Cramer says moves in tech stocks are ‘truly insane’ as Amazon and Tesla climb – CNBC

Jim Cramer

Scott Mlyn | CNBC

CNBC's Jim Cramer said Monday that the moves of three major tech stocks were "truly insane and unlike any i have ever seen in my life."

Cramer's comments in a tweet came as shares of Amazon and Microsoft, two of the largest U.S. stocks by market cap, jumped by 7.9% and 4.3% respectively during Monday's session. Electric vehicle company Tesla also surged 9.5%, continuing a blistering run that has seen its shares rise 60% since June 29.

The gains helped to push the tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite up 2.5% on Monday.

Amazon's move represents a share reversal for the e-commerce and cloud company, which saw its shares sink all five days last week. Monday's jump erased almost all of those losses.

Both Amazon and Microsoft, which fell in four of five sessions last week, have outpaced the broader market this year, with their subscription and cloud businesses proving to be resistant to the challenges of the coronavirus pandemic.

Tesla has left both of those tech giants behind with is run this year, rising nearly 300%. Tesla and Microsoft are scheduled to report quarterly earnings results on Wednesday.

Read more here:

Cramer says moves in tech stocks are 'truly insane' as Amazon and Tesla climb - CNBC

Google has a plan to lure shoppers away from Amazon – CNET

Google headquarters in Mountain View, California.

Google on Thursday said it's nixing commission fees for retailers selling products on the company's shopping platform, as the search giant tries to catch up to Amazon and its dominant ecommerce operation.

Previously, Google charged merchants to list items with the company's Buy with Google program, which lets people buy items directly through Google's website instead of being sent to an outside digital store. The fee was about 10 to 15% of the sale, comparable to Amazon's rates. The pilot is starting in the US before expanding internationally.

Subscribe to the CNET Now newsletter for our editors' picks of the most important stories of the day.

The apparent goal is to build up Google's shopping service by luring sellers to list their items there in addition to other platforms, instead of skipping Google because of extra fees.

"This removes a major barrier for marketplaces to participate because the duplicate commission has gone," Bill Ready, president of Google's commerce division, said in an interview. "Now they can more easily participate."

For consumers, the change could mean seeing a bigger selection of products when they search on Google. The company could then try to persuade sellers to run more paid product ads on its platform. As it stands now, Google isn't a major ecommerce player. In the US, Amazon is the undisputed leader in online sales, with 38% of the share, according to research firm eMarketer. Walmart is a distant second, with just shy of 6%, followed by eBay's 4.5%. Google doesn't crack the top 10.

Google also said it will let sellers import their inventory data to Google's service from other ecommerce platforms, including Amazon. The company is also partnering with PayPal and Shopify, which helps people create online stores, for payment processing and order management.

The changes intensify an already fierce rivalry with Amazon. The two tech giants have been warring on multiple fronts, including smart home technology. Google's Home smart speaker and Assistant voice software have been sprinting to catch up to Amazon's Echo and Alexa.

Ready wouldn't address Google's competition with Amazon. Google also declined to disclose how many merchants it has in its Buy with Google program, or how much revenue the company has generated through commission fees in the past year.

Thursday's updates come as Google makes a bigger push into ecommerce. In April, the company brought free retail listings to its search engine's shopping tab. Last month, Google expanded the listings to be shown directly in the company's search results, some of the most prized real estate on the internet.

Google has drawn blowback in the past for its shopping efforts. Two years ago, Google was hit with a $1.7 billion fine from the EU for what the commission called "abusive" ad practices, especially when it came to the placement of Google's shopping ads.

Next week, Google CEO Sundar Pichai will join the heads of Facebook, Amazon and Apple at an antitrust hearing as part of an investigation by a House Judiciary subcommittee. Google is expected to address questions about its digital ad business, as well as accusations the company's platforms give preferential treatment to its own products.

Read more:

Google has a plan to lure shoppers away from Amazon - CNET

Could the pandemic affect our perspective on smart cities? – Tech Wire Asia

A concept image of Net City. Source: NBBJ

For a long time, the concept of smart cities powered by sensors, artificial intelligence and big data have captured our imaginations. And while these concepts wont fall into place overnight, we are beginning to see them slowly take route in the urban environments around us.

As we approach what we hope are the tailwinds of the Covid-19 pandemic, we also approach a point of reflection. The potential power and practicality of smart cities continues to be a topic of debate. A recent TechHQ article documented Sidewalk Labs abandoned plans for a smart city development in an area of Toronto.

With lingering question marks over privacy and the monetization of citizens data, many cities and governments are skirting around the unmediated adoption of smart city technology. However, with life in the fast lane stymied the world over and with the chance to think differently about the use of space around us the case around smart city technology is as prominent as ever, and some tech giants are pressing on with what they see as rethinking cities to be for and about people.

Chinese technology Tencent is one such business. As we covered recently, it has drafted up plans for a 2 million square meter smart city to occupy the southeastern region of Shenzhen, dubbed by some as Chinas Silicon Valley. According to Jonathan Ward, design partner at the smart citys architectural firm NBJJ, the area has been planned to focus its technology on people and the environment first.

Net City. Source: NBBJ

This sentiment speaks to an idyllic model of urban planning, detaching itself (linguistically, at least) from data-oriented concerns surrounding other smart cities, but it will likely portend the way that public bodies increasingly introduce smart city concepts to citizens as we continue to emerge from the pandemic, and as smart city technology continues to permeate in the years to come.

Net City will comprise Tencent offices and residences for its employees, as well as public amenities such as parks and a waterfront area. Ward goes on to claim that the city which will have few streets for cars and hence very few vehicles is a model for the future of city building [] such a precedence on green spaces points to advanced urban agriculture and a rethinking of traditional city values.

Alongside cutting-edge technology in artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous vehicles, all under the shadow of metallic buildings, Ward believes urban innovation should go hand-in-hand with the design of spaces, buildings and cities that are restorative [] with plentiful indoor-outdoor spaces. As society reboots after a pandemic, we will see whether these kind of smart city experiments bear fruit within the coming decade, or begin to churn up some of the same concerns as Sidewalk Labs dalliance.

Kris Hartley, assistant professor, Education University of Hong Kong, upholds such optimism, but with a word of warning. If technology is to shape the post-Covid world and theres no doubting that itll play a big role then technological progress must [] assert itself as a tool for positive change in urban residents everyday lives.

For smart cities to really be smart, then, Hartley suggests they must prioritize sustainability by reducing car use, increasing planning strategies around the needs of people, allowing greater public access, and with increased environmental conservation. At the same time, powered by thousands, if not millions of IoT sensors and AI technology, connected cities also mean data-intensive ones. Will efforts to make cities clean with technology simply offload their carbon footprint to the data center?

A piece in The Engineer mulls this very question, and points to work across UK, US, Germany and India where digital transformation and tech is being used as a unifying asset. Ravi Gopinath, chief cloud & product officer at AVEVA, talked of the potential for tech to overcome its own energy issues to contribute to a citys resilience.

A rendering of the Quayside, part of the now scrapped Sidewalk Labs Toronto smart city concept. Source: Sidewalk Toronto

The outlook from Michael Ganser an engineer with German telematics systems firm Kapsch TrafficCom is similarly bright. He forecasts that the introduction of new digital technologies like networked cars and adaptive traffic lights if installed in all of the worlds cities with populations of more than 200,000 people would save the planet 2% in man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

More than 500 smart cities are being built across China, according to government data. These cities are equipped with sensors, cameras, and other gadgets that can crunch data on everything from traffic and pollution, to public health and security. The data anxiety can certainly be excused, and such concerns are not going to go away.

Throughout the coronavirus lockdown, surveillance took on an even more pertinent role than usual, and in smart cities this kind of monitoring will be at worst a kind of under-the-surface, biopolitical hazard. In China, Covid-19 has left the door open for Beijing to ramp up citizen surveillance by introducing new and invasive methods under the guise of fighting the pandemic, whether thats talking drones berating people for not wearing masks, or CCTV installed outside the homes of quarantined individuals.

In the case of Tencents proposal, there may be implications, with time, for Shenzhens neighbor to the South: Hong Kong. In Chinas communist state, though, the general public has less say (Xu Chengwei; public-policy researcher at Singapore Management University).

Smart cities are and will remain, according to authorities a major part of Chinas plan to spur growth amidst a global economic downturn. Hartley warns that the narrative around Covid-19 recovery and resilience is likely to be shaped around urbanism. There may well be an increase in purpose-built towns as demonstration projects or test-bed experiments.

Whether Net City proves to be such a test-bed for heightened surveillance and problematic data processing or whether it can pave the way for the post-Covid, green city revolution remains to be seen. Its construction is scheduled to begin later in 2020.

Go here to see the original:

Could the pandemic affect our perspective on smart cities? - Tech Wire Asia

How Spotify and TikTok Beat Their Copycats – Harvard Business Review

Executive Summary

In the digital economy, innovators often lose out to more agile imitators who can leverage new know-how very quickly and creatively. The best way to avoid that trap is to focus on innovation in products and services requiring complex solutions whose many elements can be continuously recombined and repurposed.

In the digital economy, the race is often won by imitators who turn out to be more agile and creative than even the most successful first movers. Take the case of Snapchat. Created in 2011, it quickly reeled in millions of teenagers and young adults with a standout app on which shared photos disappear after 24 hours. Facebook reportedly tried, but failed, to buy Snapchat. So it did the next best thing: copy.

Facebook-owned Instagram simply replicated the main features of Snapchat Stories, rolling out Instagram Stories in 2016. Within a year, Instagram had crossed Snapchats daily active user (DAU) numbers and then some while the latter faltered. Although Snapchat has since regained some of its early influence, its experience shows that barriers to entry in the digital realm are low, even for established platforms that have already captured a significant user base.

