#The high-tech war on science fraud

[jcmarchi]

Deepfake misuse & deepfake detection (before it’s too late) - CyberTalk

New Post has been published on https://thedigitalinsider.com/deepfake-misuse-deepfake-detection-before-its-too-late-cybertalk/

Deepfake misuse & deepfake detection (before it’s too late) - CyberTalk

Micki Boland is a global cyber security warrior and evangelist with Check Point’s Office of the CTO. Micki has over 20 years in ICT, cyber security, emerging technology, and innovation. Micki’s focus is helping customers, system integrators, and service providers reduce risk through the adoption of emerging cyber security technologies. Micki is an ISC2 CISSP and holds a Master of Science in Technology Commercialization from the University of Texas at Austin, and an MBA with a global security concentration from East Carolina University.

In this dynamic and insightful interview, Check Point expert Micki Boland discusses how deepfakes are evolving, why that matters for organizations, and how organizations can take action to protect themselves. Discover on-point analyses that could reshape your decisions, improving cyber security and business outcomes. Don’t miss this.

Can you explain how deepfake technology works? 

Deepfakes involve simulated video, audio, and images to be delivered as content via online news, mobile applications, and through social media platforms. Deepfake videos are created with Generative Adversarial Networks (GAN), a type of Artificial Neural Network that uses Deep Learning to create synthetic content.

GANs sound cool, but technical. Could you break down how they operate?

GAN are a class of machine learning systems that have two neural network models; a generator and discriminator which game each other. Training data in the form of video, still images, and audio is fed to the generator, which then seeks to recreate it. The discriminator then tries to discern the training data from the recreated data produced by the generator.

The two artificial intelligence engines repeatedly game each other, getting iteratively better. The result is convincing, high quality synthetic video, images, or audio. A good example of GAN at work is NVIDIA GAN. Navigate to the website https://thispersondoesnotexist.com/ and you will see a composite image of a human face that was created by the NVIDIA GAN using faces on the internet. Refreshing the internet browser yields a new synthetic image of a human that does not exist.

What are some notable examples of deepfake tech’s misuse?

Most people are not even aware of deepfake technologies, although these have now been infamously utilized to conduct major financial fraud. Politicians have also used the technology against their political adversaries. Early in the war between Russia and Ukraine, Russia created and disseminated a deepfake video of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy advising Ukrainian soldiers to “lay down their arms” and surrender to Russia.

How was the crisis involving the Zelenskyy deepfake video managed?

The deepfake quality was poor and it was immediately identified as a deepfake video attributable to Russia. However, the technology is becoming so convincing and so real that soon it will be impossible for the regular human being to discern GenAI at work. And detection technologies, while have a tremendous amount of funding and support by big technology corporations, are lagging way behind.

What are some lesser-known uses of deepfake technology and what risks do they pose to organizations, if any?

Hollywood is using deepfake technologies in motion picture creation to recreate actor personas. One such example is Bruce Willis, who sold his persona to be used in movies without his acting due to his debilitating health issues. Voicefake technology (another type of deepfake) enabled an autistic college valedictorian to address her class at her graduation.

Yet, deepfakes pose a significant threat. Deepfakes are used to lure people to “click bait” for launching malware (bots, ransomware, malware), and to conduct financial fraud through CEO and CFO impersonation. More recently, deepfakes have been used by nation-state adversaries to infiltrate organizations via impersonation or fake jobs interviews over Zoom.

How are law enforcement agencies addressing the challenges posed by deepfake technology?

Europol has really been a leader in identifying GenAI and deepfake as a major issue. Europol supports the global law enforcement community in the Europol Innovation Lab, which aims to develop innovative solutions for EU Member States’ operational work. Already in Europe, there are laws against deepfake usage for non-consensual pornography and cyber criminal gangs’ use of deepfakes in financial fraud.

What should organizations consider when adopting Generative AI technologies, as these technologies have such incredible power and potential?

Every organization is seeking to adopt GenAI to help improve customer satisfaction, deliver new and innovative services, reduce administrative overhead and costs, scale rapidly, do more with less and do it more efficiently. In consideration of adopting GenAI, organizations should first understand the risks, rewards, and tradeoffs associated with adopting this technology. Additionally, organizations must be concerned with privacy and data protection, as well as potential copyright challenges.

What role do frameworks and guidelines, such as those from NIST and OWASP, play in the responsible adoption of AI technologies?

On January 26th, 2023, NIST released its forty-two page Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) and AI Risk Management Playbook (NIST 2023). For any organization, this is a good place to start.

The primary goal of the NIST AI Risk Management Framework is to help organizations create AI-focused risk management programs, leading to the responsible development and adoption of AI platforms and systems.

The NIST AI Risk Management Framework will help any organization align organizational goals for and use cases for AI. Most importantly, this risk management framework is human centered. It includes social responsibility information, sustainability information and helps organizations closely focus on the potential or unintended consequences and impact of AI use.

Another immense help for organizations that wish to further understand risk associated with GenAI Large Language Model adoption is the OWASP Top 10 LLM Risks list. OWASP released version 1.1 on October 16th, 2023. Through this list, organizations can better understand risks such as inject and data poisoning. These risks are especially critical to know about when bringing an LLM in house.

As organizations adopt GenAI, they need a solid framework through which to assess, monitor, and identify GenAI-centric attacks. MITRE has recently introduced ATLAS, a robust framework developed specifically for artificial intelligence and aligned to the MITRE ATT&CK framework.

For more of Check Point expert Micki Boland’s insights into deepfakes, please see CyberTalk.org’s past coverage. Lastly, to receive cyber security thought leadership articles, groundbreaking research and emerging threat analyses each week, subscribe to the CyberTalk.org newsletter.

[renee00124]

*BLACK LIVES DON'T MATTER*

Video Link:

The truth hurts...

DECADES of horrific, racial hatred culminated from Nazi, Operation Paperclip recruitment after World War II, hideous Frankenstein science, and inhuman human experimentation targeting poor Black families. The experimentation has persisted secretively from generation to generation.

Many, people of all races have snapped and will continue to do so enduring this type of reported, relentless, high-tech mind control technology, behavioral modification harassment that is beamed directly into the human brain using patented microwave systems and devices. Did I mention PATENTED?

The ultimate purpose is to destroy, the inner self of men, women and children. If the targeted person(s) commits suicide, or sabotage themselves, driven to the brink then hurting self and others, the experimentation is a success. Nor, in this case, does this Nazi foundation mind control program approve of Black men with White women making these women considered traitors to the White race and expendable as well.

Patented systems creating the Schizophrenic effect have been around for DECADES operating literally under the radar. And, if a person was not crazy before this hideous, heinous, special breed of clean shaven, suited and uniformed evildoers showed up operating from state-of-the-art operations, they will be.

It must be understood that drug infiltration into specific communities is by intent and design combined with efforts to assist in putting the target onto a self-destructive path. This program can create severe, high-tech depression, bipolar, etc., combined with patented subliminal influencing technologies and everything monitored in real-time for ongoing technology advancements.

Mind Control Patents

Inside the coverup are various tactics this program uses to officially attached the mental illness tag. After years of experimentation, on poor Blacks, they know from thousands written off as suffering from deep seated psych issues by adding the generational twist it furthers the experimentation by disbelief.

At one time in history, 1960, and early stages of MKULTRA mind control a major focus was on Black people, individuals, groups, communities, and large populations so intensely that a book was written, "How Schizophrenia became a Black Disease."

It has NEVER been, God, aliens, demons or a chemical imbalance in the brain, talking in human voice inside heads, but the lowest level of the most horrific people known to man.

Knowledge and awareness is vital

[luxe-pauvre]

When scientists publish papers in journals, they release only the data they wish to share. Critical evaluation of the results by other scientists – peer review – takes place in secret and the discussion is not released publicly. Once a paper is published, all comments, concerns, and retractions must go through the editors of the journal before they reach the public. There are good, or at least defensible, arguments for all of this. But Hartgerink is part of an increasingly vocal group that believes that the closed nature of science, with authority resting in the hands of specific gatekeepers – journals, universities, and funders – is harmful, and that a more open approach would better serve the scientific method. [. . .] The current push for more open and accountable science, of which they are a part, has “only really existed since 2011”, he said. It has captured an outsize share of the science media’s attention, and set laudable goals, but it remains a small, fragile outpost of true believers within the vast scientific enterprise. [. . .] When I asked [Chris] Hartgerink what it would take to totally eradicate fraud from the scientific process, he suggested that scientists make all of their data public; register the intentions of their work before conducting experiments, to prevent post-hoc reasoning, and that they have their results checked by algorithms during and after the publishing process. To any working scientist – currently enjoying nearly unprecedented privacy and freedom for a profession that is in large part publicly funded – Hartgerink’s vision would be an unimaginably draconian scientific surveillance state. For his part, Hartgerink believes the preservation of public trust in science requires nothing less – but in the meantime, he intends to pursue this ideal without the explicit consent of the entire scientific community, by investigating published papers and making the results available to the public.

Stephen Buranyi, The high-tech war on science fraud

[kiraofthewind]

Rainbow Fantasy, part 2.

Rainbow Fantasy, the subgenre I invented to describe my own books, could be described as a mix of High, Epic, Dark, and Queer fantasy. Yet it also fails to incorporate certain expectations of those subgenres, hence my hesitation using those labels. Let me explain, using examples from my world:

What is High Fantasy? It takes place in a different world than ours, usually with magic, unique creatures/monsters, spirits/gods/demons, and usually pre-Modern tech. My world features a lot of that, but I hesitate to call it high fantasy because there’s a lot of science going on as well. The mortal world may not have advanced technology due to being unable to harness electricity, but they have the knowledge of how it *should* work. The Ophidians have guns, Ulinor has nuclear energy, the Takyufon and Carinians have mechanical parts, the afterlife *does* have advanced tech… and the future of the mortal world is steampunk. If I advertised my books as High Fantasy and then delivered a book that takes place primarily in Ulinor or Takyu City, with a non-magical, mortal Takyufon MC, readers would feel they didn’t get anything they expected.

What is Epic Fantasy? I feel Epic Fantasy is similar to High Fantasy, but with more allowances for tech/sci fi elements. On the other hand, it implies something, well, epic is happening. The world is ending. A war is occurring. Magic is running rampant. Many of my books are simply *not* epic in scale. They follow a single MC—who may be a normal person in their world—and the only things at stake are things relevant to the MC. If Calinthe fails her quest, the only one who suffers is Calinthe (and Zakuro). If Amiere fails, the only one who suffers is Amiere. Tynan… okay, Tynan’s book is probably a bit more epic than most lol. But that’s another thing: the label “Rainbow Fantasy” is meant to embody *all* my books. I don’t want to have to say “Well MoKaM is High Fantasy, but MoDaH is Epic Fantasy and MoLaB is… Slice of Life Fantasy?” Nah, bro, I’m just gonna say they’re ALL Rainbow Fantasy.

What is Dark Fantasy? It means there’s gonna be some pretty gritty stuff in here. Death, dismemberment, war, torture, rape, cannibalism, horror. Plus sexual elements, maybe even some kinks. To be clear, not ALL Dark Fantasy books need every one of those (I saw a topic the other day where someone had a friend who thought all Dark Fantasy needed rape. I am not implying that!) My books feature quite a bit of adult material, but I wouldn’t call them Dark Fantasy because… there are a lot of really tender, sweet moments. Maybe more so than the dark moments. Like, if I advertised MoLaB as Dark Fantasy, I’d feel like a fraud. It certainly *is* dark, especially in the later half, but that’s not exactly the part I can advertise spoiler-free lol. And if you just LOOK at it… I mean, my art for MoLaB usually depicts bright, sunny beaches, lovely merpeople, cute children. It doesn’t look ‘dark’ at all.

What is Queer Fantasy? Honestly not sure this is a subgenre at all, but it kinda feels like it? Books that take place in a fantasy setting and there’s emphasis on the characters being LGBTQ+? In any case, my world is queernormative and every book has queer people, but it’s just life as usual to them. The stories are never *about* their sexual or gender identity. It might play a powerful role, especially in stories where Ophidia is involved, but they probably won’t resonate with readers looking for stories about characters “coming out” or “going through a transition” because my characters aren’t going to experience the same kind of shame or oppression as real-world characters would.

So to sum up, Rainbow Fantasy is: a non-Earth setting, usually with magic/spirits/gods/non-human people/invented animals, but can include tech. The plots range from ‘the world is ending’ to ‘sculptor grives over his dead daughter.’ There’s some nasty shit, but also some super wholesome and loving shit. And queer is normal and accepted.

Another thing: not everyone writes to be a best-seller. Some people on other sites have made comments implying that I can't call my books by whatever label I think works best because I'm not selling for the traditional market. I reject their assertion. You can write a fanfic meant to be read by yourself and 5 other people and call it whatever you want, with whatever label you want. Fuck the haters. Fuck the gatekeepers. Keep writing.

[arcticdementor]

Oscar Wilde supposedly said George Bernard Shaw "has no enemies, but is intensely disliked by his friends". Socialist blogger Freddie DeBoer is the opposite: few allies, but deeply respected by his enemies. I disagree with him about everything, so naturally I am a big fan of his work - which meant I was happy to read his latest book, The Cult Of Smart.

DeBoer starts with the standard narrative of The Failing State Of American Education. Students aren't learning. The country is falling behind. Only tough no-excuses policies, standardization, and innovative reforms like charter schools can save it, as shown by their stellar performance improving test scores and graduation rates.

He argues that every word of it is a lie. American education isn't getting worse by absolute standards: students match or outperform their peers from 20 or 50 years ago. It's not getting worse by international standards: America's PISA rankings are mediocre, but the country has always scored near the bottom of international rankings, even back in the 50s and 60s when we were kicking Soviet ass and landing men on the moon. Race and gender gaps are stable or decreasing. American education is doing much as it's always done - about as well as possible, given the crushing poverty, single parent-families, violence, and racism holding back the kids it's charged with shepherding to adulthood.

…

For decades, politicians of both parties have thought of education as "the great leveller" and the key to solving poverty. If people are stuck in boring McJobs, it's because they're not well-educated enough to be surgeons and rocket scientists. Give them the education they need, and they can join the knowledge economy and rise into the upper-middle class. For lack of any better politically-palatable way to solve poverty, this has kind of become a totem: get better schools, and all those unemployed Appalachian coal miners can move to Silicon Valley and start tech companies. But you can't do that. Not everyone is intellectually capable of doing a high-paying knowledge economy job. Schools can change your intellectual potential a limited amount. Ending child hunger, removing lead from the environment, and similar humanitarian programs can do a little more, but only a little. In the end, a lot of people aren't going to make it.

So what can you do? DeBoer doesn't think there's an answer within the existing system. Instead, we need to dismantle meritocracy.

