Lily Salter's Blog, page 203

A new hack serves as a reminder of Bitcoin’s structural flaws

(Credit: AP/Kin Cheung)

A virtual heist hit a Bitcoin exchange in Seoul — again.

Youbit, a South Korea cryptocurrency exchange, announced it was closing its doors after digital robbers stole an undisclosed number of bitcoins. The exchange was hacked for the first time in April, when an estimated 4,000 bitcoins were stolen. While bitcoin has dramatic, sometimes hourly fluctuations in value, at today’s going exchange rate of $15,000 USD per bitcoin, such a hack would equate to around $61 million lost; although in April, the same sum of bitcoin would be worth only around $4 million, as they were trading near $1,000 per bitcoin back then.

This more recent hack took a reported 17 percent of Youbit’s assets, according to a Reuters report. The precise amount was not specified. The Reuters report also noted that the Korea Internet & Security Agency (KISA) is investigating the cyberattack.

The previous hack of Youbit in April was reportedly linked to a hacker group in North Korea. Indeed, North Korea is suspected to be the culprit in this latest hack, though that remains unconfirmed.

This also marks the second time this week that North Korea has been blamed for a cyberattack.

The hack of Youbit comes at a moment of truth for cryptocurrencies. In the past month, bitcoin reached its highest value ever. That, and the announcement that both the Chicago Board of Exchange and the Chicago Mercantile Exchange would allow futures trading in Bitcoin, also gave the currency mainstream appeal.

Youbit isn’t the only cryptocurrency exchange to suffer a PR nightmare. CNBC reported yesterday that Coinbase, a U.S.-based exchange, was under scrutiny for alleged insider trading. On Dec. 19, the value of Bitcoin Cash — a currency which spun off of bitcoin — started to rise immediately prior to Coinbase’s announcement that it would be supporting it, a coincidence that raised suspicion. Brian Armstrong, Coinbase’s co-founder, wrote a Medium post detailing the company’s trading policy, and announced that an investigation had been launched.

“Given the price increase in the hours leading up the announcement, we will be conducting an investigation into this matter. If we find evidence of any employee or contractor violating our policies — directly or indirectly — I will not hesitate to terminate the employee immediately and take appropriate legal action,” he wrote.

While reports such as these might make one skeptical of the structural underpinnings of cryptocurrency, one expert says it might not be the cryptocurrency that is flawed — but rather the institutions exchanging and holding the cryptocurrency.

“It’s not the inherent security of bitcoin that was attacked, it was the security of the organizations that are keeping track,” Clifford Neuman, Director of USC’s Center for Computer Systems Security, told Salon.

Neuman explained that these exchanges are no different than banks, but they are subjected to fewer regulations, which could be linked to their unforgiving vulnerabilities.

“If the exchange holds funds on behalf of its customers, either in its own Bitcoin wallet, or in Bitcoin wallets that it manages on behalf of its customers, then a hack to the system managed by the exchange can allow the attacker to obtain private keys associated with the bitcoin accounts or otherwise cause transactions to be initiated,” he said.

Yet some argue that the lack of regulation surrounding bitcoin is precisely the source of its appeal. Economist Joseph Stiglitz argued recently that bitcoin is “successful only because of its potential for circumvention, lack of oversight.” Yet if the lack of regulation surrounding bitcoin is part of its appeal, it is also a drawback: hacks, insider trading, dramatic fluctuations, and a lack of a “bank” or somewhere to put one’s money have become the norm.

More worrisome is the process of tracking and penalizing the criminals who orchestrate these hacks. And given that cyber-thieves may be orchestrating hacks from across the planet, or working under the guise of state intelligence agencies, it is unclear if many are even in the grasp of law enforcement.

Here’s why the creator of #MeToo is promoting a new hashtag

Tarana Burke (Credit: AP/Paul Sancya)

Tarana Burke, the activist and founder of the #MeToo hashtag and campaign, and Alyssa Milano, the actor who helped amplify them after the revelations about Harvey Weinstein became public, have co-authored a piece published The Guardian Thursday that promoting a new phase of the movement and a new hashtag, #HerToo.

