#Election management software | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

anna11dsouza · 7 months ago

Text

How Horizon Software Professional Election Campaign Management Boosts Political Success: The Role of Experts in Jaipur and Beyond

In today’s fast-paced political environment, running an election campaign requires more than just enthusiasm and determination—it demands strategic planning, expertise, and a deep understanding of the political landscape. The competition is fierce, and the ability to leverage technology and expert insight is what differentiates a successful campaign from one that struggles to make an impact. Horizon Software Solutions, a leading election campaign company in Jaipur, has helped numerous political candidates achieve success by offering a comprehensive range of professional election campaign management services.

The Power of Professional Campaign Management

Political campaign management is a multi-faceted process that involves several moving parts, each crucial to the success of the campaign. From strategy development to data analysis and social media management, the complexity of running a political campaign requires an experienced team capable of managing all aspects efficiently.

In Jaipur, as well as across India, Horizon Software Solutions has emerged as a trusted partner for candidates looking to navigate the intricate world of election campaigns. Whether in the bustling streets of Jaipur or the quieter locales of Chandigarh or Gurugram, professional campaign management companies like Horizon Software Solutions provide the tools, strategies, and expertise that make all the difference in securing victory.

Strategy Development: The Cornerstone of Any Successful Campaign

At the heart of any election campaign lies the strategy that drives it forward. A solid, well-thought-out strategy is key to effectively communicating a candidate’s vision, reaching the right electorate, and differentiating the candidate from the competition. This is where Horizon Software Solutions comes into play. As an established political campaign management company in Jaipur, the company specializes in developing tailor-made strategies that are aligned with the specific needs and objectives of each candidate.

The process begins with in-depth research into the constituency, including the political demographics, the needs of the voters, and the existing political landscape. Horizon Software Solutions uses a combination of data-driven insights and local expertise to help candidates formulate a strategy that resonates with the electorate. The campaign strategy will not only focus on message development but also on the best means of delivery—whether through traditional methods such as door-to-door canvassing or modern digital techniques.

Data Analysis: Making Informed Decisions

Data analysis is another critical aspect of modern political campaigns. Successful election campaigns are built on accurate, real-time data, which allows political strategists to make informed decisions about how to allocate resources, engage voters, and monitor the effectiveness of their efforts. Horizon Software Solutions, known as a leading election campaign company in Jaipur, integrates cutting-edge data analytics into its campaign management services.

By analyzing past voting patterns, demographic trends, and real-time feedback, the company provides candidates with a comprehensive picture of the electorate's behavior. With this data, political campaigns can be more targeted and efficient, ensuring that every campaign dollar is spent wisely. Additionally, by using data to predict voter turnout and preferences, Horizon Software Solutions helps political candidates make timely adjustments to their campaign strategies.

Social Media Management: Engaging Voters in the Digital Age

In today’s digital age, social media has become one of the most powerful tools in any political campaign. Platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and WhatsApp allow candidates to engage with voters on a personal level, share their message, and respond to public concerns in real time. However, managing a social media campaign effectively requires expertise and the ability to understand the unique dynamics of each platform.

As a leading political campaign management company in Jaipur, Horizon Software Solutions offers professional social media management services that enable political candidates to maximize their digital presence. From creating compelling content that resonates with the electorate to strategically scheduling posts and monitoring engagement, Horizon Software Solutions ensures that candidates are not just visible but also relevant on social media.

Moreover, social media platforms provide an invaluable tool for measuring public sentiment. Horizon Software Solutions uses sophisticated sentiment analysis tools to gauge how voters feel about specific issues or candidates, allowing for timely adjustments to messaging and strategy.

Voter Outreach and Engagement: Building a Strong Connection

Reaching voters is the ultimate goal of any political campaign, and the methods for outreach can vary significantly based on geography, demographics, and available resources. Horizon Software Solutions understands that the key to a successful outreach strategy is personal connection. In Jaipur and beyond, Horizon Software Solutions takes a multi-channel approach to voter outreach, ensuring that no stone is left unturned.

Traditional methods such as door-to-door canvassing, town halls, and community engagement events remain highly effective in certain regions. However, with the growing influence of technology, digital channels are also used extensively. Horizon Software Solutions helps candidates implement voter outreach campaigns using a combination of in-person engagement and digital tools.

Whether it’s through a mobile app that helps candidates connect with voters directly, email campaigns, or SMS outreach, Horizon Software Solutions ensures that a candidate’s message reaches every corner of the constituency.

Benefits of Hiring a Professional Election Campaign Company

While some candidates may attempt to run their own campaigns, hiring a professional election campaign company in Jaipur like Horizon Software Solutions offers several distinct advantages.

Expertise and Experience: Professional campaign managers bring years of experience and a wealth of knowledge that candidates may not have. Horizon Software Solutions has worked with a wide variety of political candidates, from local council hopefuls to state and national leaders, and understands the unique challenges of each race.

Resource Management: Managing a campaign requires a team of dedicated professionals working across several departments—strategy, communications, data, finance, and more. Horizon Software Solutions is well-equipped to manage these resources efficiently, ensuring that every aspect of the campaign is covered.

Cost Efficiency: Running an election campaign can be expensive, and making the wrong decision can lead to wasted resources. By hiring a professional campaign management company, candidates can ensure that their budget is allocated effectively and that their campaign delivers the best possible return on investment.

Innovative Technology: Horizon Software Solutions leverages the latest tools and technologies in the field of political campaign management. This includes data analytics, voter sentiment analysis, social media engagement platforms, and more, all of which contribute to running a modern, tech-savvy campaign.

Time Management: Campaigns are time-sensitive, and delays can be disastrous. With a professional team handling all aspects of the campaign, candidates can focus on their message and their voters, knowing that the logistical and operational challenges are being managed.

Horizon Software Solutions: Your Trusted Partner in Political Campaigns

For candidates running in Jaipur, Delhi, Chandigarh, or Gurugram, Horizon Software Solutions is the go-to political campaign management company in Jaipur and beyond. With its comprehensive range of services, deep knowledge of local and national politics, and cutting-edge technological tools, Horizon Software Solutions offers the expertise required to run a successful political campaign.

From developing winning strategies to utilizing data analytics and managing social media, Horizon Software Solutions empowers political candidates to connect with voters and secure electoral victories. When it comes to professional election campaign management, trust Horizon Software Solutions to be your strategic partner.

Conclusion

The political landscape has evolved significantly, and running a successful campaign today requires a blend of traditional campaigning techniques and modern technology. Whether you’re contesting an election in Jaipur, Delhi, Chandigarh, or Gurugram, the role of professional campaign managers cannot be overstated. Horizon Software Solutions, an esteemed election campaign company in Jaipur, offers the services, expertise, and resources that make all the difference in securing political success.

#How Horizon Software Professional Election Campaign Management Boosts Political Success: The Role of Experts in Jaipur and Beyond

0 notes

ivyfauna-ii · 24 days ago

Text

DO NOT VOTE IF YOURE NOT GOING TO REBLOG

This is an update from Tareq El-Bawab’s gofundme page

“Hello, this is Danielle with an update. I am beside myself with worry and heartbreak for Tareq and his family and trying to make sense of a world where we are collectively allowing this to happen. I am not even sure what to do other than to share this with this community of people who also cares about this family. These are Tareq’s words from today:

‘swear to you, my dear friend, I truly wish for death rather than continuing to live in this world and in this kind of life. I swear, my children and I have been going to sleep hungry for days. I can barely provide them with anything that eases their hunger or gives them the slightest sense of comfort.

Even the most basic items, like flour, cost no less than $500 per sack—and we barely have any food to eat. I feel completely helpless. I truly don’t know what more I can possibly do.

Even za’atar, dukkah, and olive oil—the simplest things to put in a piece of bread—I can’t afford to buy. And if I do manage to get them, we need at least 1 kilo per week because that’s literally the only thing we have to eat with bread. But a kilo of za’atar or dukkah now costs more than $100… and a liter of olive oil, if we find it, is over $50!

