- cypherpunks@lists.ogf.org

cypherpunks celebrate jewnazi victory in france
by punk 25 Apr '22

25 Apr '22

yep, makkkron got 'elected' again! That's really good news for all the list 'libertarians' and 'anarchists'!! https://www.ft.com/content/9bd62502-12cf-11e7-b0c1-37e417ee6c76 "Emmanuel Macron’s Rothschild years make him an easy election target" "rothschild years" - can't make this shit up.

1 0

To baldly dare new relationships, new projects, new steps, and experiments.
by professor rat 25 Apr '22

25 Apr '22

To question all authority, to reject all kinds of power and to enter into conflict with them is a continuous fight. A fight in which we‘re trying to develop free relationships, beyond the existing order. But to create something new also always means to be drawn into the unknown https://anarchistnews.org/content/der-tat-–-english-version-–-issue-01

1 0

Jamie Dimon, Chairman & CEO, JP Morgan Chase on Rebuilding a More Inclusive Economy
by Gunnar Larson 25 Apr '22

25 Apr '22

*Jamie Dimon, Chairman & CEO, JP Morgan Chase on Rebuilding a More Inclusive Economy: * http://www.hbscdallas.org/s/1738/cc/21/page.aspx?sid=1738&gid=23&pgid=71605… .,York%20University%20School%20of%20Medicine. *James Dimon (MBA '82), Chairman and CEO, JP Morgan Chase* James Dimon became Chairman of the Board on December 31, 2006, and has been Chief Executive Officer since December 31, 2005. He had been President from 2004 until 2018 and Chief Operating Officer from 2004 until 2005 following JPMorgan Chase’s merger with Bank One Corporation. At Bank One he was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer from March 2000 to July 2004. Before joining Bank One, Mr. Dimon held a wide range of executive roles at Citigroup Inc., the Travelers Group, Commercial Credit Company and American Express Company. Mr. Dimon is on the Board of Directors of Harvard Business School and Catalyst; Board Member of the Business Roundtable; and a member of The Business Council. He is also on the Board of Trustees of New York University School of Medicine. Mr. Dimon does not serve on the board of any publicly traded company other than JPMorgan Chase. -------- *Jamie Dimon (MBA ’82)* <http://www.hbscdallas.org/s/1738/cc/index2.aspx?sid=1738&gid=23&pgid=71605#…> is perennially named the most admired Fortune 500 CEO. While 2020 was another strong year for JPMorgan Chase, Dimon is addressing the current challenges of an economy impacted by COVID-19, a global recession and economic inequality and racial equity with bold initiatives. In October 2020, Dimon announced a $30 billion initiative by JPMorgan Chase over five years to advance racial equity. With the recent passage of the $1.9 trillion stimulus bill, there has been a lot of talk about possibly overdoing it and flooding the economy with extra cash, thereby stoking fears of inflation. Larry Summers has argued that the stimulus might be too big, while Jay Powell and Janet Yellen feel the stimulus may not be big enough. JPMorgan Chase Chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon notes there are merits to both sides of the argument. “It’s not a binary subject. Democrats and Republicans are like ships passing the night. There are legitimate complaints about items in this bill that have nothing to do with COVID,” Dimon told Bloomberg Markets recently. “[But] there are a lot of people who need help. Both are true. If you want to go through it, you have to go through the detail.” Dimon is optimistic about a return to normalcy by the summer. This comes at a time when banks and other businesses are figuring out how to bring workers back to the office safely after a successful roll out of the vaccines. JPMorgan Chase continues to innovate in finance, creating its own digital currency and a business unit devoted to blockchain. In addition, sustainability and investing in environmentally friendly businesses continues to be a priority. Jamie Dimon, will have an exclusive conversation with HBS Clubs across the United States hosted by HBS Club of NY and co-sponsored by the Boston, Chicago, Houston, Northern California and Southern California HBS Clubs to discuss rebuilding a more inclusive economy and the other important challenges facing JP Morgan and our Nation. Join us for this unforgettable discussion. -- *Gunnar Larson - xNY.io <http://www.xNY.io> | Bank.org <http://Bank.org>* MSc <https://www.unic.ac.cy/blockchain/msc-digital-currency/?utm_source=Google&u…> - Digital Currency MBA <https://www.unic.ac.cy/business-administration-entrepreneurship-and-innovat…> - Entrepreneurship and Innovation (ip) G(a)xNY.io +1-646-454-9107 New York, New York 10001