The usual approach taken by first movers to protect their lead involves heavy investment in deploying their innovative know-how through in-house knowledge transfer and collaboration, the idea being that the company with the idea can stay ahead if it leverages its knowledge more quickly across employees and encourages teamwork. The problem, as weve argued in a recent paper, is that companies that invest in leveraging their knowledge internally can actually end up benefiting the competition as much as themselves, particularly when the knowledge is easy to copy and can be shared among many rivals. We call this the knowledge-spillover sharing effect.

Given this, is there any hope for an innovator to succeed in the face of copycats?

The right formula, as we demonstrate in our paper, is one of complex continuous innovation, where individuals in the firm use recombination to repeatedly reconfigure elements of their existing knowledge, fusing this together to deliver new product solutions. While such a strategy can overcome the innovators imitation dilemma by thwarting rivals knowledge-spillover sharing effects, we also show that it can only do so if innovators tackle complex opportunities that are composed of many interdependent features. Lets look at a couple of case studies demonstrating the approach in action.

How TikTok outsmarted Facebook

The meteoric rise of TikTok, the short-form video sharing service owned by Beijing-based ByteDance, is instructive. Created in 2017, TikTok has reached 1 billion users faster than any other platform, and is consistently one of the top downloaded apps. According toMark Zuckerberg, it is the first consumer internet product built by one of the Chinese tech giants that is doing quite well around the world.

TikToks growth and (near-term) sustainable competitive advantage comes from its ability to combine and recombine products and services from different categories. On the consumer side, TikToks algorithms quickly learn individual preferences by capturing users likes, comments, and time spent on each video. On the producer side, AI simplifies video editing and suggests music, hashtags, filters, and other enhancements that are trending or have been proven popular. Essentially, TikTok has recombined elements of these different technologies and applications to create a new category of bite-sized amateur entertainment, distinct from the chronicling of real life offered by Facebook.

Facebooks efforts to replicate its triumph over Snapchat through imitation have thus far come to nothing. The social-media giants nixing of Lasso, the TikTok clone, in July speaks to the difficulty of emulating the Chinese app.

Outracing imitators the Spotify way

Another good example of using complex continuous innovation to stave off copycats is Spotify. Its seemingly simple music-streaming service is in fact a complex combination of a dynamically changing user-interface, behavioral prediction algorithms, and an ever-expanding catalog of music. Spotify learns a customers preferences and uses population-level predictions to suggest content that will ensure stickiness.

So successful is Spotify at innovating in a complex opportunity space that it has kept mighty Apple at bay. Despite extensive promotion of its service, Apple Music has not been able to capture a significant share of the music streaming market. Spotify meanwhile has continued to innovate via recombination, adding new features and categories that marry technology with content. The most recent example is its foray into podcasting, hitherto Apples domain, with a $100-million exclusive deal with popular podcaster Joe Rogan.

Ganging up on the innovator: Ubers troubles

Weve also found an interesting competitive dynamic working against the first mover. Copycats are willing to learn from one another probably more so than the original innovator. This makes it easier for them to catch up and overtake the first mover.

Look at what happened to Uber. Although the ride-sharing platform the company pioneered in 2010 was unique, it was relatively simple to replicate. Before long, rivals like Lyft in the US and Didi, Gojek, and Grab in Asia offered similar services and siphoned Ubers market share. These companies learned by copying not only Uber but also one another, effectively ganging up on the more established innovator, whose early market dominance may have made it complacent.

Grab, Gojek, and Didi quickly adapted Ubers map function to their own product, which they then adjusted based on one anothers modifications. There is some evidence Grab adapted Ubers rider promotions and driver incentives, only to see Gojek use the same ideas. Copying continued to heat up as all three Asian players then pursued a hyper-diversified super app strategy. Grab appeared to copy Gojeks proliferation of services in Indonesia, such as insurance, with their own offerings. And some believe Gojek entered Singapore with data it scraped from Grabs maps. The result was a highly competitive marketplace that led to Ubers exit from the region.

***

Given the knowledge-spillover sharing effects of the sort weve described, firms grappling with the imitation dilemma need to be careful about just how they mobilize their in-house knowledge resources. Trying to be faster than copycats, or focusing only on in-house knowledge transfer and collaboration, wont be a sustainable strategy. Rather, they should focus on thwarting potential imitators by recombining knowledge in novel ways to tackle complex opportunities.

See original here:

How Spotify and TikTok Beat Their Copycats - Harvard Business Review

Apple digs in over its App Store fees – BBC News

Apple has defended the fees it charges developers to sell their digital products via its App Store.

The iPhone-maker says a study it commissioned shows content makers give away a similar cut to dozens of other online markets, and an even bigger share if their goods are sold offline.

Apple is facing complaints about the matter on both sides of the Atlantic.

The EU launched a competition probe in June, and chief executive Tim Cook will give testimony to Congress on Monday.

He will appear before the House Judiciary Antitrust Subcommittee alongside counterparts from Amazon, Facebook and Google. The tech giants all face claims that they have abused their market-leading positions.

It has emerged that ahead of the hearing, Microsoft's president briefed the panel that his firm had concerns about the way Apple operated the App Store.

According to a report in the Information, Brad Smith has drawn attention to issues including::

The is the second time in two months that Apple has published a report from the Analysis Group about its digital store.

In June, the Boston-based consultancy suggested that the App Store had "facilitated half a trillion dollars" of trade in 2019.

But that report was quickly overshadowed by the European Commission's announcement that it was investigating complaints from the music streaming service Spotify and e-book store Kobo. They alleged that Apple's rules gave its own digital products an unfair advantage.

To compound matters, Apple also got involved in a public spat with the makers of email app Hey, who were refusing to give it a share of their subscription fees.

Apple subsequently announced changes to its apps review process as a concession. But the latest report indicates it is not willing to compromise over the charges it imposes.

The Analysis Group compared Apple's App Store to 37 other digital and e-commerce marketplaces.

It found the firm's standard demand of a 30% cut of sales was in line with what Microsoft, Google, Amazon and Samsung took.

But there were some exceptions. The group said:

The study also suggested that developers and publishers got a smaller share from offline "bricks-and-mortar" channels, where stores and other intermediaries typically take:

The report also highlighted that other e-commerce marketplaces also had rules to prohibit sellers from directing buyers to pay offsite in order to avoid fees. Examples given are:

However, when pressed on this last point, one of the report's authors conceded that while shoppers were aware they could always go elsewhere to buy physical goods, they did not always realise they could buy subscriptions and other digital products outside an app.

Developers often offer cheaper deals on their own sites as they do not have to split the charge with Apple, but the tech firm forbids them from alerting users to the possibility via a link or other "call to action" within their own apps.

The Analysis Group said it believed most users would be aware it was possible to subscribe to Netflix and the bigger brands via a smart TV or website, but acknowledged this was not the case for smaller publishers.

Apple is under fire - from developers big and small, from politicians and from regulators - over the way it runs its App Store.

The firm has indicated this report doesn't necessarily represent the testimony Mr Cook will offer when quizzed by the US Congress next week.

But if he does rebut claims of unfair practices with "we're no worse and sometimes better than Amazon, Google, Uber and Microsoft", he may not win over the politicians.

That argument certainly won't impress developers like Basecamp's David Heinemeier Hansson, who fell out badly with Apple over his email app Hey.

Although that dispute was settled, Mr Hansson still wants radical change.

"The power of Apple and the rest of the big tech monopolies is insufferable," he told me, making it clear he was working with regulators and politicians to change things.

"That's where permanent relief is going to come from."

Apple can expect a long battle, but we've begun to see the shape of its defence.

See the article here:

Apple digs in over its App Store fees - BBC News

What does the pandemic mean for the smart city revolution? – TechHQ

The potential power and practicality of smart cities continues to be a topic of debate in the midst and tailwinds of Covid-19. A recent TechHQ article documented Sidewalk Labs abandoned plans for a smart city development in an area of Toronto. With lingering question marks over privacy and the monetization of citizens data, many cities and governments are skirting around the unmediated adoption of smart city technology.

However, with life in the fast lane stymied the world over and with the chance to think differently about the use of space around us the case around smart city technology is as prominent as ever, and some tech giants are pressing on with what they see as rethinking cities to be for and about people.

Chinese technology Tencent is one such business. It has drafted up plans for a 2 million square meter smart city to occupy the southeastern region of Shenzhen, dubbed by some as Chinas Silicon Valley. According to Jonathan Ward, design partner at the smart citys architectural firm NBBJ, the area has been planned to focus its technology on people and the environment first.

Net City. Source: NBBJ

This sentiment speaks to an idyllic model of urban planning, detaching itself (linguistically, at least) from data-oriented concerns surrounding other smart cities, but it will likely portend the way that public bodies increasingly introduce smart city concepts to citizens as we continue to emerge from the pandemic, and as smart city technology continues to permeate in the years to come.

Net City will comprise Tencent offices and residences for its employees, as well as public amenities such as parks and a waterfront area. Ward goes on to claim that the city which will have few streets for cars and hence very few vehicles is a model for the future of city building [] such a precedence on green spaces points to advanced urban agriculture and a rethinking of traditional city values.

Alongside cutting-edge technology in artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomous vehicles, all under the shadow of metallic buildings, Ward believes urban innovation should go hand-in-hand with the design of spaces, buildings and cities that are restorative [] with plentiful indoor-outdoor spaces. As society reboots after a pandemic, we will see whether these kind of smart city experiments bear fruit within the coming decade, or begin to churn up some of the same concerns as Sidewalk Labs dalliance.

Kris Hartley, assistant professor, Education University of Hong Kong, upholds such optimism, but with a word of warning. If technology is to shape the post-Covid world and theres no doubting that itll play a big role then technological progress must [] assert itself as a tool for positive change in urban residents everyday lives.