I can barely keep up with my daughter Tala’s needs. A single pack of diapers costs $100, and she needs at least three packs every month. She also needs a can of baby formula every week, and now even that costs $50 or more.

No matter how much we spend, it’s never enough. And in the end… we still go to sleep hungry, unable to buy anything that truly fills our stomachs.

Even bread—when we bake it, it dries up after just a few hours. We’re forced to eat it hard and stale because we can’t reheat it. We have no gas, and not even a refrigerator to store food. The most basic parts of life have become impossible dreams.

To make things worse, everything in the market is sold for cash only. And to even get cash in hand, we have to lose 30% of any money sent to us just to convert it.

What have we become? What are we worth anymore? I swear to you, I have nothing left inside me. My strength is gone. I cannot endure a life like this any longer. I would rather die than continue to live this way—under this suffering, in a life that has become unbearable.’

Please do whatever you can to donate, share their story, pray, pressure your elected officials, protest, or whatever you can do.”

Edit: changed the gofundme link to the chuffed campaign link because the gofundme campaign got taken down

(tagging ppl so that the post gets more attention. If you don't want to be included in the post let me know in the comments)

@bluemandycat @wistful-gremlin @lordzannis @misscheetahroo @thestarryskiesofpalaven @zombified @aristotels @rob-os-17 @vee-da-skee @infernal-heart @livefungus @namichma @lookineedsleep @pawzofchaos @felixnorstubblewealthington @terezbian @ptb-composer @becky-kylee @scoobypineapple @scoobydoobyally @sawyermp3 @motherlatias @gutsofgold @kakashis-kunoichi @leede-ly @araccoonthatlikesmurder

#gaza strip #gaza under attack #palestine #gofundme #famine #Help Tareq #club penguin #animal jam #wizard 101 #fusionfall #Mmo #2000s nostalgia #nostalgia

256 notes · View notes

mostlysignssomeportents · 1 year ago

Text

Microsoft pinky swears that THIS TIME they’ll make security a priority

One June 20, I'm live onstage in LOS ANGELES for a recording of the GO FACT YOURSELF podcast. On June 21, I'm doing an ONLINE READING for the LOCUS AWARDS at 16hPT. On June 22, I'll be in OAKLAND, CA for a panel and a keynote at the LOCUS AWARDS.

As the old saying goes, "When someone tells you who they are and you get fooled again, shame on you." That goes double for Microsoft, especially when it comes to security promises.

Microsoft is, was, always has been, and always will be a rotten company. At every turn, throughout their history, they have learned the wrong lessons, over and over again.

That starts from the very earliest days, when the company was still called "Micro-Soft." Young Bill Gates was given a sweetheart deal to supply the operating system for IBM's PC, thanks to his mother's connection. The nepo-baby enlisted his pal, Paul Allen (whom he'd later rip off for billions) and together, they bought someone else's OS (and took credit for creating it – AKA, the "Musk gambit").

Microsoft then proceeded to make a fortune by monopolizing the OS market through illegal, collusive arrangements with the PC clone industry – an industry that only existed because they could source third-party PC ROMs from Phoenix:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/08/ibm-pc-compatible-how-adversarial-interoperability-saved-pcs-monopolization

Bill Gates didn't become one of the richest people on earth simply by emerging from a lucky orifice; he also owed his success to vigorous antitrust enforcement. The IBM PC was the company's first major initiative after it was targeted by the DOJ for a 12-year antitrust enforcement action. IBM tapped its vast monopoly profits to fight the DOJ, spending more on outside counsel to fight the DOJ antitrust division than the DOJ spent on all its antitrust lawyers, every year, for 12 years.

IBM's delaying tactic paid off. When Reagan took the White House, he let IBM off the hook. But the company was still seriously scarred by its ordeal, and when the PC project kicked off, the company kept the OS separate from the hardware (one of the DOJ's major issues with IBM's previous behavior was its vertical monopoly on hardware and software). IBM didn't hire Gates and Allen to provide it with DOS because it was incapable of writing a PC operating system: they did it to keep the DOJ from kicking down their door again.

The post-antitrust, gunshy IBM kept delivering dividends for Microsoft. When IBM turned a blind eye to the cloned PC-ROM and allowed companies like Compaq, Dell and Gateway to compete directly with Big Blue, this produced a whole cohort of customers for Microsoft – customers Microsoft could play off on each other, ensuring that every PC sold generated income for Microsoft, creating a wide moat around the OS business that kept other OS vendors out of the market. Why invest in making an OS when every hardware company already had an exclusive arrangement with Microsoft?

The IBM PC story teaches us two things: stronger antitrust enforcement spurs innovation and opens markets for scrappy startups to grow to big, important firms; as do weaker IP protections.

Microsoft learned the opposite: monopolies are wildly profitable; expansive IP protects monopolies; you can violate antitrust laws so long as you have enough monopoly profits rolling in to outspend the government until a Republican bootlicker takes the White House (Microsoft's antitrust ordeal ended after GW Bush stole the 2000 election and dropped the charges against them). Microsoft embodies the idea that you either die a rebel hero or live long enough to become the evil emperor you dethroned.

From the first, Microsoft has pursued three goals:

Get too big to fail;

Get too big to jail;

Get too big to care.

It has succeeded on all three counts. Much of Microsoft's enduring power comes from succeeded IBM as the company that mediocre IT managers can safely buy from without being blamed for the poor quality of Microsoft's products: "Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft" is 2024's answer to "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."

Microsoft's secret sauce is impunity. The PC companies that bundle Windows with their hardware are held blameless for the glaring defects in Windows. The IT managers who buy company-wide Windows licenses are likewise insulated from the rage of the workers who have to use Windows and other Microsoft products.

Microsoft doesn't have to care if you hate it because, for the most part, it's not selling to you. It's selling to a few decision-makers who can be wined and dined and flattered. And since we all have to use its products, developers have to target its platform if they want to sell us their software.

This rarified position has afforded Microsoft enormous freedom to roll out harebrained "features" that made things briefly attractive for some group of developers it was hoping to tempt into its sticky-trap. Remember when it put a Turing-complete scripting environment into Microsoft Office and unleashed a plague of macro viruses that wiped out years worth of work for entire businesses?

https://web.archive.org/web/20060325224147/http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/newsinfo/collateral.aspx?cid=33338

It wasn't just Office; Microsoft's operating systems have harbored festering swamps of godawful defects that were weaponized by trolls, script kiddies, and nation-states:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EternalBlue

Microsoft blamed everyone except themselves for these defects, claiming that their poor code quality was no worse than others, insisting that the bulging arsenal of Windows-specific malware was the result of being the juiciest target and thus the subject of the most malicious attention.

Even if you take them at their word here, that's still no excuse. Microsoft didn't slip and accidentally become an operating system monopolist. They relentlessly, deliberately, illegally pursued the goal of extinguishing every OS except their own. It's completely foreseeable that this dominance would make their products the subject of continuous attacks.

There's an implicit bargain that every monopolist makes: allow me to dominate my market and I will be a benevolent dictator who spends his windfall profits on maintaining product quality and security. Indeed, if we permit "wasteful competition" to erode the margins of operating system vendors, who will have a surplus sufficient to meet the security investment demands of the digital world?

But monopolists always violate this bargain. When faced with the decision to either invest in quality and security, or hand billions of dollars to their shareholders, they'll always take the latter. Why wouldn't they? Once they have a monopoly, they don't have to worry about losing customers to a competitor, so why invest in customer satisfaction? That's how Google can piss away $80b on a stock buyback and fire 12,000 technical employees at the same time as its flagship search product (with a 90% market-share) is turning into an unusable pile of shit:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/21/im-feeling-unlucky/#not-up-to-the-task

Microsoft reneged on this bargain from day one, and they never stopped. When the company moved Office to the cloud, it added an "analytics" suite that lets bosses spy on and stack-rank their employees ("Sorry, fella, Office365 says you're the slowest typist in the company, so you're fired"). Microsoft will also sell you internal data on the Office365 usage of your industry competitors (they'll sell your data to your competitors, too, natch). But most of all, Microsoft harvest, analyzes and sells this data for its own purposes:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/25/the-peoples-amazon/#clippys-revenge

Leave aside how creepy, gross and exploitative this is – it's also incredibly reckless. Microsoft is creating a two-way conduit into the majority of the world's businesses that insider threats, security services and hackers can exploit to spy on and wreck Microsoft's customers' business. You don't get more "too big to care" than this.

