Friday, November 24, 2017

Black Friday Stuff

First up, the two Thanksgiving Day pieces from the Paris Review are just so satisfying I had the brilliant thought to check what P.R. might have for Black Friday.
And was rewarded with:

Black Friday, the Poem
The Paris Review staff is off in a tryptophan-induced haze, so we’re reposting some of our favorite Thanksgiving pieces. Enjoy your holiday!
black-fri_12901_mdlarge

     “The New York Gold Room on ‘Black Friday,’ September 24, 1869.” —E. Benjamin Andrews 1895
While most of us know Black Friday as the nightmarish commerce-fest following Thanksgiving—a term coined in Philadelphia in 1961—in fact the nom de guerre dates back to the nineteenth century. In 1869, the robber barons Jay Gould and James Fisk attempted to corner the gold market, resulting in financial crisis and scandal.

E. C. Stedman, a poet and broker(!), wrote the following:
One Hundred and Sixty! Can’t be true!
What will the bears-at-forty do?
How will the merchants pay their dues?
How will the country stand the news?...
 ...MORE

We too have referenced the doings on Sept 24, 1869. An example from 2013:

It May Have Been October 2008 When I Lost My Mind
 ....Here's a stock market oriented version of Steely Dan's "Black Friday"*, worth the watch:


*The song refers to Black Friday, September 24, 1869 when an attempted corner of the gold market by James Fisk and Jay Gould was broken by the Federales.
When Black Friday comes
I'll stand down by the door
And catch the gray men
When they dive from the fourteenth floor
When Black Friday comes
I'll collect everything I'm owed
And before my friends find out
I'll be on the road
When Black Friday falls you know it's got to be
Don't let it fall on me...
Over at ZeroHedge they will be doing their annual Tally of the Mayhem. Here's the first of what will probably be a series of posts:
One Person Shot Outside Mall, Brawl Closes Alabama Shopping Center As Black Friday Gets Going

"Who Owns the Internet?"

I was reminded of this story by the earlier RT - now registered as a foreign agent and soon to be 'de-ranked' in Google's algorithms - article on Kim Dotcom's new internet.

From the New Yorker, August 28:

What Big Tech’s monopoly powers mean for our culture.
On the night of November 7, 1876, Rutherford B. Hayes’s wife, Lucy, took to her bed with a headache. The returns from the Presidential election were trickling in, and the Hayeses, who had been spending the evening in their parlor, in Columbus, Ohio, were dismayed. Hayes himself remained up until midnight; then he, too, retired, convinced that his Democratic opponent, Samuel J. Tilden, would become the next President.

Hayes had indeed lost the popular vote, by more than two hundred and fifty thousand ballots. And he might have lost the Electoral College as well had it not been for the machinations of journalists working in the shady corners of what’s been called “the Victorian Internet.”

Chief among the plotters was an Ohioan named William Henry Smith. Smith ran the western arm of the Associated Press, and in this way controlled the bulk of the copy that ran in many small-town newspapers. The Western A.P. operated in tight affiliation—some would say collusion—with Western Union, which exercised a near-monopoly over the nation’s telegraph lines. Early in the campaign, Smith decided that he would employ any means necessary to assure a victory for Hayes, who, at the time, was serving a third term as Ohio’s governor. In the run-up to the Republican National Convention, Smith orchestrated the release of damaging information about the Governor’s rivals. Then he had the Western A.P. blare Hayes’s campaign statements and mute Tilden’s. At one point, an unflattering piece about Hayes appeared in the Chicago Times, a Democratic paper. (The piece claimed that Hayes, who had been a general in the Union Army, had accepted money from a soldier to give to the man’s family, but had failed to pass it on when the soldier died.) The A.P. flooded the wires with articles discrediting the story.

Once the votes had been counted, attention shifted to South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana—states where the results were disputed. Both parties dispatched emissaries to the three states to try to influence the Electoral College outcome. Telegrams sent by Tilden’s representatives were passed on to Smith, courtesy of Western Union. Smith, in turn, shared the contents of these dispatches with the Hayes forces. This proto-hack of the Democrats’ private communications gave the Republicans an obvious edge. Meanwhile, the A.P. sought and distributed legal opinions supporting Hayes. (Outraged Tilden supporters took to calling it the “Hayesociated Press.”) As Democrats watched what they considered to be the theft of the election, they fell into a funk.

“They are full of passion and want to do something desperate but hardly know how to,” one observer noted. Two days before Hayes was inaugurated, on March 5, 1877, the New York Sun appeared with a black border on the front page. “These are days of humiliation, shame and mourning for every patriotic American,” the paper’s editor wrote.

History, Mark Twain is supposed to have said, doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme. Once again, the President of the United States is a Republican who lost the popular vote. Once again, he was abetted by shadowy agents who manipulated the news. And once again Democrats are in a finger-pointing funk.

Journalists, congressional committees, and a special counsel are probing the details of what happened last fall. But two new books contend that the large lines of the problem are already clear. As in the eighteen-seventies, we are in the midst of a technological revolution that has altered the flow of information. Now, as then, just a few companies have taken control, and this concentration of power—which Americans have acquiesced to without ever really intending to, simply by clicking away—is subverting our democracy.

Thirty years ago, almost no one used the Internet for anything. Today, just about everybody uses it for everything. Even as the Web has grown, however, it has narrowed. Google now controls nearly ninety per cent of search advertising, Facebook almost eighty per cent of mobile social traffic, and Amazon about seventy-five per cent of e-book sales. Such dominance, Jonathan Taplin argues, in “Move Fast and Break Things: How Facebook, Google, and Amazon Cornered Culture and Undermined Democracy” (Little, Brown), is essentially monopolistic. In his account, the new monopolies are even more powerful than the old ones, which tended to be limited to a single product or service. Carnegie, Taplin suggests, would have been envious of the reach of Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos.
Taplin, who until recently directed the Annenberg Innovation Lab, at the University of Southern California, started out as a tour manager. He worked with Judy Collins, Bob Dylan, and the Band, and also with George Harrison, on the Concert for Bangladesh. In “Move Fast and Break Things,” Taplin draws extensively on this experience to illustrate the damage, both deliberate and collateral, that Big Tech is wreaking.

Consider the case of Levon Helm. He was the drummer for the Band, and, though he never got rich off his music, well into middle age he was supported by royalties. In 1999, he was diagnosed with throat cancer. That same year, Napster came along, followed by YouTube, in 2005. Helm’s royalty income, which had run to about a hundred thousand dollars a year, according to Taplin, dropped “to almost nothing.” When Helm died, in 2012, millions of people were still listening to the Band’s music, but hardly any of them were paying for it. (In the years between the founding of Napster and Helm’s death, total consumer spending on recorded music in the United States dropped by roughly seventy per cent.) Friends had to stage a benefit for Helm’s widow so that she could hold on to their house.

