#Larry Udy

[bitcoincables]

Bitcoin Taproot Upgrade and Ordinals' Rise: The Block Research Podcast Episode Summary

Episode 3 of The Block Research Podcast features interviews with long-time bitcoiners and Taproot Wizards co-founders Eric Wall and Udi Wertheimer. The podcast is hosted by The Block CEO Larry Cermak, accompanied by The Block Research Analyst Rebecca Stevens. 🎙️

The episode begins with Larry Cermak interviewing Eric Wall and Udi Wertheimer. They discuss their experiences as bitcoiners and their roles as co-founders of Taproot Wizards. Taproot is an upcoming Bitcoin protocol upgrade that aims to enhance privacy and improve efficiency. The discussion provides insights into the potential impact and benefits of Taproot for the Bitcoin network. 🧙‍♂️

The second part of the episode delves into the remarkable rise of Ordinals, a data analytics firm specializing in tracking the adoption and usage of various blockchain networks. The Block Research Analyst Rebecca Stevens provides a detailed analysis of Ordinals' data, shedding light on its meteoric growth and the trends it reveals. This deep dive into the data helps listeners understand the significance of Ordinals' work in the crypto industry. 📈

The Block is an independent media outlet that offers unbiased news, research, and data related to the world of cryptocurrencies. While Foresight Ventures is a majority investor in The Block, the publication continues to operate independently. The podcast episode is meant for informative purposes only and does not provide legal, tax, investment, financial, or other advice. To listen to the full podcast and read the original article, click the link below. 🔗

Read the original article on The Block

[docrotten]

THE INCUBUS (1981) – Episode 236 – Decades Of Horror 1980s

“Thank you. I have work to do. And you have your work to do. I don’t like to be berated by Hank! Or anyone.”  It seems that Hank’s at it again. Join your faithful Grue Crew – Chad Hunt, Bill Mulligan, Crystal Cleveland, and Jeff Mohr – as they get down and dirty with The Incubus (1981).

Decades of Horror 1980s Episode 236 – The Incubus (1981)

Join the Crew on the Gruesome Magazine YouTube channel! Subscribe today! And click the alert to get notified of new content! https://youtube.com/gruesomemagazine

ANNOUNCEMENT Decades of Horror 1980s is partnering with the WICKED HORROR TV CHANNEL Which now includes video episodes of DoH 1980s! Available on Roku, AppleTV, Amazon FireTV, AndroidTV, Online Website. Across All OTT platforms, as well as mobile, tablet, and desktop. https://wickedhorrortv.com/

A small town’s doctor takes matters into his own hands after a series of gruesome and bizarre rape crimes perplex the clueless authorities.

  Director: John Hough

Writers: Ray Russell (novel by), George Franklin (screenplay)

Cinematography by: Albert J. Dunk (director of photography)

Selected Cast:

John Cassavetes as Sam Cordell

John Ireland as Hank Walden

Kerrie Keane as Laura Kincaid

Helen Hughes as Agatha Galen

Erin Noble as Jenny Cordell (as Erin Flannery)

Duncan McIntosh as Tim Galen

Harvey Atkin as Joe Prescott

Harry Ditson as Lt. Drivas

Mitch Martin as Mandy Pullman

Matt Birman as Roy Seeley

Beverly Cooper as Pru Keaton (as Beverley Cooper)

Brian Young as Charlie Prescott

Barbara Franklin as Mrs. Pullman

Wes Lee as Mr. Pullman

Neil Dainard as Ernie Barnes

Jennifer Leak as Deena Ferrin

Denise Fergusson as Carolyn Davies

Jack Van Evera as Matt Davies

Helene Udy as Sally Harper (as Helen Udy)

Lisa Bunting as Anita Barnes

Michelle Davros as Jane Barnes (as Michele Davros)

Jefferson Mappin as Clem

James Bearden as Lacey

Alan Bridle as Interrogator

Jude Beny as Witch

Jeremy Hole as Torturer #1

Brian Montague as Swimmer

Dirk McLean as The Incubus

For this episode, the Grue-Crew follows actor John Cassavetes to Wisconsin to battle the shapeshifting slasher in the Canadian gem, The Incubus. The film is directed by John Hough, the director behind the Hammer film Twins of Evil (1971), the horror classic The Legend of Hell House (1973), a pair of Disney “Witch Mountain” films, and the car chase cult favorite Dirty Mary Crazy Larry (1974). Part Supernatural, part slasher, part Satanism, part mystery, this adaptation of Ray Russell’s 1976 novel of the same name provides plenty for the Grue-Crew to sink their teeth into. 

At the time of this writing, The Incubus is available to stream with ads from Tubi and Pluto TV, as well as from multiple PPV sources. The film is available on physical media as a Blu-ray from Vinegar Syndrome. 

Every two weeks, Gruesome Magazine’s Decades of Horror 1980s podcast will cover another horror film from the 1980s. The next episode’s film, chosen by Jeff, will be Poison for the Fairies (1986), directed by Carlos Enrique Toboada and winner of four Silver Ariel Awards as well as the Golden Ariel for Best Picture and five other nominations.

Please let them know how they’re doing! They want to hear from you – the coolest, grooviest fans – so leave them a message or comment on the Gruesome Magazine Youtube channel, on the Gruesome Magazine website, or email the Decades of Horror 1980s podcast hosts at feedback@gruesomemagazine.com.

