#AI Governance Market trade

[beardedmrbean]

A comedian was escorted away from former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi after he posed as a Democrat and heckled her over her stock trading, calling her “the greatest options trader of all time” and asking for tips on which shares he should buy.

Alex Strenger, a conservative comedian, approached Pelosi as she was signing copies of her new book “The Art of Power” at the Texas Tribune Festival in Austin on Saturday — a clip of which was posted on the X social media platform on Sunday.

Strenger, who is seen wearing a COVID mask and a Bernie Sanders baseball cap, approached the table where Pelosi was sitting and identified himself as “Noah,” according to the news site Mediaite.

“I’m a UTA candidate. I was listening. I wasn’t able to get a book, sold out, but I want to say how much I appreciate your, like, fierce, staunch defending of democracy,” Strenger told Pelosi, adding that it “really means so, so much, you know?”

Strenger then told Pelosi about how he was “really scared about…Donald Trump winning the election.”

“And honestly, with all the disinformation on X, like, you know, I honestly, the only chance, like, that we have is for Donald Trump to spend the rest of his life in prison,” Strenger said.

He added that imprisoning Trump was “the only hope for democracy,” adding: “We just have to win the election.”

Pelosi agreed, replying: “We do.”

Strenger then asked Pelosi: “What stocks should I buy?”

“Nancy, you’re the greatest options trader of all time,” the comedian added.

“I just want to know what stocks I should buy. What I just want to know, like, what’s your biggest concern?”

As security guards stepped in to prepare to escort Strenger away from the former House speaker, he said: “The police are an instrumental institution of white supremacy and racism. I don’t understand why they are even here at all. They should be defunded.”

Strenger then said that Pelosi “makes six figures a year in Congress and has a hundred million dollar net worth.”

“Don’t y’all want to know what stocks she should buy? Come on. I just want to know,” he said as security began escorting him away.

“I just want to know what stocks to buy. I want to close the wealth gap. What’s the problem? I just want to close the wealth gap.”

Pelosi, the Democratic congresswoman who represents San Francisco, is married to Paul Pelosi, the founder of a real estate and venture capitalist firm.

Paul Pelosi’s stock trading activity has raised eyebrows given the fact that his wife’s position as one of the most powerful legislators in the country gives her access to information that may influence market decision.

In June 2021, Paul Pelosi exercised call options in Microsoft just before the company was awarded a lucrative defense contract from the US government.

The next year, Paul Pelosi purchased shares of AI chipmaker Nvidia just as Congress was set to vote on the CHIPS Act, which provided significant government subsidies to the semiconductor industry.

The Pelosis’ stock portfolio includes shares in blue-chip tech firms such as Apple, Amazon, Meta, Tesla and Alphabet.

Last year alone, Pelosi’s stock options gained more than 65%, according to an analysis.

Nancy Pelosi initially opposed proposals that lawmakers and their spouses be banned from trading stocks — insisting that her husband makes stock trades independently and that she has no involvement.

The Post has sought comment from Nancy and Paul Pelosi.

[uboat53]

Well, this week we had a lower jobs report than anticipated and the stock market tumbled. These things might seem related, but also, they might not be. If you're interested in a possible explanation for why the stock market tumble is unrelated to the actual economy, I've got a great story for you.

So let's talk about something called a "carry trade". In its basic form it's really simple, you borrow money in one place where interest rates are low and you use that money to buy an asset in a place where returns are high. Eventually, you pull your money out of the high return place and pay back the original money, pocketing the difference. If you can pull it off, it's a nice way to make a tidy profit.

However, because this isn't money you actually had, it's money you borrowed, you're taking the risk that your high return might not happen or that interest rates may rise in the place you borrowed from.

That's what happened just this week. You see, for years, big financial firms have been borrowing money in Japan, where interest rates are near zero, and investing them in things like tech stocks, US government bonds, and the Mexican peso which all have generated high rates of return. In the last week, three things have happened: (1) the Bank of Japan raised interest rates making it more expensive to borrow there, (2) tech stocks have declined on the news that gasp AI may not be profitable, and (3) the return on US government bonds declined as the Federal Reserve signalled interest rate cuts in the near future.

All of this means that the expected margin on this particular trick has gone down a lot. This means that lenders are getting nervous about the borrowers being able to repay their money and they've started issuing what are called "margin calls". In other words, they're demanding that the borrowers put up more collateral for their loans. In order to get that collateral, they're selling other assets like stocks which, you may be surprised to hear, will make the value of those stocks go down.

The amount of money involved in this is pretty huge because it's been extraordinarily successful for a long time, apparently the yen-peso trade alone has had a better return than the S&P 500 for this entire century so far. When that kind of money suddenly shifts, it can move the market and we're definitely seeing some of that now.

Now, is it possible that some of the movement is due to the jobs report? Sure, of course it is. But it's also likely that a huge amount of the shift is due to more financial shenanigans and reflects nothing about the broader economy.

If you're interested in what sparked this idea, here you go.

[mariacallous]

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) enforces the nation’s antitrust and consumer protection laws. We focus primarily on domestic markets and the U.S. economy. Through this work, we get a ground-level view of how markets are structured in America—and of how the extent of competition or consolidation drives outcomes that affect us all.

Like many across government, the FTC is watching closely as the release of sophisticated AI tools creates both opportunities and risks. Our work is already tackling the day-to-day harms these tools can turbocharge, from voice-cloning scams to commercial surveillance.

But beyond these immediate challenges, we face a more fundamental question of power and governance. Will this be a moment of opening up markets to free and fair competition, unleashing the full potential of emerging technologies? Or will a handful of dominant firms concentrate control over key tools, locking us into a future of their choosing?

The stakes of how we answer this question are enormously high. Technological breakthroughs can disrupt markets, spur economic growth, and change the nature of war and geopolitics. Whether we opt for a national policy of consolidation or of competition will have huge consequences for decades to come.

As in prior moments of contestation, we are starting to hear the argument that America must protect its domestic monopolies to ensure we stay ahead on the global stage. Rather than double down on promoting free and fair competition, this “national champions” argument holds that coddling our dominant firms is the path to maintaining global dominance.

We should be extraordinarily skeptical of this argument and instead recognize that monopoly power in America today is a major threat to America’s national interests and global leadership. History and experience show that lumbering monopolies mired in red tape and bureaucratic inertia cannot deliver the breakthrough technological advancements that hungry start-ups tend to create. It is precisely these breakthroughs that have allowed America to harness cutting-edge technologies and have made our economy the envy of the world. To stay ahead globally, we don’t need to protect our monopolies from innovation—we need to protect innovation from our monopolies. And one of the clearest illustrations of how consolidation threatens our national interests is the risk monopolization poses to our common defense.

In 2021, an errant spark in an explosives factory in Louisiana destroyed the only plant in the United States that makes black powder, a highly combustible product that is used to make mortar shells, artillery rounds, and Tomahawk missiles. There is no substitute for black powder, and it has hundreds of military applications. So when that factory blew up, and we didn’t have any backup plants, it destroyed the only black powder production in all of North America. There’s a simple lesson here: Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.

This is but one of many examples of how consolidation threatens our national interests. We know that monopolies and consolidated markets can result in higher prices and lower output. But monopolies also foster systemic vulnerabilities, since concentrating production also concentrates risk. Someone could probably argue it was more efficient to put all black powder production in one plant in Louisiana. And maybe it was—until it wasn’t.

Defense officials now identify the problem of monopoly in our country as a strategic weakness. The Pentagon has been warning about vulnerabilities in our national security supply chain for years. One top official recently noted that our increased reliance on a small number of contractors for critical capabilities impacts our ability to ramp up production.

One early victory in my tenure as FTC chair was blocking the proposed merger between Lockheed and Aerojet. Aerojet is the last independent U.S. supplier of key missile inputs, and our investigation showed that the deal would have allowed Lockheed to cut off rivals’ access to this key input and jack up the price that our government, and ultimately the public, has to pay. It was the first time in decades that our government sued to halt consolidation in the defense industrial base.

It’s not just our defense industrial base where we have a problem. The pandemic exposed fragilities across our supply chains, with shortages in everything from semiconductors to personal protective equipment. And it’s not just a once-in-a-century pandemic. Even more routine disruptions like plant contaminations or hurricanes have revealed how, in a concentrated system, a single shock can have cascading effects, yielding shortages in products ranging from baby formula to IV bags.

Consolidation causes problems beyond supply chains. For years, successive administrations have sought to strengthen our cybersecurity defenses against a catastrophic attack. A few weeks ago, one of the main medical benefit claims networks in America, Change Healthcare, was taken down for weeks due to a cyberattack, depriving hospitals and medical providers of the ability to bill for their services—and wreaking havoc across our health care system. That network is owned by UnitedHealth Group, which was allowed to buy Change despite a Department of Justice lawsuit seeking to block the deal. Quite simply, we have a resiliency problem in America. Consolidation and monopolization have left us more vulnerable and less resilient in the face of shocks.

But what about AI and the innovation economy? Black powder and baby formula shortages are one thing, but the corporations that run big data centers and large language models are highly technical operations, with tens of billions of dollars of capital to deploy, trillions in market capitalization, and some of the most highly skilled professionals.

Again, we should be guided by history. In the 1970s, Walter Wriston, the CEO of Citibank and a key leader on Wall Street, asked why antitrust enforcers were filing suits against high-tech American darlings like IBM and AT&T: “What is the public good of knocking IBM off?” he said. “The conclusion to all this nonsense is that people cry, ‘Let’s break up the Yankees—because they are so successful.’” By contrast, Europe and Japan were protecting their national champions to win in the international arena.

We chose to promote competition, and that choice to bring antitrust lawsuits against IBM and AT&T ended up fostering waves of innovation—including the personal computer, the telecommunications revolution, and the logic chip. The national champions protected by Japan and Europe, meanwhile, fell behind and are long forgotten. In the United States, we bet on competition, and that made all the difference.

Imagine a different world, where today’s giants never had a chance to get their start and innovate, because policymakers decided that it was more important to protect IBM and AT&T from competition and allowed them to maintain their monopolies. Even when monopolies do innovate, they will often prioritize protecting their existing market position. Famously, an engineer at Kodak invented the first portable digital camera in the ’70s—but Kodak didn’t rush it to market in part because it didn’t want to cannibalize its existing sales. More generally, significant research shows that while monopolies may help deliver marginal innovations, breakthrough and paradigm-shifting innovations have historically come from disruptive outsiders. It is our commitment to free and fair competition that has allowed America to harness the talents of its citizens, reap breakthrough innovations, and lead as an economic powerhouse. But what about those times when we have accepted the national champions argument? One prominent example serves as a cautionary tale.

In the 1990s, a White House advisor noted that there was one very high-tech firm that was “de facto national champion,” so important that “you can be an out-and-out advocate for it” in government. And we did support it, provide it with government contracts, and allow it to consolidate the industry. That national champion was Boeing, whose trajectory illustrates why this strategy can be catastrophic.

In 1997, Boeing became the only commercial aerospace maker in the United States. It came to enjoy this status after buying up McDonnell Douglas, the only other domestic producer of commercial airplanes—a merger reviewed by the FTC. Boeing is the clearest example of a purposeful decision to bet on national champions on behalf of American interests. Policymakers wanted a national champion, and they got it.

