Skint but looking to get complex machine learning models into production? Serverless might be the answer DEVCLASS – DevClass

Webcast Combining Serverless and BERT for accuracy and cost-effectiveness with the MCubed web lecture series

An old truism of Machine Learning assumes that the more complex (and therefore the larger) a model is, the more accurate the outcome of its predictions. And indeed, if youre looking into machine learning disciplines like natural language processing (NLP), its the massive models generated using BERT or GPT that currently get practitioners swooning when it comes to precision.

Enthusiasm fades when it comes to productionising models, however, as their sheer size turns deployments into quite a struggle. Not to mention the cost of setting up and maintaining the infrastructure needed to make the step from research to production happen.

Reading this, avid followers of IT trends might now remember the emergence of Serverless Computing a couple of years ago. The approach pretty much promised large computing capabilities that could automatically scale up and down to satisfy changing demands and keep costs low. It also brought about an option to free teams from the burden of looking after their infrastructure, as it mostly came in the form of managed offerings.

Well, serverless hasnt gone anywhere since then, and seems like an almost ideal solution on first looks. Digging deeper however, limitations on things like memory occupation and deployment package size stand in the way of making it a straightforward option. Interest in combining serverless and machine learning is growing, though. And with it the number of people working on ways to make BERT models and Co fit provider specifications to facilitate serverless deployments.

To learn more about these developments, well welcome Marek uppa to episode 4 of our MCubed web lecture series for machine learning practitioners on December 2. uppa is head of data at Q&A and polling app Slido, where he and some colleagues used the last year to investigate ways to modify models for sentiment analysis and classification so that they can be used in serverless environments without dreaded performance degradations.

In his talk, uppa will speak a bit about his teams use case, the things that made them consider serverless, troubles they encountered during their studies, and the approaches they found to be the most promising to reach latency levels appropriate for production environments for their deployments.

As usual, the webcast on December 2 will start at 11:00 UTC with a roundup of software development-related machine learning news, which will give you a couple of minutes to settle in before we dive into the topic of model deployment in serverless environments. Wed love to see you there well even send you a quick reminder on the day, just register here.

And if machine learning at large still seems exciting but a bit out of reach for you, were sure our introductory online workshop with Prof Mark Whitehorn on December 9 can help you get started. Head over to the MCubed website for more information and tickets.

Here is the original post:
Skint but looking to get complex machine learning models into production? Serverless might be the answer DEVCLASS - DevClass

Mindtree stock surges after earning the Al and Machine Learning on Microsoft Azure Advanced Specialization – Indiainfoline

Mindtree has earned the AI and Machine Learning on Microsoft Azure advanced specialization, a validation of a services partners deep knowledge, extensive experience and proven success in enabling customer adoption of AI and implementing Azure solutions for machine learning life cycle and AI-powered apps.

Only partners that meet stringent criteria around customer success and staff skilling, as well as pass a third party audit of their AI and machine learning technical practices, can earn the AI and Machine Learning on Microsoft Azure advanced specialization.

Radhakrishnan Rajagopalan, Global Head, Customer Success, Data and Intelligence, Mindtree. Organizations are looking for ways to maximize business impact and revenue through augmentation and automation. As a result, AI and Machine Learning are playing an increasingly vital role in helping them unlock the full power of data for improved agility, richer experiences, smarter decision-making and reduced time-to-market. This advanced specialization validates our ability to enable organizations to optimize their digital strategies and investments, strengthening our reputation as a preferred digital transformation partner.

Rodney Clark, Corporate Vice President, Global Partner Solutions, Channel Sales and Channel Chief at Microsoft, added, AI and Machine Learning on Microsoft Azure advanced specialization highlights the partners who can be viewed as most capable when it comes to implementing Azure solutions for machine learning lifecycle and AI-powered apps. Mindtree clearly demonstrated that they have both the skills and the experience to enabling customer adoption of AI and Machine Learning in Microsoft Azure advanced specialization.

As the speed of business accelerates, organizations of every type and size are looking for ways to streamline processes and deliver simpler, faster, and smarter resources to help them keep up. Partners with the AI and Machine Learning on Microsoft Azure advanced specialization can give organizations the tools and knowledge to develop AI solutions on their terms, build AI into their mission-critical applications, and put responsible AI into action.

At around 12.46 pm, Mindtree is trading at Rs4431 per piece up by Rs55.55 or 1.27% on Sensex.

See original here:
Mindtree stock surges after earning the Al and Machine Learning on Microsoft Azure Advanced Specialization - Indiainfoline

US says Assange could go to Australian prison if convicted …

LONDON -- U.S. authorities launched a new battle on Wednesday to make Julian Assange face American justice, telling British judges that if they agree to extradite the WikiLeaks founder on espionage charges, he could serve any U.S. prison sentence he receives in his native Australia.

In January, a lower U.K. court refused a U.S. request to extradite Assange over WikiLeaks publication of secret American military documents a decade ago. District Judge Vanessa Baraitser ruled that Assange, who has spent years in hiding and in British prisons as he fights extradition, was likely to kill himself if held under harsh U.S. prison conditions.

Appealing against that decision at the High Court in London, an attorney for the U.S. government on Wednesday denied that Assanges mental health was too fragile to withstand the U.S. judicial system. Lawyer James Lewis said Assange has no history of serious and enduring mental illness and does not meet the threshold of being so ill that he cannot resist harming himself.

U.S. prosecutors have indicted Assange on 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse over WikiLeaks publication of thousands of leaked military and diplomatic documents. The charges carry a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison, although Lewis said the longest sentence ever imposed for this offense is 63 months.

Lewis said American authorities had promised that Assange would not be held before trial in a top-security Supermax prison or subjected to strict isolation conditions, and if convicted would be allowed to serve his sentence in Australia. Lewis said the assurances are binding on the United States."

Once there is an assurance of appropriate medical care, once it is clear he will be repatriated to Australia to serve any sentence, then we can safely say the district judge would not have decided the relevant question in the way that she did," he said.

