#Patent claim analysis

[einfolge1]

Comprehensive Guide to Claim Chart Analysis in Patenting

In the realm of intellectual property (IP) and patent law, claim chart analysis stands as a crucial tool. It serves not only to assert patent rights but also to defend against infringement allegations. By breaking down the claims of a patent and comparing them to prior art, claim chart analysis helps to determine the validity and scope of a patent. This process is essential for both patent holders looking to protect their intellectual property and parties accused of infringing on existing patents.

[iipsearch]

Understanding Evidence of Use Search & Patent Claim Chart Services | IIP Search

Discover the essentials of Evidence of Use (EOU) search and patent claim chart services. Learn how EOU strengthens IP enforcement, licensing, and litigation strategies. Understand the importance of claim charts, their role in IP cases, and the benefits of professional services. Partner with experts to protect and maximize your intellectual property. Visit IIP Search to explore comprehensive solutions tailored to your needs.

Protect your innovations with confidence. Partner with IIP Search for tailored solutions in patent research and analysis. Visit iipsearch.com today to learn more and schedule a consultation.

[probablyasocialecologist]

An innovation that propelled Britain to become the world’s leading iron exporter during the Industrial Revolution was appropriated from an 18th-century Jamaican foundry, historical records suggest. The Cort process, which allowed wrought iron to be mass-produced from scrap iron for the first time, has long been attributed to the British financier turned ironmaster Henry Cort. It helped launch Britain as an economic superpower and transformed the face of the country with “iron palaces”, including Crystal Palace, Kew Gardens’ Temperate House and the arches at St Pancras train station. Now, an analysis of correspondence, shipping records and contemporary newspaper reports reveals the innovation was first developed by 76 black Jamaican metallurgists at an ironworks near Morant Bay, Jamaica. Many of these metalworkers were enslaved people trafficked from west and central Africa, which had thriving iron-working industries at the time. Dr Jenny Bulstrode, a lecturer in history of science and technology at University College London (UCL) and author of the paper, said: “This innovation kicks off Britain as a major iron producer and … was one of the most important innovations in the making of the modern world.” The technique was patented by Cort in the 1780s and he is widely credited as the inventor, with the Times lauding him as “father of the iron trade” after his death. The latest research presents a different narrative, suggesting Cort shipped his machinery – and the fully fledged innovation – to Portsmouth from a Jamaican foundry that was forcibly shut down.

[...]

The paper, published in the journal History and Technology, traces how Cort learned of the Jamaican ironworks from a visiting cousin, a West Indies ship’s master who regularly transported “prizes” – vessels, cargo and equipment seized through military action – from Jamaica to England. Just months later, the British government placed Jamaica under military law and ordered the ironworks to be destroyed, claiming it could be used by rebels to convert scrap metal into weapons to overthrow colonial rule. “The story here is Britain closing down, through military force, competition,” said Bulstrode. The machinery was acquired by Cort and shipped to Portsmouth, where he patented the innovation. Five years later, Cort was discovered to have embezzled vast sums from navy wages and the patents were confiscated and made public, allowing widespread adoption in British ironworks. Bulstrode hopes to challenge existing narratives of innovation. “If you ask people about the model of an innovator, they think of Elon Musk or some old white guy in a lab coat,” she said. “They don’t think of black people, enslaved, in Jamaica in the 18th century.”

[carriesthewind]

Yeah so anyway, I'm making my response to this fucking garbage its own separate post in case people want to reblog it without having to reblog a scare-mongering lie.

This video pisses me the fuck off whenever I see it, and today I'm not in the mood to just scroll past.

Wow! Am I being lead to panic by scaremongering algorithm fodder completely unsupported by real evidence?! test:

The reason you think something exists is just what you're being told by a nefarious *them*, there is actually a conspiracy behind it!

I, an ordinary person with no expertise who critically examines the world around me, have uncovered this conspiracy.

"That's what they're telling you." (put the emphasis wherever appropriate for the conspiracy of your choice - in this case, it's on *telling*)

This new tech thing is actually a bad idea and the old school method was better - which clearly proves there must be a secret conspiracy, because why allow the possibility of incompetence and investor tech-hype when you can instead assume a highly-competent evil conspiracy?

I will now tell you my conspiracy theory while scrolling rapidly through a document without pausing or allowing you to actually read any of it. This allows me to look like I have proven my claims while doing nothing of the sort. Because do you really think someone could do that? Quickly flash a document on screen and just lie about what it says?

But Owl! This is real! A user upthread found the patent and it *does* prove it!

Yeah. I read the linked patent. Did you?

Let's quote the "real purpose" hidden in the patent, as claimed out in the video:

"The real purpose of these screens is to use the little camera at the top right here to scan your face and use AI facial expression analysis to judge whether or not you like the packaging designs of the product you're looking for."

This is complete made up horseshit.

First, let's look where the reblogger directs us, to column #4 on page 17:

"Preferably, each retail product container further comprises customer-detecting hardware, such as one or more proximity sensors (such as heat maps) , cameras, facial sensors or scanners, and eye-sensors (i.e., iris-tracking sensors). Assuming cameras are employed, preferably cameras are mounted on doors of the retail product containers. Preferably, the cameras have a depth of field of view of twenty feet or more, and have a range of field of view of 170 degrees with preferably 150 degree of facial recognition ability. Preferably, software is employed in association with the cameras to monitor shopper interactions, serve up relevant advertisement content on the displays, and track advertisement engagement in - store." (emphasis added and references to figures removed for readability)

That is the extent of the "nonconsensual data collection."

Now, to be fair, there is some stuff on page 18 and 19 which kinda-sorta-maybe has at least some relation to the claim in the video:

"Preferably, the controller/data collector is configured such that as a shopper stands or lingers in front of a given retail product container, the display associated with the retail product container changes yet again. At this point, preferably the controller/data collector has been able to use the customer-detecting hardware to effectively learn more about that particular customer, such as gender, age, mood, etc. The controller / data collector is configured to take what has been detected about the customer to determine which advertisement and other information to present to that particular customer on the display associated with the retail product container in front of which the customer is standing. By tracking shopper data in parallel with which advertising content is being served on all displays within the viewing range of the shopper, the retailer and the brands are better served, providing new analytics. As such, the system provides advertising, influence opportunities at the moment of purchasing decision, optimizing marketing spend and generating new revenue streams....

"Additionally, preferably all inputs collected by the IOT devices will be analyzed locally as well as remotely (via cloud) to provide the feedback inputs for the system to push more relevant/targeted content, tailored for the consumer. The analytics are preferably conducted anonymously, images captured by cameras are preferably processed to collect statistics on consumer demographic characteristics: (such as age and gender). This data is preferably subsequently analyzed for additional statistics for the retailers that are valuable for in-store merchandise layout design and smart merchandizing, including the ability to track the shoppers “traffic” areas, known as “heat maps”, areas were [sic] customers would concentrate more and spend more time exploring, etc." (emphasis added and references to figures removed for readability) (And note the repeated emphasis on preferably - they don't have a patent to do any of this.)