For smart cities to really be smart, then, Hartley suggests they must prioritize sustainability by reducing car use, increasing planning strategies around the needs of people, allowing greater public access, and with increased environmental conservation. At the same time, powered by thousands, if not millions of IoT sensors and AI technology, connected cities also mean data-intensive ones. Will efforts to make cities clean with technology simply offload their carbon footprint to the data center?

A piece in The Engineer mulls this very question, and points to work across UK, US, Germany and India where digital transformation and tech is being used as a unifying asset. Ravi Gopinath, chief cloud & product officer at AVEVA, talked of the potential for tech to overcome its own energy issues to contribute to a citys resilience.

A rendering of the Quayside, part of the now scrapped Sidewalk Labs Toronto smart city concept. Source: Sidewalk Toronto

The outlook from Michael Ganser an engineer with German telematics systems firm Kapsch TrafficCom is similarly bright. He forecasts that the introduction of new digital technologies like networked cars and adaptive traffic lights if installed in all of the worlds cities with populations of more than 200,000 people would save the planet 2% in man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

More than 500 smart cities are being built across China, according to government data. These cities are equipped with sensors, cameras, and other gadgets that can crunch data on everything from traffic and pollution, to public health and security. The data anxiety can certainly be excused, and such concerns are not going to go away.

Throughout the coronavirus lockdown, surveillance took on an even more pertinent role than usual, and in smart cities this kind of monitoring will be at worst a kind of under-the-surface, biopolitical hazard. In China, Covid-19 has left the door open for Beijing to ramp up citizen surveillance by introducing new and invasive methods under the guise of fighting the pandemic, whether thats talking drones berating people for not wearing masks, or CCTV installed outside the homes of quarantined individuals.

In the case of Tencents proposal, there may be implications, with time, for Shenzhens neighbor to the South: Hong Kong. In Chinas communist state, though, the general public has less say (Xu Chengwei; public-policy researcher at Singapore Management University).

Smart cities are and will remain, according to authorities a major part of Chinas plan to spur growth amidst a global economic downturn. Hartley warns that the narrative around Covid-19 recovery and resilience is likely to be shaped around urbanism. There may well be an increase in purpose-built towns as demonstration projects or test-bed experiments.

Whether Net City proves to be such a test-bed for heightened surveillance and problematic data processing or whether it can pave the way for the post-Covid, green city revolution remains to be seen. Its construction is scheduled to begin later in 2020.

Continue reading here:

What does the pandemic mean for the smart city revolution? - TechHQ

What is the difference between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash? – Decrypt

Just over ten years ago, Bitcoin (BTC), the world's first cryptocurrency, was invented and launched by the mysterious Satoshi Nakamoto.

Since then, Bitcoin has undergone several upgrades and been forked well over 100 times. Most of these efforts fell flat within months of launching, but Bitcoin Cash (BCH) has managed to buck the trend, becoming by far the most successful Bitcoin fork.

Though similar in many ways, there are several ideological and technical differences between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash which you'll want to be aware of. Here are the main ones:

From the early days of Bitcoin's existence, it quickly became apparent that the network isn't capable of handling enough transactions per second to make it a true competitor to centralized payment systems like Visa. This issue came to a head in 2017 when the number of transactions dramatically increased, causing Bitcoin's average transaction fee to climb to as high as $55 by the end of the year.

To address this scaling issue, a number of off-chain scaling solutions entered development, including the Lightning Network and various side-chain scaling options. But Bitcoin ABC (led by blockchain developer Amaury Schet) sought to keep scaling on-chain (that is without relying on offline processing or side-chains) initiated a fork of the Bitcoin protocol in August 2017. The fork occurred just after the launch of the Segregated Witness (SegWit) update, which slightly improved Bitcoin's scalability by reducing the size of transactions, allowing more to fit into a block.

This fork produced a new cryptocurrency known as Bitcoin Cash, which keeps the original Bitcoin codebase but without the SegWit upgrade, and with the maximum block size increased to 8MB.

Arguably the main technical difference between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash is the maximum block size allowed by each network.

For Bitcoin, the size of each block is limited to roughly 1MB, but there have been examples of blocks successfully mined that are larger than this due to the benefits of the aforementioned SegWit upgrade. Bitcoin Cash, on the other hand, has a maximum block size of 32MB (increased from 8MB in May 2018). This change significantly increased the number of transactions that can be included in each block and the overall speed of the Bitcoin Cash network.

Bitcoin Cash keeps the 10-minute average block discovery time first implemented by Bitcoin. This means that transactions are confirmed approximately equally quickly between the two chains, but because more transactions can be squeezed into each Bitcoin Cash block, the overall throughput of the Bitcoin Cash network is around 100 transactions per second (tps)compared to just 7 tps for Bitcoin (14 tps with SegWit).

Since Bitcoin Cash has larger blocks, but far fewer actual transactions compared to Bitcoin, it also benefits from lower fees. Currently, the average Bitcoin Cash transaction fee is around 0.5 cents, versus $2.07 for Bitcoin.

Besides an increased maximum block size and lack of SegWit support, Bitcoin Cash differs from Bitcoin in a variety of other ways. For one, it has several additional commands/functions enabled, known as opcodes. Back in 2018, several opcodes that are disabled in Bitcoin were re-enabled on the Bitcoin Cash chain, while some entirely new ones were also added. This difference gives Bitcoin Cash enhanced smart contract functionality over Bitcoin.

Bitcoin Cash can also be considered more centralized than Bitcoin. Right now, a single pool controls more than a quarter of the Bitcoin Cash hash rate, whereas the top three pools combined make up over 55% of the hash rate. Comparatively, the largest Bitcoin pool controls around 17.7% of the hash rate, whereas the top three contribute under 47%.

Overall, Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are similar in ambition and purpose, but Bitcoin has been far more successful in garnering adoptiondespite the arguable technical improvements offered by Bitcoin Cash.

Here is the original post:

What is the difference between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash? - Decrypt

Bitcoin Cash Is the Only Fork Underperforming Bitcoin This Year – CoinDesk – CoinDesk

Bitcoin cash is the only forked cryptocurrency underperforming bitcoin in 2020, according to data from Messari. The inaugural fork is only up 9% year to date.

Although most alternate cryptocurrencies (or altcoins) have rallied over the past few months, bitcoin cash the only fork around today that traded throughout the 2017 cryptocurrency bull market has been left behind. Bitcoin cash only started underperforming bitcoin in May, but two months was enough time for the forked cryptocurrency to underperform bitcoin by 18 percentage points so far this year.

Its common for altcoins to outperform bitcoin during bullish market cycles. Altcoins with low or medium market capitalizations often experience higher volatility than bitcoin, which may yield higher returns should bitcoins price also appreciate.

Bitcoin cash, on the other hand, has simply experienced more of a volatility compression compared to the other forks, especially bitcoin sv, which has a market capitalization closest to bitcoin cash, said Dan Koehler, liquidity manager at OKCoin.

Bitcoin gold and bitcoin diamond remain in a much smaller market cap bucket and thus could be experiencing higher volatility and returns as a result, he added.

Another, more fundamental possible explanation for bitcoin cashs lackluster performance is that the protocols ecosystem including developers, investors and entrepreneurs has unraveled, according to Zach Resnick, managing partner at Unbounded Capital, a BSV-long fund. Bitcoin underperforming other forks like bitcoin gold and bitcoin diamond is not surprising due to their characteristically high volatility, he told CoinDesk.

Regardless of the reason, bitcoin sv, bitcoin gold and bitcoin diamond have all outperformed bitcoin by more than 40 percentage points in 2020.

The leader in blockchain news, CoinDesk is a media outlet that strives for the highest journalistic standards and abides by a strict set of editorial policies. CoinDesk is an independent operating subsidiary of Digital Currency Group, which invests in cryptocurrencies and blockchain startups.

Visit link:

Bitcoin Cash Is the Only Fork Underperforming Bitcoin This Year - CoinDesk - CoinDesk

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Up $7.33 Over Past 4 Hours, Entered Today Up For the 2nd Day In A Row; Crosses 50 and 100 Day Moving Averages – CFDTrading

Bitcoin Cash 4 Hour Price Update

Updated July 23, 2020 03:20 PM GMT (11:20 AM EST)

Bitcoin Cash closed the last 4 hour candle down 0.37% ($0.87); this denotes the 4th candle in a row a decline has happened. Relative to other instruments in the Top Cryptos asset class, Bitcoin Cash ranked 4th since the last 4 hour candle in terms of percentage price change.

Bitcoin Cash is up 4.2% ($9.68) since the previous day, marking the 2nd day in a row an increase has occurred. As for how volume fared, yesterdays volume was up 42.34% from the previous day (Tuesday), and up 66.13% from Wednesday of the week before. Out of the 5 instruments in the Top Cryptos asset class, Bitcoin Cash ended up ranking 2nd for the day in terms of price change relative to the previous day. The daily price chart of Bitcoin Cash below illustrates.

Notably, Bitcoin Cash crossed above its 50 and 100 day moving averages yesterday. The clearest trend exists on the 90 day timeframe, which shows price moving down over that time. Or to view things another way, note that out of the past 10 days Bitcoin Cashs price has gone down 6 them.

Over on Twitter, here were the top tweets about Bitcoin Cash:

#Tether USDt contributes to an important share of onchain volume over Bitcoin (via Omni), Ethereum and Tron blockchains.Tether is available on: Omni (Bitcoin), Ethereum, Tron, Liquid (Bitcoin), EOS, Algorand, SLP (Bitcoin Cash), OMG (Ethereum, still WIP) and more coming.

