It is not the same as giving Ark your money. That is on you. DYOR). Basically, let's all have some balls and break some dev rules. 6. ETFs paying Developers does not mean we shall be bought as well. Point 5 above feels like if the OG Bitcoiner developers are bought, doom and gloom for the rest of us non-dev plebs. But I assure you, if Bitcoin drops its 21 million coin supply cap for any reason, I will not follow it. That will not be Bitcoin but some silly hard fork. Call it BFD - Bitcoin For Devs. It will be worth exactly 0 US dollars after a few days. 7. Developing is greater speech than English. Last for today, but certainly not least. We should all aim to be Bitcoin developers, AI developers, Quantum Developers, and Math gurus creating an alternative universe free from the greed and psyop pervasive in this universe. But on the same planet earth. Orthogonal to this one in cyberspace. Bitcoin has done it for money. But planting a seed and watering it are two different things. And it will start by paying devs and supporting the right to pay devs. 100 years from today, Bitcoin should look like it is 100 years from today. Developing is how that happens. If developers break something we can always cancel them on X. Then unbreak it back. Part 1: Odell vs Saylor It was only last week, exact date and time unknown given how well-protected is the individual data. A Nostr client and Cypherpunk going by ODELL, unleashed a seething post from the depths of his Post Office. The post started by saying it was not controversial, in capital letters. Then proceeded to say something controversial. This, in addition to other, capital-lettered posts. In brief, Odell claims that Michael Saylor, a prominent Bitcoin whale and renowned hodler, is against the funding of Bitcoin developers. Let Bitcoin “ossify”, believes Saylor (says people on his side). So the code can become something so usual humans sing it in an anthem. Like, unchanged . unchanged *** Meanwhile, Mr. Saylor hasn't said anything to either deny or verify the aforementioned claims nee sayings in his name. The Advantage of Not Funding Bitcoin Developers Aside from the snide remarks and memes on X comparing BTC Devs to busybodies, the biggest threat of the ‘Dev Funding Race’, goes the argument, is that it incentivizes fiat overlords to bulldoze Bitcoin into the shape and form that they want. Masked as “maintenance” and “upgrades”, perpetual changes to Bitcoin's code could leave vulnerabilities. Currently, Bitcoin is still struggling, and the price won't stop dancing around $69k. It is barely a trillion-dollar asset. Meanwhile, the fiat world boasts hundreds of trillions of dollars, and Bitcoin ETF companies alone are bench-pressing north of 100 billion dollars. And they want to dangle all those carrots in front of our developers. Evil. But it might be true. Jack Dorsey mentioned names. Bitcoin developers have lived for years like the Fremen of Dune. Modestly quenching their financial thirst with drops of donated water-satoshis. Recycling each sat they get their hands on while leveraging more circularity than a hamster on a new wheel. Yes, while we all reap the benefits. Now, the promise of big money raining down on their well-honed skills is a big threat to the core code. Like lawyers, they are itching to change the Constitution. But hey, what is a developer who does not develop new tools? The devs in the wider cryptocurrency community must be cracking their ribs with laughter. And counting their lucky altcoins, grateful for the fact that they can buidl. A Developer Shall Develop. What do you call a developer who does not develop on a whim? A Watcher. A Waiter. Waiting for the call to help. Like a Lone Ranger in a Western. But that is painfully lonely. And sounds segregative af if we enforce it on other people. Honestly? Developing is a form of free speech. So no one can actually stop developers from speaking their speech. Go ahead, develop. It is the highest form of individual autonomy known to humans in this digital age. Paid or Not paid. For if you can develop, you can maintain your digital privacy (which is just privacy), maximum autonomy, and making a few bucks for people who want features isn't too bad either. Win-win-win. I dare say, if we could all develop (We cannot. It is a vocation some of us