Which, like, not great! I fucking hate the idea of shit like this! But there is literally nothing here about monitoring your expressions to sell the data about how you react to packaging!

This isn't a nefarious plan hidden in the patent. It's tech bros adding on totally sick ideas about how they can sell this shit to walgreens. (Because to be clear, I'm sure walgreens's corporate office would love to collect and sell this kind of information. But just because they would, doesn't mean they can or are. And this patent sure as hell doesn't prove it.)

Because let me be clear: the image capture of consumers is so irrelevant to the product that it literally isn't even included in the claims section of the patent.

Because the patent is quite explicit and detailed about the idea they are selling big retails stores on - this is a better, new, innovative, tech-driven way to "provide an innovative advertising solution"! (The words "AI," "intelligent," and "machine learning" are deployed liberally, but in the same way that "blockchain" was a few years ago. It's advertising tech hype.)

I want to make it clear - the OP in the video is straight up lying to you. Whether for fun or profit or just attention, I don't know and I don't care. If you shared this, you probably should have know better, but everyone makes mistakes. OP, on the other hand, is just a fucking liar.

But Owl! What about "the senators looking into this"?

I don't know how to tell you this, but thing linked about is a press release by a politician's office. That doesn't mean it's not true, but it's not evidence on it's own. Like, the letter linked in the link included links to sources, but is not itself evidence (ooh, layers of links to actually get to a source, my favorite)(actually my computer wouldn't even goddam open the links to the source, I had to independently search for it).

Anyway, the letter to Kroger linked in the press release by the senators contains a single sentence and a single link relevant to the claim here (linked for your convenience because it sure as hell wasn't for mine). Unfortunately, this article is itself based on a goddam press release (That isn't linked! Again, you're welcome.)

And when we finally get to the underlying fucking source. "In addition to transforming the customer experience and enhancing productivity for associates, the EDGE Shelf will enable Kroger to generate new revenue by selling digital advertising space to consumer packaged goods (CPGs) brands. Using video analytics, personalized offers and advertisements can be presented based on customer demographics." So it's purporting to something *kind of* like the claim in the video, but an entirely different format completely unrelated to the thing the video is scaremongering about.

Now Kroger did actually start using the advertising screens in 2023. And you can believe what you want about the data privacy claims and the claims about not using video, just sensors (which remember is entirely consistent with the patent). But remember: being skeptical of a company's claims is fine and good! It does not mean you have proven they are lying, and it especially does not prove you have claimed they are doing something extremely specific! And most of the articles, and the letter from the senators, are (much more reasonably) concerned about so-called "dynamic" or surge pricing. (Which is not related to the screens.)

Like goddamn. Aren't there enough real problems with surveillance and price-gorging to be concerned about without having to make up fake ones? Hell, why can't we at least be concerned with the real problems with those dumb screens, which is that the a) make shopping harder and b) catch fire?

[o-craven-canto]

Taxonomy rant

I’m sympathetic to claims that Linnean binominal nomenclature -- you know, the Homo sapiens Felis catus Quercus robur thing -- is inadequate to describe species as they exist in nature. But the problem is not with Linnean names, it’s with names period.

We interact with the world by imagining it’s made up of “things”, of discrete objects that belong to categories, have properties, and interact with each other; and to these “things“ we give “names”, which allow us to think and talk about them. Which is fine, as I don’t think we’d be able to interact productively with the world if it wasn’t for this level of naive abstraction. Imagine if we had to re-deduce the physical properties of each individual chair from its constituent molecules, instead of imagining the category “chair” and a standard protocol to make use of its members.

But then we fall back in the misconception that “species” are discrete, bounded categories built on variation around a central ideal type -- the Platonic essentialism that Richard Dawkins rightly considered the single greatest obstacle to most people in understanding biology and evolution. In reality, there is no “species” beyond the sum of all the individuals that make it up, which form smooth continua of variation and blur at the edges into related species.

We made a brave attempt at defining “species” as a group of individuals capable of interbreeding. This patently fails with bacteria and most protists, which reproduce asexually, and only engage in transfer of genes independently from reproduction. (And bacteria will happily accept DNA from different phyla and kingdoms, as if we could get pregnant from tree pollen.) It also raises the thorny question of what counts as interbreeding. Can two species interbreed if they bear viable but infertile offspring? What if the offspring is fertile, but sicklier than non-hybrids? What if they can interbreed just fine, but just choose not to because they have different mating signals? Even if you choose arbitrarily one step of the ladder of noninterfecundity as your criterion, populations that are not constantly mixed will drift away from each other over time as they accumulate new mutations.

What of ring species, which show that the ability to interbreed is not transitive, so that A can breed with B, and B can breed with C, but C cannot breed with A? In any given moment of time these are fairly rare, but if you pry open time and look at life diachronically, you will see that every single living population is like that. There is an uniterrupted chain of parents and children in which each ring obviously belonged to the “same species” of the previous and the next (or the previous hundred and the next hundred), but the first ring of the chain is a lancelet-like worm-fish thing, and the last is a turtle or a hummingbird or a cheetah.

You can choose to measure genetic distance between populations and set an arbitrary maximum as your species threshold, but distance is again not transitive, and again you run against bacteria -- a population of bacteria, allegedly all of the same species, can have quite different genomes from cell to cell, between environmental pickup of DNA, quasi-sexual transfer, and viral infections.

Shall we then treat individuals as unit of analysis, rather than species? (With a trillion billion billion bacteria living on Earth at any given time? Good luck) But then we run in the same issue -- where are the borders of the individual? Meiosis and fertilization at least create a clean enough break between generations in sexually reproducing species, but what of those parthenogenetic aphids and rotifera in which each individual is just a clone grown from a cell of their mother? What of budding hydrae, and clonal colonies of polyps and trees, in which an “individual” simply grows out of another as if they were but a limb?

For that matter, consider our gut bacteria, which outnumber by far our genetically human cells, and yet are a necessary part of our body no less than our own tonsils or gall bladder, despite being more unlike us than ferns. Consider mitochondria, of which there are a thousand in each eukaryotic cells, without which every oxygen breather would cease to be, and who still retain their own bacterial genome and transcription after two billion years of coexistence. Consider ERV sequences, which are but viruses that accidentally copied themselves into cells about to divide, and which make up at least 5% of the genome of every single human cell (parts of the genes for the mammalian placenta may come from there).

There are no species; there are no individuals either. Even cells and genes are on thin ice. There is just Life, a seething, shoggothy four-dimensional mass rooted in some Archean hydrothermal vent and stretching cancerous tendrils across the aeons, of which species and individuals are merely local clusters and sub-clusters that we point out and give a name to because, much like with constellations, it’s convenient for certain purposes. (Including making sense of Life and Its history as best as we can.)

Enough with that “did you know that sharks are not really fish?” nonsense. Embrace taxonomic nihilism. It is an objective fact about the physical world that the lineage of sharks diverged from the lineage of tunas before the lineage of tunas diverged from ours. It is not a fact that sharks “are” or “aren’t” fish, because categories are phantoms and nothing actually “is” except wave functions and the void. (It is also a fact that sharks are not Osteichthyes, but only because the word “Osteichthyes”, unlike the word “fish”, was defined in a specific way that excludes sharks.)