Check out this episode!

[maturemenoftvandfilms]

Workaholics (TV Series) - S1/E8 'To Friend a Predator' (2011) Larry Udy as Fat Cop

[joshuajacksonlyblog]

How Many Low Volume Altcoins Will Die in 2020?

In order for a crypto asset to be attractive to traders it needs to have liquidity. Without any daily volume there is nothing really to trade and recent findings indicate that 95% of altcoins fall into this category.

Dying Altcoins in The Thousands

Even with today’s minor dip, bitcoin dominance is still holding above 70% according to Tradingview.com. This means that, yet again, the altcoins are getting punished.

2019 has been a terrible year for altcoins, with the majority of them ending the year lower than they started it. Next year could be even worse for the majority of them as liquidity and volumes fall dramatically.

Earlier in the year, crypto analyst, Willy Woo, looked into the liquidity of altcoins and discovered that as many as 99% of them were illiquid.

Today, The Block’s research director, Larry Cermak, has continued with this; noting that most altcoins will go to zero not by price, but in terms of liquidity.

95% of cryptocurrencies currently have no liquidity and another 2% very little liquidity. Most of shitcoins won’t die by going to 0 but by having no liquidity

Following similar analysis by @woonomic, I looked at the liquidity of cryptocurrencies (using @coinpaprika's data). 95% of cryptocurrencies currently have no liquidity and another 2% very little liquidity. Most of shitcoins won't die by going to 0 but by having no liquidity pic.twitter.com/Efr2LdD93l

— Larry Cermak (@lawmaster) December 23, 2019

At the time of writing, Coinmarketcap lists 4,960 crypto coins and tokens. Only the top 20 or so of those altcoins have any measurable liquidity.

Bitcoin has more than nearly all of the others combined at the moment, and as much as five times more liquidity than Ethereum. Bitcoin also has more than 10 times the liquidity of all the other cryptocurrencies including XRP, BCH, Litecoin, and EOS. Stablecoins have been omitted from the research.

Bitcoiner, Udi Wertheimer, added that price cannot go to zero if there are still buyers and sellers agreeing on a price for a token. The deaths will come in terms of liquidity and there are thousands of altcoins out there that are unlikely to survive the next year.

Even in the top one hundred, volumes are very low for those at the bottom of the list which include Bytecoin, Electroneum, Crypterium, SNX, SOLVE, and Centrality. Going beyond the top 100 by market cap reveals literally thousands of altcoins with no liquidity.

The end of 2019 has been a repeat of the 2018 crypto winter for all but a handful of altcoins which have ended the year in the green.

Those that are most likely to survive another year need to be actively traded to nurture price action. The rest are likely to be added to the pile of crypto pollution as they slowly fade from memory.

How many altcoins do you think will die in 2020? Add your thoughts below!

Images via Shutterstock, Twitter @lawmaster

The post How Many Low Volume Altcoins Will Die in 2020? appeared first on Bitcoinist.com.

from Cryptocracken Tumblr https://ift.tt/398YTH6 via IFTTT

[pheventcity-blog]

Jazz&Talk

Inspire, Educate, Entertain #buildingHealthyMusicians Guest: Larry Clement, Nsisong Udi, John Fire, GpSax, Akachi bass, Precious Gale, Steve Sax, Sunday Jacob, Rebecca Simeon, Queen Eldred, Christ Invaders Dance Crew & More Convener: Kingsley Cyprian Read the full article

[daishabeno-blog]

Growth of Innovations in Chocolate Chip Cookies Market by Major Players: Nabisco, Famous Amos, etc.

The “ Chocolate Chip Cookies Market” has its complete summary provided in such a pattern that the reading is enough to get the gist of the vital information mentioned in the report. Factors such as .product distribution, product demand, financial growth, growth benefits, business flexibility, and other applications are all provided in the report in detailed as well as segmented pattern. One of the most important points given in the report is that the clients can obtain all the futuristic scope and market growth factors in a single scroll through the articles. The Chocolate Chip Cookies market has excelled its profit bar due to the application of strategic intelligence on a global scale. At present, Chocolate Chip Cookies market focuses on enhancing its global market status with the help of the dominating players   Nabisco, Famous Amos, Entenmanns, Keebler, Grandmas, Mrs. Fields, Enjoy Life, Glutino, Fiber One, Tates Bake Shop, Simple Mills, Udis, KNOW Better Cookie, Emmys, Archway, Lucys, Nanas, Munk Pack, Lenny & Larrys, Kashi, Pepperidge Farm Montauk, Back to Nature, Annies, Trader Joes, Alternative Baking, Go Raw Request Sample Report @:  https://www.acquiremarketresearch.com/sample-request/75429/ In the current report, all the factors are mentioned in a bifurcated format such as the geographical, application, end users, product type, product sub-types, and others. The strike of the global Chocolate Chip Cookies market is mentioned in the part of those areas, It demonstrates various segments Basic Chocolate Chip Cookies, Browned Butter Bourbon Chocolate Chip Cookies, Sour Cream Chocolate Chip Cookies, Coconut Chocolate Chip Cookies, Crispy Bits Chocolate Chip Cookies, Others and sub-segments Supermarkets/Hypermarkets, Convenience Stores, Independent Retailers, Online Sales, Others of the global Chocolate Chip Cookies market. The report enlightens the clients with the unique industrial and government strategies required for the global market success. The market statistics and capital flexibilities are all portrayed in the dossier in a very clear-cut format for the convenience of the readers