Google entered and more or less immediately took over the music business when it acquired YouTube, in 2006, for $1.65 billion in stock. As Taplin notes, just about “every single tune in the world is available on YouTube as a simple audio file (most of them posted by users).” Many of these files are illegal, but to Google this is inconsequential. Under the Digital Media Copyright Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton shortly after Google went live, Internet service providers aren’t liable for copyright infringement as long as they “expeditiously” take down or block access to the material once they’re notified of a problem. Musicians are constantly filing “takedown” notices—in just the first twelve weeks of last year, Google received such notices for more than two hundred million links—but, often, after one link is taken down, the song goes right back up at another one. In the fall of 2011, legislation aimed at curbing online copyright infringement, the Stop Online Piracy Act, was introduced. It had bipartisan support in Congress, and backing from such disparate groups as the National District Attorneys Association, the National League of Cities, the Association of Talent Agencies, and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. In January, 2012, the bill seemed headed toward passage, when Google decided to flex its market-concentrated muscles. In place of its usual colorful logo, the company posted on its search page a black rectangle along with the message “Tell Congress: Please don’t censor the web!” The resulting traffic overwhelmed congressional Web sites, and support for the bill evaporated. (Senator Marco Rubio, of Florida, who had been one of the bill’s co-sponsors, denounced it on Facebook.)

Google itself doesn’t pirate music; it doesn’t have to. It’s selling the traffic—and, just as significant, the data about the traffic. Like the Koch brothers, Taplin observes, Google is “in the extraction industry.” Its business model is “to extract as much personal data from as many people in the world at the lowest possible price and to resell that data to as many companies as possible at the highest possible price.” And so Google profits from just about everything: cat videos, beheadings, alt-right rants, the Band performing “The Weight” at Woodstock, in 1969.

“I wasn’t always so skeptical,” Franklin Foer announces at the start of “World Without Mind: The Existential Threat of Big Tech” (Penguin Press). Franklin, the eldest of the three famous Foer brothers, is a journalist, and he began his career, in the mid-nineties, working for Slate, which had then just been founded by Microsoft. The experience, Foer writes, was “exhilarating.” Later, he became the editor of The New Republic. The magazine was on the brink of ruin when, in 2012, it was purchased by Chris Hughes, a co-founder of Facebook, whose personal fortune was estimated at half a billion dollars....MUCH MORE

‘By the people, for the people’: Kim Dotcom to launch alternative internet

From RT:
Kim Dotcom, wanted in the US for alleged widespread illegal file sharing, has vowed to build an alternative internet to combat privacy and freedom problems online. 
The knowledge that government agencies have used the internet to spy on citizens, along with high-profile hacking scandals, has brought online privacy to the forefront of people’s minds.

Megaupload founder Kim Dotcom says he will help facilitate an unobstructed internet, free from prying eyes, through MegaNet, which will operate without IP addresses. The German entrepreneur is currently resisting extradition to the US from New Zealand over alleged copyright infringement.

Dotcom, who believes the internet to be a new frontier of rough-and-tumble lawlessness like the Wild West, previously described his alternative internet idea as “indestructible, uncontrollable & encrypted”.
READ MORE: Kim Dotcom wants to encrypt half of the internet to end government surveillance (FULL RT INTERVIEW)
“The current corporate internet will be replaced by a better Internet, running on the idle capacity of hundreds of millions of mobile devices,” Dotcom said. “Run by the people for the people. Breaking net-neutrality will only accelerate the adoption of a new network.”....
...MUCH MORE

Lessons From the Book of Job

Via SMBC Comics:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/1503412927-20170822.png

SMBC's Home page

"Google is locking people out of documents, and you should be worried" (GOOG)

This sounds like a very good reason not to put anything into the cloud unless absolutely necessary.
From Mashable, Oct. 31:
It turns out that even your private documents can be censored online. This morning, a ton of users reported being locked out of completely innocuous Google Docs for "inappropriate content."
Google's abuse policy prohibits the posting of serious threats, needlessly graphic or violent content, hate speech, harassment, confidential information, pornography, and anything illegal including child exploitation and copyrighted content.

Today, however, multiple users believe that the content they were locked out of did not contain prohibited material. National Geographic reporter Rachael Bale, who was locked out of a draft of a story about wildlife crime, claims that nothing in her document violated Google's policies. "It's about legal, but ethically dubious activity," she tweeted....

...A Google spokesperson claims that the lockouts were an error, and that the company has fixed the problem.

"This morning, we made a code push that incorrectly flagged a small percentage of Google docs as abusive, which caused those documents to be automatically blocked," the company told Mashable. "A fix is in place and all users should have access to their docs." 
Google added, "We apologize for the disruption and will put processes in place to prevent this from happening again."

Still, the incident raises important questions about the control Google Docs users have over their own content. The potential to lose access to an important document because it hasn't yet been polished to remove certain references or sensitive material has concrete implications for the way Google Docs is used....
...MORE, including further response from the GOOG

A Tale of Two Cities: Hamburg and Lubeck—Lessons in Trade, Geography and Urbanism

Sorry Lubeck, the umlaut won't print correctly on this platform.

From ProMarket,:

The German cities of Hamburg and Lübeck have an interwoven and eventful history. Whereas Lübeck offers an example of how dominant cities may become unattractive and decline when they end up serving the interests of a privileged few and refuse to change, Hamburg serves as a tale of how cities can reinvent themselves by changing with the times.
The cities of Hamburg and Lübeck in the north of Germany are just 65 kilometers (40 miles) apart. Yet, given the shape of the Jutland peninsula, Hamburg lies on the Atlantic coast, while Lübeck lies on the Baltic.

The two cities have an interwoven and eventful history. Both Hamburg and Lübeck were members of the medieval Hanseatic League. This league was a federation of merchant guilds—an association of wholesale traders that had a privileged regional monopoly over trade—that traded across northern Europe. These guilds were the dominant way of doing trade across medieval Europe.

Within the Hanseatic League, Hamburg and Lübeck were sprawling cities. While Lübeck served as the chief Baltic entrepôt of Europe, Hamburg provided the Hanseatic League with access to the Atlantic. Between the two cities lay the elaborate Elbe river and canal system to facilitate transport of goods. Lübeck prided itself on being the Queen of the Hanseatic until the fifteenth century, while Hamburg was its smaller, allied partner.
https://promarket.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/HamburgLubeck.png
 Nov. 13Times became rocky for the Hanseatic system in the fifteenth century. This was in part due to the rise of the Dutch, who were once beneficiaries of trade with the Hanseatic but were now the league’s seafaring competitors. Before the arrival of the Dutch, almost all trade to and from the Baltic passed through Lübeck. Likewise, Hamburg benefited from being the sole major Atlantic port of the Hanseatic. The link between Lübeck and Hamburg was a crucial route for trade in the north. However, the Dutch began to trade with the Baltic by navigating around the Jutland peninsula and through the Sound (Øresund). Thus, the Dutch soon began to reach the Baltic shores without the need to visit Hamburg and/or Lübeck. This competition from the Dutch disrupted the two cities’ centuries-old domination over trade between the Atlantic and the Baltic.

How did the two cities respond? Differently. Lübeck responded to this competition with the Dutch by giving more privileges to its own merchants and by leading a persistent attempt to disrupt the Dutch trade through the Sound (which included taking part in the Dano Hanseatic War of 1426-35 and the Dutch Hanseatic War of 1438-41). In contrast, while Hamburg initially was an ally to Lübeck in its resistance to the Dutch (including in the two wars), it eventually began to diverge from its partner in the sixteenth century. Hamburg opened trade to all locals and non-locals, and instead of resisting this rising Dutch trade, it “adapted itself perfectly to the changing situation” and moved toward an open system of trade that welcomed diverse merchants (Dollinger, 1970, p. 355). Thus, Hamburg internally reformed, and the centuries-old privileges that a few of its merchants enjoyed declined, especially in the sixteenth century. This made a difference.