In sum, I support keeping Linnean nomenclature around on the grounds that

We need to give names to things anyway, and

I have a fetish for Greek and Latin roots. Dicopomorpha echmepterygis. Hrngh.

[tokiro07]

Toki Reads Shonen Jump 2024, Issue #49

HxH: Hisoka claims that because he's not into bestiality, his tastes are normal - this is patently false; the Phantom Troupe inches towards conflict with the Heil-Ly. With any luck, we'll get a Nen battle, haven't seen one of those in a while

Yozakura Family: It turns out that the Yozakura's already planned for the possibility of the twins defying orders, and help them to reach Asa's ship; Hifumi's Infinity manages to stave off Asa's attacks, proving that she's capable of defending herself and Alpha. I'm glad to know that the family has faith in the kids, and that they aren't just going to take a backseat for the rest of the finale

Undead Undead: Billy mansplains the concept of war crimes to War; Julia womansplains the concept of souls to Soul and stabs Andy in the head to bring back Victor. The narrow-mindedness of the Rules contrasts the freedom of the Negators; while I'm sad that we cut away from Feng, it's very exciting to see Julia bringing back Victor while mirroring Fuuko's actions from 210 chapters ago wait...210...LIKE HOW LONG SHE WENT WITHOUT SEEING ANDY???)

Roboco: Roboco makes a movie that subtly implicates her and the rest of her town as accomplices in some kind of criminal activity. Honestly, I'm more interested in what crime she apparently committed than the film itself

Sakamoto: Sakamoto inadvertently teaches Torres how amazing everyday life is; Shin convinces Tenkyu that he's the fortune teller, but immediately abandons the plan to manipulate him when he learns that Tenkyu wants to kidnap Sakamoto's family. The bit with Torres was very fun and cute, and I'm interested to see how the bit with Tenkyu turns out, though I'm wondering why it was necessary to trick him if it was going to be overturned so quickly?

Elusive Samurai: Mima sends her dad letters explaining the deviant sexual acts that Tokiyuki totally makes her do; after a couple year timeskip, Sadamune and Tokiyuki meet for their final battle. Matsui keeps teasing that Tokiyuki is going to marry Mima and have Shizuku and Ayako as concubines, but no one seems to be even a little onboard with this plan, and Tokiyuki doesn't even seem to be aware of it!; speaking of being unaware, apparently Tokiyuki views Sadamune as a father-figure? I may need to reread to catch that nuance

Blue Box: Taiki cheers up a heartbroken Kyo with some food. A heartwarming display of friendship; gives a small analysis on risk-taking - if Kyo had been proactive with Moriya, he would have had a chance, but it's against his nature to do so, so he would have been misrepresenting himself

Akane-Banashi: Issho's backstory is further revealed, being a rich boy who left his family to pursue his own fortune; when a well-respected rakugo-ka saves him from a yakuza, Issho's lifelong journey finally begins. The discussion about passion, that Issho tried to become a soba chef out of gratitude and obligation rather than love for the art, resonates as advice to actively seek happiness in life

Kill Blue: Juzo gets, like, crazy into PreCure and reenacts the diner scene from Pulp Fiction by quoting it instead of the Bible. I am left to wonder if this is just a gag or foreshadowing that his mind is being more heavily affected by the de-aging

Nue's Exorcist: Fujino is distraught that Gakuro has come to save her because it gives her hope that he loves her like she loves him, even though she knows that he would go out of his way to save anyone regardless. "Of course [she's worth it]! Obviously" is a pretty romantic line, so I'll be surprised if she's not endgame; however, if she IS endgame, then it's weird that she's going second and preceding Kazusa; if Kawae gives us canon polyamory and commits to it, I swear right now I'll reread the whole series and actively try to love it

Kagurabachi: Everyone shows the resolve to sacrifice themselves for Samura, and Hakuri is able to summon his Enchanted Blade, Tobimune, for him. Self-sacrifice seems to be the theme of this arc, I expect that will play into how one of the Enchanted Blades gets transferred to the Hishaku

Chojo: Omega Inukai spreads a Chojo-loving zombie virus through all of Chinjuku; everything is returned to normal with a tea party. This did not turn out to be the sudden climactic finale that some folks thought it would be

Astro Royale: Sou exposits on her past with Himuro, framing obvious and horrific police brutality as heroic and beautiful in the context of her flashback; Terasu wins the fight by waiting out Sou self-destructing. Terasu was perfectly useless here, I'd really have preferred he actually fight; I really hope that Himuro's police brutality isn't actually meant to be endearing, cus that framing really makes it look like it's supposed to be

Murakami: Murakami calls out Sanmoto Gorozaemon for his vague goal-setting in generically "conquering the world" and his shallow definition of good and evil. Considering that this is supposedly the strongest Yokai, I'm very unclear of where this story can go from here

Kiyoshi: Sakaki gets a middling roll on Sting, forcing him to fight Yuda with an umbrella to surprisingly competent effect; the chuunibyou from last week accidentally summons the Great Demon Lord. This could easily just be the introduction of the main antagonist, but it's always scary when such a big enemy shows up before the 20-chapter mark

Hima-Ten: While helping Kanna move into her new apartment, Tenichi discovers her dark secret - she has a fetish for butlers; the implications of this are completely lost on Tenichi. Honestly, Kanna is the most compelling of the love interests so far, particularly because she's both clearly an active character AND conflicted about whether she should chase her usual instincts and pursue Tenichi when he's already interested in someone else

Ichi the Witch: When Desscaras and Kumugi fail to match Hisame's fashion sense, Ichi comes to the logical conclusion that the only answer is vore. While I'm sad that Kumugi isn't the star of this arc as I predicted, Ichi's out-of-the-box thinking is exactly what I was hoping for from this series, so I'm excited to see what he comes up with

Shinobi Undercover: Miyake, codename Tsubame, is revealed to be the underling to an even tougher fugitive ninja, Hachikuma; it's also revealed that Aoi's family was killed by a ninja. Yodaka's fear that Aoi will hate him if she finds out he's a ninja is an interesting wrinkle, but I do have to wonder if she actually KNOWS anything about ninjas in the first place

Hakutaku: When Zenji refuses to join the dev team, Noto very openly stalks him home; Hikuma, lacking in athletic ability, wanders in their general direction until he happens upon Zenji's sister, Mizuki; Zenji's sad backstory about his dead brother is revealed; a bitter woman bans children in a PUBLIC PARK from playing games that involve balls, so Hikuma resolves to make a game that she can't object to. I feel like I'd be more compelled by this if I understood why this woman has any say or power here, but at least we should get a clearer idea of Hikuma's design sense with this ball-less dodgeball game

Ruri Dragon: Ruri has a heart-to-heart with Kamata, the girl who bullied her, and Kamata cites her lack understanding of Ruri as a major point in her behavior; in particular, the idea that she's the child of bestiality strongly unsettles her. A nice, if unrealistic, little bit of catharsis for resolving tension with a bully; the student council wearing horns was adorable

If I had a nickel for every time they said the word "bestiality" in this week's Jump...technically I'd only have one nickel, since Ruri Dragon runs in Jump+

That actually brings up a question: do y'all think I should keep including Ruri in these reviews? It's from Jump originally, but it moved to + due to the author's health; is it too far removed to include, or too closely related to exclude?