Chocolate Chip Cookies Market

The global Chocolate Chip Cookies Market report examines various tendencies, obstructions, and challenges faced by the key competitors of Chocolate Chip Cookies market. The report has been constructed considering the major outcomes and consequences of the market. In this study, the years considered to estimate the market size of Chocolate Chip Cookies are as follows: 2018 – Base Year 2019 – Estimated Year 2025 – Projected Year Research Methodology This study estimates the size of the Chocolate Chip Cookies market for 2019 and projects its growth by 2025. It provides a detailed qualitative and quantitative analysis of the Chocolate Chip Cookies market. Primary sources, such as experts from related industries and suppliers of Chocolate Chip Cookies were interviewed to obtain and verify critical information and assess prospects of the Chocolate Chip Cookies market. Regional Analysis for Chocolate Chip Cookies Market North America (United States, Canada and Mexico) Europe  (Germany, France, UK, Russia and Italy) Asia-Pacific  (China, Japan, Korea, India and Southeast Asia) South America (Brazil, Argentina, Colombia etc.) Middle East and Africa (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa) More Info of this report @ https://www.acquiremarketresearch.com/industry-reports/chocolate-chip-cookies-market/75429/ Target Audience: Manufacturers of Chocolate Chip Cookies Traders, Distributors, and Suppliers of Chocolate Chip Cookies Raw Material Suppliers Government and Research Organizations Industry Associations Reasons to buy: 1.In-depth analysis of the market on the global and regional level. 2.Major changes in market dynamics and competitive landscape. 3.Segmentation on the basis of type, application, geography and others. 4.Historical and future market research in terms of size, share, growth, volume & sales. 5.Major changes and assessment in market dynamics & developments. 6.Industry size & share analysis with industry growth and trends. Research methodology of Chocolate Chip Cookies Market: Research study on the Chocolate Chip Cookies Market was performed in five phases which include Secondary research, Primary research, subject matter expert advice, quality check and final review. Enquiry Before Buying:https://www.acquiremarketresearch.com/enquire-before/75429/ Contact Us: Phone No.: +1 (800) 663-5616 Email ID: sales@acquiremarketresearch.com

[coin-news-blog]

'Crazy' Chain of Bitcoin Transfers Drives Cryptoverse Crazy

New Post has been published on https://coinmakers.tech/news/crazy-chain-of-bitcoin-transfers-drives-cryptoverse-crazy

'Crazy' Chain of Bitcoin Transfers Drives Cryptoverse Crazy

Millions in the world’s most popular cryptocurrency have been moved from one wallet to the next today, and the Cryptoworld wants to know why.

In the last 24 hours quite a few large Bitcoin (BTC) transactions have been spotted by the crypto tracking Twitter account Whale Alert. First we find two transactions from exchanges to unknown wallets: BTC 1,000 (worth USD 7.4 million) moved from bitFlyer and BTC 1,500 (USD 11 million) from OKEx, plus a BTC 1,000 transfer from Binance to Gemini.

However, following that, there is a series of large transfers from unknown wallets to unknown wallets recorded. Twenty two related similar transaction have been recorded, one after another, ranging between the first and the largest one of BTC 55,877 (c. USD 415.4 million) and the last, smallest one of BTC 55,337 (c. USD 410.3 million).

But looking deeper, we see it started with this address that has 9 transactions recorded, all made in the last two days. All its BTC 55,877 were sent to this address, with only two transactions, both made today. This address, also with only two transactions, then received BTC 55,860 from multiple addresses, one of which is the previously mentioned address, which in turn sent it to the next one, and so on, forming a chain to the last address reported. It too currently has two transactions, but both are transfers to the wallet with 0 BTC sent. It got BTC 55,337 from the previous wallet in line, and two hours later a small amount of BTC 0.00004444.

Observing the transactions, this is what can be concluded:

a total of 23 addresses were used in the chain;

BTC was never transferred to an address used previously;

all but the first one made only two transactions each, on December 6;

all received BTC was transferred to the next address, with nothing left on the balance;

BTC stayed no longer than a minute on each addresses;

the final transfer was sent 12 minutes after the first one.

Why would someone do this?

This is what the Cryptoverse is asking, as it’s not quite clear what would anybody gain by transferring their money from one address to the next, twenty-two times, incurring fees each time.

that's crazy, why are they doing that? pic.twitter.com/6OmgqT7409

— Miko Matsumura ㋡ (@mikojava) December 6, 2019

Whale Alert announced that it will show less of these transactions as they “are very likely change transactions,” which might explain the transactions being sent in their entirety to a newly generated Bitcoin address.

When you'll send 1 bitcoin from a utxo that contains 55000 bitcoin, 1 bitcoin gets send to the receiver and 54999 bitcoin get send back to a different utxo you control as change.

