The report, released on Monday, found that more than 7,700 criminal hate crime incidents were reported to the FBI in 2020, an increase of about 450 incidents from 2019. The increase comes even as fewer agencies have reported incidents of hate crimes in their jurisdictions to the FBI than in previous years.
Last year saw the highest number of hate crime incidents reported since 2008, when 7,783 incidents were reported to the FBI.
Data released Monday showed that prejudice against African Americans overwhelmingly comprised the largest category of reported hate crimes offenses involving race, with a total of 56% of such crimes being motivated by anti-black or African-Americans. Asians were targeted during the Covid-19 pandemic amid stigmatizing online and political rhetoric against them, although this category of hate crimes is often underreported.
Trump’s legacy is not just vast amounts of crime and corruption or the negligent killing of hundreds of thousands of Americans in handling the pandemic. Trump has also remade parts of America in his own fanatic and hateful image.
No president has been viscerally associated with hatred more than Donald Trump. The former president did not invent hatred. There was bigotry and racism in the country long before the United States.
Trump pulled hatred out of the darkest corners of the nation, gave it a stamp of approval, and generalized it.
Hate is who Trump is, and his mindset was reflected in federal hate crime statistics.
Mr. Easley is the editor. He is also a White House press pool and a Congressional correspondent for PoliticusUSA. Jason holds a bachelor’s degree in political science. His graduate studies focused on public policy, with a specialization in social reform movements.
Rewards and professional memberships
Member of the Society of Professional Journalists and the American Political Science Association
“All of the work on EIP 1559 should have been spent on scaling. So much time and energy was spent on 1559 and it does nothing to improve Ethereum’s competitive position.”
Most people still think that blockchain development is a centralized organization run by founders, and all development happens in said organization, so there is a limited amount of funds / energy / manpower. work to devote to problems – and that’s probably true for most eth-challengers.
It’s probably a common misconception actually and may not even be malicious, but it’s also a good opportunity to highlight some of the common FUDs / queries in Ethereum development.
Maybe we need to sell the idea that on Ethereum there are many people independently participating in the process, development is happening so quickly and from so many angles.
In fact, the EIP1559 process is a beautiful story of a community-led effort to make changes that are not kernel-driven, and alongside core priorities like merge / sharding / expiration of the state / zk!
Someone created a thread on ethresearch, gathered like-minded people to discuss and found a wonderful solution and turned it into an EIP, independently fundraised on gitcoin, got world class economic audit beyond the technical audit, paid teams to build it on the clients since the client’s developers were rightly doing other important things. Meanwhile, the community fought off the potential miners’ revolt, rallied support, sold the idea (super healthy money, more predictable tx inclusions) and we have it here.
There is literally no other blockchain where there are multiple competing clients, multiple competing scaling solutions, and anyone can initiate an EIP and lead the process to complete that inclusion without being blocked or censored. – the very point of an unlicensed blockchain that happens almost nowhere else.
I believe this is really the key narrative we need to push for blockchain / ETH.
Can planting trees in Guizhou province cancel out emissions from natural gas burned for energy in offices and homes across China? That’s the idea behind a deal struck in July by oil major Shell to supply PetroChina with an undisclosed quantity of liquefied natural gas branded “carbon neutral”.
The deal was part of a nascent but growing trend, in which fossil fuel shipments are paired with carbon offsets — units that organisations can buy to compensate for their emissions and help their carbon-intensive cargoes appear greener.
“With this deal, PetroChina will be able to provide carbon-neutral gas to Chinese businesses and households in line with China’s 2060 carbon-neutrality aspirations,” Shell explained: the trees would absorb millions of tonnes of carbon over the coming years, balancing out the pollution from the production and use of the fuel.
“This is the latest attempt to try to market fossil fuels of any type as part of the transition [to clean energy],” says Gilles Dufrasne, of the not-for-profit group Carbon Market Watch. “I don’t think there is such a thing as a ‘carbon neutral’ fossil fuel, it’s a bit of an oxymoron.”
Companies around the world have flocked to buy offsets from groups that plant and protect trees, install renewable energy, or do other activities that aim to clean up the atmosphere. The trade is simple: one offset equals one tonne of carbon saved or removed, which can be banked against a polluter’s own emissions.
British Airways, for example, says customers can “fly carbon neutral”. A passenger enters their flight details, the airline estimates how much carbon the trip will generate, and the customer neutralises the pollution by buying offsets from a seller that British Airways has a partnership with. London to Rome, one way, will cost about £1.06.
However, who is using offsets, and how many, is often unclear. There is no requirement for buyers to disclose this information. The system is voluntary and unregulated, unlike compliance markets such as the EU’s emissions trading system.