“For every woman and girl who has been empowered to say #MeToo – #YoTambien, #BalanceTonPorc – countless others are too afraid to break their silence,” the duo writes.

“They fear denial, shame, punishment, blame, further violence and retaliation against them or their families,” they add. “We pledge to build on the power and solidarity of #MeToo to embrace #HerToo . . . you are not alone.”

 

The article comes after a November 2017 report by Unicef called “A Familiar Face: Violence in the lives of children and adolescents,” which found that 15 million “adolescent girls aged 15 to 19 have experienced forced sex in their lifetime,” nine million of whom “were victimized within the past year.” Only 1 percent of those girls “reached out for professional help.”

It is with these statistics in mind that Burke and Milano are attempting to draw attention to the children and others who do not have the power or ability to share their #MeToo stories on their own terms.

They write:

#HerToo is about our deepest desire to ensure the dignity of every woman and girl is honored. It’s about our personal dedication to building a culture of respect where it is sorely lacking. It is about Unicef’s work – work we all must undertake – to end discrimination and violence against girls and women – and against all children suffering violence and harassment – worldwide, through education, protection and policy reform.

Tarana Burke founded #MeToo a campaign of “empowerment through empathy,” in 2007 to support “marginalized, poor, underrepresented” victims of sexual assault. Initially, the focus was on “women and girls of color who lacked support and resources.” It has since expanded far beyond that as a way for all social-media users to share their experiences of sexual abuse, some say to the detriment to its original aims of amplifying the voices of people of color who rarely get the attention they need and deserve.

To a certain extent, #HerToo can be seen as somewhat of a corrective there. According to its famous advocates, the hashtag exists draw attention back to underrepresented women and girls, be they Boko Haram sex slaves, silenced victims of domestic abuse or anyone who doesn’t have the tools or space advocate for themselves. Its focus is everyone affected by systemic sexual assault, not just those who have the access and privilege to speak out.

As Burke and Milano explain, “when all girls do better, we all do better.”

How should communities cope with the end of coal?

(Credit: AP)

The Mon Valley in western Pennsylvania was once at the center of an industrial revolution that put the United States on the map, but you might have trouble picking out some of its towns on that map now.

“These communities have been neglected by everybody,” says Veronica Coptis, the executive director of the Center for Coalfield Justice and a longtime resident of Greene County. She grew up among the emptied-out towns that first sprung up beside the steel factories and coal mines that once lined the Monongahela River for miles.

Now those steel plants are gone, and many of the mines have closed. The coal mines still in operation are largely mechanized, operated by an ever-dwindling number of non-unionized laborers. The Center for Coalfield Justice, based in Greene and Washington Counties, works to protect the rights of people living in mining towns, filing legal challenges and advocating for better policy from the state government.

The work does not make Coptis popular with all of her neighbors.

“My rule of thumb is that I will have any conversation with anyone, but I will not be yelled at,” Coptis tells me. She spends a lot of her time having hard conversations with coal miners who distrust environmental activists on principle, until they realize she is a local fighting for the future of her home.

“Almost all of our staff live in the community, and most of our board of directors and our volunteers” Coptis says. “Our organization is really rooted here.”

Coptis became an activist after the lake in her local Ryerson Station State Park — popular as a local boating and fishing retreat — was drained in 2005 to make way for coal mining. The recreation supported by the lake was one of the only economic activities not linked to mining in the area, and its disappearance left Greene County in even more precarious straits than before.

Coal generation makes up about a third of the United States’ power supply — a share that has been shrinking thanks to a boom in natural gas, among other factors. As the end of coal looks more and more inevitable, so does the need for “just transitions.” That is, the engineering of fair economic and environmental conditions for communities who have historically relied on fossil fuel extraction.

This is what Coptis’ work comes down to: an effort to build a better future for people whose lives have always been entwined with the fortunes of the coal industry.

Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity. You can read our cover story on Germany’s just transition here: Life After Coal.

Q.What are some of the misconceptions that people (like me!) tend to have about life in coal counties?

