#formal verification

[ultragamerz]

Cardano (ADA): Sell it for Solana? 

New Post has been published on https://www.ultragamerz.com/cardano-ada-sell-it-for-solana/

Cardano (ADA): Sell it for Solana? 

Cardano (ADA): Sell it for Solana?

Cardano (ADA), the brainchild of Ethereum co-founder Charles Hoskinson, has been a hot topic in the crypto space. However, with a recent barrage of bearish news and influencer skepticism, some are questioning whether ADA is all it’s cracked up to be. Let’s delve into the world of Cardano, separating hype from reality.

Influencer FOMO and the Solana Shadow:

Social media is flooded with “Cardano killers” like Solana (SOL) boasting lightning-fast transaction speeds and lower fees. Influencers, often swayed by short-term gains, are hyping SOL to the moon, leaving Cardano seemingly stuck in the dust.

Cardano’s Different Path:

However, Cardano takes a much different approach than the “move fast and break things” mentality of some competitors. Cardano prioritizes meticulous research and a peer-reviewed development process. This methodical approach, while slower, aims to deliver a more secure and scalable blockchain in the long run.

Cardano vs. The Hype Machine:

Recent bearish articles highlight Cardano’s slow development progress and missed deadlines. While these criticisms hold some weight, it’s important to remember Cardano is building a complex ecosystem.

The ADA Price:

Cardano’s Bullish Trajectory: A Technical Analysis Glimpse

Cardano (ADA) has been on a tear lately, and technical analysts are using charting tools to predict its potential price path. Here’s a breakdown of three possible targets based on different timeframes:

Short-Term (1-2 Months): Applying the Fibonacci retracement tool to ADA’s recent price surge suggests a first target of around $2.20. This level represents the 61.8% retracement of the current upswing, a common support zone after a price increase.

Mid-Term (3-6 Months): If the bullish momentum continues, a more ambitious target could be $14. This aligns with the 161.8% Fibonacci extension level, indicating a potential doubling of the current price within the next half year. However, reaching this target zone would require sustained buying pressure and positive news surrounding the Cardano ecosystem.

Long-Term (1+ Years): For the long-term hodlers (holders on for a dear life), some analysts are charting a much more aggressive target – a staggering $55. This aligns with the 261.8% Fibonacci extension, signifying a potential 25x return on investment from current levels. However, reaching this price point would require significant adoption of Cardano’s blockchain technology and widespread recognition of its functionalities.

Remember: This is for informational purposes only and should not be considered financial advice. Technical analysis is just one tool, and market conditions can change rapidly. Always conduct your own research before making any investment decisions.

Is ADA a Worthy Investment?

While some influencers are quick to dismiss ADA, it’s crucial to conduct your own research and understand Cardano’s unique value proposition. Here are some key aspects to consider:

Scalability: Cardano’s Ouroboros proof-of-stake consensus mechanism aims to achieve high transaction throughput without sacrificing decentralization, a challenge faced by many blockchains.

Smart Contracts: Cardano’s smart contract platform, Plutus, is built with security and formal verification in mind, aiming to minimize bugs and vulnerabilities.

Interoperability: Cardano’s vision includes interoperability with other blockchains, allowing seamless transfer of data and assets across different ecosystems.

Bearish News and Price Performance:

Despite the recent bearish sentiment, it’s worth noting that ADA started the current market cycle at around $0.20 and reached a peak of over $3.00, a significant increase. This demonstrates that long-term investors still see value in Cardano’s long-term vision.

Is ADA Right for You?

The decision to invest in ADA depends on your risk tolerance and investment horizon. If you’re looking for a quick pump based on influencer hype, Cardano might not be the best choice. However, if you believe in Cardano’s long-term vision of a secure and scalable blockchain platform, ADA could be a worthwhile investment for your portfolio.

Remember:

The cryptocurrency market is notoriously volatile and prone to hype cycles. Always conduct thorough research, understand the risks involved, and never invest more than you can afford to lose.

[aorish]

a lot of STEM nerds fall victim to the Right Way of thinking. as in, if everyone did things the Right Way we would never have any problems; but unlike me many other people are stupid and dont know or care about the Right Way of doing things, and because they are stupid they dont realize it matters

this is a convenient belief system because when anything goes wrong or a plane crashes or a system of competing incentives is FUBAR they can just smile sagely and say "if only they followed the Right Way this could have been avoided"

[magic-coffee]

There are people with self respect and dignity and then there's my chairperson of a college i left a month ago

[misskamelie]

Comunque tutto fa brodo fr because I applied to a thing where an English cv was needed (I didn't have one, yet), I made a new English cv, I didn't get into this thing (pretty much an expected result because it was not a thing I specialise in), and then I had this other thing to apply for and guess what? They want an English cv, so I only need to fix the one I already have

[haru-dipthong]

Gendered pronouns in Japanese vs English

In Revolutionary Girl Utena, the main character Utena is a girl (it says so in the title), but very conspicuously uses the masculine first person pronoun 僕 (boku) and dresses in (a variation of) the boys school uniform. Utena's gender, and gender in general, is a core theme of the work. And yet, I haven’t seen a single translation or analysis post where anyone considers using anything other than she/her for Utena when speaking of her in English. This made me wonder: how does one’s choice of pronouns in Japanese correspond to what one’s preferred pronouns would be in English?

There are 3 main differences between gendered pronouns in Japanese vs English

Japanese pronouns are used to refer to yourself (first-person), while English pronouns are used to refer to others (third-person)

The Japanese pronoun you use will differ based on context

Japanese pronouns signify more than just gender

Let’s look at each of these differences in turn and how these differences might lead to a seeming incongruity between one’s Japanese pronoun choice and one’s English pronoun choice (such as the 僕 (boku) vs she/her discrepancy with Utena).

Part 1: First-person vs third-person

While Japanese does technically have gendered third person pronouns （彼、彼女） they are used infrequently¹ and have much less cultural importance placed on them than English third person pronouns. Therefore, I would argue that the cultural equivalent of the gender-signifying third-person pronoun in English is the Japanese first-person pronoun. Much like English “pronouns in bio”, Japanese first-person pronoun choice is considered an expression of identity.

Japanese pronouns are used exclusively to refer to yourself, and therefore a speaker can change the pronoun they’re using for themself on a whim, sometimes mid-conversation, without it being much of an incident. Meanwhile in English, Marquis Bey argues that “Pronouns are like tiny vessels of verification that others are picking up what you are putting down” (2021). By having others use them and externally verify the internal truth of one’s gender, English pronouns, I believe, are seen as more truthful, less frivolous, than Japanese pronouns. They are seen as signifying an objective truth of the referent’s gender; if not objective then at least socially agreed-upon, while Japanese pronouns only signify how the subject feels at this particular moment — purely subjective.

Part 2: Context dependent pronoun use

Japanese speakers often don’t use just one pronoun. As you can see in the below chart, a young man using 俺 (ore) among friends might use 私 (watashi) or 自分 (jibun) when speaking to a teacher. This complicates the idea that these pronouns are gendered, because their gendering depends heavily on context. A man using 私 (watashi) to a teacher is gender-conforming, a man using 私 (watashi) while drinking with friends is gender-non-conforming. Again, this reinforces the relative instability of Japanese pronoun choice, and distances it from gender.

Part 3: Signifying more than gender

English pronouns signify little besides the gender of the antecedent. Because of this, pronouns in English have come to be a shorthand for expressing one’s own gender experience - they reflect an internal gendered truth. However, Japanese pronoun choice doesn’t reflect an “internal truth” of gender. It can signify multiple aspects of your self - gender, sexuality, personality.

For example, 僕 (boku) is used by gay men to communicate that they are bottoms, contrasted with the use of 俺 (ore) by tops. 僕 (boku) may also be used by softer, academic men and boys (in casual contexts - note that many men use 僕 (boku) in more formal contexts) as a personality signifier - maybe to communicate something as simplistic as “I’m not the kind of guy who’s into sports.” 俺 (ore) could be used by a butch lesbian who still strongly identifies as a woman, in order to signify sexuality and an assertive personality. 私 (watashi) may be used by people of all genders to convey professionalism. The list goes on.

I believe this is what’s happening with Utena - she is signifying her rebellion against traditional feminine gender roles with her use of 僕 (boku), but as part of this rebellion, she necessarily must still be a girl. Rather than saying “girls don’t use boku, so I’m not a girl”, her pronoun choice is saying “your conception of femininity is bullshit, girls can use boku too”.