Concerns over the quality and integrity of offsetting schemes have plagued them since they were first introduced more than 20 years ago. Critics say they often do not capture as much carbon as they claim. Many view offsets as providing companies with a licence to pollute and say they represent a bad use of money that would be better spent on efforts to cut emissions.
The current offsets market “operates in the shadows”, with some good “but lots of bad” in the system, says former Bank of England governor Mark Carney, now UN special envoy on climate action and finance. “That does actual harm.”
With the pressure to prevent runaway climate change intensifying, Carney and Bill Winters, chief executive of Standard Chartered, launched a task force last year to address the problems with offsets once and for all.
The private sector initiative hopes to transform the offsets market from a fragmented and mistrusted system into something that traders at a bank would recognise. It aims to thrash out new rules for ensuring credits are of a high quality, and develop a “core reference contract” to make offsets “fungible” and relatable to those on a trading floor. All to be policed by a new governance body to add enforcement to the system.
Designing watertight rules is proving difficult, however, and disagreements among the more than 250 groups, from market infrastructure providers to academics, working on the project are common. Getting these groups, which have wildly divergent opinions, to agree on how to solve complex problems is not easy, says one person involved in the process. “Some people believe A and some people believe Z, so what do you do?”
One point of contention is how quickly to design and scale up any new, multibillion-dollar trading system. The task force hopes to have laid out the broad architecture by November’s international climate conference, COP26. But some are fearful that scaling up in a hurry could cause more harm than good.
“If we rush . . . trying to scale up something before it is fully operational, in the sense that we can ensure credit integrity, then I think it will be really bad” for the climate, says Juan Carlos Castilla-Rubio, chair of Space Time Ventures and a task force participant.
The fundamental questions about what makes for a “good” offset should be carefully answered “before we actually attempt to scale up and treat [offsets] like a standard commodity,” he says. These are questions that “people have spent many years . . . trying to sort out.”
Low prices, low quality
Between 2017 and 2019, more than $750m worth of offsets were traded globally, according to Ecosystem Marketplace, which tracks the market. Unnamed financial institutions were the largest users of offsets in 2019, followed by the chemicals and petrochemicals industries, according to the Trove Research group.
Offsets are supposed to represent climate benefits — carbon that has been avoided or removed from the environment — that would not have occurred if the project generating them did not exist. In theory, the trade works for everyone: buyers can claim lower emissions, and the environmental schemes they buy from get money they would not otherwise receive. Carbon financing can help steer money into new technologies, such as those that remove carbon from the air. It can also prevent damage, such as deforestation, by supplanting an environmentally harmful revenue stream, such as logging tropical rainforests.
“Carbon offsets are an important tool . . . to help the world get to net zero,” said Bernard Looney, chief executive of BP, the oil group, speaking at a Bloomberg conference in July. “We need a proper, effective market . . . and we must make sure that quality is at the core of that.”
Some companies, including Shell, have invested in the development of offset-generating projects. Last year, BP acquired a majority stake in a prominent offset developer, Finite Carbon.
However, the price of the credits has remained stubbornly low, with many available to buy for less than $5. Low prices are partly the result of a glut of offsets that were generated years ago — when standards were even less robust than today — that no one bought. But even offsets from more recent projects tend to be much cheaper than the cost of carbon in regulated systems such as the EU’s ETS, which saw prices rise above €50 per tonne this year.
The cheap availability of offsets is unlikely to persuade companies to make significant emissions cuts, critics say. The “danger” is that even talking about offsetting “has a tendency to take away some of the energy from the carbon-cutting side of the equation”, says Mike Berners-Lee, a university professor and carbon emissions consultant.
The influential Science Based Targets initiative has barred offsets from counting toward corporate net-zero targets, which it says organisations must achieve by cutting emissions.
The Carney task force has emphasised that offsets should only be used to compensate for the residual emissions that organisations cannot eliminate, and not replace decarbonisation efforts. Yet, how to police this is unclear: Winters says that deciding who can buy on the new market is “not the mandate of the task force”.
‘Guilty until proven innocent’
Stories of offsetting projects gone wrong, or credits being generated for schemes that do little to tackle climate change, are common. A fundamental tenet of offsetting is that the projects deliver permanent benefits. But this summer, offset-generating trees went up in flames as wildfires ripped across the US west coast, spewing carbon that had been stored in the trees back into the air.
Some of the most abundant offsets are from renewable energy projects developed by well-funded power groups, schemes that critics argue would have been viable in the absence of an offsets market, and should therefore not be counted as “additional”. In December, Bloomberg reported on a number of credits being sold in the US purporting to protect forests that were in no danger of being chopped down.
