#if something crazy happens i might just make an executive decision to stop service until we’ve dealt with it tbh | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

emulation-0 · 1 year

Text

ok so ive been thinking, takako her entire life has been viewed by what she can do for others, how she can be of service, who she is as a person and her own identity never mattered because she was just a tool, she never had the autonomy to make her own decisions, whether they were rash or reckless or not. after incarnating is the first time she can do whatever the fuck she wants but still shes working to someone else's end goal and can't rest

yuki as a star plasma vessel up until the failed merger had been viewed for her utility. her identity also didn't matter since it would've ended up only as "i am tengen-sama, and tengen-sama is me." even after the failed merging the looks that she would get by those who knew her probably were still calculating her worth by how much she didnt do, considering her wasted potential. even outside of spv stuff, a special grade that"bums around" overseas, especially a woman, is not worth any concern

yuki and takako, having been on their own for quite some time, wouldn't consider loneliness as a struggle. i dont think they would desire understanding. being alone for a while might even be a privilege, after years of nothing but eyes on them, watching their every move from life until death (or at least until yuki refused the merger). but still something great is missing from their lives. yuki might deem it too abstract to search for it in the face of her work, and takako would be too focused on survival to care deeply about that hole

when yuki convinces takako to join her and they begin working together, takako cant stand her. she cant stand her cavalier attitude, the way she seems to disregard every danger coming their way, and the way she doesn't seem bothered at all to be working with takako. takako's conditioning from her previous life alerts her to all the flaws yuki is presenting her with, and she doesnt understand how someone like yuki can exist in this world. in the worlds she's lived in, it seems like such an impossibility. and especially after her experiences and what happened in the fight in the sendai colony, takako isn't feeling particularly trustful towards anybody, even if she and yuki have come to an agreement. it becomes exhausting watching after her own back around the other special-grade, but necessary, because any moment can reveal a dozen knives in the back when she's not looking

yuki herself isnt bothered with the blatant mistrust, as its to be expected from a sorcerer who had just been in the culling games. years of being brushed aside for her "crazy ideas" has numbed her to the doubtful looks, and even has her expecting it, to which she's made it fun dismantling the arguments people make against her research. as it is, yuki has put her focus entirely onto the matters ahead of her and ignores the abstract thing shes missing

as the two go about their business, yuki ends up learning more about takako and vice versa. takako also ends up learning more about herself, like the way she hates food thats drenched in sauce and that shes a fan of the color orange, and she will only wear pants if they are baggy and soft and cant feel them against her legs. yuki enjoys taking her around to experience more things while they're on their mission to stop kenjaku and cant help feeling fond of takako. they both learn things of each other that they haven't told anyone else; why does yuki hate tengen? what happened to takako before her execution? which other ancient sorcerers did takako know? when did yuki first hear the other vessels?

but as much progress as they have made in their alliance, old traumas aren't so easy to overcome. inside takako still feels a deep sense of wrongness, that one missed move and she will have to give up all her freedom, that she will have to kill the sorcerers or be chained up again. the jujutsu college isn't trustworthy, and continuing this alliance will only be another prison. on the other end yuki doesn't want takako to run away. she's found something like a kindred spirit in her, takes joy when takako feels joy, feels the mutual understanding that they don't outright desire but feels like a sense of belonging. but yuki is proud (and won't admit it, but too scared) to say these things out loud, that she doesnt want takako to leave, because admitting these things in such a life often does not do her any good

it comes to a head one day as theyre having dinner; its a particularly cold day and the feel of clothes has takako wanting to rip her skin off, so yuki has given takako her jacket for some warmth. their food is hot and both of them are tired after a heated disagreement earlier in the day about some executive decision. the two of them butt heads often, both of them stubborn and takako hot-headed, especially when yuki is being irritating on purpose, but today is just not the day. takako explodes after having been on her toes all day, demanding why yuki hasn't killed her yet after so many opportunities. like their first meeting, yuki asks "why would i do that?" to which takako has many answers but none of them really are answers, and yuki traces the rim of her cup of water with her finger and asks "is it hard to believe that i want to be here because i like who you are?"

but it is hard to believe. takako, who does not trust anyone as far as she can throw them, cannot imagine such a thing. these past few weeks with yuki she has been forming this identity of hers, something she has never had before; how can someone like her for who she is? when has someone ever liked her at all? her eyes widen and she gets flustered, and unwittingly her technique activates and her hair starts floating because ?????? what?? huh?? what?? HUH??

and though its difficult, though it screams inside her, takako sets aside the lenses of danger to see that yuki looks tired, so tired she has to be genuine. its not easy to trust someone, but after that night, takako tries to lower her hackles. and without viewing yuki primarily with apprehension, one foot out the door, takako starts seeing her in a new light. one that feels a little lighter and a little truer than what she felt was total vexation before. the part of her she didnt notice was missing feels more pieced together, a little more whole

and that night, having noticed the atmosphere changed, yuki became apprehensive, thinking that she'd offended takako once again somehow. but later, when takako allowed yuki's hand on her back to steer her away from the street, when takako grabbed yuki's arm and tugged her away to eat something, when takako began standing in a more personal distance to yuki, it was difficult to keep the smile off her face. so she didnt. and whenever takako looked in her direction and she smiled at her and takako quickly looked away, it only makes her smile harder. being alone is a privilege, but it feels so nice to have a companion, that you make each other laugh and you argue with and eat hot dinners in a cold winter with

one day yuki begins ranting about her research, explaining how she plans to go about erasing cursed energy, how so many of jujutsu society's problems have been upheld with tengen's continued existence, not really expecting a response. but takako listens attentively, and to yuki's surprise (especially from a sorcerer from the heian era) takako agrees. and she believes her. and "find a way to make it happen, then. if we both survive this, i'll even help you. i've never been a fan of old rotting sorcerers anyway."

to takako, someone she can trust. to yuki, to be trusted and believed in. both of the offer the things that they need. yuki's heart feels full and this abstract thing too abstract to search for feels like it's slotted a place into her life.

so anyway two women who had their identities stripped from them at one point in their lives, finding each other and offering each other the things they need. ITS SO PERFECT ITS SO PERFECT ITS SO PERFECT !!!! read my takayuki propaganda and suffer!!!

#im so insane about them the dynamic is crazy #sorry to be writing a whole fic or whatever in a post but like. its so perfect theyre the ultimate #anyway. takako's technique activates when she's flustered. shes very sensitive to textures. cant stand tight clothes #yuki loves her food drenched in sauce. loves the color blue but lately has been appreciating pink a lot more.#loves giving people (namely one person) her jacket to wear #they are my dearly beloveds <333 #takayuki #uroyuki #uro takako #yuki tsukumo #jjk #aricouldyounot

19 notes · View notes

itsfinancethings · 4 years

Link

(Miss this week’s The Leadership Brief? This interview below was delivered to the inbox of Leadership Brief subscribers on Sunday morning, May 31; to receive weekly emails of conversations with the world’s top CEO’s and business decision makers, click here.)

As CEO of Accenture, Julie Sweet is plugged into how the world’s CEOs are responding to the current moment. Accenture is one of the world’s largest consulting and professional services firms, and its clients include 91 of the Fortune Global 100. Sweet, 52, spends her days as something of a CEO whisperer, talking to chief executives around the world, both downloading and sharing key insights into how companies are adapting to the new reality. And much of what she is hearing (and advising) is surprising.

For one, she warns that companies planning to save money on office space by permanently having some portion of their employees to remote work may be making a big mistake. “Personal engagement remains essential for long-term success,” says Sweet. “Don’t fall in love with the savings on real estate.”

And despite anti-China national political rhetoric and Beijing’s tightening grip on Hong Kong, Sweet says there is a rush to invest in China and Asia, where the crisis hit earlier. “China is being very resilient,” says Sweet. (Accenture has 15,000 employees there and most are back to work.) “We have a lot of companies who are stopping investment here and trying to do more investment there. You see countries like South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan address the crisis much better. This could be a real boon to the Asia markets.”

Also, she worries about the economy and how much the stimulus spending is masking the extent of the pain. “There’s this thing that’s coming around the corner where unless you believe the economic recovery is going to be fast enough, the stimulus money is going to end before there’s been a recovery, and we cannot predict how that is then going to affect things.”