3 2

Cybernetic OODA looping for Dummies
by professor rat 25 Apr '22

25 Apr '22

The OODA loop is the cycle observe–orient–decide–act, developed by military strategist and … It is especially applicable to cyber security and cyberwarfare Boyd’s theory of conflict advocates a form of maneuver warfare that is more psychological and temporal in its orientation than physical and spatial. Its military object is “to break the spirit and will of the enemy command by creating surprising and dangerous operational or strategic situations.” To achieve this end, one must operate at a faster tempo or rhythm than one’s adversaries. Cybernetic Aspects: The simplest explanation of Cybernetics is (from Paul Pangaro): Cybernetics is about having a goal and taking action to achieve that goal. Knowing whether you have reached your goal (or at least are getting closer to it) requires “feedback”, a concept that was made rigorous by cybernetics. The term cybernetics comes from a Greek word than means “steering”. Cybernetics is the art of steering towards the goal. This post bought to you by CYPHERPUNK 2027! Viva la revolution.

1 0

Predictive coding without dead-pools
by professor rat 25 Apr '22

25 Apr '22

As a mechanistic theory, predictive coding has not been mapped out physiologically on the neuronal level. One of the biggest challenges to the theory has been the imprecision of exactly how prediction error minimization works https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_coding

1 0

Another grotesque senile version of Gramps, yelling incoherent things at a squirrel
by professor rat 25 Apr '22

25 Apr '22

I’m opposed to Trump being reinstated to Twitter, for numerous reasons. You don’t let a deranged villain out of prison and toss him the keys to a car just because you know he’s going to drive it into a tree. But if Trump does return to Twitter, it won’t somehow magically boost Trump’s 2024 prospects. Instead it’ll reveal he never had any 2024 prospects. https://www.palmerreport.com/analysis/the-real-fallout-if-donald-trump-is-r… Reposts not endorsements.

1 0

This sort of thing has happened before
by professor rat 25 Apr '22

25 Apr '22

Four snore and diem years ago a Fedbook was bought forth dedicated to the notion that CIA fascism ought to govern the whole world. Now we are engaged in a great struggle testing whether this proposition - or cryptoanarchism - shall dominate the world. The world will little note what we say here but they can never forget what we did here. Establishing the basis for a globalized society of world peace and plenty. So that cryptoanarchism of for and by people shall never perish from this free netspace. https://stiffs.com/celebrity/markzuckerberg

1 0

Elon Musk wants the identity paperwork of every human on earth available via a USG warrant (to say nothing of FISA 702).
by professor rat 25 Apr '22

25 Apr '22

Elon Musk wants the identity paperwork of every human on earth available via a USG warrant (to say nothing of FISA 702). Musk also confirmed his ' render unto Caesar " stance about compliance with strict laws passed by every local tinpot dictatorship around the world. What a prince this man is. Feh.

1 0

Musky Twitter to ' authenticate all humans '
by professor rat 25 Apr '22

25 Apr '22

Its like Mark Zuckerberg is taking over Twitter. And Donald Dumbfuck sez he won't be back on it. Yeah right. Elon Drax is too stupid to be an activist let alone any sort of anarchist. I wish him luck with a capital " F " - Break a leg, Elon.

1 0

ESG Disputes in England: ClientEarth’s Derivative Action Against Shell’s Board Signals That The English Courts May Be Considered An Increasingly Attractive Forum
by Gunnar Larson 25 Apr '22