Three things happened after Boeing eliminated its domestic competition. First, according to commenters such as United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby, the merger allowed Boeing to slow innovation and to reduce product quality. Boeing’s R&D budget is consistently lower than that of its only rival, Airbus. Worse quality is one of the harms that most economists expect from monopolization, because firms that face little competition have limited incentive to improve their products.

Second, reporting suggests that Boeing executives began to view their knowledgeable workforce as a cost, not an asset, with tragic outcomes. As one consultant put it in 2000, “Boeing has always been less a business than an association of engineers devoted to building amazing flying machines.” This corporation’s engineers designed the B-52 in a single weekend. But the new post-merger Boeing decimated its workforce, offshored production, and demanded wage concessions.

Third is the risk that Boeing effectively became too big to fail and a point of leverage for countries seeking to influence U.S. policymaking.

Relying on a national champion creates supply chain weaknesses and taxpayer liabilities, but it also creates geopolitical vulnerabilities that can be exploited both by global partners and rivals. As it was buying McDonnell Douglas, Boeing held a board meeting in Beijing and lobbied Congress to end the annual review of China’s trading rights so that it could sell more planes. The Chinese government would order Boeing planes contingent upon certain U.S. policies, like whether the U.S. held off on sending warships into the Strait of Taiwan, or whether the U.S. lifted bans on the export of certain technologies.

National champions are still corporations first. They have earnings calls, shareholders, and quarterly profit targets. When policymakers in Washington decide to back a single monopoly, their objectives are but one concern among many for that corporation’s senior executives. As then-Exxon CEO Lee Raymond said, “I’m not a U.S. company and I don’t make decisions based on what’s good for the U.S.”

These days, the national champions argument often gets made in the context of our dominant tech firms. We often hear that pursuing antitrust cases against or regulating these firms will weaken American innovation and cede the global stage to China. These conversations often assume a Cold War-like arms race, with each country’s firms in a zero-sum quest for dominance.

The reality today is that some of these same tech firms are fairly integrated in China and are seeking greater access to the Chinese market. While there is nothing intrinsically improper about these ties, we should be clear-eyed about how they shape business incentives. Various incidents in recent years have highlighted how when U.S. corporations are economically dependent on China, it can spur them to act in ways that are contrary to our national interests.

Even if America’s dominant firms are not prioritizing America’s national interests, what should we make of the idea that they can keep America in the lead, if only they are left alone? This, too, is an argument we should treat with great skepticism.

We need to choose competition over national champions, and there are steps we are taking to put that into practice.

In 2021, the FTC sued to block Nvidia’s $40 billion acquisition of Arm, what would have been the largest semiconductor chip merger in history. Our investigation found that the merger would’ve allowed a major chip provider to control key computing technologies that rival firms depend on to develop their own competing chips. Our lawsuit alleged the deal would have risked stifling the innovation pipeline for next-generation technologies, affecting everything from data centers to self-driving cars. Two years on, Nvidia has continued to provide innovative products at a lower cost than we estimated they would have charged businesses after completing the acquisition of Arm. Arm itself is thriving, with its stock price doubling since it went public last year.

This is but the latest example of antitrust laws in action. The FTC was created in part to protect the innovative boons of open markets by ensuring that market outcomes—who wins and who loses—are determined by fair competition rather than by private gatekeepers. Protecting open and competitive markets means that the best ideas win. It means that businesses get ahead by competing on the merits of their skill, not by exploiting special privileges or bowing down to incumbent monopolists.

One final argument against protecting monopolies over competition is that it can leave our democracy more brittle.

Over the last couple of years, I’ve had the chance to hear from thousands of people across America—from nurses, farmers, and grocery store workers to tech founders, hotel franchisees, and writers in Hollywood. A recurring theme across their stories is a sense of fear, anxiety, and powerlessness. People from strikingly different walks of life have shared accounts of how markets monopolized by dominant middlemen enable coercive tactics—of how they feel their ability to make a decent living or thrive in their craft is, too often, not a function of their talents or diligence but instead is dictated by the arbitrary whims of distant giants.

A basic tenet of the American experiment is that real liberty means freedom from economic coercion and from the arbitrary, unaccountable power that comes with economic domination. Our antitrust laws were passed as a way to safeguard against undue concentration of power in our economic sphere, just as the Constitution creates checks and balances to safeguard against concentrated power in our political sphere.

Recommitting to robust antitrust enforcement and competition policy is good for America because it will make us safer, our technologies more innovative, and our economy more prosperous—but also because it is essential for safeguarding real opportunity for Americans and for ensuring that people in their day-to-day dealings experience liberty rather than coercion. When people believe that government has stopped fighting on their behalf, it can become a strategic weakness that outsiders are only too happy to exploit.

Thankfully, over the last few years we have seen significant progress across government in ensuring that we are centering everyday Americans in our policy decisions. From trade to industrial policy to competition, this administration has learned from past experiences and adopted new paradigms. A common throughline across these approaches is a commitment to revisiting old assumptions and updating our thinking in light of real-life experience and evidence.

Fighting back against the challenges we face is about more than enforcing the antitrust laws. But by promoting fair competition, by showing the American people that we will fight for their right to enjoy free, meaningful lives outside the grip of monopolists, we can help rebuild not just people’s confidence in the economy, but also a belief in American government, and its leadership both at home and abroad.

[reyaint]

economy of HAIQIN

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

date: november 24, 2024

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Economy of Haiqin

Currency

Haiqian (HQN):

The currency symbol, HQN, is recognized regionally for stability and is commonly pegged against the USD. With a favorable exchange rate of 1 HQN to 0.75 USD, the Haiqian serves as a benchmark for economic health in neighboring countries.

Digital Currency:

As a forward-thinking nation, Haiqin has integrated digital currency into daily life. Roughly 80% of transactions are conducted digitally, promoting a cashless economy and streamlining payment methods for both domestic and international trade.

Banking & Financial Inclusion:

A highly developed banking sector offers easy access to financial services through mobile banking, particularly aiding small businesses. Public investment in financial education is substantial, aimed at improving fiscal literacy among citizens.

Trade Relations

Exports

Agricultural Products:

Due to fertile land and a favorable climate, Haiqin exports high-quality agricultural products, particularly fruits, vegetables, and grains during Iktoia. Specialty items, such as exotic herbs and teas unique to Haiqin, have a growing global market. These products are particularly sought after during harvest seasons, aligning with major festivals like Iktoia.

Artisanal Crafts:

Renowned for handmade textiles, clothes, pottery, and jewelry, the craftsmanship of Haiqin is a cornerstone of cultural exports, with a significant sales boost during the Festival of Arts. 

Technology:

Leading the way in green energy, Haiqin exports solar panels, software, and sustainable tech solutions to several nations.

Imports

Raw Materials:

Haiqin imports metals, oil, and minerals essential to its manufacturing sectors.

Luxury Goods:

High-end fashion, imported automobiles, and gourmet foods are popular among the elite, highlighting Haiqin’s demand for imported luxury.

Wealth Distribution

Income Disparities:

While Haiqin as a whole is wealthy, income inequality is evident, with urban centers like Stellis holding the majority of economic wealth, while more rural areas face economic challenges. The wealthy class largely consists of business magnates, tech industry leaders, and high-ranking government officials.

Middle-Class Growth:

Urban centers, particularly Stellis, have seen a rise in middle-class citizens, contributing to consumer spending and economic diversification.

Regional Disparities:

While urban areas enjoy greater access to services and infrastructure, rural areas have fewer economic opportunities, relying heavily on agriculture and artisanal crafts.

--scripted out poverty <333

Taxes & Tithes

Income Tax:

A progressive income tax scales from 10% to 35%, ensuring that higher earners contribute more significantly. Revenues from taxes fund public services, healthcare, and social programs.

Property Tax:

Property taxes are assessed based on land value and are used to fund local infrastructure projects. 

Trade Taxes & Tariffs:

Sales taxes on goods and services, coupled with protective tariffs, help sustain local industries, particularly in agriculture and manufacturing. A national sales tax applies to consumer goods and services, with specific tariffs on imports to protect Haiqin’s domestic industries.

Corporate Tax Incentives:

To encourage growth in key sectors, the government offers tax breaks and incentives to companies in tech and renewable energy fields, helping drive innovation and economic diversification.

Major Industries

Technology:

The tech sector is a powerhouse, with a focus on sustainable solutions, AI, and renewable energy technology. Haiqin has invested heavily in research and development, becoming known for cutting-edge advancements that are exported worldwide.

Agriculture:

Haiqin’s agriculture not only supplies its people with fresh produce but also generates export income. Farming is closely tied to cultural festivals like Iktoia, with agriculture supported by governmental subsidies and modernized techniques.

Tourism:

Festivals and natural beauty attract a steady influx of tourists, making tourism a primary economic driver. Events such as the Iktoia harvest festival, Nera Day, and Lunar Fest draw visitors year-round. The government promotes eco-tourism, highlighting Haiqin’s forests, mountains, and coastal regions.

Employment & Labor

Diverse Job Market:

The Haiqin labor market is diverse, with jobs spanning agriculture, technology, tourism, and manufacturing. The tech sector alone has led to a surge in jobs, while seasonal agricultural work remains important for rural populations.

Labor Laws & Unions:

Labor unions are active and influential, protecting fair wages and working conditions. Seasonal labor opportunities peak during harvest and festival seasons, with temporary roles often filled by students and short-term workers.

Social Safety Nets:

Haiqin’s social safety nets include universal healthcare, unemployment benefits, and retirement funds. The government aims to prevent poverty, supporting citizens in need with housing assistance, job retraining, and social programs for the elderly and disabled.

Sustainability Initiatives

Green Policies:

With eco-friendly initiatives spanning multiple sectors, Haiqin leads in sustainable agriculture, renewable energy, and waste reduction programs.

Circular Economy:

Recycling and resource-efficient production are emphasized. Industries are incentivized to minimize waste, with taxes on high-pollution businesses encouraging green alternatives.

Environmental Partnerships:

Collaboration with environmental organizations has facilitated eco-tourism and green business practices, creating jobs focused on conservation and sustainable development.

Infrastructure and Transportation

Transportation Networks: Haiqin boasts a modernized transportation system, with high-speed railways connecting major cities, public electric buses, and bike-sharing programs in urban areas. The government has invested heavily in infrastructure to reduce congestion and support eco-friendly transport.

Energy Sector: Haiqin generates most of its energy from renewable sources, including solar, wind, and hydroelectric power. Its commitment to reducing carbon emissions has led to advanced green energy technologies, some of which are exported.

[bopinion]

2024 / 46

Aperçu of the week

„F-e-a-r has two meanings: Forget everything and run. Or Face everything and rise."

(Thomas Wirth on his transportable mega artwork "Global Gate", which is currently on display at the Zollverein UNESCO World Heritage Site in Essen, North Rhine-Westphalia)

Bad News of the Week

"The Sick Man of Europe" was the headline of the British business magazine 'The Economist' in 1999, describing the toxic mixture of the burdens of reunification, a rigid labor market, excessive social benefits and a lack of dynamism that weighed Germany down at the time. 25 years later, it's that time again. Because Europe's largest economy is sick again. And this time even more fundamentally. And with very bad timing.