shall only inch towards. Slowly), this would not even be an issue. It would be strange for Saylor, anybody, to even suggest that Bitcoin developers try not to develop too much. However, Bitcoin being what it is, a global community project of extreme importance, actually constrains hacker ethos so much there won't be any cypherpunks like the pre-Bitcoin OGs. Forget flipping it to centralized systems anymore by engineering some arcane codex. Now, it is a game of sitting and waiting and watching. Praying that the price stops dancing around $69k. Saylor and his crew imply that the price of freedom is to follow the majority. And the majority says just sit, wait, and watch. But do they? The conversation is still evolving. Here is more data so that you have an informed opinion. How Odell and His Crew Are Right Here is a listicle of all the good points supporting Mr. Odell and his band of merry devs. The First Bitcoiner was a Bitcoin Developer. The First Bitcoiner was a Bitcoin Developer. He was called Satoshi Nakamoto. You might have heard of him. 2. The Last Bitcoiner will be a Bitcoin Developer. When the Bitcoin is finally dead (a nuclear holocaust will end it), only a developer listening for its faint signals in the cold dark nuclear winter shall help keep the flame of freedom alive. 3. When in doubt, we ask Bitcoin Developers. Don't know why Michael Saylor is so confident that the US government cannot hack his bitcoins? Ask a Bitcoin Developer. 4. Developer Wars birth great stuff. Like the Lightning Network. Once Upon a Time, Bitcoin Developers fought for 2 bitter years over how much storage space should be held by Bitcoin. In the end, they doubled the storage space from 1MB to 2MB, invented Segwit which kept fees very low for a long time, and work on Segwit helped birth the Lightning Network. When developers fight, good things happen. When politicians fight, … 5. If ETF people want arcane-looking wallets with features from the year 3000, they have a right to pay for them. I think the key problem in this battle between Odell and Saylor is the fear that deep-pocket ETF funds may corrupt most Bitcoin developers. Otherwise, Bitcoin developers have been funded forever, and no one has been complaining. Indeed, Ark Invest should tell us what they need to pay OG Bitcoin developers some eye-popping sums of money for. Ark Invest If they want features, they could pay this to anybody else who is into UI. Bitcoin core devs are OUR lawyers, and they unravel weird shit like weird fee hikes and why LN nodes need a balance before any money can be received at all from other nodes. Bullshit. OG Bitcoin core devs have a right to build what they want and that does not mean they are corrupt. If a job developing UIs pays more than one developing arcane zk proofs, I'm taking the UI job. Let's not put evil intent into people's praxeologic actions. Give Ark and Bitcoin devs a chance. Then judge them when they mess shit up. Coz it could be magic. It can always be unmessed up. It is software, and we have all the commits in the GitHub repo. (It is not the same as giving Ark your money. That is on you. DYOR). Basically, let's all have some balls and break some dev rules. 6. ETFs paying Developers does not mean we shall be bought as well. Point 5 above feels like if the OG Bitcoiner developers are bought, doom and gloom for the rest of us non-dev plebs. But I assure you, if Bitcoin drops its 21 million coin supply cap for any reason, I will not follow it. That will not be Bitcoin but some silly hard fork. Call it BFD - Bitcoin For Devs. It will be worth exactly 0 US dollars after a few days. 7. Developing is greater speech than English. Last for today, but certainly not least. We should all aim to be Bitcoin developers, AI developers, Quantum Developers, and Math gurus creating an alternative universe free from the greed and psyop pervasive in this universe. But on the same planet earth. Orthogonal to this one in cyberspace. Bitcoin has done it for money. But planting a seed and watering it are two different things. And it will start by paying devs and supporting the right to pay devs. 100 years from today, Bitcoin should look like it is 100 years from today. Developing is how that happens. If developers break something we can always cancel them on X. Then unbreak it back.