DeBoer is skeptical of "equality of opportunity". Even if you solve racism, sexism, poverty, and many other things that DeBoer repeatedly reminds us have not been solved, you'll just get people succeeding or failing based on natural talent. DeBoer agrees conservatives can be satisfied with this, but thinks leftists shouldn't be. Natural talent is just as unearned as class, race, or any other unfair advantage.

One one level, the titular Cult Of Smart is just the belief that enough education can solve any problem. But more fundamentally it's also the troubling belief that after we jettison unfair theories of superiority based on skin color, sex, and whatever else, we're finally left with what really determines your value as a human being - how smart you are. DeBoer recalls hearing an immigrant mother proudly describe her older kid's achievements in math, science, etc, "and then her younger son ran by, and she said, offhand, 'This one, he is maybe not so smart.'" DeBoer was originally shocked to hear someone describe her own son that way, then realized that he wouldn't have thought twice if she'd dismissed him as unathletic, or bad at music. Intelligence is considered such a basic measure of human worth that to dismiss someone as unintelligent seems like consigning them into the outer darkness. So DeBoer describes how early readers of his book were scandalized by the insistence on genetic differences in intelligence - isn't this denying the equality of Man, declaring some people inherently superior to others? Only if you conflate intelligence with worth, which DeBoer argues our society does constantly. It starts with parents buying Baby Einstein tapes and trying to send their kids to the best preschool, continues through the "meat grinder" of the college admissions process when everyone knows that whoever gets into Harvard is better than whoever gets into State U, and continues when the meritocracy rewards the straight-A Harvard student with a high-paying powerful job and the high school dropout with drudgery or unemployment. Even the phrase "high school dropout" has an aura of personal failure about it, in a way totally absent from "kid who always lost at Little League".

DeBoer isn't convinced this is an honest mistake. He draws attention to a sort of meta-class-war - a war among class warriors over whether the true enemy is the top 1% (this is the majority position) or the top 20% (this is DeBoer's position; if you've read Staying Classy, you'll immediately recognize this disagreement as the same one that divided the Church and UR models of class). The 1% are the Buffetts and Bezoses of the world; the 20% are the "managerial" class of well-off urban professionals, bureaucrats, creative types, and other mandarins. Opposition to the 20% is usually right-coded; describe them as "woke coastal elites who dominate academia and the media", and the Trump campaign ad almost writes itself. But some Marxists flirt with it too; the book references Elizabeth Currid-Halkett's Theory Of The Aspirational Class, and you can hear echoes of this every time Twitter socialists criticize "Vox liberals" or something. Access to the 20% is gated by college degree, and their legitimizing myth is that their education makes them more qualified and humane than the rest of us. DeBoer thinks the deification of school-achievement-compatible intelligence as highest good serves their class interest; "equality of opportunity" means we should ignore all other human distinctions in favor of the one that our ruling class happens to excel at.

So maybe equality of opportunity is a stupid goal. DeBoer argues for equality of results. This is a pretty extreme demand, but he's a Marxist and he means what he says. He wants a world where smart people and dull people have equally comfortable lives, and where intelligence can take its rightful place as one of many virtues which are nice to have but not the sole measure of your worth.

…

I'm Freddie's ideological enemy, which means I have to respect him. And there's a lot to like about this book. I think its two major theses - that intelligence is mostly innate, and that this is incompatible with equating it to human value - are true, important, and poorly appreciated by the general population. I tried to make a somewhat similar argument in my Parable Of The Talents, which DeBoer graciously quotes in his introduction. Some of the book's peripheral theses - that a lot of education science is based on fraud, that US schools are not declining in quality, etc - are also true, fascinating, and worth spreading. Overall, I think this book does more good than harm.

It's also rambling, self-contradictory in places, and contains a lot of arguments I think are misguided or bizarre.

…

At the time, I noted that meritocracy has nothing to do with this. The intuition behind meritocracy is: if your life depends on a difficult surgery, would you prefer the hospital hire a surgeon who aced medical school, or a surgeon who had to complete remedial training to barely scrape by with a C-? If you prefer the former, you’re a meritocrat with respect to surgeons. Generalize a little, and you have the argument for being a meritocrat everywhere else.

The above does away with any notions of "desert", but I worry it's still accepting too many of DeBoer's assumptions. A better description might be: Your life depends on a difficult surgery. You can hire whatever surgeon you want to perform it. You are willing to pay more money for a surgeon who aced medical school than for a surgeon who failed it. So higher intelligence leads to more money.

This not only does away with "desert", but also with reified Society deciding who should prosper. More meritorious surgeons get richer not because "Society" has selected them to get rich as a reward for virtue, but because individuals pursuing their incentives prefer, all else equal, not to die of botched surgeries. Meritocracy isn't an -ocracy like democracy or autocracy, where people in wigs sit down to frame a constitution and decide how things should work. It's a dubious abstraction over the fact that people prefer to have jobs done well rather than poorly, and use their financial and social clout to make this happen.

…

I think DeBoer would argue he's not against improving schools. He just thinks all attempts to do it so far have been crooks and liars pillaging the commons, so much so that we need a moratorium on this kind of thing until we can figure out what's going on. But I'm worried that his arguments against existing school reform are in some cases kind of weak.

DeBoer does make things hard for himself by focusing on two of the most successful charter school experiments. If he'd been a little less honest, he could have passed over these and instead mentioned the many charter schools that fail, or just sort of plod onward doing about as well as public schools do. I think the closest thing to a consensus right now is that most charter schools do about the same as public schools for white/advantaged students, and slightly better than public schools for minority/disadvantaged students. But DeBoer very virtuously thinks it's important to confront his opponents' strongest cases, so these are the ones I'll focus on here.

…

These are good points, and I would accept them from anyone other than DeBoer, who will go on to say in a few chapters that the solution to our education issues is a Marxist revolution that overthrows capitalism and dispenses with the very concept of economic value. If he's willing to accept a massive overhaul of everything, that's failed every time it's tried, why not accept a much smaller overhaul-of-everything, that's succeeded at least once? There are plenty of billionaires willing to pour fortunes into reforming various cities - DeBoer will go on to criticize them as deluded do-gooders a few chapters later. If billions of dollars plus a serious commitment to ground-up reform are what we need, let's just spend billions of dollars and have a serious commitment to ground-up reform! If more hurricanes is what it takes to fix education, I'm willing to do my part by leaving my air conditioner on 'high' all the time.

…

DeBoer spends several impassioned sections explaining how opposed he is to scientific racism, and arguing that the belief that individual-level IQ differences are partly genetic doesn't imply a belief that group-level IQ differences are partly genetic. Some reviewers of this book are still suspicious, wondering if he might be hiding his real position. I can assure you he is not. Seriously, he talks about how much he hates belief in genetic group-level IQ differences about thirty times per page. Also, sometimes when I write posts about race, he sends me angry emails ranting about how much he hates that some people believe in genetic group-level IQ differences - totally private emails nobody else will ever see. I have no reason to doubt that his hatred of this is as deep as he claims.

But I understand why some reviewers aren't convinced. This book can't stop tripping over itself when it tries to discuss these topics. DeBoer grants X, he grants X -> Y, then goes on ten-page rants about how absolutely loathsome and abominable anyone who believes Y is.

Remember, one of the theses of this book is that individual differences in intelligence are mostly genetic. But DeBoer spends only a little time citing the studies that prove this is true. He (correctly) decides that most of his readers will object not on the scientific ground that they haven't seen enough studies, but on the moral ground that this seems to challenge the basic equality of humankind. He (correctly) points out that this is balderdash, that innate differences in intelligence don't imply differences in moral value, any more than innate differences in height or athletic ability or anything like that imply differences in moral value. His goal is not just to convince you about the science, but to convince you that you can believe the science and still be an okay person who respects everyone and wants them to be happy.

He could have written a chapter about race that reinforced this message. He could have reviewed studies about whether racial differences in intelligence are genetic or environmental, come to some conclusion or not, but emphasized that it doesn't matter, and even if it's 100% genetic it has no bearing at all on the need for racial equality and racial justice, that one race having a slightly higher IQ than another doesn't make them "superior" any more than Pygmies' genetic short stature makes them "inferior".

Instead he - well, I'm not really sure what he's doing. He starts by says racial differences must be environmental. Then he says that studies have shown that racial IQ gaps are not due to differences in income/poverty, because the gaps remain even after controlling for these. But, he says, there could be other environmental factors aside from poverty that cause racial IQ gaps. After tossing out some possibilities, he concludes that he doesn't really need to be able to identify a plausible mechanism, because "white supremacy touches on so many aspects of American life that it's irresponsible to believe we have adequately controlled for it", no matter how many studies we do or how many confounders we eliminate. His argument, as far as I can tell, is that it's always possible that racial IQ differences are environmental, therefore they must be environmental. Then he goes on to, at great length, denounce as loathsome and villainous anyone who might suspect these gaps of being genetic. Such people are "noxious", "bigoted", "ugly", "pseudoscientific" "bad people" who peddle "propaganda" to "advance their racist and sexist agenda". (But tell us what you really think!)

…

This is far enough from my field that I would usually defer to expert consensus, but all the studies I can find which try to assess expert consensus seem crazy. A while ago, I freaked out upon finding a study that seemed to show most expert scientists in the field agreed with Murray's thesis in 1987 - about three times as many said the gap was due to a combination of genetics and environment as said it was just environment. Then I freaked out again when I found another study (here is the most recent version, from 2020) showing basically the same thing (about four times as many say it’s a combination of genetics and environment compared to just environment). I can't find any expert surveys giving the expected result that they all agree this is dumb and definitely 100% environment and we can move on (I'd be very relieved if anybody could find those, or if they could explain why the ones I found were fake studies or fake experts or a biased sample, or explain how I'm misreading them or that they otherwise shouldn't be trusted. If you have thoughts on this, please send me an email). I've vacillated back and forth on how to think about this question so many times, and right now my personal probability estimate is "I am still freaking out about this, go away go away go away". And I understand I have at least two potentially irresolveable biases on this question: one, I'm a white person in a country with a long history of promoting white supremacy; and two, if I lean in favor then everyone will hate me, and use it as a bludgeon against anyone I have ever associated with, and I will die alone in a ditch and maybe deserve it. So the best I can do is try to route around this issue when considering important questions. This is sometimes hard, but the basic principle is that I'm far less sure of any of it than I am sure that all human beings are morally equal and deserve to have a good life and get treated with respect regardless of academic achievement.

…

That last sentence about the basic principle is the thesis of The Cult Of Smart, so it would have been a reasonable position for DeBoer to take too. DeBoer doesn't take it. He acknowledges the existence of expert scientists who believe the differences are genetic (he names Linda Gottfredson in particular), but only to condemn them as morally flawed for asserting this.

But this is exactly the worldview he is, at this very moment, trying to write a book arguing against! His thesis is that mainstream voices say there can't be genetic differences in intelligence among individuals, because that would make some people fundamentally inferior to others, which is morally repugnant - but those voices are wrong, because differences in intelligence don't affect moral equality. Then he adds that mainstream voices say there can't be genetic differences in intelligence among ethnic groups, because that would make some groups fundamentally inferior to others, which is morally repugnant - and those voices are right; we must deny the differences lest we accept the morally repugnant thing.

Normally I would cut DeBoer some slack and assume this was some kind of Straussian manuever he needed to do to get the book published, or to prevent giving ammunition to bad people. But no, he has definitely believed this for years, consistently, even while being willing to offend basically anybody about basically anything else at any time. So I'm convinced this is his true belief. I'm just not sure how he squares it with the rest of his book.

…

"Smart" equivocates over two concepts - high-IQ and successful-at-formal-education. These concepts are related; in general, high-IQ people get better grades, graduate from better colleges, etc. But they're not exactly the same.

There is a cult of successful-at-formal-education. Society obsesses over how important formal education is, how it can do anything, how it's going to save the world. If you get gold stars on your homework, become the teacher's pet, earn good grades in high school, and get into an Ivy League, the world will love you for it.

But the opposite is true of high-IQ. Society obsessively denies that IQ can possibly matter. Admit to being a member of Mensa, and you'll get a fusillade of "IQ is just a number!" and "people who care about their IQ are just overcompensating for never succeeding at anything real!" and "IQ doesn't matter, what about emotional IQ or grit or whatever else, huh? Bet you didn't think of that!" Science writers and Psychology Today columnists vomit out a steady stream of bizarre attempts to deny the statistical validity of IQ.

These are two sides of the same phenomenon. Some people are smarter than others as adults, and the more you deny innate ability, the more weight you have to put on education. Society wants to put a lot of weight on formal education, and compensates by denying innate ability a lot. DeBoer is aware of this and his book argues against it adeptly.

Still, I worry that the title - The Cult Of Smart - might lead people to think there is a cult surrounding intelligence, when exactly the opposite is true. But I guess The Cult Of Successful At Formal Education sounds less snappy, so whatever.

…

I try to review books in an unbiased way, without letting myself succumb to fits of emotion. So be warned: I'm going to fail with this one. I am going to get angry and write whole sentences in capital letters. This is one of the most enraging passages I've ever read.

School is child prison. It's forcing kids to spend their childhood - a happy time! a time of natural curiosity and exploration and wonder - sitting in un-air-conditioned blocky buildings, cramped into identical desks, listening to someone drone on about the difference between alliteration and assonance, desperate to even be able to fidget but knowing that if they do their teacher will yell at them, and maybe they'll get a detention that extends their sentence even longer without parole. The anti-psychiatric-abuse community has invented the "Burrito Test" - if a place won't let you microwave a burrito without asking permission, it's an institution. Doesn't matter if the name is "Center For Flourishing" or whatever and the aides are social workers in street clothes instead of nurses in scrubs - if it doesn't pass the Burrito Test, it's an institution. There is no way school will let you microwave a burrito without permission. THEY WILL NOT EVEN LET YOU GO TO THE BATHROOM WITHOUT PERMISSION. YOU HAVE TO RAISE YOUR HAND AND ASK YOUR TEACHER FOR SOMETHING CALLED "THE BATHROOM PASS" IN FRONT OF YOUR ENTIRE CLASS, AND IF SHE DOESN'T LIKE YOU, SHE CAN JUST SAY NO.

I don't like actual prisons, the ones for criminals, but I will say this for them - people keep them around because they honestly believe they prevent crime. If someone found proof-positive that prisons didn't prevent any crimes at all, but still suggested that we should keep sending people there, because it means we'd have "fewer middle-aged people on the streets" and "fewer adults forced to go home to empty apartments and houses", then MAYBE YOU WOULD START TO UNDERSTAND HOW I FEEL ABOUT SENDING PEOPLE TO SCHOOL FOR THE SAME REASON.