Sweet grew up in Orange County, Calif. As a student, Sweet was a star debater and went on to Columbia Law School and became one of the early female partners in a New York law firm’s corporate law department. She worked on deals and advising boards, until joining Accenture in 2010 as general counsel. Lawyers are trained to be learners, she says, and each quarter Sweet sets herself a learning goal. Please read on to find what she is teaching herself now.

Subscribe to The Leadership Brief by clicking here.

(This interview with Accenture CEO Julie Sweet has been condensed and edited for clarity).

You talk to a lot of CEOs. What is the one thing you are consistently hearing from them about the path forward?

It’s how do you outmaneuver uncertainty. Every CEO would tell you right now that what is driving them crazy is real uncertainty that we can’t control.

So that’s the hardest thing for you right now?

The uncertainty. I was just talking to a CEO this morning in Europe. Right now, people are lulled a little bit because of the stimulus. A lot of it really smoothed things both in Europe and in the U.S. because the unemployment has been very generous. He was like, “Look, Julie, soon this is going to end. And people are going to start being laid off.”

Pivoting comes up a lot now, with companies rightly proud of how quickly they have pivoted. Is there a danger in moving too quickly or is this an overdue correction?

On balance, this is good because there are many companies and industries where their survival long-term really required them to be moving faster than they were. So I think that’s great.

So fewer meetings and layers of approval will be one aspect of the new normal?

[CEOs] are saying ‘Wait a minute—my organization, when we were all together, they’d do five prep meetings before they came to talk to me. Now we’re not doing that anymore.’ So the organization is taking out layers and hierarchies. In a distributed workforce, it’s not as easy to say I’m going to have all these different meetings.

Any worries about the current speed of business?

Every CEO would tell you right now that what is driving them crazy is real uncertainty that we can’t control.Here’s my concern. We weren’t ready pre-crisis globally to address the re-skilling need that automation is going to bring. As a reaction to what’s happening, you’re going to have hyper-automation because you have to. If you have to bring your supply chain, your manufacturing, home because you’re now at risk, or for regulation, you’re going to do so in a way that’s highly automated. We are at 15 to 20% of what could be automated. We’re going to see the speed of that rapidly ramp up, and the worry I have is that we weren’t ready beforehand for re-skilling, and we now need to pivot. How are we going to bring government, companies, and not-for-profits together to address that, with equal speed? We’re not seeing that.

Reskilling is hard.

It’s really hard. And no one’s talking about that yet. We have to globally get real focused on this very fast.

Will the consulting model change? When will your teams start working for weeks on end in client offices again?

With density in offices going down, it’s very unclear how fast clients are going to want to be co-creating with their outside partners versus needing the space for their own people in a world where they can’t have as much density.

Will that be a lasting change?

I do think it will be permanently changed. In our mental model, we believe that for a prolonged period of time, what we’ve managed to do quite successfully, which is remote innovation and collaborating with our clients remotely, will continue, with the ability at times to get together. Our business is being changed because patterns of travel amount will be changed.

So remote work and a smaller real estate footprint is the future?

I say this to anyone who will listen, personal engagement face-to-face remains a critical part of success. And we should all be careful to not tilt too much: Don’t fall in love with the savings on real estate. While it was an incredible insight that you can innovate remotely, it is not a long-term answer. Personal engagement remains essential for long-term success.

So you are not ripping up your leases?

No, in fact, we went too far [cutting back on office space] in the ’90s in certain countries like the U.S., and over the last 5 years, we have steadily added to our real estate footprint in order to create innovation spaces with our clients.

Let’s talk about the new sexiest topic in business: supply chains. Do you think we took just-in-time, keeping inventories at low levels, too far? And how do you see that changing?

I don’t think we were wrong in just-in-time. What you now have is you’re going to have much more automation.

What changes are businesses going to make to ensure that they can get the parts and materials they need to make their products?

You basically are going to have four things happening. You’re going to have regulation that forces companies to bring certain things back. The second thing is you’re going to have a different relationship with the smaller suppliers, where you see more financing and more help with security because by definition, if you have to move to suppliers who are near your factories, and they’re not the scaled ones, they have security issues, they have financing issues. The third thing that’s going to happen is you are going to see an acceleration of what were kind of emerging technologies to address different ways of manufacturing, and change those supply chains. 3D printing is a different way of doing just-in-time, right? And the fourth thing that you’re going to see, I believe, is a revisiting of the trade alliances. Mexico became a very important place to manufacture. All the U.S. companies—it’s been there for years but they were using China. Now the conversation is, “We need to go to Mexico. Not move from China.”

What is your CEO network saying about the future of globalization and global trade? Is this a setback for globalization?

The pandemic just emphasized the critical interconnection of our economies, which no one believes is going to truly be unwound.

Subscribe to The Leadership Brief by clicking here.

Where does China fit in?

China is being very resilient. We have a lot of companies who are stopping investment here and trying to do more investment there. You see countries like South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan address the crisis much better.

This could be a real boon to the Asia markets and people having to pivot to growth and do more investment there. To take advantage of the consumer base there. And so a lot of CEOs—we’re having discussions on what might be some underlying competitiveness changes, and how do we make sure that Europe remains a viable market, right? That the U.S. stays on top of innovation.

You speak Mandarin. You’ve done a lot of business in China: What are you hearing from your sources on the ground there?

We have 15,000 people there. Our operations there are almost completely back to normal. That being said, there’s been a big shock to the system and China manufacturing is heavily dependent still on demand outside of China.

It’s certainly been resilient, and we are seeing demand to access that market.

How do you manage in this stressful, anxious environment?

Calmness is absolutely critical. At the end of the day, we can’t control a lot, and so I’m very direct: “Here’s where I need you to do this because it is within our control.” And then I respond to the other things as “You’ve got to be calm when you get the bad news that you can’t control because it doesn’t help to add more stress.”

Do you get discouraged at being the only woman in meetings? Are you in the room a lot where you’re the only woman in a meeting?

It very much depends on the country. It’s just vastly different in Japan versus the U.S. versus various countries in Europe. Right? So, in the U.S. I’m often not the only woman. The only time I get discouraged is if in fact no one’s talking about it.

How are you doing on gender balance at Accenture?

China is being very resilient. We have a lot of companies who are stopping investment here and trying to do more investment there.We set a goal for 50-50 (of the total work force) by 2025, and we’re on track. We set a goal for 25% of our managing directors to be women by 2025, which is industry leading, and we’re on track. And remember, we’re tech. This is not a walk in the park.

You were a champion debater as a student. Did you like arguing for or against a proposition?

I did like negative more than affirmative. It was more fun. When you’re doing the negative, you have to respond on your feet because the affirmative lays out the case and I just loved the challenge of having to quickly digest and respond. And it’s probably a bit of my DNA, and why I became a lawyer and why I’ve thrived in a world of so much change because I like that challenge.

Speaking of learning, I understand that you assign yourself a learning goal each quarter. What have you focused on previously and what is your current focus?

My first quarter was all about digital manufacturing. The second quarter was 5G, which is a very important technology that just got more important. And right now, I’m going deeper on Cloud because the crisis has so accelerated the journey to the Cloud. I’m learning about hybrid Cloud.

What was your life like growing up and what lessons from your parents do you still find yourself relying on today as you lead a big organization?

I grew up very modestly. My dad did not graduate from high school. My mom graduated from college my freshman year in college. My dad painted cars for a living. But they had an amazing optimism and belief that if you worked hard, you could do anything. And I think that sense of optimism, with a work ethic, has been a really big part of my life. I once coined the phrase, “fearless but prepared.” You don’t just take risks for risk-taking. I’d say that though as a leader today, one of the most important lessons was the one my father gave me when I left school to go to college. I grew up in a very different environment and my dad said, “Don’t be afraid you’re leaving us behind and you’re going to go experience these things. That’s what I want from you. But never forget where you came from.”

And the way I translate that today as a business leader is that we all have to go into these new places: We’ve got to digitize. It’s going to have tough effects on our workforce, on our communities. But we have to do that. But the equivalent of “don’t forget where you came from” is “you cannot forget our people.”

SWEET’S FAVORITES

BUSINESS BOOK: Colin Powell’s It Worked for Me: In Life and Leadership. It’s one of my favorite leadership books.

AUTHOR: Martin Gilbert.