Odell Vs Saylor - Should Bitcoin Devs Dev?

Este artículo fue primeramente publicado en . +qL es #másqueley aka #másqueley es la firma hermana de aka #beyondthelaw. +qL holoLAWn If you have legal questions or want to debate, join our . Discord TL:DR The MetaLeX whitepaper aims to give birth to a new kind of law (the ) in order to complete the project of disconnecting the blockchain world from the world of flesh and blood. To free humans from the vertical hierarchy of institutional powers and return them to a space of freedom among equals, a of horizontal hierarchy. A project that to date has a currency and finance separate - in theory - from the state (Bitcoin and Ethereum as respective paradigms of cryptocurrencies and smart contracts that enable decentralised transactions and finance); but a project that lacks an equally separate law to govern that proto-world of a longed-for separate world, a free world. Autonomous Law heterotopia What you will (and won't) find here We are all looking for something. The : a spoiler. Autonomous Law The whitepaper: an interpretation (ours). Phase 1: BORGs. Phase 2: Deal Technology. Phase 3: . Autonomous Law Conflicts with a decentralised and autonomous dimension that are resolved by laws and legal operators that do not contemplate (or do not want to contemplate) decentralisation and autonomy. Conflicts with a decentralised and autonomous dimension that are solved by very cool alternative legal operators, at the time, by humans governed by their own will, . and nothing else Conflicts with a decentralised and autonomous dimension that are resolved by autonomous and decentralised laws that, as such, provide for decentralisation and autonomy. By way of (in)conclusion. ➡️ We are all looking for something We are all looking for something. Diogenes a righteous man in the streets of Athens, candle in hand; Ichabod Crane a kind truth behind the terrifying Headless Horseman; Indiana Jones the Lost Ark in an unbridled race against esoteric Nazis; Sebastian, between the black keys of a piano, the love lost through an infinite renunciation of love for his beloved Mia; and, finally, searches with his MetaLeX for an that will make a free world possible —almost nothing. Gabriel Shapiro Autonomus Law The : a spoiler ➡️ Autonomous Law The to which the devotes the bulk of its text —a third at least— is something like a new normative paradigm, a new kind of legal order that will allow humans to escape the clutches of nation states and their - and -national entanglements. Autonomous Law MetaLeX whitepaper supra infra And given the state of decadence and woke perversion of Western governments, of everything that sounds or resonates with Public Administration —and this is not an opinion: it is an easily verifiable empirical observation, a notorious fact in the technical-legal-proven sense—, it seems to me that the search for MetaLeX is an enterprise worth supporting —we, who still don't know how 😅, we're in! This that dazzles us: Autonomous Law is law because it aims to regulate (in part) human interaction; is decentralised because it will reside on a blockchain; it is ( ) because the blockchain, and everything that resides in it, is code; code code is law it is because, as the execution of code (with or without AI, but AI is also code, and only code - at least for the moment, until consciousness emerges...), it does not require human intervention, i.e. the self-execution of the code is the application of the law itself. autonomous And it is because the government and the legal decision by way of the law-code, at the time of the code, the , will be independent of the as well as of . Neither traditional law, nor the humans who create it, will have anything to say about the rule of code once it is born into the world of the blockchain. autonómica rule of code rule of law the rule of men This deserves clarification in order to escape sophistry. Just as the created cannot free itself from its creation, no law can free itself from the clutches of the man who creates it. Only the constituent law, which initiates a Legal Order, can (relatively) do so under the artifice of the by which it itself, and not its creator, sets itself up as the principle of everything. And, thus, under the impossible that the constituent law itself contains in itself the will to be constituted, as a normative , is that can make it seem as if it is born and we can make it seem as if it is so. legal fiction ouroboros it ➡️ The whitepaper: one interpretation (ours) If you page through the whitepaper, its first ten pages are an interesting introduction that operates as an extensive until, around page ten, we are presented with a sort of table of contents that corresponds to the three phases of logical and chronological development of the MetaLeX project to reach the . captatio benevolentiae Autonomous Law At this point, in these lines, we are not so much interested in how the Autonomous Law is arrived at, nor therefore in the phases, as in the concept of Autonomous Law itself. Moreover - it must be said - because the description of phases 1 and 2 is clear enough to get a good idea of what we are talking about, but not sufficiently detailed to know what the hell we are talking about beyond that idea. We can all get a good idea of what unicorns are from what we talk about them; but none of us can know exactly what the hell a unicorn is until we e.g. see it, tame it, ride it, feed it… From this point of view, we will summarise the phases, in our own style. ➡️➡️ Phase 1: BORGs Phase 1 essentially concerns the creation of blockchain programmes that apply rules in a community of users. fully autonomous In this sense, a law is ultimately a very special kind of rule that is distinguished from other rules by its origin: if the rule is dictated by the state, it is a law; if it is dictated by your father or mother, it is a precept of family behaviour; if it is dictated by a criminal gang, it is the code of a mafia. But for all these groups —state, family, mafia— the rule operates as law, whether it is called law, precept or code; in other words, the law, the precept and the code are functionally equivalent