I sometimes sit in on child psychiatrists' case conferences, and I want to scream at them. There's the kid who locks herself in the bathroom every morning so her parents can't drag her to child prison, and her parents stand outside the bathroom door to yell at her for hours until she finally gives in and goes, and everyone is trying to medicate her or figure out how to remove the bathroom locks, and THEY ARE SOLVING THE WRONG PROBLEM. There are all the kids who had bedwetting or awful depression or constant panic attacks, and then as soon as the coronavirus caused the child prisons to shut down the kids mysteriously became instantly better. I have heard stories of kids bullied to the point where it would be unfair not to call it torture, and the child prisons respond according to Procedures which look very good on paper and hit all the right We-Are-Taking-This-Seriously buzzwords but somehow never result in the kids not being tortured every day, and if the kids' parents were to stop bringing them to child prison every day to get tortured anew the cops would haul those parents to jail, and sometimes the only solution is the parents to switch them to the charter schools THAT FREDDIE DEBOER WANTS TO SHUT DOWN.

I see people on Twitter and Reddit post their stories from child prison, all of which they treat like it's perfectly normal. The district that wanted to save money, so it banned teachers from turning the heat above 50 degrees in the depths of winter. The district that decided running was an unsafe activity, and so any child who ran or jumped or played other-than-sedately during recess would get sent to detention - yeah, that's fine, let's just make all our children spent the first 18 years of their life somewhere they're not allowed to run, that'll be totally normal child development. You might object that they can run at home, but of course teachers assign three hours of homework a day despite ample evidence that homework does not help learning. Preventing children from having any free time, or the ability to do any of the things they want to do seems to just be an end in itself. Every single doctor and psychologist in the world has pointed out that children and teens naturally follow a different sleep pattern than adults, probably closer to 12 PM to 9 AM than the average adult's 10 - 7. Child prisons usually start around 7 or 8 AM, meaning any child who shows up on time is necessarily sleep-deprived in ways that probably harm their health and development.

School forces children to be confined in an uninhabitable environment, restrained from moving, and psychologically tortured in a state of profound sleep deprivation, under pain of imprisoning their parents if they refuse. The only possible justification for this is that it achieves some kind of vital social benefit like eliminating poverty. If it doesn't, you might as well replace it with something less traumatizing, like child labor. The kid will still have to spend eight hours of their day toiling in a terrible environment, but at least they’ll get some pocket money! At least their boss can't tell them to keep working off the clock under the guise of "homework"! I have worked as a medical resident, widely considered one of the most horrifying and abusive jobs it is possible to take in a First World country. I can say with absolute confidence that I would gladly do another four years of residency if the only alternative was another four years of high school.

If I have children, I hope to be able to homeschool them. But if I can't homeschool them, I am incredibly grateful that the option exists to send them to a charter school that might not have all of these problems. I'm not as impressed with Montessori schools as some of my friends are, but at least as far as I can tell they let kids wander around free-range, and don't make them use bathroom passes. DeBoer not only wants to keep the whole prison-cum-meat-grinder alive and running, even after having proven it has no utility, he also wants to shut the only possible escape my future children will ever get unless I'm rich enough to quit work and care for them full time.

When I try to keep a cooler head about all of this, I understand that Freddie DeBoer doesn't want this. He is not a fan of freezing-cold classrooms or sleep deprivation or bullying or bathroom passes. In fact, he will probably blame all of these on the "neoliberal reformers" (although I went to school before most of the neoliberal reforms started, and I saw it all). He will say that his own utopian schooling system has none of this stuff. In fact, he does say that. He sketches what a future Marxist school system might look like, and it looks pretty much like a Montessori school looks now. That just makes it really weird that he wants to shut down all the schools that resemble his ideal today (or make them only available to the wealthy) in favor of forcing kids into schools about as different from it as it's possible for anything to be.

I am so, so tired of socialists who admit that the current system is a helltopian torturescape, then argue that we must prevent anyone from ever being able to escape it. Who promise that once the last alternative is closed off, once the last nice green place where a few people manage to hold off the miseries of the world is crushed, why then the helltopian torturescape will become a lovely utopia full of rainbows and unicorns. If you can make your system less miserable, make your system less miserable! Do it before forcing everyone else to participate in it under pain of imprisonment if they refuse! Forcing everyone to participate in your system and then making your system something other than a meat-grinder that takes in happy children and spits out dead-eyed traumatized eighteen-year-olds who have written 10,000 pages on symbolism in To Kill A Mockingbird and had zero normal happy experiences - is doing things super, super backwards!

[viralhottopics]

The high-tech war on science fraud

The Long Read: The problem of fake data may go far deeper than scientists admit. Now a team of researchers has a controversial plan to root out the perpetrators

One morning last summer, a German psychologist named Mathias Kauff woke up to find that he had been reprimanded by a robot. In an email, a computer program named Statcheck informed him that a 2013 paper he had published on multiculturalism and prejudice appeared to contain a number of incorrect calculations which the program had catalogued and then posted on the internet for anyone to see. The problems turned out to be minor just a few rounding errors but the experience left Kauff feeling rattled. At first I was a bit frightened, he said. I felt a bit exposed.

Kauff wasnt alone. Statcheck had read some 50,000 published psychology papers and checked the maths behind every statistical result it encountered. In the space of 24 hours, virtually every academic active in the field in the past two decades had received an email from the program, informing them that their work had been reviewed. Nothing like this had ever been seen before: a massive, open, retroactive evaluation of scientific literature, conducted entirely by computer.

Statchecks method was relatively simple, more like the mathematical equivalent of a spellchecker than a thoughtful review, but some scientists saw it as a new form of scrutiny and suspicion, portending a future in which the objective authority of peer review would be undermined by unaccountable and uncredentialed critics.

Susan Fiske, the former head of the Association for Psychological Science, wrote an op-ed accusing self-appointed data police of pioneering a new form of harassment. The German Psychological Society issued a statement condemning the unauthorised use of Statcheck. The intensity of the reaction suggested that many were afraid that the program was not just attributing mere statistical errors, but some impropriety, to the scientists.

The man behind all this controversy was a 25-year-old Dutch scientist named Chris Hartgerink, based at Tilburg Universitys Meta-Research Center, which studies bias and error in science. Statcheck was the brainchild of Hartgerinks colleague Michle Nuijten, who had used the program to conduct a 2015 study that demonstrated that about half of all papers in psychology journals contained a statistical error. Nuijtens study was written up in Nature as a valuable contribution to the growing literature acknowledging bias and error in science but she had not published an inventory of the specific errors it had detected, or the authors who had committed them. The real flashpoint came months later,when Hartgerink modified Statcheck with some code of his own devising, which catalogued the individual errors and posted them online sparking uproar across the scientific community.

Hartgerink is one of only a handful of researchers in the world who work full-time on the problem of scientific fraud and he is perfectly happy to upset his peers. The scientific system as we know it is pretty screwed up, he told me last autumn. Sitting in the offices of the Meta-Research Center, which look out on to Tilburgs grey, mid-century campus, he added: Ive known for years that I want to help improve it. Hartgerink approaches his work with a professorial seriousness his office is bare, except for a pile of statistics textbooks and an equation-filled whiteboard and he is appealingly earnest about his aims. His conversations tend to rapidly ascend to great heights, as if they were balloons released from his hands the simplest things soon become grand questions of ethics, or privacy, or the future of science.

Statcheck is a good example of what is now possible, he said. The top priority,for Hartgerink, is something much more grave than correcting simple statistical miscalculations. He is now proposing to deploy a similar program that will uncover fake or manipulated results which he believes are far more prevalent than most scientists would like to admit.

When it comes to fraud or in the more neutral terms he prefers, scientific misconduct Hartgerink is aware that he is venturing into sensitive territory. It is not something people enjoy talking about, he told me, with a weary grin. Despite its professed commitment to self-correction, science is a discipline that relies mainly on a culture of mutual trust and good faith to stay clean. Talking about its faults can feel like a kind of heresy. In 1981, when a young Al Gore led a congressional inquiry into a spate of recent cases of scientific fraud in biomedicine, the historian Daniel Kevles observed that for Gore and for many others, fraud in the biomedical sciences was akin to pederasty among priests.

The comparison is apt. The exposure of fraud directly threatens the special claim science has on truth, which relies on the belief that its methods are purely rational and objective. As the congressmen warned scientists during the hearings, each and every case of fraud serves to undermine the publics trust in the research enterprise of our nation.

But three decades later, scientists still have only the most crude estimates of how much fraud actually exists. The current accepted standard is a 2009 study by the Stanford researcher Daniele Fanelli that collated the results of 21 previous surveys given to scientists in various fields about research misconduct. The studies, which depended entirely on scientists honestly reporting their own misconduct, concluded that about 2% of scientists had falsified data at some point in their career.

If Fanellis estimate is correct, it seems likely that thousands of scientists are getting away with misconduct each year. Fraud including outright fabrication, plagiarism and self-plagiarism accounts for the majority of retracted scientific articles. But, according to RetractionWatch, which catalogues papers that have been withdrawn from the scientific literature, only 684 were retracted in 2015, while more than 800,000 new papers were published. If even just a few of the suggested 2% of scientific fraudsters which, relying on self-reporting, is itself probably a conservative estimate are active in any given year, the vast majority are going totally undetected. Reviewers and editors, other gatekeepers theyre not looking for potential problems, Hartgerink said.

But if none of the traditional authorities in science are going to address the problem, Hartgerink believes that there is another way. If a program similar to Statcheck can be trained to detect the traces of manipulated data, and then make those results public, the scientific community can decide for itself whether a given study should still be regarded as trustworthy.

Hartgerinks university, which sits at the western edge of Tilburg, a small, quiet city in the southern Netherlands, seems an unlikely place to try and correct this hole in the scientific process. The university is best known for its economics and business courses and does not have traditional lab facilities. But Tilburg was also the site of one of the biggest scientific scandals in living memory and no one knows better than Hartgerink and his colleagues just how devastating individual cases of fraud can be.

In September 2010, the School of Social and Behavioral Science at Tilburg University appointed Diederik Stapel, a promising young social psychologist, as its new dean. Stapel was already popular with students for his warm manner, and with the faculty for his easy command of scientific literature and his enthusiasm for collaboration. He would often offer to help his colleagues, and sometimes even his students, by conducting surveys and gathering data for them.

As dean, Stapel appeared to reward his colleagues faith in him almost immediately. In April 2011 he published a paper in Science, the first study the small university had ever landed in that prestigious journal. Stapels research focused on what psychologists call priming: the idea that small stimuli can affect our behaviour in unnoticed but significant ways. Could being discriminated against depend on such seemingly trivial matters as garbage on the streets? Stapels paper in Science asked. He proceeded to show that white commuters at the Utrecht railway station tended to sit further away from visible minorities when the station was dirty. Similarly, Stapel found that white people were more likely to give negative answers on a quiz about minorities if they were interviewed on a dirty street, rather than a clean one.

Stapel had a knack for devising and executing such clever studies, cutting through messy problems to extract clean data. Since becoming a professor a decade earlier, he had published more than 100 papers, showing, among other things, that beauty product advertisements, regardless of context, prompted women to think about themselves more negatively, and that judges who had been primed to think about concepts of impartial justice were less likely to make racially motivated decisions.

His findings regularly reached the public through the media. The idea that huge, intractable social issues such as sexism and racism could be affected in such simple ways had a powerful intuitive appeal, and hinted at the possibility of equally simple, elegant solutions. If anything united Stapels diverse interests, it was this Gladwellian bent. His studies were often featured in the popular press, including the Los Angeles Times and New York Times, and he was a regular guest on Dutch television programmes.

But as Stapels reputation skyrocketed, a small group of colleagues and students began to view him with suspicion. It was too good to be true, a professor who was working at Tilburg at the time told me. (The professor, who I will call Joseph Robin, asked to remain anonymous so that he could frankly discuss his role in exposing Stapel.) All of his experiments worked. That just doesnt happen.

A student of Stapels had mentioned to Robin in 2010 that some of Stapels data looked strange, so that autumn, shortly after Stapel was made Dean, Robin proposed a collaboration with him, hoping to see his methods first-hand. Stapel agreed, and the data he returned a few months later, according to Robin, looked crazy. It was internally inconsistent in weird ways; completely unlike any real data I had ever seen. Meanwhile, as the student helped get hold of more datasets from Stapels former students and collaborators, the evidence mounted: more weird data, and identical sets of numbers copied directly from one study to another.

In August 2011, the whistleblowers took their findings to the head of the department, Marcel Zeelenberg, who confronted Stapel with the evidence. At first, Stapel denied the charges, but just days later he admitted what his accusers suspected: he had never interviewed any commuters at the railway station, no women had been shown beauty advertisements and no judges had been surveyed about impartial justice and racism.

Stapel hadnt just tinkered with numbers, he had made most of them up entirely, producing entire datasets at home in his kitchen after his wife and children had gone to bed. His method was an inversion of the proper scientific method: he started by deciding what result he wanted and then worked backwards, filling out the individual data points he was supposed to be collecting.

On 7 September 2011, the university revealed that Stapel had been suspended. The media initially speculated that there might have been an issue with his latest study announced just days earlier, showing that meat-eaters were more selfish and less sociable but the problem went much deeper. Stapels students and colleagues were about to learn that his enviable skill with data was, in fact, a sham, and his golden reputation, as well as nearly a decade of results that they had used in their own work, were built on lies.

Chris Hartgerink was studying late at the library when he heard the news. The extent of Stapels fraud wasnt clear by then, but it was big. Hartgerink, who was then an undergraduate in the Tilburg psychology programme, felt a sudden disorientation, a sense that something solid and integral had been lost. Stapel had been a mentor to him, hiring him as a research assistant and giving him constant encouragement. This is a guy who inspired me to actually become enthusiastic about research, Hartgerink told me. When that reason drops out, what remains, you know?

Hartgerink wasnt alone; the whole university was stunned. It was a really difficult time, said one student who had helped expose Stapel. You saw these people on a daily basis who were so proud of their work, and you know its just based on a lie. Even after Stapel resigned, the media coverage was relentless. Reporters roamed the campus first from the Dutch press, and then, as the story got bigger, from all over the world.

On 9 September, just two days after Stapel was suspended, the university convened an ad-hoc investigative committee of current and former faculty. To help determine the true extent of Stapels fraud, the committee turned to Marcel van Assen, a statistician and psychologist in the department. At the time, Van Assen was growing bored with his current research, and the idea of investigating the former dean sounded like fun to him. Van Assen had never much liked Stapel, believing that he relied more on the force of his personality than reason when running the department. Some people believe him charismatic, Van Assen told me. I am less sensitive to it.

Van Assen who is 44, tall and rangy, with a mop of greying, curly hair approaches his work with relentless, unsentimental practicality. When speaking, he maintains an amused, half-smile, as if he is joking. He once told me that to fix the problems in psychology, it might be simpler to toss out 150 years of research and start again; Im still not sure whether or not he was serious.