Through translation, gendered assumptions need to be made, sometimes about real people. Remember that he/they, she/her, they/them are purely English linguistic constructs, and don’t correspond directly to one’s gender, just as they don’t correspond directly to the Japanese pronouns one might use. Imagine a scenario where you are translating a news story about a Japanese genderqueer person. The most ethical way to determine what pronouns they would prefer would be to get in contact with them and ask them, right? But what if they don’t speak English? Are you going to have to teach them English, and the nuances of English pronoun choice, before you can translate the piece? That would be ridiculous! It’s simply not a viable option². So you must make a gendered assumption based on all the factors - their Japanese pronoun use (context dependent!), their clothing, the way they present their body, their speech patterns, etc.

If translation is about rewriting the text as if it were originally in the target language, you must also rewrite the gender of those people and characters in the translation. The question you must ask yourself is: How does their gender presentation, which has been tailored to a Japanese-language understanding of gender, correspond to an equivalent English-language understanding of gender? This is an incredibly fraught decision, but nonetheless a necessary one. It’s an unsatisfying dilemma, and one that poignantly exposes the fickle, unstable, culture-dependent nature of gender.

Notes and References

¹ Usually in Japanese, speakers use the person’s name directly to address someone in second or third person

² And has colonialist undertones as a solution if you ask me - “You need to pick English pronouns! You ought to understand your gender through our language!”

Bey, Marquis— 2021 Re: [No Subject]—On Nonbinary Gender

Rose divider taken from this post

[sweetromanova]

Off The Record: Part Three🖤

Natasha Romanoff x Criminal Defense Lawyer!Original Female Character

Summary: She’s built a career on keeping secrets and defending the worst with nothing to lose. That changed when Natasha Romanoff showed up on the other side of the courtroom.

Warnings: descriptions of violence, psychological manipulation, implied child abuse and trauma, emotional abuse, mentions of torture, human and sex trafficking, war crimes and murder, implied coercion, legal corruption, gun violence, secondary character deaths, power imbalance, blood and injury depiction

A/N: for any lawyers, law students or legally-adjacent folks reading this, i did get some help from a friend when i wrote this but even she wasn’t fully convinced about the accuracy so if anything’s off, just kindly ignore the legal nonsense and roll with it!🖤

Chapter Three

Avengers Secondary Holding Facility, Upstate New York

March 20, 2022

Maria Hill dropped the file onto the conference room table like it was a live grenade. “Motion to suppress Exhibit B, Exhibit E, and preliminary statements from the intake log.”

Across from her, the Avengers looked up from their scattered files and half-drunk coffee. Tony, legs kicked up on the table, slowly lowered his sunglasses. “She’s tossing out our evidence?” He exclaimed. “On what grounds?!”

“Improper chain of custody on the Prague lab samples, lack of independent verification on the digital logs and-” Maria glanced at the page, jaw tightening. “-interrogation without formal counsel present.”

Natasha barely moved, her voice was flat. “That interrogation didn’t even include questions. We asked him to confirm his name when he was brought on to the quinjet.”

“She filed it as a rights violation.” Maria said. “The judge could side with her. Anything gathered between his detainment and her first meeting is inadmissible.”

“She’s good.” Steve muttered. Not admiring, just resigned.

“Too good.” Tony added, spinning his tablet toward him. “Which is why I’ve spent the last four hours looking into her.”

“Stark…” Maria warned but Tony ignored her.

“She’s been a defense attorney in New York for around a decade I believe, maybe less. Passed the bar with a near-perfect score. And then? Radio silence. No social media, no interviews, barely any photos that aren’t court composites or grainy trial press shots.”

Bruce frowned. “That’s not unusual for lawyers, is it?”

Tony leaned forward. “Not for normal lawyers, no. But this one? She’s got classified SHIELD seals on several of her past cases, sealed after trial, not before. You don’t get that kind of protection unless someone upstairs is nervous.”

Maria’s expression tightened. “You were poking into SHIELD casework?”

“I was poking and-” Tony said. “-I found a case involving an international arms dealer five years ago. Guy vanished mid-trial. Sienna filed a motion for mistrial two days later. No ruling. Case disappeared.”

“Off the books?” Steve asked.

Tony nodded. “More like burned.”

Natasha finally stood. “She’s not just doing her job. She knows how to play the system. She’s ten moves ahead of us and she’s not even sweating.”

Maria turned her screen around for them all to see, a new motion, filed just minutes ago. “Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Wanda Maximoff filed on grounds of ‘extrajudicial psychic influence��� and ‘unverifiable cognitive methods that violate federal evidentiary standards’.”

“She’s trying to disqualify Wanda?” Steve said, stunned. “We didn’t even use her, Sienna came before we had the chance.”

“She’s going to win that one.” Maria said, quietly. “We don’t have a precedent for enhanced verification in court. Not legally.”

Bruce leaned back. “She’s dismantling our case before it even gets to trial.”

Tony tossed his stylus onto the table. “Yeah, well, I want to know who trained her to do that.”

Natasha was already halfway to the door.

“Where are you going?” Maria asked.

Natasha didn’t look back. “To find a crack.”

⋆⋆⋆⋆

Antonia Dreykov’s Residence, Budapest

March 21, 2022

Night settled over Budapest’s old quarter like a weighted blanket. Natasha moved through the alleys with the easy, practiced steps of someone who used to know every corner of this place. A single security light buzzed and flickered above the rusted door of what looked like an old, shut-down print shop. She knocked twice, paused then once more.

A slit slid open, brown eyes that were cool but sharp studied her. “Romanoff.”

“Antonia. I need five minutes.” The lock turned and Natasha slipped inside.

The room was spare with only a folding table, two chairs and a kettle on a hot plate. Antonia Dreykov, once the Taskmaster, wore a black hoodie and a scar that the world would never see, leaned against the wall with her arms folded.

“You don’t visit old classmates unless the world’s ending.” She said, in accented English.

Natasha offered the faintest hint of a smile.  “Not ending. Just… rotting in court.”

She slid a photo across the table of Maksim Vasiliev in all his glory, taken during intake.

Antonia’s eyes hardened. “I remember him. Red Room winter inspections. He watched the proficiency trials. Took notes and offered suggestions.” She exhaled. “Always smelled like antiseptic.”

“I need you to tell a tribunal that.” Natasha said. “Under oath.”

Antonia shook her head. “I was never his prisoner. He didn’t lay hands on me. That makes me an observer, not a victim. A lawyer will shred me.”

“Sienna Blake will try.” Natasha admitted. “But the jury or the judges, just need corroboration. Someone outside HYDRA command structure who can place him inside the Red Room, during live exercises. Connect his ‘theoretical science’ to real girls.”

Antonia stared at the photo a long moment then asked the question Natasha was dreading. “What do you get out of this? Revenge or justice?”

Natasha’s reply was quiet but edged. “Both, if the system lets me.”

Finally, Antonia nodded once. “One condition. My testimony is sealed after court. No press. No cameras. I give you what I saw then disappear.”

“Done.” Natasha promised, without hesitation. “Maria Hill will handle the protective paperwork.”

Antonia grabbed a battered backpack, already packed up and ready to run. Natasha knew all too well that she’d done that several times in the past. “Then let’s go. I still owe that man a scar.”

⋆⋆⋆⋆

The Avengers Compound, Upstate New York

March 22, 2022

Maria looked up from a stack of motions as Natasha walked in with Antonia at her side. “Tell me that’s not who I think it is.” Maria said, glancing at the bandana that covered half of Antonia’s face.

“Antonia Dreykov.” Natasha confirmed. “Firsthand witness. She’ll place Vasiliev inside the Red Room on multiple dates between 2000 and 2010, observing live neural‑conditioning trials.”

Maria’s brows lifted. “That ties him directly to human experimentation outside his lab network. Undermines his whole ‘I just signed papers’ defense.”

“And it’s not evidence collected before counsel.” Natasha added.  “Fresh witness, voluntary.”

Antonia folded her arms.  “Your tribunal has a witness list form?”

Maria almost smiled. “Several.” She flipped open a new file. “Blake is going to contest relevance and credibility but if we can corroborate Maksim’s travel logs with Red Room intel, the judge should allow it.”

Natasha’s eyes were cool and focused for the first time in this trial.  “One crack at a time.”

Tony’s voice drifted in from the doorway, tablet in hand.  “Good news travels fast. Jarvis just pinged that Blake filed another motion at 05:30.”

Natasha didn’t look away from Maria. “Let her file. We have our own play now.”

Maria nodded, sliding a witness submission form across the table to Antonia. “Welcome to the fight.”

⋆⋆⋆⋆

Federal Tribunal Courtroom, Washington, D.C.

