Select Page ::

Iran: Competitive climber Elnaz Rekabi may be imprisoned after competing without hijab; Tehran terms it ‘fake news’ – The Indian Express

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Danzig

An Iranian female competitive climber left South Korea Tuesday after competing at an event in which she climbed without her nations mandatory headscarf covering, authorities said.

Farsi-language media outside of Iran warned she may have been forced to leave early by Iranian officials and could face arrest back home, which Tehran quickly denied.

The decision by Elnaz Rekabi, a multiple medalist in competitions, to forgo the headscarf, or hijab, came as protests sparked by the September 16 death in custody of a 22-year-old woman have entered the fifth week. Mahsa Amini was detained by the countrys morality police over her clothing.

The demonstrations, drawing school-age children, oil workers and others to the street, represent the most serious challenge to Irans theocracy since the mass protests surrounding its disputed 2009 presidential election.

Rekabi left Seoul on a Tuesday morning flight, the Iranian Embassy in South Korea said. The BBCs Persian service, which has extensive contacts within Iran despite being banned from operating there, quoted an unnamed informed source who described Iranian officials as seizing both Rekabis mobile phone and passport.

BBC Persian also said she initially had been scheduled to return on Wednesday, but her flight apparently had been moved up unexpectedly.

IranWire, another website focusing on the country founded by Iranian-Canadian journalist Maziar Bahari who once was detained by Iran, alleged that Rekabi would be immediately transferred to Tehrans notorious Evin Prison after arriving in the country. Evin Prison was the site of a massive fire this weekend that killed at least eight prisoners.

In a tweet, the Iranian Embassy in Seoul denied all the fake, false news and disinformation regarding Rekabis departure on Tuesday. But instead of posting a photo of her from the Seoul competition, it posted an image of her wearing a headscarf at a previous competition in Moscow, where she also took a bronze medal.

Calls to the Iranian Embassy in Seoul were unanswered Tuesday.

Rekabi didnt put on a hijab during Sundays final at the International Federation of Sport Climbings Asia Championship, according to the Seoul-based Korea Alpine Federation, the organisers of the event.

Federation officials said Rekabi wore a hijab during her initial appearances at the one-week climbing event. Rekabi was a member of Irans 11-member delegation, which comprises eight athletes and three coaches, to the event, according to the federation.

Federation officials said they were not initially aware of Rekabi competing without the hijab but looked into the case after receiving inquires about her. They said the event doesnt have any rules on requiring female athletes wearing or not wearing headscarves. However, Iranian women competing abroad under the Iranian flag always wear the hijab.

South Koreas Justice Ministry refused to confirm whether the Iranian athlete is still in South Korea or has left the country, citing privacy-related regulations. South Koreas Foreign Ministry said it has no comments on the issue.

Rekabi, 33, has finished on the podium three times in the Asian Championships, taking one silver and two bronze medals for her efforts.

Read the original here:

Iran: Competitive climber Elnaz Rekabi may be imprisoned after competing without hijab; Tehran terms it 'fake news' - The Indian Express

Akshay Kumar Rips Apart Online Publication For Fake News, Fans Say, Nice To See Your Aggressive Mood After Long Time – Koimoi

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Danzig

Actor Akshay Kumar Goes After Publication Publishing Fake News About Him, Fans Love Him For It(Pic Credit: Movie Still)

Akshay Kumar is one of the biggest stars of the country and his fans blindly put their trust in him. Thats the reason why he calls out fake news whenever he sees it. One such incident has happened now where the actor rubbished an article put out by a website.

Recently, Akshay called out a popular news website for eyebrow-raising news about him. The article claimed that the actor was in possession of a private jet thats worth a whopping 260 crores! He hit back at the publication.

Akshay Kumar said, Liar, Liarpants on fire! Heard this in childhood? Well, some people have clearly not grown up, and Im just not in a mood to let them get away with it. Write baseless lies about me, and Ill call it out. Here, a Pants on Fire (POF) gem for you. (thumbs down emoji) #POFbyAK.

Along with this statement Akshay Kumar also shared a poem he had read in his childhood. All done to reiterate his point. His fans loved his online punch to the fake news and came out to support him in droves.

Check out Akshays tweet below:

One Twitter user shared a popular meme from the Hera Pheri movie and added, Can we keep Pants on Fire at the same level with jali Naateri jali na.

Another fan said, Arey sir aise kon expose karta hai, nice to see your aggressive mood after long time.

Meanwhile, Akshay Kumar is gearing up for his upcoming release, Ram Setu. The movie also stars Nushrratt Bharuccha, Jacqueline Fernandez, Nassar, and Satyadev. The movie will hit theaters on October 25, around Diwali. His previous releases of 2022 include Samrat Prithviraj, Bachchhan Paandey, Cuttputlli, and Raksha Bandhan. None of them were able to make a noise at the box office.

What did you think about Akshay Kumars rowdy avatar online? Let us know and stay tuned for more Bollywood updates.

Must Read: Salman Khan Fan Says Sona Mohapatra Has Hijrah Jaisi Shakal, She Responds Getting D*cks Hard Might Be Job Of Women Supporting Sajid Khan & Riding Horses At Bhais Farmhouse

See the article here:

Akshay Kumar Rips Apart Online Publication For Fake News, Fans Say, Nice To See Your Aggressive Mood After Long Time - Koimoi

Think before reacting to survey on fake news – The Manila Times

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Danzig

Read this in The Manila Times digital edition.

POLICYMAKERS and others should look more closely at the Pulse Asia survey on fake news before reacting. With so many Filipinos concerned about it, the tendency might be to clamp down so hard on the problem that even free speech is affected.