— SFD ⚡️🔍🔦 (@artdesignbySF) December 6, 2019

This decision was not welcomed by the community as many felt it’s something they should continue reporting on. Others expressed their hope that change transactions were behind this so to “put to bed the Bittrex Exchange wallet transfer conspiracy.”

Would be nice if they kept them in. All the fuss when these transactions happen is a teachable Bitcoin moment.

— Mark (@MarkWar01038208) December 6, 2019

Larry Cermak, head analyst for news site The Block, suggested that this could be “peeling,” whereby a small amount from a large transaction is transferred to an output address and the remainder to another, repeating this numerous times, and all in the effort to increase privacy, which is why it can be used for money laundering. However, given how easily this is noticeable by analysis software, Cermak doubts this is a matter of something illegal.

He does say that this address looks like it’s affiliated with Bittrex, or it could be their new wallet system. People have noted, however, that it’s unlikely that even blockchain analysis softwares would be able to track these coins past them being mixed using a mixer such as CoinJoin.

What's going on @BittrexExchange?

— Larry Cermak (@lawmaster) December 6, 2019

Ya not sure, seems like they are just very inefficiently reshuffling coins in their wallets. Why they use a peeling chain for this I'm not sure (yet). Wonder if they think they can obscure activity/addresses?

Btw, the peeling continues, huge recent on–chain volumes caused by it.

— Rafael Schultze-Kraft (@n3ocortex) December 6, 2019

Developer Udi Wertheimer joined in on the discussion saying: “I’m not sure how this is “mixing user funds” in any way that is more significant than normal exchange operation. Could be any number of reasons that an exchange would want to have pre-prepared 15 BTC sized outputs.” He added that "mixing" is subjective and that during normal operation coins in exchanges are “mixed” anyway. "You deposit funds, when you withdraw you don’t get coins from those outputs, you get them from other outputs. There’s no need for any specific base layer activity for that," says Wertheimer.

If at all, by merging many outputs together into a larger one, an exchange is reducing its own privacy and the privacy of its customers, by making it clear to anyone watching that those funds went through the exchange

— Udi Wertheimer (@udiWertheimer) December 6, 2019

Other theories were put on the table as well. Some say that it could be an exchange, or “someone trying to troll with on-chain volume / metrics,” others asked if it could be beta testing of some sort, and there were those who were worried about the amount of BTC moved and their potential effect on the market.

We all saw it (maybe whale bots trippin).

We should begin conversing on whether that person wants to destroy all crypto, because it would only take one small chunk of his balance to plunge is back to $1k BTC

— Bryson Shiller ⚡☣ (@DxnvxrW) December 6, 2019

And, as this is the Cryptoverse we’re talking about, there were some more humorous theories thrown out there for our amusement as well.

Craig satisfying court order. 😁

— Mike and Lee (@azcpllandm) December 6, 2019

__

Drug deal.

— XRP [🐂₿ULLISH] VEGAS (@funkybadchad) December 6, 2019

__

the chances keep getting greater that they accidentally put it into my wallet 😂😂

— Chuckles (@Canadooba) December 6, 2019

__

Meanwhile, BTC is now trading at USD 7,378. It dropped 0.25% in the last 24 hours and 2.59% in the last week.

Source: cryptonews.com

[theconservativebrief]

California passed legislation in August to get rid of money bail, joining the wave of states and local jurisdictions that have undertaken some form of bail reform over the past few years. When the new law goes into effect in 2019, people arrested and charged for a crime in California will no longer be asked to post bail as a condition of their release.

The trend away from money bail — the payment required for a person to be released from jail as they await court hearings — is a welcome development. The use of money bail is one of the most troubling features of our deeply unequal justice system.

Bail amounts vary widely, with a nationwide median of around $10,000 for felonies (though much higher for serious charges) and less for misdemeanors (in some places such as New York City, typically under $2,000, though much higher in some jurisdictions). But even the lower amounts are more than most people can pay, and many spend time in jail for lack of as little as $500 or even $250.

Kiss Bail Bonds in Las Vegas advertises an expedited get out of jail service with a free ride home. In Pictures Ltd./Corbis via Getty Images

Our reliance on bail has essentially created a two-tiered justice system in the US. Many of the nearly half a million unconvicted people confined in jails on any given day are there because they can’t afford to pay bail. As people await court hearings behind bars, sometimes for months or even years, they suffer from inadequate medical care and even dangerous conditions, and many lose their jobs and housing. They also have a higher chance of being convicted than if they hadn’t been assigned bail, as they take plea bargains just to get out of jail, whether or not they actually committed a crime.

They and their families are also targets for the $2 billion-per-year for-profit bond industry, which routinely exploits people — disproportionately people of color — in desperate situations.

There’s a rising movement to fight the money bail system. Advocates and legislators across the country are pushing to get rid of money bail in their states and in local jurisdictions. They argue that the system imposes an enormous and unfair burden on people and their families, especially low-income people of color. Udi Ofer, the director of the Campaign for Smart Justice at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), says the money bail system is “one of the most corrupt and broken parts of our justice system.”

Getting rid of money bail — and releasing many more people pretrial — is a high-impact policy shift that can dramatically improve millions of lives.

In the colonies, as in England, those who were eligible for pretrial release relied on friends and family (“personal sureties”) who agreed to pay an agreed-upon amount if they failed to appear at court. In this system, the vast majority of those who were deemed eligible for release actually were released, at least at first.