The U.S. also says a key defense witness, neuropsychiatrist Michael Kopelman, misled the previous judge by omitting to mention that Stella Moris, a member of WikiLeaks legal team, was also Assanges partner and had two children with him. Lewis said that information was a highly relevant factor to the question of likelihood to suicide.

Assange's lawyer, Edward Fitzgerald, accused U.S. lawyers of seeking to minimize the severity of Mr Assanges mental disorder and suicide risk.

Fitzgerald said in a written submission that Australia has not yet agreed to take Assange if he is convicted. Even if Australia did agree, Fitzgerald said the U.S. legal process could take a decade, during which Mr. Assange will remain detained in extreme isolation in a U.S. prison.

Assange, who is being held at Londons high-security Belmarsh Prison, had been expected to attend the two-day hearing by video link, but Fitzgerald said Assange had been put on a high dose of medication and doesn't feel able to attend.

Assange later appeared on the video link at times, seated at a table in a prison room wearing a black face mask.

Since WikiLeaks began publishing classified documents more than a decade ago, Assange has become a flashpoint figure. Some see him as a dangerous secret-spiller who endangered the lives of informers and others who helped the U.S. in war zones. Others say WikiLeaks shone a light on official malfeasance that governments would like to keep secret.

American prosecutors say Assange unlawfully helped U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning steal classified diplomatic cables and military files that WikiLeaks later published. Lawyers for Assange argue that he was acting as a journalist and is entitled to First Amendment freedom of speech protections for publishing documents that exposed U.S. military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Several dozen pro-Assange protesters held a boisterous rally outside Londons neo-Gothic Royal Courts of Justice on Wednesday, calling the prosecution politically motivated. They urged U.S. President Joe Biden to drop the legal proceedings, which were begun under his predecessor, Donald Trump.

The demonstrators included Chinese dissident artist Ai Weiwei, who said Assange's case relates to our society, it relates to our freedom of expression, it relates to our individual human rights, and we have to watch the government."

WikiLeaks supporters say testimony from witnesses during the extradition hearing that Assange was spied on while in Ecuador's embassy in London by a Spanish security firm at the behest of the CIA and that there was even talk of abducting or killing him undermines U.S. claims he will be treated fairly.

The two justices hearing the appeal one is Englands most senior judge, Lord Chief Justice Ian Burnett are not expected to give their ruling for several weeks. The losing side could seek to appeal to the U.K. Supreme Court.

Assange, 50, has been in prison since he was arrested in April 2019 for skipping bail during a separate legal battle. Before that he spent seven years holed up inside Ecuadors London embassy, where he fled in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault.

Sweden dropped the sex crimes investigations in November 2019 because so much time had elapsed. The judge who blocked extradition in January ordered that he must stay in custody during any U.S. appeal, ruling that the Australian citizen has an incentive to abscond if he is freed.

Outside court, Moris said it was completely unthinkable that the U.K. courts could agree to extradition.

I hope the courts will end this nightmare, that Julian is able to come home soon and that wise heads prevail," she said.

Associated Press writer David Keyton contributed.

Read the rest here:

US says Assange could go to Australian prison if convicted ...

The U.S. is set to appeal the U.K.’s refusal to extradite …

Julian Assange's partner, Stella Moris, addresses protestors outside the High Court in London, Wednesday. The U.S. government is scheduled to ask Britain's High Court to overturn a judge's decision that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should not be sent to the United States to face espionage charges. A lower court judge refused extradition in January on health grounds. Frank Augstein/AP hide caption

Julian Assange's partner, Stella Moris, addresses protestors outside the High Court in London, Wednesday. The U.S. government is scheduled to ask Britain's High Court to overturn a judge's decision that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should not be sent to the United States to face espionage charges. A lower court judge refused extradition in January on health grounds.

LONDON The U.S. government is scheduled to ask Britain's High Court on Wednesday to overturn a judge's decision that WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange should not be sent to the United States to face espionage charges.

In January, a lower court judge refused an American request to extradite Assange on spying charges over WikiLeaks' publication of secret military documents a decade ago.

District Judge Vanessa Baraitser denied extradition on health grounds, saying Assange was likely to kill himself if held under harsh U.S. prison conditions. But she rejected defense arguments that Assange faces a politically motivated American prosecution that would override free-speech protections, and she said the U.S. judicial system would give him a fair trial.

Lawyers for U.S. authorities have been granted permission to appeal. At an earlier hearing they questioned the psychiatric evidence in the case and argued that Assange does not meet the threshold of being "so ill" that he cannot resist harming himself.

Several dozen pro-Assange protesters rallied outside London's Royal Courts of Justice before the hearing, which is scheduled to last two days.

Assange, who is being held at London's high-security Belmarsh Prison, had been expected to attend by video link, but he was not present as the hearing began. His lawyer, Edward Fitzgerald, said Assange "doesn't feel able to attend the proceedings."

Assange's partner, Stella Moris, said outside court that she was "very concerned for Julian's health. I saw him on Saturday. He's very thin."

"It is completely unthinkable that the U.K. courts could agree to this," Moris said. "I hope the courts will end this nightmare, that Julian is able to come home soon and that wise heads prevail."

The two justices hearing the appeal who include England's most senior judge, Lord Chief Justice Ian Burnett are not expected to give their ruling for several weeks.

The High Court's ruling will likely not end the epic legal saga, however, since the losing side can seek to appeal to the U.K. Supreme Court.

U.S. prosecutors have indicted Assange on 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse over WikiLeaks' publication of thousands of leaked military and diplomatic documents. The charges carry a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison.

The prosecutors say Assange unlawfully helped U.S. Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning steal classified diplomatic cables and military files that WikiLeaks later published. Lawyers for Assange argue that he was acting as a journalist and is entitled to First Amendment freedom of speech protections for publishing documents that exposed U.S. military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Assange, 50, has been in prison since he was arrested in April 2019 for skipping bail during a separate legal battle. Before that he spent seven years holed up inside Ecuador's London embassy, where he fled in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault.