Hamburg over time became integrated with the Atlantic trading system to its west, and expanded as a major Atlantic entrepôt of northern Europe. Traders from around Europe could trade in Hamburg, and this attracted more merchants and more trade. And what about Lübeck? While the traditional traders held onto their privileges in the city, Lübeck as a whole declined slowly but persistently, especially after the sixteenth century.

Dollinger (1970, p. 372), recounting the decline of Lübeck in his classic book The German Hansa, wrote:...MUCH MORE

Thursday, November 23, 2017

Shipping: Every Link In The Global Trade Supply Chain That Blockchain Could (maybe) Transform

I strongly recommend the links in "Fintech: When Is A Blockchain Not A Blockchain?" including:
The FT's Izabella Kaminska Gives An Overview Of The State Of Blockchain And Reveals A Troubling Personal Detail
...By-the-bye I first saw Credit Suisse's point 2 done up decision tree style back in December in an article entitled "Why Blockchain must die in 2016":
https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_800_800/AAEAAQAAAAAAAAQTAAAAJGRmZjY1MWU2LWI5NTQtNGY1Ny04YWY5LWFlZmU4YzM2MTcyNQ.png
The tree was based on an article at MultiChain's blog, "Avoiding the pointless blockchain project" which included the sentence: "If your requirements are fulfilled by today’s relational databases, you’d be insane to use a blockchain."
Sounds good to me.
 And for some reasons why blockchain may be more helpful to real businesses as opposed to finance stuff, read between the lines of:
"Is an Editable Blockchain the Future of Finance?"
So the lady asked, "Inquiring minds want to know: can blockchain reconcile 200% institutional ETF ownership?".
Sure, why not.
Of course this is no longer blockchain, it's some sort of database combined with an eraser head. We'll call it 'blockhead'....
Here's today's logistics post, from CB Insights:

Maersk and other maritime logistics players, which handle 90% of globally traded goods, are exploring blockchain to increase efficiency and transparency in global trade.
It currently takes a stack of 200 communications between 30 different parties to ship a container from Mombasa, Kenya to the Port of Rotterdam, according to a recent study by shipping carrier Maersk. With each additional piece of paperwork, the risk of fraud, miscommunication, and delay increases.
To combat this barrier to trade, Maersk is partnering with IBM to incorporate blockchain distributed ledger technology into its shipping process.

By allowing all parties in the global shipping supply chain to share information through a digitally secure distributed ledger, blockchain technology could revolutionize the maritime logistics space, eliminating the complex current system of disparate, expensive, and time-consuming paperwork.

Why blockchain for maritime logistics makes sense
Maersk and its 6 largest ocean shipping competitors, together, hold more than 50% of global maritime container shipping market share. Even if only these companies implement blockchain into their operations, it could significantly increase the speed of international trade, while also boosting transparency and reliability into the notoriously opaque container shipping industry.
Blockchain integration could also affect other players along the supply chain including freight forwarders, brokers, importers, exporters, manufacturers, brands, retailers, and beyond.

The potential significance of blockchain integration has attracted increasing media attention in recent years.
Other global supply chain players, beyond maritime logistics, are also showing an interest in blockchain. In August 2017, Walmart, Kroger, Nestle, and Unilever, among others, partnered with IBM to use blockchain to improve food safety through improved supply chain tracking.

While blockchain integration by these specific vendors could speed up their individual supply chains, blockchain adoption by maritime logistics companies, which help transport 90% of globally traded goods, could have a much further-reaching effect.

Maritime logistics players rush into blockchain
Beyond speeding up trade, blockchain has other applications in maritime logistics, spanning areas like cybersecurity, marine insurance, and seaport-related operations.

Prominent players in the space, such as shipping carriers and port operators are exploring these use-cases by partnering with large corporations, blockchain startups, and consortia (groups of independent companies or entities partnering to use blockchain technology).

We created a timeline showcasing select partnerships and initiatives in 2017 in the maritime logistics space. As can be seen below, activity has significantly increased as recently as July of this year.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/cbi-research-portal-uploads/2017/11/15111542/Maritime-Blockchain-Timeline_111517.png
Notes: Blue circles represent partnerships between various players in the maritime logistics and blockchain spaces. Orange circles denote partnerships and initiatives between maritime logistics companies and blockchain consortia.
The partnerships highlighted in this timeline can be grouped into the following categories:
Trade efficiency: In March 2017, Maersk partnered with IBM to integrate blockchain technology into its supply chain and shipping processes. As discussed above, partnerships like this have the potential to impact global trade by reducing complications in communication.

Marine insurance: In September, Maersk also partnered with blockchain startup GuardTime, corporates Microsoft and EY, and insurance companies ACORD, Willis Towers Watson, MS Amlin, and XL Catlin to launch a marine insurance blockchain platform. The platform simplifies marine insurance, a space also plagued by disorganized communication....
...MUCH MORE

Previously:
"10 Startups Making Ocean Container Shipping Easier"
Norwegian Government to Chip In $17 Million to Develop the First Electric Autonomous Cargo Ship
Shipping: "Value of Autonomy Questioned"
Shipping: "Amazon vs Maersk: The clash of titans shaking the container industry"
"TEU Tokens and Blockchain Could Shape the Future of Container Shipping"
"Maersk Tankers invests in quantitative hedge fund CargoMetrics"
Shipping: Despite $300 Million Revenue Hit From Cyber Attack Maersk Is Upbeat 
Shipping: "The True Implications of the Technology Revolution"
Shipping: Following Maersk,"Now CMA CGM signs with Alibaba for online booking of container space"
Shipping: A Warning To Freight Forwarders, The Good Times Are Over
Shipping: "Amazon Enters Trillion Dollar Ocean Freight Business" (AMZN)
Shipping: Maersk, Alibaba Team Up To Offer Space On Container Ships.   

Thanksgiving and Beer

First posted November 27, 2013:

From a 2011 email to a friend:

So Thursday was beautiful and around 1:00 p.m. I said "I'd like a beer".
Rather than "Here let me get one for you" my interlocutor says "You and Samoset".
Being quick-witted I respond "Huh?"
And receive "You remember Samoset?"
"Uh, sure. Samoset, Squanto and Massasoit, right?"
"Look it up"

So I do.

March 16, 1621
The Pilgrims made it through that first winter, spring is coming and lo-and-behold, so is one of the locals.
The Pilgrims grab their guns shouting "Indians, Indians" and he continues walking right into the middle of their camp and says:

"Welcome"

After the Pilgrim version of "WTF" they say "Welcome".

The big guy responds "I am Samoset".