To prove misconduct, Van Assen said, you must be a pitbull: biting deeper and deeper, clamping down not just on the papers, but the datasets behind them, the research methods, the collaborators using everything available to bring down the target. He spent a year breaking down the 45 studies Stapel produced at Tilburg and cataloguing their individual aberrations, noting where the effect size a standard measure of the difference between the two groups in an experiment seemed suspiciously large, where sequences of numbers were copied, where variables were too closely related, or where variables that should have moved in tandem instead appeared adrift.

The committee released its final report in October 2012 and, based largely on its conclusions, 55 of Stapels publications were officially retracted by the journals that had published them. Stapel also returned his PhD to the University of Amsterdam. He is, by any measure, one of the biggest scientific frauds of all time. (RetractionWatch has him third on their all-time retraction leaderboard.) The committee also had harsh words for Stapels colleagues, concluding that from the bottom to the top, there was a general neglect of fundamental scientific standards. It was a real blow to the faculty, Jacques Hagenaars, a former professor of methodology at Tilburg, who served on the committee, told me.

By extending some of the blame to the methods and attitudes of the scientists around Stapel, the committee situated the case within a larger problem that was attracting attention at the time, which has come to be known as the replication crisis. For the past decade, the scientific community has been grappling with the discovery that many published results cannot be reproduced independently by other scientists in spite of the traditional safeguards of publishing and peer-review because the original studies were marred by some combination of unchecked bias and human error.

After the committee disbanded, Van Assen found himself fascinated by the way science is susceptible to error, bias, and outright fraud. Investigating Stapel had been exciting, and he had no interest in returning to his old work. Van Assen had also found a like mind, a new professor at Tilburg named Jelte Wicherts, who had a long history working on bias in science and who shared his attitude of upbeat cynicism about the problems in their field. We simply agree, there are findings out there that cannot be trusted, Van Assen said. They began planning a new sort of research group: one that would investigate the very practice of science.

Illustration by Bratislav Milenkovic.

Van Assen does not like assigning Stapel too much credit for the creation of the Meta-Research Center, which hired its first students in late 2012, but there is an undeniable symmetry: he and Wicherts have created, in Stapels old department, a platform to investigate the sort of sloppy science and misconduct that very department had been condemned for.

Hartgerink joined the group in 2013. For many people, certainly for me, Stapel launched an existential crisis in science, he said. After Stapels fraud was exposed, Hartgerink struggled to find what could be trusted in his chosen field. He began to notice how easy it was for scientists to subjectively interpret data or manipulate it. For a brief time he considered abandoning a future in research and joining the police.

Van Assen, who Hartgerink met through a statistics course, helped put him on another path. Hartgerink learned that a growing number of scientists in every field were coming to agree that the most urgent task for their profession was to establish what results and methods could still be trusted and that many of these people had begun to investigate the unpredictable human factors that, knowingly or not, knocked science off its course. What was more, he could be a part of it. Van Assen offered Hartgerink a place in his yet-unnamed research group. All of the current projects were on errors or general bias, but Van Assen proposed they go out and work closer to the fringes, developing methods that could detect fake data in published scientific literature.

Im not normally an expressive person, Hartgerink told me. But I said: Hell, yes. Lets do that.

Hartgerink and Van Assen believe not only that most scientific fraud goes undetected, but that the true rate of misconduct is far higher than 2%. We cannot trust self reports, Van Assen told me. If you ask people, At the conference, did you cheat on your fiancee? people will very likely not admit this.

Uri Simonsohn, a psychology professor at University of Pennsylvanias Wharton School who gained notoriety as a data vigilante for exposing two serious cases of fraud in his field in 2012, believes that as much as 5% of all published research contains fraudulent data. Its not only in the periphery, its not only in the journals people dont read, he told me. There are probably several very famous papers that have fake data, and very famous people who have done it.

But as long as it remains undiscovered, there is a tendency for scientists to dismiss fraud in favour of more widely documented and less seedy issues. Even Arturo Casadevall, an American microbiologist who has published extensively on the rate, distribution, and detection of fraud in science, told me that despite his personal interest in the topic, my time would be better served investigating the broader issues driving the replication crisis. Fraud, he said, was probably a relatively minor problem in terms of the overall level of science.

This way of thinking goes back at least as far as scientists have been grappling with high-profile cases of misconduct. In 1983, Peter Medawar, the British immunologist and Nobel laureate, wrote in the London Review of Books: The number of dishonest scientists cannot, of course, be known, but even if they were common enough to justify scary talk of tips of icebergs, they have not been so numerous as to prevent sciences having become the most successful enterprise (in terms of the fulfilment of declared ambitions) that human beings have ever engaged upon.

From this perspective, as long as science continues doing what it does well as long as genes are sequenced and chemicals classified and diseases reliably identified and treated then fraud will remain a minor concern. But while this may be true in the long run, it may also be dangerously complacent. Furthermore, scientific misconduct can cause serious harm, as, for instance, in the case of patients treated by Paolo Macchiarini, a doctor at Karolinska Institute in Sweden who allegedly misrepresented the effectiveness of an experimental surgical procedure he had developed. Macchiarini is currently being investigated by a Swedish prosecutor after several of the patients who received the procedure later died.

Even in the more mundane business of day-to-day research, scientists are constantly building on past work, relying on its solidity to underpin their own theories. If misconduct really is as widespread as Hartgerink and Van Assen think, then false results are strewn across scientific literature, like unexploded mines that threaten any new structure built over them. At the very least, if science is truly invested in its ideal of self-correction, it seems essential to know the extent of the problem.

But there is little motivation within the scientific community to ramp up efforts to detect fraud. Part of this has to do with the way the field is organised. Science isnt a traditional hierarchy, but a loose confederation of research groups, institutions, and professional organisations. Universities are clearly central to the scientific enterprise, but they are not in the business of evaluating scientific results, and as long as fraud doesnt become public they have little incentive to go after it. There is also the questionable perception, although widespread in the scientific community, that there are already measures in place that preclude fraud. When Gore and his fellow congressmen held their hearings 35 years ago, witnesses routinely insisted that science had a variety of self-correcting mechanisms, such as peer-review and replication. But, as the science journalists William Broad and Nicholas Wade pointed out at the time, the vast majority of cases of fraud are actually exposed by whistleblowers, and that holds true to this day.

And so the enormous task of keeping science honest is left to individual scientists in the hope that they will police themselves, and each other. Not only is it not sustainable, said Simonsohn, it doesnt even work. You only catch the most obvious fakers, and only a small share of them. There is also the problem of relying on whistleblowers, who face the thankless and emotionally draining prospect of accusing their own colleagues of fraud. (Its like saying someone is a paedophile, one of the studentsat Tilburg told me.) Neither Simonsohn nor any of the Tilburg whistleblowers I interviewedsaid they would come forward again. There is no way we as a field can deal with fraud like this, the student said. There has to be a better way.

In the winter of 2013, soon after Hartgerink began working with Van Assen, they began to investigate another social psychology researcher who they noticed was reporting suspiciously large effect sizes, one of the tells that doomed Stapel. When they requested that the researcher provide additional data to verify her results, she stalled claiming that she was undergoing treatment for stomach cancer. Months later, she informed them that she had deleted all the data in question. But instead of contacting the researchers co-authors for copies of the data, or digging deeper into her previous work, they opted to let it go.

They had been thoroughly stonewalled, and they knew that trying to prosecute individual cases of fraud the pitbull approach that Van Assen had taken when investigating Stapel would never expose more than a handful of dishonest scientists. What they needed was a way to analyse vast quantities of data in search of signs of manipulation or error, which could then be flagged for public inspection without necessarily accusing the individual scientists of deliberate misconduct. After all, putting a fence around a minefield has many of the same benefits as clearing it, with none of the tricky business of digging up the mines.

As Van Assen had earlier argued in a letter to the journal Nature, the traditional approach to investigating other scientists was needlessly fraught since it combined the messy task of proving that a researcher had intended to commit fraud with a much simpler technical problem: whether the data underlying their results was valid. The two issues, he argued, could be separated.

Scientists can commit fraud in a multitude of ways. In 1974, the American immunologist William Summerlin famously tried to pass a patch of skin on a mouse darkened with permanent marker pen as a successful interspecies skin-graft. But most instances are more mundane: the majority of fraud cases in recent years have emerged from scientists either falsifying images deliberately mislabelling scans and micrographs or fabricating or altering their recorded data. And scientists have used statistical tests to scrutinise each others data since at least the 1930s, when Ronald Fisher, the father of biostatistics,used a basic chi-squared test to suggest that Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, had cherrypicked some of his data.

In 2014, Hartgerink and Van Assen started to sort through the variety of tests used in ad-hoc investigations of fraud in order to determine which were powerful and versatile enough to reliably detect statistical anomalies across a wide range of fields. After narrowing down a promising arsenal of tests, they hit a tougher problem. To prove that their methods work, Hartgerink and Van Assen have to show they can reliably distinguish false from real data. But research misconduct is relatively uncharted territory. Only a handful of cases come to light each year a dismally small sample size so its hard to get an idea of what constitutes normal fake data, what its features and particular quirks are. Hartgerink devised a workaround, challenging other academics to produce simple fake datasets, a sort of game to see if they could come up with data that looked real enough to fool the statistical tests, with an Amazon gift card as a prize.

By 2015, the Meta-Research grouphad expanded to seven researchers, and Hartgerink was helping his colleagues with a separate error-detection project that would become Statcheck. He was pleased with the study that Michle Nuitjen published that autumn, which used Statcheck to show that something like half of all published psychology papers appeared to contain calculation errors, but as he tinkered with the program and the database of psychology papers they had assembled, he found himself increasingly uneasy about what he saw as the closed and secretive culture of science.

When scientists publish papers in journals, they release only the data they wish to share. Critical evaluation of the results by other scientists peer review takes place in secret and the discussion is not released publicly. Once a paper is published, all comments, concerns, and retractions must go through the editors of the journal before they reach the public. There are good, or at least defensible, arguments for all of this. But Hartgerink is part of an increasingly vocal group that believes that the closed nature of science, with authority resting in the hands of specific gatekeepers journals, universities, and funders is harmful, and that a more open approach would better serve the scientific method.

Hartgerink realised that with a few adjustments to Statcheck, he could make public all the statistical errors it had exposed. He hoped that this would shift the conversation away from talk of broad, representative results such as the proportion of studies that contained errors and towards a discussion of the individual papers and their mistakes. The critique would be complete, exhaustive, and in the public domain, where the authors could address it; everyone else could draw their own conclusions.

In August 2016, with his colleagues blessing, he posted the full set of Statcheck results publicly on the anonymous science message board PubPeer. At first there was praise on Twitter and science blogs, which skew young and progressive and then, condemnations, largely from older scientists, who feared an intrusive new world of public blaming and shaming. In December, after everyone had weighed in, Nature, a bellwether of mainstream scientific thought for more than a century, cautiously supported a future of automated scientific scrutiny in an editorial that addressed the Statcheck controversy without explicitly naming it. Its conclusion seemed to endorse Hartgerinks approach, that criticism itself must be embraced.

In the same month, the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), an obscure branch of the US National Institutes of Health, awarded Hartgerink a small grant about $100,000 to pursue new projects investigating misconduct, including the completion of his program to detect fabricated data. For Hartgerink and Van Assen, who had not received any outside funding for their research, it felt like vindication.

Yet change in science comes slowly, if at all, Van Assen reminded me. The current push for more open and accountable science, of which they are a part, has only really existed since 2011, he said. It has captured an outsize share of the science medias attention, and set laudable goals, but it remains a small, fragile outpost of true believers within the vast scientific enterprise. I have the impression that many scientists in this group think that things are going to change. Van Assen said. Chris, Michle, they are quite optimistic. I think thats bias. They talk to each other all the time.

When I asked Hartgerink what it would take to totally eradicate fraud from the scientific process, he suggested that scientists make all of their data public; register the intentions of their work before conducting experiments, to prevent post-hoc reasoning, and that they have their results checked by algorithms during and after the publishing process.

To any working scientist currently enjoying nearly unprecedented privacy and freedom for a profession that is in large part publicly funded Hartgerinks vision would be an unimaginably draconian scientific surveillance state. For his part, Hartgerink believes the preservation of public trust in science requires nothing less but in the meantime, he intends to pursue this ideal without the explicit consent of the entire scientific community, by investigating published papers and making the results available to the public.

Even scientists who have done similar work uncovering fraud have reservations about Van Assen and Hartgerinks approach. In January, I met with Dr John Carlisle and Dr Steve Yentis at an anaesthetics conference that took place in London, near Westminster Abbey. In 2012, Yentis, then the editor of the journal Anaesthesia, asked Carlisle to investigate data from a researcher named Yoshitaka Fujii, who the community suspected was falsifying clinical trials. In time, Carlisle demonstrated that 168 of Fujiis trials contained dubious statistical results. Yentis and the other journal editors contacted Fujiis employers, who launched a full investigation. Fujii currently sits at the top of the RetractionWatch leaderboard with 183 retracted studies. By sheer numbers he is the biggest scientific fraud in recorded history.

Carlisle, who, like Van Assen, found that he enjoyed the detective work (it takes a certain personality, or personality disorder, he said), showed me his latest project, a larger-scale analysis of the rate of suspicious clinical trial results across multiple fields of medicine. He and Yentis discussed their desire to automate these statistical tests which, in theory, would look a lot like what Hartgerink and Van Assen are developing but they have no plans to make the results public; instead they envision that journal editors might use the tests to screen incoming articles for signs of possible misconduct.

It is an incredibly difficult balance, said Yentis, youre saying to a person, I think youre a liar. We have to decide how many fraudulent papers are worth one false accusation. How many is too many?

With the introduction of programs such as Statcheck, and the growing desire to conduct as much of the critical conversation as possible in public view, Yentis expects a stormy reckoning with those very questions. Thats a big debate that hasnt happened, he said, and its because we simply havent had the tools.

For all their dispassionate distance, when Hartgerink and Van Assen say that they are simply identifying data that cannot be trusted, they mean flagging papers and authors that fail their tests. And, as they learned with Statcheck, for many scientists, that will be indistinguishable from an accusation of deceit. When Hartgerink eventually deploys his fraud-detection program, it will flag up some very real instances of fraud, as well as many unintentional errors and false positives and present all of the results in a messy pile for the scientific community to sort out. Simonsohn called it a bit like leaving a loaded gun on a playground.

When I put this question to Van Assen, he told me it was certain that some scientists would be angered or offended by having their work and its possible errors exposed and discussed. He didnt want to make anyone feel bad, he said but he didnt feel bad about it. Science should be about transparency, criticism, and truth.