within the respective target community. So a programme on the blockchain that applies rules is, for the purposes of the community resident in the protocol where it is applied, its own law. Whether it is recognised as such outside that community —and this is, strictly speaking, the crux of the matter— is another matter. These programmes are called BORGs ( ) and are like sub-DaOs stripped down, fully autonomous from a parent DAO. Suppose a DAO requires six Fi functions to function. Some of these functions with the current state of the art are fully autonomous; others are not —and that is precisely why we have this mess of BORGs, to gradually implement, as technology makes it possible, the next phases. For each fully autonomous Fi function, a programme is created to implement it, a BORG. This is then like the DAO for the sole purpose of that particular fully autonomous function. Then, there will come a point where for every Fi function of the DAO there is a BORG that implements it. However, not even at that point will the DAO be, let us say, the conjunctive sum of all these BORGs: cyBernetic ORGanisationS {BORGi} ≢ DAO The DAO is an emergence from this set of BORGs, a something more. Just as a daisy is not reduced to the petals that have been shed along with the stem; nor is a company qua legal entity (with or without legal personality, it is not relevant here) the sum of its partners, or the sum of its departments, or the sum of its strategies, or the sum of its articles of association...; so it is not the case that the DAO we have been talking about is the sum of its BORGs. That “something else” which is the daisy or the society qua legal entity with respect to the component parts is a emergence just as the DAO is a mereological emergence of those BORGs. Which brings us headlong into the second phase. mereological ➡️➡️ Phase 2: Deal Technology For this set of BORGs -{BORGs} - to identify with the DAO, it is necessary for its elements to work in a coordinated manner. This will be achieved through a series of agreements between the BORGs that will then validate the identity: {BORGi} + TFA ≡ autDAO Where TFA = Technological Framework Agreement, a set of covenants that make the set of BORGs cease to be just that, a set of BORGs, and become an entity functionally equivalent to the DAO from which they were detached. Now, the final result will be so qualitatively different from the DAO that it will also be substantially different from it: it will be a true DAO (= autDAO) . That is: 2 the set of BORGs plus their TMA operates as a perfectly autonomous and autonomous version (autDAO) of the imperfect autonomous and autonomous DAO that gave birth to them. From this perspective, and as far as these two phases are concerned, it can be said that, at the end of the day, MetaLeX only aims to recover the pure sense of the DAO, a DAO that technological limitations and human praxis have turned decentralisation and autonomy into an absurdity, because I don't care whether the one at the top governs or the one next to him governs, if it is the case that the one at the top and the one next to him have exactly the same power. ➡️➡️ Phase 3: Autonomous Law Our autDAOs —well, those of MetaLeX, that is— as social entities that are also social entities, however much they reside in the blockchain, will interact with each other and with the world of flesh and blood; that interaction will generate conflict; and that conflict will have to be resolved. And this is —in our opinion— where the whitepaper puts its finger on the problem —we recommend reading it, in particular the headings and . We, here, present it as follows: Phase 3-Autonomus Law Conclusion ➡️➡️➡️ Conflicts with a decentralised and autonomous dimension that are resolved by laws and legal operators that do not (or do not want to) contemplate decentralisation and autonomy If these conflicts are resolved under the , state legal systems, also from above and from below), they will de facto nullify the essence of the underlying structures that have been so hard to create. rule of law , trying to explain the Kantian categories of time and space, that the world is seen through the lenses of the glasses you wear: if pink, then rose-coloured. This, which our grandparents used to tell us in other less refined but certainly more understandable ways, is as true as the sun. Warburton explained And so, if it is the case —and it is— that the creators of the laws of the world of flesh and blood do not look at the world through the lens of and , then it is also the case that their laws do not have these concepts embedded in their letter and that, therefore, their application on a decentralised and autonomous factual substratum will overlook in whole or in part the of that factual substratum. In other words: the laws and their application will the decentralised and autonomous dimension of the conflict, so that the conflict will be resolved as if there were no decentralisation and autonomy. decentralisation autonomy decentralised and autonomous nature disregard And it makes no difference to me whether "X is not in Y" or "X being in Y, X is disregarded as being in Y". ➡️➡️➡️ Conflicts with a decentralised and autonomous dimension that are solved by very cool alternative legal operators, at the time, by humans governed by their own will, and nothing else And if these conflicts are solved under alternative conflict resolution procedures (panels of experts, forums of wills or opinion polls outside the blockchain, arbitration tribunals...) which, for the sake of this alternativity, are already considered very cool, the setback is even worse. For under the (apparent) success that the conflict where at least one party is an autonomous and decentralised entity is no longer resolved by inconsiderate state laws, but by highly regarded experts or those considered as such, what we are falling into is personalism. And this only departs in degree, but not in quality, from caveman conflict resolution by the tribal sorcerer. ad hoc Humans have not been trampling the earth for two hundred thousand years —to put a figure on it— to escape the reptilian law of men by way of