Or at least, not until now. Microsoft recently announced a product called "Recall" that would record every keystroke, click and screen element, nominally in the name of helping you figure out what you've done and either do it again, or go back and fix it. The problem here is that anyone who gains access to your system – your boss, a spy, a cop, a Microsoft insider, a stalker, an abusive partner or a hacker – now has access to everything, on a platter. Naturally, this system – which Microsoft billed as ultra-secure – was wildly insecure and after a series of blockbuster exploits, the company was forced to hit pause on the rollout:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/06/microsoft-delays-data-scraping-recall-feature-again-commits-to-public-beta-test/

For years, Microsoft waged a war on the single most important security practice in software development: transparency. This is the company that branded the GPL Free Software license a "virus" and called open source "a cancer." The company argued that allowing public scrutiny of code would be a disaster because bad guys would spot and weaponize defects.

This is "security through obscurity" and it's an idea that was discredited nearly 500 years ago with the advent of the scientific method. The crux of that method: we are so good at bullshiting ourselves into thinking that our experiment was successful that the only way to make sure we know anything is to tell our enemies what we think we've proved so they can try to tear us down.

Or, as Bruce Schneier puts it: "Anyone can design a security system that you yourself can't think of a way of breaking. That doesn't mean it works, it just means that it works against people stupider than you."

And yet, Microsoft – whose made more widely and consequentially exploited software than anyone else in the history of the human race – claimed that free and open code was insecure, and spent millions on deceptive PR campaigns intended to discredit the scientific method in favor of a kind of software alchemy, in which every coder toils in secret, assuring themselves that drinking mercury is the secret to eternal life.

Access to source code isn't sufficient to make software secure – nothing about access to code guarantees that anyone will review that code and repair its defects. Indeed, there've been some high profile examples of "supply chain attacks" in the free/open source software world:

https://www.securityweek.com/supply-chain-attack-major-linux-distributions-impacted-by-xz-utils-backdoor/

But there's no good argument that this code would have been more secure if it had been harder for the good guys to spot its bugs. When it comes to secure code, transparency is an essential, but it's not a sufficency.

The architects of that campaign are genuinely awful people, and yet they're revered as heroes by Microsoft's current leadership. There's Steve "Linux Is Cancer" Ballmer, star of Propublica's IRS Files, where he is shown to be the king of "tax loss harvesting":

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/24/tax-loss-harvesting/#mego

And also the most prominent example of the disgusting tax cheats practiced by rich sports-team owners:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/07/08/tuyul-apps/#economic-substance-doctrine

Microsoft may give lip service to open source these days (mostly through buying, stripmining and enclosing Github) but Ballmer's legacy lives on within the company, through its wildly illegal tax-evasion tactics:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/13/pour-encoragez-les-autres/#micros-tilde-one

But Ballmer is an angel compared to his boss, Bill Gates, last seen some paragraphs above, stealing the credit for MS DOS from Tim Paterson and billions of dollars from his co-founder Paul Allen. Gates is an odious creep who made billions through corrupt tech industry practices, then used them to wield influence over the world's politics and policy. The Gates Foundation (and Gates personally) invented vaccine apartheid, helped kill access to AIDS vaccines in Sub-Saharan Africa, then repeated the trick to keep covid vaccines out of reach of the Global South:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/13/public-interest-pharma/#gates-foundation

The Gates Foundation wants us to think of it as malaria-fighting heroes, but they're also the leaders of the war against public education, and have been key to the replacement of public schools with charter schools, where the poorest kids in America serve as experimental subjects for the failed pet theories of billionaire dilettantes:

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/millionaire-driven-education-reform-has-failed-heres-what-works

(On a personal level, Gates is also a serial sexual abuser who harassed multiple subordinates into having sexual affairs with him:)

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/13/technology/microsoft-sexual-harassment-policy-review.html

The management culture of Microsoft started rotten and never improved. It's a company with corruption and monopoly in its blood, a firm that would always rather build market power to insulate itself from the consequences of making defective products than actually make good products. This is true of every division, from cloud computing:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/28/other-peoples-computers/#clouded-over

To gaming:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/27/convicted-monopolist/#microsquish

No one should ever trust Microsoft to do anything that benefits anyone except Microsoft. One of the low points in the otherwise wonderful surge of tech worker labor organizing was when the Communications Workers of America endorsed Microsoft's acquisition of Activision because Microsoft promised not to union-bust Activision employees. They lied:

https://80.lv/articles/qa-workers-contracted-by-microsoft-say-they-were-fired-for-trying-to-unionize/

Repeatedly:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/activision-fired-staff-using-strong-language-about-remote-work-policy-union-2023-03-01/

Why wouldn't they lie? They've never faced any consequences for lying in the past. Remember: the secret to Microsoft's billions is impunity.

Which brings me to Solarwinds. Solarwinds is an enterprise management tool that allows IT managers to see, patch and control the computers they oversee. Foreign spies hacked Solarwinds and accessed a variety of US federal agencies, including National Nuclear Security Administration (who oversee nuclear weapons stockpiles), the NIH, and the Treasury Department.

When the Solarwinds story broke, Microsoft strenuously denied that the Solarwinds hack relied on exploiting defects in Microsoft software. They said this to everyone: the press, the Pentagon, and Congress.

This was a lie. As Renee Dudley and Doris Burke reported for Propublica, the Solarwinds attack relied on defects in the SAML authentication system that Microsoft's own senior security staff had identified and repeatedly warned management about. Microsoft's leadership ignored these warnings, buried the research, prohibited anyone from warning Microsoft customers, and sidelined Andrew Harris, the researcher who discovered the defect:

https://www.propublica.org/article/microsoft-solarwinds-golden-saml-data-breach-russian-hackers

The single most consequential cyberattack on the US government was only possible because Microsoft decided not to fix a profound and dangerous bug in its code, and declined to warn anyone who relied on this defective software.

Yesterday, Microsoft president Brad Smith testified about this to Congress, and promised that the company would henceforth prioritize security over gimmicks like AI:

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/06/microsoft-in-damage-control-mode-says-it-will-prioritize-security-over-ai/

Despite all the reasons to mistrust this promise, the company is hoping Congress will believe it. More importantly, it's hoping that the Pentagon will believe it, because the Pentagon is about to award billions in free no-bid military contract profits to Microsoft:

https://www.axios.com/2024/05/17/pentagon-weighs-microsoft-licensing-upgrades

You know what? I bet they'll sell this lie. It won't be the first time they've convinced Serious People in charge of billions of dollars and/or lives to ignore that all-important maxim, "When someone tells you who they are and you get fooled again, shame on you."

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/14/patch-tuesday/#fool-me-twice-we-dont-get-fooled-again

#pluralistic #microsoft #infosec #visual basic #ai #corruption #too big to care #patch tuesday #solar winds #monopolists bargain #eternal blue #transparency #open source #floss #oss #apts

278 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 8 months ago

Text

If Donald Trump wins the US presidential election in November, the guardrails could come off of artificial intelligence development, even as the dangers of defective AI models grow increasingly serious.

Trump’s election to a second term would dramatically reshape—and possibly cripple—efforts to protect Americans from the many dangers of poorly designed artificial intelligence, including misinformation, discrimination, and the poisoning of algorithms used in technology like autonomous vehicles.

The federal government has begun overseeing and advising AI companies under an executive order that President Joe Biden issued in October 2023. But Trump has vowed to repeal that order, with the Republican Party platform saying it “hinders AI innovation” and “imposes Radical Leftwing ideas” on AI development.