Sweden dropped the sex crimes investigations in November 2019 because so much time had elapsed, but Assange remains in prison. The judge who blocked extradition in January ordered that he must stay in custody during any U.S. appeal, ruling that the Australian citizen "has an incentive to abscond" if he is freed.

WikiLeaks supporters say testimony from witnesses during the extradition hearing that Assange was spied on while in the embassy by a Spanish security firm at the behest of the CIA and that there was even talk of abducting or killing him undermines U.S. claims he will be treated fairly.

Journalism organizations and human rights groups have urged President Joe Biden to drop the prosecution launched under his predecessor, Donald Trump.

Amnesty International Secretary-General Agnes Callamard said the charges were politically motivated and should be dropped.

"It is a damning indictment that nearly 20 years on, virtually no one responsible for alleged U.S. war crimes committed in the course of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars has been held accountable, let alone prosecuted, and yet a publisher who exposed such crimes is potentially facing a lifetime in jail," she said.

Read the original:

The U.S. is set to appeal the U.K.'s refusal to extradite ...

US asks UK court to permit extradition of WikiLeaks’ Assange

The United States asked Britain's High Court on Wednesday to overturn a judge's decision that Julian Assange should not be sent to the United States to face espionage charges, promising that the WikiLeaks founder would be able to serve any prison sentence he receives in his native Australia.In January, a lower court judge refused an American request to extradite Assange on spying charges over WikiLeaks' publication of secret military documents a decade ago.

District Judge Vanessa Baraitser denied extradition on health grounds, saying Assange was likely to kill himself if held under harsh US prison conditions. But Baraitser rejected defence arguments that Assange faces a politically motivated American prosecution that would override free-speech protections, and she said the US judicial system would give him a fair trial.

An attorney for the US government, James Lewis, argued Wednesday that the judge erred when she ruled Assange would be at risk of suicide if he were sent to the United States. He said American authorities had promised that Assange would not be held before trial in a top-security "Supermax" prison or subjected to strict isolation conditions, and would be allowed in the event of a conviction to serve any sentence in Australia.

Lewis said the assurances "are binding on the United States".

US authorities also argue that Assange does not meet the threshold of being so ill that he cannot resist harming himself.

"Once there is an assurance of appropriate medical care, once it is clear he will be repatriated to Australia to serve any sentence, then we can safely say the district judge would not have decided the relevant question in the way that she did," Lewis said.

Several dozen pro-Assange protesters rallied outside London's Royal Courts of Justice before the hearing, which is scheduled to last two days.

Assange, who is being held at London's high-security Belmarsh Prison, had been expected to attend by video link, but his lawyer, Edward Fitzgerald, said Assange had been put on a high dose of medication and "doesn't feel able to attend the proceedings."

A video link later showed Assange appearing to listen to the hearing. During previous court sessions, his lawyers said he experienced physical and mental health problems.

Assange's partner, Stella Moris, said outside court that she was "very concerned for Julian's health. I saw him on Saturday. He's very thin."

"It is completely unthinkable that the UK courts could agree to this," Moris said. "I hope the courts will end this nightmare, that Julian is able to come home soon and that wise heads prevail."

The two justices hearing the appeal who include England's most senior judge, Lord Chief Justice Ian Burnett are not expected to give their ruling for several weeks. That will likely not end the epic legal saga, however, since the losing side can seek to appeal to the UK Supreme Court.

US prosecutors have indicted Assange on 17 espionage charges and one charge of computer misuse over WikiLeaks' publication of thousands of leaked military and diplomatic documents. The charges carry a maximum sentence of 175 years in prison.

The prosecutors say Assange unlawfully helped US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning steal classified diplomatic cables and military files that WikiLeaks later published. Lawyers for Assange argue that he was acting as a journalist and is entitled to First Amendment freedom of speech protections for publishing documents that exposed US military wrongdoing in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Assange, 50, has been in prison since he was arrested in April 2019 for skipping bail during a separate legal battle. Before that he spent seven years holed up inside Ecuador's London embassy, where he fled in 2012 to avoid extradition to Sweden to face allegations of rape and sexual assault.

Sweden dropped the sex crimes investigations in November 2019 because so much time had elapsed, but Assange remains in prison. The judge who blocked extradition in January ordered that he must stay in custody during any US appeal, ruling that the Australian citizen "has an incentive to abscond" if he is freed.

WikiLeaks supporters say testimony from witnesses during the extradition hearing that Assange was spied on while in the embassy by a Spanish security firm at the behest of the CIA and that there was even talk of abducting or killing him undermines US claims he will be treated fairly.

Journalism organisations and human rights groups have urged President Joe Biden to drop the prosecution launched under his predecessor, Donald Trump.

Amnesty International Secretary-General Agnes Callamard said the charges were politically motivated and should be dropped.

"It is a damning indictment that nearly 20 years on, virtually no one responsible for alleged US war crimes committed in the course of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars has been held accountable, let alone prosecuted, and yet a publisher who exposed such crimes is potentially facing a lifetime in jail," she said.

Read more:

US asks UK court to permit extradition of WikiLeaks' Assange

Trump and Gaetz’s rejected FEC complaints show the perils of taking on Big Tech for conservatives – Business Insider

We are so sorry! We bumped into a system failure and couldnt take your email this time.

Thank you for signing up!

In the last three years, conservatives have lodged a series complaints with the Federal Election Commission charging social media companies with anti-conservative bias over content moderation that have seemingly affected Republican politicians more than Democrats.

But they've been unanimously rebuked each time.

"We just kind of got a flurry of complaints, and we considered a bunch of them together," said Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub in a telephone interview with Insider. Alongside five other commissioners, she's been in charge of weighing the merits of each case and ultimately taking a vote.

As the agency tasked with overseeing the nation's campaign finance laws, the FEC has been asked by a myriad of conservatives to decide whether these content moderation decisions can be classified as corporate in-kind contributions, which are illegal under federal election laws.