the rule of law in order to, in more refined but no less unjust ways, end up by overthrowing the rule of law by submitting to the will of a forum of (supposedly) very cool experts: humans. Even the worst of laws with judges is better than the best of judges without laws, if only because the former, at least, will always resolve in the same way, while the latter, who knows how they will end up resolving the day they let themselves be carried away by their rages… ➡️➡️➡️ Conflicts with a decentralised and autonomous dimension that are resolved by autonomous and decentralised laws which, as such, provide for decentralisation and autonomy This, and no other, is the end of the road if the product of phases 1 and 2 is to survive in the long term. A law, the (i) which, as a code inserted in the blockchain, contains rules that are intrinsically decentralised in their conception, whose application generates equally decentralised outputs; and (ii) which, as a self-executing code, is applied whether or not its addressees inside and outside the chain want it to be applied, thus endowing the system with , making the system autonomous with respect to the world of flesh and blood, freeing it from both the rule of law and the law of men. Autonomous Law autonomycity (In)conclusion ➡️ The MetaLeX project is ambitious and exciting. But we shall see whether it remains a wet dream, because even its successful implementation is not enough to make it a successful project. If it is based on the creation of an , then to the creation must be added the , if not generalised, then relevant, at least at the sectoral level, of the Autonomous Law created. Autonomous Law adoption Let us explain. The birth of a Legal System is the result of a pact. But not just any pact. It is a pact for at least two reasons. sui generis It is —first reason— because it is a founding pact and, as such, a ; a pact that subjugates —or so it intends— all the other pacts that exist or will exist, just as the contained, and therefore subjugated —and that one really subjugated…— the . Such a pact is called "constituent" (it is, moreover, the first constitutional pact which can later be modified by other constitutional pacts but which are no longer constituent), and what has been agreed is called "Constitution" or "Magna Carta". sui generis pact of pacts One Ring Rings of Power And that Constitution has the vocation of , which is an exception (and a very big one) to the principle of relativity of contracts, a principle whereby —thank God— agreements only have effects between their parties —and for this reason it is also , second reason. having effects vis-à-vis third parties sui generis Of course, the contracting parties are supposed to act on the mandate (representative at least, imperative as a desideratum) of these third parties. They could not otherwise be bound by this agreement, nor by any other. So by representation (imperative or not) the third parties assume the Constitution just as a third party can assume a contract (it is the figure of the assumption of a contract by a third party). However, for the to work, it is necessary, not only that the greatest number of third parties of the target community assume it, but that all third parties of that community assume it, that the community (be it group, tribe, team, club, society…) assume it as a community. And it is often much more problematic to implement this statement: constituent thing for every Si subject of the community {Si}, Si assumes the covenant, than this other: for a majority of Si subjects of the community {Yes}, Si assumes the pact. Why? Because the world doesn't need to be full of to fuck up the invention; it's enough that there is one for that, to fuck it up. And the fact is that the word “all” beyond rhetoric and poetics becomes a word as problematic as it is problematic —speaking — to prove that . free riders à la Hempel ”all ravens are black” Following the brilliant Searle —later terribly reviled— we can say that: A proposition counts as a rule if it is accepted that this proposition is a rule. This sounds like a truism, but it is not. If I say to you: (Ⲁ) "To get into my house you have to take off your shoes", that proposition will only be a rule if you, as well as I, accept it as a rule. For of a proposition that pretends to be a rule and is not followed by anyone we do not know whether it can be predicated to be a rule —Wittgenstein may have gone half-mad over something like that. And this will be the case of the autDAO after the end of phase 2: they will be entities of the world governed by rules that will be accepted ad intra. But their ad extra acceptance will require an exogenous-dependent plus. And we continue with Searle : 3 "rules of the form are then constitutive of institutional structures”. X counts as Y in C Which we can rewrite as follows: When a proposition counts as a rule in a community, the rule is institutionalised and we can predicate it to be a law that community. for Which, following our example of my house and your shoes, would mean that the proposition (Ⲁ) would not require your acceptance to be a rule if it is the case that in the neighbourhood in which you and I live it has already been accepted as a rule: it is a neighbourhood law —so to speak. All of which, translated to the matter at hand, means that: For the autDAO rules to count as in the blockchain community, it is necessary for the community to consider them as such. Autonomous Law This conclusion is quite hopeless for MetaLeX as the blockchain community is a network of networks made up of tens or hundreds of thousands of communities (layer 1, 2… n; more with the protocols within each layer; more with the organisations within each protocol…). But in the same hopelessness we can find a glimmer of hope, like : Blochian red heroes It is a matter of implementing the community by community blockchain until a relevant group of them accepts it as a supracommunity, (just as the neighbours in your neighbourhood and mine have been accepting house by house and case by case that all houses are entered barefoot). Autonomous Law Or so we see it in ! #másqueley Also published . here