The problem, also with scientists, is that people think they are important, they think they have a special purpose in life, he said. Maybe you too. But thats a human bias. I think when you look at it objectively, individuals dont matter at all. We should only look at what is good for science and society.

Main Illustration: Bratislav Milenkovic

Follow the Long Read on Twitter at @gdnlongread, or sign up to the long read weekly email here.

Read more: http://bit.ly/2jXSWW2

from The high-tech war on science fraud

[officialotakudome]

New Post has been published on Otaku Dome | The Latest News In Anime, Manga, Gaming, Tech, and Geek Culture

New Post has been published on https://otakudome.com/sentai-announces-may-slate-and-7seeds/

Sentai Announces May Slate And 7Seeds

Senta Filmworks has announced upcomng home video titles and the acquisition of 7Seeds:

HOUSTON, TX — February 22, 2021 — Sentai announced today that it will be releasing the second season of post-apocalyptic anime series 7SEEDS, based on the award-winning manga of the same name, on home video in Spring 2021.

Season 2 picks up where Season 1 left off. A meteor strike has left the world a shattered shell of what it once was, but a government initiative involving cryogenics has given humanity a fighting chance. To date, the subjects of the 7SEEDS project have survived giant insects, post-apocalyptic weather, ferocious animals, and the greatest danger of all: other survivors, all of whom will do anything to live another day. But the 7SEEDS project’s chosen few aren’t safe yet, and the monumental mission of rebuilding society has only just begun.

A Studio KAI (Cagaster of an Insect Cage, Uma Musume: Pretty Derby Season 2) production, 7SEEDS’ second season is directed by Yukio Takahashi (director Dog & Scissors, episode director LASTEXILE -Fam, The Silver-, Moribito: Guardian of the Spirit and The Qwaser of Stigmata) while Toko Machida (Akame ga Kill!, Chaika -The Coffin Princess-, Wake Up, Girls!) provides series composition. The series stars the vocal talents of Nao Toyama (GATE, My Teen Romantic Comedy SNAFU, KAKURIYO -Bed & Breakfast for Spirits-) as Natsu Iwashimizu, Jun Fukuyama (Love, Chunibyo and Other Delusions, Assassination Classroom, Maoyu ~ Archenemy & Hero) as Arashi Aota and Yoko Hikasa (BanG Dream! 2nd Season, K-ON!, No Game, No Life) as Hana Sugurono.

7SEEDS is based upon the manga of the same name by Yumi Tamura; in 2007, the manga received the 52nd Shogakukan Manga Award for “Best Shojo (Girl’s) Manga.”

For Sentai’s latest announcements regarding this and other great titles, be sure to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

OUSTON, February 23, 2021 – Home video distributor Section23 Films today announced its May slate of releases which includes Season 3 & 4 of Sentai Filmworks hit series, AHIRU NO SORA!  Available on Blu-ray May 25th and also included in the Season 1-4 Limited Edition Premium Box Set!

Product details follow, in order of release

  Coming May 2021

  Title:                 GATE

Published by:    Sentai Filmworks

Distributed by:  Section23 Films

Run Time:         600 min.

Street Date:      5/4/2021

Format:             BD

Language:         English & Japanese with English Subtitles

SRP:                $59.98

SYNOPSIS:  When a dimensional rift appears in downtown Tokyo and begins spewing an army of monsters and men in medieval armor, 33-year-old JSDF officer Yoji Itami’s hobbies of fantasy novels and video games suddenly complement his military training and help rout an invasion from another world! They also make him a natural choice for the first major expeditionary force to be sent into the Gate, and what he and the JSDF find on the other side is both amazing and terrifying. Elves. Dragons. Beast people. But there’s a far worse danger to be feared, because while spears, shields and even giant teeth can be countered with modern weapons, nothing is as ruthless, deadly or hard to stop as the treachery of men who will sacrifice anything or anyone in order to control the new world on the other side of the GATE.

Title:                 7 SEEDS SEASON 2

Published by:    Sentai Filmworks

Distributed by:  Section23 Films

Run Time:         300 min.

Street Date:      5/11/2021

Format:             BD

Language:         English & Japanese with English Subtitles

SRP:                $69.98

SYNOPSIS:  After the Earth was transformed into a world of strange and monstrous creatures and plants, a global seeding program released small teams to retrieve caches of supplies and knowledge.  Having been expelled from one such team, Team Summer A, Ango and Ryo roam the seas until they discover Team Summer B stranded on an island.  Will things go more smoothly with this new team?  Or will greed, deception and the lust for power become a deadlier enemy than the beasts and flora?  The hellscape that was Japan is a lethal Eden, and the Seeds have brought their own serpents with them in the second part of 7 SEEDS!

Title:                 BABYLON

Published by:    Sentai Filmworks

Distributed by:  Section23 Films

Run Time:         300 min.

Street Date:      5/11/2021

Format:             BD

Language:         English & Japanese with English Subtitles

SRP:                $69.98

SYNOPSIS:  Everything can be connected to something else if you dig hard enough, and when you’re investigating a crime, it usually doesn’t take too long before you start finding the clues you need, if you know where to look. When Public Prosecutor Zen Seizaki starts investigating a case of apparent fraud by a major pharmaceutical company, however, he quickly finds himself entangled in a nightmarish web of lies, intrigue and murder on a global scale. And even worse, how can he fight a foe without a face, one that’s protected by members of the highest echelons of society and government, and seems to be able to convince its own victims to kill themselves? The nightmares of modern science are powered by old-fashioned corruption and greed, and one man may be the only force that can stop them in BABYLON.

Title:                 KARAKURI CIRCUS

Published by:    Sentai Filmworks

Distributed by:  Section23 Films

Run Time:         900 min.

Street Date:      5/18/2021

Format:             BD

Language:         Japanese with English Subtitles

SRP:                $99.98

SYNOPSIS:  When Narumi Kato, a martial artist afflicted with the bizarre condition known as Zonapha syndrome, attempts to rescue a young boy from incredibly powerful attackers, he is stunned to discover that his opponents aren’t even human!  Pulled into a conflict pitting users of l puppets and the self-aware Automatons against each other, Narumi finds himself rescued by an unusual young woman named Shirogane, who has her own puppet, Arlequin, and together they must form an alliance to protect the boy, Masaru, who has recently inherited an incredible fortune.  But who is trying to kill Masaru and what is the origin of these incredible animated creations?  How is it tied in with Narumi’s own affliction?  The truth surrounding a 200 year old shadow war unfolds as Narumi, Shirogane, and Masaru battle to survive in KARAKURI CIRCUS!

Title:                 AHIRU NO SORA SEASON 3 & 4

Published by:    Sentai Filmworks

Distributed by:  Section23 Films

Run Time:         650 min.

Street Date:      5/25/2021

Format:             BD

Language:         English & Japanese with English Subtitles

SRP:                $89.98

SYNOPSIS:  The ramshackle basketball team that Sora Kurumatani’s love for basketball forged from a collection of juvenile delinquents and random high school archetypes has made it past their initial training and practice games, but are they ready to compete in a real tournament? They’ll find out as they face off against the far more seasoned and experienced team from Shinjo Towa Academy. But even if they dig down and find a way to play better than they’ve ever played before, there are more teams ready and waiting in the wings, including the relentless squad from Yokohama Taiei. The drama is intense both on and off the boards, as tensions fly, members of the fledgling team start to crack, and Sora’s own situation hits a point that may tear the team apart in the second spectacular collection of AHIRU NO SORA!

Title:                 AHIRU NO SORA PREMIUM BOX SET

Published by:    Sentai Filmworks

Distributed by:  Section23 Films

Run Time:         1250 min.

Street Date:      5/25/2021

Format:             BD

Language:         English & Japanese with English Subtitles

SRP:                $129.98

SYNOPSIS:  Sora Kurumatani is short and as scrawny as a stick figure, but he loves basketball with a burning passion. Unfortunately, on his first day at Kuzuryu High, he learns that the school’s supposed basketball team is nothing of the sort. Instead of a haven for aspiring athletes, the gym has become the home turf for a gang of thugs, delinquents and perverts whose only skill at dribbling involves drooling on the floor while peeking into the girls’ locker room. But since Kurumatani has to play to fulfill a promise made to his ailing mother, he’ll have to take these sour lemons and squeeze-play out a winning basketball team somehow. Impossible? Perhaps. But with the help of a counselor and members of the girls’ club, he’ll do his best to get them all on the rebound in AHIRU NO SORA!

Title:                 BAKI

Published by:    Sentai Filmworks

Distributed by:  Section23 Films

Run Time:         650 min.

Street Date:      5/25/2021

Format:             BD

Language:         English & Japanese with English Subtitles

SRP:                $89.98

SYNOPSIS:  In the deadly underground world of no-holds-barred fighting, one name reigns supreme: Yujiro Hanma, aka “The Ogre,” a legendary martial artist whose incredible strength, skill, and savage ferocity are so terrifying that even great nations fear him. Still, no man can stand at any pinnacle forever, and the Ogre’s son, Baki, has trained his entire young life in order to achieve his dream of rising to the top. Unfortunately, the young fighter’s escalating string of victories make him a target for the most ruthless of rivals, and an underground martial arts promoter warns him that five ultra-violent convicts are en route to Tokyo to eliminate Baki once and for all! Now, with the lives of his friends and classmates at stake, the young fighter must face his greatest challenges yet, both inside and outside of the ring, in BAKI!

[scienceisbeauty]

Science’s war on art fraud

In 2016 a team of scientists led by David Thurrowgood of the National Gallery of Victoria took a painting by French impressionist Edgar Degas to the Australian Synchrotron in order to solve a long-standing mystery. Art experts had previously noted that the artwork, Portrait de Femme (1876-1880) had been painted directly over a previous composition. Faint traces of the earlier work were visible but the piece was otherwise completely obscured – probably as the artist intended.

Thurrowgood and the team at the Synchrotron, in the Melbourne suburb of Clayton, used high-definition X-ray fluorescence (XRF) to penetrate the surface of the painting to reveal (upside down, as it were) the face of an entirely different sitter. [...]

Via Cosmos

Image caption: High-tech methods such as X-ray fluorescence are revolutionising art conservation and authentication. 

[savetopnow]

2018-04-03 21 TECH now

TECH

Ars Techica

“I don’t f—ing care”: In wooing $67M from big alcohol, NIH nixed critical study

Grindr won’t share users’ HIV status with app contractors after outcry

Apple is actively working on Macs that replace Intel CPUs

EPA says auto emissions standards are too high, questions California’s waiver

It’s big, bold, badass, and there’s even a hybrid: The Lincoln Aviator

Buzzfeed Tech

Grindr Is Letting Other Companies See User HIV Status And Location Data

Chick-Fil-A Will Soon Be Bigger Than Taco Bell, Burger King, And Wendy's

Sen. Ed Markey Says "Congress Must Act" When Facebook Fails To Maintain Safety On Its Platform

Apple Just Released A New iPhone Battery Health Feature

Facebook Must Decide Whether It Will Refurbish Its Facade Or Rebuild Its Service

CNet

Clash Royale League debuts with million dollar prize pool - CNET

Pixel 2 vs. iPhone: Why Google's phone is the best upgrade - CNET

Kubrick, Clarke and 2001: How Space Odyssey came together - CNET

See Chewbacca and new Star Wars aliens in Denny's ad - CNET

2018 Range Rover Sport SVR is a 575-hp brute - Roadshow

Clean Technica

Emrgy Offers Scalable Plug-N-Play Hyrdopower Solutions

GM To Experiment With Peer-To-Peer Carsharing Plan

UK Government Confirms Historic Low Emissions As Wind + Solar Become Second Biggest Electricity Source

JinkoSolar To Open First US Solar Factory In Florida In Support Of 2,750 Megawatt NextEra Energy Deal

ILSR Video Parody Lampoons Xcel Energy’s Ask For “Blank Check” In Minnesota Legislature

Hacker News

Sunsetting Tor Messenger

Mino Games Is Hiring Programmers in Montreal

Study shows salaries of young women 8% higher than men in peer group (2010)

Show HN: Travel spontaneously on a budget

Newer C++ features can create a lot of system yak shaving

Mashable

'Middle-Earth: Shadow of War' is removing microtransactions

170 million-year-old dinosaur tracks discovered on Scottish island

Dude's thread about what he's learned living with two female flatmates is a real eye-opener

Stephen Hawking gave a heartwarming final gift to the people of Cambridge

Founders of a DJ Khaled-endorsed ICO have been charged with fraud

Motherboard

Chrome Is Scanning Files on Your Computer, and People Are Freaking Out

Facebook.gov

How '2001: A Space Odyssey' Anticipated the Rise of the Ancient Aliens Meme

Researchers Think There Could Be Alien Life Floating in the Clouds of Venus

A Brief History of the Condom Snorting Challenge

New York Times Technology

Executive Who Sold Self-Driving Truck Start-Up to Uber Departs

A Quick Online Divorce for $60? Not So Fast, Denmark Says

As Malaysia Moves to Ban ‘Fake News,’ Worries About Who Decides the Truth

2 Founders of $32 Million Centra Virtual Currency Project Are Arrested

At 12, He Had a Viral Science Video. At 14, He Fears He Was Too Rude.

Recode

Spotify relies on the big labels for most of its music. It thinks that will change.

Spotify’s direct listing is an inflection point in the Wall Street-Silicon Valley relationship

Instagram is limiting how much data some developers can collect from its API — and cutting off others altogether

Full transcript: Author and Wall Street Journal reporter Ben Fritz on Recode Media

Tesla’s latest Autopilot crash is just one of many problems it is now dealing with

Reddit Technology

Cambridge Analytica Reportedly Hasn’t Deleted Data On Thousands Of Facebook Users Despite Previous Claims

2 Founders of $32 Million Centra Virtual Currency Project Are Arrested

Facebook's business model is incompatible with human rights

Trump’s EPA officially starts the fight to lower vehicle emissions standards

Why America’s Two Top Fighter Jets Can’t Talk to Each Other - The F-22 and the F-35 were built with communication systems that don’t work together

Reuters Technology

Asia's cryptocurrency arbitrage boom fizzles, but profits persist

Spotify CEO warns of 'ups and downs' ahead of Wall Street listing

Toshiba won't cancel $18 billion chip deal unless any major material change: CEO

Ford could make electric cars in Germany after 2023: Handelsblatt

Philippine anti-trust agency starts review of Grab-Uber deal

Slashdot

Valve Removes Steam Machines From Its Home Page

Hubble Space Telescope Spots the Farthest Known Star

Military Documents Reveal How the US Army Plans To Deploy AI In Future Wars

Panerabread.com Leaks Millions of Customers Records

Tesla Is Making Over 2,000 Model 3s a Week, Falling Just Short of Its Goal

TechCrunch

More countries are probing Grab-Uber deal over anti-competition concerns

Grindr hit with privacy complaint in Europe over sharing user data

Singapore issues first fines to Airbnb hosts for violating rental laws

Self-care startup Shine raises $5 million Series A

Skyscanner adds train travel booking, starting in UK

The Next Web

Binance threatens to delist Mayweather-endorsed cryptocurrency after SEC lawsuit

This bonkers Chinese phone holds as much juice as the average laptop

Google bans cryptocurrency mining extensions in the Chrome Web Store

Intel unveils its Core i9 processors for faster gaming and video editing on laptops

Apple reportedly plans to ditch Intel’s processors entirely by 2020

The Verge

These are the gaming laptops using Intel’s new 6-core processors

Oppo is ending its line of high-end headphones and Blu-ray players

Google veteran Jeff Dean takes over as company’s AI chief

Dragon Quest VR is coming to Japan this month

Intel is bringing its most powerful Core i9 processors to laptops

WSJ Tech

iPhone Users Are Pestered to Enroll in Apple Pay

Fintech Firm GreenSky Files Confidentially for IPO

Tech Selloff Hits Europe and Asia

Uber-Killer Grab, Go-Jek Aren't Just Tech Firms, Indonesia Says

Next Big Thing in Agriculture: Smart Collars for Cows

Wired

The Politics of ‘Black Panther’ Are What Make It Great

You Know, for Kids

The Life Issue

‘The Sky Is Yours’ Combines Dragons and YouTube

The Uber Crash

[longform]

A team of researchers has a controversial plan to root fake data out of science.