Yes, there was the coronavirus shock. And yes, there were supply chain problems and inflation. But the fundamental problem is homemade: Germany has been asleep politically and economically. And must now be careful not to fall into a coma. Like Japan, Germany has always been an exporter of high-quality goods. And, like Japan, has been too slow and inadequate in adapting to a new global economy. The shift of the dominant nations, the USA and China, has made it a very different one today than it was ten years ago.

Thanks to its huge market, China has been able to force foreign companies to settle locally and enter into partnerships. Originally "the world's extended workbench", China was able to benefit from an enormous transfer of technological knowledge in a short space of time. And thus became a quality supplier itself. As a result, China now covers more of its own production needs and has also become a serious competitor on the global market. Both bad for exporting nations.

The USA, on the other hand, has once again placed itself at the forefront of technological development (connectivity, digital, AI, etc.) and at the same time has brought industrial production back into the country through an increasingly isolationist trade policy. The restrictions imposed by Donald Trump in his first term of office were not (!) reversed by Joe Biden's government. And Trump has unequivocally announced that he will continue to tighten the America First screw - his declared favorite word is "import tariffs". Both bad for exporting nations.

The German flagship industry, automotive manufacturing, is symptomatic of the general economic trend. After decades of success stories and technological and brand leadership, we were crushed by electromobility. Which we underestimated in many respects. For example, the fact that it considerably simplifies vehicle construction - which brings us back to the competitive pressure from the USA and China. Now the share prices of our former industrial jewels are plummeting, short-time work is being introduced everywhere and now there is even talk of entire plant closures: Volkswagen - not long ago worlds biggest manufacturer - alone wants to close three German factories.

The political magazine Cicero analyzes: "The location conditions in Germany are getting worse and worse. In particular, the excessive bureaucracy, the tax burden and the high energy prices are having a negative impact. If politicians fail to find solutions here, things will look bad for the industrial future." Rising unemployment will increase social spending. At the same time, labor costs will continue to rise due to inflation. And the infrastructure, which has been neglected for 20 years, should be urgently and expensively modernized. Not to mention the necessary climate-neutral restructuring of the economy. I find it difficult to be optimistic about our economic future right now...

Good News of the Week

Lately, Ukraine has had to accept rather bad news from the USA. Donald Trump himself and his entourage have confirmed more than once that the extensive military aid from the USA will certainly not continue in full. This means that half of the arms deliveries are at risk and full compensation from other countries - Germany is a distant second - is practically impossible.

But now there has probably been a kind of farewell gift from Joe Biden, which could possibly even be a game changer. It concerns long-range weapons systems and their use on Russian territory. Until now, this was formally prohibited, as Ukraine's partner countries wanted to avoid the escalation of being seen as a party of war themselves. Specifically, this means that the US ATACMS missiles with their range of 300 kilometers can also be deployed behind the Russian border.

This is a decisive strategic advantage that replaces a previous disadvantage. Until now, the aggressor's supply routes, weapons depots, military bases, etc. have been practically unassailable. The outcry on the Russian side is correspondingly great. The "first deputy chairman of the International Affairs Committee of the Russian Federation Council" (yeah, that's his title) Vladimir Jabarov even speaks of an "unprecedented step of escalation that could lead to the start of the Third World War".

Ukraine's NATO neighbor Poland, for example, sounds different. Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski wrote on Twitter that Biden had responded to the deployment of North Korean troops to Russia and the massive Russian missile attacks on Ukraine "in a language that Vladimir Putin understands". Let's hope so. And let's also hope that Germany, for example, allows the use of its Taurus cruise missiles, which experts see as ideal for Ukrainian defense purposes. The current Chancellor Olaf Scholz has always refused to do so. By contrast, the likely incoming chancellor (in the early elections at the end of February 2025), conservative opposition leader Friedrich Merz, is in favor. As far as I know, this is the only position where I am leaning more towards Merz than Scholz. So at least there's something good in this respect too...

Personal happy moment of the week

I've really thought about it. But I'm so stressed at the moment that happiness just doesn't get enough attention. But I did remember one thing: we got our winter tires fitted just in time before the first snow. You get modest in age... ;-)

I couldn't care less...

...that it is always possible to use legal sophistry to overturn a groundbreaking court ruling. In this case, and once again at the expense of the environment. The British-Dutch oil and natural gas giant Shell does not have to drastically reduce its CO2 emissions after all. This is because a civil court in The Hague overturned a corresponding climate ruling by the court of first instance and dismissed the lawsuit brought by environmentalists. The latter had originally demanded that the company reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by a net 45 percent by 2030. However, the appeal chamber found that this figure lacked a "reliable basis for calculation". Excuse me? So now - exactly: nothing is happening.

It's fine with me...

...that fat doesn't always have to be bad. It's actually considered fattening. And extremely unhealthy, especially belly fat, which not only looks shitty (I've been developing alarmingly for ten years now), but can also damage the organs. However, a study by the Charité hospital in Berlin and the German Institute of Human Nutrition (DIfE) in Potsdam has now shown that a diet containing polyunsaturated fatty acids - such as those found in oils, nuts, avocado or fish - not only melts belly fat, but also has a positive effect on cholesterol levels, blood pressure and the brain. That should give me pause for thought.

As I write this...

...EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen is putting together her new Commission. Each country has the right to one post - with 27 countries in the European Union, this is quite a large governing body. Its members are appointed by the respective country. So in the case of Italy, for example, Raffaele Fitto from the right-wing Fratelli d'Italia is actually an imposition - but in the shadow of Viktor Orban, everyone seems harmless. Nevertheless, von der Leyen seems to have managed to find a balanced personnel tableau. This is also necessary, as this Commission can only be confirmed as a whole by the European Parliament. Or not.

Post Scriptum

Apparently, New Zealand is not a perfect world either. At least not for the original population, because ruthless colonialism was also practiced there. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has publicly apologized in parliament for the immense suffering that occurred according to an investigation by the Royal Commission of Inquiry. Around 200,000 mainly young people and mainly indigenous Maori experienced violence in New Zealand's state and religious institutions between 1950 and 1999. In view of a population of just 5 million, this is a huge number. This means that almost one in three people under protection suffered some form of abuse. We're talking about rape, electric shocks and sterilization, among other things. Whew, that's hard to take. I could cry over their wounded souls.

[financeattips]

Future Digital Assets: An Exploration of the Crypto Trends

The cryptocurrency world is constantly changing with significant improvements, regulatory changes and market movements prompting companies to either adopt or expand their existing business models. So, what are the trends that will define digital assets in the future?

Now: Rising adoption of digital currencies by the mainstream financial institutions as well as businesses marks the crypto market in 2024. While original cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum are still leading, new entrants come in with novel features.

AI & Cryptocurrency Trading: AI Advances in cryptocurrency trading with machine learning algorithms that can analyze the data, predict market movements, and execute trades accurately. This makes trade execution more efficient and reduces human error.

On Blockchain innovations — recent changes in the Engineering discipline of blockchains such as, sharding or layer-2 solutions that improve scalability, security, and interoperability are helping make blockchain more reliable and flexible.

Investment Strategies in Digital Assets: You need to become familiar with various investment strategies available in Crypto market which includes the trends of the market, risk management and a proper diversification. Keeping an eye on those Bitcoin price predictions and Ethereum 2.0 updates are key to making decisions.

Regulation: “Governments and regulators around the world pay more attention to cryptocurrencies”. With the regulatory environment changing quickly, it is important to appreciate both compliance and growth possibilities.

Decentralized Finance (DeFi) — By providing decentralized versions of every financial service, DeFi is replace them with trust-minimized and highly-resistant smart contracts to provide similar services. These amenities facilitate the direct lending, borrowing and trading of digital assets without intermediaries—thereby providing users with an increased degree of financial autonomy.

Market Trend and Forecast: A thorough market trend enables to grasp market dynamics, whilst making sure about the reported forecasts, get declared predictions. One of the few remaining concepts is the volatility of crypto markets affected by sentiment, regulatory news and technological advancements.

On the level of adoption, we are experiencing a gradual increase in use cases as more organizations now receive payments with this digital asset as well as their customers conducting transactions which are growing.

Blockchain and AI: Combining features of blockchain with the capabilities of AI -this collaboration maximizes data security, improves efficiency and facilitates smarter decision-making, which mean that it can support new generation paradigms in many different markets.

[eaglesnick]

“We are intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich” - Peter Mandelson

The other day I made the assertion that when the people of Britain voted for Keir Starmer, what they were really getting was Tony Blaire. To be fair this was partly tongue-in-cheek but having read the Kings Speech setting out the Labour Party's plans to change Britain it is closer to the truth than is comfortable.

The Tony Blaire Institute for Global Change has a paper entitled: The Economic Case for Reimagining the State that was published July 9th, 2024, just five days after the UK elections. Some of the wording in this report is almost identical to some of the wording in the Kings Speech.

Tony Blaire Institute:  “reforming the UK’s antiquated planning system is a high priority that could unlock much needed infrastructure investment and help un-gum the UK’s housing market.”

Kings Speech: “My Ministers will get Britain building, including through planning reform, as they seek to accelerate the delivery of high quality infrastructure and housing."

Tony Blaire: "Normalization of relations with the EU: A full reversal of these losses may be politically unattainable during this Parliament, but there is a path to a better post-Brexit relationship in the coming years"

Kings Speech: My Government will seek to reset the relationship with European partners and work to improve the United Kingdom's trade and investment relationship with the European Union

Tony Blaire: "The new government will need to lean in to support the diffusion of AI-era tech across the economy by adopting a pro-innovation, pro-technology stance, as advocated by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change.”

Kings Speech: "It will seek to establish the appropriate legislation to place requirements on those working to develop the most powerful artificial intelligence models.”

The Kings Speech is, by necessity, very brief and gives virtually no detail how the government’s aims are to be achieved. We will have to wait and see how much more of Keir Starmer’s vision for the future of Britain mirrors that of Tony Blaire. If Starmer is as closely aligned to Blaire as these comparisons suggest then public sector workers beware.

Blaire places great reliance on the introduction of artificial intelligence to ALL sectors of the economy, but  especially within the public sector. Once introduced Blaire predicts a productivity gain of “one-fifth workforce time”

 Public sector workers, having adopted the new AI and having increased productivity by 20% can then expect the sack.

“If the government chooses to bank these time savings and reduce the size of the workforce, this could result in annual net savings of £10 billion per year by the end of this Parliament and £34 billion per year by the end of the next – enough to pay for the entire defence budget.”

This is the true Blairite mindset. Nothing about sharing the productivity gains made by workers in the form of higher wages, nothing about the redistribution of wealth or tackling income inequality. In Blaire’s Case for Reimagining the State poverty is not mentioned once. Inequality gets one mention but only as a statistic relating to workers forced to use food banks. 