[voidami]

The Great leap forward

The Great Leap Forward (GLF) and the associated famine in China from 1959-1961 have often been subjected to significant myth-making, much of which exaggerates the death tolls and distorts the causes and outcomes. Commonly, figures as high as 30 to 45 million are cited, largely based on estimates from Western demographers like Judith Banister and Frank Dikötter. However, deeper analysis and more recent scholarship—particularly the work of mathematician Sun Jingxian—suggest that these numbers are highly inflated and do not account for various factors that contribute to a more realistic understanding of the famine.

Re-Evaluating Death Toll Figures

The initial myth that "tens of millions" died during the GLF has been largely debunked through more careful statistical and historical analysis. According to Sun Jingxian, the estimated death toll from the famine was around 3.66 million deaths, which includes deaths from various causes, not just starvation. This number is 8% of the 45 million figure posited by Dikötter, and 12% of Banister's estimate of 30 million. Sun’s work shows that deaths during the famine were not caused solely by starvation but included other "unnatural deaths," such as deaths from diseases exacerbated by malnutrition. This reevaluation places the famine in a context comparable to other major historical famines in China, which also had multifaceted causes rooted in poverty and ecological challenges.

A key point in Sun’s work is the differentiation between year-end registered household population and total population. If a similar methodology were applied to the U.S. during the Great Depression, it could lead to vastly inflated death toll estimates, anywhere from 67 to 170 million deaths, a number that is patently absurd. This comparison highlights the dangers of relying on simplistic population metrics without understanding the nuances of registration systems and migration patterns.

Natural Disasters and Systemic Factors

The famine was exacerbated by severe natural disasters. Droughts, floods, and other ecological crises significantly reduced grain production during the period. Claims that systemic factors like the public canteen system or the planned economy were to blame for the famine are largely based on misconceptions. For example, the public canteen system is often portrayed as a "Tragedy of the Commons" scenario, where people supposedly over-consumed resources, leading to shortages. However, this system was not widely implemented across China, and even where it was, only 22% of canteens offered unrestricted supply. Most canteens only provided extra grain for laborers during harvest seasons, making it an unlikely culprit for mass famine.

Similarly, the notion that the planned economy was responsible for the famine ignores the fact that the planned economy had been in place long before and continued after the famine without leading to similar crises. The city-oriented grain supply system is another factor often cited, with claims that urban areas drained grain resources from rural farmers. While there was some truth to this, it overlooks the reselling of grain to rural areas during the famine, which mitigated the impact of urban preferences to some degree.

Historical Context of Chinese Famines

China has a long history of recurring famines, particularly under imperial rule and during the early republican period. For centuries, China’s agrarian society was vulnerable to natural disasters, ineffective governance, and foreign exploitation, leading to regular, catastrophic famines. For example:

The Great North China Famine (1876–1879) killed an estimated 9-13 million people.

The 1907 Famine resulted in approximately 24 million deaths.

In the early 20th century, the 1928-1931 famine caused 3-6 million deaths, while the 1936-1937 famine claimed another 5 million lives.

Annual death tolls from famine ranged between 2-8 million during turbulent periods like the Warlord Era and the Sino-Japanese War, illustrating the chronic nature of famine in China prior to Mao’s leadership. It is crucial to note that the famine during the GLF was the last major famine in Chinese history, marking a significant shift from previous eras where famines were a persistent, almost annual occurrence.

Human and Political Factors

Mao Zedong is often held responsible for the failures of the GLF, but the reality is more complex. While Mao did push for rapid industrialization and agricultural transformation, many key decisions during the famine were made collectively by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CCCPC). By the time the famine peaked, Mao had already retired to a secondary position, leaving leaders like Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping to oversee much of the national response. Moreover, local cadres were often reluctant to report real conditions due to the political atmosphere, further delaying disaster relief efforts.

The Sino-Soviet split also played a role, as the deterioration in Sino-Soviet relations curtailed grain imports and exacerbated the famine. Still, the Chinese government took various actions to mitigate the disaster, including grain imports, agricultural policy adjustments, and efforts to inform the public of the situation and acknowledge mistakes. While not everything worked as planned, these measures undoubtedly reduced the scale of the disaster.

Criticism of Exaggerated Narratives

Many narratives today selectively present facts about the famine, often exaggerating its scale to make ideological arguments against socialism and the Chinese Communist Party (CPC). These narratives aim to invalidate the first 30 years of the PRC and undermine the CPC’s achievements in nation-building. Comparisons between death rates in India and China during the famine are telling: in 1960, at the height of the famine, China's death rate was 2.543%, nearly identical to India's rate of 2.4%—yet only China's rate is deemed problematic in Western critiques.

Sun Jingxian's research challenges the widely held assumption that the GLF was an unmitigated disaster caused by ideological fervor. Instead, he presents a more balanced view, acknowledging that the famine was a tragic event, but one that was not unprecedented in China's history and was largely mitigated through the CPC’s efforts.

A common myth surrounding the Great Leap Forward is that the Four Pests Campaign, particularly the killing of sparrows, led to crop failures by causing a surge in insect populations, especially locusts. However, this claim is largely exaggerated.

While sparrows were targeted for eating grain seeds, they also consumed insects, and their eradication may have had some ecological impact. However, sparrows were not the primary predator of locusts, and other natural factors, such as floods and droughts, had a far greater effect on crop failures during the GLF.

Moreover, the Chinese government quickly adjusted its approach, replacing sparrows with bed bugs on the pest list by 1960. The main causes of the famine were natural disasters, bureaucratic mismanagement, and external factors like the Sino-Soviet Split, not the sparrow policy. This myth has been overstated in an attempt to discredit Mao’s policies and oversimplify the famine’s complex causes.

The Great Leap Forward famine was a tragic event, but it must be understood in the broader context of Chinese history and the global struggles of agrarian societies transitioning to modernity. The death toll, while significant, has been exaggerated in Western accounts, and many of the purported causes of the famine are based on ideological hostility rather than material analysis.

By considering the natural disasters, bureaucratic failings, and political climate that contributed to the famine, we can arrive at a more accurate picture, one that situates the GLF within a long history of famines in China. Moreover, the measures taken by the Chinese government, while not perfect, helped to prevent future famines, making the 1959-1961 famine the last major famine in China’s history—an achievement that should not be overlooked.

References/sources:

Some links may be omitted due to Tumblr limits but available here: https://voidami.wordpress.com/2024/09/13/the-great-leap-forward/

"The Great Leap Forward: Anatomy of a Historical Catastrophe" by Liu Renwen - Provides a detailed analysis of the GLF and addresses various myths surrounding it.

"Mao’s Great Famine: The History of China’s Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958–1962" by Frank Dikötter - Examines the famine in detail, including the impact of policies and natural disasters.

"The Great Leap Forward and the Chinese Famine of 1959-1961" by Sun Jingxian - Offers a critical re-evaluation of the death toll and causes of the famine.