The task force envisions a system in which offsets conform to a consistent high level of quality, where key requirements, such as additionality and permanence, are assured. The system, it says, will be policed by a new, independent governance body — with the power to define which offsets meet the new threshold for high quality.
Such an oversight body has been sorely lacking, say researchers. Although numerous not-for-profit groups already exist which check and approve offsetting projects, such as Verra and Gold Standard, no third party monitors them. These certification bodies are predominantly funded by the fees they charge for projects to register and generate offsets.
The current lack of trust in the market has driven companies including Microsoft to pay people to find them credible offsetting projects, rather than rely on a stamp of approval from bodies such as Verra.
“There’s a lot of rubbish out there,” says Berners-Lee. A member of his team spent several weeks trawling through hundreds of pages of documents scrutinising the details of 65 certified projects for beer company BrewDog, and only found five “that were good”. Part of the problem is that “for a long time nobody was asking hard enough questions”, he adds.
Checking that offsetting projects genuinely deliver the benefits they claim is difficult and laborious work. The range of projects is vast, and each has its own unique context and risks.
Verra, Gold Standard and other certification bodies have developed unique methodologies for assessing projects — complicated rules that are difficult for anyone not familiar with the market to understand. Yet, in the two decades that these groups have been operating, they have been unable to dispel concerns about quality — fears that the certification bodies consider have been overblown.
“We do not see evidence that [these groups] do a sufficient job themselves in assessing the quality of their own protocols” wrote Barbara Haya, director of the Berkeley Carbon Trading Project, to Sonja Gibbs, head of sustainable finance at the Institute of International Finance, which sponsors the Carney-Winters task force. A system that relies on competing groups evaluating their own rules is unlikely to produce a market of high quality credits, she added.
In response to the task force’s recent public consultation, Haya said the new governance body “should deem offsets guilty until proven innocent”.
The idea of a governance body has been broadly welcomed. David Antonioli, chief executive of Verra, says an independent arbiter would help standardise quality and generate trust. “It would be beneficial to have an entity that essentially looks under the hood and checks that we do what we say we do.”
In July, Winters said the governance body would be comprised of both independent members and market participants, something green groups have advocated against. “The task force leaves most key issues to a future governance body, and allows active market players to participate in that body,” says Carbon Market Watch’s Dufrasne. “This creates a clear and highly problematic conflict of interests.”
‘From amateur to professional’
The task force hopes to present the bones of the new system before the end of this year, reforms that should upgrade the market from an “amateur to a professional” level, says Carney.
One person involved says the process has been like “herding cats”, despite a consensus among the participants that “the current system generates no trust”. Many are concerned that the work is being rushed, and that some of the thorny questions being asked — such as how to ensure that the carbon benefits are truly permanent — remain unresolved after years of debate.
Growing trees absorb carbon, but is it possible to guarantee that they will remain standing indefinitely? And how to be sure that preventing deforestation in one region does not push it to an adjacent area? “There’s no chance that these questions will all be sufficiently answered” by the end of the year, says Jonathan Goldberg, chief executive of Carbon Direct, the advisory group.
Carney’s initiative wants to standardise contracts for offsets, making them easily tradeable on a market like any other. But valuing the relative benefits of projects that do very different things — trees do not store carbon forever, while a technical solution might, for example — is extremely complex, says Goldberg.
Some existing market players have hit back, contesting Winters’ assertion that the market is plagued by a “surplus” of bad offsets. “What we have today is already pretty robust . . . We don’t think at all that the current system is broken,” says Renat Heuberger, chief executive of South Pole, which helps develop offsetting projects.
The group’s senior climate policy and carbon pricing expert, Maria Carvalho, says it is “not claiming that the market is perfect and has no problems,” but “[we cannot] let the perfect be the enemy of the good”.
Danny Cullenward, policy director at Carbon Plan, a non-profit organisation, stresses the importance of establishing “a culture that allows you to recognise failures”. But, he adds: “You will not find anyone working with the [certification bodies] who acknowledges the presence of bad offsets.”
There are also conflicting views about the consequences of creating a multibillion-dollar carbon offsets market. The stakes are high: done right, it could inject huge sums into underfunded climate solutions; done wrong, the number of poor quality offsets — failing to deliver on carbon savings promises — could proliferate.
Rushing to scale up the market could be “very dangerous”, says Goldberg. Offsetting is “not a donation, it is an exchange of money to emit a tonne of carbon . . . If you are not delivering a tonne of carbon removal, it’s a very bad deal for the climate.”