A. I think people believe the narrative that nobody in these communities wants something better. There’s been a lot of, “These rural towns don’t know any better, they’re too dumb to know any better.”

And I would say it’s not that they’re dumb or that they don’t know any better, it’s that these communities have been neglected by everybody, by the Democratic party and by the Republican party. They are just hoping for anything that could be better.

I do find it very ironic that the narrative from some coal workers today is, “This is our identity and our history and we’re doing our grandfathers justice.” Actually, most of their grandfathers were probably union miners and would be super pissed that they’re taking additional cuts and buying the industry propaganda. Historically, the workers were never about the boss. The job was important, the coal industry built our communities, but we never liked the company. The company was always the culprit.

Our community organizer, her grandfather was a coal miner. He made a good salary and he was very intentional that none of his children would ever be coal miners. People actually weren’t like, “Yeah, I want my kid to work in the coal mine.” It only happened generationally because these communities for generations have had no other options.

Q.And what about now, how is the presence of coal mining companies mostly felt these days?

A. The national narrative is “coal is dead.” To the community that I belong to, it’s still very central to our economy. We may hear, for example, there’s only 70,000 jobs in the coal industry, but those jobs are extremely important to people living in our communities. Even if you had one of only 20 jobs, if you’re the one person who loses that job, your entire household is uprooted.

The industry is the biggest culprit for the job loss. They mechanized mining, and that was the biggest loss of jobs over several decades. It wasn’t regulation. It was the increasing mechanization of extraction.

Q. Is there any resentment toward the coal mining companies for that?

A. The industry has done a good job of selling the story they need to sell. If they have someone in the president’s seat that they don’t see as an ally, then it’s the regulation and the president that are the problem. But if they have a friend in the office, like they do with Trump, then they have to quickly blame environmental groups for the loss of the jobs.

The mercury regulation and standards that power plants recently had to start complying with was passed under Bush. It’s not like the government passes a regulation and says now you have to follow it. They actually give you time as a business to plan.

Q.It sounds like there is a lot of misunderstanding about how coal companies respond to regulation. How do you talk to people about these issues as an organizer?

A. Where we do the best work — and this is where I recommend anyone who’s trying to do this should start — is just in a one-on-one conversation.

When we talk about economic issues about coal mining, we don’t talk a lot about regulation. The reality is that coal in Greene County is going to be mined out. Long-wall mining happens at such a quick rate that it’s only a matter of 20 to 30 years before the Pittsburgh coal seam that they’re mining doesn’t exist anymore.

So that gets us away from the argument about whether it’s regulation or mechanization killing jobs. If there’s no more coal left, then there’s no more mining. And that’s going to happen in my lifetime as a young adult in Greene County. We can see the writing on the wall, so why aren’t we planning? Why are we pretending like this isn’t going to happen when we’ve actually seen this happen in other communities?

Q. How do you open a conversation like that?

A. Mostly we ask folks a lot of questions. Do they work for the coal industry? Have they worked for the coal industry? We just try to understand where they’re at in all of it.

We want to hear from everybody. Whether or not you agree with our organization’s mission. We’re not just concerned about the ability of the people who support the Center for Coalfield Justice to have a future and raise families. We’re concerned about everybody’s ability to do that.

We had a coal miner call our office wondering why we cared so much about protecting one stream over their job. I talked with that individual about looking at the longer-term future of this community — it’s going to be dependent on having this stream as a recreational source. And I heard out his concerns, which were valid, about when he was going to go back to work and if he was going to be able to support his family. We agreed to disagree at the end of the conversation, but we were able to have a civil conversation as two people.

Q. It says something about us, doesn’t it, that having a civil conversation can feel like a radical act?

A. Yeah, it does. When we start our conversations, we’re going into it with the hope of starting to build a relationship. And the hope of starting to have people question what our so-called authorities are telling us — whoever we perceive as a trusted authority, if it’s your employer or if it’s your legislator.

Q. What does it mean when a big industry leaves a region? You hear a lot about companies making a sudden departure with no responsibility for what’s left behind.