But in the 1800s, as people had trouble finding personal sureties, courts shifted to the use of “secured” money bail. The idea behind money bail is to provide a financial incentive for a person who has been accused of a crime — but not yet convicted — to attend court hearings at a later date.

Several forms of money bail are used in today’s courts. The most common form is “surety bail bond,” by which a person pays not the full amount but a fee — often around 10 percent of the bail amount — to a commercial bail agent. That bail agent agrees to pay the full bail amount if the person fails to appear at a court hearing. The 10 percent fee is not returned to the person, and bail agents often also require the person (or their friends and family) to sign over collateral to cover the full bail amount. The United States and the Philippines are the only two countries in the world with a legalized for-profit bond industry.

Another kind of money bail is “cash bail,” which is money paid to the court and returned — often minus a court fee — once the person returns for all court hearings.

Friends and relatives of a suspended patrolmen crowd a clerk’s office to arrange bail bond for the accused, in Denver, Colorado, on October 1, 1961. Denver Post via Getty Images

As early as the 1920s, reformers began to point out the problems with the bail system. Bail agents abused their power; judges set money bail that people couldn’t afford to pay. By the 1960s, advocates were pointing to studies showing that assigning bail was unnecessary: The vast majority of people would return to court if released without paying money bail.

The Bail Reform Act passed by Congress in 1966 established that a person should be released on their own recognizance, or under the “least restrictive conditions” that could ensure their appearance at court hearings, and many states passed their own similar statutes. But while these statutes attempted to curb the use of money bail, they did not get rid of it, as judges sometimes still assigned money bail that people could not afford to pay.

In the 1970s and ’80s, fear of rising crime led to the Bail Reform Act of 1984. The act allowed a judge in a federal court to detain someone either for flight risk — that is, if there was convincing evidence that they would abscond if released — or if they were assessed to be a serious threat to public safety. Many states adopted similar statutes in the ’70s and ’80s. A few years later, the Supreme Court in United States v. Salerno affirmed the constitutionality of detaining someone for reasons of public safety, while also making it clear that “in our society liberty is the norm,” and detaining someone prior to trial is the “carefully limited exception.”

Nearly 30 years later, pretrial detainment is not a “carefully limited exception.” Judges routinely assign bail that people can’t afford to pay. Between 1990 and 2009, releases in which courts used money bail in felony cases rose from 37 percent to 61 percent.

Studies have shown that even at low amounts, most people cannot quickly post bail. They end up staying in jail for days or weeks (and sometimes much longer); for instance, in Philadelphia from 2008 to 2013, nearly 40 percent of those with bail set at $500 or less stayed in jail for at least three days. In these cases, money bail effectively detains people without giving them the rights they could have if they underwent a formal detention hearing.

Moreover, the way decisions about bail are made raises serious questions about the system. A judge setting bail usually takes mere minutes to issue a decision. There’s also evidence that this process is incredibly arbitrary. For example, recent analysis of bail decisions in New York City from FiveThirtyEight shows that the chance of being assigned cash bail varies wildly — between 2 and 26 percent for misdemeanors, and 30 to 69 percent for felonies — depending on which judge happens to be overseeing a court on a given day.

In many places, courts follow bail schedules — amounts that are based on charge — without taking into account details of a person’s case or their ability to pay, and often without defense counsel being present. Nearly 11 million people are admitted to jails across the country each year, many because of their inability to pay bail. (Most people in “jails” are unconvicted, whereas “prisons” are where people serve sentences.)

Peter Wagner / Prison Policy Initiative

Beyond the sheer numbers are the personal stories of those who have suffered as a result of the money bail system. One story is that of Kalief Browder, a 16-year-old in New York City who was accused of stealing a backpack in 2010. His family couldn’t afford the $3,000 bail set by the judge, and he spent the next three years in a jail on Rikers Island awaiting trial. Browder refused to plead guilty, and his case was finally dropped by the prosecution, who sent him home. However, after years in jail, much of it in solitary confinement, Browder had trouble readjusting to his old life. He died by suicide in 2015.

Prisoner rights activists, in seeking justice for Kalief Browder, held a press conference at New York City Hall asking for Mayor de Blasio, Governor Cuomo and Department of Correction Commissioner Ponte to immediately shut down Rikers Island, on February 23, 2016. Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images

Catalyzed by the injustice of money bail, many advocates and leaders across the political spectrum are pushing to end its use.

One important strategy for fighting the system is to argue in court that setting unaffordable money bail is unconstitutional — a violation of the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment. Nonprofits including Civil Rights Corps, Equal Justice Under Law, the ACLU, and the Southern Poverty Law Center have lodged dozens of lawsuits challenging the practice in many states, including Texas, Alabama, Illinois, and California.

These suits have led to some major victories, including a 2017 ruling from a federal judge who found that the money bail system in Harris County, Texas, was unconstitutional. In the year after her ruling, more than 12,000 people — accused of misdemeanors and held on money bail that they couldn’t afford — were released. (The decision is being appealed.)

The fight against bail is also taking place at the local level, with the election of progressive district attorneys. District attorneys have enormous discretion in the cases they decide they will pursue and the charges they bring, as well as in whether they ask the judge to set bail in a particular case. Progressive district attorneys, such as Kim Foxx in Chicago and Larry Krasner in Philadelphia, have decided that their offices will not seek bail for a range of charges.