Time for another quick "WTF" before he continues:

"Have you any beer?"
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Friday, the 16th, a fair warm day towards; this morning we determined to conclude of the military orders, which we had begun to consider of before but were interrupted by the savages, as we mentioned formerly. 
And whilst we were busied hereabout, we were interrupted again, for there presented himself a savage, which caused an alarm. He very boldly came all alone and along the houses straight to the rendezvous, where we intercepted him, not suffering him to go in, as undoubtedly he would, out of his boldness. 
He saluted us in England [English], and bade us welcome, for he had learned some broken English among the Englishmen that came to fish at Monchiggon [Monhegan Island], and knew by name the most of the captains, commanders, and masters that usually came. He was a man free in speech, so far as he could express his mind, and of a seemly carriage. We questioned him of many things; he was the fist savage we could meet withal. He said he was not of these parts, but of Morattiggon [Monhegan Island or Pemaquid, Maine], and one of the sagamores or lords thereof, and had been eight months in these parts, it lying hence a day's sail with a great wind, and five days by land. He discoursed of the whole country, and of every province, and of their sagamores, and their number of men, and strength. 
The wind being to rise a little, we cast a horseman's coat about him, for he was stark naked, only a leather about his waist, with a fringe about a span long, or little more; he had a bow and two arrows, the one headed, and the other unheaded. He was a tall straight man, the hair of his head black, long behind, only short before, none on his face at all; he asked some beer, but we gave him strong water and biscuit, and butter, and cheese, and pudding, and a piece of mallard, all which he liked well, and had been acquainted with such amongst the English."
Mourt's Relations, Edward Winslow, 1622
 (damn near contemporaneous, eh?)
There is no record of Samoset being at the harvest feast that Autumn of 1621 but he helped make it happen and because he did, 213 years later, in ca. 1934, Macy's could do this:
-The Macy's Thanksgiving Parade Balloons Used to Be Extremely Creepy
From Comedian-philosopher Eddie Pepitone:


Wednesday, November 22, 2017

Thanksgiving Day Stories

First posted Wednesday, November 23, 2016.

From the Paris Review, November 25, 2015:
The Nexus of All Despair
by Jane Stern
Our Winter 2015 issue features an interview with Jane and Michael Stern, who have written more than forty books; their Roadfood, first published in 1978 and now in its eighth edition, brought a new fervor and attention to regional American cuisine. To celebrate the new issue and the holiday, Jane Stern reflects here on Thanksgivings past. Happiness abounds. —D. P.
I’ve always thought that Thanksgiving was my favorite holiday, based solely on the fact that I adore turkey. But if I were to remove turkey from the equation, I would probably realize that this holiday, for me, has been nothing but one hideous thing after another.

Why Thanksgiving is the nexus of all despair is a mystery. But to prove that it is, here’s a short list of some of the things I remember.

1956, New Haven, Connecticut
The table is beautifully set in the dining room of the gracious colonial house on Trumbull Street, where my aunt and uncle live. I am ten years old, and my older cousins—Eric, seventeen, and his sister, Willa, thirteen—are my teen idols. After the family takes a few snapshots of all of us smiling, the food is spread out on the table and the shit hits the fan. Uncle Henry makes a snide remark about Elvis Presley, who has just been on The Ed Sullivan Show, and cousin Willa flings herself from the table in a histrionic fit. The whole table erupts into a pro- and anti-Elvis fight. The dinner is ruined, no one is hungry, and the gravy curdles as “All Shook Up” blasts from the phonograph in Willa’s room behind the slammed door.

1971, New Haven, Connecticut
A newlywed, I forgo seeing my family for Thanksgiving, and for a change of pace Michael and I invite two friends over. The only flaw in this plan is that I do not know how to cook. Undeterred, I take cookbooks out of the library, buy bags and bags of food, and at some point realize the twenty-eight-pound turkey (for four) will not fit in our apartment’s modest oven. I hack it into pieces.

By the time the two guests arrive, I’ve been cooking for four days, making unspeakably horrible and complicated dishes. I’ve also arranged flowers, cleaned the apartment, repainted the bathroom, and stocked up on Mateus and Boone’s Farm apple wine. I vaguely remember the guests arriving. I’m told that twenty minutes after they did, I excused myself and went to bed. I wake up the next day to a sink full of dirty dishes.

1977, Evanston, Illinois
My in-laws live in the Midwest, and every other Thanksgiving Michael and I travel to see them. This year we’re going to a close relative’s house a few miles away from where his parents live. These relatives are very pretentious. The house is Japanesque. We are instructed to remove our shoes when we enter. The floors are highly polished wood; the furniture is low, uncomfortable, and expensive. The host, a doctor, collects small, tortured bonsai trees.

Seventy-seven is the year the Cuisinart hit the American food scene, and these relatives are nothing if not on trend. Their Thanksgiving menu: pureed capon, pureed creamed spinach, pureed potatoes, pureed carrots, and, for dessert, a pureed pumpkin puree with pureed chestnuts on top. When I am very old and in a nursing home, I will look back on this meal fondly. But now, not so much.

1981, New Haven, Connecticut
Much of my family has died, unexpectedly, from awful diseases and fateful occurrences: my mother from a brain tumor, my cousin Willa from breast cancer, another cousin from a car accident, my grandmother from a broken hip, my father from smoking five packs a day. Those of us who are still living are at my Uncle Henry’s house for the traditional Thanksgiving meal. My Aunt Liz is cooking from rote, undeterred by her galloping Alzheimer’s. We all sit around glumly forking at the stuffing and Uncle Henry begins reading the most ghastly poetry, stuff he’s written for the event. It is not so much poetry as a morbid recitation of terminal cancer symptoms in iambic pentameter. I want to go screaming into that good night.
1995 and 1996, Redding, Connecticut   
Michael is now devoted to AA.... 
...MORE

And speaking of J.M.W. Turner (for folks who don't obsessively remember every word that appears herein, it was Monday)...

Again from the Paris Review, this time November 24, 2014:

Sleep of the Just
by
You know how J. M. W. Turner tried to exhibit his work at the Royal Academy and the Royal Academy was all, Wow, your work is way too innovative and interesting and we can’t show it because it would threaten all our hidebound, bourgeois ideas and force us to reevaluate everything and make important societal changes? Yeah, well, I totally see their point. Once a year, anyway.

Because every November, all the food magazines and blogs start trying to bully us into to reinventing the wheel. Don’t be a fogey! they scream. What, you’re still eating turkey? HAHAHA. Well, if you insist on being a “traditionalist,” stuff that turkey with linguica and kale! Baste it with ramen! Douse it in pomegranate molasses! (All this is said in a vaguely threatening, SportsCenter-style cadence.) This isn’t your mom’s green bean casserole! You’re not even seeing those losers, are you, with their stupid political views and opinions about your love life? Surely you’re having some awesome no-strings Friendsgiving celebrating the new family you’ve chosen! Right? RIGHT?! SRIRACHA. SRIRACHA. SRIRACHA. 

Look. I get the market demands of the newsstand. You can’t just recycle the same stuff year after year. Nor do I mean to advocate a slavish adherence to tradition. In my family’s case, that would mean cleaning the dining room table off in a panic at the last minute, barring entrance to the rooms where we’ve stuck all the mess, then watching my mother stand in front of the digital meat thermometer with tears rolling down her cheeks....MORE 
"...and the Royal Academy was all, Wow, your work is way too innovative and interesting and we can’t show it...."
Mr Turner Recreating theRoyal Academy Show of 1832
Because that's just the way they spoke at the Royal Academy, back in the day.

The pic is from Christie's "Mr Turner: Recreating the Royal Academy Show of 1832"

Gone for the Holiday, back for the short day Friday, maybe some more Thanksgiving stories or a recipe or two.

Price of a Turkey c. 1907

This was first posted for the 100th anniversary of the story, Now we're at the 110th.
Time flies.