A. We’re still learning about the bankruptcy process that coal companies tend to go through. In 2015, Alpha Natural Resources filed for bankruptcy. They were operating two mines in Greene County. One of the mines they closed completely and the other one is still operating. But while they were going through bankruptcy, for an entire year, everything got stalled — any disputes with community members to get their home fixed or their water replaced, any taxes they’re supposed to pay the school district.

The trend in history is: Coal companies go bankrupt, they shift all of their liabilities into one company, and that company goes bankrupt so they get out of all their environmental cleanup responsibility.

More importantly, they’re getting out of their retirement, healthcare, and pension responsibility, too. So then we have a whole retired community that no longer has an income or healthcare. And these aren’t people that retired from a job healthy; these are men and women who are sick because they worked a very dangerous and grueling job in the mines.

Q. How do you start to think about replacing mining in Greene County?

A. There’s a lot of focus on the job loss, but the bigger and harder issue to tackle will be taxes. About 40 percent of Greene County’s budget comes from coal property taxes. And when these companies go bankrupt or aren’t operating anymore, they aren’t paying those taxes. That doesn’t just impact the people working in the mine. That impacts every person living in the vicinity.

And the Trump administration is talking about gutting the very little government assistance we have. They’re talking about defunding the Appalachian Regional Commission, which actually supports economic projects on the ground. Trump says he wants to help coal miners, but really what they’re going to do is hurt coal miners and help coal companies.

Q. Can renewable energy businesses take the place of coal companies? Or is that too simplistic?

A. I think that renewable energy is going to play a role. But what got us in this situation of economic uncertainty is a single-force economy. Our economy’s gonna be shifting no matter what, so we need to make it as diverse as possible because that makes it as resilient as possible. Renewable energy should be a piece, but not the only piece.

Q. Are you hopeful about the future?

A. I do have a lot of hope that as communities we have the ability to hold these companies accountable. For years, the community I’m a part of has been told we should be grateful for the company, and we have no power without them. But that’s shifting. People are realizing that if they come together and organize and make demands, those demands can be met.

Chris Christie is quietly reveling in Robert Mueller’s scrutiny of Jared Kushner

(Credit: AP)

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie used an MSNBC appearance to cast suspicion on Jared Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and husband to Ivanka Trump.

Christie said Kushner “deserves scrutiny” by special counsel Robert Mueller because “he was involved in the transition and involved in meetings that call into question his role.”

The governor explained that, if Kushner is innocent, the investigation would clear him. But he added, “And if he’s not, that will come out too.”

“Whether he deserves it or not, he’s getting it,” Christie said of the increased scrutiny toward Kushner, “[T]he facts will determine that ultimately.”

Christie also stifled GOP talking points that insinuate Mueller is part of an anti-Trump conspiracy, saying, “[Mueller’s] an honest guy. I believe he will do an honest, fair investigation.”

Watch the clips below.

“(Jared Kushner) deserves the scrutiny .. He was involved in the transition and involved in meetings that call into question his role” – Chris Christie tells @NicolleDWallace on #DeadlineWH pic.twitter.com/2b9Lnqm5GL

— Deadline White House (@DeadlineWH) December 19, 2017

“Bob Mueller is a good man who I think will try to do the right thing by this investigation but that doesn’t mean he’s perfect” – Chris Christie tells @NicolleDWallace on #DeadlineWH pic.twitter.com/uJCFhCdJok — Deadline White House (@DeadlineWH) December 19, 2017

Why Americans will never agree on oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge

Arctic polar bear and cubs in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Credit: Getty/sarkophoto)

After decades of bitter struggle, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge seems on the verge of being opened to the oil industry. The consensus tax bill Republicans are trying to pass retains this measure, which was added to gain the key vote of Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

This bill, however, stands no chance of being the final word. ANWR has been called America’s Serengeti and the last petroleum frontier, terms I’ve seen used over more than a decade studying this area and the politics around it. But even these titles merely hint at the multifold conflict ANWR represents — spanning politics, economics, culture and philosophy.

Differing views from the start

Little of this debate, which stretches back decades, makes sense without some background. Let’s begin with wildlife, the core of why the refuge exists.