"Famine in China: 1959-1961" by Xue Muqiao - Discusses the impact of various policies and natural factors on the famine.

Specific Topics

"The Four Pests Campaign" - An overview of the campaign’s objectives and outcomes. Available in Historical Studies journals.

"Ecological Consequences of the Great Leap Forward: An Evaluation of the Four Pests Campaign" by Hao Yufan - Analyzes the ecological impact of the campaign, including the sparrow policy.

"The Environmental Impact of the Great Leap Forward: A Critical Review" by Li Xiaohua - Discusses the broader environmental impacts of the GLF, including pest control measures.

"Pests, Plagues, and Policy: The Great Leap Forward and Its Ecological Consequences" by Zhao Yao - Examines the myths and realities surrounding pest control during the GLF.

Famine and Death Toll

"China’s Great Leap: The Leap into the Future" by Kong Yiji - Provides statistical analysis of the famine's impact and death toll.

"The Death Toll of the Great Leap Forward: Reassessing Historical Data" by Wang Qing - Re-evaluates historical death toll estimates and their accuracy.

"Famines in China: Historical Perspectives and Modern Understandings" - Analyzes various famines in China’s history, including the GLF.

Additional Resources

Hungry Ghosts: Mao’s Secret Famine - Extensive response to claims around the Great Leap Forward and the associated famine.

Sun Jingxian and the Myth of Mao’s Genocide - Summary of Sun Jingxian’s paper and the debate on the famine's death toll.

Joseph Ball, The Mao Killed Millions Myth: The Last Word?

[strangestcase]

Maybe I’m being uncharitable but how come all the Dracula Daily meta is JONATHAN IS SUCH A COOL GUY HE LOVES HIS WIFE AND HES SO STRONG AND HE LOVES HIS WIFE AND HES SO BRAVE AND SO AMAZING AND HE REALLY FUCKING LOVES HIS WIFE. DID I MENTION HE LOVES HIS WIFE. Yeah okay. And about that wife of his. Do you think of her at all. Do you acknowledge her as anything other than one half of a “power couple”. Like. You know Mina Murray is a human being with a personality and an independent will, right? You claim to love her and yet… Where are the lengthy analysis posts calling her so strong and so brave and so smart and so brilliant… where are the lengthy analysis posts pointing out how adaptations flatten her to nothing… about the injustice of popular culture reading her rape as romance… where is the fanart of her going batshit insane with a weapon… the RESPECT for her request to be killed because she’d rather be dead alone than undead with Jonathan. The APPRECIATION for her personality. Mentions of her as something more than the sexy lamp a blown up caricature of Jonathan can slobber for, a loving tumor on his muscular side, an adoring aside in his distortion from a brave average Joe into Pop Culture Van Helsing 2 But More Macho. Like… guys…… how come the tags are clogged with idiots claiming Jonathan is the Most Violent And Unhinged Member Of The Cast, which is patently false, yet the ACTUAL protagonist only gets the occasional “uuugh she loves trains and her husband”. Do you REALLY like Mina?

[liefdesleven]

reading gods worst article on tma (Narrating the (Queer) Gothic in the Podcast The Magnus Archives, Maria Juko) and its so bad that its funny. btw this got published in a book (Rethinking Gothic Transgressions of Gender and Sexuality, edited by sarah faber and kerstin-anja münderlein, 2024) and I can only assume the editors didn't listen to tma themselves because good lord what are these takes. come with me as I read this mess

strong start when it claims the entities seek to torture and destroy humanity. patently untrue. we know they have some sentience, but the focus on humanity does a disservice to gerry explicitly saying "you think people are so special its only our fear that counts?". also "destroy". how are you going to get fear if the entirety of humanity is destroyed. we know what the entities wanted (or at least what the web wanted) it is explicitly stated in mag 200. it says so right there so explicitly that I find it impressive if Juko missed it.

calls the beholding the antagonist? if you want to call Any fear the antagonist id go for the web, but even then, antagonist is not the role id ascribe to a lovecraftian entity

"with the podcast’s final season set in a world dominated by the Eye that Jon et al. ultimately overcome to save the world" / "The world comes to depend on [jonmartins] relationship, with the two of them becoming queer heroes." save the world??? heroes?

4. stupidly funny implications. interesting citation for georgie but that's not important right now. the point is the fight against evil and the reading alleging tma says being queer will get you Heroic Powers. Juko's forgetting about the queer characters that get Evil Powers (all of them. all of the powers are evil. that's the point.) did the archivist utilize ace and bi power when he became the lynchpin of the apocalypse and tortured strangers

5. "As a case in point, inclusivity starts at the level of casting: female police officer Basira Hussain is voiced by Frank Voss, who uses they/them pronouns." very true but idk. frank voss and jonny sims are just pals, ill allow Some implications from this but the author is using it to imply more intentional focus on inclusivity then I think jonny was doing

6. "First, the podcast’s main character, the asexual biromantic Jon, is bestowed with supernatural powers, challenging not just heterosexual but all sexual norms of society." BESTOWED? stop using the word bestowed here oh my God. he is not a superhero!! did Juko listen to the entirety of tma without any moral grayness happening here??? also ?? jons bestowed supernatural powers are in no way related to his asexuality & biromanticism??

7. christ. this isnt a bad tma take but it is reminding me why I wanted to quit my literature analysis bachelor

8. did jon utilize ace and bi power when he betrayed martin. did martin utilize gay power when he stabbed jon. jesus christ what do you mean humanity's salvation. the apocalypse isnt fixed at the end by the power of love.

9. i guess? if you felt like it? tma really isn't a queer narrative in my option but I guess?? you could read it like that. if you wanted to. I'm unsure if you should though because these people are deeply unwell

10. "And particularly in the first seasons, Jon and his colleagues often fail to control the evil entities, losing for example colleague Tim at the end of the second season, which leads to a rift between some of the Institute’s members" yeah because truly they were thriving before that. they were the bestest of friends before tim died. they all held hands and danced in circles

11. unsure how much longer i can take this. this isn't the X-Men

12. "[Jon] could be defined as an asexual biromantic who uses his love for Martin as a form of power to save the world." no he couldn't. next

13. "With this in mind, Jon’s exploration of the Archives becomes a metaphor for accepting his (a)sexuality." HUH. NO IT ISNT? jons asexuality isn't relevant narratively At All. go home.

14. for the love of god can anyone hear me. its so dark in here. were the beholding and jonah magnus asexuality allies when they helped jon become an avatar. the sentence after this calls jon the hero of the narrative again btw. patently untrue

15. "Only by accepting his power can Jon save the world." jon didn't save the world.

Juko discusses melanie & georgie but her takes on them are pretty normal and decent in my opinion. if anyone wants a pdf of this horror let me know & ill send it. I'm so annoyed I'm considering writing an email about this. btw it called jonmartin "enemies to lovers" trope and also said their relationship "starts heteronormative and changes to a more equal footing, whilst retaining heteronormative elements". about the gay couple.

to conclude: I don't know which podcast juko listened to about a heroic narrative about queer love that saves the world, but its not the magnus archives. did you know that the eye is an asexuality ally?