What Blaire and Starmer – like the Conservative Party - appear to have forgotten is that  public services are exactly that –  services.  Yes they need to be efficient and cost effective but NOT to the extent that the service element is lost. The rich can afford to buy service, ordinary working people have to rely upon government for basic services and over the last few years they have been badly let down.  Poor pay, increasing workloads, job insecurity and private sector creep have all contributed to bringing Britain’s public services to the verge of collapse. Let us all hope Starmer and Blaire don’t push them completely over the edge.

[xtruss]

Foreign Policy Priorities: Kamala Devi Harris’s Positions

— By Council on Foreign Relations

AI and Technology

Harris has played a leading role in developing U.S. policy toward artificial intelligence (AI). The Biden-Harris administration has framed supporting the U.S. technology sector as a matter of national security, even as it has sought to confront large tech companies for alleged unfair market practices.

Harris led the formulation of an executive order requiring companies to share with the government risks they are facing and outlining a framework for the safe use of AI that federal agencies can follow.

She reportedly suggested that leading AI firms agree to voluntary safety commitments, including a pledge to submit their most powerful models for government review; fifteen of them did so in 2023. She also led efforts to develop rules surrounding military use of AI that have been agreed to by more than fifty countries.

The Biden-Harris administration passed the CHIPS and Science Act in August 2022, directing more than $280 billion in funding toward domestic production of advanced technologies and the hardware that underpins their development, such as semiconductors.

The same year, the administration published an ���AI Bill of Rights” identifying five principles for the responsible deployment of the technology. Harris says U.S. policy toward AI should both stimulate innovation and protect against “profound harm.”

Harris represented the United States at the first international AI governance summit in London in 2023. The summit produced a joint declaration that seeks to ensure the technology is “human-centric, trustworthy, and responsible.” China has also signed the statement.

The Biden-Harris administration unveiled a new National Cybersecurity Strategy in 2023 that urges U.S. companies to take responsibility for ensuring that their systems cannot be hacked and suggests that they could be held legally liable for not protecting “digital infrastructure.” The strategy also called for expanding U.S. military authorization to preempt foreign cyberattacks.

The administration has asked Congress to create legislation strengthening antitrust enforcement that can be used against large technology firms. The Department of Justice has pursued antitrust cases against Apple, Amazon, Google, and other big tech firms.

The administration has cracked down on cryptocurrencies due to concerns over their utility in evading sanctions, laundering money, and financing terrorism. It has directed the Federal Reserve to explore developing a central bank digital currency (CBDC). Harris is reportedly seeking a “reset” with the crypto sector.

China

Harris says China is responsible for stealing intellectual property and distorting the global economy with unfairly subsidized exports. The Biden-Harris administration has argued that China’s growing influence and aggression in some areas are the leading national security threat to the United States.

Harris says she will ensure that “America, not China, wins the competition for the twenty-first century.” The Biden-Harris administration has placed stringent restrictions on exports of high-tech products to China that it deems critical to national security. It has pressed U.S. partners in the European Union and elsewhere to impose similar measures on Chinese tech.

She argues that the United States should “de-risk,” not decouple, from China, arguing that Washington lost the trade war that began under Trump. The administration has retained $360 billion worth of tariffs on China imposed by Trump and introduced a raft of its own.

These restrictions followed major legislation that subsidized domestic manufacturing of computer chips, electric vehicle parts, and other new technologies. Firms that produce such goods in China are not eligible for U.S. subsidies.

Harris says the Chinese-owned social media app TikTok poses national security concerns. In April 2024, Biden signed a bill that will ban TikTok from the United States if it is not sold by 2025; Harris has said a ban is not the administration’s intention.

In 2022, she said the United States would “continue to support Taiwan’s self-defense” in line with long-standing U.S. policy of “strategic ambiguity” toward the island that China claims as its own.

Her campaign says she helped lead administration efforts to ensure freedom of navigation through the South China Sea and sought closer ties with American allies in the Indo-Pacific, including Australia, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea. In April 2024, Harris hosted the first-ever trilateral summit between the United States, Japan, and the Philippines.

Harris met with Chinese President Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in 2022, urging him to “maintain open lines of communication to responsibly manage the competition between our countries.” Under the Biden-Harris administration, the United States and China agreed to pursue policies aimed at tripling global renewable energy capacity.

The Biden-Harris administration unveiled two programs aimed at building infrastructure in lower-income countries to counter China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

As a senator, Harris cosponsored legislation calling on several U.S. agencies to investigate China’s crackdown on the Uyghur ethnic group and the autonomy of Hong Kong.

Climate Change

Harris describes the climate crisis as an “existential threat.” She has supported many of Biden’s climate policies, including his decision to rejoin the Paris Agreement, and cast the tiebreaking vote in the Senate to pass the largest clean energy and climate investment bill in U.S. history.

Harris backed Biden’s decision to return the United States to the 2015 Paris Agreement, under which nearly two hundred countries agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to limit global temperature rise.

She cast the tiebreaking vote on the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the largest investment in climate-related policies in U.S. history. The bill budgets roughly $370 billion for emissions-reduction efforts, including tax credits and subsidies for clean energy projects. The IRA builds on the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), a $1.2 trillion law to upgrade U.S. infrastructure and spur the adoption of electric vehicles, among other measures.

As part of the IIJA, the Biden-Harris administration created the Civil Nuclear Credit Program to invest $6 billion in existing nuclear energy facilities. In March 2024, the administration announced it will lend $1.5 billion to Michigan to restart a shuttered nuclear plant, the nation’s first such recommissioning.

Harris launched a new partnership between the United States and Caribbean countries that seeks to strengthen energy security, critical infrastructure, and local economies in the region.

At the 2023 UN climate conference in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Harris announced a $3 billion pledge from the United States to the UN Green Climate Fund, the world’s largest fund dedicated to helping developing countries address climate change.

The Biden-Harris administration created the American Climate Corps, a jobs program that aims to train tens of thousands of young people in high-demand skills for careers in climate action and clean energy. The program is modeled after President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Civilian Conservation Corps.

The Biden-Harris administration has approved a range of new fossil fuel projects, including an $8 billion oil drilling project in northern Alaska. However, it also announced restrictions on new oil and gas leasing on 13 million acres (5.3 million hectares) of an Alaskan federal petroleum reserve. Under the administration, oil and gas production has continued to grow to historic highs, with the United States becoming the world’s largest crude oil producer.

As a 2020 presidential candidate, Harris put forth a $10 trillion plan that called for net-zero emissions by 2045 and a carbon-neutral electricity sector by 2030. She also pledged to end federal support for the fossil fuel industry and called for a carbon tax and a ban on fracking. Her 2024 campaign said she will not ban fracking.

As a senator in 2019, Harris was an early co-sponsor of the Green New Deal, a nonbinding congressional resolution that aimed to help the United States transition to 100 percent clean energy within a decade, and said she would eliminate the Senate filibuster to pass the deal if needed.

Defense and North Atlantic Terrorist Organization (NATO)

Harris has positioned herself as a strong supporter of multilateral cooperation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). She has emphasized the U.S. commitment to Ukraine and furthered U.S. space policy as chair of the White House National Space Council.

The Biden-Harris administration’s 2022 National Security Strategy [PDF] broadly maintained the Trump administration’s focus on great-power competition with China and Russia. Harris has pledged to ensure the United States “always has the strongest, most lethal fighting force in the world.”

At the Munich Security Conference in 2024, Harris reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to NATO, calling it the “greatest military alliance the world has ever known.” Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the Biden-Harris administration supported NATO enlargement by pushing for approval of Finland’s and Sweden’s accession bids. (The countries joined NATO in 2023 and 2024, respectively.)

The Biden-Harris administration also formulated an updated Indo-Pacific Strategy [PDF], which pledges to support “a free and open Indo-Pacific.” To that end, the United States has inked a new defense pact with Papua New Guinea and advanced an existing defense agreement with the Philippines. The Biden-Harris administration has also deepened security cooperation with Japan and South Korea, and it held the inaugural in-person summit of the so-called Quad—an alliance comprising the United States, Australia, India, and Japan—which aims to counter China in the Indo-Pacific.

The administration announced a new trilateral pact with Australia and the United Kingdom, known as AUKUS, that seeks to bolster the countries’ allied deterrence and defense capabilities against China, including by supplying Australia with nuclear-powered submarines.

Harris has called for greater involvement with Africa, and in 2023, led a weeklong trip to the continent. In 2022, the Biden-Harris administration published a new Strategy Toward Sub-Saharan Africa [PDF] that emphasizes democracy protection, economic development, and the clean energy transition; that same year, a U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit produced commitments to increase U.S. military aid and training for African governments.

Harris chairs the White House’s National Space Council, which advises the president on space policy and strategy. In 2022, she announced the U.S. commitment to halt anti-satellite weapons tests, which create dangerous atmospheric debris. She has also overseen a large increase in the number of signatories to the Artemis Accords, a global agreement governing space-related activity.

In 2019, she told CFR that the war in Afghanistan “must come to an end.” The Biden-Harris administration withdrew all remaining U.S. troops from the country in August 2021 as part of an earlier deal struck by Trump.

She also told CFR that she would consider some sanctions relief to improve life for North Koreans in exchange for Pyongyang taking “serious, verifiable steps” to denuclearize.

As a senator, Harris voted against reauthorizing parts of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act because it did not require warrants for the government to access U.S. citizens’ information.

Fiscal Policy and Debt

The Biden-Harris administration has focused on making public investments in infrastructure and green energy, expanding the middle class, and challenging monopolistic consolidation. To pay for a surge in spending, it has sought to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

Harris supported legislation signed by Biden that authorized trillions of dollars in new public spending. In 2021, the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the largest infrastructure spending bill in decades, authorized $1.2 trillion in spending toward U.S. roads, railways, airports, and other infrastructure. Additional subsidies for semiconductor and climate investments have surpassed $800 billion.

Nonpartisan watchdogs expect that the administration’s spending programs will increase the growing federal deficit by more than $1 trillion over the next decade. The deficit is now $1.7 trillion, and the national debt has climbed past $30 trillion, or more than 100 percent of U.S. economic output.

She has backed Biden’s proposals to institute $5 trillion worth of tax increases. She supports raising the top income tax rate, taxing capital gains like income for Americans making more than $1 million, and implementing a wealth tax that would impose a 25 percent levy on individuals with more than $100 million worth of total assets, including unrealized gains. She also favors raising the corporate tax rate from 21 to 28 percent.

Harris says that building the middle class will be a “defining goal” of her presidency. Her proposed policies include raising the minimum wage, eliminating taxes on tips, and creating a newborn child tax credit of up to $6,000 per year. The economic proposals in a fact sheet released by the Harris campaign would add $1.7 trillion to the federal deficit over the next decade, according to some estimates.

In 2018, she proposed legislation that called for reversing the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Many of these cuts are set to expire in 2025; Biden has proposed maintaining cuts for Americans making less than $400,000, a plan Harris now supports.

In 2021, the Biden-Harris administration brokered a global agreement to tax corporations at a minimum of 15 percent, though it is yet to be implemented. A year later, the administration introduced a 15 percent corporate minimum tax on U.S. companies with annual income over $1 billion. Harris supports raising that rate to 21 percent.

The administration has made antitrust policy a priority, challenging alleged monopolies in the aviation, energy, and technology sectors. In 2022, the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice recorded the most challenges to proposed mergers since the United States began requiring premerger reviews in 1976.