Trump’s promise has thrilled critics of the executive order who see it as illegal, dangerous, and an impediment to America’s digital arms race with China. Those critics include many of Trump’s closest allies, from X CEO Elon Musk and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen to Republican members of Congress and nearly two dozen GOP state attorneys general. Trump’s running mate, Ohio senator JD Vance, is staunchly opposed to AI regulation.

“Republicans don't want to rush to overregulate this industry,” says Jacob Helberg, a tech executive and AI enthusiast who has been dubbed “Silicon Valley’s Trump whisperer.”

But tech and cyber experts warn that eliminating the EO’s safety and security provisions would undermine the trustworthiness of AI models that are increasingly creeping into all aspects of American life, from transportation and medicine to employment and surveillance.

The upcoming presidential election, in other words, could help determine whether AI becomes an unparalleled tool of productivity or an uncontrollable agent of chaos.

Oversight and Advice, Hand in Hand

Biden’s order addresses everything from using AI to improve veterans’ health care to setting safeguards for AI’s use in drug discovery. But most of the political controversy over the EO stems from two provisions in the section dealing with digital security risks and real-world safety impacts.

One provision requires owners of powerful AI models to report to the government about how they’re training the models and protecting them from tampering and theft, including by providing the results of “red-team tests” designed to find vulnerabilities in AI systems by simulating attacks. The other provision directs the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to produce guidance that helps companies develop AI models that are safe from cyberattacks and free of biases.

Work on these projects is well underway. The government has proposed quarterly reporting requirements for AI developers, and NIST has released AI guidance documents on risk management, secure software development, synthetic content watermarking, and preventing model abuse, in addition to launching multiple initiatives to promote model testing.

Supporters of these efforts say they’re essential to maintaining basic government oversight of the rapidly expanding AI industry and nudging developers toward better security. But to conservative critics, the reporting requirement is illegal government overreach that will crush AI innovation and expose developers’ trade secrets, while the NIST guidance is a liberal ploy to infect AI with far-left notions about disinformation and bias that amount to censorship of conservative speech.

At a rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, last December, Trump took aim at Biden’s EO after alleging without evidence that the Biden administration had already used AI for nefarious purposes.

“When I’m reelected,” he said, “I will cancel Biden’s artificial intelligence executive order and ban the use of AI to censor the speech of American citizens on Day One.”

Due Diligence or Undue Burden?

Biden’s effort to collect information about how companies are developing, testing, and protecting their AI models sparked an uproar on Capitol Hill almost as soon as it debuted.

Congressional Republicans seized on the fact that Biden justified the new requirement by invoking the 1950 Defense Production Act, a wartime measure that lets the government direct private-sector activities to ensure a reliable supply of goods and services. GOP lawmakers called Biden’s move inappropriate, illegal, and unnecessary.

Conservatives have also blasted the reporting requirement as a burden on the private sector. The provision “could scare away would-be innovators and impede more ChatGPT-type breakthroughs,” Representative Nancy Mace said during a March hearing she chaired on “White House overreach on AI.”

Helberg says a burdensome requirement would benefit established companies and hurt startups. He also says Silicon Valley critics fear the requirements “are a stepping stone” to a licensing regime in which developers must receive government permission to test models.

Steve DelBianco, the CEO of the conservative tech group NetChoice, says the requirement to report red-team test results amounts to de facto censorship, given that the government will be looking for problems like bias and disinformation. “I am completely worried about a left-of-center administration … whose red-teaming tests will cause AI to constrain what it generates for fear of triggering these concerns,” he says.

Conservatives argue that any regulation that stifles AI innovation will cost the US dearly in the technology competition with China.

“They are so aggressive, and they have made dominating AI a core North Star of their strategy for how to fight and win wars,” Helberg says. “The gap between our capabilities and the Chinese keeps shrinking with every passing year.”

“Woke” Safety Standards

By including social harms in its AI security guidelines, NIST has outraged conservatives and set off another front in the culture war over content moderation and free speech.

Republicans decry the NIST guidance as a form of backdoor government censorship. Senator Ted Cruz recently slammed what he called NIST’s “woke AI ‘safety’ standards” for being part of a Biden administration “plan to control speech” based on “amorphous” social harms. NetChoice has warned NIST that it is exceeding its authority with quasi-regulatory guidelines that upset “the appropriate balance between transparency and free speech.”

Many conservatives flatly dismiss the idea that AI can perpetuate social harms and should be designed not to do so.

“This is a solution in search of a problem that really doesn't exist,” Helberg says. “There really hasn’t been massive evidence of issues in AI discrimination.”

Studies and investigations have repeatedly shown that AI models contain biases that perpetuate discrimination, including in hiring, policing, and health care. Research suggests that people who encounter these biases may unconsciously adopt them.

Conservatives worry more about AI companies’ overcorrections to this problem than about the problem itself. “There is a direct inverse correlation between the degree of wokeness in an AI and the AI's usefulness,” Helberg says, citing an early issue with Google’s generative AI platform.

Republicans want NIST to focus on AI’s physical safety risks, including its ability to help terrorists build bioweapons (something Biden’s EO does address). If Trump wins, his appointees will likely deemphasize government research on AI’s social harms. Helberg complains that the “enormous amount” of research on AI bias has dwarfed studies of “greater threats related to terrorism and biowarfare.”

Defending a “Light-Touch Approach”

AI experts and lawmakers offer robust defenses of Biden’s AI safety agenda.

These projects “enable the United States to remain on the cutting edge” of AI development “while protecting Americans from potential harms,” says Representative Ted Lieu, the Democratic cochair of the House’s AI task force.

The reporting requirements are essential for alerting the government to potentially dangerous new capabilities in increasingly powerful AI models, says a US government official who works on AI issues. The official, who requested anonymity to speak freely, points to OpenAI’s admission about its latest model’s “inconsistent refusal of requests to synthesize nerve agents.”

The official says the reporting requirement isn’t overly burdensome. They argue that, unlike AI regulations in the European Union and China, Biden’s EO reflects “a very broad, light-touch approach that continues to foster innovation.”

Nick Reese, who served as the Department of Homeland Security’s first director of emerging technology from 2019 to 2023, rejects conservative claims that the reporting requirement will jeopardize companies’ intellectual property. And he says it could actually benefit startups by encouraging them to develop “more computationally efficient,” less data-heavy AI models that fall under the reporting threshold.

AI’s power makes government oversight imperative, says Ami Fields-Meyer, who helped draft Biden’s EO as a White House tech official.

“We’re talking about companies that say they’re building the most powerful systems in the history of the world,” Fields-Meyer says. “The government’s first obligation is to protect people. ‘Trust me, we’ve got this’ is not an especially compelling argument.”

Experts praise NIST’s security guidance as a vital resource for building protections into new technology. They note that flawed AI models can produce serious social harms, including rental and lending discrimination and improper loss of government benefits.

Trump’s own first-term AI order required federal AI systems to respect civil rights, something that will require research into social harms.

The AI industry has largely welcomed Biden’s safety agenda. “What we're hearing is that it’s broadly useful to have this stuff spelled out,” the US official says. For new companies with small teams, “it expands the capacity of their folks to address these concerns.”

Rolling back Biden’s EO would send an alarming signal that “the US government is going to take a hands off approach to AI safety,” says Michael Daniel, a former presidential cyber adviser who now leads the Cyber Threat Alliance, an information sharing nonprofit.

As for competition with China, the EO’s defenders say safety rules will actually help America prevail by ensuring that US AI models work better than their Chinese rivals and are protected from Beijing’s economic espionage.

Two Very Different Paths

If Trump wins the White House next month, expect a sea change in how the government approaches AI safety.

Republicans want to prevent AI harms by applying “existing tort and statutory laws” as opposed to enacting broad new restrictions on the technology, Helberg says, and they favor “much greater focus on maximizing the opportunity afforded by AI, rather than overly focusing on risk mitigation.” That would likely spell doom for the reporting requirement and possibly some of the NIST guidance.

The reporting requirement could also face legal challenges now that the Supreme Court has weakened the deference that courts used to give agencies in evaluating their regulations.