[onecornerface]

against against white people wearing dreadlocks

Several years ago, I sometimes saw people insist that white people shouldn’t wear dreadlocks, on the grounds that black people were often mistreated for wearing dreadlocks. This is one of many weirdly terrible social justice arguments that seemed popular at the time. Like many social justice arguments, it pointed to a legitimate matter of oppression—yet badly mangled its ethical analysis, so as to push weird conclusions for individual morality which were patently not supported by any actual reasons given.

The obvious upshot of the argument was that it was wrong to mistreat black people for wearing dreadlocks—no implication for white people wearing dreadlocks. A variant of the argument also showed that it was especially perverse (and maybe a further injustice) for white people to be praised for wearing dreadlocks while black people were shamed for it.

There is also a lot to say (which sometimes came up) on the broader phenomenon of white culture appropriating aspects of black culture, stripping it of associations with marginalization or radicalism, and then claiming it for itself for fun and profit—many such cases. More specifically, there’s a lot to say on the oppression of black people targeting their hair specifically. With a bit more work, a version of the argument could also imply that white people who wear dreadlocks have special obligations to stand up for black people who wear dreadlocks—and I did occasionally see people say this, which is pretty plausible and reasonable.

But how does any of the above imply that it’s wrong for individual white people to wear dreadlocks? No reason was ever given for this further claim, as far as I saw. This major step in the argument was pretty obviously missing, and few people seemed to notice or care that it was missing. I always saw that as a symptom of a fundamental sloppiness and hostility to rigor which infected vast swaths of social justice argumentation, perhaps especially when it comes to making claims about individual obligations.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Lula government ends daily COVID-19 tracking in Brazil

Facing the clear threat of a worsening pandemic in Brazil, driven by the Omicron XBB.1.5 subvariant, the Workers Party (PT) government of President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has signaled its intention to declare the pandemic over and get the Brazilian population used to “living” with the coronavirus.

On February 16, the Health Ministry announced that it will start releasing COVID-19 data of cases, deaths and vaccination rates weekly and no longer daily, starting March 3. Trying to justify what in practice means a further departure from monitoring the pandemic in the country, the Health Ministry’s director of immunization, Eder Gatti, stated that only nine of the 27 Brazilian states update the data daily, which supposedly does not “allow an epidemiological analysis.” Still, he claimed,“We are not restricting data. ... What we want here is to facilitate the work with the data and send weekly data that is more accurate.”

This claim is patently false. If the Lula government had a genuine concern about the pandemic, the least it could do is coordinate a national effort and assist the states in implementing a system to monitor the pandemic on a daily basis, with a mass testing program, genetic sequencing of the variants in circulation, among other measures completely ignored by the “herd immunity” policy of the former fascistic President Jair Bolsonaro.

However, almost two months after taking office, the Lula government has not reversed the Bolsonaro government’s measures to prioritize corporate interests over human lives, including its ending of the National Public Health Emergency due to COVID-19 as early as April 2022. The Lula government has also failed to implement awareness campaigns about the airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the importance of wearing quality masks and distributing them for free, as well as other basic public health measures that would have an almost immediate impact and could prevent cases and deaths.

Continue reading.

[carriesthewind]

This video pisses me the fuck off whenever I see it, and today I'm not in the mood to just scroll past.

Wow! Am I being lead to panic by scaremongering algorithm fodder completely unsupported by real evidence?! test:

The reason you think something exists is just what you're being told by a nefarious *them*, there is actually a conspiracy behind it!

I, an ordinary person with no expertise who critically examines the world around me, have uncovered this conspiracy.

"That's what they're telling you." (put the emphasis wherever appropriate for the conspiracy of your choice - in this case, it's on *telling*)

This new tech thing is actually a bad idea and the old school method was better - which clearly proves there must be a secret conspiracy, because why allow the possibility of incompetence and investor tech-hype when you can instead assume a highly-competent evil conspiracy?

I will now tell you my conspiracy theory while scrolling rapidly through a document without pausing or allowing you to actually read any of it. This allows me to look like I have proven my claims while doing nothing of the sort. Because do you really think someone could do that? Quickly flash a document on screen and just lie about what it says?

But Owl! This is real! A user upthread found the patent and it *does* prove it!

Yeah. I read the linked patent. Did you?

Let's quote the "real purpose" hidden in the patent, as claimed out in the video:

"The real purpose of these screens is to use the little camera at the top right here to scan your face and use AI facial expression analysis to judge whether or not you like the packaging designs of the product you're looking for."

This is complete made up horseshit.

First, let's look where the reblogger directs us, to column #4 on page 17:

"Preferably, each retail product container further comprises customer-detecting hardware, such as one or more proximity sensors (such as heat maps) , cameras, facial sensors or scanners, and eye-sensors (i.e., iris-tracking sensors). Assuming cameras are employed, preferably cameras are mounted on doors of the retail product containers. Preferably, the cameras have a depth of field of view of twenty feet or more, and have a range of field of view of 170 degrees with preferably 150 degree of facial recognition ability. Preferably, software is employed in association with the cameras to monitor shopper interactions, serve up relevant advertisement content on the displays, and track advertisement engagement in - store." (emphasis added and references to figures removed for readability)

That is the extent of the "nonconsensual data collection."

Now, to be fair, there is some stuff on page 18 and 19 which kinda-sorta-maybe has at least some relation to the claim in the video:

"Preferably, the controller/data collector is configured such that as a shopper stands or lingers in front of a given retail product container, the display associated with the retail product container changes yet again. At this point, preferably the controller/data collector has been able to use the customer-detecting hardware to effectively learn more about that particular customer, such as gender, age, mood, etc. The controller / data collector is configured to take what has been detected about the customer to determine which advertisement and other information to present to that particular customer on the display associated with the retail product container in front of which the customer is standing. By tracking shopper data in parallel with which advertising content is being served on all displays within the viewing range of the shopper, the retailer and the brands are better served, providing new analytics. As such, the system provides advertising, influence opportunities at the moment of purchasing decision, optimizing marketing spend and generating new revenue streams....

"Additionally, preferably all inputs collected by the IOT devices will be analyzed locally as well as remotely (via cloud) to provide the feedback inputs for the system to push more relevant/targeted content, tailored for the consumer. The analytics are preferably conducted anonymously, images captured by cameras are preferably processed to collect statistics on consumer demographic characteristics: (such as age and gender). This data is preferably subsequently analyzed for additional statistics for the retailers that are valuable for in-store merchandise layout design and smart merchandizing, including the ability to track the shoppers “traffic” areas, known as “heat maps”, areas were [sic] customers would concentrate more and spend more time exploring, etc." (emphasis added and references to figures removed for readability) (And note the repeated emphasis on preferably - they don't have a patent to do any of this.)

Which, like, not great! I fucking hate the idea of shit like this! But there is literally nothing here about monitoring your expressions to sell the data about how you react to packaging!