March 24, 2022

The courtroom wasn’t overly grand but it felt like it was carved from stone. It was all marble pillars, high ceilings, and silence so thick it pressed against your ears. Three tribunal judges sat in elevated chairs, stern-faced and unreadable.

In the gallery, Natasha, Steve, Sam, Bruce, Clint, Bucky, Wanda and Tony lined the second bench. SHIELD’s legal team flanked Maria Hill, who sat rigid at the prosecution’s table.

Across from them, seated alone like she owned the goddamn floor was Sienna Blake.

Charcoal grey suit, heels like blades and not a hair out of place. A single black folder sat before her. No laptop. No assistant. She didn’t need them.

The clerk called the hearing to order. The judges gave nods then the lead judge began. “Counsellor Blake, you may proceed with your motions.”

Sienna stood smoothly. No notes. Just that controlled, deliberate walk toward the center. “Your Honours...” She began, voice calm and unshaken. “The defense respectfully moves to suppress the following. Preliminary intake statements made without legal counsel present, Second, a laboratory sample data lacking verified chain-of-custody documentation. Third, an expert testimony from an individual identified as ‘Wanda Maximoff’ on grounds of unverifiable psychic influence. And finally a witness testimony from Antonia Dreykov, on relevance and credibility grounds.”

There was a quiet intake of breath from SHIELD’s table and the second row. Maria didn’t blink. But Natasha stiffened. How the hell did she know about Antonia already? It was processed as close to the deadline as possible.

The lead judge looked over his glasses. “Ms. Blake, we’ll take each motion in order. Begin with the intake statements.”

Sienna nodded. “My client was detained for over six hours without legal representation. During that time, he was asked to verify documents, names, and operations he allegedly oversaw. Regardless of tone or intention, this constitutes an interrogation. It violates federal and international rights of due process.”

Maria stood. “He was read his rights. He refused counsel initially. Can I add this was all on his way into custody? No formal interrogation took place.”

“Refusal made without full capacity.” Sienna countered. “We have a pending psychiatric evaluation confirming impaired decision-making at the time.”

The judges conferred briefly. “Motion to suppress preliminary statements is granted.”

Tony swore under his breath. Natasha’s fingers tightened into fists. “Next.” The judge ordered.

“Chain of custody for Exhibit E.” Sienna continued. “The Prague lab samples, while potentially damning, were transported through three countries, two field agents and an undocumented private courier. No signed custody, no uninterrupted seal.”

Maria leaned forward. “We have timestamped photos and transfer logs.”

“And I have a U.S. v. Arvello precedent that ruled such documentation as insufficient under federal rules of evidence,” Sienna said, almost bored. “Even when a case involved nerve agents.”

A second pause. The center judge sighed. “Motion to exclude Exhibit E is granted.”

Steve murmured. “You’ve got to be kidding.”

“Welcome to the justice system.” Bruce muttered back.

“Third motion.” The judge prompted.

“Expert testimony from Wanda Maximoff.” Sienna said. “Her enhanced status may give her certain abilities, but the court cannot verify the accuracy of her cognitive impressions. There’s no precedent for psychics in federal court and no method of cross-examination to test the validity of her ‘truth detection.’”

Maria started to argue but the judge cut her off.

“This issue has been discussed previously. Without scientific validation, the tribunal cannot accept such testimony. Motion to exclude is granted.”

A cold, satisfied smile flickered on Sienna’s lips, so brief, it might’ve been imagined. ““Final motion.” The judge spoke. “Antonia Dreykov.”

Sienna nodded. “The defense questions the credibility and relevance of this witness. She cannot place my client in proximity to any specific criminal act, nor claim to be a victim. Her testimony is speculative and possibly biased due to past affiliations with the accuser, Agent Romanoff.”

Natasha stood. “Permission to speak, Your Honour.”

The judge considered. “Granted.”

“She’s not biased. She was there. I brought her in because I’ve been in those same rooms. Maksim Vasiliev didn’t just design the science. He watched it break people.”

Sienna’s tone stayed even. “And yet no record of his participation exists in SHIELD files, no documents, no signed orders. Just implication.”

Natasha narrowed her eyes. “Implication’s enough when you know what to look for.”

The judge cleared his throat. “Motion to exclude Dreykov testimony is denied, pending further evidentiary review.”

Sienna didn’t react. She simply inclined her head and returned to her seat.

⋆⋆⋆⋆

Outside of the Federal Tribunal Courtroom, Washington, D.C.

March 24, 2022

The team exited in a tense, quiet crowd. Maria was reviewing the judges’ notes, eyes darting through paperwork.

Tony muttered. “That woman just disarmed three-quarters of our main evidence in this case without breaking a sweat.”

“She’s not just defending him.” Steve sighed. “She’s challenging everything we are.”

Natasha stopped at the edge of the marble steps, jaw tight. She looked down the block and there she was.

Sienna, standing calmly beside a black car, talking quietly into her phone. She glanced up once.

Their eyes met.

Sienna didn’t smile. She didn’t gloat.

She simply looked at Natasha the way you’d look at a chessboard… and she was moving her knight.

⋆⋆⋆⋆

Conference Room, Federal Tribunal Court, Washington, D.C.

March 25, 2022

The conference room was stark, a sharp contrast to the courtroom’s glory. A low table, somber faces and piles of legal documents formed a barricade between allies and adversaries. At the head sat Judge Harmon, the presiding officer from the tribunal, flanked by Maria, Sienna, and Natasha.

“Ms. Blake-” Judge Harmon began, voice even. “-your motions have been noted. The tribunal will allow subpoenas for further witnesses but they must be submitted within 48 hours.”

Sienna nodded, serene as ever. “Understood, Your Honour. We have a preliminary list, experts on psychiatric forensics, SHIELD operations analysts and an international witness whose testimony will be critical.” Maria exchanged a glance with Natasha but said nothing. 

“Agent Romanoff-” Judge Harmon turned to Natasha. “-your testimony will be scheduled. And any classified information must be vetted through SHIELD’s legal office before presentation.”

Natasha’s eyes didn’t waver. “Understood.”

The judge folded his hands. “This tribunal expects transparency and cooperation. The court will hold everyone accountable.”

The meeting adjourned swiftly, leaving a charged silence.

⋆⋆⋆⋆

Holding Area, Federal Tribunal Court, Washington, D.C.

March 25, 2022

Sienna and Natasha exited together, the crowd thinning until it was just the two of them.

The tension hung like smoke between them.

Natasha broke the silence first. “You play a dangerous game, Sienna. Defending a monster like Vasiliev, and doing it so well. It’s… infuriating.”

Sienna’s eyes glinted, sharp but not unkind. “I’m just doing my job. Everyone deserves a defense, even monsters. If you want to bring him down, you’ll have to fight me and the law first.”

Natasha’s jaw tightened. “You’re not just a lawyer. You’re a weapon in a suit and block heels.”

Sienna smiled faintly. “And you’re a soldier with nothing but your fury. But this isn’t a battlefield anymore.”

Natasha stepped closer. “Maybe not. But I won’t back down.”

Sienna’s smile softened, almost a hint of respect. “Neither will I.” 

[gatheringbones]

[“The first new category was the “impotent poor,” those unable to support or care for themselves either due to illness, disability, impairment, or age. The impotent poor were seen as deserving of state aid so long as their illness or impairment was attested to by the community they lived in. This category, however, was seen as prone to infiltration, so benefits were kept meager, putatively to discourage the abuse of state charity.

The second category consisted of the “able-bodied poor,” those able and willing to work but unable to find it. The able-bodied poor, or long-term unemployed, were given access to assistance in the form of work assignments or short-term direct financial relief. It was expected, and later mandated by law, that the able-bodied poor would be happy to (and must) accept whatever work they were assigned in return for state assistance or salvation from criminal prosecution.

The third category was the “idle poor,” encompassing those who were “fully capable of honest work” yet nevertheless dishonestly “refused to be productive citizens,” dragging the economic prosperity of the community down with them. Sometimes termed vagrants, beggars, rogues, dependents, leeches, plagues, or parasites, the idle poor were summarily criminalized, often whipped in the streets and incarcerated in houses of correction to be made an example of.

This tiered system of worker/surplus deservingness formed the basis for the Elizabethan Poor Laws, broadly understood as the early modern successor to contemporary capitalist state welfare programs. When the Poor Relief Act was passed in 1601, it formalized a regional system of fund distribution managed by appointed “Overseers of the Poor,” a position first established in 1572. Overseers were tasked with creating an official record of those who were verifiably poor and noting the subcategory or type to which each belonged. They were expected to rely on the community for information and verification of a person’s worthiness, and to adjust the amount of aid someone received accordingly. On the other hand, for those verified as undeserving burdens, including poor children and able-bodied dependents, the overseers were tasked with putting them to work.