APP: Waze. I am terrible at directions.

[newsletter-leadership]

#IFTTT #Blogger

0 notes

consultoriadeempresasclub · 6 years

Text

Hitting the “Business” Wall

Hitting the Business “Wall” There will be times when nothing you do will work. You cannot seem to make a difference in the business, at any level. Maybe sales have flat lined or inventory keeps piling up and getting more expensive or even your long-term employees seem to be fighting and arguing with each and even with the customers! Perhaps worse, some event in the public eye has created controversy or possibly a catastrophe that has you wondering if you should even be in business. To say it another way, your business has hit the proverbial wall. No matter how hard you pound against it nothing seems to break through the wall. You’re Not Alone You are certainly not alone. Every business on the planet Earth has had issues similar to what you are experiencing and some of them are far beyond what you are dealing with. Some companies overcome them and some don’t. Examples are all around us. Remember the Samsung Note 7 exploding cell phone disaster. Estimates are as high as five billion dollars in lost value not to mention degraded customer confidence. And even more recently, the reaction to the United Airlines violent removal of a passenger has hurt both their customers’ perception and their stock price. I am certain the police who came onboard the aircraft thought they were doing the right thing but events got completely out of hand and were captured on multiple cell phone videos. Now they have more serious issues. Today’s social media environment was able to transmit the incident at the speed of light, and it has rocketed around the world millions of times over as the company stumbled around with different responses. Social media sites lit up with charges of racism and promises to never again fly that airline again. Even Congress has vowed to investigate. The bottom line is this is a public relations disaster for United. Is It a Perception or Something Worse? Going back a few years we had the television host and author, Paula Deen, who had social media explode around her use, 30 years earlier, of a horrible slur. The trolls and haters labeled her with all sorts of evilness but it turned out to be nothing more than a perception. The haters wanted her to be something she wasn’t. Some in the public perceived her to be less than an honorable person. Essentially she lost it all, the stores that sold her cookware stopped selling them, her publisher, and her television shows, all of it, fell apart. But with some image consultants she just waited until the storm blew over and slowly started to build up her brand once again. She has made something of a comeback and is on television again, albeit in a more subdued manner. Ownership Issues Much more often than these crazy problems are the old fashioned problems like slow sales, negative social media reviews of your products or just not making decisions in a timely manner. For some owners, letting go is absolutely fraught with danger. Ask yourself, has your business grown to the point you can’t keep track of each tiny development? Are you feeling like you are losing control of your “baby”? Are you reluctant to hire a few more people or promote someone to help handle the business? Executive counseling can make all the difference in these cases. It isn’t a “business” problem so much as it is an “owner” problem. Talking with a professional consultant who can counsel you in how to grow the business and get past the small thinking will allow you, the owner, to see the future a little clearer. Of course your business may not be having these types of over the top issues, but every organization has situations that come up, time after time, that can cause the C.E.O. serious heartburn. If you are seeing problems starting to boil up, like an increasing rate of customer complaints (you are tracking them right?), sudden high employee turnover, or my personal favorite, the water cooler scuttlebutt that indicates things are not exactly going swell, consider bringing in a business consultant. They can usually get to the bottom of the situation(s) and offer one or more solutions. The Solution Be forewarned, the solutions may be ugly, or expensive, or simply unpalatable. The recommendations I’ve given have ranged from reducing headcount, removing one or two specific employees who are causing trouble, to dropping one obstinate customer. Often the answer isn’t so drastic, but rather simple. Perhaps some new processes have been recently instituted that need a tweak. Maybe your vacation schedules have left the customer service people constantly shorthanded. Until the underlying issues are discovered, you just don’t know the cause of the heartburn. Please don’t fall victim to the swan song of those that think there is an easy, quick fix to the problem at hand. Often the phrase “more training” is heard. But when the main issue hasn’t been identified, the nebulous concept of “training” won’t solve anything. More often than not, a deep dive into the business is required to fully identify the problem that you are trying to solve. But my favorite types of problems to solve are those involving good problems. How about a company that is bursting at the seams because of high order volume? Too much business, in a very short time, will draw out the flaws in your business model, your organization structure, your processes and so forth, and leave the customer wondering what happened. All of those can usually be solved with an outsider, such as a consultant, who doesn’t have the baggage of an employee or isn’t embroiled in the office politics. Get Help Quickly When nothing you do seems to have an effect on the problem, that’s the time to bring in outside help. A basic rule of business is, the longer you wait, the worse a problem becomes. It is always bad to wait until events get out of hand. What did you expect, that the problem would self correct? Yes, you should have resolved it sooner and it might have been less expensive had you recognized the problem quickly and applied your business acumen for a solution. But sometimes that’s just not possible, and, as we have seen in the news, events can very quickly spiral out of our control. Sometimes the problem was never in our control, as in the United Airlines event. Remember, the longer you wait, the worse the problem becomes. Every. Single. Time. He who hesitates is lost. Act quickly and with resolve. Use a consultant! —–

from WordPress https://ift.tt/2HUFpuD via IFTTT

#IFTTT #WordPress

0 notes

bobbynolanios88 · 6 years

Text

Venmo, Girl Scouts, Bitcoin: Unexpected Upsides

1 Share

Usually when we talk about unintended consequences here at PYMNTS, we are talking about something that has gone terribly wrong, or at least failed to perform as well as desired because of some unforeseen side effect. The goal might be noble – but pursuing a noble goal the wrong way can quickly have byproducts that make the cure worse than the disease.

Usually, an unforeseen consequence is a bad thing.

But not always.

From time to time, one comes along that is delightful.

For example, Karen Webster noted that attempts to rid the island of Borneo of malaria led to a series of terrible after-effects from messing with the local ecosystem by killing mosquitoes with DDT spray. That list included collapsing roofs, an explosion in the local rat population and a typhus outbreak.

But there was also at least one somewhat delightful outcome – and it turned out to be the solution to the cascading series of problems unleashed by the attempted malaria remedy. It was a solution that no one could have foreseen, summed up in two words:

Cat paratroopers.

And while there were no documented cases of skydiving felines in the payments and commerce news to our knowledge this week, there were a few almost equally delightful unexpected outcomes and bugs that turned out to be fabulous features.

Because, as it turns out, Venmo might just be able to help cure a broken heart (or make one worse), the big bitcoin price drop might have been a boon for cybersecurity, and Girl Scout cookies might just be the reason you see more healthy eating options advertised over the next few weeks.

Feeling confused about what connections there could possibly be? Don’t worry, it’s probably weirder than you think…

Living Well Is the Best Revenge (And Venmo Can Help You Prove It)

There are a lot of Venmo uses that devotees can rattle off if asked. Sending funds to friends, splitting up checks, paying rent, contributing to group gifts or spending in stores (particularly with their newly released line of cards) – over the last several years, Venmo has evolved from a simple P2P payments platform into a robust set of financial services tools for its users.

But Venmo, as it turns out, has an even more useful feature that, until now, has gone totally unadvertised: It can be used to make your ex miserable.

The magic that makes it happen is the social media part of the Venmo platform, which allows users to list a live feed of their transactions in an easily digestible, scrollable, emoji-filled form. And what one sees, noted Elle Huerta, CEO and founder of popular breakup app Mend, says it is “usually just enough information out of context to drive themselves crazy with.”

“It’s one thing to think about your ex moving on, but it’s quite another to see that they had $34 of delicious sushi last night with a name you don’t recognize,” she said. “And that’s why Venmo transactions can make your heart stop: Each one is a tiny glimpse into a world where your ex is continuing to walk the earth and live their life without you. That hurts.”

It’s an experience one Women’s Health writer had directly, when an ex-boyfriend arrived at her door a year after their split demanding that she make her Venmo feed more private, as it was causing him agony. Particularly, she noted, because everything he saw was out of context.

“He could see Venmo transactions showing how much I was enjoying my life – whether it was going out to brunch, or paying someone back via little red-wine emojis for happy hour,” she continued. “He could see that I went to a concert with my sister, as I sent a Venmo for ‘Best Coast’ with music notes, that I paid a friend for drinks the night before, and that I bought someone named Joe a breakfast sandwich (which he brought up during the aforementioned Venmo outburst). But he couldn’t see that I wasn’t dating Joe – that I was actually eating with him and 10 other people after our Saturday group run, and bought him a sandwich because he forgot his credit card.”