In the Trump era especially, these companies became a primary venue for political rhetoric and debate, with growing concerns that they could be a mouthpiece for then-President Donald Trump and others who promoted conspiracy theories and raised the risk of violence.

But whether it's temporarily shadow-banning Rep. Matt Gaetz, affixing a fact-check label to Trump's tweets, removing Trump's content from a curated Snapchat news feed, or refusing to verify a candidate with a history of extreme statements, the commission has continually sided with social media companies.

Among the more high-profile cases involved Twitter's throttling of a New York Post story about Hunter Biden. Lawyers for the Republican National Committee argued that the social media giant had broken federal election laws by essentially making a corporate in-kind contribution to then-candidate Joe Biden.

But in response, Twitter cited their 2018-era "Distribution of Hacked Materials Policy," and the commission bought their argument.

Republican Commissioner Trey Trainor appeared on Glenn Beck's talk show a few days after the rulings were first reported by the New York Timeswhere he sought to explain his decision in conservative terms.

"If we were to say that the decision to throttle the Hunter Biden story was a violation of campaign finance, then we would have a flood of complaints," said Trainor, who serves with two other Republican commissioners. "Everybody on the right would've gotten a complaint filed against them immediately."

At the heart of each of these disputes is a portion of federal campaign finance law governing how politicians, parties, and PACs can interact with corporations a category that now includes social media companies, despite the fact that the law was designed for more traditional providers of goods and services.

"Corporations are prohibited from making contributions to candidates or political parties, but corporations interact with campaigns and political parties in any number of different ways," said Brendan Fischer, director of federal reform at Campaign Legal Center.

That dynamic, he says, makes the question of whether a corporation is making a decision for legitimate commercial reasons rather than simply influencing an election an especially important one.

Charlie Spies, a prominent GOP lawyer who represented Florida Republican congressional candidate Anna Paulina Luna in an FEC complaint over Twitter's refusal to verify her, told Insider that he believes that social media platforms are obligated to give candidates equal access to corporate resources in this case, a blue check on Twitter lest they run afoul of those rules.

"You can't pick and choose who you're going to give corporate resources to," said Spies.

But Weintraub disputed Spies's assertion, pointing to FEC precedents that ensure companies can take actions that may sway an election as long as they have a legitimate business reason to do so.

"What he's talking about are situations where there isn't a bona fide commercial reason and it's just a purely political call, that they only want to support one side," she said. "We generally will not second-guess the business purpose of a business entity. That's not what we do."

What's new in these cases, says Fischer, is the application of decades-old laws to "social media companies that are increasingly adopting stricter content moderation policies."

Social media companies have come under pressure from both sides, given their outsize role in shaping public debate.

While liberals have pushed for tighter regulation around hate speech, extreme content and conspiracy theories, conservatives have increasingly come to view social media platforms and Big Tech generally as being biased towards the left. As platforms have opted to take more responsibility for content published on their sites, conservatives have cried foul.

"I'm not sure the issue was raised before with respect to social media companies," said Weintraub.

Trainor told Beck that it's understandable for conservatives to be calling on the FEC to help, noting that it's "easiest to go after." But, he cautions, federal campaign finance law hasn't been updated in nearly 20 years.

"They're trying to apply a statute that deals with technologies that no longer exist, and apply them to technologies where today, people get all of their news," said Trainor.

Spies, the prominent Republican attorney in seeking to illustrate his point further, posed a hypothetical situation in which a liberal files a complaint against an openly right-wing social media network think Parler, Gab, or Trump's forthcoming "TRUTH Social" that relies on ad revenue from fossil fuel companies, an industry that benefits from Republican rule.

"They could say, well, we think allowing Democrats to have accounts on our site is against our commercial interests," said Spies. "We'll see what kind of reaction that gets."

But the reaction, it seems, would likely be a simple thumbs-up from the commission.

"If they had a business reason for leaning one way or the other, we would probably respect that," said Weintraub, again referring to a passage in the commissioner's statement of reasons in Luna's case clarifying that the FEC doesn't care if the outcome of a legitimate business practice is nonpartisan.

"They can have a partisan slant," she said.

"Parler or Gab could likely make a similar commercial argument that their business model is premised on appealing to particular audiences with a particular ethos," said Fischer, echoing Weintraub. "Then their application of these pre-existing rules against a Democratic candidate would be made for commercial reasons, rather than political reasons."

Trainor, who is otherwise sympathetic to conservatives when it comes to claims that the 2020 election was illegitimate, underscored that it's just not the FEC's job to get involved with how social media platforms are governed.

"We don't want to be in the business of regulating how businesses are run and what editorial decisions they make," he told Beck. "It really is the wrong vehicle to go after social media companies."

With the FEC taking an agnostic approach to social media platforms' content moderation practices, and the prospects for any successful bipartisan initiatives on Big Tech remaining dim, the status quo seem likely to maintain intact despite simmering conservative anger over perceived mistreatment by tech platforms.

And it may only get more tense, given intensifying conservative suspicion of Twitter's new CEO, Parag Agrawal, after an 11-year old tweet condemning Islamophobia surfaced on Twitter this week.

Trump, fully banned from Twitter, is now attempting to create a successful right-wing alternative to the company that Spies deemed a "new public square" in his complaint on behalf of Luna last year.

But at any rate, Spies says he sees Twitter's "bona fide commercial reasons" justification as nothing more than a "post-hoc rationalization" by a company run by liberals.

"Twitter's not charging their favorite liberals to have blue checkmarks that expand their reach," he said. "They're giving them out for free, but they're just picking and choosing who they give them to."

But again, Weintraub insisted that it's not the FEC's job to make that call.

"We're not going to weigh in on that," she said, laughing.

See the rest here:

Trump and Gaetz's rejected FEC complaints show the perils of taking on Big Tech for conservatives - Business Insider

Chelsea women thump Arsenal to win FA Cup and seal domestic treble – WION

Chelsea thrashed Arsenal 3-0 to win the 2020-21 Women's FA Cup at Wembley Stadium on Sunday, completing the English treble for the first time after winning the League Cup and Women's Super League title earlier this year.