Unpopular opinion: Rebranding Bitcoin Cash with the name Cash would improve its image and adoption.

The pitch for Bitcoin in 2011 is the same pitch for Bitcoin Cash in 2020.You can send or receive any amount of money with anyone in the world, instantly, basically for free, anonymously, and there is nothing that anyone can do to stop it.

See the original post here:

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Up $7.33 Over Past 4 Hours, Entered Today Up For the 2nd Day In A Row; Crosses 50 and 100 Day Moving Averages - CFDTrading

The Crypto Daily Movers and Shakers July 20th, 2020 – FX Empire

It was a mixed start to the day. Bitcoin rose to an early morning high $9,194.4 before hitting reverse.

Falling short of the major resistance levels, Bitcoin fell to a late morning intraday low $9,111.8 before finding support.

Bitcoin fell through the first major support level at $9,133.77 before rallying to a final hour intraday high $9,299.0.

Bitcoin broke through the first major resistance level at $9,230.77 and second major resistance level at $9,272.43 before pulling back.

The late pullback saw Bitcoin fall back through the second major resistance level to sub-$9,240 levels.

The near-term bullish trend remained intact in spite of the early July pullback to sub-$9,000 levels. For the bears, Bitcoin would need to slide through the 62% FIB of $6,400 to form a near-term bearish trend.

Across the rest of the majors, it was yet another mixed day on Sunday.

Bitcoin Cash SV (-0.52%), Ripples XRP (-0.20%), Stellars Lumen (-0.48%), and Tezos (-0.95%) bucked the trend with modest losses.

It was bullish for the rest of the majors.

Binance Coin and EOS rallied by 5.01% and by 3.17% respectively to lead the way.

Bitcoin Cash ABC (+2.11%), Cardanos ADA (+1.15%), and Ethereum (+1.44%) also found strong support.

Litecoin (+0.42%), Moneros XMR (+0.89%), and Trons TRX (+0.68%) trailed the front runners.

For the week, it was also a mixed bag for the majors.

Stellars Lumen and Tezos bucked the trend, with gains of 5.23% and 5.55% respectively.

It was bearish for the rest of the majors.

Bitcoin Cash ABC (-3.58%), Bitcoin Cash SV (-6.20%), Litecoin (-4.71%), and Trons TRX (-3.56%) led the way down.

Binance Coin (-1.64%), Cardanos ADA (-2.23%), EOS (-1.38%), and Ethereum (-1.50%) also struggled.

Moneros XMR (-0.52%) and Ripples XRP (-0.86%) saw relatively modest losses in the week.

In the week, the crypto total market cap rose to a Monday high $273.18bn before falling to a Thursday low $258.89bn. At the time of writing, the total market cap stood at $266.81bn.

Bitcoins dominance fell to a Monday low 63.09% before rising to a Thursday high 64.28%. At the time of writing, Bitcoins dominance stood at 63.46%.

Read the original post:

The Crypto Daily Movers and Shakers July 20th, 2020 - FX Empire

Report Shows Bitcoin’s Covid-19 Recovery Stronger Than Other Markets With Zero Intervention – Bitcoin News

The response to the Covid-19 pandemic has been ruthless on the global economy and during the last six months, traditional stocks and commodities have felt extreme market volatility. Coinshares published a comprehensive report this week in regard to how bitcoin performed during the coronavirus outbreak. The seven-page study highlights how bitcoins rebound to pre-Covid price levels has unsurprisingly garnered attention amongst the investment community.

Coinshares head of research Chris Bendiksen recently published a report that discusses how bitcoin (BTC) reacted to the coronavirus outbreak and the mid-March market volatility. Despite what critics like Peter Schiff say, BTC has outperformed a great number of global assets including gold since the March 12, 2020 (Black Thursday) market rout.

Golds price per ounce was $1,589, and the price has risen 13.90% to a high of $1,810 on July 17. Bitcoin (BTC) on the other hand slid to a low of $3,870 on Black Thursday sliding -49.39% that day. However, since then the price of BTC has increased 135% where it stands today at just above the $9,100 per coin region.

The report called Understanding Bitcoin During the Covid Crisis written by Bendiksen highlights how resilient bitcoin can be. Coinshares believes that the initial tumble on March 12 was ignited by fear spreading from other markets.

It then became particularly severe due to bitcoins unique market structure, Bendiksens report notes. The overall usage of leverage in bitcoin spot and derivatives markets is generally large, but in the time leading into March 12 & 13, leverage levels were abnormally high, making them extra vulnerable to shocks.

The report continues by adding:

Interestingly, even after sustaining a drop of that magnitude, Bitcoin not only found a natural bottom, it vigorously rebounded over the succeeding weeks and liquidity levels have normalised. Not only does that demonstrate that what we observed was a market dislocation caused by exogenous shocks, not a broad revaluation, but it also shows that Bitcoin markets are highly resilient and self-correcting, even in the complete absence of external intervention.

Despite the swift rebound, the Coinshares researcher explained that due to bitcoins market structure not really changing, theres little reason to doubt the March 12 volatility could happen again. Bendiksen says there were a number of things that happened prior to Black Thursday, which can be examined again for future volatility events.

The report details that traditional financial markets were on shaky ground in early March, and a stampede for cash took place after Europe and North America implemented the initial lockdowns.

But was really noticeable was the leverage levels in bitcoin markets prior to the Black Thursday fallout.

In bitcoin markets, leverage had been building in various forms, the report reveals. USD lending rates on margin platforms were elevated, and Long/Short (L/S) ratios at spot exchanges such as Bitfinex were hovering at abnormally high levels. Having come down from twin peaks of almost 12x in late December and early January, L/S ratios spiked back above 9x in the weeks leading up to March 11. By March 17, the ratio had dropped to less than 2x.

Bendiksen also stressed that the situation on derivatives exchanges did not help and the number of outstanding BTC-collateralized loans spiked to an all-time high before the March 12 event. Despite the -49.39% drop that day, Bendiksen said that BTC eventually found a bottom between $3,500 and $4,000 per coin.

Going forward, the Coinshares report said that monitoring leverage metrics will help gauge future volatility risk. Unlike traditional markets, BTC also didnt get help from external intervention from organizations like the Fed, and [bitcoins] recovery has been stronger and faster than almost all other markets, the research paper highlights.

Bendiksens report concludes by saying:

The continued and common usage of leverage in bitcoin markets means that the bitcoin price remains vulnerable to volatility spikes. If outside events of similar magnitude were to recur, it is not unlikely that bitcoin prices would behave in a similar way. Keeping an eye on these metrics should help in gauging ongoing volatility risk.

What do you think about Coinshares recent report concerning bitcoin and Covid-19? Let us know in the comments section below.

Image Credits: Shutterstock, Pixabay, Wiki Commons, Coinshares, Datamish.com, Genesis Capital,

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only. It is not a direct offer or solicitation of an offer to buy or sell, or a recommendation or endorsement of any products, services, or companies. Bitcoin.com does not provide investment, tax, legal, or accounting advice. Neither the company nor the author is responsible, directly or indirectly, for any damage or loss caused or alleged to be caused by or in connection with the use of or reliance on any content, goods or services mentioned in this article.

Read more here:

Report Shows Bitcoin's Covid-19 Recovery Stronger Than Other Markets With Zero Intervention - Bitcoin News

News – The Freedom to Speak and Criticize – The Heartland Institute

Harpers magazine recently posted a letter signed by over 150 leading authors, journalists, and public intellectuals calling for greater support for freedom of speech. The letter criticized the intolerance for opposing views frequently exhibited on Twitter and social media. Does the freedom to criticize speech threaten the free exchange of ideas?

Signers included David Brooks, Noam Chomsky, Malcolm Gladwell, Salman Rushdie, Gloria Steinem, and Matt Yglesias. To quote from the letter, The restriction of debate, whether by a repressive government or an intolerant society, invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation. We need to preserve the possibility of good-faith disagreement without dire professional consequences.

A society organized for the benefit of people as opposed to the glory of rulers requires freedom for people to think, voice their ideas, and engage with others. Our rational faculties require critical exchange. And limiting government requires freedom to criticize our leaders.

Some commentators have criticized social media censorship by companies like Facebook, Twitter and Google while others want more active removal of offensive content. The censorship claim is technically false, as only governments truly censor, whether through prior restraint to prevent publication of views or punishments for speech.

Is freedom from government coercion sufficient, or can the actions of private individuals neutralize freedom of expression? Negative reactions to the Harpers letter ultimately turn on these questions.

Third parties can illegitimately chill speech, as Harpers signatory Salman Rushdie can attest to. His 1988 novel The Satanic Verses was considered blasphemous by Muslims; Irans Ayatollah Khomeni issued a fatwah on or order to Muslims to kill Mr. Rushdie, who spent a decade in hiding. In January 2015, armed gunmen killed 11 employees at the offices of the French radical magazine Charlie Hedbo over offensive content.

Criminal acts are unacceptable. We will not have free exchange if violence is the price of speaking. Are other forms of outrage over or criticism of speech acceptable?

Some must be. People who found Mr. Rushdies book offensive should be free not to buy it. The writing of letters by newspaper readers or television viewers demanding that certain columnists or reporters be fired also seems acceptable.

Social media mobs seem more adept at getting offenders fired than letter writers ever were. A parallel for todays events might be the Hollywood blacklist during the anti-communist McCarthy era. While Senator McCarthy and the House Committee on Un-American Affairs exercised government power, the blacklist was private reprisal. The entertainment industry feared public backlash from employing actors, actresses, directors or writers seen as communists or communist sympathizers.

Is there anything different and more dangerous about social media? For one, social media permanently records peoples misstatements and offensive actions. An inappropriate Halloween costume lives forever on Facebook or Instagram and cannot be denied. Furthermore, social media outrage organizes at warp speed compared to the letter writing campaigns of yesterday.