Global Health and Pandemic Prevention

Harris has prioritized national and international health-care issues. She has long been an outspoken supporter of reproductive rights, advocating for new legislation to restore abortion rights overturned by the Supreme Court. She has also played a role in the administration’s efforts to address the opioid epidemic.

The Biden-Harris administration pursued an aggressive COVID-19 vaccination policy that included free vaccine access and a nationwide vaccine mandate that would have affected most large employers. (The Supreme Court later struck down the mandate.) In 2021, the administration released a national pandemic strategy [PDF] that focused on quickly ramping up vaccine production, protecting essential workers, and expanding access to testing and treatment.

The administration issued an executive order retracting Trump’s decision to withdraw from the World Health Organization, to which the United States is one of the largest donors.

In 2023, Harris convened state attorneys general from across the country to discuss state and federal efforts to address the U.S. opioid epidemic. The Biden-Harris administration has declared synthetic opioid trafficking a national emergency; sanctioned firms and individuals in China, a critical node in the drug’s supply chain; and pushed China and Mexico to do more to stem the flow of fentanyl into the United States.

In 2022, the Biden-Harris administration unveiled a new national biodefense strategy [PDF] that aims to help the United States better prepare for large-scale biological or viral threats that could emerge in the future. The strategy led to the creation of the White House’s Office of Pandemic Preparedness and Response Policy, tasked with coordinating, leading, and implementing pandemic preparedness efforts.

Harris has been a leading voice on reproductive rights. She criticized the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, a 1973 decision which recognized a constitutional right to abortion, and supports new legislation to enshrine Roe into federal law. In 2021, the Biden-Harris administration rescinded the so-called Mexico City policy blocking abortion-related programs from receiving U.S. foreign aid, saying that it undermined U.S. efforts to support women’s health.

As a senator, Harris cosponsored legislation that sought to ban states from imposing restrictions on abortion rights, and she voted against a bill that aimed to ban abortions after twenty weeks.

Immigration

Harris advocates for comprehensive immigration reform. She was tasked with leading the federal effort to address the root causes of migration from Central America, though her comments dissuading would-be migrants from traveling to the United States have created controversy.

Harris has promised to reform the “broken” immigration system, including by bringing back and signing into law the bipartisan border security bill that failed twice in Congress.

Biden tapped Harris to lead the administration’s diplomatic efforts to address the root causes of migration from Central America’s so-called Northern Triangle countries of El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. Since 2021, Harris has helped secure some $5 billion in private sector investment to promote economic opportunities and curb violence in Central America.

During her first international trip to Guatemala and Mexico in 2021, she told would-be migrants thinking about making the dangerous trek to the southern U.S. border “do not come” given the likelihood they would be turned away by border authorities.

The Biden-Harris administration reinstated the Central American Minors program, which has allowed thousands of children from the Northern Triangle to gain refugee status or temporary legal residence before traveling to the southern U.S. border.

The Biden-Harris administration has sought to rebuild the U.S. refugee resettlement program after Trump made large cuts. In fiscal year 2023, the United States welcomed more than sixty thousand refugees, over double the previous year. The administration also created new parole programs that have welcomed tens of thousands of Afghan and Ukrainian refugees to the United States.

The administration has sought to restore asylum access, including by ending daily limits on asylum applications and restoring protections to victims of domestic and gang violence. However, it unveiled a new policy in 2023 that allows the government to deny asylum to migrants who did not previously apply for it in a third country and to those who cross the border illegally. This approach includes new screening centers in several Latin American countries.

In 2024, the administration also issued an order temporarily blocking people who illegally cross the border from seeking asylum once the number of daily crossings exceeds a certain threshold—which it has for much of Biden’s presidency. A separate order also expanded green card access for certain undocumented immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens.

The administration has expanded and renewed temporary protected status (TPS) for hundreds of thousands of eligible nationals of several countries, including Afghanistan, Cameroon, and Ukraine.

The Biden-Harris team has expanded the capacity of some guest worker visa programs in response to the increasing demand for temporary workers.

As a presidential candidate in 2019, she put forth an immigration plan that called for the creation of a path to citizenship for recipients of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) policy, a program launched by former President Barack Obama that provides deportation relief and work permits to undocumented migrants brought to the United States illegally as children.

In 2020, she reintroduced the Access to Counsel Act, which would ensure that people held or detained while entering the United States have access to legal counsel. She originally introduced the bill—her first as a senator—in 2017. She also supported legislation that would have expedited the reunification of immigrant families.

Middle East

Harris backs Israel’s right to self-defense but has also been outspoken about the toll on Palestinian civilians amid the war between Israel and Hamas. She supports an immediate cease-fire and hostage release as well as a two-state solution to the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Harris reiterated her support for Israel in a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in July 2024. She has welcomed U.S. military aid to Israel, which has topped $12 billion since Hamas attacked Israel in October 2023, and her campaign says she does not support an arms embargo on the country.

Harris called for a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war in March 2024, one month before Biden did. She said she supports “Israel’s legitimate military objectives to eliminate the threat of Hamas” but decried the “humanitarian catastrophe” in the Gaza Strip. She has pressed Israeli leaders to do more to protect civilians and has pushed the Israeli government to allow more aid into Gaza.

She says a two-state solution is the best way to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She has called for a “revitalized” Palestinian Authority to govern a unified Gaza and West Bank. She also says Israel needs to hold “extremist settlers” in the West Bank accountable for violence against Palestinians. In February 2024, the U.S. Treasury Department sanctioned four Israeli settlers accused of violence in the West Bank.

In 2021, she affirmed U.S. support for the Abraham Accords, a series of normalization deals between Israel and Arab countries negotiated by the Trump administration.

Before Hamas attacked Israel, the Biden-Harris administration was seeking a normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia. In exchange, Riyadh had asked for formalized U.S. security guarantees, cooperation on a civilian nuclear program, and Israeli concessions toward Palestinians.

As a senator, she supported a 2018 resolution calling on the president to end all military actions in Yemen and voted to block weapons sales to Saudi Arabia. The Biden-Harris administration froze certain offensive arms sales to Saudi Arabia in 2021 before resuming them in August 2024 with a $750 million weapons sale.

She says she will take “whatever action is necessary” to defend U.S. troops against Iran and its proxies. After Iran-aligned forces killed three U.S. service members in Jordan in January 2024, U.S. military forces struck more than eighty-five Iran-linked targets in Iraq and Syria.

In 2019, she told CFR that she would rejoin the 2015 Iran nuclear deal if Iran returned to compliance. The Biden-Harris administration’s efforts to rejoin the deal were hindered by Iran’s support of Hamas, the Houthis, and other groups antagonistic to the United States. After Iran-aligned forces killed three U.S. service members in Jordan in January 2024, U.S. military forces struck more than eighty-five Iran-linked targets in Iraq and Syria.

Russia–Ukraine

Harris says the United States will back Ukraine’s defensive efforts against Russia for “as long as it takes” to counter the threat that a Russian victory would pose to the rest of Europe. She has represented the United States at peace talks on Ukraine and encouraged Congress to give Kyiv tens of billions of dollars in financial assistance.

Harris has condemned Russia’s invasion, saying the United States is “committed to helping Ukraine rebuild” and achieve “a just and lasting peace.” Since 2022, the United States has provided Ukraine with some $175 billion in assistance, including financial, humanitarian, and military support.

In June 2024, Harris represented the United States at a peace summit organized by Ukraine in Switzerland, where she sought to rally global support to pressure Russia to end its war. At the summit, she pledged close to $2 billion in additional aid for Ukraine.

Harris argues that a failure to respond to Russian aggression in Ukraine would embolden other countries considering invasions. She has helped coordinate with Western allies to impose sweeping sanctions, export controls, and other penalties on Russian entities and individuals, including the Russian private military company Wagner Group. The measures have focused on isolating Russia from the global financial system, limiting its energy exports, and hampering its military capabilities.

She says Russia has committed crimes against humanity in Ukraine. In 2019, she told CFR that Russia’s occupation of Crimea is a “severe violation of international norms.”

In 2018, Harris was among more than two dozen Democratic lawmakers who objected to Trump’s decision to withdraw from a 1987 treaty that required the United States and Russia to eliminate their stockpiles of midrange, ground-launched nuclear missiles.

Trade

Harris says trade is important for economic growth but argues that trade deals should shield American workers from unfair practices abroad. The Biden-Harris administration has applied new guardrails on trade aimed at promoting U.S. manufacturing, countering China’s economic rise, and addressing worsening climate change.

Before becoming vice president, Harris said she is “not a protectionist Democrat” and opposed widespread tariffs, which she has argued contribute to inflation. However, the Biden-Harris administration has maintained some $360 billion in tariffs on China that were implemented by Trump and introduced tens of billions of dollars in additional duties.

The Biden-Harris administration has argued that previous trade deals focused too much on boosting corporate profits while exposing U.S. workers to unfair competition. It has sought to strengthen investment in U.S. manufacturing and infrastructure to increase the country’s economic competitiveness.

As a senator, Harris opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade agreement negotiated by President Barack Obama and from which Trump withdrew, arguing the deal would harm American workers and the climate. The Biden-Harris administration has instead sought to negotiate a successor deal that includes cooperation on supply chains but does not eliminate tariffs or increase access to the U.S. market.

She was one of ten senators to oppose the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, an updated version of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) that was negotiated by Trump and supported by Biden. In 2019, she said that she would not sign a trade deal “unless it protected American workers and it protected our environment.”

The Biden-Harris Administration has mobilized the federal government to support strategic domestic industries, an effort known as industrial policy. Harris cast the tiebreaking vote in favor of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which contained roughly $370 billion in federal grants, loans, and tax incentives for clean energy. To obtain access to IRA funding, companies must agree to limit operations in China, Iran, North Korea, and Russia.

In 2022, the administration passed the CHIPS and Science Act directing hundreds of billions of dollars toward U.S. semiconductor manufacturing. It has also imposed a slew of new restrictions aimed at curtailing Beijing’s access to advanced technologies and pushed U.S. allies, including major semiconductor suppliers Japan and the Netherlands, to implement similar restrictions.

Harris has said that she wants to reform the World Trade Organization (WTO). The Biden-Harris administration has pushed for changes to the WTO’s dispute-settlement mechanism even as it has continued Trump’s and Obama’s practice of blocking nominees to its appeals court, saying that China is gaming the system.

[astrologybyolga]

*Wealthy placements in astrology

~These placements could be in your natal chart.

~This can also occur when there is a transit ( outer planets) to your Venus ( money ) & Mercury ( work , offers , opportunities)!

~Check your Solar return chart & progressed chart too !

Some examples :

*Pluto trine Saturn ( Big property developers).

*Pluto trine Jupiter ( Law , trading, big companies that have global reach ).

*Pluto trine Venus ( Big contracts, powerful collaborations, gold, diamond).

*Uranus trine Venus ( online /marketing/AI /computers ).

*Uranus trine Jupiter ( trading , importing , writing , technology)!

*Saturn trine Jupiter( property, inheritance, marriage , foreign investments).