Fran Kirby scored the opening goal after only two minutes and Sam Kerr netted a second-half brace, the latter a delightful chipped finish, to seal a third FA Cup for Emma Hayes's side and a third trophy of 2021.

Last season's FA Cup was interrupted, then postponed to this campaign due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Chelsea began the game second to Arsenal in the league standings, having lost to them on the opening day of the season.

However, they got off to the best possible start when Kirby pounced on a defensive lapse by the Gunners defence, who failed to clear their lines, and hit the ball into the bottom corner.

Chelsea dominated the first half in front of almost 41,000 fans while Arsenal looked a shadow of the side who were so far unbeaten in all competitions this campaign. They were not helped by the absence of England defender Leah Williamson through injury.

The Blues were incredibly wasteful in front of goal, though, with Kirby having efforts saved by goalkeeper Manuela Zinsberger and Australia striker Kerr hitting the bar when clear through one on one.

Kerr made up for that miss shortly after halftime, however, when she ran on to a long ball and cut inside the penalty area, toying with defender Lotte Wubben-Moy before firing a low shot inside the near post.

Jonas Eidevall, in his first season as Arsenal manager, urged his side forward but they were always crowded out by the Chelsea defence who expertly marked key Dutch striker Vivianne Miedema out of the game. Arsenal failed to have a shot on target.

The result was sealed for Chelsea in the 77th minute when player of the match Kerr chipped the ball over Zinsberger from the right-hand side of the penalty area.

After making up for her misses in the first half, Kerr became the second Australian to lift the FA Cup after former Matilda Taryn Rockall who won it with Arsenal in 1999.

"It wouldnt go in in the first half - it could have been 4-0 or 5-0 but they defended well. We knew that if we kept pushing at some point they would go in and they did," Kerr told the BBC.

"I'm paid to score goals but our defence was amazing and it was a team effort I can't wait to party!"

The match was played on the 100th anniversary of the English FA banning professional women's football in 1921. The ban lasted nearly 50 years until it was rescinded in January 1970.

More here:

Chelsea women thump Arsenal to win FA Cup and seal domestic treble - WION

What is Bitcoin? | How Do Bitcoin and Crypto Work? | Get …

Bitcoin's origin, early growth, and evolution

Bitcoin is based on the ideas laid out in a 2008 whitepaper titled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.

The paper detailed methods for "allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party." The technologies deployed solved the 'double spend' problem, enabling scarcity in the digital environment for the first time.

The listed author of the paper is Satoshi Nakamoto, a presumed pseudonym for a person or group whose true identity remains a mystery. Nakamoto released the first open-source Bitcoin software client on January 9th, 2009, and anyone who installed the client could begin using Bitcoin.

Initial growth of the Bitcoin network was driven primarily by its utility as a novel method for transacting value in the digital world. Early proponents were, by and large, 'cypherpunks' - individuals who advocated the use of strong cryptography and privacy-enhancing technologies as a route to social and political change. However, speculation as to the future value of Bitcoin soon became a significant driver of adoption.

The price of bitcoin and the number of Bitcoin users rose in waves over the following decade. As regulators in major economies provided clarity on the legality of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, a large number of Bitcoin exchanges established banking connections, making it easy to convert local currency to and from bitcoin. Other businesses established robust custodial services, making it easier for institutional investors to gain exposure to the asset as a growing number of high-profile investors signaled their interest.

At its most basic level, Bitcoin is useful for transacting value outside of the traditional financial system. People use Bitcoin to, for example, make international payments that are settled faster, more securely, and at lower transactional fees than through legacy settlement methods such as the SWIFT or ACH networks.

In the early years, when network adoption was sparse, Bitcoin could be used to settle even small-value transactions, and do so competitively with payment networks like Visa and Mastercard (which, in fact, settle transactions long after point of sale). However, as Bitcoin became more widely used, scaling issues made it less competitive as a medium of exchange for small-value items. In short, it became prohibitively expensive to settle small-value transactions due to limited throughput on the ledger and the lack of availability of second-layer solutions. This supported the narrative that Bitcoin's primary value is less as a payment network and more as an alternative to gold, or 'digital gold.' Here, the argument is that Bitcoin derives value from a combination of the technological breakthroughs it integrates, its capped supply with 'built-into-the-code' monetary policy, and its powerful network effects. In this regard, the investment thesis is that Bitcoin could replace gold and potentially become a form of 'pristine collateral' for the global economy.

Another popular narrative is that Bitcoin supports economic freedom. It is said to do this by providing, on an opt-in basis, an alternative form of money that integrates strong protection against (1) monetary confiscation, (2) censorship, and (3) devaluation through uncapped inflation. Note that this narrative is not mutually exclusive from the 'digital gold' narrative.

Read more: How does governance work in Bitcoin?

Read more: What is Bitcoin mining?

Bitcoin is not a static protocol. It can and has integrated changes throughout its lifetime, and it will continue to evolve. While there are a number of formalized procedures for upgrading Bitcoin (see "How does Bitcoin governance work?"), governance of the protocol is ultimately based on deliberation, persuasion, and volition. In other words, people decide what Bitcoin is.

In several instances, there have been significant disagreements amongst the community as to the direction that Bitcoin should take. When such disagreements cannot be resolved through deliberation and persuasion, a portion of users may - of their own volition - choose to acknowledge a different version of Bitcoin.

The alternative version of Bitcoin with the greatest number of adherents has come to be known as Bitcoin Cash (BCH). It arose out of a proposal aiming to solve scaling problems that had resulted in rising transaction costs and increasing transaction confirmation times. This version of Bitcoin began on August 1st, 2017.

Read more: What is Bitcoin Cash?

Read the original post:
What is Bitcoin? | How Do Bitcoin and Crypto Work? | Get ...