This isn't a nefarious plan hidden in the patent. It's tech bros adding on totally sick ideas about how they can sell this shit to walgreens. (Because to be clear, I'm sure walgreens's corporate office would love to collect and sell this kind of information. But just because they would, doesn't mean they can or are. And this patent sure as hell doesn't prove it.)

Because let me be clear: the image capture of consumers is so irrelevant to the product that it literally isn't even included in the claims section of the patent.

Because the patent is quite explicit and detailed about the idea they are selling big retails stores on - this is a better, new, innovative, tech-driven way to "provide an innovative advertising solution"! (The words "AI," "intelligent," and "machine learning" are deployed liberally, but in the same way that "blockchain" was a few years ago. It's advertising tech hype.)

I want to make it clear - the OP in the video is straight up lying to you. Whether for fun or profit or just attention, I don't know and I don't care. If you shared this, you probably should have know better, but everyone makes mistakes. OP, on the other hand, is just a fucking liar.

But Owl! What about "the senators looking into this"?

I don't know how to tell you this, but thing linked about is a press release by a politician's office. That doesn't mean it's not true, but it's not evidence on it's own. Like, the letter linked in the link included links to sources, but is not itself evidence (ooh, layers of links to actually get to a source, my favorite)(actually my computer wouldn't even goddam open the links to the source, I had to independently search for it).

Anyway, the letter to Kroger linked in the press release by the senators contains a single sentence and a single link relevant to the claim here (linked for your convenience because it sure as hell wasn't for mine). Unfortunately, this article is itself based on a goddam press release (That isn't linked! Again, you're welcome.)

And when we finally get to the underlying fucking source. "In addition to transforming the customer experience and enhancing productivity for associates, the EDGE Shelf will enable Kroger to generate new revenue by selling digital advertising space to consumer packaged goods (CPGs) brands. Using video analytics, personalized offers and advertisements can be presented based on customer demographics." So it's purporting to something *kind of* like the claim in the video, but an entirely different format completely unrelated to the thing the video is scaremongering about.

Now Kroger did actually start using the advertising screens in 2023. And you can believe what you want about the data privacy claims and the claims about not using video, just sensors (which remember is entirely consistent with the patent). But remember: being skeptical of a company's claims is fine and good! It does not mean you have proven they are lying, and it especially does not prove you have claimed they are doing something extremely specific! And most of the articles, and the letter from the senators, are (much more reasonably) concerned about so-called "dynamic" or surge pricing. (Which is not related to the screens.)

Like goddamn. Aren't there enough real problems with surveillance and price-gorging to be concerned about without having to make up fake ones? Hell, why can't we at least be concerned with the real problems with those dumb screens, which is that the a) make shopping harder and b) catch fire?

[iipsearch]

Evidence of Use Search (EoU) | Patent Claim Chart Services | IIP Search

At IIP Search, we specialize in delivering meticulous Evidence of Use (EoU) searches to empower patent holders, legal professionals, and businesses. Our expert team conducts thorough investigations to identify products, processes, or technologies that potentially infringe on your intellectual property rights. With a focus on accuracy and attention to detail, we ensure our findings support your licensing, litigation, or enforcement strategies effectively.

Complementing our EoU searches, our Patent Claim Chart Services provide a structured and precise comparison of claim elements with identified evidence. These detailed charts serve as robust documentation for negotiations, court proceedings, or competitive analysis. With years of experience in patent research, our analysts deliver insights that can strengthen your intellectual property protection.

Protect your innovations with confidence. Partner with IIP Search for tailored solutions in patent research and analysis. Visit iipsearch.com today to learn more and schedule a consultation.

[renukamd]

Patent Registration in Bangalore: Step-by-Step Guide

Introduction

Bangalore, the capital city of Karnataka, is a hub of innovation and industrial growth in India. With a vibrant mix of IT companies, manufacturing units, research institutions, and startups, Bangalore is a significant contributor to the nation's intellectual property landscape. Patent Registration in Bangalore is crucial for protecting inventions and ensuring that creators receive the recognition and financial benefits they deserve. This article provides a detailed overview of the patent registration process in Bangalore.

Understanding Patents

A patent is an exclusive right granted to an inventor for a novel, non-obvious, and industrially applicable invention. It allows the patent holder to prevent others from making, using, selling, or distributing the patented invention without permission. In India, the process of obtaining a patent is governed by the Indian Patents Act of 1970.

Why Patent Your Invention?

Protection: Safeguards your invention from unauthorised use.

Monetary Benefits: Provides opportunities for licensing and commercialisation.

Market Position: Enhances competitive advantage and market credibility.

Recognition: Establishes the inventor’s contribution to the field.

Steps for Patent Registration in Bangalore

Preliminary Search and Analysis:

Conduct a patentability search to ensure that the invention is noveAnalyseyze the search results to assess the potential for patenting.

Drafting the Patent Application:

Prepare a detailed specification, including the title, field of invention, background, summary, detailed description, claims, and drawings.

Seek professional assistance from a registered patent agent or attorney to ensure accuracy and completeness.

Filing the Patent Application:

Apply to the Bangalore Patent Office, which is part of the Indian Patent Office.

Applications can be filed online through the official website of the Indian Patent Office.

Publication of the Application:

The patent application is published in the official patent journal after 18 months from the filing date.

Early publication can be requested for expedited processing.

Request for Examination:

File a request for examination within 48 months from the filing date.

The patent office examines the application for compliance with legal and technical requirements.

Examination Report and Response:

The patent office issues an examination report highlighting any objections.

Respond to the objections by amending the application or providing clarifications.

Grant of Patent:

Once all objections are resolved, the patent is granted, and a certificate of patent is issued.

The granted patent is published in the official patent journal.

Post-Grant Compliance:

Pay annual maintenance fees to keep the patent in force.

Enforce the patent rights against infringers if necessary.

Conclusion

Patent registration in Bangalore is a strategic step for inventors and businesses seeking to protect their intellectual property. By following the structured process outlined above, innovators can secure their inventions and leverage their patents for commercial success. Seeking expert guidance from patent professionals can significantly enhance the chances of obtaining a patent and effectively navigating the complexities of patent law.

[anjaliguptablogs]

How to Read a Balance Sheet: A Comprehensive Guide for Small Businesses

Understanding financial statements is a critical skill for any business owner. Among these, the balance sheet stands as one of the most important documents, offering a snapshot of a company's financial health. This guide will teach you how to read a balance sheet, its components, and why it is essential for your business's success. If you are seeking accounting services for small business in USA, mastering balance sheets can also help you communicate effectively with your accountant or financial advisor.

What is a Balance Sheet?

A balance sheet is one of the key financial statements that businesses prepare to assess their financial position at a specific point in time. It follows the basic accounting equation:

Assets=Liabilities+Equity\text{Assets} = \text{Liabilities} + \text{Equity}Assets=Liabilities+Equity

This equation ensures that the resources owned by the company (assets) are balanced with the claims against those resources (liabilities and equity). Knowing how to read a balance sheet enables you to identify potential financial risks and opportunities.

Why is a Balance Sheet Important?

A balance sheet provides valuable insights, including:

Liquidity Analysis: It helps assess your business’s ability to meet short-term obligations.

Financial Stability: By comparing debt levels to equity, you can understand your company’s leverage.