ACLU’s Udi Ofer (left), State’s Attorney Kim Foxx and Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner participate in a panel discussion on criminal justice reform in Washington D.C., on May 9, 2018. Paul Morigi/AP

Advocates have also sought to push for reform in another venue: state legislatures. This year, California was the first state to legislate money bail entirely out of existence. Legislation in New Jersey that virtually eliminated money bail went into effect in 2017. (Washington, DC, also did away with incarceration as a result of money bail, back in 1992.) Some states, including Massachusetts, have passed statutes requiring that courts inquire into ability to pay money bail, and others, including Alaska and Illinois, have put restrictions on the cases in which people can be assigned money bail or encouraged courts to use “unsecured” bail (only payable if the person fails to appear in court).

But while there is wide consensus that bail reform is needed, there’s disagreement about what it should look like.

The shared goal of reforming bail is to get rid of the wealth-based pretrial system — and to do this without a significant increase in crime or failure to appear in court. There are many specific proposals across jurisdictions, but these are the main elements that advocates tend to agree on:

Release the vast majority of people as they await court hearings with no conditions except making all court appearances, and make very limited use of pretrial detention.

Increase use of “pretrial services,” which could include check-in calls with officers and texted court reminders (studies have shown these can significantly improve court appearance rates), as well as helping people attend court by offering transportation. In recent years, many states have passed legislation to create or bolster pretrial service agencies.

There is, however, a big debate among advocates about how to decide whom to detain pretrial — which gets us into the contentious topic of “risk assessment.”

Risk assessment refers to a tool to help predict a defendant’s risk of failing to appear for court and rearrest. So far, risk assessment tools have been adopted by several states, including New Jersey, Arizona, and Kentucky, as well as by dozens of local jurisdictions across the country.

The tools use data from past cases to predict who is a “high,” “medium,” or “low” risk for not showing up to their court dates and rearrest, based on factors such as criminal record and age at arrest. An algorithm then produces a score, which is then used by judges in determining whether to hold someone in jail (“remand” them), or to release them to some form of supervision or on their own recognizance (with the agreement to appear for court hearings).

There are a variety of such tools available, including the Public Safety Assessment tool developed by the Arnold Foundation and the COMPAS tool developed by the for-profit company Equivant (formerly Northpointe).

One of the main arguments for using such algorithms is that judges are already making these kinds of predictions in their heads but are highly fallible and inconsistent. By adopting a tool, some argue, judges will have additional information to guide them on who to release into the community versus who to hold in jail pretrial. They argue that such tools can help courts better achieve the goal of reducing pretrial detention, without a rise in failures to appear in court or risk to public safety.

Cherise Fanno Burdeen, CEO of the Pretrial Justice Institute, stresses that the tools on their own should not determine who is detained. But she argues that they have an important role in improving the evidence about who is very likely to return to court and pose little risk to the community. “It’s inappropriate not to use the data that’s available to us to improve our decision-making,” she says.

However, many other advocates have spoken out against such risk assessment instruments. One argument is that risk assessment algorithms predict the wrong outcomes: Instead of giving the probability of risk of violent crime or real flight risk, they predict risk of any arrest and failure to appear in court. (There are a couple of exceptions such as the Arnold Foundation’s tool, which does give a separate score for chance of arrest for a violent crime.)

Another major concern is that the tools are biased against people of color. Because people of color have been disproportionately targeted by police, this argument goes, criminal history data will also skew accordingly — and in turn skew risk assessment results. (This has led to discussion of competing kinds of statistical fairness, as well as potential ways to adjust an algorithm to make it more fair.) Further, advocates also point out that an instrument could actually lead to higher pretrial detention — depending on the subjective decision of how “risky” is deemed too risky by the designers of the tool.

Finally, there’s a growing question about the real-world impacts of the tools, with researchers pointing out that we have little evidence on how they are used by judges. A recent independent evaluation from Kentucky shows many judges selectively ignored an algorithm’s recommendations, and that as a result, jail populations did not decrease over time as intended.

Opponents of risk assessment want the vast majority of people who are arrested to be released (some with pretrial services), and for the minority charged with certain violent crimes to have an individualized hearing in order to consider the specific factors and evidence in their case. While some acknowledge that prediction tools could be useful in making certain decisions — for instance, to determine those who should be released, or who could benefit from additional support — they oppose the tools currently on offer.

More than 100 groups, including the ACLU and NAACP, recently signed a statement advising against adopting pretrial risk-assessment tools, while giving recommendations to the many jurisdictions that have already adopted a tool — for example, the wider community should be included in designing a transparent algorithm, and any tool should be regularly audited by independent researchers to ensure that it is reducing jail populations and racial disparities. The debate about risk assessment is likely going to continue as more states and jurisdictions consider adopting a tool in the years ahead.

Bail reform has had broad support from many quarters in recent years, with the major exception of — you guessed it — the for-profit bail industry, which has been vociferous in its warnings about the risk of getting rid of money bail. The industry warns that crime (and especially violent crime) will go up as more people are released. But this risk is likely not that high. Even the “high risk” group, as it is labeled in risk assessment tools, has only about an 8 percent chance of being arrested for a new violent crime within six months.