Original post:
One of the things an investor should understand is the inevitable debasement of currency. But, every price series is different. Back in September we had a blurb at the end of a post:
If I recall correctly, the Ming Dynasty had to repudiate paper money in the 1450's to end a hyperinflation.
Update: I am pleased with myself.
Found this quote from "A History of Money":
1448 Hyperinflation in China
The Ming note nominally worth 1,000 cash has a market value of only three.
p 183

Here, from Division of Labor, are some topical datapoints:
From the Nov. 17, 1907 NYT:
A turkey at 35 cents a pound is not to be considered by the average housekeepers, and other things one is used to serving at a Thanksgiving dinner being equally expensive, very few persons feel that they can afford to follow the old custom of giving a big family dinner on a National feast day.
We bought our turkey today for $0.69 per pound (I could have paid less and I could have paid more). Thirty-five cents in 1907 was approximately $7.50 in 2006. Ouch...at $150 (equivalent) for a twenty pound bird, I am not sure I would be hosting Thanksgiving dinner either.

The American Farm Bureau at their "Voice of Agriculture" site claims that this year's dinner for 10 will average around $43.
Here's the nominal and real costs for Thanksgiving dinner since 1986.
More on Thanksgiving prices c. 1907
A follow up on yesterday's discussion of turkey prices, the Nov. 19, 1907 NYT reports the following prices for Thanksgiving staples (perhaps an undergraduate paper lies in these data?):
...MORE

UN Study Warns: Growing Economic Concentration Leads to “Rentier Capitalism”

From ProMarket, the blog of the Stigler Center at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, October 30, 2017:
A new study by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development argues: The “endemic rent-seeking that stems from market concentration, heightened corporate power, and regulatory capture” has spread beyond the United States, leading to the emergence of “global rentier capitalism.
Earlier this year, a Stigler Center paper by Luigi Zingales [Faculty Director of the Stigler Center and one of the editors of this blog] argued that market concentration can lead to a vicious circle, in which companies use market power to gain political power that in turn allows them to gain more market power, and vice versa. Zingales called this the “Medici vicious circle”: “Money is used to gain political power and political power is then used to make more money.”

A new UN report shows that this vicious circle is now a prominent feature of the global economy. Thirty years of hyperglobalization, according to the report, have led to sharp increases in global market concentration and a proliferation of rentierism, whereby the world’s largest corporations attempt to protect their market power through a variety of rent-seeking activities, such as lobbying or systematic abuse of intellectual property laws. While many of these companies are headquartered in the United States, the “endemic rent-seeking that stems from market concentration, heightened corporate power, and regulatory capture” has spread much further, leading to the emergence of “global rentier capitalism.”

The annual report of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) has expressed growing concerns regarding concentration and rent-seeking behavior in financial markets in recent years. This year’s report, however, is unusual in that it devotes an entire chapter to the issue of market power and its contribution to inequality worldwide. “While we have always been concerned with power imbalances and inequality in the global economy, the more extensive analysis of market concentration is a fairly recent concern for us,” Stephanie Blankenburg, chief of the Debt and Development Finance Branch at UNCTAD and co-author of the section on market power, tells ProMarket. “It was triggered by concerns about concentration trends in U.S. markets, particularly among economists.”

While the past two years have seen an explosion of interest around concentration and corporate rent-seeking among a growing number of economists, journalists, and politicians, the debate has so far remained largely confined to the US economy, where a substantial body of research has linked diminished competition to some of America’s biggest economic and political problems, like inequality, the decline of labor’s share of national income, and regulatory capture. Outside of the United States, as the European Commission’s chief competition economist Tommaso Valletti recently noted, research on this issue has been limited so far—partly due to a lack of data.

UNCTAD’s research is among the first to assess the rise in market concentration on an international scale. It also attempts to measure the growth of rents—that is, the income that large companies derive solely from the ownership and control of assets, rather than from innovation.

In order to do that, UNCTAD built a database comprised of financial statements made by publicly traded non-financial companies in 56 developed and developing countries between 1995 and 2015. Measuring the size of corporate rents is difficult due to the scarcity of data and the wide variety of rent-seeking activities companies can engage in, but the UNCTAD research team tries to approximate their magnitude by estimating surplus profits within specific sectors. Using the median value of firms’ rate of return on assets (ROA), they estimate the median performance of firms within a given industry. The difference between this estimate and the actual profits firms made is the surplus profit.

In the past two decades, the authors find, the world economy has seen a sharp increase in both surplus profits and market concentration. Concentration has increased markedly in terms of revenues, assets (both physical and non-physical), and market capitalization: in 2015, the combined market cap of the world’s top 100 firms was 7,000 times that of the bottom 2,000 firms, whereas in 1995 the same multiple was 31. At the same time, the share of surplus profits grew significantly for all firms in the database, from 4 percent of total profits in 1995–2000 to 23 percent in 2009–2015. For the top 100 firms, the share of surplus profits grew from 16 percent of total profits in 1995–2000 to 40 percent in 2009–2015.

The trend toward concentration, the authors note, has not extended to employment. Between 1995 and 2015, as the market cap of the world’s top 100 firms quadrupled, their share of the job market didn’t even double—a finding that echoes the results of previous studies that linked the decline of labor’s share to the rise of market power. This, they argue, lends support to the view that market concentration strongly contributes to inequality and leads to “profits without prosperity.”...MUCH MORE


"Why Uber's hacking scandal is worse than all the others"

From CNBC:
Uber made history and continues to do so by successfully disrupting a stale and often corrupt taxi industry across the world. But as Uber supplants one form of corruption, it's clearly fallen victim to another. And if the company doesn't clean up its act, the good it's doing to unshackle people pinned down by the constraints of traditional transportation will be lost and left for its imitators to continue.
The latest bit of corruption dogging Uber came to light Tuesday as the company admitted that it hid the fact that hackers breached and gained access to 57 million user accounts. To make matters worse, Uber also now says it paid hackers $100,000 to delete the data and keep the breach quiet, and did not report the incident.

In so doing, Uber moves from the lofty ranks of admirable disruptor to just another company doing what looks like a poor job or protecting its data and definitely doing a terrible job at handling the job of keeping its customers, investors, and the general public properly informed and prepared. This is essentially the same sin committed by Equifax, Target, Yahoo and many others.
"This is a company that doesn't just have your address and credit card information, but detailed data on your movements and general travel history."
But in some ways, a data breach at Uber is worse. This is a company that doesn't just have your address and credit card information, but detailed data on your movements and general travel history. A good hacker can find your home, and find where you are at any given time.

And that brings us to the second level of general corporate corruption that Uber has become a part of. That is the wave of sexual harassment and misconduct that is sweeping the nation right now. Actually, Uber's problems with this issue predate the fury that began this fall with the allegations surfacing against Hollywood Harvey Weinstein. "Way back" in June, the alleged culture of sexual harassment at Uber contributed greatly to the ouster of co-founder and CEO Travis Kalanick....MORE
And at recode, here come the Attorneys General:

Uber is under investigation by multiple states over a 2016 data breach
Regulators around the country are questioning Uber for staying silent after the hack, which affected 57 million people.

Yesterday:
Uber Paid Hackers to Delete Stolen Data on 57 Million People

"Fruit Fly Brains Could Help Serve You Better Content"

Not a really high bar, eh?