Yet social media critics cannot fire businesses employees; they prevail only by persuading business managers of the merits of their complaints. I may think that businesses respond too quickly and overreact to social media outrage. As an economist, I recognize that business leaders know the challenges they face much better than I do.

Consider the recent resignation of CrossFit founder and CEO Greg Glassman in the wake of his criticism of protests over George Floyds death at the hands of Minneapolis police. Was his company taken from him unjustly? Not necessarily; the financial harm he caused was real. Reportedly 1,000 of the companys 14,000 gyms ended their affiliations in response, and Reebok severed a decade-long licensing deal. CrossFit is privately held, but investors sought to make money, not lose due to Mr. Glassmans comments.

Loss of ones ability to earn a livelihood is a harsh penalty likely to chill speech, both now and during the Hollywood blacklist. Ultimately, however, social media protests only succeed by persuading others that someones speech is offensive. Persuasion and criticism are part of life in a voluntary society.

More here:

News - The Freedom to Speak and Criticize - The Heartland Institute

Goya Foods, Free Speech, and Pluralism | William J. Watkins, Jr. – The Beacon

Angry that the CEO of Goya Foods praised Donald Trump as an incredible builder, the Left has organized a boycott of the company. Goya, of course, brands itself as providing authentic Latino foods. According to its website, Goya Foods is the largest, Hispanic-owned food company in the United States.

CEO Robert Unanue was at the White House to participate in President Trumps Hispanic Prosperity Initiative. The initiative was created by executive order and seeks to improve access to education and economic opportunities in the Hispanic community.

According to the Mercury News, In his brief remarks, Unanue announced Goya would donate 1 million cans of Goya chickpeas and 1 million other food products to American food banks. He said the company wanted to help families hurt by the coronavirus pandemic. This is a nice gesture and shows corporate responsibility.

But for AOC and others, any praise or association with Trump is a capital offense that requires shaming and dire economic consequences.

Unanue protests that the boycott of Goya amounts to a suppression of speech. Well, not exactly.

Under the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. The right to free speech cannot be impaired absent government action. We, as citizens, have the freedom to buy from whomever we choose, whether our reasons are good or bad. If, for example, Middle America boycotted the NFL because of its embrace of the radical woke agenda, this would not deny the players or league the right to speak their minds. Boycotts and protests are a proper tool that can be used to convey a message and/or put pressure on another private actor. But they should not be used lightly or casually.

While Unanue was incorrect to assert that his free speech rights are under attack, he is correct in saying that other democratic values are endangered. What is really at stake is American pluralism. The typical dictionary defines pluralism as a condition or system in which two or more states, groups, principles, sources of authority, etc., coexist. According to Thought.com, [t]he political philosophy of pluralism suggests that we really can and should all just get along. First recognized as an essential element of democracyby the philosophers ofAncient Greece, pluralism permits and even encourages a diversity of political opinion and participation.

With the present cultural revolution, there is no room for a diversity of opinions. You are either a supporter of the radical agenda or you are an enemy who must be silenced and destroyed. For the Left, if you are one of the 62,984,828 Americans who voted for Trump in 2016, then you are the evil. The new revolution denies that reasonable people can hold different positions on the best course for our country. Those expressing opinions contrary to Leftist dogma are being forced out of the marketplace of ideas by cancel culture run wild. Again, this crusade is not an attack on the constitutional right of free speech, but on pluralism.

There is no denying that we will have strong disagreements. Principles often have sharp edges and can cut. But we will not survive as a country if we cant agree to disagree. The fact that AOC and others would seek to tear down the largest Hispanic-owned food company in the United States for the CEOs nice words about Trump when Trump is pushing a program to help the Hispanic community shows Procrustean conformity is the only allowable course.

The United States is more diverse today than it ever has been. If we abandon pluralism, then our future will be nothing but warring factions seeking to cancel each other. We will be at perpetual war until one faction prevails. This winner will dictate what one is allowed to say, think, and do. We are headed in an ugly direction. Cant we all just get along?

Link:

Goya Foods, Free Speech, and Pluralism | William J. Watkins, Jr. - The Beacon

Federalization of police threatens the rights of all Americans | Opinion – lehighvalleylive.com

By Martricia ODonnell McLaughlin

Federal law enforcement is infiltrating U.S. cities led by Democrats, by order of Donald Trump. We citizens who value free speech, free assembly, states rights and our Constitution must loudly condemn this action.

Our federal government was established as a limited government and has successfully functioned as such, through periods of crises and turmoil as well as through more tranquil times, for more than 240 years. Under the Constitution, the federal government does not have a general police power. Police powers belong to the states and their delegations to local law enforcement.

Trumps deployment of federal law enforcement to cities such as Portland, Ore., is a dangerous disruption of constitutional power. It also places our civil liberties at great risk.

For a man who opines that mandating the wearing of masks for public health and safety is an infringement of liberty to operationalize federal law enforcement against protesters is outrageous. There is not a constitutionally protected right to be mask-free during a pandemic, any more than there is a constitutional right to enter restaurants shirtless. There is, however, a long-protected right to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly.

The tactics reportedly used in Portland should arouse the outrage of every citizen. We are not Argentina, East Germany, China, or North Korea. We do not condone authoritarian police tactics to sweep protestors from the street, to deploy police without identification, to blindfold and question citizens. We must be aware that if we allow a Republican president to act in this way today, a Democratic President may act similarly tomorrow. The former might attack the radical left, the latter the radical right.

Also disturbing is the blatant partisanship of these deployments. Trump and his allies, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham, overtly indicate they are targeting jurisdictions led by Democrats. Politicization of the police is dangerous. The administration similarly politicized coronavirus infections early, claiming the highest rates were in regions led by Democrats. Today the hot zones are overwhelmingly in red states.

The supporters of the administration long ago acquiesced to Trumps deviation from the norm that a president serves all the people and have allowed partisanship in power that has never risen to such levels. This must not be allowed to continue where basic freedoms are at stake.

In todays divided culture, the Constitution appears as a brilliant document, guiding us through these turbulent times. Its declaration of basic freedoms to speak, petition our government and assemble peaceably is precious. The absence of a federal police power, allowing states to police themselves, is wise and achieves a necessary balance against the erosion of democracy and the advance of an uncivil, authoritarian regime.

Martricia ODonnell McLaughlin is an attorney and mediator in Easton.

Original post:

Federalization of police threatens the rights of all Americans | Opinion - lehighvalleylive.com

Why China continues to gather sway on the UN Human Rights Council – Fox News

Despite long being under a cloud of controversy for its human rights record from the treatment of ethnic minorities to the muzzling of critics, all of which was amplified in the past year China continues to climb the ranks as a human rights leader in the United Nations.

On April 1, it was no fool's trick that Chinascored a spot on the U.N.'s Human Rights Council panel, which is in charge of choosing human rights monitors globally. Then on April 27, in the throes of a controversy over its handling of the coronavirusand its questionable relationship with the World Health Organization (WHO), China was appointed chair for selecting the upcoming Special Rapporteur,or "U.N. expert on free speech."

That selection was announced this week the Chinese Communist Partynamed Bangladeshi-born attorney Irene Khan, who has become something of a controversial figure in recent years for her support of the Beijing leadership.

Allee des Nations (Avenue of Nations) of the United Nations Palace in Geneva, with the flags of the member countries.

Yet despite accusations of widespread humanrights violations, China continues to ascend in the international body founded on principles of justice, peace and accountability.

"The U.N. is often an upside-down parallel universe. The election process and governance structure of organizations like the Human Rights Council make it easily susceptible to exploitation by China and other U.S. adversaries," Richard Goldberg, a senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) told Fox News. "We need a proactive diplomatic campaign to delegitimize and degrade the organization while establishing credible, alternative mechanisms to hold human rights abusers accountable."

POMPEO SAYS UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL HITS 'NEW LOW' WITH ANTI-US RESOLUTION ON RACE, POLICE

According to Hillel Neuer, the executive director of the Geneva-based, independent human rights organization U.N.Watch, Khan "enjoys close ties with the Communist regime" and has "showered praise for the Chinese regime" and its Belt and Road Initiative, which is considered one of the factors fueling the persecution of minorities like the Uighurs.

In addition, Khan is said to have lauded China's "contribution to global sustainable development" through a $1 trillion infrastructure program tailored to increase its reach and ownership of strategic places and organizations in at least 70 countries.

Khan whose appointment as Special Rapporteurwill go into effect next month served as Secretary-General of Amnesty International from 2001 to 2009, and left under unclear circumstances. Throughout her tenure, critics accused Khan of redirecting the human rights watchdog into fighting poverty and away from its original mandate centered on advocacy for prisoners of conscience. In 2011, she went on to become director-general of the Rome-based International Development Law Organization, which focuses on the rule of law and sustainable development, of which China is one of the eight state financiers.

"[Khan]has a record of being a supporter of economic and social rights over political and civil liberties," noted Sean Roberts, director and associate professor of International Development Studies at the George Washington University. "As such, it is likely that China is banking on the idea that she will continue this legacy at the U.N. and avoid highlighting freedom of speech issues related to the internal politics of any given country, including China."

As chair of the five-nation Human Rights Council, which the U.S. withdrew from in 2018 at the behest of then-Ambassador Nikki Haley, China vetted and picked Khan out of 48 applicants to serve as the United Nations Special Rapporteur for freedom of expression and opinion, becoming the first woman to hold such a title.

"The Chinese government has been working hard to be a participant in as many of the U.N.'s initiatives as possible, both in terms of funding and engagement. At the same time, the United States is increasingly stepping back from the U.N., allowing China to take on an even greater role," Roberts underscored. "And China's soft power globally, especially in the developing world, is on the rise at the same time as that of the U.S. is on the wane. Thus, China is able to get support from a lot of other U.N. member states to achieve its goals of more authority in the U.N."