Michelle Esquenazi, known as The Bail Bond Queen, seen in her office in Hempstead, New York, on December 4, 2015. Esquenazi, the mother of four with a “masters degree from the streets of Brooklyn” says she worked her way up from a paralegal student on welfare to CEO of a phenomenally successful company. Jewel Samad/AFP/Getty Images

The experience of jurisdictions that have gotten rid of money bail also shows that releasing many more people doesn’t correlate with a high level of rearrest for violent crimes. Washington, DC, got rid of secured money bail and bolstered pretrial services in 1992; today, it releases 94 percent of those accused of crimes as they await court hearings. Of those people, 88 percent returned for all court appearances last year, and only 2 percent were arrested for a violent crime as they awaited court hearings.

The main risk that reformers tend to worry about is not a rise in crime, but instead, as Human Rights Watch puts it, the risk of replacing “one harmful system with another.” Advocates worry that legislation some states have considered or adopted will have the consequence of giving courts too much leeway in detaining people pretrial, or even encourage them to do so.

This was the basis for one of the major objections to the new California legislation from groups such as the ACLU: The bill states that many of those accused of misdemeanors will be released, but specifies a “rebuttable presumption of detention” for a wide range of non-misdemeanor charges. In those cases, the court would use risk assessment tools and potentially hold those deemed “high risk” in jail.

Essie Justice Group, a nonprofit organization of women with incarcerated loved ones, helped create and supported a previous version of the bill, but opposed the version that was passed. Gina Clayton-Johnson, the executive director and founder, said that the legislation “completely undermines the purpose for which black and brown women, formerly incarcerated, currently incarcerated, and low-income communities have been rallying around the cry for bail reform.”

There’s also a risk that in lieu of money bail, courts might start to assign a high number of people to unnecessarily onerous forms of supervision, such as electronic monitoring, which advocates argue can be nearly as punitive as being in jail.

These concerns underscore a broader point: What matters is not just getting rid of money bail, but taking care that any new system does much better to make liberty the norm, and pretrial detention or punitive supervision the carefully limited exception.

There’s a lot of momentum around bail reform that advocates believe will translate into further big policy shifts in the coming years. States like New York that considered — but did not pass — legislation to get rid of money bail (or much reduce it) this past year may well be able to do so in coming years. District attorneys are running progressive campaigns all over the country. There’s also legislation proposed at the federal level, including a bill put forward by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and another from Sens. Kamala Harris (D-CA) and Rand Paul (R-KY), which include federal support for states in their bail reform efforts. (The federal system relies very little on money bail; the majority of people detained in federal cases are ordered to be held in jail.)

A bail bonds service in Wilmington, Ohio, on January 19, 2017. Andrew Spear for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Part of the work of the ACLU (which is working on bail reform in 38 states), JustLeadershipUSA, Color of Change, and many other organizations is also to raise awareness of how millions of people are being incarcerated each year due to inability to pay bail, without being convicted. In the past few years, the topic has gone from being relatively low-profile to a major area of reform.

In the meantime, since legislative and judicial changes can take time, a rising number of charities are paying bail to get people out of jail now. These include many local and state groups that are part of the National Bail Fund Network, as well as the Bail Project (for which I volunteer) and New York City’s Dollar Bail Brigade, which pays bail for hundreds of people each year who, due to an administrative quirk of the city’s system, are stuck in NYC jails on $1. There are also campaigns to bail out many people at once: This month, the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights organization is leading a mass bailout to pay bail for hundreds of women and teenagers held in Rikers Island jails in NYC.

While there are many, many serious problems with the criminal justice system, money bail stands out as particularly egregious: One in five people behind bars in this country is unconvicted, and many are there because they cannot pay bail of a few hundred to a few thousand dollars. In 1964, then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy said to Congress, “The rich man and the poor man do not receive equal justice in our courts. And in no area is this more evident than in the matter of bail. … This is a cause in which there is great work to be done.”

More than 50 years later, Kennedy’s words ring truer than ever.

Stephanie Wykstra (@swykstr) is a freelance writer and researcher based in New York.

Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter. Twice a week, you’ll get a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling our biggest challenges: improving public health, decreasing human and animal suffering, easing catastrophic risks, and — to put it simply — getting better at doing good.

Original Source -> Bail reform, which could save millions of innocent people from jail, explained

via The Conservative Brief

[retroldschooltv]

Centuriones: Power Xtreme es una serie de televisión animada de ciencia ficción estadounidense de 30 minutos producida por Ruby-Spears y animada en Japón por Sunrise's Studio 7. Las leyendas del cómic Jack Kirby y Gil Kane contribuyeron al diseño y los conceptos del espectáculo. La serie comenzó en 1986 como una miniserie de cinco partes y fue seguida con una serie de 60 episodios. La serie fue editada por Ted Pedersen y escrita por varios autores, incluidos los prolíficos escritores de ciencia ficción Michael Reaves, Marc Scott Zicree, Larry DiTillio y Gerry Conway. El tema de la serie y la banda sonora fueron compuestos por Udi Harpaz. También había una línea de juguetes vinculados por Kenner y una serie de cómics de DC Comics. El espectáculo gira en torno al conflicto entre los cyborgs de Doc Terror y los Centurions (una combinación de hard-suit y un mecha). #retroact #cartoon #sunrise #studio7 #tvshow #tvseries

[maturemenoftvandfilms]

Larry Udy Physique: Heavy-set/Husky build Height: 5' 11¼" (1.81 m)

Larry Udy is an American actor who’s known for his work on Crocodile, Phil of the Future and No Dessert, Dad, Till You Mow the Lawn. A big, gruff looking guy, Larry has been seen on numerous shows from GCB, NYPD Blue, Married With Children to a recurring role on The Tonight Show. He’s done over a dozen commercials including two SuperBowl commercials. You may not know his name but you probably know his face or at least his big belly!