The writer, incidentally, did not acquiesce to her ex’s request, though the whole incident did make her reconsider how much of her spending life she wanted to make public.

Psychologists recommend that people who have been through recent break-ups treat Venmo like any other social media platform and stop following their exes on them, as digital stalking remains a terrible way to get over someone.

Bitcoin’s Price Busts, So Hackers Change Tactics

The last few months have been tough for bitcoin enthusiasts, who have watched the cryptocurrency bleed value for over a year at this point. The past week has looked a bit stronger, and some think that bitcoin’s price might get back above $4,000 within the next week. But considering that its price at this time last year was just shy of $10,000, the bigger story surrounding the world’s best-known cryptocurrency has been one about loss.

Which has been rough sledding for bitcoin investors, traders and miners, but might have ended up as a blessing in disguise for everyday internet users who were somewhat less likely to find themselves pegged by a ransomware attack over the last year.

Ransomware attacks, when launched against individuals or institutions, see cyber criminals gain access and control of a user’s computer, which they essentially hold hostage until a ransom is paid out in cryptocurrency. Sometimes, if the data being held is particularly sensitive, they will threaten to release it unless they are paid.

The good news, according to Symantec, is that ransomware attacks are down 20 percent year-on-year. The reason? The attacks are difficult and time-consuming to set up – and not worth the payouts, with bitcoin trading at increasingly low price points.

But lest anyone get too excited at their newfound security, there are two things to keep in mind. The first is that cybercriminals simply moved onto greener pastures, revenue wise, and have now adopted a new form of hacking called formjacking, which harvests credit card data directly from retail sites. They also persist in “cryptojacking,” an easy and accessible hack that allows cybercriminals to capture other people’s computers and task them with mining cryptocurrency.

So the fall of bitcoin’s price did have an unexpected upside – but only for as long as it took hackers to find a suitable replacement.

Raising a White Flag Over Q1 Cookie Sales

The season of the cookie is upon us: specifically, the Girl Scout cookie.

Though there is no official date range for the sale of cookies – that decision is left to local troop councils – the unofficial season runs between January and March each year, as millions of Girl Scouts start hustling boxes in workplaces, in front of grocery stores and walking door-to-door in suburban neighborhoods across the country.

And the 1.8 million Girl Scouts who are hitting the streets with their treats are insanely good at selling them. One anonymous San Diego scout sold more than 300 boxes of Girl Scout cookies in less than six hours. Of course, she had the good sense to set up shop outside a marijuana dispensary and pretty much let the cookies sell themselves for a few hours.

We eagerly await that girl’s future as the CEO of Amazon after Jeff Bezos retires to live on the moon full time.

“The traditional way of selling Girl Scout cookies is trying to go door to door, or utilizing friends and family networks,” marketing executive Kyle Boze told MarketWatch. “This girl used creativity to find a new market that hasn’t been tapped [as much] yet.”

And while not everyone has that level of marketing genius, Girl Scout cookies are big business in the U.S. – worth about $800 million in sales. That is more than Oreo and Chips Ahoy plus Milano, in case one is wondering. Among the 10 top-selling cookie varieties in America, five of them are Girl Scout cookies. And, again, they are generally only sold once a year for six to eight weeks.

But for those six to eight weeks, the Girl Scouts have managed to achieve near-unilateral surrender from the rest of the industry. No one wants to take on the little girls in the green sashes.

“The annual Girl Scout cookie sale is a force of nature at the national level,” said John Frank, a Mintel food analyst. “Big companies like Kraft know it’s coming, and they’ve learned to live with it. It’s like a storm and there’s nothing they can do but wait for it to pass, because there is no upside to marketing against the Girl Scouts.”

So what do big brands do, if they can’t counter-sell?

Some adhere to: “If you can’t beat them, join them.” Keebler, a rival cookie brand, is the owner and operator of Little Brownie Bakers, one of two licensed industrial bakeries that make Girl Scout Cookies.

Incidentally, Keebler also makes lookalike, taste-alike cookies under its own branding in the same factories where it makes the Girl Scout Cookies. The Keebler Grasshopper is made by the exact same people who make the Girl Scouts Thin Mint. You might think this would affect the sale of Girl Scout cookies, since you can literally buy the exact same cookie baked in the exact same place for half the price year-round.

It does not make the slightest difference. The similar cookies don’t have any effect on Girl Scout cookie sales, and the original cookies vastly outsell the identical copies.

“Girl Scout consumers love our cookies, but they purchase them because they are supporting girls,” noted Amanda Hamaker, manager of product sales for the Girl Scouts. “That’s not happening at the supermarket.”

Other large brands – Kraft, notably – just give up the cookie ground entirely during the early part of the calendar year, and instead focus on countering programs. That includes advertising more savory snacks – macaroni and cheese, particularly – and more public service-oriented ads reminding kids about the importance of healthy eating. (Because if kids aren’t eating their cookies anyway, they may as well remind parents that they really shouldn’t be eating so many cookies.)

It might not be the best reason, but they might make a valid point. But given their sales, it seems fair to assume that Girl Scout cookies likely won’t be where people will make their first big calorie cuts.

Still, it’s unexpected to see a seasonal jump in healthy food advertising in response to scouts selling cookies.

But it is one of the more pleasant unexpected surprises, of the sort more likely to make one chuckle than cringe with concern. And given that it is not normally the way things happen in payments and commerce – where things going unexpectedly awry can be the wrong kind of explosive more often than the right kind – it is always nice when the week or season coughs up a few that are more amusing that worrisome.

——————————–

Latest Insights:

Our data and analytics team has developed a number of creative methodologies and frameworks that measure and benchmark the innovation that’s reshaping the payments and commerce ecosystem. Check out the February 2019 PYMNTS Digital Fraud Tracker Report

Original Source https://ift.tt/2SXvhYC

#IFTTT #Cryptocurrency and Bitcoin

0 notes

adrianjenkins952wblr · 6 years

Text

Venmo, Girl Scouts, Bitcoin: Unexpected Upsides

1 Share

Usually, an unforeseen consequence is a bad thing.

But not always.

From time to time, one comes along that is delightful.

Cat paratroopers.

Feeling confused about what connections there could possibly be? Don’t worry, it’s probably weirder than you think…

Living Well Is the Best Revenge (And Venmo Can Help You Prove It)

But Venmo, as it turns out, has an even more useful feature that, until now, has gone totally unadvertised: It can be used to make your ex miserable.

The writer, incidentally, did not acquiesce to her ex’s request, though the whole incident did make her reconsider how much of her spending life she wanted to make public.

Bitcoin’s Price Busts, So Hackers Change Tactics

So the fall of bitcoin’s price did have an unexpected upside – but only for as long as it took hackers to find a suitable replacement.

Raising a White Flag Over Q1 Cookie Sales

The season of the cookie is upon us: specifically, the Girl Scout cookie.

We eagerly await that girl’s future as the CEO of Amazon after Jeff Bezos retires to live on the moon full time.

But for those six to eight weeks, the Girl Scouts have managed to achieve near-unilateral surrender from the rest of the industry. No one wants to take on the little girls in the green sashes.

So what do big brands do, if they can’t counter-sell?

It does not make the slightest difference. The similar cookies don’t have any effect on Girl Scout cookie sales, and the original cookies vastly outsell the identical copies.

Still, it’s unexpected to see a seasonal jump in healthy food advertising in response to scouts selling cookies.

——————————–

Latest Insights:

Original Source https://ift.tt/2SXvhYC

#IFTTT #Cryptocurrency and Bitcoin

0 notes

mccartneynathxzw83 · 6 years

Text

Venmo, Girl Scouts, Bitcoin: Unexpected Upsides

1 Share

Usually, an unforeseen consequence is a bad thing.

But not always.

From time to time, one comes along that is delightful.

Cat paratroopers.

Feeling confused about what connections there could possibly be? Don’t worry, it’s probably weirder than you think…

Living Well Is the Best Revenge (And Venmo Can Help You Prove It)

But Venmo, as it turns out, has an even more useful feature that, until now, has gone totally unadvertised: It can be used to make your ex miserable.

The writer, incidentally, did not acquiesce to her ex’s request, though the whole incident did make her reconsider how much of her spending life she wanted to make public.