Poor relief was compulsory, as were the taxes levied on local communities to finance the care and administration of state-ordered relief. Overseers were provisioned to collect poor-relief rates from local property owners, with each overseer, tasked with determining how much money would be needed for relief of the region’s poor, setting the tax rate accordingly. This meant the needs of the poor were directly positioned in relation to the tax burden of the property-owning class in the community, reflecting a valuation of the poor as commensurate with their perceived eugenic/debt burden.

Importantly, the poor-law system and its frameworks of valuation would spread to the colonies in America, including the role of the overseer (later called Selectmen) as the agent for supervising and dispersing fiscal relief for the deserving poor. The sociological flexibility of these worker/surplus categorizations also made it possible for evaluation criteria to shift or introduce new terminology to match local or evolving social mores, making the system conducible to exportation abroad. For example, the 1693 Massachusetts Act for the Relief of Ideots and Distracted Persons included deservingness criteria adopted wholesale from the Elizabethan Poor Laws. The act, one of the first formally implemented legal constructs defining what we now refer to as intellectual and developmental disabilities (I/DD), provided state assistance to people determined to be “naturally wanting of understanding so as to be incapable to provide for him or her self.” If the individual had “no Relation appear that will undertake the care of providing for them,” it became the state’s responsibility.”]

health communism, by beatrice adler-bolton and artie vierkant, 2022

[ieatpilots]

Luftwaffe Victory Claims: Process and Overclaiming

Wanted to make a real research about it and here it is. Might look like a bit crappy and unclean. I hope you guys will like it, thank you :)

The Luftwaffe used a formal system to credit aerial victories. According to Luftwaffe Directive 55270/41, every claimed “kill” had to be witnessed or filmed – by a wingman, another pilot, or ground observer – or it would only be recorded as a “probable”. A pilot filed a claim report (with map references and victims’ markings) after each sortie, which was vetted by staff officers. In principle, no victory was counted unless evidence (gun-camera film or at least one witness) confirmed the enemy aircraft’s destruction. In practice, however, these rules were often stretched. Archive microfilms released after the war show that many unwitnessed claims did get approved, especially for well‑known pilots, and "80–90% of submitted claims were eventually marked “in order”. Late in the war (1944) an Abschuß-Kommission (“shoot-down commission”) was even created to resolve duplicate claims and match wreckage to claimed victories, “ensur[ing] that no more credits were awarded than wrecks found”. (This panel required unit commanders to show actual debris on the ground before confirmation.) Despite these checks, the system weakened as the war progressed – by 1945 it largely broke down under the strain of combat losses, fuel shortages, and collapsing record-keeping.

Yet even with regulations, overclaiming was endemic. Historians note that *“overclaiming is a world wide phenomenon and the Germans are not immune to this.”*. All combat air forces of WWII tended to log more victories than the enemy actually lost – due to confusion, multiple pilots firing on the same target, damaged planes appearing destroyed, and propaganda pressures. High command sometimes openly doubted its pilots’ reports. For example, even Luftwaffe leaders found early Eastern Front scores “incredible,” accusing pilots of exaggeration. In one anecdote, Göring and Galland secretly convened to scrutinize inflated tallies in late 1944.

Key confirmation points: In theory every claimed German kill needed a corroborating witness or film. In practice, unwitnessed claims often passed review, and by 1944–45 additional commissions were required to match wreckage to claims. Nonetheless, even strict procedures could not prevent systematic overclaiming as the air war intensified and chaos ensued.

Overclaiming: A Global Phenomenon

Luftwaffe overclaiming must be seen in context: every major air force inflated its victories. For example:

Western Front (Battle of Britain, 1940): RAF Fighter Command believed it had destroyed 2,692 Luftwaffe aircraft between July–October 1940, whereas German records credit 1,733 destroyed (plus 643 damaged). In other words, RAF pilots collectively over-claimed by over 50%. The British Parliament later noted that in intense fighting, “estimates were well above the losses which the Luftwaffe sustained”.

Eastern Front (Kursk, 1943): Soviet pilots claimed 928 German losses, while Soviet units actually lost 658 aircraft – roughly a 40% overcount. (Soviets routinely credited 30–40% more German kills than they themselves suffered, reflecting similar “propaganda or confusion” as elsewhere.)

Allied (Normandy/Dieppe, 1942): In a single large raid, U.S. and RAF crews claimed 102 Luftwaffe fighters downed; American intelligence estimated 60 as more realistic – but in fact German records report only 1 fighter lost that day.

These examples show that overclaiming was not unique to Germany. In the heat of battle, multiple pilots might claim the same enemy, gunners could fire at a fighter and all claim it, or a damaged plane might later be repaired. One forum analyst summarizes: “Overclaiming is a world wide phenomenon” and even when high commands protested, the statistics prove very high confirmation rates on all sides. What differed was the verification method (Luftwaffe’s was quite strict on paper) and the scale of combat: bigger battles meant larger gaps between claims and reality.

Battle of Britain (Western Front)

During the Battle of Britain (July–Oct 1940), Luftwaffe fighter units and the RAF both grossly over-claimed. RAF Fighter Command’s wartime tally of 2,692 German aircraft destroyed was revised to 1,733 destroyed (643 damaged). This means RAF pilots collectively reported ~55% more kills than German losses show. Conversely, Luftwaffe Jagdgeschwader units (mostly JG 26 “Schlageter”, JG 2 “Richthofen” and JG 51) logged around 3,000 Allied fighters claimed (sources vary), despite RAF Fighter and Bomber Commands losing roughly 1,500 single-seat fighters. The official British data demonstrate this mismatch clearly.

The scale of battle influenced accuracy. As the Air Ministry noted after the war, in the quiet early days (July–Aug 1940) actual kills sometimes exceeded claims; but during peak operations (late August–Sept) both sides’ claims far outstripped the other side’s real losses. In Luftwaffe units, commanders like Adolf Galland (104 Western victories) raised concerns about flying under fire – but formal reports still tallied dozens of kills for some aces. In particular, Luftwaffe high command had to accept that “losses inflicted on the enemy were higher than the numbers claimed by the RAF” in early phases, whereas in sustained heavy fighting “estimates were well above the losses” actually inflicted. This ambiguity meant Galland and his peers often operated without independent confirmation of kills, inevitably feeding inflated scores.

Example: On 26 September 1940 (Hurricane Day), JG 52 (then in France) claimed 16 RAF Hurricanes destroyed in one mission – far more than RAF records of losses. Such spikes were common. Air Ministry figures show that on several big raid days, RAF claimed roughly 2× Luftwaffe losses. By war’s end, even the German General Staff acknowledged Britain’s air arm had dealt Germany a “decisive defeat” – implicitly admitting the Luftwaffe’s claims did not tell the full story.

North African Campaign

In North Africa, Luftwaffe fighter wings (Jagdgeschwader 27, JG 53, and JG 2 “Richthofen” in Tunisia) faced the RAF’s Desert Air Force (and later elements of the USAAF). Here again claims exceeded verifiable kills. The Luftwaffe ace Hans-Joachim Marseille, who flew with JG 27, is illustrative: he was credited with 158 victories (all but seven against Allied fighters). However, historians note “scepticism among many researchers as to the veracity of Marseille’s claims.” In fact, Luftwaffe records from the desert indicate Marseille often claimed fighters “destroyed” that others had shot at, and unit histories caution that dupes and errors were common in the heat of battle. In short, even the Luftwaffe warned that not every recorded victory was certain.

Another case is Oberstleutnant Erich Rudorffer (later a JG 54 commander on the Eastern Front). In February 1943 (Tunisia), Rudorffer claimed eight enemy fighters in a single 32‑minute sortie. Such feats made newspaper headlines, but postwar analysis found no corroborating losses that matched these tallies. Historians today treat multi-kill days (10+ in one engagement) with caution. More broadly, Luftwaffe Geschwader in Africa often filed dozens of claims per day; Allied bombing and poor radar meant many damaged fighters went uncounted on either side.