Stephen Buranyi | The Guardian | Feb 2017

[jobsearchtips02]

Tech Decoupling: China’s Race to End Its Reliance on the U.S.

Now Playing

9/3/2020 8: 27AM     

The tech battle between the U.S. and China has battered TikTok and Huawei and startled American companies that produce and sell in China. WSJ explains how Beijing is pouring money into high-tech chips as it wants to become self-sufficient. Video/Illustration: George Downs/The Wall Street Journal

Up Next

Editor Picks Shelf

2: 58

Researchers Look to Lab-Made Solution for Future Blood Shortages

9/4/2020 9: 00AM

9/4/2020

6: 20

Why America’s Jobs Recovery Is Different From Other Countries’

9/4/2020 5: 53AM

9/4/2020

3: 13

Schools Reopen in Covid-19 Ground Zero—How Wuhan Did It

9/3/2020 6: 35AM

9/3/2020

2: 09

U.S. Debt Poised to Reach Milestone Not Seen Since World War II

9/2/2020 4: 53PM

9/2/2020

More →

Coronavirus

5: 48

‘My Hands Are Tied’: Behind One NYC Family’s Back-to-School Decisions

9/2/2020 5: 30AM

9/2/2020

New York City, the nation’s largest school system, delayed the start of the school year and in-person instruction. WSJ talks to one teacher about how her family is approaching tough back-to-school decisions. Photo: Melody Anastasiou

7: 26

Rural Families Struggle With Work and School With No Home Internet

8/31/2020 7: 00AM

8/31/2020

4: 38

Many Predicted the Dollar’s Demise. Coronavirus Proved Them Wrong.

8/20/2020 6: 57AM

8/20/2020

6: 38

College Towns Brace for Economic Shakeup

8/19/2020 5: 30AM

8/19/2020

2: 02

Walmart Doubles Its E-Commerce Revenue as Sales Surge

8/18/2020 5: 56PM

8/18/2020

More →

More →

Editor Picks

4: 50

Video of Daniel Prude Being Restrained by Police Sparks New Protests

9/5/2020 1: 56PM

9/5/2020

Protesters clashed with police in Rochester, N.Y., following the suspension of police officers involved in the death of a Black man. Footage shows officers restraining Daniel Prude and putting a spit hood over his head. Photo: Adrian Kraus/Associated Press

7: 09

Tech Decoupling: China’s Race to End Its Reliance on the U.S.

9/3/2020 8: 27AM

9/3/2020

8: 34

U.S. Postal Service Financial Crisis Started Well Before Covid-19 Hit

9/2/2020 7: 00AM

9/2/2020

3: 03

Joe Biden Meets With Family of Jacob Blake in Kenosha

9/3/2020 8: 06PM

9/3/2020

2: 33

Arizona and Minnesota Emerge as Unlikely Battleground States

9/2/2020 6: 00AM

9/2/2020

More →

Recommended for you

6: 25

Can Wearables Detect Covid-19 Symptoms? I Wore Six to Find Out

7/28/2020 10: 56AM

7/28/2020

Smartwatches, smart rings and patches that gather your temperature, heart rate and blood oxygen could serve as an early detection system for Covid-19. WSJ’s Joanna Stern strapped a bunch of stuff to her body and recruited a doctor to figure it all out.

3: 13

Schools Reopen in Covid-19 Ground Zero—How Wuhan Did It

9/3/2020 6: 35AM

9/3/2020

7: 09

Tech Decoupling: China’s Race to End Its Reliance on the U.S.

9/3/2020 8: 27AM

9/3/2020

2: 33

Arizona and Minnesota Emerge as Unlikely Battleground States

9/2/2020 6: 00AM

9/2/2020

4: 50

Video of Daniel Prude Being Restrained by Police Sparks New Protests

9/5/2020 1: 56PM

9/5/2020

3: 03

Joe Biden Meets With Family of Jacob Blake in Kenosha

9/3/2020 8: 06PM

9/3/2020

8: 34

USPS Financial Crisis Started Well Before Covid-19 Hit

9/2/2020 7: 00AM

9/2/2020

2: 58

Researchers Look to Lab-Made Solution for Future Blood Shortages

9/4/2020 9: 00AM

9/4/2020

6: 22

The Science of Wildfires: Why They’re Getting More Extreme

9/1/2020 7: 00AM

9/1/2020

6: 36

5G Can Replace Your Home Internet—Your Motor-Home Internet, That Is

8/17/2020 8: 29AM

8/17/2020

5: 48

‘My Hands Are Tied’: Behind One NYC Family’s Back-to-School Decisions

9/2/2020 5: 30AM

9/2/2020

More →

Video Series

My Ride

Moving Upstream

In the Elevator With

A Brief History Of

More →

More →

Tech

5: 49

What Is Ant, the Chinese Fintech Giant With Big IPO Plans?

8/24/2020 5: 30AM

8/24/2020

The Chinese fintech titan Ant Group—co-founded by Alibaba billionaire Jack Ma—is set to go public in what could be one of the largest listings ever. WSJ explains how Ant’s backbone service, Alipay, has revolutionized payments and investing in the world’s most populous country. Photo Composite: Crystal Tai

6: 36

5G Can Replace Your Home Internet—Your Motor-Home Internet, That Is

8/17/2020 8: 29AM

8/17/2020

7: 53

This 30-Ton Robot Could Help Scientists Produce the Crops of the Future

8/12/2020 7: 00AM

8/12/2020

5: 49

The Robot Revolution Is Happening—Like It or Not

8/8/2020

8/8/2020

2: 47

Samsung Galaxy Note 20: This Pandemic Sure Changed Smartphone Marketing

8/5/2020 7: 23PM

8/5/2020

More →

More →

Opinion

1: 48

WSJ Opinion: Hits and Misses of the Week

9/6/2020 4: 33PM

9/6/2020

Journal Editorial Report: The week’s best and worst from Kim Strassel, Jason Riley and Dan Henninger. Images: Getty Images, Charles Andrews/Facebook Composite: Mark Kelly

7: 06

WSJ Opinion: The Politics of the Reviving U.S. Economy

9/6/2020 4: 25PM

9/6/2020

7: 07

WSJ Opinion: Trump and Biden Battle Over Kenosha

9/6/2020 4: 13PM

9/6/2020

3: 52

WSJ Opinion: Trump’s Media Wake-up Call on Voting Fraud

9/4/2020 3: 24PM

9/4/2020

3: 58

WSJ Opinion: The Culture Wars Are Back

9/2/2020 8: 13PM

9/2/2020

More →

More →

Life & Culture

6: 47

Brooks Brothers, From Buttoned Up to Stripped Down

8/13/2020 5: 30AM

8/13/2020

Brooks Brothers — the self-proclaimed oldest clothier in the U.S. — filed for bankruptcy in July. Analysts say the suit dealer wasn’t able to keep up with modern men who often wanted styles that were cheaper and more functional.

5: 31

Sumner Redstone: The Life And Lessons of a Media Titan

8/12/2020 9: 20AM

8/12/2020

0: 31

Air India Express Flight Skids Off Runway in Southern India

8/7/2020 2: 59PM

8/7/2020

5: 00

How MasterClass Focused on Talent to Stand Out in Online Education Space

8/4/2020 7: 00AM

8/4/2020

0: 48

NASA Astronauts Land in SpaceX Capsule Near Florida

8/2/2020 4: 29PM

8/2/2020

More →

More →

Business News

2: 25

Thousands Flood National Mall to Protest Racial Injustice

8/28/2020 8: 52PM

8/28/2020

Thousands marched in Washington, D.C., calling for racial justice after the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, and the more recent police shooting of Jacob Blake. WSJ’s Joshua Jamerson reports. Photo: Shawn Thew/Shutterstock

3: 04

Shinzo Abe, Battling Illness, Resigns as Japan’s Leader: What’s Next

8/28/2020 7: 02AM

8/28/2020

6: 14

What the Fed’s Shift in Monetary Policy Means for Interest Rates

8/27/2020 7: 29PM

8/27/2020

5: 21

What Durable Goods Numbers Say About the U.S. Economy

8/26/2020 5: 00AM

8/26/2020

2: 35

Joe Biden’s DNC Speech Previews Fall Campaign Strategy

8/21/2020 5: 29AM

8/21/2020

More →

More →

Moving Upstream

9: 56

Electric Scooters: Israel’s Two-Wheeled Solution to Traffic and Sabbath

12/20/2018 5: 30AM

12/20/2018

Electric-scooter rental companies are hitting speed bumps in the U.S. over safety and other concerns. But in Tel Aviv, one in 10 residents has rented a Bird e-scooter, and the city appears to be embracing them. WSJ’s Jason Bellini takes a look at the challenges and potential lessons of the e-scooter craze.

0: 54

Tasting the World’s First Test-Tube Steak

12/11/2018 5: 30AM

12/11/2018

9: 58

High Insulin Prices Drive Diabetics to Take Extreme Measures

12/3/2018 5: 30AM

12/3/2018

9: 57

Weighing the Costs and Benefits of Facial Recognition Technology

11/19/2018 5: 30AM

11/19/2018

9: 54

The Future of Flight: AI in the Cockpit

11/12/2018 5: 30AM

11/12/2018

More →

More →

Mansion

6: 39

WSJ’s House of the Year: A Contemporary Home With Hawaiian Spirit

1/30/2020 11: 00AM

1/30/2020

A modern, 7,500 square-foot home connects owner Elizabeth Grossman to the nature and ‘spiritual vortex’ that drew her to Lanikai, a neighborhood on Oahu. She gives us a tour, and explains why it’s time to sell. Photo: Adam Falk/The Wall Street Journal

8: 00

In Greece, a Radical Triangular House Brings the Outdoors Inside

12/21/2019 11: 00AM

12/21/2019

5: 10

A Love of Yurts Inspired This ‘Glamp’ Retreat

7/11/2019 7: 00AM

7/11/2019

5: 38

A Cascades Home Designed to Feel Like Summer Camp

5/2/2019 10: 00AM

5/2/2019

4: 53

A Home Built to Be a Live-In Museum and Expansive Library

2/21/2019 11: 00AM

2/21/2019

More →

More →

Sponsored

27: 34

Sponsored

Creating the Future Workforce

1/17/2017 3: 39PM

1/17/2017

1: 30

Sponsored

How Worldly Experiences Can Shape One’s Success

1/24/2018

1/24/2018

2: 21

Sponsored

Am I Doing What I Love?

9/22/2016 11: 59PM

9/22/2016

1: 00

Sponsored

Golf’s Data Revolution

9/9/2016 2: 16PM

9/9/2016

More →

More →

Marketwatch and Barron’s

3: 47

Gold is at historical highs – here’s what investors need to know

9/2/2020 7: 00AM

9/2/2020

Here are three things investors should know about adding precious metals to your portfolio during these volatile times.

2: 15

What if I’m in my 40s and don’t have a retirement fund?

9/2/2020 7: 00AM

9/2/2020

2: 22

Gauging a Recovery

9/1/2020 11: 55AM

9/1/2020

3: 37

3 in 4 small business owners are confused about PPP loan terms

8/31/2020 10: 34AM

8/31/2020

7: 55

Fed Spurs Summer Rally

8/31/2020 9: 33AM

8/31/2020

More →

%%

from Job Search Tips https://jobsearchtips.net/tech-decoupling-chinas-race-to-end-its-reliance-on-the-u-s/

[marymosley]

Role of Invisible Inks in Criminal Activities

Introduction

With increase in the scientific techniques and modernization, the criminal activities related to document forgery is also increasing tremendously. The forgers are using simple to sophisticated ways to hide their identity and committing criminal activities. One such way is by using different natural and synthetic sources (now, more advanced ways) which are fulfilling the need of creating secret writing possessing secret codes and information as per their advantage by using invisible and disappearing inks. So, this article is intended as an introduction to the roles of invisible inks in criminal activities and the advancements.

What are Invisible Inks?

Invisible inks, also known as security ink or sympathetic ink can be any (unique) fluid or combination of chemicals, used for writing secret messages or text with the intention of hiding the information when it relates to “criminal mindset”. Invisible inks once applied on writing surface, after it dries looks as if it is blank, it disappears either on application or soon after, and can only be revealed by suitable means.

History of Invisible Inks

The use of secret writing has been widely applied since ancient times during War until the early twentieth century by using basic materials like lemon juice, urine to complex chemical preparation, to communicate with the prisoners. Use of “fresh milk” as a means of secret communication was reported by Ovid, and was suggested to reveal by “charcoal powder”. More sophisticated inks (copper sulphate, iron sulphate and cobalt salt) began to use towards the end of World War I which was needed to develop by potassium ferrocyanide and sodium carbonate. Further, the rapid advancement in the technology led to the development of “digitized hidden message”, rather than just be on paper (1).

How Invisible Inks are classified?

The invisible inks can be made to fall into three main classes:

1.     Those, revealed by heat,

2.     Those, revealed by chemical reactions and,

3.     Those, instantly visible under light.

Invisible ink can further be divided into two, according to their sources:

1.    Organic fluids: These includes fruit juices (apple, grapes juices), biological fluids (saliva, sweat, even diluted blood) etc. They are easily available and hence approachable for the fraudulent purposes.

2.    Synthetic invisible inks/ Sympathetic inks: These are more complicated; require one or more chemical for their composition, and to make the message visible, need specific reagent which often consists of another chemical.