Bitcoin’s Price Busts, So Hackers Change Tactics

So the fall of bitcoin’s price did have an unexpected upside – but only for as long as it took hackers to find a suitable replacement.

Raising a White Flag Over Q1 Cookie Sales

The season of the cookie is upon us: specifically, the Girl Scout cookie.

We eagerly await that girl’s future as the CEO of Amazon after Jeff Bezos retires to live on the moon full time.

But for those six to eight weeks, the Girl Scouts have managed to achieve near-unilateral surrender from the rest of the industry. No one wants to take on the little girls in the green sashes.

So what do big brands do, if they can’t counter-sell?

It does not make the slightest difference. The similar cookies don’t have any effect on Girl Scout cookie sales, and the original cookies vastly outsell the identical copies.

Still, it’s unexpected to see a seasonal jump in healthy food advertising in response to scouts selling cookies.

——————————–

Latest Insights:

Original Source https://ift.tt/2SXvhYC

0 notes

teiraymondmccoy78 · 6 years

Text

Venmo, Girl Scouts, Bitcoin: Unexpected Upsides

1 Share

Usually, an unforeseen consequence is a bad thing.

But not always.

From time to time, one comes along that is delightful.

Cat paratroopers.

Feeling confused about what connections there could possibly be? Don’t worry, it’s probably weirder than you think…

Living Well Is the Best Revenge (And Venmo Can Help You Prove It)

But Venmo, as it turns out, has an even more useful feature that, until now, has gone totally unadvertised: It can be used to make your ex miserable.

The writer, incidentally, did not acquiesce to her ex’s request, though the whole incident did make her reconsider how much of her spending life she wanted to make public.

Bitcoin’s Price Busts, So Hackers Change Tactics

So the fall of bitcoin’s price did have an unexpected upside – but only for as long as it took hackers to find a suitable replacement.

Raising a White Flag Over Q1 Cookie Sales

The season of the cookie is upon us: specifically, the Girl Scout cookie.

We eagerly await that girl’s future as the CEO of Amazon after Jeff Bezos retires to live on the moon full time.

But for those six to eight weeks, the Girl Scouts have managed to achieve near-unilateral surrender from the rest of the industry. No one wants to take on the little girls in the green sashes.

So what do big brands do, if they can’t counter-sell?

It does not make the slightest difference. The similar cookies don’t have any effect on Girl Scout cookie sales, and the original cookies vastly outsell the identical copies.

Still, it’s unexpected to see a seasonal jump in healthy food advertising in response to scouts selling cookies.

——————————–

Latest Insights:

Original Source https://ift.tt/2SXvhYC

0 notes

vanessawestwcrtr5 · 6 years

Text

Venmo, Girl Scouts, Bitcoin: Unexpected Upsides

1 Share

Usually, an unforeseen consequence is a bad thing.

But not always.

From time to time, one comes along that is delightful.

Cat paratroopers.

Feeling confused about what connections there could possibly be? Don’t worry, it’s probably weirder than you think…

Living Well Is the Best Revenge (And Venmo Can Help You Prove It)

But Venmo, as it turns out, has an even more useful feature that, until now, has gone totally unadvertised: It can be used to make your ex miserable.

The writer, incidentally, did not acquiesce to her ex’s request, though the whole incident did make her reconsider how much of her spending life she wanted to make public.

Bitcoin’s Price Busts, So Hackers Change Tactics

So the fall of bitcoin’s price did have an unexpected upside – but only for as long as it took hackers to find a suitable replacement.

Raising a White Flag Over Q1 Cookie Sales

The season of the cookie is upon us: specifically, the Girl Scout cookie.

We eagerly await that girl’s future as the CEO of Amazon after Jeff Bezos retires to live on the moon full time.

But for those six to eight weeks, the Girl Scouts have managed to achieve near-unilateral surrender from the rest of the industry. No one wants to take on the little girls in the green sashes.

So what do big brands do, if they can’t counter-sell?

It does not make the slightest difference. The similar cookies don’t have any effect on Girl Scout cookie sales, and the original cookies vastly outsell the identical copies.

Still, it’s unexpected to see a seasonal jump in healthy food advertising in response to scouts selling cookies.

——————————–

Latest Insights:

Original Source https://ift.tt/2SXvhYC

0 notes

courtneyvbrooks87 · 6 years

Text

Venmo, Girl Scouts, Bitcoin: Unexpected Upsides

1 Share

Usually, an unforeseen consequence is a bad thing.

But not always.

From time to time, one comes along that is delightful.

Cat paratroopers.

Feeling confused about what connections there could possibly be? Don’t worry, it’s probably weirder than you think…

Living Well Is the Best Revenge (And Venmo Can Help You Prove It)

But Venmo, as it turns out, has an even more useful feature that, until now, has gone totally unadvertised: It can be used to make your ex miserable.

The writer, incidentally, did not acquiesce to her ex’s request, though the whole incident did make her reconsider how much of her spending life she wanted to make public.

Bitcoin’s Price Busts, So Hackers Change Tactics

So the fall of bitcoin’s price did have an unexpected upside – but only for as long as it took hackers to find a suitable replacement.

Raising a White Flag Over Q1 Cookie Sales

The season of the cookie is upon us: specifically, the Girl Scout cookie.

We eagerly await that girl’s future as the CEO of Amazon after Jeff Bezos retires to live on the moon full time.

But for those six to eight weeks, the Girl Scouts have managed to achieve near-unilateral surrender from the rest of the industry. No one wants to take on the little girls in the green sashes.

So what do big brands do, if they can’t counter-sell?

It does not make the slightest difference. The similar cookies don’t have any effect on Girl Scout cookie sales, and the original cookies vastly outsell the identical copies.

Still, it’s unexpected to see a seasonal jump in healthy food advertising in response to scouts selling cookies.

——————————–

Latest Insights:

Original Source https://ift.tt/2SXvhYC

#IFTTT #Cryptocurrency and Bitcoin

0 notes

picardonhealth · 6 years

Text

Delay in testing for AIDS cost lives. High-risk donors not screened out

BAD BLOOD: A death sentence: Second of two parts

ROD MICKLEBURGH, The Globe and Mail Thursday, November 19, 1992 l

THE tale lives on in AIDS lore as the time Donald Francis got angry.

It was Jan. 3, 1983, several months after experts in the United States first realized that the fatal disease could be transmitted through blood transfusions.

The auditorium at the Centres for Disease Control in Atlanta was full: Just about everyone who was anyone in the blood-bank business was there.

As the meeting began, blood-industry representatives expressed widespread disbelief that anyone could get AIDS through a transfusion.

That's when Mr. Francis got angry.

Pounding the table, the mercurial co-ordinator of the AIDS laboratory at the CDC shouted: "How many people have to die? How many deaths do you need? Give us the threshold of death that you need in order to believe that this is happening, and we'll meet at that time and we can start doing something."

Shortly afterward, the industry took its first, halting steps - not without omissions and mistakes - to protect the country's blood supply from the spectre of AIDS.

Unfortunately, there was no catalyst like Donald Francis in Canada.

Confronted by a disease that seemed to come from Mars, that seemed impossible to comprehend, that threatened every assurance they had ever given the public, blood officials in Canada fell back far too long on denial. Over and over again, they declared there was no proof linking any AIDS cases to Canada's blood supply.

And when a blood test for the AIDS virus became available, and denial was no longer acceptable, Canadian officials dithered. It took an astonishing eight months - from March to November, 1985 - before Canada managed to follow the United States and implement its own nation-wide blood-screening program.

Each month of that delay was a death sentence for six or seven Canadians, stricken with the AIDS virus after receiving blood transfusions the Red Cross assured them were safe.

A recent report for Health and Welfare Canada found that at least 50 Canadians contracted the fatal virus from transfusions during the eight- month time gap.

In total, 261 people in Canada are known to have been infected through contaminated transfusions, but only two of those were infected after screening began. The figures do not include more than 700 hemophiliacs infected through contaminated blood concentrates.

"I don't think they (Canadian blood officials) wanted to believe how horrible it could be," said one participant in decision making who tried unsuccessfully to speed matters up.

"It undermined everything they stood for. I was looked on as a prophet of doom when I asked how many deaths were needed before they would take action.