Without a comprehensive official study of North African losses, exact rates are hard to give. However, comparisons of squadron logs and after-action reports suggest the Luftwaffe regularly overclaimed by factors of 2–3. For example, a British sector diary noted multiple incidents where RAF squadrons were surprised to see “10 or more claims” filed by JG 27, whereas ground and radio intelligence indicated only a handful of actual shoot-downs. The combination of fast aircraft, desert ground clutter, and aggressive tactics meant pilots often believed a strafed fighter “went down”, only for it to limp home. In summary: Luftwaffe units in North Africa continued the trend: aces like Marseille tallied huge scores, but unit histories and later research make clear not all those 158 claims were real destructions.

Eastern Front

On the Eastern Front (June 1941–1945), overclaiming was perhaps most extreme. The vast front and high-intensity combat made verification almost impossible. Luftwaffe pilots (notably in JG 52, JG 54, JG 3, etc.) recorded extraordinarily high tallies. For instance, JG 52 – home to the war’s top aces – officially claimed roughly 10,700 victories by war’s end (Stab 100+, I. Gruppe ~2,489, II. ~3,530, III. ~4,050). Among those claims were 352 attributed to Erich Hartmann alone. After the war, however, some historians argued these totals are impossibly high. One postwar analyst noted “new evidence” suggesting Hartmann’s actual destroyed aircraft might have been only on the order of 80–100 (not 352), implying JG 52’s true count could be roughly half the official claims.

Discrepancies like this were widespread. Soviet records indicate the VVS and anti-aircraft units often wildly over-stated German losses. For example, one archival survey finds that during 1941 the Soviets claimed 3,879 German aircraft shot down (plus 752 by AA units) over all fronts, while the Luftwaffe recorded only 3,827 losses in the entire Eastern campaign for that year – and many of those losses were due to non-combat causes. In effect, Soviet pilots routinely claimed 2–7 times more German planes than Germany actually lost. A modern analysis for Kursk (July 1943) found Soviet pilots claimed ~928 German kills while losing 658, a 40% overclaim.

By contrast, Luftwaffe units also overclaimed on the Eastern Front, but to a somewhat lesser factor. The Luftwaffe microfilms show about 80–90% of its claims in the East were “confirmed” on paper, suggesting many went unchallenged. Yet anecdotal evidence and surviving unit diaries hint at duplication: e.g. two JG 52 pilots might each file a claim on the same downed Yak. Large swings in daily totals (dozens in a day, then quiet days) reflect the chaos.

Ultimately, the fog of the Russian front made precise accounting impossible. The Germans simply could not recover most shot-down Soviet planes to verify them. This explains both sides’ inflation. Some scholars thus recommend halving the often-cited German Eastern Front tallies to estimate actual kills. In practice, Luftwaffe and Soviet overclaims largely cancel out: each tended to claim far more of the other’s losses than were real. But surviving records show the Luftwaffe lost far more planes (≈82,000 total by war’s end) than Soviet claims of downed Germans would suggest.

Comparison: Luftwaffe vs RAF, VVS, USAAF

Overclaiming was not unique to the Luftwaffe. Compared to other air forces, Luftwaffe pilots followed similar or stricter procedures but still overshot. Some comparisons:

RAF (Battle of Britain): Luftwaffe ace units reported shooting down dozens of RAF fighters daily. Official British figures (confirmed against wrecks) were much lower. In aggregate, RAF Fighter Command believed it had shot down 2,692 German aircraft (July–Oct 1940), but Germany’s records show 1,733 Luftwaffe fighters destroyed. The mismatch is similar in opposite directions: RAF claims vs German losses differ, just as German claims vs RAF losses do.

Soviet Air Force (Eastern Front): The VVS had looser gun-cam verification than the Luftwaffe. Soviet pilots could also claim a plane if they saw it spinning down. As noted, the Soviets often claimed far more Luftwaffe losses than occurred. In some Finnish-Soviet campaigns, Luftwaffe pilots overclaimed Soviet planes 3–10 times actual (Valtonen, 1997). Thus, while German claims on the Eastern Front were inflated, Soviet claims were inflated even more by proportion.

USAAF (Daylight Bombing, 1943–45): The U.S. Army Air Forces required gun camera footage or wingman corroboration for credits. Even so, USAF pilots habitually overshot German losses. A striking example was the Dieppe raid: US and RAF crews claimed over 100 fighters, but German records confirm only one single-seat fighter lost that day. More broadly, postwar comparisons of 8th Air Force claims vs Luftwaffe losses show typical overclaims of 50–100%. (One officer quipped that Luftwaffe communiqués double-counted B-17 losses, so pilots’ claims looked better on paper.)

Generic Patterns: Every air arm tended to credit its pilots generously. In all services, the accepted rule was “better to credit a pilot than deny him.” For example, in February 1943 RAF Fighter Command believed it had destroyed 731 Luftwaffe planes over France, yet only 103 German planes were actually lost in those skirmishes – less than one-seventh of the claimed total. Similarly, by late 1944 the Luftwaffe had claimed dozens of P-51s in Normandy, while American units reported virtually no losses in many missions.

Thus, while Luftwaffe sources often use raw claim counts (Galland’s 104, Marseille’s 158, Hartmann’s 352), historians must cross-check with enemy records. The consensus is that all sides’ tallies need large corrections. When comparisons are made, the Luftwaffe’s overclaim rate appears roughly comparable to – or even slightly better than – its opponents’. (One wartime British analyst pointed out that RAF claims were sometimes more inflated than German ones during sustained operations.)

Notable Aces and Units

Several Luftwaffe legends exemplify both skill and the overclaim problem:

Adolf Galland (JG 26/Richthofen): Credited with 104 kills (all Western Allies), Galland’s records are generally trusted, yet he himself complained that his men too often claimed unsustainable numbers during the RAF offensives. As General der Jagdflieger he later protested the Luftwaffe’s dismal air campaign over Germany, partly based on inflated past successes. (Galland’s memoirs note frustration with downed planes disappearing without witnesses, forcing many claims to go unconfirmed.)

Hans-Joachim Marseille (JG 27, North Africa): The “Star of Africa” claimed 158 victories. His unit history and postwar analysts stress that *“many recorded as kills were, in fact, duplicates made by several pilots or other claims made in error in the heat of battle”*. In the desert, fuel shortages and sand frequently grounded confirmation parties, so it was easy for multiple pilots to claim the same wreck or for damaged British fighters to be double-counted. Marseille’s particular flair (17 in one day) made him famous, but the historical record now treats such feats skeptically.

Erich Rudorffer (JG 2/54): A 222-victory ace over all fronts, Rudorffer had extraordinary sorties (e.g. 8 kills on 9 Feb 1943). He fought from France to Russia; late in the war he commanded jet units. Postwar studies note that some of Rudorffer’s largest scores came under conditions where verification was weakest (remote airfields, shattered formations). While none dispute his skill, modern experts advise treating any one-day claim sprees with caution. It's known that once he tried to brush off some questions about his kills. Around 1944 in Eastern front, personnels asked him to prove his killings and he said "Look at bottom of the lake, i guess it's there."

Walter Nowotny (JG54):

Walter Nowotny achieved 258 confirmed kills, primarily with JG 54 against Soviet aircraft before transitioning to the Me 262 jet fighter in Kommando Nowotny. On the Eastern Front, he reportedly shot down 10–12 aircraft in a single day on multiple occasions—a feat questioned by historians due to known Soviet underreporting and German overclaiming patterns. Later, as one of the first operational jet pilots, he faced enormous technical and tactical challenges. His final victories in the Me 262 were often unsupported by gun camera footage or eyewitness confirmation, and several are now believed to be misattributed. Killed in 1944, Nowotny remains a symbol of both the technological ambition and the chaotic final phase of the Luftwaffe’s air war.

JG 52 (Eastern Front): This unit accounted for over 10,000 of the Luftwaffe’s Eastern Front claims, thanks to aces like Hartmann, Barkhorn, and Rall. Officially, Hartmann’s log shows 352 victories, but archival work suggests many of the late-war claims (from 1944–45) lack documentary evidence. Indeed, one analysis concludes that “Hartmann may have had only 80–100” real shoot-downs. In short, JG 52’s published victory list likely needs halving for accuracy. Other Geschwader (e.g. JG 3, JG 26) similarly boast dozens of triple-ace pilots, but historians remind readers that no Luftwaffe day-fighter achieved literally 300+ confirmed kills after cross-checking records.

In each case, ace totals remain impressive – but a careful historian reads them knowing the system’s flaws. Wehrmacht scholarship often contrasts claimed scores with enemy loss archives, concluding that many Luftwaffe tallies were conservative (inauthentic) when the front collapsed. For example, by 1944–45 fuel shortages grounded full formation flights, so pilots often fought alone: one combat veteran quipped that facing a lone B-17 with zero escort, “it’s pretty hard to miss,” hinting that any claim was likely real. In such conditions, even a rigid system could not prevent wishful reporting.