With 45 species of land and marine mammals and over 200 species of birds from six continents, ANWR is more biodiverse than almost any area in the Arctic. This is especially true of the coastal plain portion, or 1002 Area, the area now being opened up to exploration and drilling. This has the largest number of polar bear dens in Alaska and supports muskoxen, Arctic wolves, foxes, hares and dozens of fish species. It also serves as temporary home for millions of migrating waterfowl and the Porcupine Caribou herd which has its calving ground there.

All of which merely suggests the unique concentration of life in ANWR and the opportunity it offers to scientific study. One part of the debate is therefore over how drilling might impact this diversity.

Map of northern Alaska showing locations of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, including.

the 1002 Area, which is slated to be opened for oil and gas drilling, and the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska (NPRA).

U.S. Geological Survey

At the same time, debate over this area’s mineral resources has existed since even before Alaska’s founding. An effort by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to withdraw part of northeast Alaska from mining (later drilling) was eventually passed by the House in 1960 but then killed in the Senate, on the urging of both Alaska senators. It was resurrected by President Eisenhower through an executive order establishing a wildlife range (not refuge, which requires government protection and study).

ANWR thus began as a battleground over state versus federal control of resources. Change came with the oil crises of the 1970s. After much debate, Congress passed and President Carter signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act in 1980, increasing the size of the area to 19.4 million acres and changing it to a “refuge.” ANILCA also mandated an evaluation of wildlife, oil and natural gas resources, and impacts if drilling occurred.

Map shows the 1002 Area, which will be opened up to oil and gas exploration, along with existing drilling sites in the region.

US Geological Survey

Such evaluation was delivered to Congress in 1987, with three principal conclusions. First, the 1.5 million-acre 1002 Area, had “outstanding wilderness values.” Second, it also had large hydrocarbon resources, likely tens of billions of barrels. Third, oil development would bring widespread changes in habit, but adequate protection for wildlife was achievable and leasing should proceed.

Made public, these results ignited major opposition from environmental groups. However, low oil prices meant that no companies would be interested in drilling so no action toward leasing was taken. Over the next 20 years, Congress and the President traded blows over drilling, with Republicans passing or proposing legislation in favor and Democrats voting down or vetoing or the relevant bills.

Matters of wilderness

These struggles added support to a larger view: that wilderness is incompatible with any level of development. The stance is often referenced to the 1964 Wilderness Act, a venerable law protecting wildlands but one whose definition of “wilderness” is ambiguous: “an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character … [that] generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man’s work substantially unnoticeable.” The vagueness here allows for ANILCA’s position that drilling could happen so long as protection of wildlife and reclamation of land occurred.

Caribou grazing on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The area is more diverse than any area on the Arctic.

US Fish and Wildlife Service, CC BY

Today, however, no such allowance is accepted by pro-wilderness organizations and the FWS. “You can have the oil. Or you can have this pristine place. You can’t have both. No compromise,” as put by Robert Mrazek, ex-chair of the Alaska Wilderness League.

Saving ANWR has thus become an effort to save the very idea of wilderness, culturally and philosophically.

How much oil?

The most recent comprehensive assessment of oil and gas in the 1002 Area was by the U.S. Geological Survey in 1998. This work shows a mean estimate of 10.4 billion barrels of oil and 35 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, which at today’s prices ($57/bbl oil, $3/kcf) equals a total value of about $600 billion before drilling.

If well costs were $50 a barrel (low for onshore Arctic drilling today but possible with cost reductions spurred by 1002 development), the value after extraction would be $100 billion, from which a federal royalty of 12.5 percent must be subtracted, yielding $87.5 billion — a significant sum. Obviously if well costs are higher, this figure would be lower. Note that Alaska gets 90 percent of that federal royalty and pays a yearly dividend to every state resident — one reason many Alaskans favor drilling and reject the uncompromising wilderness position.

ConocoPhillips in October 2015 became the first to drill for oil in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, which is adjacent to the area that Congress intends to open up for more drilling.