From Discover Magazine:
The content you see on the internet is increasingly becoming tailored to you: Music based on your favorite jams, shopping suggestions corresponding to your recent purchases, and television shows similar to your most beloved episodes.
These “similarity searches” drive custom content, and they’re pretty tricky to do correctly and quickly.
I Know This Song
That is, for computers at least. Fruit flies, on the other hand, seem to be pretty good at them. A new study in the journal Science takes a look at how fruit flies quickly and efficiently sort out and identify different smells. Their neural architecture is so well-designed in fact, that it could hold the key to more effective similarity searches.
For brains, especially human brains, this kind of recognition isn’t too difficult, according to Saket Navlakha, assistant professor in Salk’s Integrative Biology Laboratory and lead author of the new paper. Many animals perform similarity searches all the time.
“For example, you might see someone and be like, ‘That guy reminds me of my uncle.’
Or you might hear a song and be like, ‘That band sounds like Nirvana.’ Or you might smell a perfume and be like, ‘That smell reminds me of an orange,’” Navlakha explains.
He says in each of these instances we’re comparing new stimuli to an existing database of information stored in our brains. It would be much the same with animals in the wild — seeing a red berry may trigger a similarity search to other red berries to indicate that it might be poisonous. “It’s quite a general problem faced by many species,” says Navlakha.

Fly On The Wall
The problem of categorizing and understanding new information is a little trickier for computers — you’ve likely received an automated suggestion for a movie or product that seemed way off base.
That’s because when most computers analyze data to categorize items, they pare down the information to work more efficiently. Computers assign a kind of digital shorthand, called a “hash,” to each item. From there, hashes are compared and matched with other, similar hashes, a process known as called locality-sensitive hashing. The simplified hashes make searching through thousands, if not millions, of other items faster and easier.

Fruit flies, however, have a mechanism in their brains that performs similarity searches in a very different way. Specifically, they expand the stimuli information, as opposed to compressing and simplifying it...MORE
I hate "Chosen especially for you."

Also at Discover:
Growing Up Neanderthal
High-Ranking Male Primates Keep Wafting Their Sex Stink at Females, Who Hate It
NOT chosen especially for anyone, actually. 

"From Alibaba to Zynga: 21 Of The Best VC Bets Of All Time And What We Can Learn From Them"

This is a primer on venture capital. Don't let the post-IPO performance of some of the names in the snapshots stop you from reading on, scroll down to the capsule descriptions for the mini case studies.
From the VC Mavens at CB Insights:
These venture bets on startups that "returned the fund," making firms and careers, were the result of research, strong convictions, and patient follow-through. Here are the stories behind the biggest VC home runs of all time.

In venture capital, returns follow the power law — 80% of the wins come from 20% of the deals.
Great venture capitalists invest knowing they’re going to take a lot of losses in order to hit those wins.

Chris Dixon of top venture firm Andreessen Horowitz has referred to this as the “Babe Ruth effect,” in reference to the legendary 1920s-era baseball player. Babe Ruth would strike out a lot, but also made slugging records.

Likewise, VCs swing hard, and occasionally hit a home run. Those wins often make up for all the losses and then some — they “return the fund.”
https://s3.amazonaws.com/cbi-research-portal-uploads/2017/11/16180739/111517-Top-20-VC-Backed-Exits-Final.png
Fred Wilson of Union Square Ventures recently wrote that for his fund, this translates to needing at least two $1B exits per fund:

“If you do the math around our goal of returning the fund with our high impact companies, you will notice that we need these companies to exit at a billion dollars or more,” he wrote. “Exit is the important word. Getting valued at a billion or more does nothing for our model.”

We analyzed 21 of the biggest VC hits of all time — all of which are in the top 35 venture exits of all time — to learn more about what those home runs have in common.

To do so, we pulled data and information from web archives, books, S-1s, founder interviews, the CB Insights platform, and more.

For each company, we dove into the remarkable numbers they posted before their IPOs and acquisitions, the driving factors behind their growth, and the roles of their most significant investors. Below, we’ll show you our analysis on each specific case. You’ll read about how:

WhatsApp decided early on to work only with a single investor, Sequoia Capital, which invested a total of $60M into the company for a massive $3B return.

Facebook’s exponential growth resulted in huge successes for early investors like Accel Partners. Even Peter Thiel, who wrote the first check to Facebook, later worried the company was overvalued and sat out a subsequent round while Accel maintained its conviction in Facebook.

Groupon pivoted from a social activism platform to a local deals aggregator, and generated huge returns for co-founder, chairman, and biggest shareholder Eric Lefkofsky.

Cerent, which was founded by a Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers partner, saw investment from Kleiner Perkins from the very beginning and returned $2.1B.

Snapchat developed a tight relationship with Series A investor Benchmark Capital Partners as it shook off the early perception that it was just a faddish app for “sexting.”

King Digital Entertainment, maker of mobile game Candy Crush, was acquired for $5.9B, resulting in a huge payout for Apax Partners, which owned 44%.

UCWeb was acquired by Alibaba, a prior investor, because they offered services that would help Alibaba triple their own valuation.

Alibaba grew alongside the early growth of the internet, helping to make early investor Masayoshi Son, today chairman of Softbank Group, the richest man in Japan and a tech titan in his own right...
...MUCH MORE 

Egypt is getting a new capital.—courtesy of China

From CNN:
Egypt's new capital city moved a step closer to reality with the announcement that Chinese developers will largely fund the megaproject.
The China Fortune Land Development Company (CFLD) agreed to provide $20 billion for the currently unnamed city, after a meeting between heads of the firm and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah El Sisi. 
 
This follows a previous commitment of $15 billion from another Chinese state-owned company, bringing the project close to its $45 billion budget requirements for phase I. 
 
Plans for the new capital were first announced in March 2015. Government officials described the development as a solution to crowding, pollution and rising house prices in Cairo. 
"Cairo Capital is a momentous endeavor to build national spirit, foster consensus, provide for long-term sustainable growth," said the project website. "(The) new city will create more places to live, work and visit."
 
Under construction
The 700 square kilometer city to be constructed in the desert to the East of Cairo would become the new seat of government, and it is presented as a far grander vision than the current capital.
Proposals for the city include housing for five million people, over 1,000 mosques, smart villages, industrial zones, a 5,000-seat conference center, and the world's largest park. 
 
Interest in the project has been brisk. An Indian company is reportedly planning a vast medical center and university, while a Saudi firm intends to build a 12.6 hectare mosque and Islamic museum. 
 
Construction is already under way. According to Egypt's Al-Ahram newspaper, engineers have begun work on infrastructure including bridges and 210 kilometers of roads. 
 
The first phase of the project will see government ministries and residential blocks rise from the sand. This phase could be complete within five years, with the first residents moving in.
 
Ghost town?
Despite the optimism from officials, there are concerns that the project will encounter familiar problems. Egypt has already constructed several satellite towns around Cairo, which have registered low occupancy despite high investment....MORE
https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/w_1349,dpr_1.0,c_fill,g_auto,h_759,ar_16:9/http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F150314051846-egypt-new-capital.jpg

The World's Fastest Car Is Made in Sweden

That's fastest production car. And it's speed, not acceleration. And it's awesome.
From Fortune, November 6:
Koenigsegg, the Swedish company known for its hypercars, broke the world record for fastest production car with its Agera RS over the weekend. And in true ultra-luxe hypercar style, the company paid to shut down a section of Route 160 between Las Vegas and Pahrump, Nevada.
Test tracks are so conventional.
Here are the highlights:
  • The Agera RS hit an average speed of 277.9 miles per hour
  • The average speed was achieved during two runs
  • The test runs were held on a closed, 11-mile section of highway in Nevada
  • The Agera RS crushed the previous record of 267.8 mph, set in 2010 by the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport.
Here’s a video of the world-record runs. The data and video was recorded using a Racelogic VBOX HD2.
Factory test driver Niklas Lilja pushed the Agera RS to 284.55 mph in one direction on the stretch of highway and then 271.9 mph on the second run, which had an uphill gradient, Top Gear reported.