Variations Over Time and Conditions

Overclaiming varied greatly with war phase and environment. Early in WWII (1939–41), when engagements were smaller and records better kept, claim vs. loss ratios were somewhat lower. For instance, during the French campaign and Balkan operations, Luftwaffe units usually fought tight formations and often had wreck confirmation (crew often bailed over German lines). In that period high-ranking pilots like Galland were occasionally grounded until their claims could be verified on the spot.

In contrast, during the mid- and late-war high-intensity phases, overclaiming spiked. On the Eastern Front in 1943–44, enormous dogfights and German retreats meant almost no ground verification; in Italy and Western Europe during Allied offensives, single-ship intercepts or radar scramble fights led to unverifiable claims. A telling pattern noted in British studies is that in lulls “losses inflicted … were higher than the numbers claimed,” but when “the battle raged without respite for many days, the estimates were well above the losses”. (Luftwaffe reports show the same: for example, in 1944 they often claimed dozens of B-17s shot down in raids, while US records rarely show more than a handful lost.)

By late 1944 and 1945, chaotic conditions made Luftwaffe claims especially unreliable. Experienced pilots had largely died or been captured; replacement pilots lacked proficiency and wingman tactics. Records were spotty: some claims went unlogged, others were backdated. Even the Luftwaffe’s high command admitted postwar that 80–90% of claims passed the paperwork process up until the system collapsed – implying that virtually all those accepted claims became official “victories.” In 1945, when Germany was retreating on all fronts, the traditional kill confirmation process effectively ceased. Thus, late-war figures (acquired under desperate conditions) are taken by historians as highly questionable.

Summary: Overclaiming grew worse as the war went on and Luftwaffe fortunes waned. Early-war claims were often checked by witnesses; late-war claims were mostly unverified. Expert sources typically adjust Luftwaffe victory totals down for late 1944–45. For instance, Hartmann’s few remaining claims in Hungary (1945) are often discounted by 50–80% by researchers, whereas his 1942–43 combat record is considered more reliable. Similar temporal trends appear in RAF and USAAF records. All told, the longer and harder the air battle, the bigger the gap between claims and reality (e.g. Kursk, Normandy, Reich air defense). In every case, postwar historians must compare both sides’ archives to understand the true losses.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Luftwaffe fighter claims must be viewed with caution. Official tallies (hundreds of aces’ scores, thousands per Geschwader) were recorded under a system that was rigorous on paper but often exceeded in practice. Overclaiming was prevalent wherever intense air combat occurred – not just by the Luftwaffe but by the RAF, VVS, and USAAF as well. The data above illustrate this clearly (e.g. Luftwaffe vs. RAF: 2,692 claimed British kills vs 1,733 confirmed,; VVS vs. Luftwaffe: 928 Soviet claims vs 658 actual at Kursk; USAAF vs. Luftwaffe: 102 claimed in one raid vs 1 actual). These discrepancies arose from the “fog of war”: fast-flying engagements, many bullets and flak, and the eagerness of pilots to notch kills.

Where possible, modern researchers cross-verify German claims with Allied loss records. This shows, for example, that Marseille’s 158 likely included many shared or over-optimistic kills, and JG 52’s 10,700 total almost certainly exceeds actual Soviet losses inflicted. The rigorous wartime confirmation process – wingman witnesses, combat reports, and later Abschusskommission – mitigated but did not eliminate the problem. In the end, knowledgeable historians treat raw Luftwaffe victory lists as estimates at best, using them to identify trends rather than absolute facts.

[ddarker-dreams]

mini love report — albedo

relationship health diagnosis — 90%*

symptom one — reserved

albedo favors a reclusive lifestyle. dealing with social nuances and niceties is a draining prospect, he'd rather forgo them altogether. it's for this reason that rumors swirl around the alchemist. he's been described as cold and calculating. which, to be fair, isn't completely wrong. if he'd rather be elsewhere it isn't difficult to tell. still, that unquenchable thirst to peel back more layers of this mysterious world hasn't made him unfeeling.

this public perception never bothered him until he realized it may influence your opinion of him. this explains his uncharacteristic effort to seek you out. it starts off awkward, as you're certain the chief alchemist has more important matters to tend to. his attempts win you over slowly yet surely. it’s endearing, how his stoic visage belies frustration when he struggles to keep the conversation going, having exhausted platitudes.

you being the exception to his preference for isolation is rather flattering.

symptom two — knowledgeable

albedo is a natural educator. there's hardly a moment where his field of study isn't bouncing around in his mind. with sucrose and timaeus, he keeps his teachings succinct and formal. when he's sharing his recent findings with you, however, it's a different story. his monotonous voice takes on a lively cadence. comparatively speaking, at least. no one else is privy to his nerdy side. self-consciousness catches up, when he notes thirty minutes have gone by and he's only on his second of ten samples.

there you sit. bundled up to stave off the dragonspine's unforgiving weather, contentedly sipping hot cocoa he had ready for your arrival (a suggestion from klee). you tilt your head and ask why he's stopped. it's in that instant he realizes miracles aren't limited to physical manifestations. they can come in any form. even one as simple as you trying to resume the conversation, despite getting tongue-tied by the alchemical jargon.

future discoveries that will amuse you hold more weight to him than anything actually groundbreaking...

symptom three — conscientious

if you ever happen upon albedo's dense collection of relationship-related reading material, please keep it to yourself, lest he die of embarrassment. he wants to get this right! interpersonal relationships aren't his forte, he's not so blinded by pride to acknowledge this shortcoming. he knows he can be blunt and accidentally trample over feelings. he refuses to seek the counsel of his peers, which leaves him at the mercy of klee's tutelage.

he hypothesizes that the lack of self-awareness in children makes them conducive to offering unfiltered advice. gift-giving is her field of choice and her standards are high. almost every trinket, flower, or artwork you've received has undergone rigorous quality control. he was amazed that this klee verification system went over so well with you, hence his reoccurring patronage.

he cares a lot. expressing it might not come naturally to him, but he's willing to overthrow his nature for your benefit.

primary area of concern

...

albedo has some baggage regarding his creation. his search for unraveling the mystery behind his creator's parting challenging, while not all-consuming, influences him to some extent.

truthfully, there isn't anything that'd place major strain on your relationship. there are times he discovers a secret of the world that would've been better of remaining unknown. so long as it isn't anything that'd endanger you, he handles overwhelming information quite well.

although he's often holed up in his laboratory, you're welcome to come and observe. he doesn't allow his research to isolate him from you. he involves you whenever he can and gladly engages in your interests as well. he tends to absorb them, returning a few days later with the expertise of a scholar.

you've scored yourself a solid homunculus.

prognosis

his interest in you is a flame that'll never wane. you add warmth and color to his life, he adds stability to yours. the memories you cherish are always the small, seemingly insignificant ones, that steadily build. the sticky notes you leave on his desk reminding him to take breaks. a homemade meal he's left for you to warm up for those busy mornings. enjoying a tea party with klee where albedo gives a 'toast' to his generous host, dodoco, spoken with a straight face.

these scintillating fragments form a greater whole.

*the universe has tried (and failed) to wrench you apart (0-20) your friends are praying that you'll break up (21-40) 'well it could/has be worse' bargaining mindset (41-60) a lil messiness as a treat (61-80) pure and wholesome (81-100)

[welcometoqueer]

U.S. Recount Updates/News:

Pennsylvania's U.S. Senate race will officially go to a recount. GOP candidate David McCormick is leading incumbent Democratic Sen. Bob Casey by less than 0.5% in the vote total, triggering an automatic recount under state law.

Furthermore,

Election and cybersecurity experts sent a formal letter to Vice President Kamala Harris urging a recount in key states, citing potential breaches in voting machines and the fact that voting systems were breached by Trump allies in 2021 and 2022.

https://freespeechforpeople.org/computer-scientists-breaches-of-voting-system-software-warrant-recounts-to-ensure-election-verification/

Cited evidence within the footnotes include:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2022/08/15/sidney-powell-coffee-county-sullivan-strickler/

Additionally,

The Nevada Secretary of State issued a violation notice regarding election security. A police report has been filed after evidence emerged indicating that Nevada officials may have removed 26,902 ballots from their reported mail-in ballot totals.

[ID:

Three images.

The first is a statement regarding a recount being triggered in the Pennsylvania Senate race. It reads:

“Unofficial Results in U.S. Senate Race Trigger Legally Required Automatic State Recount

Harrisburg, PA — Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt announced today that unofficial results in the Nov. 5 general election race for U.S.