AP Photo/Mark Thiessen

When considering how oil and gas is available, the USGS estimates should be considered low, even minimal. This is because they were made well before the current era of shale oil and gas and tight oil and gas development. New discoveries and use of fracking to the west of ANWR suggest there is more accessible petroleum. How much more? It’s impossible to say, given the many uncertainties.

Though only one well has ever been drilled in the 1002 Area, dozens have been sited in surrounding onshore and offshore areas. These have resulted in a number of limited discoveries and one substantial field, Point Thomson, which is estimated to have recoverable reserves of up to 6 trillion cubic feet of gas and 850 million barrels of oil plus condensate. It began producing in 2016, yet its reservoir is geologically complex, challenging and insufficiently understood, causing difficulties and raising costs.

But Point Thomson’s larger significance could stem from its location: Close to the northwestern margin of 1002, it has brought a pipeline connection to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline right to ANWR’s doorstep.

But will they come?

Given the substantial possible reserves and at least some pipeline access, how interested might energy companies actually be in ANWR? The answer for now seems to be: not very. This comes from my own discussions with industry personnel and from the results of a recent lease sale in NPR-A, the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska to the west of ANWR: Out of 900 tracts offered, only seven received bids (0.008 percent). A December 7, 2017 lease sale on state lands did only somewhat better (0.04 percent), with a single company bidding on tracts near the 1002 Area, adjacent to the Point Thomson field, and in the immediate area of two small, undeveloped discoveries (Sourdough and Yukon Gold) made by BP in 1994.

If this be any indication, another multiyear period of high oil prices — in a range, say, over $80 per barrel — needs to arrive before 1002 looks attractive. Leasing and drilling in an area with extreme weather, little detailed data on the subsurface geology, no discoveries or production, and no existing infrastructure is considered high risk, all the more so in an uncertain price environment like today’s.

My own guess is that the estimated $1.1 billion revenue from an ANWR leasing program has roughly the same probability of coming true as the discovery that climate change is indeed a Chinese hoax. Similarly, we should probably view with a dash of skepticism Sen. Murkowski’s statements that opening ANWR will “create thousands of good jobs … keep energy affordable for families and businesses … reduce the federal deficit, and strengthen our national security” by reducing foreign oil. Regardless of what claims are being made now, one can say the measure would undoubtedly deliver on a long-standing promise to Alaskan voters.

Meanwhile, from an environmental perspective, climate change continues to alter and damage the Arctic, even if no development happens. As such, it is hard not to hope that we will never need the oil that lies beneath the refuge.

In the end, whichever way we turn, no stable compromise exists in this conflict. Opening the area to leasing now will not prevent a closing or ban later on. Even native voices are divided on the issue: The Inupiat who live in Kaktovik, who depend on sea life for sustenance, would welcome the work that drilling could bring, while the Gwich’in to the south, who rely on the caribou, see development as jeopardizing their culture.

Legal challenges to any level of leasing are certain, including those intended to slow the process until drilling opponents will win later elections, if they can.

The one truth all can agree on is that ANWR has never been a “refuge” in the landscape of American society.

Scott L. Montgomery, Lecturer, Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

This grammar app automatically polishes your writing like a professional editor

Sure, some apps have a spell-check — but what if you could ensure that your writing is mistake-free across the board, whether you’re sending out a tweet, posting a comment on LinkedIn or composing an email? With Grammarly Premium, you can catch every error on every app — and essentially anywhere else you write on the web.

Grammarly not only corrects hundreds of common grammar, punctuation and spelling mistakes, it also catches contextual errors — you know, those annoying accept/except, their/they’re/there fumbles you can make when you’re in a rush. This handy app also improves your vocabulary and suggests stylistic improvements automatically.

It not only helps you improve your writing without any extra input on your end, you can even turn on genre-specific writing style checks. And in the name of learning, Grammarly gives you explanations for all your mistakes and a weekly progress report — so you actually become a better writer over time.

Worried about accidentally copping too much content? There’s a plagiarism-checking feature that scans more than eight billion web pages, helping keep you on the ball. Usually, a 1-year subscription to Grammarly Premium is $139.95, but you can get it now for $69.99, or 50% off.