Roberts cautioned that while the U.N. "has never been effective enough to live up to its lofty mission," it remains a dominant force in global politics.

"If the U.S. continues to retreat from its role in the organization and allows China to expand its power there, China's position as a global leader will inevitably be enhanced regardless of its respect for human rights," he said. "Most of all, this threatens to deteriorate any power that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights still holds in the world."

But Chinese leadership and control of international organizations extend well beyond the scope of the United Nations.

The U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) in April published an extensive list identifying "Chinese citizens serving in leadership positions in key international organizations: from U.N. principal organs, and U.N. funds and programs, to U.N. specialized agencies and international trade and financial institutions.

All the while, concerns are being raised by the United States and other allies with regardto the national security law that came into play inside the once autonomous Hong Kong this month.

A woman walks past a promotional banner of the national security law for Hong Kong, in Hong Kong, Tuesday, June 30, 2020. China has approved a contentious law that would allow authorities to crack down on subversive and secessionist activity in Hong Kong, sparking fears that it would be used to curb opposition voices in the semi-autonomous territory. (AP)

The new law pavesthe way for a national security committee to be formed in Hong Kong under the jurisdiction of Beijing, and it also means that those accused of anti-government offenses now can be triedon the mainland and subject to significantly more stringent punishments.

At the U.N. Human Rights Council, which was led this month by Cuba, 53 countries voted in support of China's heavy-handed clampdown with the justification that the people of Hong Kong could now "exercise their freedom in a safe environment."

Those who opposed the controversial law were considerably outnumbered, led by the U.K., but garnering the support of just 26 other countries.

"China is ascending in the U.N. because the U.N. provides an environment of corruption in which the Chinese Communist Party thrives. Consider that the World Health Organization, a part of the United Nations, praised the 'transparency' of the Chinese during the coronavirus when the Chinese government, in fact, censored and suppressed information," conjectured Will Coggin, managing director of the American Security Institute. "Much as the U.S. pulled out of funding the WHO, we should consider whether it's worth continuing to spend $10 billion a year to fund the U.N. What does that money get us?"

Furthermore, Beijing's treatment and forced disappearance of more than a million Chinese minority Muslims, known as Uighurs, is also coming under increasingly blistering limelight.

Uyghurs people demonstrate against China during the Universal Periodic Review of China by the Human Rights Council, on the place des Nations in front of the European headquarters of the United Nations, in Geneva, Switzerland, Tuesday, Nov. 6, 2018. (Salvatore Di Nolfi/Keystone via AP)

The U.S. has long spoken out against reports of mass concentration camps, unjustified allegations of terrorism and subsequent imprisonmentand torture of the minority group, which is mostly present in the Xinjiang region. And this week U.K. Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab took a bold step in denouncing China for "gross and egregious" human rights abuses against its Uighur population and said sanctions against those responsible cannot be ruled out.

US SPEAKS UP FOR MINORITY MUSLIM UIGHURS IN CHINA - WHILE ISLAMIC COUNTRIES STAY MOSTLY SILENT

Two years ago, as evidence of such camps was first exposed, China vehemently denied their existence. The government later admitted to their existence, vowing that they were "reeducation" institutions and a pivotal tool against terrorism.

Nonetheless, even the United Nations' own independent human rights experts have conveyed outrage over the repression of "fundamental freedom" by the Chinese leadership as it continues to cement its place on the Council.

In a joint statement last month, some 50 experts bemoaned that they had "repeatedly communicated" their "grave concerns," ranging from "impunity for excessive use of force by police and the alleged use of chemical agents against protesters; to the alleged sexual harassment and assault of women protesters in police stations; together with the alleged harassment of health care workers" in Hong Kong, along with the collective repression of specific communities "especially religious and ethnic minorities, in Xinjiang and Tibet" to the disappearances of human rights advocates across the country.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

The U.S. took matters into their own hands this week, imposing sanctions on 11 additionalChinese companies over human rights violations against the Uighurs. The fallout will have a direct impact on several suppliers to major international brands such as Google, Apple, HP, Ralph Laurenand Hugo Boss, whichhave financial liaisons with the newly sanctioned companies.

Whether there will be any change of course on China's part remains to be seen.

See the original post here:

Why China continues to gather sway on the UN Human Rights Council - Fox News

Malaysia opposition warns of ‘chilling effect’ of applying old law to social media – WTVB News

Thursday, July 23, 2020 6:31 a.m. EDT by Thomson Reuters

By Joseph Sipalan

KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - A decades-old Malaysian law requiring video or film productions to be licensed before being broadcast extends to social media, a minister said on Thursday, prompting an outcry from the opposition over its implications for freedom of expression.

Communications and Multimedia Minister Saifuddin Abdullah told parliament that licences were needed "regardless of whether they are mainstream media agencies or personal media that broadcast films on social media or traditional channels".

Opposition lawmakers accused the government of trying to cast a wide regulatory net on social media content using a 1981 National Film Development Corporation (FINAS) Act, which predates the internet.

Opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim said the minister's interpretation was a "worrying development", saying: "This is unreasonable and backwards. At the same time, the government believes it will uphold freedom of speech."

"It is clear the government wants all parties, be it politicians, or social media users to face action for content that may not fit the government's view," Anwar added in the statement.

In a statement after the uproar, Saifuddin said he was only explaining the current status of the law and that the government was aware of the need to improve it to match present needs.

"It must be stressed that the PN government has never thought of using the act to stifle individual freedom on social media," he said, using the acronym for the ruling Perikatan Nasional coalition.

Over 80% of Malaysia's 32 million population are active social media users, according to the Digital 2020 report by We Are Social and Hootsuite.

Opposition lawmaker Wong Shu Qi said that according to the minister's interpretation, any privately uploaded video would be deemed illegal.

Individuals convicted under the act face penalties of up to 50,000 ringgit ($11,748.12), a maximum of two years in jail, or both.

"Will the government take action against all TikTok users? Will the government request every YouTuber to apply for licence?" Wong said, referring to two popular social media platforms.

(Editing by Martin Petty and Alison Williams)

The rest is here:

Malaysia opposition warns of 'chilling effect' of applying old law to social media - WTVB News

College Democrats Don’t Condemn Threats of Violence Against Conservatives – Texas Scorecard

They continued to label YCT at UNTs actions as racist, homophobic, and transphobic. UNT Democrats didnt respond to our inquiry regarding what they will do to ensure the safety of all students exercising their freedom of speech on campus. Instead, they asked YCT at UNT what they will do on that front, and they asked YCT and UNT to accept and condemn their actions as racist, homophobic, and transphobic.

The Democrats original press release that didnt condemn threats of violence against YCT at UNT and Neidert is still on Twitter.

In a recent press release, Democrats at the University of North Texas (UNT) refused to condemn threats of violence leveled against conservative students, and instead announced a new strategy to silence these conservatives. This follows the College Democrats push to ban Young Conservatives of Texas (YCT) from campus and a new biased article from the campus taxpayer-funded newspaper, favoring the Democrats position.

Recently, a coalition of extreme-left student organizations at UNT, led by UNT College Democrats, starteda petition to ban YCT at UNT.

This coalition alleges YCT at UNT has a pattern of racism, transphobia, and homophobia throughout the 2019 through 2020 school year. One of these allegations caught the attention of UNT President Neal Smatresk, who said, We are looking into this.

YCT at UNT replied in part:

We are not a perfect organization, but it is clear that some students just want us disbanded because we are conservatives. We are not going to bow down to the leftist mob that is filled with [vitriol] and hate.

Over the past few weeks, YCT at UNT has been threatened with violence and doxxing (attempts to publish private and identifying information on the internet). They also faced hexing from a witch, and they claim to have been hacked.

These actions, along with Smatresks tweet, have garnered nationwide concern about free speech at UNT. State Rep. Briscoe Cain (RDeer Park) announced he would gladly represent them if they are banned.

Saturday morning, the UNT College Democrats published a press release where they condemned the attempt to doxx members of YCT at UNT, but the group did not condemn the other threats leveled at the conservative student organization.

YCT at UNT Chairwoman Kelly Neidert told Texas Scorecard the release was definitely not satisfactory.

They should have condemned the actual threats of violence and overall harassment, not to mention the witches, she said.

Mentioning recent interactions with the UNT administration, the College Democrats admitted their ban petition has failed. But they are not backing down, adding YCT wont be banned unless UNT is liable for the groups actionsactions UNT Democrats have labeled as bigoted and hate speech.

They have since announced a new strategy. Labeling YCT at UNT as a right-wing hate group, the Democrats plan to raise the volume of those they claim are the most vulnerable to right-wing hate groups such as YCT. UNT Democrats hope this strategy virtually silences the conservative student organization, and their new approach appears to already be underway.

On July 16, two days earlier, North Texas DailyUNTs taxpayer-funded student newspaperpublished a biased article about the petition to ban YCT at UNT. Nowhere in the article did it mention the threats of violence leveled at YCT or Neidert, and it frames the extreme-left coalition as the victims.

In the article, one coalition member said:

I believe that YCT should be removed from campus because Im a queer person that goes to a minority-serving university, GLAD President Ryan Semegran said. There are students that specifically go to UNT because theyre branded as a liberal college that takes everybody and accepts everybody.

Leftist organizations like GLAD use sexual identity as a Trojan horse to push leftist political agendas such as silencing freedom of speech.

Texas Scorecard sent an inquiry to Smatresk, asking if this article was sanctioned by UNT and if it is indicative of moves coming against YCT from the university. No response was received by publication time, and Smatresk has issued no new statement on this.