"There was just flat denial. People were just very conservative. Looking back, some of those things they did were just crazy," the participant said.

In the first five years that AIDS was spreading, the response by Canadian blood officials, both from the Red Cross and from governments, was characterized by a failure to act decisively.

Rarely was there a sense of urgency. Efforts often bogged down in a bureaucratic swamp. Fiefdoms were protected. Officials worried that they would worry the public with their worries. Some gay activists lobbied effectively against blood-protection measures that singled out homosexual men.

The clear vision of hindsight shows that all these factors combined to produce tragic consequences.

"At the time, nobody saw AIDS as a pandemic," Red Cross spokeswoman Rita Cloghesy said in a recent interview. "In hindsight, you can now say people were dealing with the tip of the iceberg. But people thought screening was just a medical question, not a pandemic. There may not have been that sense of urgency. No one saw the red light."

The pattern was set the first time the suggestion was raised that someone could get AIDS from blood donated in Canada.

Artibano Milito, a young hemophiliac mill worker from northern British Columbia, died of AIDS on March 31, 1983. Red Cross officials rejected any suggestion that he could have become infected through blood products used to treat his hemophilia. There were whispers, never directly attributed to the Red Cross, that he must have been gay.

"That's why I was hired," recalls Vancouver lawyer Craig Paterson, who pressed for an inquest into Mr. Milito's death. "His family was Roman Catholic and they didn't appreciate those rumours. This was one of the first cases of transfusion AIDS to come to light."

Mr. Paterson said the Red Cross's denial of a link between the blood supply and Mr. Milito's death was total. "Everything was stoutly denied. They issued press releases saying there was no connection.

"They were totally, absolutely defensive and negative to any suggestion of a tainted blood supply. They took the view there was no proof," Mr. Paterson said.

Although Canadian Red Cross officials followed the lead of U.S. blood agencies in 1983 and publicly asked individuals associated with groups where high risk of AIDS infection had been noticed (sexually promiscuous homosexuals, intravenous drug abusers, Haitians) not to donate blood, many believe the campaign was half-hearted.

Gay men were not excluded from giving blood, just those who had multiple partners. A questionnaire to be filled out by prospective donors contained no specific question about AIDS symptoms, although eight other diseases were mentioned.

"It's a delicate issue," said Noel Buskard, who was Red Cross medical director in B.C. at the time. "We have a devoted donor population and we don't want to harm (it)."

Information brochures outlining donation guidelines were issued but not, apparently, widely distributed by the Red Cross.

Robert O'Neill, then executive director of the Ontario chapter of the Canadian Hemophilia Society, reported that he gave blood several times in Toronto during 1985.

The first time he saw nothing that suggested that high-risk donors should not give blood. On a second occasion, he happened to notice a brochure on a table in the rest area after he donated.

When Mr. O'Neill subsequently suggested to a Red Cross director that self-exclusion guidelines should be better publicized, the director said the campaign was deliberately kept low-key because of the fear that potential donors might think they could catch AIDS from giving blood.

Unlike the United States and many other countries, which pay donors for blood, Canada's blood-collection system continues to rely entirely on volunteer donations.

"The people in the Canadian Red Cross really worry about their donors. They're always worried about keeping them happy, not driving them away," one official said.

"That's very deep in the ethic of this group, and that kind of thinking drove them until well into 1987."

Kenneth Arenson, a Toronto lawyer handling a number of lawsuits on behalf of people who contracted the AIDS virus from blood transfusions or blood products, said he knows of one gay man who donated blood every three months for years until he stopped in 1984.

"By 1983, he had had sex with about 1,000 men, but he was never told then not to give blood. He didn't see it in any brochure," said Mr. Arenson.

"He's said that he felt he was giving the gift of life, and that if he'd read anywhere that homosexuals with multiple partners shouldn't donate blood he certainly would have deferred himself."

Mr. Arenson said he knows of 32 blood donations the man, who did carry the AIDS virus, made in Toronto before moving to Montreal.

NOT until May 9, 1985, did officials of the Canadian Red Cross acknowledge that its blood supply was contaminated with the AIDS virus.

The acknowledgment followed the AIDS deaths earlier that year of two B.C. patients who had received transfusions during operations.

"We have taken all the precautions that we could," John Derrick, adviser to the national director of blood transfusion services, told reporters. "It certainly appears that the inevitable has happened."

Other officials went on to stress, however, that Canada's blood supply was still safe. In reality, 1985 turned out to be heaviest year for AIDS infections from blood transfusions in Canada: At least 75 cases were reported.

The eight-month delay that year in implementing a program to test all donated blood for antibodies indicating the presence of the AIDS virus provokes the harshest criticisms of the decision makers.

"They couldn't make a decision. You see it over and over again," said Mr. Arenson. "Why were the Americans able to make a decision six or eight months earlier? It doesn't add up."

Unlike the circumstances in France, where public officials have been sentenced to jail for criminal negligence in distributing AIDS- contaminated blood, there was no deliberate policy in Canada to delay blood testing, or needlessly to expose transfusion patients to danger.

Rather, the story is one of a country without a national blood policy, with a cumbersome blood bureaucracy and with too many officials who failed to appreciate the urgency of the forceful steps that were necessary.

"My recollection is that people knew what had to be done, but it wasn't, like, 'You're killing somebody if you don't do something right away,' " said Stanley Read, an AIDS-virus specialist at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto.

Ever since the identification in 1984 of the human immunodeficiency virus, which causes AIDS, researchers had been working hard to devise a test that could be used to determine whether the virus was present in a person's blood.

On March 2, 1985, the U.S. Food and Drug Agency approved a test for public use. Right away, U.S. blood banks began routinely using it to screen all donated blood for the virus.

In Canada, reaction to the U.S. announcement was cautious, if not hostile.

In fairness to those confronted with decisions at the time, the number of people with AIDS in Canada was still small, and there was a very imperfect understanding of the connection between testing positive for the presence of HIV antibodies and development of full-blown AIDS. Many believed there was only a 5 to 10 per cent chance that an HIV-positive individual eventually would come down with AIDS. Now it is generally accepted that the presence of HIV inevitably leads to AIDS.

The day after the U.S. announcement, a spokesman for the AIDS Committee of Toronto, an advocacy and support group, said the test should be avoided because it would only foster fear and hysteria among those who test positive.

"People don't realize this test is not diagnostic. It's just not worth it in terms of the fear it will spread," the spokesman said.

Roger Perrault, national director of the Red Cross blood transfusion service, agreed. Dr. Perrault said the accuracy of the test was questionable and there were no confirmed cases of AIDS resulting from blood transfusions in Canada.

But someone was paying attention. Five days later, the federal government's national advisory committee on AIDS asked the Red Cross to prepare a plan to implement HIV-antibody testing of all blood donations.

It took until May 15 - more than two months - for the Red Cross to devise its screening program. The organization hoped to have it in effect by the end of the summer.

However, there were two worries.

The agency insisted that provinces have similar AIDS-testing facilities available for members of the public, so that people at high risk wouldn't use the Red Cross screening program as a way to determine their HIV status.

The agency also wanted money. Until there was a secure commitment from all 10 provinces to meet the estimated $5.5-million startup costs, there would be no Red Cross screening program.

That brought the proposal into the bureaucratic clutches of the Canadian Blood Committee, an oddly structured body that many blame for the delay in nation-wide screening.

The committee consisted of civil servants, one from each province and territory and one from the federal government, with a full-time executive director. It was established in 1982 - over the objections of the Red Cross - to represent the interests of all provincial health ministries in the direction and management of the Canadian blood system.

Most Red Cross operations were funded through the committee, with each province picking up a proportion of the Red Cross national budget. But the committee had no public-accountability mechanism because it was not established by legislation.

It discussed the Red Cross screening proposal and the extra money required at a meeting in St. John's in early June, but did not approve the program. Instead, committee representatives said they needed more time to consult with their health ministries.

The blood committee's executive director, Denise Leclerc-Chevalier, told the Red Cross to expect an answer by June 30.

Postponements of meetings and other procedural delays intervened, and it was not until Aug. 1, two months after the meeting in St. John's, that the committee assured the Red Cross it would get money for testing.

The last province to agree to its financial share was the country's biggest, Ontario, a province then consumed by political turmoil.