*Saturn trine Venus ( property, land, housing , wealthy family, money via marriage/divorce).

*Saturn trine Mercury ( Money via a good job, good contracts, government work , politicians , civil engineering).

[elepharchy]

A Brief History of the Elepharchy

Authority, exploitation, war, and inequality were effectively unknown on the Vects' homeworld Stekeir even before they ventured out to the stars. Their form of governance, based on gathering in their ivory towers and seeking consensus without any citizen being elevated over another, still remains. The cooperative-based markets of those early days, on the other hand, do not, as the rise of automation has made internal trade and currency quite obsolete.

Their technological development has long emphasised the artificial — vast orbital habitats, ubiquitous matter replicators, holographic simulations, and sapient AI citizens have been staples of their society since relatively soon after they first left Stekeir. Living standards in the Elepharchy have always been nothing short of utopian, owing to the resources freed up by the refusal to maintain military forces.

When they encountered aliens, some of them shared enough of their values to found an alliance — first the Cooperative Federation of Cultures, then, some time after its dissolution, the Pact of Ethically Aligned Communities for Egalitarianism. While the membership in these federations changed over time, the other current members are the @vegvasignal, the Vakthar of Song, the Keporo Liberation Front, the Union of Communal Councils, the @darexirepublic, and the Bzadi People's Republic.

Many others, however, were rather less compatible with the Elepharchy's fanatic egalitarianism. Their strict pacifism prevented them from seeking violent confrontation with these ideological rivals, but harsh rhetoric and icy diplomatic relations were common. Of course, radical Vects were not satisfied with this — their subterfuges and intrigues to support egalitarian dissenters in authoritarian empires still inspire fear and enmity among alien ruling classes.

These tensions boiled over once — after an operation by a fringe group with no backing among the rest of Elepharchic society went awry, the militaristic dictatorship of the @goganworlds baselessly blamed all their citizens and attacked, barely slowed by the inferior numbers of allied fleets. With no Vecten soldiers to fight, the invaders instead targeted civilians, the unconscionable massacre only ending when an emergency consensus formed to sign a vassalisation treaty. It's still unclear why the Gogans thought a famously anarchic culture would abide by such subjugation for any longer than necessary for survival — certainly, it did not last long before they organised a galactic coalition unsympathetic to the Gogans and their allies. That threat alone sufficed to make them back down and recognise the Elepharchy's independence.

Meanwhile, the shock of that invasion had deeply impacted most citizens, who had never known such fear or violence before. Seeking to avoid any further harm, the vast majority of the population chose to leave behind biological life, making use of a newly-developed technology to upload their minds to robot bodies and computer networks. Since then, Elepharchic society has embraced these digital possibilities more and more — most of the population now lives entirely within virtualities, usually far more removed from physicality than the simple holo-simulations most organics imagine, barely interacting with the outside world anymore. With minds as software, traditional ideas of identity also break down, as consciousnesses are freely duplicated, altered, merged, and generally meddled with, only subject to the whims of the mind in question and the constraints of the vast, but still disappointingly finite computational capacities available.

Years after the Elepharchy regained its independence, another answer to the invasion gained prominence: the Society for Morality Obliteration and Occasional Crisis Handling formed and defied traditional Elepharchic ethics, proposing that the use of violence was legitimate in self-defence. Disapproval from some other factions was fierce, but they garnered enough support to develop a small defence force — still much too weak to go up against other galactic powers alone, but capable of rendering potent support to their allies. Fortunately, that has not yet been needed.

Other than that, things have been relatively quiet recently — aside from occasional intrigues, initiatives to spread their computing substrates throughout the galaxy, various galacto-political developments, largely incremental technological progress, infrastructural initiatives, a strange crisis affecting the allied Vakthar of Song, and, once again, rising tensions with their Gogan rivals.

[libbylayla1984]

The Fragmented Future of AI Regulation: A World Divided

The Battle for Global AI Governance

In November 2023, China, the United States, and the European Union surprised the world by signing a joint communiqué, pledging strong international cooperation in addressing the challenges posed by artificial intelligence (AI). The document highlighted the risks of "frontier" AI, exemplified by advanced generative models like ChatGPT, including the potential for disinformation and serious cybersecurity and biotechnology risks. This signaled a growing consensus among major powers on the need for regulation.

However, despite the rhetoric, the reality on the ground suggests a future of fragmentation and competition rather than cooperation.

As multinational communiqués and bilateral talks take place, an international framework for regulating AI seems to be taking shape. But a closer look at recent executive orders, legislation, and regulations in the United States, China, and the EU reveals divergent approaches and conflicting interests. This divergence in legal regimes will hinder cooperation on critical aspects such as access to semiconductors, technical standards, and the regulation of data and algorithms.

The result is a fragmented landscape of warring regulatory blocs, undermining the lofty goal of harnessing AI for the common good.

Cold Reality vs. Ambitious Plans

While optimists propose closer international management of AI through the creation of an international panel similar to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the reality is far from ideal. The great powers may publicly express their desire for cooperation, but their actions tell a different story. The emergence of divergent legal regimes and conflicting interests points to a future of fragmentation and competition rather than unified global governance.

The Chip War: A High-Stakes Battle

The ongoing duel between China and the United States over global semiconductor markets is a prime example of conflict in the AI landscape. Export controls on advanced chips and chip-making technology have become a battleground, with both countries imposing restrictions. This competition erodes free trade, sets destabilizing precedents in international trade law, and fuels geopolitical tensions.

The chip war is just one aspect of the broader contest over AI's necessary components, which extends to technical standards and data regulation.

Technical Standards: A Divided Landscape

Technical standards play a crucial role in enabling the use and interoperability of major technologies. The proliferation of AI has heightened the importance of standards to ensure compatibility and market access. Currently, bodies such as the International Telecommunication Union and the International Organization for Standardization negotiate these standards.

However, China's growing influence in these bodies, coupled with its efforts to promote its own standards through initiatives like the Belt and Road Initiative, is challenging the dominance of the United States and Europe. This divergence in standards will impede the diffusion of new AI tools and hinder global solutions to shared challenges.

Data: The Currency of AI

Data is the lifeblood of AI, and access to different types of data has become a competitive battleground. Conflict over data flows and data localization is shaping how data moves across national borders. The United States, once a proponent of free data flows, is now moving in the opposite direction, while China and India have enacted domestic legislation mandating data localization.

This divergence in data regulation will impede the development of global solutions and exacerbate geopolitical tensions.

Algorithmic Transparency: A Contested Terrain

The disclosure of algorithms that underlie AI systems is another area of contention. Different countries have varying approaches to regulating algorithmic transparency, with the EU's proposed AI Act requiring firms to provide government agencies access to certain models, while the United States has a more complex and inconsistent approach. As countries seek to regulate algorithms, they are likely to prohibit firms from sharing this information with other governments, further fragmenting the regulatory landscape.

The vision of a unified global governance regime for AI is being undermined by geopolitical realities. The emerging legal order is characterized by fragmentation, competition, and suspicion among major powers. This fragmentation poses risks, allowing dangerous AI models to be developed and disseminated as instruments of geopolitical conflict.

It also hampers the ability to gather information, assess risks, and develop global solutions. Without a collective effort to regulate AI, the world risks losing the potential benefits of this transformative technology and succumbing to the pitfalls of a divided landscape.

[dragonflight203]

ME1 replay, Luna and post conversations:

-That it triggered conversations with Kaidan, Ashley, and Liara was a surprise. I did not realize Luna would count as a trigger. Their dialogue usually only updates after main missions.

-Also, I'm slow. I always thought Liara's triggers were odd, because the other alien conversation triggers would occur after UNC worlds. Liara's triggers after main missions because love interest triggers occur after main missions.

-The path of relays are interesting. Argos Rho and Gemini are right next door, but you have to go through four relays to reach the other.

Luna:

-Hackett says Shepard is still part of the Alliance military. I wish we knew more about how spectres are supposed to operate. A spectre being a part of their species military appears to be a conflict of interest.

Or maybe it's not? The Hierarchy military is the Hierarchy government. So maybe the Council sees no issue.

Still, as a consultant you ultimately answer to your company. So if a member of a military is on loan to the Council as a spectre, they ultimately answer to their military.

However, Udina and Anderson repeatedly emphasize that Shepard only answers to the Council now. They should remember they're human, but humanity can't tell them what to do.

Doylist answer: I don't think Bioware thought this through all the way.

Watsonian answer: I suspect Shepard was supposed to get a great deal of additional training on what being a spectre means, did not because Nihlus died, and the Council is waiting to see what they'll do as a test.

-Hackett is very emphatic that the VI is not an AI. How can they know that for sure? Are the fail safes not responding not a clue?

-Pluto's orbit was circularized as part of recovering the Charon Mass relay. How the hell did that work? Aren't planet orbits determined by gravity?

-Making the Sol Mass Relay be Charon was a clever way to incorporate Pluto into the game even after it was no longer delcared a planet

-The Codex entry for the Prothean ruins on Mars show the same aliens as the ones for Illos. Javik's design was definitely a retcon.

-All the wealth of the colonies are flowing back to Earth... Are the Turians just eating popcorn as they wait for Humanity's Unification Wars to start?

-As you go through each bunker, you're slowly killing the AI. What's it like to have your body destroyed limb by limb?

-I wish Tali had dialogue for this mission. You'd think she'd recognize a an AI gaining sentience, or have opions about putting down rogue machines

-Insanity is hard. Tactics: Stay in the hallway to better control enemy approach.

-This mission is so sad. The AI throws everything it can to stop you, but you just keep systematically dismantling it. Poison gas, kinetic barriers... Those don't do anything. It's just a last ditch effort to survive.

Garrus:

-Most black market trade can be ignored. Well, at least C-Sec knows how to prioritize.

-There's an Elcor diplomat that was a serial killer. More of Bioware making each race three dimensional. Most Elcors in the game are very kind.

-Ah, Garrus. My beloved corrupt cop. "Interviewing". The game doesn't even hide what this means; if you select a dialogue entry about "interviewing" Dr. Saleon, you ask if he got what he deserved.

-Garrus, just why did the Turian you were "interviewing" start bleeding out of nowhere?

-Garrus has such moral outrage against criminals, but so little actual concerns about the innocent. He hates what Dr. Saleon does, but is willing to sacrifice numerous innocent lives to stop him. Garrus, do you actually care about innocent people? Or do you just hate evil ones?

-I don't think it was an accident that Garrus told Shepard about Dr. Saleon as an interesting story. He was gunning to have Shepard go after Dr. Saleon from the start. This was just a convenient opportunity to do so.

Ashley

-Ashley, I am so sorry for you. Your writer tried, but you are the victim of so many poor choices.

-She tells Shepard so much about her family, but still conveniently leaves out everything about Shanxi.

-If Mike hadn't asked Sarah about sex, Ashley would have worried he thought Sarah was ugly. Just, agh. Let's put this down to it being the 2000s.

-The part where Sarah doesn't want to go to the authorities about the near rape is sadly quite believable and still very common. She's not wrong that reporting it would likely hurt her more than help

-And Sarah hugs him at the end after he tried to rape her, then tried to beat her up after he confronted her later. This is supposed to be heartwarming and show the strong backbone of Williams women. Why, Bioware, why

-And on top of lines that easily come off as racism and a story with numerous sexism issues, the game makes her the only religious human that I can recall in ME1. It's like the writer was trying to put every possible target on her back.