Carney rejects the idea that the task force could do more harm than good. The market “has to demonstrably reduce carbon, save carbon”, and if it doesn’t, it will simply not take off, he says. “The consequence of that is that we will all be in a worse position.”
The concept of smart clothing is nothing new. Companies like Google have explored the concept with the Jacquard project. However, the implementation seems pretty basic, like performing gestures to interact with your phone, which, while neat, feels a bit new. However, what if smart clothing could be used for more advanced purposes, like collecting biometric data?
That being said, perhaps this could be an issue that can be addressed if the technology can be more tightly integrated into clothing. What’s this Rice University researchers have made, where they created conductive fibers using carbon nanotubes which are then sewn into the garment itself.
Since the nanotubes themselves are so small, the researchers had to bundle several of them together so that it was roughly the same size as a regular thread, which then allowed them to use it with a sewing machine. When integrated with a sports shirt, it allowed the shirt to collect data about the wearer, such as their heart rate, which means that in the future our clothes may be able to collect data. biometric without the need for chest belts or even smartwatches.
The researchers found that based on their initial tests, the use of nanotubes allowed it to collect better data compared to a typical chest belt heart monitor, and was also comparable to electrode monitors. It may be some time before this technology becomes commercially available, but so far it holds great promise.
81 years ago, on August 31, 1939, the Marvel Comics company was presented to the world for the first time, and people were presented with a whole universe of superheroes. To celebrate Marvel’s anniversary and the company’s collaboration with Veve Digital Collectibles, “Marvel Month” will end with special edition Captain America Non-Fungible (NFT) collectibles.
A range of NFT Captain America Statue
At the end of June, the 100% subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company, Marvel Entertainment, announcement the company was dipping its toes into the world of non-fungible tokens (NFTs). During the first week of August, Marvel revealed “Marvel Month” and launched Spider-Man NFT.
Collector’s sets included the “Common – Spider-Man”, “Uncommon – Spider-Man”, “Rare – Spider-Man”, “Ultra-Rare – Spider-Man” and the “Secret-Rare – Spider-Man”. Marvel’s competitor, DC Comics, also fall a NFT range via the Veve digital collectibles application.
The conclusion of “Marvel Month” ends on Tuesday, August 31, and the climax of the month of Marvel NFTs will end with Captain America. The NFT drop will honor Captain America’s 80th birthday when it appeared in his first comic book in 1941. On Tuesday, the Veve app will kick off the Captain America NFT launch at 8 a.m. (PT). Marvel’s legendary first NFT Avengers will include:
Captain America – The First Avenger – Always a soldier at heart, Captain America is proud and tall as the first Avenger in premium digital format ($ 40.00).
Captain America – Charge Into Battle – Ready for action, Captain America heads into battle, armed with his original Triple Shield ($ 50.00).
Captain America – The Punch – Experience one of the most iconic moments in comic book history in this tribute to the legendary Steve Rogers punch from the cover of Captain America Comics # 1 ($ 100.00) .
Captain America – Animated – Witness – Captain America in animated action as he prepares for battle ($ 250.00).
Captain America – Ultimate Animated – This ultra-premium animated collectible features visual effects and special effects of Captain America using his triple shield as both offensive and defensive weapon ($ 400.00).
The Amazing Spider-Man # 1 NFT
Marvel is also releasing an NFT “fully readable digital comic” “The Amazing Spider-Man # 1,” which will also be released on Tuesday but at 11:00 am (PT). The comic is well known and one of the most valuable comics on the planet. Quality comic says a mint condition version of the first Spider-Man comic is 3 times the value over the past decade and a “mint condition CGC NM + 9.6 copy for sale for over $ 300,000”.
Marvel NFTs are powered by Orbis Blockchain Technologies Limited and the Veve Digital Collectibles platform. The Veve app is available via iOS or Android smartphones and the app allows users to hunt and trade NFT collectibles. The Veve app has competitors like the company like the specially designed NFT platform Wax.io, which has partnered with companies like Atari, Topps, Funko, Capcom, Street Fighter, Bratz, Robotech, etc.
What do you think of Marvel’s NFT drop on the Veve app? Let us know what you think of this topic in the comments section below.
Image credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. This is not a direct offer or the solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, nor a recommendation or endorsement of any product, service or business. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or allegedly caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, good or service mentioned in this article.
“Last night Debra and I got married at the Hyatt Regency Tamaya in Santa Ana Pueblo. It was truly a magical evening. Shortly after the ceremony, the clouds opened up to a rainstorm and a large shining rainbow appeared, ”Sayre wrote on Facebook after the ceremony.