And GOP pushback could even jeopardize NIST’s voluntary AI testing partnerships with leading companies. “What happens to those commitments in a new administration?” the US official asks.

This polarization around AI has frustrated technologists who worry that Trump will undermine the quest for safer models.

“Alongside the promises of AI are perils,” says Nicol Turner Lee, the director of the Brookings Institution’s Center for Technology Innovation, “and it is vital that the next president continue to ensure the safety and security of these systems.”

26 notes · View notes

ariyse · 6 months ago

Text

LIKE A STAR (PSH)

OOO. SUPER RICH YOUNG ADULTS + RIKI

SUNGHOON . . . photography major but mostly full time model. the only reason he actually goes to his classes is because his management and friends force him to try to learn something. secretly a geek when it comes to media but no one knows except his friends.

SUNOO . . . journalism major, former child runway model turned brand model. he met sunghoon during auditions and talked with him the whole time to calm their nerves. doesn’t actually plan on becoming a journalist after graduation so he mostly attends online classes.

HEESEUNG . . . software engineering major but doesn’t really attend in-person classes because he’s too busy streaming. got scouted after a clip of his stream went viral for his fit check, and one of his viewers worked for the ent. also met sunoo and sunghoon in the audition line.

JAY . . . real estate major. he’s known as the wallet of the group and often treats his friends out with his allowance. he was introduced by heeseung after playing together at a PC BANG near the school. some of his posts go viral among the baseball community for the ‘aestheticness’ and clarity of the shots.

JAKE . . . biology major and world’s biggest dog lover. he’s known sunghoon since childhood and is closest to him out of everyone. he sometimes appears on heeseung’s streams, going viral because his dog would steal the spotlight.

JUNGWON . . . ‘undeclared’, meaning he hasn’t chosen a major yet. attends the same uni as his friends bc he doesn’t want to feel left out/too far away from everyone. got in through a taekwondo scholarship. was in the same elective as jake and sunghoon during highschool.

NI-KI . . . lol he’s still in highschool. he’s known jake for a while which is how he got introduced to the rest. constantly begs sunoo and hoon to subtly recommend him to any scouts so he could be a choreographer. instead, ENHYPEN_ENT offered him a scholarship and position for when he grads highschool.

author’s note: profiles done!

#. . . enha’s ver #PSH . . . LIKE A STAR

15 notes · View notes

reyaint · 3 months ago

Text

the classes | electives

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

date: march 18, 2025. literally feel like i'm gonna throw up from stress i can't even lmao.

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

✧˖*°࿐ The Electives

𓂃༊ electives at Veltrius Lumos Academy allow students to explore personal interests, develop specialized skills, and enhance their academic experience beyond the mandatory curriculum. many of these electives offer practical applications and hands-on learning experiences, ensuring that students gain real-world knowledge in their chosen fields.

𓂃༊ students can choose electives based on their career aspirations, artistic passions, or intellectual curiosity. some electives are available year-round, while others are semester-based. additionally, some subjects offer higher-level courses (e.g., Art II, Advanced Film Studies, AP Political Science) for students who want to specialize.

*ೃ༄Structure of Electives

𓂃༊ year-round electives: core subjects such as languages, sciences, and arts can be taken across the school year.

𓂃༊ semester-based electives: some courses, such as journalism or event management, last only one semester and can be combined with other electives.

𓂃༊ saturday & evening electives: certain specialized electives and extracurriculars are held outside of regular class hours to provide students with additional flexibility.

✧˖*°࿐ Language Studies

𓂃༊ elective language courses emphasize linguistic proficiency, cultural literacy, and historical understanding. students engage in conversational practice, writing exercises, and literary analysis.

*ೃ༄Languages Offered

𓂃༊ french, spanish, italian, latin, japanese, chinese, korean, tagalog, german, russian, portuguese, gaelic, scottish, finnish, and thai

*ೃ༄Course Progression

𓂃༊ level I: basic grammar, pronunciation, and sentence structures. focus on daily conversations and cultural etiquette.

𓂃༊ level II: intermediate conversation skills, expanded vocabulary, and written expression. cultural exploration through music, film, and literature.

𓂃༊ level III: advanced fluency, literary analysis, and academic writing. discussions on historical texts and modern applications of the language.

*ೃ༄Special Features

𓂃༊ language exchange programs with international schools.

𓂃༊ literature-based learning (e.g., latin students study classical texts like The Aeneid).

𓂃༊ immersive experiences such as cooking traditional dishes, calligraphy workshops, and cultural excursions.

✧˖*°࿐ Visual and Performing Arts

𓂃༊ these electives encourage self-expression, artistic exploration, and performance-based learning.

*ೃ༄Visual Arts Electives

𓂃༊ painting & drawing – fundamentals of color theory, perspective, and composition techniques. focus on modern and classical art styles.

𓂃༊ pottery & sculpture – hands-on work with clay, ceramics, and three-dimensional design. students explore traditional and contemporary sculpting techniques.

𓂃༊ photography – covers camera settings, lighting, composition, and digital editing. students develop a portfolio using traditional film and digital photography.

𓂃༊ graphic design – teaches digital illustration, typography, and branding using software like Adobe Photoshop & Illustrator.

𓂃༊ fashion design – covers sketching, textile work, sewing techniques, and runway presentation. students participate in a fashion showcase at the end of the term.

*ೃ༄Performing Arts Electives

𓂃༊ theatre & acting – teaches script reading, stage presence, and improvisational acting. students perform in two major productions per year.

𓂃༊ dance (ballet, contemporary, jazz, hip-hop) – structured training in choreography, movement theory, and performance execution.

𓂃༊ music & choir – vocal training, ensemble performance, and music theory.

𓂃༊ string instruments (guitar, violin, etc.) – develops technical skills, sheet music reading, and ensemble collaboration.

𓂃༊ film acting & film studies – explores on-screen acting techniques, directing, and cinematography. students produce their own short films.

*ೃ༄Special Features

𓂃༊ art students display work in Veltrius Academy’s Annual Art Exhibition.

𓂃༊ musicians and theatre students participate in inter-school competitions and national showcases.

𓂃༊ filmmaking students submit their short films to festivals and work on real production sets.

✧˖*°࿐ Literary and Humanities Studies

𓂃༊ these electives help students develop critical thinking, writing, and analytical skills.

*ೃ༄Literature Electives

𓂃༊ US literature – study of American literary movements from colonial times to modernism.

𓂃༊ european literature – focus on French, British, Russian, and German literature, exploring authors like Dostoevsky, Shakespeare, and Goethe.

𓂃༊ asian literature – examines classical and contemporary works from Japan, Korea, and China, emphasizing themes of tradition and modernity.

𓂃༊ south american literature – introduces magical realism, post-colonial literature, and authors like Gabriel García Márquez and Isabel Allende.

*ೃ༄Writing Electives

𓂃༊ creative writing – covers fiction, poetry, screenwriting, and experimental writing techniques.

𓂃༊ journaling vs. journalism – journaling focuses on personal reflection, while journalism teaches news reporting, investigative writing, and media ethics.

𓂃༊ speech & debate – develops public speaking skills, persuasive argumentation, and critical analysis.

*ೃ༄Philosophy, Ethics, and History Electives

𓂃༊ ethics & philosophy – explores moral dilemmas, classical philosophy, and contemporary ethical issues.

𓂃༊ political science & law – covers constitutional law, government structures, legal frameworks, international relations, and human rights

𓂃༊ folklore studies – investigates myths and legends from Greek, Haiqinian, Norse, Scottish, Irish, Japanese, Korean, and Chinese traditions.

𓂃༊ early human studies – examines human evolution, ancient civilizations, and anthropology.

𓂃༊ architectural history – explores historical and modern architectural design.

✧˖*°࿐Science, Technology, and Research

𓂃༊ these electives introduce advanced scientific concepts and technological applications.

𓂃༊ 2nd and 3rd years also choose on of the sciences as their science class.

*ೃ༄Specialized Science Courses

𓂃༊ environmental science – examines climate change, sustainability, and renewable energy.