The average 277.9 mph time beats previous record holder Bugatti’s run in 2010 on the Ehra-Lessien test track in 2010....MORE
Here's Koenigsegg's RS page. $2.1 million, get in line.

http://i0.wp.com/www.koenigsegg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/DSC4941-Redigera_LR1.jpg?resize=1600%2C900

Capital Markets: "Global Equity Rally Resumes, while Dollar Slips"

From Marc to Market:
Global equities are on the march. US indices shrugged off their first back-to-back weekly decline in three months to set new record highs yesterday. The MSCI Asia-Pacific followed suit and recorded their highest close. The Dow Jones Stoxx 600 is struggling, as the CAC and DAX are nursing small losses.

The synchronized global upturn and prospects for continued abundance of liquidity appear to be underpinning sentiment. At a speech in NY late yesterday, Yellen warned against raising rates too quickly and repeated her sense of mystery over the decline in inflation this year. The US two-year yield softened marginally, and the Fed funds futures rose. At 1.295%, the implied yield of the December Fed funds futures contract is precisely at what we think is fair value assuming a rate hike at the next FOMC meeting.

There seems to be some confusion
over what Yellen means, though she may very well be the most plain-speaking Fed Chair. She is not referring to structural influences. She is referring to the recent decline. Specifically, core CPI fell from 2.3% in January to 1.7%, where it was from May through September before ticking up to 1.8%. The targeted core PCE deflator fell from 1.91% last October to 1.30% in August before rising to 1.33% in September. It is this decline she regards as mysterious but sticks to the working hypothesis that the decline is due to a number of idiosyncratic factors.

Some reports play Yellen's dovish warning but also accused her of being too hawkish when the Fed last hiked rates in June. Others suspect that her caution against raising interest rates too fast is a signal to her successors at the Fed. Still, others are linking her dovish comments to the risk that the minutes from last months' FOMC meeting that will be released this afternoon will show some officials concerned about an undershoot of unemployment. Recently there has been some evidence of greater wage increase for employees in some sectors, including what are regarded as blue-collar occupations.

The main event today, however, is in the UK as Chancellor of the Exchequer Hammond delivers his Autumn Budget to parliament. There is much pressure on Hammond to deliver. Former Prime Minister Cameron thought a referendum on the EU would resolve the conflict that was ripping apart the Tory Party. Rather than resolve it, the referendum nationalized it, and the Tories lost their parliamentary majority. The markets may be particularly sensitive to the new forecasts by the OBR. The poor productivity record means weaker growth prospects, which in turn eat away at latitude to provide much fiscal succor. There continues to be the talk of a cabinet reshuffle....
...MUCH MORE

Tuesday, November 21, 2017

Uber Paid Hackers to Delete Stolen Data on 57 Million People

Along with having ultimate responsibility for ensuring coffee logistics, sometimes having to don the risk manager hat and being on guard against the appearance of the Hubris-Nemesis Complex, (more accurately Sophocles' whole hubris, anagnorisis nemesis, catharsis story line - I'm forgetting a couple steps), I think about stuff.

A couple posts back. I even referenced the thinking-about-stuff bit: "having spent some time trying to front run Sand Hill Road and understand things like Uber...".

Don't tell anyone but sometimes that part is pretty easy, just pattern recognition:
November 19, 2014
Here's the Real Problem With Uber: You Can't Trust Them 
Yeah, three years ago.
At that time there weren't many of us saying there was something very wrong with Uber:
Izzy Kaminska at Alphaville, Sarah Lacy' at Pando, recovering VC Peter Sims and yours truly. Maybe one or two more.
Otherwise, the 2014 commentariat was happy, happy, joy, joy all over the Ubester.

Here's the latest from Bloomberg
Updated on
  • Company paid hackers $100,000 to delete info, keep quiet
  • Chief Security Officer Joe Sullivan and another exec ousted
Hackers stole the personal data of 57 million customers and drivers from Uber Technologies Inc., a massive breach that the company concealed for more than a year. This week, the ride-hailing firm ousted its chief security officer and one of his deputies for their roles in keeping the hack under wraps, which included a $100,000 payment to the attackers.

Compromised data from the October 2016 attack included names, email addresses and phone numbers of 50 million Uber riders around the world, the company told Bloomberg on Tuesday. The personal information of about 7 million drivers was accessed as well, including some 600,000 U.S. driver’s license numbers. No Social Security numbers, credit card information, trip location details or other data were taken, Uber said.

At the time of the incident, Uber was negotiating with U.S. regulators investigating separate claims of privacy violations. Uber now says it had a legal obligation to report the hack to regulators and to drivers whose license numbers were taken. Instead, the company paid hackers to delete the data and keep the breach quiet. Uber said it believes the information was never used but declined to disclose the identities of the attackers.

“None of this should have happened, and I will not make excuses for it,” Dara Khosrowshahi, who took over as chief executive officer in September, said in an emailed statement. “We are changing the way we do business.”

After Uber’s disclosure Tuesday, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman launched an investigation into the hack, his spokeswoman Amy Spitalnick said. The company was also sued for negligence over the breach, and the case is seeking class-action status.

Hackers have successfully infiltrated numerous companies in recent years. The Uber breach, while large, is dwarfed by those at Yahoo, MySpace, Target Corp., Anthem Inc. and Equifax Inc. What’s more alarming are the extreme measures Uber took to hide the attack. The breach is the latest scandal Khosrowshahi inherits from his predecessor, Travis Kalanick.

Kalanick, Uber’s co-founder and former CEO, learned of the hack in November 2016, a month after it took place, the company said. Uber had just settled a lawsuit with the New York attorney general over data security disclosures and was in the process of negotiating with the Federal Trade Commission over the handling of consumer data. Kalanick declined to comment on the hack.

Joe Sullivan, the outgoing security chief, spearheaded the response to the hack last year, a spokesman told Bloomberg. Sullivan, a onetime federal prosecutor who joined Uber in 2015 from Facebook Inc., has been at the center of much of the decision-making that has come back to bite Uber this year. Bloomberg reported last month that the board commissioned an investigation into the activities of Sullivan’s security team. This project, conducted by an outside law firm, discovered the hack and the failure to disclose, Uber said.

Here’s how the hack went down:...
...MUCH MORE, a rip-roaring yarn told on a classic hubris, anagnorisis, nemesis, catharsis arc.

That failure to disclose is just nasty and offers insight into how Uber got to where it is now, an over-valued taxi company with plans to go driverless.
And airborne.

"Faraday Future issues bombastic statement accusing former CFO of ‘malfeasance and dereliction of duty’"

Uh oh (see after the jump)

From The Verge:
Stefan Krause, previously of BMW, calls the claims ‘baseless’

Hours after it was made public that struggling electric car startup Faraday Future was losing three top executives, the company is coming out swinging against the one who was most deeply involved in trying to keep the lights on. In a post on the company’s website, Faraday Future is accusing now-former CFO Stefan Krause of “malfeasance and dereliction of duty,” as well as a “possible violation of law.” 