This high-speed cable can charge every device

The last thing you need to worry about when you’re in a rush is whether you have the right cables you need to keep your devices charged for a full day — and with this Triton 3-in-1 Cable, you’ll be ready for everything from holiday travel to the next business quarter.

Unlike other cables, this one is made to last: it’s manufactured with high strength braiding so it won’t fray and tear, and features USB to Lightning, USB Type-C, and micro USB connections. That kills not just two, but three birds with one stone — helping you cut back on tangled cords and clutter.

Plus, the high speed charging powers devices at up to 50% faster — meaning you not only can stay organized while finding what you need faster than ever, you can get a full battery faster than ever.

Get rid of all your typical charging annoyances: usually, this Triton 3-in-1 Cable is $29.99, but you can get it now for $9.99, or 66% off the usual price.

Digitize your vinyl library with the Conversion Turntable

Any serious music lover knows there are valuable audio assets out there available on vinyl only. And despite the special feel of a classic record, it’s not always pragmatic to have an extensive collection — which is why this Conversion Turntable with Stereo Speakers is so amazing.

This turntable makes it possible to have the best of both worlds. Not only does it play your favorite records, you can even use the built-in 1/8″ auxiliary input to play your old school cassettes — and all you need to do is connect your computer with the USB cable and let the exclusive software guide you through the steps to convert your music to digital files.

Even if your collection is massive, you can sit back, enjoy and digitize your entire library — plus, the software automatically separates tracks into individual files for easy organization. And if you’re in the mood to just listen, the turntable connects directly to your home stereo system using standard RCA outputs.

It is possible to get the best of both worlds: usually, this Conversion Turntable with Stereo Speakers is $99.99, but you can get it now for $65.99.

This visionary sci-fi author sees the destruction of human civilization: predatory capitalism

(Credit: Warner Brothers)

The political theorist Frederic Jameson once observed that “it has become easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.” But what if predatory capitalism finally destroys life on earth? That’s the question posed by science fiction writer Ted Chiang, who argues that in “superintelligent AI,” Silicon Valley capitalists have “unconsciously created a devil in their own image, a boogeyman whose excesses are precisely their own.”

In a new essay for Buzzfeed, part of a series about the forces shaping our lives in 2017, the acclaimed author of “Arrival” (Stories of Your Life and Others) deconstructs our fear of artificial intelligence; specifically, that of tech titans like Tesla founder Elon Musk. For Musk, the real threat is not a malevolent computer program rising up against its creator like Skynet in the Terminator films as much as AI destroying humanity by accident. In a recent interview with Vanity Fair, Musk imagines a mechanized strawberry picker wiping out the species simply as a means of maximizing its production.

“This scenario sounds absurd to most people, yet there are a surprising number of technologists who think it illustrates a real danger. Why?” Chiang wonders. “Perhaps it’s because they’re already accustomed to entities that operate this way: Silicon Valley tech companies.”

In Musk’s hypothetical, the destruction of human civilization follows the logic of the free market.

“Consider: Who pursues their goals with monomaniacal focus, oblivious to the possibility of negative consequences? Who adopts a scorched-earth approach to increasing market share?” Chiang continues. “[The] strawberry-picking AI does what every tech startup wishes it could do — grows at an exponential rate and destroys its competitors until it’s achieved an absolute monopoly.”

Ultimately, the catastrophe Musk and others foretell has already arrived in the form of “no-holds-barred capitalism.”

“We are already surrounded by machines that demonstrate a complete lack of insight, we just call them corporations,” Chiang continues. “Corporations don’t operate autonomously, of course, and the humans in charge of them are presumably capable of insight, but capitalism doesn’t reward them for using it. On the contrary, capitalism actively erodes this capacity in people by demanding that they replace their own judgment of what ‘good’ means with ‘whatever the market decides.'”

For Chiang, the operative word is insight. Our capacity for self-reflection, or the “recognition of one’s own condition,” is what separates humans from the Googles, Facebooks and Amazons. And it is this deficiency that makes these monopolies so uniquely dangerous.