𓂃༊ forensics – covers crime scene investigation, DNA analysis, and forensic chemistry.

𓂃༊ anatomy & physiology – studies human body systems, genetics, and medical applications.

𓂃༊ physics – focuses on classical mechanics, electromagnetism, and theoretical physics.

𓂃༊ marine biology – explores ocean ecosystems, marine conservation, and field research.

𓂃༊ zoology – covers animal behavior, conservation efforts, and ecosystems.

*ೃ༄Technology & Computer Science

𓂃༊ coding & programming – introduces Python, Java, C++, and web development.

𓂃༊ entrepreneurship & business management – covers marketing, financial planning, and startup strategies.

𓂃༊ event management – focuses on logistics, budgeting, and public relations for large-scale events.

✧˖*°࿐ Physical Education and Sports Electives

𓂃༊ archery – focuses on precision, focus, and technique.

𓂃༊ sports & fitness education – covers strength training, cardiovascular health, and wellness.

𓂃༊ martial arts (Karate, Kickboxing, Wrestling) – teaches self-defense, discipline, and competition skills.

𓂃༊ equestrian studies (horse riding) – covers riding techniques, equine care, and competitive jumping.

✧˖*°࿐ Special Saturday & Evening Electives

𓂃༊ certain electives are offered outside of regular school hours, allowing students more flexibility.

𓂃༊ creative writing workshops – extended writing sessions for novelists, poets, and screenwriters.

𓂃༊ film production – hands-on experience in directing, screenwriting, and cinematography.

𓂃༊ marine biology conservation projects – coastal and marine research fieldwork.

𓂃༊ entrepreneurship incubator – students pitch business ideas to real investors.

𓂃༊ archaeology & historical research – field trips to excavation sites and museums for practical learning.

𓂃༊ fashion design studio – practical workshops focusing on garment-making and fashion branding.

𓂃༊ culinary - literally just cooking and baking.

#reyaint #reality shifting #shiftblr #reality shifter #shifting #shifting community #shifting motivation #anti shifters dni #dr scrapbook #boarding school dr

10 notes · View notes

justinspoliticalcorner · 11 months ago

Text

Matt Shuham at HuffPost:

Tina Peters, the Republican former county clerk and right-wing folk hero, was found guilty Monday on four of seven felony counts against her, and guilty of all three misdemeanor counts. The charges related to one of the most significant election security breaches in recent years. Peters, who declined to testify at trial, is the former clerk and recorder of Mesa County, Colorado, which is home to Grand Junction and around 150,000 people. She became a cause célèbre for the nationwide election denial movement after she was indicted in relation to the security breach ― maintaining that the breach occurred while she was trying to investigate Dominion voting machines, and that her actions were legal.

The jury reached the verdict after about four hours of deliberation Monday. Peters was not taken into custody at the courthouse but rather instructed to report to a probation officer by noon Tuesday. She’ll face a sentencing hearing on Oct. 3. Based on the verdict, Peters could face anywhere from 7¾ to 22½ years in prison, according to Marshall Zelinger, a reporter at KUSA-TV in Denver. “Tina Peters willfully compromised her own election equipment trying to prove Trump’s Big Lie,” Jena Griswold, Colorado’s Democratic secretary of state, said in a statement reacting to the verdict. “She has been found guilty of 4 felonies and 3 misdemeanors by a jury of her peers and will now face the consequences of her actions. Today’s verdict sends a clear message: we will not tolerate any effort to threaten the security of our gold standard elections. I am proud that justice for Colorado voters has been served today.”

After the 2020 election, Peters secretly brought a computer analyst aligned with the election denial movement into a protected software update meeting for Dominion election machines in her county, wary of state officials erasing election information. The analyst attended the update under a disguise, using the name and access badge of a local Mesa County resident. Digital images from the software update soon leaked online ― published by Ron Watkins, a key QAnon figure ― and state officials quickly descended upon the Mesa County elections office to investigate. Peters was indicted in 2022, and pleaded not guilty ahead of trial to three counts of attempting to influence a public servant, two counts of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, and one count each of criminal impersonation, identity theft, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty, and failing to comply with the secretary of state. The first seven counts were felonies, the last three were misdemeanors. Peters was found guilty Monday of all felony counts except one of the counts of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, criminal impersonation, and identity theft. She was found guilty of the three counts of attempting to influence a public servant and one of the counts of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation.

[...]

A National Network

Though elections in the United States are largely run on the local level, Peters’ trial showed the truly national scope of the election conspiracy theory movement, which Donald Trump supercharged four years ago when he denied the facts of his own 2020 reelection loss ― ultimately leading to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on Congress, an attempt by Trump supporters to overturn Joe Biden’s win. For one thing, Sherronna Bishop, an ally of Peters’ and a key witness in the trial, is Rep. Lauren Boebert’s (R-Co.) former campaign manager. Bishop, a right-wing activist, introduced Peters to the national election conspiracy theory community ― among them Douglas Frank, a election conspiracy theorist who has toured the country claiming to have discovered mathematical proof of election rigging. In reality, as The Washington Post reported, Frank’s pitch involves “a bit of impressive-sounding chicanery that is light-years away from any proof of fraud.” It was Bishop who testified that Wood, the supposed victim of identity theft, had actually consented to the use of his Mesa County badge as part of the scheme ― a claim Wood and the prosecution denied.

Jurors in the Peters case heard a secretly-recorded meeting between Frank and Peters ― taped by a concerned member of Peters’ office ― in which Frank encouraged the then-county clerk to root out “phantom” ballots and acknowledged he was being paid by Mike Lindell, the CEO of MyPillow and a major funder of the election denial movement. The same concerned staff member, Stephanie Wenholz, Mesa County’s front-end elections manager, said Peters had mandated that staff attend a presentation by Frank, hosted by Bishop, at a Grand Junction hotel. Wenholz said the mood at the event was “kind of like a revival” and said she felt her safety was in jeopardy at the event. Lindell himself loomed large over the trial: The Mesa County story became national news as Peters spoke at a Lindell event, deemed the “Cyber Symposium,” in South Dakota. She reportedly traveled there via Lindell’s private jet. In 2022, Lindell claimed to have donated $800,000 to Peters’ defense fund. Lindell’s cell phone was seized by the FBI in 2022 (when he was in a Hardee’s drive-through) as part of a federal investigation of the Mesa County breach. Lindell sued, but the suit went nowhere, with the Supreme Court ultimately declining to hear an appeal.

Election-denying former Mesa County, Colorado County Clerk Tina Peters pleaded guilty in election machine breaches.

#Tina Peters #Mesa County Colorado #Colorado #Election Denialism #Election Administration #Election Fraud #Dominion Voting Systems #Joel Oltmann #Mike Lindell #Sherronna Bishop #Douglas Frank

18 notes · View notes

justforbooks · 10 months ago

Text

Mike Lynch

British tech entrepreneur who sold his Autonomy software group to Hewlett-Packard and was later cleared after a long-running US fraud case

Mike Lynch, who has died aged 59 in the wreck of his yacht, was sometimes described as “Britain’s Bill Gates”. It was a huge exaggeration, but Lynch could claim two parallels with Gates: he developed world-leading technology (in his case in machine learning or AI) and, unlike so many UK scientists, he learned how to turn it into commercial success.

Such was this success that his company, Autonomy, was valued at $11bn when he sold it to Hewlett-Packard in 2011, but the fall-out from the sale would come to overshadow his technological achievements, and lead to a national debate about the circumstances in which UK citizens may be extradited to the US.

Lynch founded Autonomy with two partners in 1996. Its software enabled a computer to search huge quantities of diverse information, including phone calls, emails and videos, and recognise words. He told the Independent in 1999: “The way our technology works is to look at words and understand the relationships because it has seen a lot of content before. When it sees the word ‘star’ in the context of film, it knows it has nothing to do with the word moon. Because it works from text, it can deal with slang and with different languages.”