In a clear attempt to isolate YCT at UNT, the coalition is also pushing for other student organizations on campus to have a no-contact order with the conservative student organization.

Inquiries sent to the UNT Democrats were not replied to by publication time.

Texas Senate Bill 18, also called the campus free speech bill, became state law last September and prohibits UNT from banning YCT on campus.

Concerned Texans may contacttheir state representative, state senator, andGov. Greg Abbott. They may alsocontact UNT President Neal Smatresk.

Link:

College Democrats Don't Condemn Threats of Violence Against Conservatives - Texas Scorecard

Nanomedicine Market 2019 by Rising-Trends, Growth Analysis, Industry Share, Product Types, User-Demand, Business Strategy and Comprehensive Valuation…

A new intelligence report Nanomedicine Market Was recently added to Nanomedicine Market Research collection of top-line market study reports. International Nanomedicine Market report is a meticulous all-inclusive analysis of this market that provides access to direct firsthand insights on the growth trail of market at near term and long term. On the grounds of factual advice sourced from authentic industry pros and extensive primary business study, the report offers insights about the historical growth pattern of Nanomedicine Market and present market situation. It then provides brief and long-term market growth projections.

Projections are only based on the comprehensive analysis of key Market dynamics that are expected to influence Nanomedicine Market performance and also their seriousness of impacting market growth within the span of assessment interval.

Get PDF Sample Copy of this Report to understand the structure of the complete report: (Including Full TOC, List of Tables & Figures, Chart) @ https://www.marketresearchhub.com/enquiry.php?type=S&repid=2734725&source=atm

In addition to evaluation of dynamics, the report supplies In-depth examination of key business trends that are anticipated to behave more prominently in global Nanomedicine Market. The study also provides valued information concerning the present and upcoming growth opportunities in Nanomedicine Market the important players and new market entrants can capitalize on.

Competitive Businesses And manufacturers in global market

segment by Type, the product can be split intoQuantum dotsNanoparticlesNanoshellsNanotubesNanodevicesMarket segment by Application, split intooncologyInfectious diseasesCardiologyOrthopedicsOthers

Market segment by Regions/Countries, this report coversNorth AmericaEuropeChinaJapanSoutheast AsiaIndiaCentral & South America

Do You Have Any Query Or Specific Requirement? Ask to Our Industry [emailprotected] https://www.marketresearchhub.com/enquiry.php?type=E&repid=2734725&source=atm

Opportunity assessment offered in this Nanomedicine Market report Is important in terms of understanding the lucrative regions of investment, which prove to be the actionable insights for major market players, providers, distributors, and other stakeholders in Nanomedicine Market.

In-depth global Nanomedicine Market taxonomy presented in this Report offers detailed insights about each of the market segments and their sub-segments, which are categorized based on t par various parameters. An exhaustive regional evaluation of global Nanomedicine Market divides global market landscape into essential geographies.

Regional prognosis and country-wise analysis of Nanomedicine Market Allows for the analysis of multi-faceted operation of marketplace in all of the crucial markets. This information intends to provide a broader scope of report to readers and identify the most relevant profitable areas in global market place.

Taxonomy and geographic analysis of the international Nanomedicine Market enables readers to see profits in present chances and catch upcoming growth chances even until they approach the market location. The analysis given in report is only meant to unroll the economic, societal, regulatory and political situations of this market specific to each area and country, which could help potential market entrants in Nanomedicine Market landscape to comprehend the nitty-gritty of target market areas and invent their plans accordingly.

You can Buy This Report from Here @ https://www.marketresearchhub.com/checkout?rep_id=2734725&licType=S&source=atm

Nanomedicine Market Table of Contents

View original post here:
Nanomedicine Market 2019 by Rising-Trends, Growth Analysis, Industry Share, Product Types, User-Demand, Business Strategy and Comprehensive Valuation...

The Greatest Disruptor Of The 21st Century Makes Health Our Most Precious Asset – Forbes

Bill Gates famously warned in 2015 that the next big threat to humanity was a pandemic that we are not ready for.But did he predict that the Covid-19 virus would take top spot as the greatest disruptor this century- ahead of technology and the aging population?

Living with the pandemic has become the new normal, and made the world realize that health is our greatest asset and cornerstone of prosperity.

But who could have imagined, even six months ago, that governments around the world would inject over $9 trillion to save the global economy?These bailouts are ushering in a new era of state intervention in our lives and the public is on side.

Respondents to the Edelman Trust Barometer conducted in April want government out front in all areas of the pandemic response: to provide economic relief (86%), to get the country back to normal (79%), to contain Covid-19 (73%), and to inform the public (72%). The barometer also shows the pandemic has cast a spotlight on systemic inequity- with 67% believing that those with less education, less money and fewer resources are bearing a disproportionate burden of the suffering.

There is no doubt that the fracture lines of society have been horribly exposed, with those in the poorest health and living in deprived communities hardest hit. For some countries, the immediate threat has receded at least for now- whereas for others, like in the U.S.A. and South America, worse is yet to come.Most experts agree that we will be living with the pandemic for some time, even if a vaccine becomes available later this year.

While governments and healthcare systems wrestle with the immediate crisis, businesses have had to act quickly too.

Almost overnight, major companies shifted most of their employees home to work remotely, and patients turned to chatbots, apps and video calls rather than travel to the clinic to see their doctors. The pandemic has shown how quickly we can make radical changes to our lifestyles, abandoning habits and practices long seen as essential- and leaving empty trains and desolate city centers in the process. These shifts may not be temporary either- indeed may become permanent reminders of dramatic behavioral and cultural shifts underway.

Rather perversely, many positives are unfolding that are powerful and compelling.For one thing, leaders have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reshape how societies can provide healthier, better, greener, and more equitable outcomes for all, an opportunity that the World Economic Forum has hailed as the Great Reset.The cornerstone of this Reset is a new stakeholder capitalism; indeed, in May 2020, aFortune surveyfound that roughly half of chief executive officers believe the crisis will accelerate their move towards this more inclusive version of capitalism.

And it will be the innovative, ethical companies responding nimbly and creatively in addressing the urgent societal challenges facing us who will benefit most- as proponents argue that social returns will bring commercial returns too.Companies like Sainsburys prioritizing deliveries to the most vulnerable and Co-Op usingits community wellbeing index to triage support during the crisis; LMVH, the company behind Dior and Louis Vuitton, that converted their plants to make hand sanitizer for hospitals at no cost; and BrewDog, the UK brewer, that launched its own sanitizer for the NHS, with Anheuser-Busch,Pernod-Ricard, Bacardi, Tito and smaller distilleries doing the same in the U.S.A.In Asia, financial market operatorHKEX organized an emergency relief donation of HK$10 million to local communities and NGOs.

Beyond the immediate crisis, there is still a lot for business to do. Despite the many great examples of purpose-driven businesses doing great things, half of the people recently surveyed by Edelman believe business is doing poorly, mediocre or completely failing at putting people before profits. Fortunately, the changes we have already seen in response to Covid-19 prove that a reset of our economic and social foundations is possible, and is our best chance to instigate stakeholder capitalism.

The time is now to make this a permanent fixture of the new normal.

In February, the U.K.s All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Longevity published The Health of The Nation: A Strategy for Healthier Longer Livesto deliver 5 extra years of healthy life expectancywhile minimizing heath inequalities -a government ambition enshrined in the current government manifesto.Published just before the impact of the pandemic took old, its recommendations are no less important, and indeed have become more pressing and resonant.

The continued work of the APPG in seeking ways to improve the health of the nation and reduce health inequalities is so important to us all now more than ever," says Yvonne Sonsino, Global Co-Leader, Next Gen at Mercer.

One of the recommendations, a Business Coalition for a Healthier Nation, is now in the process of being set up, with leaders from insurance, banking and other sectors, and with the support of central government.The Coalition recognizes that shaping the recovery and charting a new course for growth ahead will require greater collaboration between businesses, academia, government institutions and citizens themselves.

It places preventative health firmly at the center to build up health and economic resilience. Indeed, arguably the even bigger crisis looming is the chronic disease epidemic- delays in cancer diagnosis andbacklogs of cases have all increased with people fearful of seeing doctors and going to hospitals, only adding to the significant burden that existed before the pandemic.The recent OpenSafely study showed that people with obesity, diabetes, coronary heart disease and hypertension were much more likely to die from Covid-19, all mostly preventable diseases linked to social inequalities too.

A recent McKinsey report estimates that the cost of ill health was about 15% of global real GDP in 2017, and that the Covid-19 pandemic and its repercussions will reduce global GDP by 3 to 8 % in 2020, concluding: Long-term prevention and health promotion, which encompasses more than 70% of the benefits we identified, cannot simply be left to healthcare providers or healthcare systems. It is quite literally everybodys business.

In response, the Business Coalition is proposing, amongst other things, to develop a risk management framework for health and corresponding index to measure business contributions to health.It recognizes the link between human health and planetary heath too. As Colin Matthews, Chairman of EDF Energy, said: Therell be no healthy economy without a healthy population and a healthy planet.

Indeed, health is where the climate change agenda was 10 years ago.Businesses involved in the Coalition argue we should be guiding investment and innovation decisions by Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) mandates like we do for climate change, applying them to healthy life expectancy and societal health; institutional investors should be thinking about the stranded asset risk of things that cause health risks, and businesses should report on health risks like they are doing increasingly on climate issues. Crucially, Coalition leaders say we need to prioritize capital for large-scale, long-term, sustainable investment in preventative health.

Andy Briggs, CEO of Phoenix Group, Co-Chair of the U.K. Longevity Council, and founding member of the Coalition, says: We need to show how to make sustainability absolutely core in all businesses.