“We need for the machines to wake up, not in the sense of computers becoming self-aware, but in the sense of corporations recognizing the consequences of their behavior,” he concludes. “Just as a superintelligent AI ought to realize that covering the planet in strawberry fields isn’t actually in its or anyone else’s best interests, companies in Silicon Valley need to realize that increasing market share isn’t a good reason to ignore all other considerations.”

New York Times reporter Glenn Thrush, suspended for misconduct, will keep his job

Glenn Thrush (Credit: Getty/Kirk Irwin)

Glenn Thrush, the New York Times White House correspondent and MSNBC contributor, will remain at the New York Times after being suspended following reports in November of possible sexual misconduct. Thrush will reportedly to return to the Times in one month.

Thrush, a star member of the White House press corps, will no longer report on beltway politics, according to a statement from the Times. His new assignment has yet to be announced.

In a statement, Times editor Dean Baquet wrote, “We have completed our investigation into Glenn Thrush’s behavior, which included dozens of interviews with people both inside and outside the newsroom.” Baquet added that, “We found that Glenn has behaved in ways that we do not condone.”

“While we believe that Glenn has acted offensively,” Baquet said, “we have decided that he does not deserve to be fired.” Rather, Baquet wrote, “he will receive training designed to improve his workplace conduct . . . In addition, Glenn is undergoing counseling and substance abuse rehabilitation on his own. We will reinstate him as a reporter on a new beat upon his return.”

Thrush is reportedly still in rehab at this time.

Full NYT statement from Dean Baquet not to fire Glenn Thrush following allegations of inappropriate behavior. https://t.co/zYzy0ce5mk pic.twitter.com/xL89BPXi4c

— Sydney Ember (@melbournecoal) December 20, 2017

It is unknown how or if Thrush’s new position at the Times will affect his ongoing work on a book about the Trump administration, which he is co-writing with fellow White House reporter Maggie Haberman.

Thrush became a person of interest in the ongoing series of revelations about the misconduct of men in media and industry following the November 20 publication of an article on Vox in which several of the writer’s former colleagues at Politico and women elsewhere alleged that Thrush made unwanted advances towards them, engaged in unwanted touching, and had a pattern of misrepresenting his relationships with them. The writer of the piece herself alleged that Thrush had touched her thigh unbidden and then possibly spread rumors about the encounter, reversing their roles, to their co-workers at Politico. There are other, more serious accusations in the piece.

Almost immediately after the publication of Vox’s piece, the paper suspended the star reporter and launched an investigation which, as Times reporter Sydney Ember wrote, “was led by Charlotte Behrendt, a lawyer in the Times newsroom, and involved interviews with more than 30 people in New York and Washington, both inside and outside The Times, according to a person briefed on the process. Ms. Behrendt compiled a report with her findings that was reviewed by Dean Baquet, the executive editor, and a group of top editors.”

Thrush himself had no comment on the statement or decision and remains off Twitter. He had already written in response to the Vox article saying, “I apologize to any woman who felt uncomfortable in my presence, and for any situation where I behaved inappropriately,” adding, “any behavior that makes a woman feel disrespected or uncomfortable is unacceptable.”

While the nominal transparency of the Times’ management here may be laudatory (it’s at least somewhat remarkable that the paper assigned one of their writers to report on this), the decision stands in contrast to the treatment handed out to other media figures standing down similar accusations. The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza, Vox’s Lockhart Steele, The Paris Review’s Lorin Stein, NPR’s Michael Oreskes, NBC’s Matt Lauer, MSNBC and NBC contributor Mark Halperin and many others in the field have all either been terminated or forced to resign following allegations not significantly different than those lodged against Thrush. What, if anything, differentiates this case from the others is unclear.

In his statement, Baquet explained that “each case has to be evaluated based on individual circumstances,” adding that, “we believe this is an appropriate response to Glenn’s situation.” He ended by saying “The Times is committed not only to our leading coverage of this issue but also to ensuring that we provide a working environment where all of our colleagues feel respected, safe and supported.”