During the first six months of 1985, Ontario had four different health ministers (Conservatives Keith Norton, Philip Andrewes and Alan Pope, and Liberal Murray Elston), as the province went from a majority Conservative government to a minority Conservative government and then to a minority Liberal government.

"Ontario was in complete disarray," said one source who was involved in the issue at the time. "When people are going in and out of office, things tend not to get done. Whatever the specific cause, it (quick funding approval) didn't get done."

Veteran Ontario bureaucrat Eugene LeBlanc said: "Rapid turnover of ministers tends to make decision making more difficult. It tends to produce a hiatus."

Stephen Dreezer, the province's representative on the committee in 1985, rejects the allegation of turmoil. "Business was transacted more or less as usual," said Mr. Dreezer, now a private consultant. "Ministers may come and go, but the issues still carry on."

Mr. Elston said he has no detailed recollection of approving money for the Red Cross screening program. "A secure blood supply. I can remember it as an issue, but that's all. I don't recall anyone saying we were dragging our feet."

Mr. Dreezer defended the committee's go-slow approach. "You can do things in a week and screw it up," he said. "We had to decide what was best for Canada. There's a big danger in looking south of the border and totally accepting whatever they do down there.

"We were concerned about the accuracy of the testing, the number of false negatives. And do you tell people if their blood is infected," said Mr. Dreezer.

"Even if we did make the wrong decision, it's easy to look back and say everything would have been all right if we'd only done it this way. We don't know that for sure. It could have been worse."

A confidential report compiled by the Canadian Hemophilia Society for the federal government in 1988 called the Canadian blood industry an "administrative hodgepodge which was inefficient at a time when corrective and assertive action was clearly warranted.

"The overall impression left is that of a blood system administered by a hydra, none of whose heads are connected to the others," the report said.

Wayne Sullivan, Nova Scotia's representative on the committee in 1985, said the committee could make decisions as quickly as it wanted to, without outside interference.

Asked whether the committee did act as swiftly as the situation warranted, Dr. Sullivan responded: "I really can't comment on that."

After the Aug. 1 approval of the program and budget, the Red Cross spent the next few months training its staff for the new screening duties.

Although some blood centres were testing blood for HIV as early as September, the nation-wide program was not fully launched until Nov. 1.

Even at the time, Canada's slow response to the U.S. blood-testing program drew heavy fire.

A letter to the committee from the Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists called for a "high-level review" of the delay.

"It could be argued that this delay put all Canadians to a significant and higher risk of exposure to the AIDS virus, and threatened the voluntary donor system as serious public concerns were raised during this period as to the safety of the blood supply," the letter said.

The Ontario chapter of the Canadian Hemophilia Society and the Medical Post, a widely read weekly publication, also urged an inquiry.

A Medical Post editorial in August of 1985 noted that committee meetings were sometimes postponed and argued that the federal government could have stepped in to provide the Red Cross with interim financing while the provinces hemmed and hawed. The editorial also said the Red Cross should have put up "a stiffer fight" for quick funding.

Red Cross officials insist that there was no delay on their part, that they responded immediately to the U.S. announcement. But critics wonder why there was no plan prepared, ready to go, the moment testing was approved in the United States.

Gail Rock, who was director of Ottawa's blood centre in 1985, told a reporter in 1990 that Red Cross management ignored warnings from its medical directors about the risk of AIDS-contaminated blood.

"Until (they) finally began testing for the virus, there was tremendous effort to resist suggestions about the threat of AIDS in blood," said Dr. Rock, who is suing the Red Cross over her dismissal in 1988 after 14 years on the job.

"Management did not go to the government earlier with a request for funding because they were convinced and articulated constantly to all of us in the field that 'there is no proven evidence that it is transmitted by blood transfusion.' " Today, seven years later, there is widespread agreement that Canada's blood supply is as safe as any in the world. At least five cases of AIDS infection have been confirmed from the millions of transfusions provided since November, 1985.

Not only is blood laboratory-tested, but prospective donors are put through a far more rigorous screening process before being allowed to donate.

"As we have learned, there's been a progressive improvement in our procedures," said Roslyn Herst, medical director of the country's largest blood centre, located in Toronto.

The Canadian Blood Committee has been replaced by a much more streamlined organization with teeth, the Canadian Blood Agency. The agency, incorporated in 1991, can be sued and has the ability to enter into supply contracts.

All this means the organization can move quickly when it needs to, executive director William Dobson says.

"As a corporation, we've negotiated a line of credit with our bank. If I need to respond to an emergency, I can make a few phone calls, borrow the money and that'll be that."

Mr. Dobson said everyone has learned lessons from the mistakes of the mid-1980s. "We've learned that you can have an infection passed through the blood system. Everyone has to be alert to that.

"I've written out a directional plan for us that will give us a much more powerful presence than the previous system. We are taking a very active role in the system."

Meanwhile, scores of lawsuits have been filed alleging that Canadian blood officials were negligent in responding to the AIDS crisis, and claiming damages totalling more than $350-million.

No one is suggesting that there was criminal negligence or that a group of villains exist, but critics point out that many early suggestions to improve the security of Canadian blood were ignored.

Mr. Arenson, the Toronto lawyer, estimates that 75 per cent of Canada's 261 transfusion victims might have been saved if blood officials had "only done what people told them to do."

John Gill, a Calgary doctor who has worked closely with patients infected by HIV through transfusions, said: "This was certainly an avoidable tragedy. There were lots of bona fide experts about, who had great questions about everything that was suggested.

"It's not that they were crooks or anything. But they were wrong."

An official close to the decision-making process in 1985 said: "There's no smoking gun. Everyone had the best of intentions. But they didn't rise to the occasion. What we needed was a Winston Churchill. What we got was a lot of Neville Chamberlains."

#taintedblood

0 notes

flauntpage · 7 years

Text

A Win Is a Win: Ten Takeaways from Eagles 34, Giants 29

This post is brought to you with limited advertising and no surveys by TalentFleX Solutions. TalentFleX Solutions is a full service business consulting firm offering contingent, contract and project based professionals in the Information Technology, Data Analytics, Finance & Accounting and Human Resources fields. Our model provides for flexibility in hiring needs from project, to contract to permanent placement. Our consultants have extensive experience in attracting, screening, and placing the very best in technical talent for our clients. For more information, please visit http://ift.tt/2oPPjkL or email [email protected]. Follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter for updates.

People seem surprised that a divisional road game was way too close for comfort.

It’s almost like they forgot that the Giants were 0-2 when the Eagles need a 61-yard field goal to win the first matchup back in September.

That doesn’t excuse Sunday’s atrocious defensive performance, but we should all know better than to expect mid-December blowouts and we should probably just stay off of Twitter until the second half begins.

They came from behind to get the job done, just like last week. There’s a cornball saying about teams that find a way to win even when they don’t play well, and this squad fits the bill.

It was 20-7 Giants when LeGarrette Blount failed to convert a 4th and 1 and it looked like the Eagles were headed for a bitterly disappointing, dog shit loss. Then the defense came up with a key interception, the special teams unit blocked a punt, and the offense converted twice to make it a 21-20 game. What followed, then, was a back-and-forth second half where the Eagles simply made a few more plays than the Giants.

What now? It’s home against the Raiders, home against the Cowboys, home in the playoffs. If the Birds get it done on Jesus Christ’s birthday, they shouldn’t have to travel again until you know what game.

Buckle up and enjoy the ride. Stop being a whiner and celebrate your 12-2 football team.

1) Nick “The Franchise” Foles

24 for 28, 237 yards, four touchdowns, zero turnovers.

Yea, he misfired and double-clutched on a couple of looks, but that’s to be expected when starting your FIRST GAME OF THE YEAR ON THE ROAD AGAINST A DIVISION RIVAL WHILE BEING UNFAMILIAR WITH YOUR RECEIVERS.

They came out passing the ball to get him going early, which we all knew would happen. Any thoughts of going run heavy, which I doubt Pederson was going to do anyway, went right out the door when the Birds quickly found themselves playing from behind.

The offense really did not change at all with Foles in there.

They ran the run/pass option, sometimes effectively…

…and sometimes ineffectively:

The biggest positive, in my mind, is that Nick showed off a lot of the traits that make Carson Wentz effective. He shrugged off a defender with a head fake and step-through. He took hits in the pocket. He connected a few times while rolling right. He went through his progressions and picked out a variety of targets for scores, just like Carson. All four touchdowns were caught by a different player.