The MetaLeX Whitepaper

The Future of Education and AI: Beyond Traditional Degrees with Marc Andreessen & Ben Horowitz

শিক্ষার ভবিষ্যত এবং এআই: মার্ক অ্যান্ড্রেসেন এবং বেন হোরোভিটজের সাথে ঐতিহ্যগত ডিগ্রির বাইরে

Die Zukunft von Bildung und KI: Jenseits traditioneller Abschlüsse mit Marc Andreessen und Ben Horowitz

El futuro de la educación y la IA: más allá de las titulaciones tradicionales con Marc Andreessen y Ben Horowitz

L'avenir de l'éducation et de l'IA : au-delà des diplômes traditionnels avec Marc Andreessen et Ben Horowitz

शिक्षा और एआई का भविष्य: मार्क आंद्रेसेन और बेन होरोविट्ज़ के साथ पारंपरिक डिग्री से परे

教育と AI の未来: マーク・アンドリーセンとベン・ホロウィッツによる従来の学位を超えて

교육과 AI의 미래: Marc Andreessen 및 Ben Horowitz와 함께하는 전통적인 학위를 넘어서

O futuro da educação e da IA: além dos diplomas tradicionais com Marc Andreessen e Ben Horowitz

Будущее образования и искусственного интеллекта: за пределами традиционных степеней с Марком Андриссеном и Беном Горовицем

Eğitimin ve Yapay Zekanın Geleceği: Marc Andreessen ve Ben Horowitz ile Geleneksel Derecelerin Ötesinde

Tương lai của Giáo dục và AI: Vượt xa các bằng cấp truyền thống với Marc Andreessen & Ben Horowitz

教育和人工智能的未来：马克·安德森 (Marc Andreessen) 和本·霍洛维茨 (Ben Horowitz) 的超越传统学位

The United States v Meta Platforms Court Filing October 24, 2023 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 91 of 100. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here COUNT XLVI: VIOLATIONS OF OREGON’S UTPA, O.R.S. § 646.608(1)(t) 1116. The State of Oregon, ex rel. Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General, incorporates and realleges each of the paragraphs 1 through 850 and Counts XLIV and XLV as if fully set forth herein. 1117. Meta, acting in the course of its businesses, vocations, or occupations, violated O.R.S. § 646.608(1)(t) when Meta failed to disclose concurrent with tender or delivery of Meta’s Social Media Platforms known material defects and material nonconformities resulting in young users’ compulsive and unhealthy use of and addiction to Meta’s Social Media Platforms. 1118. Meta’s violations of the UTPA set forth herein were willful because Meta knew or should have known that its conduct violated the UTPA. 1119. Pursuant to O.R.S. §§ 646.632, 646.636, and 646.642, the State of Oregon seeks a permanent injunction against Meta; restitution for consumers; civil penalties up to $25,000 per willful violation; and costs, reasonable expenses, and attorneys’ fees. 1120. Meta and each Defendant was served with a notice in writing that identified the alleged unlawful conduct and the relief the State would seek. Neither Meta nor any Defendant executed and delivered a satisfactory assurance of voluntary compliance as provided in O.R.S. § 646.632(2). Continue Reading . Here About HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. This court case 4:23-cv-05448 retrieved on October 25, 2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. Washingtonpost.com

Oregon Pursues Legal Action Against Meta Over Alleged UTPA Violations

194 Stories To Learn About Future Of Work

Stories, News & Mentions about VOCATIO

Vocatio’s Stories on HackerNoon