I couldn't find any info on if he's married or not, but with my luck, he's straight and married. So I choose to go with what I normally do in this situation. Imagine Larry is waiting for me to come into his life with my dick and ass.

[bearmythology]

I just realized that I posted about Larry Udy (thanks for the name again @dangerously-ripe-fruit) back in 2008. I had a link to a YouTube video, but looks like it’s gone. I also noticed that I can save my WordPress photos but I’m unable to view it (another project that I won’t have time to research for; though it’s ticking me off as I obviously want people to download the images I post there).

[skarslovers-blog]

Sharp Talent - A Management Company

Congrats to LARRY UDY for booking a Role on the Series Finale of "True Blood" He was in the pilot and seven seasons later he is coming back bookending the series.

[coin-news-blog]

Tron and Poloniex Relationship Scrutinized After Digibyte Delisting

New Post has been published on https://coinmakers.tech/news/tron-and-poloniex-relationship-scrutinized-after-digibyte-delisting

Tron and Poloniex Relationship Scrutinized After Digibyte Delisting

Tron and Poloniex Relationship Scrutinized After Digibyte Delisting

The crypto firm Circle recently revealed that it was spinning off the trading platform Poloniex and has since warned customers to withdraw assets or they may be sent to state governments. Following the announcement, the founder of the crypto network Digibyte (DGB), Jared Tate, explained he was extremely upset that his friend’s and family’s sensitive personal data “is now in the hands of [Poloniex].” Not too long after Tate’s tweet, the Poloniex Twitter account responded by denying ownership of U.S. customer data, and revealed the exchange would “delist DGB soon.”

Crypto Community Discusses Poloniex Delisting Digibyte ‘After Careful Review’

The trading platform Poloniex has been scrutinized lately after the over-the-counter (OTC) digital currency management firm Circle sold the exchange in October. After the spinoff, Frank Chaparro and Celia Wan asserted that “Tron founder Justin Sun is behind Poloniex’s spin-off.” Others in the crypto industry also assumed Sun had a hand in the crypto exchange purchase.

At the time, Tron (TRX) founder Justin Sun denied being behind the exchange purchase, but on November 12 he admitted he was part of a group of investors behind the Poloniex acquisition during a live-streamed broadcast published on Twitter. Moreover, since Poloniex left the Circle umbrella, U.S. customers have been banned from using the platform and asked to withdraw coins by a certain date. Circle emailed its U.S. customers this week and detailed that it may charge dormant fees to people who don’t withdraw their crypto and digital assets may be sent to governments.

After the news, Digibyte (DGB) founder Jared Tate took to Twitter and said he was not very happy about the situation. The tweetstorm also attacked the Tron (TRX) network and Tate called Poloniex a “TRX shill factory after making off with U.S. customers’ sensitive data.” After discussing his dislike for the crypto and the business move Tate wrote:

I am royally pissed my personal data, my friend’s and family’s data and other U.S. Digibyte customers’ most sensitive data is now in the hands of this circus that is now Poloniex. Or the TRX shill factory as we should now call it.

After a careful review, we decided #DigiByte is not qualified per our listing standard. We will delist $DGB soon. Details to be announced.

— Poloniex Exchange (@Poloniex) December 5, 2019

Aggressive Strategy

The tweets received a response from the Poloniex Twitter account after Tate accused the company of holding U.S. data. “We don’t own any U.S. customers’ data as all of them are preserved by Circle,” the Poloniex account replied to the Digibyte founder. “By the way, after careful review, we decided digibyte is not qualified for our listing standard [and] we will delist DGB soon — Details to be announced.”

After the Poloniex account announced the exchange would delist DGB, the discussion became a hot topic on social media and crypto forums. The Block analyst Larry Cermak tweeted “What’s happening with Tron and Poloniex is an embarrassment — Please don’t delist me Poloniex.” Podcaster Udi Wertheimer explained how the controversy was great marketing.

“Poloniex was a completely irrelevant exchange up until a few months ago. No one remembered it existed,” Wertheimer tweeted. “Now with a new eccentric owner, and an aggressive social media strategy, it’s everyone’s favorite topic. Watch and learn plebs.”

Wertheimer is right that the community and the company’s decisions have made the Poloniex and Tron relationship a trending topic within crypto circles. The recent email from Circle and the announcement that the exchange will delist DGB also follows Poloniex’s acquisition of TRXmarket. The largest decentralized exchange (dex) by volume on the Tron network was purchased by Poloniex for an undisclosed sum.

Source: news.bitcoin