4 Unstoppable Cryptos That Have Left Bitcoin in the Dust – Motley Fool

Bitcoin (BTC) is the granddaddy of cryptocurrencies. The original digital currency launched in 2009 and has already spawned over 15,000 crypto babies. It's by far the biggest coin by market cap and has grown a whopping 71,256,700% since it first traded.

According to CoinMarketCap data, Bitcoin has gained almost 100% so far this year. Many other cryptocurrencies have performed much better than that, but very few have consistently been able to generate strong returns year after year. This is why it is advisable to keep a proportion of your crypto portfolio in safer coins like Bitcoin.

It's fun to look at which cryptos have produced extraordinary returns this year, but we should also consider which ones might continue to produce results for long-term investors. Here are four cryptos that blew Bitcoin out of the water -- and may also be part of a long-term crypto landscape.

Who would have thought a game involving cute blobby cartoon characters would grow into a billion dollar enterprise with over 122,000 users? Axie Infinity did exactly that. The reason? It popularized a new type of gaming called play-to-earn which has changed the way people think about gaming.

Instead of gaining points that are only good for bragging rights in the real world as you might in a traditional game, Axie players earn AXS or SLP tokens that can be exchanged for real cash.

Non-fungible tokens (NFTs) are central to the growth of blockchain gaming. The ownership information is coded into the token, so it has value outside the game. For example, Axie Infinity players can use their Axie NFTs to breed, battle, and complete quests. Since each one is a unique player-owned NFT, it can also be sold in the marketplace.

Ethereum is the second biggest currency by market capitalization. There's regular speculation in crypto circles that it might eventually overtake Bitcoin, an event that's referred to as "the flippening." In spite of strong gains this year, with a market cap of around $540 billion, Ethereum has a long way to go before it reaches Bitcoin's $1 trillion.

Ethereum was the first cryptocurrency with smart contract capabilities. It's a programmable blockchain that can run other applications, making the Ethereum network the engine room that powers much of the decentralized finance system.

However, it has been a victim of its own success as the network is currently heavily congested and plagued with high transaction fees. It's in the process of an upgrade to Eth2, which -- assuming all goes well -- should help its performance. In the meantime, other cryptos have stepped up to the plate.

Solana is another of 2021's stand out cryptocurrencies. Its fast processing speed and low transaction costs have attracted investors and developers alike. Like Ethereum, it is a smart contract crypto. Unlike Ethereum, which processes 15-45 transactions per second (TPS), Solana can handle about 50,000 TPS. Right now there are over 500 projects running on Solana's ecosystem while Ethereum has almost 3,000.

Solana has made huge strides forward in the past year, but it remains to be seen how it will handle further increases in traffic and demand. Ethereum may have its problems, but it's been truly battle tested. In contrast, Solana's platform went down for 17 hours in September after it was overwhelmed by a flood of transactions.

Cardano is a top 10 cryptocurrency that's not only performed well this year, but could also continue to produce results longer term. It is a programmable blockchain that's taken a slow-and-steady approach to development. Each step is peer-reviewed before implementation, which has earned the project its share of both fans and critics.

One of Cardano's biggest strengths is its partnerships with various governments and organizations in Africa. For example, it has a partnership with the Ethiopian Ministry of Education to store students' academic records on the blockchain. Many blockchain applications are focused inward on other cryptos, so it's good to see these real world use cases.

A quick analysis of the top 100 coins by market cap shows that 79 of the top 100 coins outperformed Bitcoin in 2021. In fact, 30 of them produced returns of over 1,000%. Those eye-watering returns have tempted a lot of investors to open their first cryptocurrency exchange accounts.

The trouble is that it's not really a fair comparison. Bitcoin is a much safer and more established investment. Some see it as a form of digital gold or a store of value, which is a very different asset than, say, an online game like Axie Infinity.

People who buy less established cryptocurrencies may be successful in getting in on the ground floor (like early Bitcoin investors did) and making significant gains. But in doing so, they take on a lot more risk -- for every crypto that produces gains of over 1,000%, there are several more that failed altogether or posted significant losses.

As an investor, only you know your financial goals and overall strategy. But it is important to understand the risks involved and do your own research before jumping in. The four coins above are all good coins to have on your radar for the longer term. Just don't buy them hoping for another 23,000% gain.

Excerpt from:
4 Unstoppable Cryptos That Have Left Bitcoin in the Dust - Motley Fool

Facing The Chasm: The Future Of Bitcoin And The Metaverse – Bitcoin Magazine

We tend to think of the world as the past, present and future, and as these distinguished moments in time. However, we intuitively know that this is not the case. Instead, we are always in a state of flux, this slow progressive evolution in order to suit humanitys growing needs, knowledge and demands. However, with change comes adjustment, and what we are facing right now is an adjustment to the digital realm, the world of Bitcoin and our digital identity: a crossing of the chasm, a state of change away from the physical realm of traditional finance, legacy structures and the world as we know it. This article is meant to highlight some of these critical hurdles brought up by Raoul Pal and Robert Breedlove in an effort to get the collective consciousness thinking about how we can transition to this digital realm with minimal volatility and entropy.

One thing Raoul and Breedlove bring up many times throughout the talk is the metaverse. Therefore, lets first ensure we are on the same page when it comes to the metaverse. We often hear the metaverse is the future; however, what most deep down the rabbit hole may argue is that the metaverse has been blossoming into existence since the birth of the internet. However, we are only just starting to define it now. Lets go deeper ...

Most of us tend to interpret the metaverse as this digital environment where we hang out in a virtual world- the world Mark Zuckerberg is pushing with his Facebook ads, i.e., Meta. But, I would argue that the metaverse is not this virtual world that it is made out to be, but rather a digital interface to ones digital self. It is our digital identity where we interact with our online social community, manage our digital possessions and store our digital wealth, to name a few aspects which are currently easy to identify. With that being said, this osmosis into the metaverse is not a movement of people away from the physical world into the digital world, but rather a transfer of wealth and identity from the physical realm to the digital realm. Although many people already do and will continue to spend time in digital worlds in video games and social platforms, most of us will still very much be rooted in the physical world for the time being.