Autonomy became a leading company in Cambridge’s Silicon Fen cluster and established a base in San Francisco. “We knew we had to be successful in America. It was a question of ‘Go West young man, go to San Francisco and be ignored.’ They found it hard to believe that anyone from England could have anything powerful.” Lynch found what he called the “cold-hearted schmooze” to secure funding tough.

But Autonomy’s software, enabling computers to identify and match themes and ideas, and sort mammoth amounts of data, was licensed to more than 500 customers, including the US State Department and the BBC. It was listed on Nasdaq in 1998 and on the FTSE 100 in November 2000, although its value of £5.1bn would be halved within a few months in the collapse of the technology boom and accusations of over-promotion. In 2005 it bought a major US rival, Verity, for $500m.

Lynch’s profile rose with it. In 2006 he was appointed OBE for services to enterprise and the following year joined the board of the BBC. In 2011 he became a member of the government’s Council for Science and Technology, and was named the most influential person in UK IT by Computer Weekly. In 2014 he was elected a fellow of the Royal Society.

Though quietly spoken, he had a reputation for toughness, coloured by a liking for James Bond, which led to Autonomy conference rooms being named after Bond villains, and a tank of piranha fish in reception. (Lynch claimed it belonged to one of his business partners.) Challenged about a company culture where people were “a little fanatical”, he replied: “This is not the place for you if you want to work 9 to 5 and don’t love your work.”

Born in Ilford, east London, to Michael, a firefighter, and Dolores, a nurse, and brought up in Chelmsford, Lynch won a scholarship to the independent Bancroft’s school in Woodford Green, before taking a natural sciences degree at Cambridge, where his PhD in artificial neural networks, a form of machine learning, has been widely studied since.

A saxophone player and jazz lover, he set up his first business, Lynett Systems, while still a student, to produce electronic equipment for the music industry. Later he would attribute some loss of hearing to adjusting synthesisers for bands. He quoted his own experience to highlight the difficulties of finding funding for startup businesses in Britain. He finally negotiated a £2,000 loan from one of the managers of Genesis in a Soho bar.

Lynch’s next venture came out of his research. In 1991 he founded Cambridge Neurodynamics, specialising in computer-based fingerprint recognition. Then he established Autonomy.

The pinnacle of his success appeared to come in October 2011 when Autonomy was purchased by Hewlett-Packard for $11bn and Lynch made an estimated $800m. Shortly afterwards he established a new company, Invoke Capital, for investment in tech companies, and he and his wife, Angela Bacares, whom he had married in 2001, invested about £200m in Darktrace, a cybersecurity company.

But just 13 months after the Autonomy sale, HP announced an $8.8bn writedown of the assets “due to serious accounting improprieties, disclosure failures and outright misrepresentations” which it claimed had artificially inflated the company’s value. The authorities investigated, and while the UK Serious Fraud Office found insufficient evidence, in 2018 the US authorities indicted Lynch for fraud. Soon after, Autonomy’s chief financial officer, Sushovan Hussain, was found guilty of fraud and sentenced to five years in prison.

In March 2019 HP followed up with a civil action for fraud in London. Lynch spent days in the witness box as the civil action stretched over nine months. It ended in January 2022 with the judge ruling that HP had substantially succeeded, but that damages would be much less than the $5bn they had claimed.

Meanwhile the US authorities sought Lynch’s extradition on criminal charges of conspiracy and fraud. In spite of representations by senior politicians and accusations that the US authorities were attempting to exercise “extraterritorial jurisdiction”, a district judge ruled in favour of extradition.

An application for judicial review and a further appeal failed, and in May 2023 Lynch was flown to the US to be held under house arrest in San Francisco, with the prospect of a 25-year sentence.

Charged with wire fraud, securities fraud and conspiracy, on 18 March this year Lynch pleaded not guilty, alongside his former vice-president of finance, Stephen Chamberlain. On 6 June, they were found not guilty of all charges. Chamberlain died after being hit by a car on 17 August.

Lynch declared that he wanted to get back to what he loved doing – innovating. But he had little opportunity to do so. He soon embarked on a voyage to celebrate his acquittal, with family, colleagues and business associates. It ended with the sinking of his yacht, Bayesian – named after the 18th-century mathematician, Thomas Bayes, whose work on probability had informed much of his thinking – in a violent storm off the coast of Sicily.

Lynch is survived by his wife and elder daughter, Esme. Their other daughter, Hannah, was also on board the Bayesian.

🔔 Michael Richard Lynch, technology entrepreneur, born 16 June 1965; died 19 August 2024

Daily inspiration. Discover more photos at Just for Books…?

#just for books #Mike Lynch #in memoriam

7 notes · View notes

darkmaga-returns · 8 months ago

Text

“If technocracy wins this battle and they implement it on a global basis, it will again take hundreds of years before the concept of freedom and liberty will resurface again. It will take a very long time; it won’t just come snapping back, it will not be a fade. Once they get control over the economic mechanism, they will virtually have control over life itself. They will make people of the world dance like puppets on a string.” ⁃ Patrick Wood, TN Editor.

This is a very important question. I think about it daily as the meteoric rise of scientism creates a new materialistic priest class, in whom you must put your faith and devotion.

What is Technocracy?

A scientific dictatorship, enabled by full-scale surveillance, in which an elite class of scientists and engineers manages every facet of life. Technocrats are “persons who exercise power by virtue of their technical knowledge.”

Technocracy is the Brave New World in Aldous Huxley’s 1932 novel, which was more a “I just got out of a meeting and here’s how it’s going down,” memo rather than a cautionary tale.

In this presentation about COVID-19, Dr. Lee Merritt, influenced by Patrick Wood’s writings on technocracy, shared the etymology:

Techn = skillKrat = kratos (divine personification of power)

She summed up technocracy: Data gathered on everybody in the world and fed to un-elected officials, who are smarter than everybody, and will use the information to create amazing solutions. It boils down to “power via differential knowledge,” meaning if you have knowledge that only a select few have, you can lord it over the majority of people.

The Internet and Total Surveillance

Once the possibility of a total surveillance state materialized with the inception of the Internet, technocracy became the crown jewel in the Cabal’s totalitarian New World Order agenda.

The timeline is speeding up. Their dreams of ruling the world are veering toward a terrifying reality with artificial intelligence, propaganda in everybody’s pocket, and a bazillion data points on every man, woman, and child on Earth.

Patrick Wood, the OG of technocracy research, said once we reach a scientific dictatorship society … “liberty will be a historic curiosity.”

In order to achieve this goal, the technocrats developed mass surveillance, which has only been possible in the modern age with the Internet. This is their time to act.

Smart meters on houses monitor how much energy you consume.

Credit card transactions track consumer behavior and move people away from hard currency.

Social media fills out the dossier with beliefs, names of friends and family, images, and much more.

The Affordable Care Act digitizes your medical history.

Smart gadgets—Fitbit, Oura Ring, etc.—pass all of your vital stats to central repositories.

Smartphones track where you are, what you’re doing (they can listen in), and what information you’re consuming and entertainment you are consuming.

The Internet of Things (IoT) adds more daily data. What’s in your fridge? What do you watch on TV? And even more nefarious, there are credible reports detailing how they can watch us through our TVs.

Facial recognition software and cameras monitor every square inch of public space.

Virtual assistants like Alexa monitor your every word and train people to be useless (“please machine, turn on that light … I cannot do it myself”).

Public school jams cultural Marxism down the throat of every child, while Common Core collects 400 pieces of data on every child, which is on their record for life.

5 notes · View notes

the-eternal-quest-for-balance · 9 months ago

Text

Dear OMG Supporter,

BREAKING: A Senior Meta Engineer revealed that the platform uses shadowbanning to suppress posts critical of figures like Vice President Kamala Harris, reducing their visibility without notifying users. The engineer also disclosed that Meta has a team dedicated to influencing information flow, with the power to affect election outcomes.

In a revelation captured by O'Keefe Media Group, a senior software engineer at Meta, Jeevan Gyawali, admitted that the platform is actively engaged in suppressing certain content to shape political narratives. During a hidden-camera interview, Gyawali confirmed that Meta employs shadowbanning tactics to demote posts automatically, especially those critical of prominent political figures like Vice President Kamala Harris.