Heat sensitive Invisible Inks

The organic invisible inks like lemon juice, honey, saliva, and even urine and diluted blood can be deciphered by heat, such as with moderate fire, blower or irons. Even soapy water works. These invisible inks work on the principle by subtly altering the fibers of the paper; hence making the secret writing to have a lower burn temperature and when exposed to heat, becomes brown faster than the surrounding paper. Heat not only deciphers the hidden text, rather it also erases the print or text.

People might wonder that why the print on ATM receipts/bus tickets disappears after sometimes. This is because the print is made by “thermal printing” method (2), based on the principle of “Thermochromism”- a colour changing process due to heating, on a thermal paper saturated with mixture of organic dye, an octadecylphosphonic acid and suitable matrix (like Fluoran leuco dye). After some days the print on the receipt slowly fades or disappears when exposed to sunlight (heat). However it can be revealed back by simply heating the receipt with a blow dryer upto a certain temperature. Fraudsters make use of this technique and get the account details for the purpose of exploitation.

Recently, a new technology has developed whereby secret information can be encrypted on “rewriteable paper” (coated with manganese-complex) with comparatively low-tech invisible ink- “water”. Preliminary, a message printed by a water-jet printer on such paper is invisible to naked eye, but easily reveals when exposed to 254nm UV light (short-wavelength). The paper can be reused after erasing the message by blowing hot air with a dryer for 15-30 seconds. Here, the print gets develop due to the photoluminescence responses of manganese-complex to water. This paper allows repeated secure printing for more than 25 cycles. More sophisticated approach for high security printing was achieved by coating the paper with phosphine ligands (molecules that can seize on to manganese in manganese halide salt solution ink) to form manganese complex. The print is invisible both under normal and UV light and can only be decrypted by “Photoluminescence Lifetime Imaging Microscope” (PLIM) (3). Using PLIM, the message shows in different colours of red, green, blue and yellow depending upon the emission lifetime.

Decipherment by Chemical reaction

This method of development is bit tricky as it is based upon the Acid-base reaction. In fact, majority of the invisible inks work using acid base (pH) indicator. To reveal the secret message, an acid or a base is sprayed over the suspected surface. Indicators like phenolphthalein and Thymolphthalein are used as an invisible ink which is colorless hence invisible on application, but with a base becomes blue and pink respectively.

Some studies have also revealed the sensitivity and stability of these invisible inks with respect to time and their concentration. These invisible inks can be developed over a range of period which can vary from few hours to days. It also varies with types of paper involved (4). Forgers make use of invisible inks composition according to their need in varied concentration so that the message reveals after some days instead of few minutes to hours.

Digital Invisible Ink Toolkit

Advancement in the field has led to the development of Digital Invisible Ink Toolkit, which works on several algorithms to decrypt information in significant sections of the image. It uses Sobel filter (operator available in Matlab or Python software) which works by estimating the difference in image intensities (from light to dark) at each pixel known as “edge detection” method (5). The rate of change in pixel values in a direction helps to decode the unusual area containing invisible writing.

Light sensitive Invisible Inks

Certain invisible inks fluoresce (glow) when exposed to light. The invention in the recent inks composition has led to a novel combination of light sensitive invisible ink which contains one or more chemicals which cannot be seen by naked eye, but shows fluorescence effect when exposed to far red or IR or UV light. These inks are used widespread in cheques, security and policy papers. The composition contains simple to complex fluorophore (complexed with polymeric materials). The combination includes highly sensitive far red or infrared fluorophore which otherwise is invisible to the naked eye and only reveals by FR/ IR light. Likewise, UV sensitive fluorophore or flourophoric compound are also used which illuminates by UV light. Most of the invisible writing becomes visible under UV light which gives characteristic fluorescence. These inks are often used in thermal printing.

The commonly available UV marker pen is mostly used by fraudsters. Such invisible ink is composed of at least one uncompleted invisible metal phthalocyanine fluorophore (0.0001-0.02% by weight) which absorbs light having wavelength range of about 670-720nm, water and at least one organic solvent as an ink vehicle (6).

Case study: Invisible ink has been used by many fraudsters to commit check fraud, as reported in the case of “Anindita Roy” where the fraudster (private bank loan agent) asked for two blank cheques, over which the word “cancelled” was written by Anindita with “volatile” ink pen (smartly offered by agent). Later, the word “cancelled” disappeared from the cheque and more than Rs 4 lakhs was withdrawn from Anindita’s account by using blank check signed by her (7).

Similarly, Latest TNPSC Group-IV exam scam was reported, where candidates used invisible inks pen to mark the answers.

CONCLUSION

With advancement in technologies, the criminal activities have also paced up rapidly. The forensic examiners encounter many such cases of invisible and disappearing inks in various fraudulent cases. The methods of development of these secret writings help the forensic examiners to deal with such criminal activities. Also, it becomes our responsibility as well to secure our valuable assets and be alert. This article has dealt with some advanced technologies and the role of invisible inks in criminal activities.

References

1.https://blog.findmysupplies.co.uk/the-story-of-invisible-ink/

2.https://pandapaperroll.com/thermal-paper-fades-restore/

3. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-09/cp-spw091819.php

4.Sahu, M., and Hussain, SS., (2017), https://austinpublishinggroup.com/forensicscience-criminology/fulltext/ajfsc-v4-id1061.pdf

5.Disappearing cryptography: Information hiding: stenography and watermarking book by- Peter Wayner, Chapter- Life in the Noise

6.https://patents.google.com/patent/US6149719A/en

7.https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/Rs-4-lakh-fraud-with-vanishing-ink/articleshow/21011411.cms

  Author :- Sonali Kesarwani, Intern at Legal Desire (2020)

Sonali is a Forensic enthusiast and a post graduate in Forensic Science. She has subsequent experience of case handling, working with comparison microscope, densitometer in CFSL, Chandigarh and RFSL, Dharmshala in Chemistry, Ballistics and other divisions of FS. She holds multiple cerification of National and International seminars. She has also gained experience of Crime Scene Investigation by working with Mobile Forensic Field Unit, Crime branch of Prayagraj. She aspires to build her career as a Lecturar and a Researcher.

The post Role of Invisible Inks in Criminal Activities appeared first on Legal Desire.

Role of Invisible Inks in Criminal Activities published first on https://immigrationlawyerto.tumblr.com/

[legit-scam-review]

What You Should Know About Craig Wright

Recently, it was revealed that Craig Steven Wright, one of the most controversial figures in the crypto community, had filed 114 blockchain patents since 2017. He also quit Twitter, where he would often publish his opinions on anonymity (bad), Bitcoin SV (the real Bitcoin) and other cryptocurrencies (also bad).

He is also known for arguing that he is actually Satoshi Nakamoto, the original creator of Bitcoin. Here’s the complete list of things you should know about Wright.

Wright’s bio is really rich, but hardly verifiable

He was born in October 1970 in Australia, according to registration papers of one of his many companies. As per a Business Insider article citing his now-edited LinkedIn profile, Wright graduated from Brisbane’s Padua Catholic College in 1987. In the early 1990s, he worked as a sauce cook, “having trained in French cuisine,” and spent three years working with a catering company.

Wright was reportedly studying at the University of Queensland while working as a chef. He initially attended engineering classes, but switched to computer science in his fourth year.

In 1996, as per his earlier LinkedIn bio, he began working at Ozemail, where he was “managing a bunch of engineers,” thus starting his eventful career in tech. However, according to a 2007 Computerworld article, he began working in IT when he joined K-Mart in 1985 — which would have been even before he finished high school.

In April 1997, Wright says he joined the Australian Stock Exchange, maintaining security and firewalls. In November the same year, he launched a company called DeMorgan, described as “a pre-IPO Australian listed company focused on alternative currency, next generation banking and reputational and educational products with a focus on security and creating a simple user experience.”

In fact, up until July 2015, Morgan was the CEO of about 15 companies. As the Guardian points out, in the space of a week, he resigned as director from Cloudcroft Pty Ltd, Coin-Exch Pty Ltd, Daso Pty Ltd, Demorgan Holdings Pty Ltd, Demorgan Ltd, Denariuz, Ezas Pty Ltd, Integyrz Pty Ltd, Misfit Games Pty Ltd, Interconnected Research Pty Ltd, Zuhl Pty Ltd and Pholus Pty Ltd, and remained the director of just three companies: Hotwire Preemptive Intelligence Pty Ltd, Panopticrypt Pty Ltd and Hotwire PE Employee Share Plan Pty Ltd. Currently, his LinkedIn only features a startup called nChain, where he has allegedly been working as a “chief scientist” since June 2015.

Wright seems to be a man of libertarian views. According to the Cypherpunk mailing list archive, in September 1996, Wright wrote that he had developed cancer during his years at university and took a loan to pay for medical treatment because the health insurance didn’t cover it. He then mentioned that he served in the military and worked at a gas station “even though I am an engineer,” adding:

“So why and for what reason should I have to pay several 10’s of thousands each year to support others. I have never taken help from the government, I do not feel I should have to pay as well. And what am I paying for…to protect the status quo. I believe that there is more than enough help for ppl available. They just need to get off their butts and work.”

In sum, Wright’s biography seems to be considerably replete and busy — or, at least, he portrays it that way. On top of having two PhDs, Wright wields numerous certifications in computer forensics and information technology (IT). In February, he published two Medium articles in which he claimed to have worked as an “agent of influence” in Venezuela and Colombia. Picturing himself as a James Bond-esque character fighting terrorism and evil, Wright says he was “shot twice” during the operation. Also, at some point, he claims that he “was a pastor once.”

According to his story, the Australian entrepreneur came back from South America to witness Bitcoin — which he created (more about that below) — being used on the darknet.  

“I discovered the creation I had given birth to, something I designed to bring light was being used for all the worst reasons. Not only drugs, but people. Anonymity is a curse. Nothing good comes of it.”

Wright has several times claimed that he is Satoshi Nakamoto, and refused to provide sufficient proof

Wright become a known figure in crypto community after media reports linking his identity to Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, surfaced in late 2015. Previously, in 2014, one of his few reported links to cryptocurrencies was that he tried launching the world’s first Bitcoin bank.

Thus, in December 2015, Wired and Gizmodo reported within hours of each other that the Australian computer scientist and entrepreneur might be the creator of the world’s largest cryptocurrency.

The Wired story claimed that Wright “either invented bitcoin or is a brilliant hoaxer who very badly wants us to believe he did.” It was based on documents and emails that were purportedly leaked by “an anonymous source close to Wright” to an independent security researcher Gwern Branwen, who co-wrote the article with Wired author Andy Greenberg.

Similarly, Gizmodo ran a story that featured documents allegedly obtained by a hacker who accessed Wright’s email accounts, claiming that Satoshi Nakamoto was a joint pseudonym for Craig Steven Wright and his friend, computer forensics analyst and cybersecurity specialist David Kleiman, who died in 2013.

Moreover, on the same day the articles were published, Australian Federal Police (AFP) raided Wright’s house in the Sydney suburb of Gordon. However, the AFP clarified that the operation was not related to the Bitcoin claims.

A substantial part of the evidence presented in the reports — along with Wright’s previous claims — was soon proved false. First, Wright’s company Cloudcroft had declared to have two supercomputers, one of which allegedly produced by computer manufacturer SGI. However, SGI soon clarified that “Cloudcroft has never been an SGI customer and SGI has no relationship with Cloudcroft CEO Craig Steven Wright.”

Further, Wright had listed two PhDs on his LinkedIn page, including one from Charles Sturt University. Eventually, Forbes contacted the university and found out that it hadn’t granted Wright any PhDs, although it gave him three master’s degrees in networking and systems administration, management (IT), and information systems security. Wright was, however, awarded with a doctorate degree by Charles Sturt University later in 2017.

Also, a technical analysis of two PGP public keys attributed to Wright, but also linked to Satoshi Nakamoto, showed that they were created more recently than the documents in which they were featured.

Finally, a number of posts in Wright’s now-deleted blog that seemed to portray him as a person who was directly involved in Bitcoin’s creation had been backdated or edited; the archived versions of the posts from 2013 show none of those breadcrumbs that Wright could have planted to mislead the media into thinking he is Satoshi.

After the aforementioned stories went live, Wright promptly took down his social media accounts and disappeared for several months. On May 2, 2016, he came back (he now lives in London, United Kingdom, according to his LinkedIn profile) and publicly declared that he is the creator of Bitcoin. Later on in the same month, Wright published a sentimental apology piece where he refused to publish the proof of access to one of the earliest Bitcoin keys, saying he doesn’t have the “courage” do it.

However, Wright still claims to be the pseudonymous Bitcoin creator. Just last month, the entrepreneur filed two near-identical comment letters to the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in which he again declared that he is Satoshi. The documents were submitted in response to the agency’s request for industry input and feedback on Ethereum’s (ETH) mechanics and market.

Specifically, Wright wrote that he worked “under the pseudonym of Satoshi Nakamoto,” and “completed a project […] started in 1997 that was filed with the Australian government in part under an AusIndustry project registered with the Dept. of Innovation as BlackNet.”  

BlackNet — an alleged precursor to Bitcoin — was submitted to the Australian government in 2001, according to one of Wright’s tweets (he deleted his Twitter profile earlier this month).

On Reddit, user Skoopitup argued that the BlackNet paper that Wright supposedly submitted in 2001 largely copied the official Bitcoin white paper (published October 2008), which notably contained significant corrections to an earlier draft that had been shared by Satoshi earlier in August 2008.

In his remaining comments to the CFTC, Wright wrote:

“The amount of misunderstanding and fallacious information that has been propagated concerning bitcoin […] has resulted in my choice to start to become more public. The system I created was designed in part to end fraud as best as that can be done with any technology. The lack of understanding […] has resulted in […] a dissemination of old scams.”

The Australian entrepreneur still hasn’t signed a message with the key associated with Bitcoin’s genesis block, which could be seen as strong evidence of him actually being Satoshi Nakamoto.

Wright played a key role in the BCH hash wars — and now claims that Bitcoin SV is the original Bitcoin

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is a cryptocurrency that emerged on Aug. 1, 2017 after departing from Bitcoin’s original blockchain via a hard fork in an attempt to manage its scalability issue.

The BCH network performs hard forks as part of scheduled protocol upgrades. The fork scheduled for Nov. 15, 2018, however, was disrupted by a competing proposal that was not compatible with the original roadmap. As a result, the BCH community was split into three fractions: Bitcoin ABC, Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin SV.

Craig Wright lead the Bitcoin SV team, whose goal was to restore “the original Satoshi protocol” by changing the current BCH structure. Specifically, that involved entirely overwriting the network scripts of Bitcoin ABC and increasing the block size of BCH from 32MB to a maximum of 128MB in order to increase network capacity and scale. Bitcoin SV’s cryptocurrency design was made by Wright’s nChain company.