Sure, it’s only one game against a 2-11 team, but that performance should significantly assuage the concerns of fans who were ready to throw in the towel.

2) Giving credit where it’s actually due

I thought we might be in for a hell of a ride when Stefen Wisniewski was ruled out for this game, meaning that the Eagles were rolling out a backup quarterback playing behind a backup left tackle and backup left guard.

They went with Isaac Seumalo over Chance Warmack, which I think was the right call. Anybody who studied the film of Wis vs. Warmack earlier this year saw the limitations in the latter’s game.

Now, take a deep breath and ask yourself, how many times did you hear Seumalo’s name on the broadcast? How many times did you hear Big V’s name called?

The one that jumped out was this play, where Eagles’ Twitter was quick to pounce:

Big V looking like a NYC turnstile #FlyEaglesFly http://pic.twitter.com/Skj5Npn0fy

— Don Bell (@DonBellonCBS3) December 17, 2017

We’re always ready to jump on Vaitai when he does something wrong, as if the guy is gonna be perfect in every single game. He rightfully deserves criticism for that sequence.

But I didn’t see a lot of people giving him credit for this textbook block:

And I didn’t see a lot of people give him credit here either:

In fairness, they were probably focused on Jason Kelce pancaking a guy 20 yards from the line of scrimmage.

Yeah, Vaitai he got beat badly on the strip, but he was mostly sound otherwise, especially in the running game. And you have to consider that, when Jason Peters went out, they initially gave him help in the form of a tight end or RB to help on the left side. That’s been slowly drawn back every game since, to the point where he’s on his own for a lot of these plays.

The thing that annoys me is the bullshit cherry picking of negative plays because the guy is a backup. Then, when it comes to giving credit where it’s due, you don’t hear much at all, do you?

3) The screen game

Have we seen a lot of this in recent games? No, we really haven’t.

But Pederson used it effectively a few times in this game, with Kelce just putting on a clinic in the downfield blocking department, which you saw in the clip above.

This was another look, with acres of space and more linemen rumbling:

One of Wentz’s limitations, at least early in the year, was his touch on these types of plays. Foles wasn’t perfect on his screen deliveries yesterday, but he put the ball in the right spot and allowed his skill players to take it from there. They gashed the Giants a few times with well-timed and well-executed screens.

4) Adventures on special teams

The Birds’ special teams played a massive, monstrous, monumental role in the win.

About 85% of it was good and the other 15% was nerve-wracking:

blocked field goal

blocked punt

blocked extra point

2/2 on field goals

neutral zone infraction on a punt

double-clutch on a Donnie Jones punt

line drive Donnie J special on the final punt of the game

The neutral zone infraction was a killer, but special teams accounted for a four-point swing with the blocked FG and XP. The blocked punt led to a touchdown for the offense, so you could legitimately say the ST unit was responsible for a net of +11 points on the day.

When’s the last time a team ripped off a hat trick of blocks in one game?

Eagles PR, that’s your cue:

The @Eagles are the first @NFL team to block a punt, field goal and PAT in the same game since the Buffalo Bills on 11/24/91 at New England (blocked 2 FGs, 1 PAT and 1 punt). (@EliasSports)#FlyEaglesFly

— John Gonoude (@john_gonoude) December 17, 2017

5) The defense…

This requires its own 2,000 word video breakdown, and maybe we’ll do that Tuesday, or just say “fuck it” and move on.

The energy was lacking, the game-plan was kind of crappy, and the tackling was again subpar.

If you go back to the first Giants/Eagles game, you probably recall that the Eagles played soft and allowed easy underneath routes, since Chris Maragos and Rasul Douglas were forced into starts because of the absences of Ronald Darby, Corey Graham, and Rodney McLeod.

The game plan was to allow those short passes while not letting yourself get beat deep by Odell Beckham Jr. and Brandon Marshall.

In this game, you saw a lot of the same, with Eli Manning throwing early, the Giants running up-tempo offense, and the Eagles playing with a big cushion:

You see Mills and Darby playing almost 10-yards off there, with McLeod as a single-high safety and Malcolm Jenkins assigned to the tight end inside.

And because of that, they were getting killed underneath, or biting on those slant-and-go (sluggo) routes for huge gains:

Manning finished with 434 passing yards.

434!

He only has two 300+ yards this season and both are against the Eagles.

With the Giants banged up and missing a bunch of key players offensively, they should have pressed these scrubs into oblivion. Instead they played soft coverage and got burned all over the field.

There were some positives, however, and Brandon Graham had a huge tackle for loss to complement a Darby first-half interception. They got enough stops to win the game, but hardly inspired in a woeful defensive performance.

6) Ref, you suck?

I didn’t spy a ton of bogus crapola from this crew, but the Giants clearly got away with a pick play on the second touchdown. Not like it matters, since the Eagles’ tackling was shambolic after the catch.

The other one that jumped out at me was the Nigel Bradham/Shane Vereen dust-up, where Bradham got the ole’ retaliation flag. That stuff drives me crazy. If you see two guys engaging in handbags like that, just flag ’em both, let the penalties offset, and get on with life.

At the end of the game, I think the refs got the two holding calls on Darby correct, and on Manning’s final pass of the game, I don’t think it was a catchable ball anyway, was it? Either way, there really wasn’t a ton of contact.

7) Run me sideways

Without writing down the actual number, I felt like we saw more east/west runs in this game.

I hated the outside zone and shotgun sweep plays earlier in the year because the line wasn’t great at creating seams and Blount wasn’t great at getting through them. Darren Sproles, however, was another story. Corey Clement did okay on those looks and Wendell Smallwood was decent, too.

But I feel like they can feature that play again because Jay Ajayi does a much nicer job of staying low, finding the gap, and turning up the field:

If they insist on running those east/west designs, he’s the guy that should be handling the rock. Blount would have turned that play into a one-yard loss.

8) Doug’s worst call?

It was probably the decision to challenge the incomplete pass in the second quarter. That’s a low upside play and wasn’t exactly critical at that point in the game.

As far as play-calling, I didn’t like the fade on 3rd and 5 in the end zone. I might be alright with Wentz throwing that ball, but I’m not a fade guy in general, whether it’s football or hair cuts.

9) Doug’s best call?

They didn’t convert, but going for it on 4th and 1 in the second quarter still made sense. You were 12 for 12 at that point, now you’re 12 for 13. So instead of 100% conversion rate, you fall to 92.3% on the year. Big deal. Blount up the middle is fine there. They would have ran a sneak if Wentz was in the game and did try it with Foles a little bit later.

Blount gets stuffed on 4th-and-1, Eagles had been 12/12 on 4th-and-1 this season before that play. http://pic.twitter.com/40bSJYWX7a

— The Bitter Birds (@AdrianFedkiw) December 17, 2017

I also agreed with the decision to kick field goal in the fourth quarter to force the Giants to drive the length of the field for a touchdown. Take the points there. No need for a possibly killer momentum swing.

Overall, I think Doug did a nice job of establishing Foles’ passing ability early and put him in a position to be successful.

10) Alshon Jefferies and Wayne Gall

We got Thom Brennaman and Chris Speilman for this game.

I’m pretty sure I heard Brennamen say that Evan Engram went to college at Alabama. He did it once in the first quarter and once in the second, but Engram didn’t go there, he went to Ole Miss. He also referred to Wayne Gallman as “Gall” on one play:

“Swings it out of the backfield to Gall..”

Huh?

We also got an Alshon “Jefferies” from Speilman, which I think happens every other game.

Also, a lot of talk about Dean Blandino on Twitter. Obviously the guy is relatively new to TV and looks somewhat uncomfortable on camera, but I think the issue is that they shouldn’t be double-boxing him anyway. He needs to be looking at a monitor at the same time his shot is up, so I think the better way to do it is just place his audio over the live picture and let him talk while checking different replay angles. It’s goofy when the broadcast team is saying, “yea you can see here on the replay…” while Blandino is looking at the camera. He should be looking down at the same replay the booth has, so he can reference what they’re talking about.

A Win Is a Win: Ten Takeaways from Eagles 34, Giants 29 published first on http://ift.tt/2pLTmlv

0 notes