Investment Attractiveness: Investors and lenders often evaluate balance sheets before making decisions.

Business Performance: Trends in assets, liabilities, and equity reveal the financial trajectory of your company.

If interpreting these figures seems overwhelming, consider professional accounting services for small business in USA to ensure accurate analysis and compliance.

Key Components of a Balance Sheet

To understand how to read a balance sheet, you must familiarize yourself with its three main sections:

1. Assets

Assets represent everything your business owns. They are typically divided into:

Current Assets: These include cash, accounts receivable, inventory, and other resources expected to be converted into cash within a year.

Non-Current Assets: These long-term investments include property, equipment, patents, and goodwill.

2. Liabilities

Liabilities are obligations your business owes to others. They can be classified as:

Current Liabilities: These are short-term obligations like accounts payable, salaries, and taxes due within a year.

Non-Current Liabilities: These include long-term debts, such as mortgages and bonds payable.

3. Equity

Equity represents the owner's claim on the company after liabilities are subtracted from assets. This includes retained earnings and any additional capital invested by the owners.

How to Read a Balance Sheet Step by Step

Step 1: Understand the Format

A balance sheet is typically divided into two halves: assets on one side and liabilities and equity on the other. The total assets must equal the combined total of liabilities and equity.

Step 2: Examine Current Assets

Start by reviewing current assets. High levels of cash and receivables are generally positive, indicating liquidity. However, excessive inventory might signal poor sales or overstocking.

Step 3: Analyze Non-Current Assets

Check your company’s investments in fixed assets. While these assets are essential for long-term growth, significant depreciation may impact their value.

Step 4: Evaluate Liabilities

Compare current liabilities with current assets to assess liquidity. If liabilities exceed assets, your business may struggle to meet short-term obligations.

Step 5: Assess Equity

Evaluate retained earnings to see if the business is consistently profitable. A healthy equity balance indicates stability and growth potential.

Step 6: Identify Trends

Analyze balance sheets from multiple periods to spot trends. Are assets growing faster than liabilities? Is the equity balance improving? These trends provide valuable insights into your company’s financial health.

For those managing growing businesses, leveraging accounting services for small business in USA can simplify this process and ensure accurate interpretation.

Common Ratios Derived from the Balance Sheet

Ratios help you gain deeper insights into the balance sheet. Here are a few important ones:

Current Ratio

Current Ratio=Current AssetsCurrent Liabilities\text{Current Ratio} = \frac{\text{Current Assets}}{\text{Current Liabilities}}Current Ratio=Current LiabilitiesCurrent Assets​

This ratio measures liquidity. A ratio above 1 indicates the business can meet its short-term obligations.

Debt-to-Equity Ratio

Debt-to-Equity Ratio=Total LiabilitiesTotal Equity\text{Debt-to-Equity Ratio} = \frac{\text{Total Liabilities}}{\text{Total Equity}}Debt-to-Equity Ratio=Total EquityTotal Liabilities​

This shows how much debt your business uses to finance its operations relative to owner equity.

Return on Assets (ROA)

ROA=Net IncomeTotal Assets\text{ROA} = \frac{\text{Net Income}}{\text{Total Assets}}ROA=Total AssetsNet Income​

This indicates how efficiently your business uses its assets to generate profit.

Working Capital

Working Capital=Current Assets−Current Liabilities\text{Working Capital} = \text{Current Assets} - \text{Current Liabilities}Working Capital=Current Assets−Current Liabilities

Positive working capital signifies a healthy financial position.

Understanding these ratios is a fundamental part of learning how to read a balance sheet effectively.

How to Identify Red Flags on a Balance Sheet

When reviewing your balance sheet, watch for these warning signs:

Negative Working Capital: This suggests that the business may face liquidity issues.

High Debt Levels: Excessive liabilities compared to equity can indicate financial instability.

Rapid Asset Depreciation: A significant drop in asset values may point to poor investment decisions.

Irregular Trends: Sudden spikes or declines in assets or liabilities could indicate issues that require immediate attention.

To stay proactive, collaborate with professionals offering accounting services for small business in USA for regular reviews and accurate financial assessments.

How a Balance Sheet Differs from Other Financial Statements

A balance sheet provides a snapshot of your company’s financial position at a specific point in time, unlike other financial statements:

Income Statement: Focuses on revenues and expenses over a period.

Cash Flow Statement: Tracks the inflow and outflow of cash during a period.

Each of these statements complements the balance sheet, offering a holistic view of financial performance.

Tips for Small Business Owners

1. Keep Financial Records Organized

Accurate record-keeping ensures that your balance sheet reflects your business’s true financial position.

2. Use Accounting Software

Modern tools can automate balance sheet preparation and reduce errors.

3. Seek Expert Guidance

If interpreting financial statements feels overwhelming, opt for accounting services for small business in USA to streamline your financial management.

4. Review Balance Sheets Regularly

Frequent reviews help you track progress and make informed decisions.

5. Communicate with Stakeholders

Share your balance sheet with investors and lenders to demonstrate transparency and build trust.

Why ProfitSpear is Your Go-To Solution

Understanding how to read a balance sheet is crucial, but managing all financial aspects of your business requires time and expertise. At ProfitSpear, we specialize in providing accounting services for small business in USA, helping entrepreneurs focus on growth while we handle the numbers.

Our team ensures accurate financial reporting, insightful analysis, and compliance with all regulations, empowering you to make confident business decisions. Whether you’re struggling with balance sheets or need comprehensive bookkeeping solutions, ProfitSpear is here to help.

Conclusion

Mastering how to read a balance sheet is an indispensable skill for small business owners. This financial document provides a window into your company’s health, helping you make strategic decisions, attract investors, and plan for the future. By understanding the components and analysis techniques outlined in this guide, you can confidently interpret your balance sheet.

However, managing your finances doesn’t have to be a solo journey. Partnering with experts like ProfitSpear, who offer top-notch accounting services for small business in USA, can ensure accuracy and save you valuable time. Let ProfitSpear handle your financial complexities so you can focus on what you do best: growing your business.

[99900000000000119]

The gateway tapes 1 - The Gateway Experience.

The Gateway Experience is a training system designed to alter consciousness and escape time and space. The CIA investigated this technique in 1983, focusing on psychic research and remote viewing. More recently, the CIA declassified these studies under what is called: The Gateway Process.The process began with Robert Monroe, a radio broadcasting executive, who discovered sound patterns affecting human capabilities. He established an R&D division within RAM Enterprises, focusing on sleep learning and out-of-body experiences. In 1962, RAM Enterprises expanded into radio station ownership, cable television, and audio cassette production. In 1971, Monroe published Journeys Out of the Body, popularizing the term "out-of-body experience." In 1972, a classified report claimed the Soviet Union funded research into ESP and psychokinesis for espionage purposes. In 1975, Monroe registered patents on audio techniques for stimulating brain functions until the left and right hemispheres synchronize, promoting mental health or causing altered states of consciousness. In 1983, the CIA published "Analysis and Assessment of the Gateway Process," establishing a scientific framework for understanding and expanding human consciousness.