Faraday Future also claims that it terminated the executive when he left last month, as first reported by Jalopnik. The company says Krause was “hindering FF’s fundraising efforts.” 

“Stefan Krause’s possible violation of law and lack of contribution to FF’s goals over the course of his leadership since March has led to severe damages to the interests of FF and its investor,” the statement says. “FF is currently taking legal actions as a result of Stefan Krause’s malfeasance and dereliction of duty.” 

The company wouldn’t specify what those “violations of law” are, and, as Jalopnik reported, no legal action has been taken yet. In a statement, Krause reinforces that he resigned from the company and called the claims “baseless and defamatory.”
Faraday Future issued a statement today that falsely described my departure from the company. The truth is that I resigned from Faraday Future on October 14, effective immediately. The company’s statement inaccurately portrays the circumstances surrounding my departure, and includes baseless and defamatory statements about me and my contributions to the company. I have retained legal counsel and will be exploring all options available to me....
...MORE

Our introduction to 2013's "How to Spot a Hedge Fund Fraudster":
Bombast. In my experience they are all bombastic.
And stripper poles. You would not believe the number of stripper poles that crooks collect....
And my all time favorite bit o'bombast, recounted as the intro to 2007's "Planktos Highlights Real Ocean/Climate Crises & Responds to Recent Misinformation Campaigns" about a Euro-American reinsurance scam that had reverse-merged its way onto the American Stock Exchange, gotten onto the Fed Board's margin list and then, rather than doing the dump half of a pump-n-dump as they gunned it from 50 cents to $15.00, had just margined  the hell out of their brokerage accounts, requested the excess buying power be wired out and skedaddled, picking up the remaining cash in the corporate bank accounts on their way out the door:
...But first, one of my favorite examples of a stock scam (I told you, I have a morbid fascination with the underbelly of the markets, it's like watching the lions approach the wildebeest at the watering hole, you don't want to see it but you can't look away):
...Peter Uttley, Equisure's chairman and a former Lloyds of London executive, took control of the company this week, assuming the chief executive post....

...Uttley said in the press release that his chairman role had been a "passive" one, but he now plans an active reorganization of the company, whose reputation has been stained by allegations that it is a scam insurance operation....
...In an unusually emotional statement to the press, sent from an Equisure board meeting Friday in London, Uttley told his version of events over the summer, which eventually led to the delisting of Equisure shares on the American Stock Exchange.
"The simple truth was consumed in the belly of deception, but now has been vomited for the world to see," Uttley began.
He then proceeded to tell a story of three men, whom he described as "liars," "cheats," and "scallywags," who worked with law enforcement officials and the press to spread false rumors about the company with the intent of buying Equisure out at 50 cents a share, a tiny fraction of the stock's trading price of $15, before AMEX suspended trading Aug. 1.
Isn't that damn fine bloviating? It's hard to research but I think Uttley et. al. got away with $100 mil.
Here's Russ George of Planktos responding (I think) to Greenpeace's submission to the recent meeting of the International Maritime Organization...
Who's going to top "The simple truth was consumed in the belly of deception, but now has been vomited for the world to see," in a press release?
Scallywags is a nice touch as well.

Is Venture Capital Destroying Online Journalism?

I don't know but having spent some time trying to front run Sand Hill Road and understand things like Uber I have to say this is an interesting insight.
From Talking Points Memo, November 17:

There’s a Digital Media Crash. But No One Will Say It
Yesterday I appeared on a panel about digital publishers who are ‘pivoting to video’. I’ve written about this before. But in case you’re new to it, there have been numerous cases over the last six months to a year in which digital publishers have announced either major job cuts or in some cases literally fired their entire editorial teams in order to ‘pivot to video.’ The phrase has almost become a punchline since, as I’ve argued, there is basically no publisher in existence involved in any sort of news or political news coverage who says to themselves, my readers are demanding more of their news on video as opposed to text. Not a single one. The move to video is driven entirely by advertiser demand.

What crystallized for me from this and other discussions I had yesterday is that we’re actually in the midst of a digital news media crash, only no one is willing to say it. I’ve noted before that digital news media in the midst of a monetization crisis. But it’s more than that. It’s a full blown crash.
Here’s why.

You have three different factors coming together at once: two primary ones and one secondary but critical one.

First, digital publishing has always been ruled by a basic structural reality: there are too many publications. Now, how can there be too many publications? The more information the better. Well, it’s like this: There are too many publications relative to the funding available to support them, given that it has been almost universally assumed that the funding comes from advertising. That creates the furious competition for clicks and the ever growing intrusiveness of ads. The advertisers have all the power. So rates are always going down.

This has been a fact for more than two decades. It is driven by the extremely low costs of entry in digital publishing which makes it very difficult to set up the kinds of de facto monopolies that existed for big city newspapers for most of the second half of the 20th century.

Then came the platform monopolies: Google, Facebook and a few others. Over the last five years or so but accelerating rapidly in the last 24 months, they’ve gobbled up almost all of the growth in advertising revenue and begun to engross a substantial amount of the existing advertising revenue as well.

Let’s try a very simple visualization of what I’m describing. Remember, there are too many publications relative to advertising revenue. So let’s imagine there are 30 publications and 25 revenue seats. The publications fight like hell to secure one of the seats. Then the platform monopolies came along and sat down in maybe 5 or 10 of the 25 seats. You can see the problem. The competition of 30 publications competing for 15 seats gets insane. A bunch of the publications are going to die or be forced to find another way to fund themselves.

Now, here’s the too little discussed part of the equation. A huge, huge, huge amount of digital media is funded by venture capital. That’s not just to say they had investors at the start but in effect a key revenue stream of many digital publications has been on-going infusions of new investment.
Much of that investment has been premised on the assumption that scale – being huge – would allow publications to create stable and defensible business models. There are a lot of moving parts to the strategies. But it essentially comes down to this idea: get big enough and you can solve the chronic problem of over-supply of publications in your favor through sales at volume and being able to command stable, premium advertising rates. But that hasn’t happened. Just as one fact point, The Wall Street Journal reported today that Buzzfeed is going to miss its revenue target this year by as much as 20%. That’s a lot.

Now, this doesn’t mean Buzzfeed’s about to go under. I don’t know all the details of their internal business operations. And in any case, this isn’t really about Buzzfeed. That’s just a number I saw today. But it does probably mean BuzzFeed likely won’t do an IPO in 2018 – which means their investors aren’t going to be able to get their exit any time soon. Indeed, they may never be able to get it at the level they expected. The point is that investors are realizing that scale cannot replicate the kind of business model lock-in, price premiums and revenue stability people thought it would. Another way of putting that is that the future that VCs and other investors were investing hundreds of millions of dollars in probably doesn’t exist. That means that they’re much less likely to invest more money at anything like the valuations these companies have been claiming.

The big picture is that Problem #1 (too many publications) and Problem #2 (platform monopolies) have catalyzed together to create Problem #3 (investors realize they were investing in a mirage and don’t want to invest any more). Each is compounding each other and leading to something like the crash effect you see in other bubbles.

Let’s go back to our chair analogy....MORE
We posted that same day:
"Bad news from Mashable, BuzzFeed, and Vice shows times are rough for ad-supported digital media