Building on this idea, what will happen to physical assets? An assets value is subjective and is worth something usually because it provides value to us in some way or another. At the moment, our physical assets offer greater perceived value than our digital assets. This explains the discrepancy between the value of physical versus digital assets globally, e.g., real estate is worth over $300 trillion while the complete cryptocurrency market cap sits at $2.5 trillion (recently as high as $3 trillion). The question now is, how does this value shift over into the metaverse? This, I believe, is a demographic shift. As our population ages, those in earlier generations with limited exposure to the digital realm (i.e., digital identity, digital assets or digital possessions), will slowly bequeath their wealth to their offspring, which will find greater value as technology evolves in the metaverse. However, it should be noted that you will find utility and value in different areas and offerings within the metaverse depending on your age, values, interests, gender and location. Some people may choose to stay primarily in the physical world if the metaverse doesnt seem to provide ample value to them. Others may dive in headfirst.

Where are we now? We are currently in a state of limbo, one toe in the digital plane and the rest of the body out. Most of us have exposure to the metaverse when it comes to our digital identity, but only a handful of us find greater value in digital assets over physical assets, although this is quickly changing. However, as we see greater adoption, we will also encounter greater hurdles (technological, political, financial etc.). Taking this into account, this shift towards the metaverse isnt something that will happen overnight. As previously mentioned, it is a generational demographic shift that has been underway since the invention of the internet. The transition from handwritten letters to email and social media was just the start. Now we should continue to see the transition of wealth, jobs, and identities to the digital plane.

When can we safely say the metaverse is our reality? Just like inflation impacts everyone differently, as it is dependent on your consumption habits, what you classify as the metaverse is unique to you. There are many ways to measure your presence in the metaverse, i.e., by time, wealth, reputation, interests, job, hobbies or knowledge. With that in mind, some people may argue that we are already in the metaverse due to the amount of time we spend engrossed in technology. On the other hand, others may say we havent reached that inflection point just yet, or that the metaverse will become our reality when:

- We spend more time connected to the digital realm than the physical realm - When digital wealth surpasses physical wealth

- When were able to vote for our politicians in this digital world

- When the majority of jobs are in the digital plane

- When we can digitally upload ones consciousness

...and some will say the metaverse will never become our reality.

My personal belief is that the metaverse is supplemental to our physical existence, and it is not one or the other. The metaverse eases our physical existence by dematerializing our limitations and constraints, such as distance, time, aging, wealth, connection, etc. However, there is and will continue to be an abundance of value in the physical world. But ultimately, this decision of whether we are or arent or what is versus what isnt the metaverse is not for me to decide. Ill pass that one onto you.

Opinions aside, although the definition of what constitutes the metaverse may be subjective, what's not so subjective is that we are and will continue to face hurdles as we see greater adoption.

Chart Source

Every new technology has to cross the chasm to reach mainstream adoption (the chasm is detailed in the image above). During this crossing of the chasm, we see creative destruction take hold, where legacy systems collapse and new technology changes the way we interact with theworld. All new technology has some form of disruption. Its just that some technology is more disruptive than others.

With the introduction of the digital camera, we witnessed the dismantling and disruption of the traditional film market. But from this, we saw the boon of photography and documentation. However, when it comes to cryptocurrencies, we have only just started to scratch the surface of what is possible. Here is an example of some of the sectors this new technology has the potential to disrupt:

- The financial system (banking, remittances, micropayments, credit markets, to name a few) - Social media and digital interaction

- The internet (our digital footprint)

- Voting

- Insurance

From everything mentioned so far, it should be evident that we are in the middle of a major global state change, a transfer of identity, wealth, possessions and interactions from the physical realm into the digital realm. As Raoul and Robert eloquently explain, with this state of change in place, we have to overcome some major hurdles. We need to ensure we are heading in the right direction collectively. Therefore, we should ask ourselves, how do we get there safely, without a consolidation of power or the crippling of our economy? These are a few key questions we have to figure out before conquering the chasm of adoption. Lets touch on a few key hurdles we have to face:

If an asset, such as bitcoin, is our primary currency and store of value and it is wildly outperforming the majority of other investment opportunities, then we will be disincentivized to transact and spend with it. Yes, there will be occasions here and there, but in general, the majority of the world we know will be starved of capital. This will push central banks to intervene and over-regulate in order to stop this capital flight from traditional assets to digital assets, but in doing so, itll only lock people into our failing system, delaying the inevitable and amplifying its negative effects down the line.

Eventually, if we can predominately move across into the digital realm, this problem of capital flight will be solved. At this point, bitcoin will reach market saturation, similar to gold today, where it protects purchasing power but is no longer an asymmetric bet on technology and a failure of the current system. But in the interim, how do we take advantage of bitcoins positive properties while also promoting the exchange of bitcoin between one another?

In the short term, if we were to see a seismic shift of capital away from traditional assets and into digital assets, this starvation of capital from traditional assets would create sizable losses. Suppose traditional assets start facing major losses, while at the same time, there is a lack of transacting in digital assets, creating a reduction in realized gains; then wed have a problem on our hands. We could see a significant decrease in capital gain revenue and an increase in capital losses, further eroding the tax base. This could push policymakers to implement overbearing regulation, resulting in measures such as taxation on unrealized gains. This would stifle the prosperity in the metaverse and limit the transition of individuals to the digital realm.

In the long term, if we embrace a currency such as bitcoin as a legal tender:

1. The government will no longer receive capital gains tax from any appreciation in the value of bitcoin. This would be in line with the fact that a countrys legal tender is not subject to taxation if/when it appreciates/depreciates.

2. We live in an inherently deflationary world, whereby technological advancement allows us to get more for less. Over time this advancement increases productivity and efficiency, causing the cost of goods, services and assets to decline slowly. However, this is only possible under a currency with a fixed money supply (such as bitcoin). The lack of monetary expansion causing dilution would allow the currency to capture these technological gains. This may sound positive; however over time, most assets may decline in price, resulting in increased capital losses, reducing tax revenue.