Home Secretary Tyler Cherry described Sayre as Haaland’s “long-time” partner. He also confirmed that guests were all required to be vaccinated and wear masks during the ceremony.
“Secretary Deb Haaland celebrated her union with longtime partner Skip Sayre at a ceremony in her home state of New Mexico on Saturday night. In accordance with CDC guidelines and New Mexico public health ordinances, guests were required to be vaccinated and wear masks, ”Cherry said in an emailed statement to Indigenous News Online. “The secretary’s dress was designed and sewn by her sister and the ceremony included traditional elements to honor her ancestors.”
While the social media posts shared by attendees, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, do not describe this – and caused an online reaction accordingly — Cherry confirmed that the rule was in place inside.
We are waiting for more photos, but these photos alone reflect the happiness associated with the ceremony and what a beautiful day it must have been!
Congratulations, Secretary Haaland, love looks good on you!
A community dedicated to Bitcoin, the Internet currency. Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency, distributed around the world. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority: there is no government, company or bank in charge of Bitcoin. You might be interested in Bitcoin if you are into cryptography, distributed peer-to-peer systems, or economics. A large percentage of Bitcoin enthusiasts are libertarians, although people of all political philosophies are welcome.
The decision significantly reduced playing time for minors who, under the 2019 rules, were allowed to play for up to 90 minutes a day for most of the day.
Gaming is the biggest source of revenue for NetEase and Tencent. But analysts don’t expect a huge impact on businesses because of the new rules.
Tencent previously said that only a small portion of gaming revenue comes from young players in China.
“We estimate that around 5% of gaming revenue comes from minors under the age of 18, and we believe there is around 3% profit impact for Tencent if we assume the game contributes around 60%. % of total revenue, ”investment bank Jefferies said in a published memo. Monday.
“Miners represent a low number of NetEase gaming revenue,” analysts added.
For a long time, the Chinese government has been concerned about gambling addiction among the country’s youth. Content such as games is also tightly controlled in China.
Tencent and NetEase have gone through periods of gaming regulation before.
Last week it was reported that South Korea is very close pass a new law this would effectively force Apple and Google to accept third-party payments in their app stores. It seemed like a done deal at the time, but now, according to the latest reports, the passage of the bill has since been delayed.
What is interesting is that there was no mention of why this particular bill was delayed. The agenda of the National Assembly mentions other bills except this one, and it also seems that a new date for the vote on the bill has not yet been set.
The implications would have been enormous if this bill had passed. For about a decade, Apple and Google have run their own app stores as they see fit, with developers having no choice but to agree with the 30% cut Apple and Google are taking on. app sales and in-app purchases.
More recently, developers like Epic have since sued Apple for the 30% cut, and there have been discussions that other governments are considering similar bills. Apple has since tried to appease the public by announcing some changes to its policies, which developers can now announce other purchasing methods, what some argue is still not good enough.
DigiMax, a provider of artificial intelligence (AI) technology and cryptocurrency, today announced that it has signed a collaboration agreement with Bitget, a crypto exchange based in Singapore.
Following the launch of USDT futures, one-click copy trading, and quanto swap futures, last April, Bitget further announced its full acquisition of the decentralized crypto wallet Bitkeep.
The collaboration agreement will provide opportunities for DigiMax and Bitget to collaborate on mutually beneficial trading arrangements, including allowing Bitget users to first learn about DigiMax’s trading signal product, CryptoHawk, and to offer ultimately direct access to CryptoHawk within the Bitget platform.
Additionally, the companies intend to develop an API system to allow Bitget users to access CryptoHawk signals and enable one-click direct trading based on new issued CryptoHawk indicators.
“By becoming a collaboration partner with Bitget, CryptoHawk users will have a great opportunity not only to increase the efficiency and security of their trading, but in the near future they will also have access to automated trading from signals. CryptoHawk. We’re excited to partner with Bitget to deliver ever-increasing value to both of our user groups, now and in the future. “ – CEO of DigiMax, Chris Carl
An AI-based price trend forecasting tool, CryptoHawk can be used by any investor to maximize their digital trading profits. It provides hourly price trend forecasting indicators to help subscribers interested in trading Bitcoin or Ethereum, and now provides general trend guidance for a larger portfolio of cryptocurrencies.
The CryptoHawk tool is unique in that it uses AI and machine learning to profit from the volatility of cryptocurrencies, rather than incurring the risk of buy and hold investments.
Note that the combined period of June to July 2021 saw CryptoHawk trading signals generate returns of + 44.9% for Bitcoin and + 22.1% for Ethereum before trading commissions. During this same period, Bitcoin saw a net change of + 5.1% while Ethereum fell -3.6% during the period.