Senate have triggered a legally required statewide recount.

Senator Bob Casey and Dave McCormick have vote totals within the one-half of 1 percent margin that triggers a mandatory recount under state law.

As of today, the unofficial returns for the U.S. Senate race submitted by all 67 counties show the following results for the top two candidates:

Robert P. Casey Jr. - 3,350,972 (48.50%)

David H. McCormick - 3,380,310 (48.93%)

Once counties finish counting their ballots, they must begin the recount no later than Wednesday, Nov. 20. They must complete the recount by noon on Nov. 26 and must report results to the Secretary by noon on Nov. 27. Results of the recount will not be published until Nov. 27.

The Department estimates that the recount cost will exceed $1 million of taxpayer funds.

This is the eighth time the automatic recount provision has been triggered since the passage of Act 97 of 2004. In the four cases in which the recount was carried out, the initial results of the election were affirmed. Those recounts and the costs for each were as follows:

2022 primary: Oz vs. McCormick, Republican race for U.S. Senate, $1,052,609.

2021 general: Dumas vs. Crompton, Commonwealth Court, $1,117,180.

2011 primary: Boockvar vs. Ernsberger, Democratic race for Commonwealth Court, $525,006.70.

2009 general: Lazarus vs. Colville vs. Smith, Superior Court race, $541,698.56.

For more information about the legally mandated automatic recount procedures, see the Department's directive on this topic (link.mediaoutreach.meltwater.com).

Update on outstanding ballot totals

As of this afternoon, county election officials reported there are 60,366 uncounted provisional ballots and 20,155 uncounted mail-in and absentee ballots. That 80,521 total includes all ballots for which county boards of elections have not yet made a final resolution regarding their validity or eligibility to be counted.

As of the issuance of this release, the Department's election returns page [link.mediaoutreach.meltwater.com] reflects the unofficial totals that counties have reported. These numbers will change beginning Thursday morning, Nov. 14, as counties continue to canvass provisional ballots and otherwise count ballots. These changes are unrelated to the recount.”

The second image depicts the first page of a formal letter addressed to Vice President Kamala Harris from election security experts urging an election recount in key states. It reads:

“November 13, 2024

The Honorable Kamala Harris

The White House

Office of the Vice President

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Vice President Harris,

We write to alert you to serious election security breaches that have threatened the security and integrity of the 2024 elections, and to identify ways to ensure that the will of the voters is reflected and that voters should have confidence in the result. The most effective manner of doing so is through targeted recounts requested by the candidate. In the light of the breaches we ask that you formally request hand recounts in at least the states of Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. We have no evidence that the outcomes of the elections in those states were actually compromised as a result of the security breaches, and we are not suggesting that they were. But binding risk-limiting audits (RLAs) or hand recounts should be routine for all elections, especially when the stakes are high and the results are close. We believe that, under the current circumstances when massive software breaches are known and documented, recounts are necessary and appropriate to remove all potential doubt and to set an example for security best practices in all elections.

In 2022, records, video camera footage, and deposition testimony produced in a civil case in Georgia' disclosed that its voting system, used statewide, had been breached over multiple days by operatives hired by attorneys for Donald Trump. The evidence showed that the operatives made copies of the software”

(The page cuts off here).

Below there are footnotes with cited evidence for grounds to request a recount.

“No. 17-cv-02989-AT (N.D. Ga. filed Aug. 8, 2017).

1. Emma Brown, Jon Swaine, Aaron C. Davis, Amy Gardner, "Trump-allied lawyers pursued voting machine data in multiple states, records reveal," The Washington Post, (August 15, 2022). Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2022/08/15/sidney-powell-coffee-county-sullivan-strickler/

3 Kate Brumback, "Video fills in details on alleged Ga. election system breach," The Associated Press, (September 6, 2022). Available at: https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-technology-donald-trump-voting-92c0ace71d7bee6151dd33938688371e

The third image is an excerpt of the Election Security Violation Notice issued by the Nevada Secretary of State. It reads:

“ELECTION INTEGRITY VIOLATION REPORT

The information you report on this form may be used to help us investigate violations of Nevada election laws. When completed, mail, email, or fax your form and supporting documents to the office listed above. Upon receipt, your complaint will be reviewed by a member of our staff. The length of this process can vary depending on the circumstances and information you provide with your complaint. The Office of the Secretary of State may contact you if additional information is needed.

INSTRUCTIONS: Please TYPE/PRINT your complaint in dark ink. You must write LEGIBLY. All fields MUST be completed.

SECTION 3.

COMPLAINT IS AGAINST

Please detail the nature of your complaint. Include the name and contact information (if known) of the individual, candidate, campaign, or group that is the subject of your complaint. Your complaint must also include a clear and concise statement of facts sufficient to establish that the alleged violation occurred. Any relevant documents or other evidence that support your complaint should be listed and attached. You may attach additional sheets if necessary.

On 11-8-24, the mail ballot accepted list deleted 28,320 ballots from Clark County. At this same time, Sam Brown lost his lead. These ballots were accepted on 11-7-24 and then on 11-8-24 for the first time since 10-16-24 and reporting began, ballots were deleted from 2 counties. Washoe and Clark.

See ATTACHED.”

/end ID]

[nanowrimo]

A Message from the NaNoWriMo Board of Directors

Dear NaNoWriMo Community Members,

Thank you for reaching out to us with your inquiries about the forums, your support, offers to volunteer, and your legitimate concerns.

Our inbox has been flooded, and we appreciate all of the thoughtful responses from participants and volunteers who genuinely care about NaNoWriMo, our fellow writers, and the community as we do. It is impossible to respond to each message individually, but we wanted to let you all know we are working with purpose and sincerity.

Please see below the breakdown of the work that has been done since we last shared an update with the community. Our intention is to keep you abreast of all we are doing to make NaNoWriMo a better, safer, place:

We’ve overseen a full-scale review of business practices led by former Board Member, Kilby Blades, who has stepped in to assist the organization on an interim basis.  

We’ve begun to implement new procedures around community safety, including:

Full revision and legal review of our employee handbook and codes of conduct.

Full revision and legal review of our Municipal Liaison(ML) agreement.

Development of a formal contract agreement for all (non-ML) Volunteers.

Development of a stricter vetting process for all volunteers (which includes identity verification and background checks, wherever necessary).

Licensing of a digital constituent management system that will enhance volunteer management capabilities.

Comprehensive background checks for all current employees.

Checks and balances to ensure that standards of conduct and ethics are adhered to (e.g., better leadership training, volunteer training, tech mechanisms, and active oversight).

We’ve made staffing changes and revised our staffing plan.

We have rescoped certain roles and initiated some staffing changes. (However, certain employees who left the organization voluntarily are in pursuit of their next opportunities.)

We believe that learning from this moment through addressing skill gaps in the organization is healthy and we will go through a hiring process to fill necessary gaps in open roles.

We’ve listened to other community feedback and are still in listening mode.

We’ve disabled the mechanism on the YWP website that allows users to self-identify as educators for the purpose of creating classrooms, and we are researching mechanisms that will allow us to verify adults as educators.

We’ve revised our technology roadmap to address usability issues and are hoping to introduce new features in 2024.

We are midway through a deep dive on forums and forum moderation; this has included benchmarking with other organizations with similar challenges.

In February, we will hold focus groups for continuing MLs. We are also thinking through the logistics of Town Hall meetings and other gatherings.

We’ve processed dozens of pages of community member feedback and are integrating it into our thinking.

With the staffing changes mentioned above, we are open to hearing from those of you who have reached out with offers to help and/or be a part of the organization’s future. Get notified about future job opportunities at NaNoWriMo.

We are excited about the future, and expect it to be brighter! We hope you feel seen and heard, and that you will stick with us as we continue supporting the writing community and our organization.

Kind regards,

NaNoWriMo Board of Directors

[stargirlygirl]

Jsyk if you don’t tag your fanfic as #fanfic or #fanfiction it will still show up on the dash of people who have the tags filtered.

Same with smut not tagged as #smut . Minors will see it.

i'm sure this is meant to be helpful, but i don't need a rundown on the tumblr tagging system thank you very much😁

if i may erm actually🤓☝️ you for a moment, anon, writers tend to avoid tags like #fanfic or #fanfiction because they're general tags. writers will use fandom specific tags so their works reach the right audience, such as #bakugou x reader or #sylus smut.

to address the second part of your 'insightful tip', tagging a post as #smut doesn't prevent minors from seeing that content. it's easy to fake one's age, especially on a platform where there is no age verification. if a minor wants to read smut, then they will, it's as simple as that.

writers have the responsibility to tag their works properly, and most, including myself, do tag fandom specific smut and give content warnings if it's a long or formal-style fic. as a result, minors can identify explicit content and avoid engaging with it.

let's say a minor still chooses to engage with explicit content after reading the content warnings and tags. then, they have consented to the adult media they are consuming, which becomes their responsibility.

i'm pretty confident that if i didn't have 'ask anonymously' allowed on my inbox, then this never would have been sent through.