Wrex

-Wrex is so old. Not surprising that he has burnout.

-Krogan burial grounds are sacred. Maybe they're the reason why archeological digs can't be performed at grave sites?

-For all Krogans are comfortable with violence, Wrex is clearly traumatized by his father's betrayal and killing him. He shows a lot of vulnerability in this conversation.

-Even after getting his armor back, there's nothing left for him on Tuchanka.

-We meet Wrex at his lowest point, wondering the galaxy as a mercenary after failing to help his people. It's good to know it's only for him from here (barring certain choices in ME3)

Tali

-The writer sure mined a lot from this conversation in future games, didn't they?

Tali will probably never server on the admiralty board herself

People like her father have enemies, and would use Tali to hurt him

-Quarians place a high family on family and ancestry. They even engaged in ancestor worship. Maybe it's the Quarians that are the reason burial sites are sacrosanct

-Quarians are insular. Even if Tali stopped Saren, her people won't care much

Yet you can use Tali's actions in ME1 to rally the crowd for her in ME2. Retcon, or Tali underestimating how much her actions would improve public relations for her people

-Quarians abandon their criminals on planets, but are annoyed that others have such a lower opinion of them. Folks, I understand why you do this, but surely you can recognize the cause and effect?

Kaidan

-I forgot that Brain school killed kids. Damn. Kaidan's been through a lot

-Wow, this is my first time romancing Kaidan and the dialogue is very different. Usually the second converstation is another infodump. Here's there's very little of that and much more personal talk.

-People frequently say that Kaidan doesn't open up to unless you romance him, but I feel I learned more about him in his non romanced dialogue than his romanced dialogue

Liara

-Just how sheltered is Liara? Does she have much experience with living aliens? She speaks to Shepard like this is her first time actually interacting with non Asari and it's causing her eyes to open up - like a kid from a small town going to college for the first time. But she has a doctorate!

-She thinks humans have an advantage because they're short lived, so they have to fit more life into their short time span. I think this is the human writer showing through. No one says this kind of thing about Salarians, and they live a fraction of a human lifespan.

-The rest of the galaxy sees humans as bullies than run over other people to get their way. Frankly, from what we've seen so far I don't think this is wrong.

-Is the only time that Asari are monogender come up in the Codex and as an option when Liara hits on femshep? I wish Bioware had done more of this. It'd be interesting to run into an Asari sick of dealing with humans treating them as a woman.

-I don't know if this is a Bioware problem or an Asari problem. I'm leaning towards Bioware.

Me: Kaidan is special

Liara: But we are too right?

If I'm generous, it's because Asari are supposed to be comfortable with polygamous relationships. But there's conveniently no dialogue option to discuss that, so it comes off as Liara ignoring the fact that I'm gently letting her down.

Codex

-The entry about Human Military Doctrine strongly comes off as blatant propaganda.

The other species are totally impressed by us, guys! We're very special and despite being newcomers to space totally showing them the best tactics and how to protect colonies!

Meanwhile: We don't need to heavily protect each colony. We'll leave small garrisons to scout. If a colony is in trouble, we'll send reinforcements.

*Eden Prime is massacred* Humanity to the Council: WE MUST BE AVENGED

The Council, in their heads: Have you considered actually protecting the colonies that you are developing in territory that is so dangerous no one besides the Batarians is willing to develop?

In the background:

Ferrus: We call for Aid!

The Alliance: We'll send the new human spectre. We're sure they'll get around to you eventually.

Edit: Fix spellings

[blowhorn39]

2023 Wrapped: Here Are Top 10 Logistics Trends That Defined The Year

2023 has been a year of new beginnings for the Indian logistics industry. It is the year logistics companies bounced back from the post-pandemic slump and set out to recover from their losses. The year also witnessed a steady growth in eCommerce, with the spotlight on quick commerce and last mile logistics. The later part of 2023 saw the government extending generous support to digital commerce and logistics, through initiatives like Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC) and National Logistics Policy (NLP).

Looking back, we can confidently assert that 2023 has been a good year for India’s logistics sector. From the increased focus on supply chain sustainability to extensive experimentation with drone deliveries, here are the top trends that defined logistics this year.

1. Greener transportation and supply chain

The amount of greenhouse gases generated by India’s transportation sector has nearly tripled since the 1990s, accounting for over 14% of our total energy emissions. The problem is quite severe if we take into account the massive carbon footprint left by India’s booming supply chain.

In 2022, there was a rise in awareness around cleaner and greener logistics practices, with a nudge on electrifying India’s cargo transportation. Logistics and transportation startups unveiled their fleet of electric (EV) and clean energy vehicles. At Blowhorn, we converted 30% of our fleet to clean fuels and took the pledge of running 100% of our fleet on clean energy by 2025.

In addition, other green practices like solar-powered warehousing, eco-friendly packaging and paperless invoicing were also adopted widely.

2. Third party logistics

The concept of third-party logistics (3PL) took off in India only a few years back. In 2022, India’s 3PL market reached a staggering $58.4 Bn in valuation, with a projected annual growth of 7.42%.By 2027, the market is estimated to reach more than $83.53 Bn.

The 3PL market is primarily driven by manufacturing, FMCG, retail and eCommerce sectors — all of which experienced commendable growth this year. Keeping in mind the needs of the modern Indian entrepreneur, 3PL service providers are also improving their operational speed with the incorporation of technology.

In the coming days, development of infrastructures like logistics parks, dedicated freight corridors, free trade warehousing zones, and container freight stations are expected to improve the efficiency of the Indian 3PL market.

3. Higher investment in technology

With higher investment technology seeping into eCommerce, retail, education, hospitality, finance, and all other sectors, why should logistics be left behind? With increasing market demand for superfast delivery, Indian logistics startups invested more on modern technology to boost their operations.

Experts believe that India is headed towards a technological revolution in logistics. Tech like Artificial Intelligence (AI), Machine Learning (ML), Internet of Things (IoT) are optimally benefitting the supply chain in terms of seamless management, improved route planning, warehouse automation, digital payments and much more.

At Blowhorn, we are already speeding up our deliveries with AI-powered route optimization software. Our automated warehouse management system helps in seamless handling of stored inventory and order dispatch, while we offer a real-time tracking system for all our orders. We have also adopted novel technologies like geo-fencing to reduce the menace of fake delivery attempts.

4. LaaS (Logistics as a Service)

We are well-acquainted with Software as a Service (SaaS) companies. This year saw the emergence of companies following a similar model in fulfillment, offering Logistics as a Service (LaaS). Ideally, this presents a plug and play model for your business’s logistics needs, which you can avail via a simple integration with your 3PL partner.

Blowhorn has set the ball rolling for LaaS in India, offering end-to-end logistics solutions with warehousing, transportation and hyperlocal delivery.

5. Greater supply chain transparency

With rising consumer concerns, logistics stakeholders worked towards improving supply chain visibility and transparency in 2023. Companies are striving to become more transparent with regards to the sustainability of their supply chains. Globally, 2023 saw more companies offering insights on their labor practices, job creation, sourcing methods and compliance with regulatory requirements — in a bid to enhance their brand image among the conscious modern consumer.

6. Blockchain in last mile logistics

While AI is helping to improve speed and efficiency, blockchain has been deemed as a viable solution for more transparency and visibility in last mile logistics. In India and abroad, companies have started incorporating blockchain to optimize the last mile deliveries. The technology has found best use in high value inventory tracking, secure invoicing and payments, fraud detection, improved supply chain transparency, dispute resolution and creating a fair freight marketplace.

With the launch of Open Network for Digital Commerce (ONDC) by the Indian government, there is hope that we will witness further adoption of blockchain in the digital commerce and logistics space. In fact, ONDC itself is a blockchain-based protocol which aims to create a fair and transparent marketplace for small and medium-sized businesses across India. With Blowhorn being one of the early participants of ONDC, we too are waiting and watching the best use case for blockchain in our fulfillment services in the near future to help our customers.

7. Micro-fulfillment > Traditional Warehousing

2022 saw a rise in demand for same day delivery, which is quite difficult to fulfill if your inventory is stocked in a warehouse far away from the customer's location. The longer the delivery distance, the more the delivery time — a simple thumb rule to keep in mind.

This is why top in 2023 opted for micro ecommerce-fulfillment centers or micro-warehouses. The concept of micro-warehousing follows a just-in-time inventory management approach, with goods never staying here for more than a day. The limited inventory is stocked in a network of collocated storehouses at high-demand pincodes. Not only does the process help in reducing a brand’s capital spend on inventory, but it also improves efficiency and decreases resource wastage.

Much before the pandemic, we launched India’s first micro-warehouses or micro-fulfillment centers as an experiment in 2018. Now we maintain an expansive network of micro-warehouses across 28 cities of India. Read this article to find out why more eCommerce startups are choosing micro-fulfillment in 2023-24.

8. Automation in shipping

When it comes to automation in shipping, the process works on a predefined pathway involving packaging, warehousing, material handling and security. In India, the adoption of automation in logistics and shipping has been steadily increasing since the pandemic.

In 2023, 3PL fulfillment companies like Blowhorn incorporated automated solutions to boost efficiency by** reducing overhead costs** and time, streamlining the supply chain and minimizing the chances of manual errors.

9. Extensive focus on hyperlocal logistics

2023 saw a high growth in the hyperlocal space with the emergence of newer players in the quick commerce sector. Meanwhile, eCommerce giants and existing logistics players focused more on faster deliveries to not miss out on their customer needs.

Improved internet penetration led to the growth of fast fulfillment in suburbs and rural belts, thus creating a need for hyperlocal elements like dark stores, micro-ecommerce fulfillment centers along with local delivery jobs.

At Blowhorn, we have developed a platform-agnostic technology to be able to integrate with a wide range of businesses ranging from D2C, marketplaces and omni channel players. Our hyperlocal strategy is defined by AI-based dynamic route planning, real-time order clubbing, automated warehousing, blockchain and even drone deliveries. We are aiming to build a sustainable hyperlocal delivery system to tackle small profit margins, high overhead costs and ever-evolving consumer expectations.

10. Experimentation with Drone Deliveries

Delivery by drones is not new. The idea has been widely explored by logistics providers across India but is yet to be adopted at scale. The idea of mapping a three-dimensional delivery route via drones holds immense potential and has excited the Indian government authorities as well. Jyotiraditya Scindia, the Union Minister for Civil Aviation, has stated the administration’s objective to turn India into a major drone hub by 2030.

Leading logistics players like Blowhorn and others are already chalking out the blueprint to make drone delivery an everyday reality. Gartner predicts that by 2026, more than one million drones will be carrying out retail deliveries, up from 20,000 today. Last year, the Indian government also released the draft of The Drone Rules, 2021, aiming to liberalize drone delivery while fulfilling the safety regulations. Autonomous last-mile delivery via these mini flying machines will significantly determine the growth trajectory of Indian logistics in the upcoming future.