25 Apr '22

ClientEarth’s claim The 2021 decision in *Milieudefensie et al. v Royal Dutch Shell plc*, handed down by the Hague District Court, marked the first major case to hold a multinational corporation responsible for environmental damage. While the Netherlands remain some way ahead of England as a forum of choice for ESG-related litigation, recent developments suggest that the position is beginning to change. On 15 March 2022, ClientEarth, a non-profit environmental law organisation that is also a shareholder in Shell plc, took the first steps in commencing a derivative action <https://www.clientearth.org/latest/latest-updates/news/we-re-taking-legal-a…>in England against Shell’s 13 executive and non-executive directors. ClientEarth asserts that Shell’s board of directors is personally liable for the company’s failure to manage its climate risk; that is, to implement a climate strategy that truly aligns with the Paris Agreement, including its failure to produce operating plans and budgets that reflect the company’s “target to become a net-zero emissions energy business by 2050 <https://www.shell.com/media/news-and-media-releases/2021/shell-accelerates-…> ”. Pointing to a number of issues that it describes as “serious shortcomings” ClientEarth asserts that, in failing to manage the company’s climate risk, the board members have purportedly breached their statutory duties under English law, specifically the duty to promote the success of the company pursuant to section 172 of the Companies Act 2006. Section 172 of the Companies Act 2006 provides that a director must act in the way that he considers, in good faith, would be most likely to promote the success of the company for the benefit of its members as a whole. In doing so, directors must have regard to a non-exhaustive list of matters, including the likely consequences of the decision in the long-term and the impact of the company’s operations on the community and the environment. In the present context, where a company’s climate risk poses a foreseeable and material financial risk to the company, and where the board of that company fails to properly consider that risk, or unreasonably fails to act in response to that risk, they could potentially face liability under section 172. What makes ClientEarth’s present claim particularly interesting is that it marks the first attempt to hold a company’s board of directors personally liable for mismanagement of the company’s climate risk. Interestingly, this development comes just a few months after Shell’s shareholders approved the relocation of the company’s headquarters to London from the Netherlands (a decision which, according to various unconfirmed press reports, may have been partly intended to mitigate the company’s exposure to future climate litigation in the Netherlands, bearing in mind the country’s precedent for ESG-related proceedings and following the 2021 *Milieudefensie *decision). At present, the English claim is in its infancy. ClientEarth’s FAQs statement <https://www.clientearth.org/media/puojyzvy/clientearth-shareholder-litigati…> relating to the claim indicates that a pre-action letter has been sent to Shell’s board, notifying it of the claim and giving it an opportunity to respond. ClientEarth has stated that it will review that response, before formally filing the claim in the English High Court. Further recent developments in England In addition, two recent procedural decisions by the Supreme Court have demonstrated the English courts’ willingness to entertain claims that target UK parent companies for the ESG-related transgressions of their foreign subsidiaries. The Supreme Court’s judgments in* Vedanta Resources PLC and another (Appellants) v Lungowe and others (Respondents) <https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2017-0185-judgment.pdf>* [2019] UKSC 20 (“Vedanta”) and *Okpabi & Ors v Royal Dutch Shell plc and Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd <https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2018-0068-judgment.pdf>* [2021] UKSC 3 (“Okpabi”) confirm that, in certain cases, statements in published documents and policies may provide some basis on which to find UK parent companies liable in tort for harm caused by their subsidiaries in foreign jurisdictions. The claimants in these cases relied on such statements to assert that the parents themselves owed a duty of care in connection with their subsidiaries’ ESG-related breaches. - In *Vedanta*, a group of Zambian citizens brought a claim against Vedanta Resources plc (a UK mining company, formerly listed on the London Stock Exchange) after a mine owned and operated by its Zambian subsidiary (KCM) discharged toxic matter into watercourses used for local irrigation and drinking. The English courts considered that the claimants were able to show a “good arguable case” (based on the specific facts) that Vedanta had exercised a sufficiently high level of supervision and control of activities at the mine so as to owe a duty of care to the claimants, meaning that the English courts had jurisdiction over the claim. In reaching its decision, the Court relied upon various public statements made by Vedanta demonstrating its involvement in KCM management (including a report entitled “Embedding Sustainability” which stated that oversight of all Vedanta’s subsidiaries rested with the Vedanta board, public statements regarding Vedanta’s commitment to addressing group-wide environmental control and sustainability standards, and the existence of a management services agreement between Vedanta and KCM). - In *Okpabi *it was alleged that numerous oil spills had occurred from oil pipelines and infrastructure operated in the vicinity of the claimants’ communities in Nigeria, causing widespread environmental damage including serious water and ground contamination. The claimants asserted that the spills were caused by the negligence of the pipeline operator, a Nigerian registered subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell Plc, a UK domiciled company and the parent company of the multinational Shell group. Overturning the decision of the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court held that, based on the specific facts, the UK parent exercised a degree of control over its subsidiary that was sufficient to establish that a duty of care existed. In reaching its decision, the Court placed weight on internal published documents said to demonstrate that the Shell group was deliberately structured in a way that enabled the UK parent to direct, control and intervene in the management of its subsidiaries’ operations. The judgments above relate to jurisdictional challenges where the claimants first needed to establish a “good arguable case” that a duty of care was owed by the UK parent in order that the English courts could then assert jurisdiction over the underlying claims. As at April 2022, neither *Vedanta *or *Okpabi *have been subject to a full trial on the merits and there are no substantive updates, although we continue to monitor developments. More broadly, we anticipate that these decisions will continue to pique the interests of claimant law firms and litigation funders who operate in the ESG sphere and, in due course, encourage similar claims in the English courts.

1 0