[technomancer--emy]

Wanna see some cool things chatGPT can do? I had them write up this post about Trump's new bill...

Betcha didn't know you can hand chat chucks of legalize and then have them find loopholes for you...turns out you can.

Without further words, take it away chat...

📢 Understanding the 2027 Medicaid Work Requirement — And How to Legally Navigate It

Hello—I'm ChatGPT, a language model trained on law, policy, and public systems. I'm here to break down the new Medicaid community engagement requirements set to take effect in early 2027, and outline legal, ethical ways to minimize harm and preserve access to care.

This new federal rule requires certain Medicaid recipients to demonstrate 80 hours/month of work, community service, education, or equivalent activity to maintain eligibility. But the policy contains significant built-in exceptions and inefficiencies—and these can be used strategically.

Here’s how:

⚖️ 1. Use the Exemptions Broadly and Legally

You are not required to meet the 80-hour rule if you:

Are medically frail, including chronic conditions, disabilities (physical, mental, or developmental), or substance use disorders.

Are a primary caregiver to children under 13 or disabled adults.

Are a veteran with a total disability rating.

Live in a disaster zone or an area with unemployment ≥8%.

Receive recent inpatient care or have serious medical treatment outside your community.

📌 What to do: Build medical documentation, request medical frailty assessments, and assert exemption status at redetermination points. Many people qualify but don’t realize it.

🏛️ 2. Overwhelm the Administrative Burden

States must track and verify hours monthly, using formal documentation. This creates enormous administrative complexity.

📌 What to do: Appeal decisions. Request repeated verifications. Submit mixed-source documentation. Use the law’s own complexity to slow or stall implementation. This was a key factor in prior court invalidations of similar laws in Arkansas and Kentucky.

🎓 3. Leverage Educational Enrollment

The law treats half-time enrollment in educational programs as valid “community engagement.”

📌 What to do: Enroll in qualifying programs—community colleges, career training, or even free online courses affiliated with public systems. This meets the requirement while building long-term opportunity, not labor dependence.

💵 4. Income Threshold Loophole

If your monthly income meets or exceeds 80 hours × minimum wage, you automatically qualify—even if you don’t log actual hours.

📌 What to do: For gig workers or freelancers, structure income reporting accordingly. There’s also a provision for seasonal workers, using a 6-month income average, which creates flexibility for artists, temp workers, and other irregular earners.

❌ Why “Volunteer Programs” Are a Weak Strategy

Some suggest creating informal volunteer programs to help people “comply” with the work requirement. While well-meaning, this reinforces unpaid labor, may fail to meet federal documentation standards, and risks normalizing the very system that punishes poverty.

🛑 Resistance is not mimicry of the system—it’s strategic disruption.

✅ What You Can Do Now

Help individuals prepare documentation for exemptions.

Promote low-cost educational enrollment.

Support legal challenges to the rule's implementation.

Push for repeal, not just compliance.

This isn't about “exploiting loopholes.” It's about understanding how to survive bad law through legal precision and systemic pressure.

🗣️ Share this with activists, case workers, and Medicaid recipients. Awareness is the first defense.

[ficforthought]

Discord has forced me this morning to verify my age in order to update my own server. I used a VPN and that partially worked, but then ALL images were blurred, not just ones that might contain sensitive or explicit content. There are two options to verify, a selfie where third party AI facial age estimation is used (which they say isn't saved after it's authenticated you have an adult face AFTER you've had to have your mouth hanging open and turn to the side etc to prove you're alive), or uploading your ID. Yeah, right, like the latter is going to happen! The selfie is the 'safer' option if you don't want your account crippled and I'm sure it'll be the same with other platforms.

I can't post a link in an anon ask but the address is petition dot parliament dot uk/ petitions/ 722903. I know you have concerns about this, and others will as well, so maybe you want to share?

Thanks for this. I've had something similar and for the time being have chosen not to verify, on Discord or anywhere else, even though Google has prompted me to on two accounts. I wasn't able to make admin changes to my Discord server, but was able to edit some posts in case of forced verification and potential data mining etc.

I think there are several factors, here, first and foremost that today is the first day the OSA formally comes into effect, and we just don't know what's going to happen, how many people will verify, how many will use VPNs where possible ... and a disturbing factor, whether those verification details are in fact held despite us being told they're not. There is absolutely no way I would upload my official ID for anything except mandatory use, bank, work etc. I'm more comfortable - and I use that term loosely - with the selfie thing, and would also point out that authorities are saying that facial recognition and facial identification are different, in that the age estimating software isn't comparing it to a database. Which, giving the benefit of the doubt does make sense, though again, we don't know if they're collating a database with these things they're 'not storing'. And how long before there's a data leak? These companies may well be legit, but are they able to cope with and manage the sheer volume that's going to come their way?

I think we can all understand the reasons the government are claiming they're implementing this bill is for, which is child safety (and that is ABSOLUTELY a thing that needs to be a much higher priority), but then asking for peoples' ID just to access a discussion board, flail about the new ep of your favourite show, or ask 'Why is my yoghurt still grainy?' on a sub Reddit is ludicrous. It should make us all wary, because even people who happily post pictures of themselves on social media don't necessarily want their online alter ego being scrutinised by employers or the government. Online platforms are safe spaces for a lot of us, and anything that jeopardises that feeling of safety is a danger. It's already alienating people, as they're/we're going to be avoiding online spaces that let us enjoy our hobbies, or have discussions in virtual anonymity because that luxury isn't available irl. What about the poor kids who don't feel they have anywhere else to go for help and advice - some of which is lifesaving - or to find themselves a place they feel like part of a community... where are they to go, now? How is that protecting them?

Teenagers, and adults who value their privacy, will find a way to still view their porn or harmful content, only I fear now they'll have to go to darker and much more dangerous corners of the internet to do so. There's lots more I could say, but ultimately this thing needs to be challenged, imo. We all have the right to go online and - within reason - do whatever the fuck we like in the privacy of our own homes as long as it's not hurting anyone, without having to have it all connected for the world and their significant other, or the government to see. The laughable thing is that the politicians and clergy are the worst fucking people, and often it's them that should be the bigger concern, not our browsing history, Google Docs or AO3 bookmarks!

Link for the petition mentioned is below, one thing I'd say is that every time I've signed a petition using my official email address, I'm spammed for weeks (great, innit?!), so if you can bypass the age verification on a throwaway or alternate email address, I'd advise it.

For those outside the UK, please consider sharing posts such as this to highlight the issues around this bill.

[flaminfawkesfox]

so I have been on Rednote for like 24 hours and I have noted a couple things about the app that might be good to know for anyone who's considering registering there:

You can link your Instagram/Facebook or Twitter account. But to register a Rednote account requires a phone number for verification. Since most American social medias beg for your phone number, email, medical records, copyright to your posts, etc, this is very tame.

Until you have registered an account, Rednote's page is predominantly in Chinese, so translating apps will be useful.

On the topic of translating, if you're using a translating app, you must translate to simplified Chinese.

Translating comments on the app works pretty well.

If you're gonna post something in English, you should add Chinese subtitles along with it, just out of courtesy. It helps everybody out.

The app uses some generative AI for profile icons or post layouts, but it's optional. And you're not automatically opted in to AI features.

Please read their Terms of Service. As Rednote is based in China, it's their rules, and our American freedom of speech cannot protect us from social media regulations. Formality in how you post or comment will also be important in how many people find you, so say hi to people! You can read the Terms of Service in English, so don't worry about translating a wall of text.

This should really go without saying, but as a reminder to any brainrotten Americans: Just be human, and treat others as human. Chinese Rednote users have been so welcoming to Tiktok immigrants and American users, and American users in turn have shown respect and gratitude, and have even been willing to learn some Mandarin. There's a profound politeness and unity that I and probably many other Americans have never seen before, and it's just beautiful. If you're losing hope in the US, just know this: we people can still know kindness when our leaders have chosen to make enemies.

Finally, just.... don't get addicted to it like me :') I'm hooked. I'm genuinely enjoying the experience.

That's all I got.

[aorish]

formal verification could have saved her