Gyawali explained how posts that challenge Harris, even on personal grounds—such as questioning her fitness for office because she does not have children—are “automatically demoted.” The person who makes such posts will not be notified, but their content will experience a noticeable decline in engagement and visibility.

This demotion process is managed by Meta’s "Integrity Team," which uses a system called "civic classifiers" to determine what content is suppressed, essentially shadowbanning users without their knowledge.

Beyond individual post suppression, Gyawali revealed that Meta has a Special Weapons And Tactics (SWAT) team dedicated to preventing platform abuse, created in April 2024. This team, according to Gyawali, continuously monitors potential threats and scenarios that could harm Meta’s vision of "protecting democracy."

However, the platform’s definition of protection, as explained by Gyawali, includes demoting or outright censoring content deemed harmful to the political narrative supported by Meta, a tactic Gyawali says is used "100%" of the time.

Gyawali confirmed without hesitation that Meta can indeed sway political outcomes, admitting that Mark Zuckerberg, the co-founder and CEO of Meta, fully supports this agenda and the platform's political influence, particularly in favor of the Democratic Party.

Democracy !!! Democracy !!!! Trump is going to destroy Democracy !!!

This coming from the cheaters, the frauds, the liars, the ones ACTUALLY destroying Democracy. Communist Democrats, and make no mistake, a big Blue D = Communist. You can't win elections, the true democratic action, one Person, one Vote, without CHEATING.

Democrats destroying the American Republic. No longer can it be denied ! ! !

5 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 5 months ago

Text

As one of his first acts after being sworn in, President Donald Trump signed an executive order establishing the Department of Government Efficiency by reorganizing and renaming an existing entity, the US Digital Services (USDS), as the US DOGE Service. And while some have noted that this version of DOGE moves away from the sweeping vision of deregulation outlined in a November Wall Street Journal op-ed, it's a move that will give centibillionaire Elon Musk and his allies seemingly unprecedented insight across the government and access to troves of federal data.

“It’s quite a clever way of integrating DOGE into the federal government that I think will work, in the sense of giving it a platform for surveillance and recommendations,” says Richard Pierce, a law professor at George Washington University.

Soon after his election victory, Trump announced that he would form DOGE, led by Musk and former Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, to provide “advice and guidance from outside the government”—something that would generally require it be formed as a federal advisory committee. The idea was that DOGE would provide recommendations for how to cut some $2 trillion from the federal budget. (Shortly before Trump’s inauguration, Ramaswamy exited the DOGE project.)

Both Ramaswamy and Musk supported Trump during his campaign, but Musk emerged as one of the president’s most important financial backers, donating close to $200 million to the Trump-supporting America PAC. Additionally, he used the power of his own celebrity to drum up support for Trump both online and off, joining the president on the campaign trail and amplifying Trump's messaging on X, the social media platform he owns. Almost immediately after the election, Musk began to take a central role in the transition, joining Trump on calls with foreign leaders and making staffing recommendations.

Meanwhile, Musk put out a call for people to work with DOGE onlin, and turned the Washington, DC office of his company SpaceX into a staging ground for the entity while bringing in other major figures from Silicon Valley to assist in the effort. Billionaire investor Marc Andreessen apparently joined the effort as a self-proclaimed “unpaid intern.”

But under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, committees of the sort DOGE seemed to be shaping up to be have several legal requirements, including making all meetings publicly accessible and requiring a diversity of perspectives on the committee itself. By repurposing the USDS, which was already part of the Office of Management and Budget, Trump managed to skirt both the requirements of a formal advisory committee and the congressional oversight required when creating a new federal agency. In short, it meant DOGE would get more access to sensitive data than an advisory committee would likely have, while offering less transparency.

The USDS was created by former president Barack Obama to untangle dysfunctional or failing technology across the federal government in the wake of the disastrous rollout of HealthCare.gov. The Service’s mandate allows it the wide-ranging ability to enter any government agency and access its software or technical systems with the goal of helping to streamline or reform existing systems.

Under the executive order, DOGE teams, which “will typically include one DOGE Team Lead, one engineer, one human resources specialist, and one attorney” will be dispatched to various agencies. They will be granted ��access to all unclassified agency records, software systems, and IT systems,” ostensibly with the goal of streamlining data sharing across federal agencies.

A former USDS employee who spoke to WIRED who was granted anonymity to preserve their privacy called the repurposing of the Digital Service an “A+ bureaucratic jiujitsu move.” But, they say, they’re concerned that DOGE’s access to sensitive information could be used to do more than just streamline government operations.

“Is this technical talent going to be pointed toward using data from the federal government to track down opponents?” they ask. “To track down particular populations of interest to this administration for the purposes of either targeting them or singling them out or whatever it might end up being?”

It appears, however, that the first order of DOGE is to weed out people in agencies that might push back on the Trump administration’s agenda, starting with existing USDS staff, and hire new people.

“DOGE teams have a lawyer, an HR director, and an engineer. If you were looking to identify functions to cut, people to cut, having an HR director there and having a lawyer say ‘here's what we're allowed to do or not do’ would be one way that you would facilitate that,” says Don Moynihan, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan, noting that DOGE’s potential access to federal employee data could put “them in some sort of crosshairs to be fired.”

When Musk took over Twitter, he brought in outside help from his close circle as well as his other companies to transform the company, a move he appears to be repeating.

Who exactly is going to be part of DOGE is a particularly thorny issue, because there are technically two DOGEs. One is the permanent organization, the revamped USDS—now the US DOGE Service. The other is a temporary organization, with a termination date of July 4, 2026. Creating this organization means the temporary DOGE can operate under a special set of rules. It can sequester employees from other parts of the government and can accept people who want to work for the government as volunteers. Temporary organizations can also hire what are known as special government employees—experts in a given field who can bypass the rigors of the regular federal hiring processes. They’re also not subject to the same transparency requirements as other government employees.

In the best-case scenario, this would allow DOGE to move quickly to address issues and fast-track necessary talent, as well as build systems that make government services more seamless by facilitating the flow of information and data. But in the worst case, this could mean less transparency around the interests of people working on important government projects, while enabling possible surveillance.

“I think part of the reason they're wanting to use special government employees is because so long as they all work less than 60 days, the financial reporting requirements are less, which is going to be attractive to billionaires who have a lot of financial things they don't want to disclose,” says Nick Bednar, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota School of Law. “And with agency approval, these individuals are allowed to continue contracting with the federal government if they represent, say, a corporation that has a lot of contracts with the government.”

Musk alone has over received billions of dollars via contracts with the federal government through his company SpaceX.

“To me, [the temporary organization] suggests there's some sort of, there's some reason for that which probably has to do with skirting disclosure and conflicts of interest requirements,” claims Moynihan.

Noah Kunin, former infrastructure director at the US General Services Administration, tells WIRED that “the government has access to incredible amounts of sensitive or proprietary business information that [businesses] had to share with the government in order to get a contract or take some action.” And while not everyone gets to access this—it generally requires some form of clearance, and government employees are not supposed to share it—this kind of information could be particularly useful to someone like Musk or other members of the business community who might be brought into DOGE.

“You always have concerns whenever you have private sector individuals entering government for a temporary position,” says Bednar. “This is how regulatory capture occurs.”

Even with all these special maneuvers, DOGE will likely still face hurdles. Sharing data across government departments and systems is tricky, particularly when different laws govern different agencies and the information they collect. Similarly, sensitive data often requires some form of government authorization, which DOGE volunteers and employees might not be able to get.

“There are legal restrictions to sharing data between organizations, and those agreements take an enormous amount of effort to put into place,” the former USDS employee says. “There are tons of examples of obstacles to information sharing like that. So maybe this is more aspirational than it is possible.”

“DOGE has just sort of added this element of unpredictability to what happens next in government,” says Moynihan. “It could be a bipartisan effort to make government technology work better. It could be an oligarch extracting resources from the government. We just really don't know. We're all gazing at tea leaves right now.”

11 notes · View notes