At some point, after Jihan Wu, co-founder of major crypto miner and manufacturer Bitmain, who supported the Bitcoin ABC team, accused Wright of being a Blockstream spy and a “fake Satoshi.” In response, the computer scientist entered a verbal fight. Specifically, Wright tagged Roger Ver — another ABC proponent — and Bitmain with bankruptcy threats and accusations of being engaged in Silk Road machinations and child pornography.

Even though Bitcoin ABC essentially won the so-called “hash wars” and secured the original BCH ticker, Bitcoin SV lives on. In late February, Bitcoin SV’s value rose 20 percent, driving it into the top-10 largest cryptocurrencies by market cap. As of press time, Bitcoin SV is the 12th-largest token, with a market cap of $1.5 million, according to CoinMarketCap.

Craigh Wright has a lot of blockchain patents

According to the publication Hard Fork, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has published 155 patents applications filed by Wright — all of which were submitted through his company nChain. Thirty-five of those were published this year. The earliest document date relates to Aug. 31, 2017.

The majority of those applications mention blockchain. Specifically, Hard Fork writes, the term “blockchain” was used 114 times in patent titles. “Cryptocurrency,” in turn, is only featured six times, while “Bitcoin” is not mentioned at all.

Wright has written about his patents quest via Twitter (which has been deleted). According to the screenshots cited by Hard Fork, Wright decided to file his patents in Europe because it was “harder”:

“Once we have the EU, we have the PCT [Patent Cooperation Treaty] in the USA. The US is simpler.”

The Patent Cooperation Treaty has been signed by 152 countries. After filing one international patent application under the PCT, applicants can get simultaneously protection for their inventions in many countries.

As per Bloomberg, business-wise blockchain patents “are an essential ingredient for companies looking to reshape the financial services industry or spawn profitable cryptocurrency-related businesses.” Basically, such patents help companies attract investment, protect property rights and collect monopoly profits from other companies using their inventions.

It’s been argued that Wright is filing patents without the intent of actually using them, but instead to demand large payouts from companies which happen to use similar technologies in their line of work. As Marc Kaufman, an attorney who co-chairs the Blockchain Intellectual Property Council at the U.S. Chamber of Digital Commerce, told Fortune:

“His tactics and activities have all the marks of being a patent assertion entity or what’s pejoratively known as a troll. I’m not aware of his companies having any products.”

Craig Wright is being sued for at least $1 billion

In February 2018, the estate of David Kleiman — Wright’s associate and computer forensics expert who died in April 2013 seemingly of natural causes related to complications from a MRSA infection — brought the suit against Wright to the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Florida. The estate is represented by Ira Kleiman, David’s brother.

According to court documents that surfaced on Reddit, the plaintiff claims that Wright stole hundreds of thousands of BTC, worth over $5 billion dollars at the time, from David Kleiman’s estate. The statement by the plaintiff alleges that Wright recognized that Kleiman’s friends and family were initially unaware of the wealth he accumulated.

Specifically, the statement reads, Wright “forged a series of contracts that purported to transfer Dave’s assets to Craig and/or companies controlled by him. Craig backdated these contracts and forged Dave’s signature on them.”

Wright contacted Kleiman’s estate after his associate’s death and disclosed that he and David had worked together to develop blockchain and Bitcoin, according to the plaintiff.

In December 2018, new documents were published online, indicating that the court had rejected repeated requests from the nChain chief scientist to dismiss the lawsuit.

In an amended lawsuit supported by Judge Beth Bloom, a figure of 300,000 BTC ($1.5 billion as of press time) was now circulating.

“The Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a claim for conversion,” the court document confirms, continuing:

“The Amended Complaint alleges that Defendant converted at least 300,000 bitcoins upon Dave’s death and transferred them to various international trusts, which was an unauthorized act that deprived the Plaintiffs of the bitcoins therein. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claim for conversion […] survives Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.”

In March 2019, Jeff Garzik, one of the earliest contributors to the Bitcoin codebase, was reportedly subpoenaed by the court for documents relating to the Kleiman vs. Wright complaint.

Specifically, the court demanded “all documents, communications, and agreements that support his [Jeff’s] personal theory that Dave Kleiman is Satoshi Nakamoto.” In a 2018 interview with Bloomberg, Garzik suggested that Dave Kleiman was the original creator of Bitcoin.

Wright doesn’t have a particularly good relationship with crypto community

After some of the aforementioned inconsistencies related to Wright’s claim that he is Satoshi surfaced, the crypto community became increasingly skeptical about the Australian computer scientist. However, some of his claims in regard to other cryptocurrencies certainly didn’t help.

In January 2019, for instance, he called Andreas Antonopoulos, author of the book “Mastering Bitcoin,” a “shitcoin expert.” In February this year, Wright told CNBC Africa’s Ran Neuner in a rather rude form that he knows how to deanonymize and destroy privacy coins Zcash and Monero, which he apparently is going to do “sometime this year”:

“If you have a privacy coin, I will show you that it is basically as private as running through Times Square with your pants around your ankles.”

In October 2017, in a now-deleted tweet, Wright argued that the Lightning Network was “oversold.”

At the 2018 Deconomy conference in Seoul, South Korea, Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin publicly questioned Wright’s competence, calling him a fraud.

“Given he makes so many non-sequiturs and mistakes, why is this fraud allowed to speak at this conference?”

In response, Wright tweeted: “Oh well…. looks like I broke Vitalek… He is a twig.. must remember to be gentle next time ….”

Last week, the Australian entrepreneur deleted his Twitter page after removing over 10,000 tweets.

On March 17, not long before erasing his presence on the social media outlet, Wright tweeted that he will be “taking action aggressively to remove any site that is in error or makes false claims,” referring to people calling him a fraud, among other things.  

“You do not have a right to lies under ‘free speech’ nor harassment, nor libel and slander,” he wrote. “If an error is reported in a malicious context concerning me, expect to be living in a barrel when we finish with you.”

window.fbAsyncInit = function() { FB.init({ appId : '1922752334671725', xfbml : true, version : 'v2.9' }); FB.AppEvents.logPageView(); }; (function(d, s, id){ var js, fjs = d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0]; if (d.getElementById(id)) {return;} js = d.createElement(s); js.id = id; js.src = "http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/sdk.js"; js.async = true; fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js, fjs); }(document, 'script', 'facebook-jssdk')); !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s) {if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)}; if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0'; n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window,document,'script', 'https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1922752334671725'); fbq('track', 'PageView'); This news post is collected from Cointelegraph

Recommended Read

New & Hot

The Calloway Software – Secret Weapon To Make Money From Crypto Trading (Proofs Inside)

The modern world is inextricably linked to the internet. We spend a lot of time in virtual reality, and we're no longer ...

User rating:

9.6

Free Spots are Limited Get It Now Hurry!

Read full review

Editors' Picks 2

BinBot Pro – Its Like Printing Money On Autopilot (Proofs Inside)

Do you live in a country like USA or Canada where using automated trading systems is a problem? If you do then now we ...

User rating:

9.5

Demo & Pro Version Get It Now Hurry!

Read full review

The post What You Should Know About Craig Wright appeared first on Review: Legit or Scam?.

Read more from → https://legit-scam.review/what-you-should-know-about-craig-wright

[readersforum]

The top 10 startups from Y Combinator W19 Demo Day 1

New Post has been published on http://www.readersforum.tk/the-top-10-startups-from-y-combinator-w19-demo-day-1-2/

The top 10 startups from Y Combinator W19 Demo Day 1

Electric-vehicle chargers, heads-up displays for soldiers and the Costco of weed were some of our favorites from prestigious startup accelerator Y Combinator’s Winter 2019 Demo Day 1. If you want to take the pulse of Silicon Valley, YC is the place to be. But with more than 200 startups presenting across two stages and two days, it’s tough to keep track.

You can check out our write-ups of all 85 startups that launched on Demo Day 1, and come back later for our full index and picks from Day 2. But now, based on feedback from top investors and TechCrunch’s team, here’s our selection of the top 10 companies from the first half of this Y Combinator batch, and why we picked each.

Ravn

Looking around corners is one of the most dangerous parts of war for infantry. Ravn builds heads-up displays that let soldiers and law enforcement see around corners thanks to cameras on their gun, drones or elsewhere. The ability to see the enemy while still being behind cover saves lives, and Ravn already has $490,000 in Navy and Air Force contracts. With a CEO who was a Navy Seal who went on to study computer science, plus experts in augmented reality and selling hardware to the Department of Defense, Ravn could deliver the inevitable future of soldier heads-up displays.

Why we picked Ravn: The AR battlefield is inevitable, but right now Microsoft’s HoloLens team is focused on providing mid-fight information, like how many bullets a soldier has in their clip and where their squad mates are. Ravn’s tech was built by a guy who watched the tragic consequences of getting into those shootouts. He wants to help soldiers avoid or win these battles before they get dangerous, and his team includes an expert in selling hardened tech to the U.S. government.

Middesk

It’s difficult to know if a business’ partners have paid their taxes, filed for bankruptcy or are involved in lawsuits. That leads businesses to write off $120 billion a year in uncollectable bad debt. Middesk does due diligence to sort out good businesses from the bad to provide assurance for B2B deals, loans, investments, acquisitions and more. By giving clients the confidence that they’ll be paid, Middesk could insert itself into a wide array of transactions.

Why we picked Middesk: It’s building the trust layer for the business world that could weave its way into practically every deal. More data means making fewer stupid decisions, and Middesk could put an end to putting faith in questionable partners.

Convictional

Convictional helps direct-to-consumer companies approach larger retailers more simply. It takes a lot of time for a supplier to build a relationship with a retailer and start selling their products. Convictional wants to speed things up by building a B2B self-service commerce platform that allows retailers to easily approach brands and make orders.

Why we picked Convictional: There’s been an explosion of D2C businesses selling everything from suitcases to shaving kits. But to drive exposure and scale, they need retail partners who’re eager not to be cut out of this growing commerce segment. Playing middleman could put Convictional in a lucrative position, while also making it a nexus of valuable shopping data.

Dyneti Technologies

Dyneti has invented a credit card scanner SDK that uses a smartphone’s camera to help prevent fraud by more than 50 percent and improve conversion for businesses by 5 percent. The business was started by a pair of former Uber employees, including CEO Julia Zheng, who launched the fraud analytics teams for Account Security and UberEATS. Dyneti’s service is powered by deep learning and works on any card format. In the two months since it launched, the company has signed contracts with Rappi, Gametime and others.

Why we picked Dyneti: Cybersecurity threats are growing and evolving, yet underequipped businesses are eager to do more business online. Dyneti is one of those fundamental B2B businesses that feels like Stripe — capable of bringing simplicity and trust to a complex problem so companies can focus on their product.

AmpUp

The “Airbnb for electric-vehicle chargers,” ampUp is preparing for a world in which the majority of us drive EVs — it operates a mobile app that connects a network of thousands of EV chargers and drivers. Using the app, an electric-vehicle owner can quickly identify an available and compatible charger, and EV charger owners can earn cash sharing their charger at their own price and their own schedule. The service is currently live in the Bay Area.

Why we picked ampUp: Electric vehicles are inevitable, but reliable charging is one of the leading fears dissuading people from buying. Rather than build out some massive owned network of chargers that will never match the distributed gas station network, ampUp could put an EV charger anywhere there’s someone looking to make a few bucks.

Flockjay

Flockjay operates an online sales academy that teaches job seekers from underrepresented backgrounds the skills and training they need to pursue a career in tech sales. The 12-week bootcamp offers trainees coaching and mentorship. The company has launched its debut cohort with 17 students, 100 percent of whom are already in job interviews and 40 percent of whom have already secured new careers in the tech industry.

Why we picked Flockjay: Unlike coding bootcamps that can require intense prerequisites, killer salespeople can be molded from anyone with hustle. Those from underrepresented backgrounds already know how to expertly sell themselves to attain opportunities others take for granted. Flockjay could provide economic mobility at a crucial juncture when job security is shaky.

Deel

Twenty million international contractors work with U.S. companies, but it’s difficult to onboard and train them. Deel handles the contracts, payments and taxes in one interface to eliminate paperwork and wasted time. Deel charges businesses $10 per contractor per month and a 1 percent fee on payouts, which earns it an average of $560 per contractor per year.

Why we picked Deel: The destigmatization of remote work is opening new recruiting opportunities abroad for U.S. businesses. But unless teams can properly integrate these distant staffers, the cost savings of hiring overseas are negated. As the globalization megatrend continues, businesses will need better HR tools.

Glide

There has been a pretty major trend toward services that make it easier to build web pages or mobile apps. Glide lets customers easily create well-designed mobile apps from Google Sheets pages. This not only makes it easy to build the pages, but simplifies the skills needed to keep information updated on the site.

Why we picked Glide: While desktop website makers is a brutally competitive market, it’s still not easy to make a mobile site if you’re not a coder. Rather than starting from a visual layout tool with which many people would still be unfamiliar, Glide starts with a spreadsheet that almost everyone has used. And as the web begins to feel less personal with all the brands and influencers, Glide could help people make bespoke apps that put intimacy and personality first.

Docucharm

The platform, co-founded by former Uber product manager Minh Tri Pham, turns documents into structured data a computer can understand to accurately automate document processing workflows and take away the need for human data entry. Docucharm’s API can understand various forms of documents (like paystubs, for example) and will extract the necessary information without error. Its customers include tax prep company Tributi and lending business Aspire.

Why we picked Docucharm: Paying high-priced, high-skilled workers to do data entry is a huge waste. And optical character recognition like Docucharm’s will unlock new types of businesses based on data extraction. This startup could be the AI layer underneath it all.

Flower Co

Flower Co provides memberships for cheaper weed sales and delivery. Most dispensaries cater to high-end customers and newbies that want expensive products and tons of hand-holding. In contrast, Flower Co caters to long-time marijuana enthusiasts who want huge quantities at low prices. They’re currently selling $200.000 in marijuana per month to 700 members. They charge $100 a year for membership, and take 10 percent on product sales.

Why we picked Flower Co: Marijuana is the next gold rush, a once-in-a-generation land-grab opportunity. Yet most marijuana merchants have focused on hyper-discerning high-end customers despite the long-standing popularity of smoking big blunts of cheap weed with a bunch of friends. For those who want to make cannabis consumption a lifestyle, and there will be plenty, Flower Co could become their wholesaler.

Honorable Mentions

Atomic Alchemy – Filling the shortage of nuclear medicine

Yourchoice – Omni-gender non-hormonal birth control

Prometheus – Turning CO2 into gas

Lumos – Medical search engine for doctors

Heart Aerospace – Regional electric planes

Boundary Layer Technologies – Super-fast container ships

Here are the 85+ startups that launched at YC’s W19 Demo Day 1

Additional reporting by Kate Clark, Greg Kumparak and Lucas Matney