See more here:
The Greatest Disruptor Of The 21st Century Makes Health Our Most Precious Asset - Forbes

The pandemics human faces: Here are 1 percent of the 1,000 lives lost to the coronavirus in Rhode Island – The Providence Journal

So much about the coronavirus and how we comprehend it has been a story of data and daily tallies. The numbers of cases, positive tests ... and deaths.

But those who died were so much more than a number to the loved ones they left behind. As Rhode Island surpasses the sad milestone of 1000 lives lost, let the stories of a few speak of the true loss.

JOSEPHINE A. McCORMICK, 93, of East Greenwich. Died April 27.

She stood shy of five-feet, this mother of six, but what she gave up in height, she made up for with spunk.

Her daughter Cheryl Brown remembers that time around 1972 when she came home with a Volkswagen Karmann Ghia she bought to take to college.

TO OUR READERS: This content is being provided for free as a public service during the coronavirus outbreak. Sign up for our daily or breaking newsletters to stay informed. Please support local journalism by subscribing to The Providence Journal.

You didnt pay the sticker price, did you? her mother, a daughter of the Depression, wanted to know.

Well, she had, actually.

We marched down to the dealership and she read them the riot act of how they had taken advantage of her daughter, says Brown. When we got home, the dealership called and said, Okay, come on back. Well take some off the price.

Family meant everything to Josephine McCormick, who scheduled the annual holiday gathering for Christmas Eve, so everyone could attend and still meet their in-law obligations on Christmas day.

Which made her passing, alone at the hospital because of the virus, crushingly hard on those she left behind.

She always made you feel special, her daughter says, and we couldnt even hold her hand.

MARIE OCONNELL, 80, of Pawtucket. Died April 18.

She was a former nun, with a butterfly tattoo on her lower back and a penchant for casino slots.

For 30 years, Marie OConnell served the Franciscan Missionaries of Mary, caring for the poor in New Guinea for a decade starting in the late 1960s. But she eventually moved on from the convent, while remaining a devout Mass attendee at St. Teresa Church.

She loved visiting the slots at Twin River with her sister Janet OConnell, 75, also a former nun, and their widowed sister-in-law, Dorothy OConnell, 80. The Three Amigos called their trips to the casino Maries casino therapy after she developed ovarian cancer.

On April 11 she was admitted to Miriam Hospital, suffering from Covid-19. She went downhill quickly.

The OConnells never liked words like died. Too sad. They adopted code phrases like The Eagle has landed or, as when brother Robert passed, He got on the bus.

The staff at Miriam understood. When it was time for the doctor to pass along the sad news to Maries niece, he followed the code: Your aunt has gone to the casino.

ALFRED SONNY SOUZA, 96, of East Providence. Died May 10.

Alfred Sonny Souza went to war at 19, had his troop transport ship sink a day after D-Day, but survived to come home and start his own business, the Custom Woodworking Co., of East Providence.

The company made, among other items, the book racks that the publishing company Simon & Schuster used in bookstores to display their paperbacks and CliffsNotes study guides.

I can still remember the time we went into a market in Ogunquit Beach [in Maine] and right there, there was an old rack with the words: product of Custom Woodworking company, East Providence, Rhode Island, says his daughter Deborah Stephens, of Cape Coral, Florida.

A former Seekonk resident, Sonny regularly participated in the reunions with his World War II Navy crew members from the USS Susan B. Anthony. The ship struck a mine on June 7, 1944. All 2,689 people aboard were saved.

He was the youngest in the family but like so many raised through The Depression, says his daughter, was one of those self-made people.

NANCY L. MacDONALD, 74, of East Providence. Died April 25.

Nancy MacDonald was known as the first smile that visitors and colleagues saw when they entered Orchard View Manor in East Providence.

She worked the reception desk at the Riverside nursing home, second shift. But as the coronavirus began invading the states assisted care facilities, she confided in her daughter Bethany her growing fear.

She was scared to death, her daughter says. She didnt want to catch COVID and die alone. But another receptionist was out sick, so she was covering for her, too.

Nancy MacDonald lived her entire life in Riverside, her daughter says. She served as a teaching assistant at Riverside Middle School, and as a cheerleading coach, for some 20 years until she retired about a decade ago.

Everyone knew her and knew the kindness she so readily dispensed.

She was a very, very giving person, says Bethany. She would give you her last dollar if you needed it.

ANTHONY SUARES, 76, of East Providence. Died April 15.

Hed overcome a childhood bout with polio to become a Teamster and an avid dancer.

Anthony Suares, 76, did the jitterbug and danced to Cape Verdean music at the social club in East Providence with his wife, Ruth. As he got older, Alzheimers made the things he loved most in life more difficult, but they did not rob him of the joy he could find wherever he was.

Ruth would visit him just about every day at Orchard View Manor, the nursing home where he lived in the last years of his life.

Hed have the biggest grin on his face, he would just light up, Ruth recalled.

On April 9, Ruth learned that her husband had tested positive for COVID-19. She still called him every day, and sing songs shed made up: I cant wait to see you, I need to hold you, so always remember, Im right there with you.

Early on April 15, the nursing home called to tell Ruth that Anthony had died. The months since have been difficult, but Ruth has found comfort in her faith that theyll meet again.

When its my time to make that journey, Ruth said recently, I know my Tony will be at Gods gate with a big smile and open arms and say, Welcome home, babe. May I have this dance?

EARL SWEENEY, 97, of Cumberland and Woonsocket. Died April 22.

He was a Navy veteran whod had a first-hand view of World War II victory: He was on a ship in Tokyo Bay when Japan formally surrendered to end the war, his family said.

After his Navy service, Earl Sweeney graduated from the University of Rhode Island, became an engineer, married Irene Audette, and had three boys, Bryan, Michael and Steven. Bryan died young, and Earl kept a shattered family together. Irene died just shy of their 50th wedding anniversary.

Earls longevity was in his genes. The longtime Cumberland resident whose mom lived to 103 was still competing in senior track and field meets into his 80s.

In early April, though, while recuperating from a hospital visit at the Oakland Grove nursing home in Woonsocket, he tested positive for the coronavirus. On April 21, Steven had a chance to call his father not visit him, as they would have done otherwise and say goodbye.

I said, Pop, we love you, Steven said. I remember him saying, I love you. It was very brief and short, but at least we had that conversation.

Earl died on April 22. In his 97 years, he had seen and done so much.

He lived to 97, Steven Sweeney said. What more can you ask?

BERNIE LANZI, 79, of North Providence. Died March 30.

His nickname was the Mayor of Golden Crest.

Bernie Lanzi was always holding court when his family would visit him at his nursing home -- telling jokes, playing games, flipping through a word search book.

A shy kid growing up, Lanzi became more outgoing after his long and slow recovery from surgery to remove a tumor on his pituitary gland 30 years ago. He was shy no more: As part of the rehabilitation, he took up ballroom dancing.

He lit up a room, said his sister, Sandra LoBello.

Lanzi, 79, was among the states first coronavirus-associated deaths in a pandemic that would sweep through nursing homes, including his own. He died on March 30, at 79.

He was a deeply faithful Catholic, and the isolation that COVID forced on everyone only adds to the pain his family felt. He deserved a sendoff in church. He deserved to have someone holding his hand at the end.

Thats the thing thats tearing up my heart, LoBello said. Ive always been with him.

BILL CALDARONE, 100, of Cranston. Died May 6. JILL CALDARONE, 100, of Cranston. Died May 20.

Because of the times, only 10 loved ones were able to say goodbye to Jill Caldarone, lost to the virus in May at age 100.

She was a mom, master gardener, real-estate agent and military wife.

In early June, she was laid to rest at the states Veterans Cemetery in Exeter beside her husband, Bill.

He was also 100 when the same illness took him only two weeks before.

Bill was the states oldest former Marine World War II, Korea and 10 other posts.

The two had deep Rhode Island roots. In a phrase that marked their whimsical spirit, they called themselves Bill and Jill of Federal Hill.

Thats where they grew up, and began an 82-year romance.

With Bill having just been placed in this hallowed ground, the family was now back to put Jill beside the only man she had ever loved.

The service for Jill took place in the cemeterys chapel, framed by a sloping field out one wall-sized window and an enclave of pines out another. A solemn reminder that the COVID-19 statistics dont tell the full story.

Its more than numbers, their son Ron, 72, said. My father and mother werent just numbers.

JOAN V. SWANN, 70, Warwick. Died April 29.

Joan Swann just couldnt leave Kent Hospital. Not even after more than 40 years as a nurse in the hospitals ICU. Instead, after retirement, she became a secretary in the same unit.

She had formed lifelong friendships there and told her daughter Glenna: I dont want to leave, thats my social life, too.

She died in that ICU in April, the first hospital staff member to die of the virus, Glenna says.

It was a sad irony, and yet offered Joans large family some comfort that she at least had people who loved her by her side when she passed.

Joan loved her family and friends fiercely, always organizing and hosting the annual Thanksgiving celebration and welcoming new people into the clan.

She loved playing Cards Against Humanity during family game night with Glenna and her three stepsisters, often doubling over in laughter.

She loved animals great and small, including the pair of cardinals that visited her window each day for years. She gave them names: Mr. and Mrs. Frankie.

Unknowingly, she also brought the virus home from the hospital. Days after she entered Kent Hospital, her companion of 35 years, Arthur J. Hewes, fell ill, too.

She would not know that he died 13 days before her.

tmooney@providencejournal.com

(401) 277-7359

On Twitter: @mooneyprojo

bamaral@providencejournal.com

(401) 277-7615

On Twitter: @bamaral44

mpatinki@providencejournal.com

(401) 277-7370

On Twitter: @markpatinkin

Go here to read the rest:
The pandemics human faces: Here are 1 percent of the 1,000 lives lost to the coronavirus in Rhode Island - The Providence Journal