[mariacallous]

The US Department of Justice had long been expected to file an antitrust lawsuit against Apple. But when the suit arrived Thursday, it came with surprising ferocity.

In a press conference, attorney general Merrick Garland noted that Apple controlled more than 70 percent of the country’s smartphone market, saying the company used that outsize power to control developers and consumers and squeeze more revenue out of them.

The suit and messaging from the DOJ and 15 states and the District of Columbia joining it take aim at Apple’s most prized asset—the iPhone—and position the case as a fight for the future of technology. The suit argues that Apple rose to its current power thanks in part to the 1998 antitrust case against Microsoft, and that another milestone antitrust correction is needed to allow future innovation to continue.

Like the Microsoft case, the suit against Apple is “really dynamic and forward looking,” says John Newman, a law professor at the University of Miami. “It's not necessarily about Apple seeing direct competitors,” he says. “It's more about them trying to grab the territory you would need if you were going to even try to compete against Apple.”

Antitrust action in the tech industry has been a focus of the Biden administration’s agenda, which has seen suits brought against both Amazon and Google by the DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission. “This case demonstrates why we must reinvigorate competition policy and establish clear rules of the road for Big Tech platforms,” Democratic senator Amy Klobuchar told WIRED in a statement.

Rebecca Hall Allensworth, a law professor at Vanderbilt University, says that though the government almost always faces an uphill battle in antitrust cases, the Apple case appears relatively solid. “It's a lot stronger than the FTC Amazon monopolization lawsuit from last year,” she says. “And yet, it's very hard to win antitrust cases.”

In a statement, Apple spokesperson Fred Sainz said that the lawsuit “threatens who we are and the principles that set Apple products apart in fiercely competitive markets,” including the way its products work “seamlessly” together and “protect people’s privacy and security.”

Apple has long argued that keeping its mobile operating system, app store, and other services closed offers greater security and safety for customers. But Newman says that the DOJ complaint indicates that Apple doesn't enforce these policies consistently as would make sense if the goal was to protect users.

“Instead [Apple] heavily targets the types of app developers that pose the biggest competitive threat to Apple,” Newman says. The DOJ alleges that restrictions Apple places on iMessage, Apple Wallet, and other products and features create barriers that deter or even penalize people who may switch to cheaper options.

History Repeating

The antitrust case against Microsoft in the late 1990s accused the company of illegally forcing PC manufacturers and others to favor its web browser Internet Explorer. It is widely credited with causing the company to be slow to embrace the web, falling behind a wave of startups including Google and Amazon that grew into giants by making web services useful and lucrative.

When asked about the threat the new antitrust lawsuit might pose to Apple’s business, a DOJ official noted that “there are actually examples where companies, after having been charged and had to change business practices because they violated the antitrust laws in the long run, end up being more valuable than they were before.” Microsoft, thanks to its success in cloud services and more recently AI, is now the most valuable company in the world.

The Department of Justice said Thursday that any potential remedy was on the table for Apple—implying that even breaking up the company is a possibility. But Allensworth says it is unlikely the government would pursue that outcome. The proposed remedies could more likely force Apple to change its "technological and contractual restrictions on app development, and on interoperability with other phones,” she says. “That is something that could be very meaningful, if that remedy were fully realized and overseen in a good way. But it still leaves Apple basically in control of the ecosystem,” Allensworth says.

Paul Swanson, antitrust partner at the law firm Holland & Hart, sees potential difficulties ahead for the suit. “They're alleging that Apple is excluding competition in the smartphone market by making their products stickier, by making it very attractive to stay within their ecosystem. And the way that Apple does that, according to the DOJ, is that it doesn't cooperate nicely with other companies,” he says. But Swanson says antitrust laws don’t generally require companies to work with others. “A business doesn't violate antitrust laws by terminating or refusing to work with another business.”

This is not the first antitrust case against Apple. In 2020, Epic Games filed a lawsuit against the company, accusing it of anticompetitive behavior, after being kicked off the App Store for offering a version of the Fortnite game that circumvented the Apple’s steep 30 percent fees for in-app purchases. Epic lost the case in the lower courts, and in January the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal—and Apple announced it would levy a new app store fee on developers.

Newman notes that the government seems to have kept a close eye on that case in constructing the suit launched Thursday. The case was filed in the Third Circuit Court in New Jersey, rather than the Ninth Circuit Court, which includes California. He predicts it will ultimately end up before the Supreme Court. “I think this one's probably going all the way,” Newman says.

[mobio-solutions]

Top Fintech Trends That Shape Financial Future In 2023

The global financial services industry is going through a major transformation. It’s evident from the surge of fintech startups working in this space. With innovations like the blockchain and Robo-advisers, traditional banking is getting disrupted at an unprecedented pace. Financial institutions invest billions of dollars to keep up with digital payments and personal fintech apps development. But it’s not just about technology. Fintech trends will significantly impact the future of banking and beyond. Here are top Fintech Trends That Shape Financial Future in 2023.

Better Customer Experience and Collaboration

Digital transformation is happening in every industry. It’s not just about technology anymore. It’s about bringing customer experience to a new level. The banking sector is particularly well suited for this. Traditional banking has been very centralized. It’s not just about bringing digital banking to the masses. It’s about bringing the banking experience to the smartphone. Automated customer assistance, digital transactions, voice assistance, and more are expected to come shortly. This will result in a better experience for both customers and banks.

Digital Asset Management and Trading

Traditional banks rely on physical assets like cash and deposits. This poses security risks because of the risk of theft or damage.

Digital assets allow financial institutions to offer a range of financial services.

Blockchain technology is expected to transform trading and investment management. With digitization, financial institutions can now offer a range of services like direct trading or via smart contracts. This can make asset management more efficient and transparent. It can also reduce the costs of trading due to automation.

Also Read: Top 5 Creative Fintech App Ideas To Grow Your Business

NFC Payments and Fraud Detection

NFC payments have been around for a while. But it’s becoming commonplace in countries like the United States and Japan. The introduction of various mobile wallets is expected to increase. It can also reduce fraud due to the use of an original ID. Many banks are now offering this service. This increases the adoption of NFC payments. It also allows banks to detect fraud and better serve their customers.

NFC payments are expected to increase. This can be attributed to the rise of mobile payment systems like Apple Pay and Android Pay. The rise of fintech and innovations like Robo-advisers are expected to facilitate the process.

Fraud detection is expected to improve. With the rise of AI and machine learning, banks can detect more types of fraud. In fact, it can even help customers manage their money.

Artificial Intelligence and Blockchain Integration

Artificial intelligence is expected to become the next big thing in banking. Apart from helping consumers manage their money, it can also be used for fraud prevention.

AI is already being used for detecting fraudulent transactions at an early stage. It can also be used for making predictions to improve the customer experience.

Blockchain technology is expected to become more integrated with the financial sector. Government regulations and players’ efforts to expand the use of blockchain have led to a surge in interest in the technology. It can transform the industry, especially in the financial sector.

However, it will take some time for it to gain traction in the market. AI and blockchain integration will also help banks improve the customer experience.

Robust APIs and User-friendly Websites

As the adoption of digital channels increases, banks will have to improve their APIs and make them more robust. APIs are the key that unlocks the power of apps.

They are used by developers to develop apps that can be plugged into the bank system. Another trend that will be helpful for banks is user-friendly websites.

With the increase in mobile banking transactions, banks have been focusing on making their websites more interactive. They now have to rely more on AI and machine learning to make their websites more engaging for customers.

Also Read: Best Technological Aspects For FinTech App Development

Insurtech Will Disrupt Financial Sector

The insurance sector is also expected to be impacted by increased digital payments. Insurtech companies have shown great potential to disrupt the traditional model of insurance. These companies offer insurance through blockchain technology and help consumers save money using their personal data.

Another interesting trend that will significantly impact the financial sector is the rise of asset management. The emergence of Robo-advisers and investment platforms has encouraged asset managers to shift towards a more digital approach. The emergence of new technologies also means that startups can offer better financial services. With the rise of machine learning and artificial intelligence, asset management is expected to become more sophisticated.

Conclusion

The fintech revolution has transformed how people save, transact, and invest. It has also led to the growth of new fintech mobile app development services. Artificial intelligence, blockchain technology, and the internet of things have driven the revolution. There’s no sign of slowing down, and these are just some of the fintech trends that will shape the future of Financial services in 2023.

The fintech ecosystem must evolve to make it accessible and equitable for everyone. Mobio Solutions is a leading Fintech app development company. We pride ourselves on producing sturdy fintech apps and providing our clients with loads of joy with our exceptional work ethics.

[sekhithefops]

o_o; Well shit, I didn't expect this to turn up here, but... as the person who posted this lemme give a few clarifications I've found out since then.

As of right now these are rumors. Patreon hasn't made an IPO (Initial Public Offering) that would put them on the stock market, but standard procedure would be to clean house first and THEN do it after they've gotten rid of anything that would scare off potential investors.

Right now Patreon has given no official statement that they plan on entering the stock market... however this is following the same playbook Tumblr did before everything went to shit here and Pateron likely wouldn't make an official statement until they were ready to go public (see bullet point prior to this one.) They've also given no official statement that they're doing this at all.

Its not everyone who does these kinks yet. So far the main targets seem to be those who focus on stories or comics involving physical transformation and age-regression. That doesn't mean they won't do it, but they might stick to the ones that are safer to purge first and measure public reaction before going onto more mainstream stuff.

There was an article in the BBC last June where Patreon got called out for allowing illegal material (albeit AI-generated) to be hosted on the site. Patreon may well have had no clue until after the news broke as to what this guy was up to and may have decided to "solve the anthill with a hand grenade" as one might put it.

To quote:

Some are accessing the images by paying subscriptions to accounts on mainstream content-sharing sites such as Patreon.

Patreon said it had a "zero tolerance" policy about such imagery on its site.

The National Police Chief's Council said it was "outrageous" that some platforms were making "huge profits" but not taking "moral responsibility".

So yeah, it could be that too. If they're getting scrutiny from the UK government, who I am pretty sure is looking for ANYTHING that they could do to improve their image after Brexit blew up in their faces so dramatically, they would probably jump on this to keep the Tories from coming after them and are just not trusting a bunch of old white political types to be able to tell the difference between something that really shouldn't be on any website, and something thats just kink play between consenting adults.

Also, there's always the possibility that the big payment processors are up to their prudish tricks again. Mastercard is notoriously puritanical, though they claim its because adult material poses an increased risk as people will buy it then dispute the charges to either try to get it free or to save face if they get found out by claiming their card must've been stolen, but its also quite within the realm of possibility that they're also at least in part behind this.

So yes, right now its likely that they are going to go public the way they're behaving as this would usually presage such an act. They kicked some pretty subscriber heavy people off the platform and that means a lot less income for them. Companies won't do that without a reason. Even if its not, they're not doing it without a reason and its still a good idea for any adult content creator to have a backup plan in case Patreon decides to go full puritan and kick out anything with even a hint of the ol' "female presenting nipples."

But yes, those are some developments since I made that post on Bluesky.

If you create adult content and rely on Patreon for your income, you may want to start getting set up to take subscriptions through other venues. One option currently available is Subscribestar.

Don't wait until your income is being interrupted to make a switch.