With that being said, one could argue that by adopting a currency such as bitcoin, the government will no longer be spending in a currency that loses purchasing power one day to the next. Therefore, all tax revenue will go further, making up for this reduction in tax revenue. If that is the case, then this may all come out in the wash. However, we should still be conscious of these potential taxation issues. With that in mind, how do we ensure that assets such as bitcoin are taxed appropriately, but as not to restrict their potential as a solution to our fragile system? And, how do we take into account an increase in capital losses?

We are in the middle of one of the biggest revolutions in human history, and alongside this revolution, we face an assortment of immense deflationary forces such as:

- Demographics (an aging population with limited purchasing power)

- Our major debt burden consuming productive capital

- Technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI) and robots consuming jobs

- Competition in the workforce due to overcrowding of what jobs remain

- Currency debasement, destroying our purchasing power

- Monetary intervention suppressing interest rates and traditional asset returns - Capital flight into the digital realm putting strain on the traditional system

As these forces become more pervasive, it becomes harder and harder for the lower- and middle-income segments of the population to survive. This is a big issue! The majority of the population is under immense pressure as they are being squeezed from all angles. How do we give them a voice, meet their needs and stop them from revolting?

One potential option Raoul proposes is embracing central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), allowing easier implementation of fiscal stimulus such as universal basic income (UBI). By doing so, we could redirect the flow of the capital away from asset owners and into the hands of the most at-risk individuals. This will aid in bridging the gap between the physical and the digital realm for the lower- and middle-wealth percentiles, allowing them to support themselves as these deflationary pressures take hold.

My worry with this view is that CBDCs have the potential to give governments globally immense power and control. If this power is used in the ways mentioned above, then I am all for it. However, if CBDCs are used with the interests of the few in mind, this will only further consolidate wealth and power and could potentially end this utopian decentralized vision of the metaverse. Therefore, is there a way to implement CBDCs but somehow define the boundaries for which they can be used, preventing misuse and the centralization of power?

However, regardless of which route we chose to bridge the chasm, Raoul does bring up a good point: if we are able to transition over to a decentralized metaverse and democratize this incredible technological boon in productivity and innovation, then we may be able to implement a natural form of UBI, where we could monetize our own digital identity. Although this is currently not possible, as our online corporations current structure is to capitalize off of our data by monetizing our every move, a decentralized metaverse shifts this power and revenue generation into the hands of the user.

As technology advances, we are and will continue to see robots and AI replacing our jobs. Additionally, as energy costs slowly trend to near zero, we should see the cost of living slowly decline. Adding in the fact that we are witnessing a giant demographic shift where people have fewer children due to the costly environment we live in, this should cause gross domestic product (GDP) per capita to skyrocket. This could mean we are about to face one of the most productive periods in human history.

However, with costs slowly working their way to near zero and jobs being replaced by technology, resulting in more time on our hands, will this considerable increase in productivity bring about:

1. A decentralized open-source world where we push for equality of opportunity and where technology is shared freely? If so, this could result in a renaissance period with a focus on culture, art, and science leading to immense prosperity, innovation, and growth;

Or,

2. A darker, more centralized productivity boon where the vast majority of the patents pertaining to this powerful technology that now governs our lives is under the control of a few key players? In this case, we would most likely see significant poverty and some of humanitys more challenging times ahead due to the centralization of power and wealth.

On top of all that, we are currently seeing major global exploitation of our digital identities. Not only are we seeing our online data being used in for-profit activities, but we are also seeing targeted media leading to psychological manipulation allowing these large monopolistic entities to sway the population.

Unfortunately, with everything mentioned above, the free market isnt going to solve these hurdles we face in the way we want. It is going to solve them with the total accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few. Therefore, what can we do to ensure this powerful technology of the future is in the hands of the people while also promoting the continuation of free markets?

With all that being said, how we approach these tough questions will define our future. Will crossing the chasm result in a:

a) Decentralized Metaverse? This would be a bright future where creative destruction is encouraged: Where there is a dispersion of power within a decentralized metaverse, brought about by rules and regulations that prevent the destruction and manipulation of the free markets, all while suppressing the overbearing powers of monopolies that asphyxiate competition. It should be noted that we may still have nation-state fiat currencies, but globally, wed embrace an immutable decentralized asset as our world reserve currency. This would lower the cost of living and democratize technology and finance, reducing wealth inequality. But more importantly, it would restrict the centralization of power with a technology that complements our deflationary world.

b) Centralized Metaverse? This would look similar to the current state of play, where a handful of large corporations have overwhelming control over our data and access to vast sums of capital, allowing them to lobby, protect their interests, and influence politics. In addition to the suppression of creative destruction, will we follow in Chinas footsteps and see the rise of CBDCs and social credit scores? This would give the government unfettered access to all our personal data, laying the foundation for the destruction of free markets and suppression of capital flows into any technology that poses a threat to the governments power.

Or will we walk the middle ground just like we have done many times throughout history, experiencing a give-and-take between centralization and decentralization?

We tend to think that when new technologies, such as Bitcoin and the metaverse appear, we all jump on board, and everything is hunky-dory. However, the reality is, if certain events had not happened the way they did, we might not have many of the innovations and advancements we see today. These technologies dont just appear. They are years in the making, a culmination of previous technological progress and human endeavours. They emerge from our experiences, needs and desires, and they are a byproduct of decisions we made ten, fifty, one hundred years ago. With this in mind, coming together as a collective, and understanding the unintended consequences of our choices will help guide us in making more efficient and productive decisions for the future.

The future is bright if we make it.

This is a guest post by Sebastian Bunney. Opinions expressed are entirely their own and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC, Inc. or Bitcoin Magazine.

See the original post here:
Facing The Chasm: The Future Of Bitcoin And The Metaverse - Bitcoin Magazine