For starters, the questions Pulse Asia asked seem problematic. It does not actually define fake news, relying only on the respondent's understanding of that term. Second, the survey questions inaccurately equate fake news with words like "untrue," "false" and "misinformation." For instance, one survey question reads: "How often do you read, hear, or watch news about government and politics that are untrue or fake news?"

Granted, no universal definition of fake news exists, but the concept suggests that it refers to something deliberate or intentional and perhaps motivated by something sinister. As such, it would be more appropriate to liken fake news with black propaganda and disinformation.

Get the latest news delivered to your inbox

In contrast, information that is false merely because of an error or is inadvertently misleading in other words, misinformation does not make it fake. More importantly, opinion that is disagreeable or unpopular should not be lumped into that category.

Far too often in recent years, political figures have used fake news as a shield when their views and interpretation of facts are challenged, often by mainstream media or by rivals and critics. Admittedly, that tactic has had some success in blunting legitimate criticism, but prevailing in an argument does not make one right or truthful. Certainly, slapping on that label does not make the challenger or the questions posed to dubious politicians as false or fake.

Moreover, it may be simplistic, inadequate or even inappropriate to identify fake news by invoking that famous quote from the late American politician, Daniel Patrick Moynihan. "You are entitled to your own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts," he said.

There are many things in life which are not, as they say, black and white. Take for instance the depreciation of the Philippine peso. Is it good or bad? According to economists, that depends on whom one asks. Recipients of dollar remittances will say it is good, even as importers insist that it is bad.

The problem is not limited to economists, who often give more than one answer to a question. In Philippine history, the locals who fought the Americans in the 1900s were called insurrectionists, but in the eyes of Filipinos, they were freedom fighters fighting against colonialists who merely supplanted the Spaniards in exploiting this country.

The examples mentioned in this space demonstrate the complexity in legislating or legally prohibiting fake news. And it is not hard to imagine how some powerful people might misuse the campaign against fake news to silence contrarian views, disagreeable comments, and generally the right of people to question them. Even in history, progress happened after enough people questioned norms and other widely held beliefs.

Positive take

There is another way to interpret Pulse Asia's survey results. The overwhelming concern about fake news, whatever that may be to every respondent, suggests that people are beginning to develop a habit of questioning news and other information that they consume. That is relevant because the best defense against fake news is critical thinking.

The survey also reported that 55 percent of the respondents were confident in their ability to detect fake news. Only 7 percent said that they were not confident. That seems encouraging, but not surprising.

After all, fake news is not new, neither are echo chambers which are also blamed for spreading and amplifying disinformation. Published studies give many examples of fake news that date back more than a century. And despite the longtime presence of that menace, the world has not ended. Life went on, as people became better educated, more experienced, and generally less impressionable.

Also, previous generations have given people today several aphorisms that may serve as antidotes against fake news, like do not believe everything you read or watch on television. One could also turn to great philosophers, like Ren Descartes who said: "Doubt is the origin of wisdom."

See original here:

Think before reacting to survey on fake news - The Manila Times

Turkey Still Thinks It Hasn’t Jailed Enough Journalists, Add Prison Sentences To Its ‘Fake News’ Law – Techdirt

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Danzig

from the until-all-that's-left-are-government-approved-journalists dept

Turkey continues to fall back in the freedom field. Or maybe its surging ahead in the oppression field! Maybe thats the list it wants to top.

Whatever the case, Turkeys government has followed the lead of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, converting critics to criminals and seizing control of a large percentage of the press apparatus so Erdogan and his government lackeys seldom have to hear a discouraging word.

The governments Communications Directorate directly controls several press outlets. Those who havent been taken over are routinely hit in the pocketbook when the government pulls ad buys in response to reporting not deemed sufficiently ethical. Truly independent outlets are going extinct, thanks to the governments insistence on jailing as many critical journalists as possible, all while pretending critical coverage is pretty much just terrorism.

The government has also gotten into the fake news business. It is combating disinformation in its own particularly brutish way. With elections on the way, the ruling party is doing what it can to ensure it stays in the ruling position. A recently-passed law targeting disinformation was just made much worse, tacking on jail time for those who share content the government has declared suddenly illegal.

Turkey criminalized the spread of what authorities describe as false information on digital platforms, giving the government new powers in the months remaining before elections.

The measure, proposed by the governing AK Party and its nationalist ally MHP, is part of a broader disinformation law that was adopted by parliament on Thursday. It mandates a jail term of one to three years for users who share online content that contains false information on the countrys security, public order and overall welfare in an attempt to incite panic or fear.

Its nice that in an attempt to incite panic is tacked on at the end. It almost makes it appear as though Turkish prosecutors might have to prove intent. Somehow, I doubt that last phrase will matter much when the government starts enforcing this law. It will be the rest of it that matters most.

This will allow the government to jail anyone who contradicts the official narrative when discussing matters related to national security, public order, or overall welfare. Discussing terrorist attacks or document leaks? Security. Talking about protests against the Turkish government? Public order. Pointing out public utility problems or social services failures? Overall welfare

Theres enough in this vague wording to criminalize nearly any criticism of the government, especially if the government takes the step (and it will) of denying allegations are true. If the official response is ignored (or maybe even if it isnt!), the content becomes disinformation and the government can start rounding people up.

Journalists will be the most natural target since everything covered by this vague wording is of public interest. Those sharing this content will be next. And the few brave souls who venture onto social media platforms to discuss their subjective experiences will be right there with them.

The Turkish government is little more than a bundle of chilling effects at this point. This latest law just converts implied threats into actual jail time.

Filed Under: disinformation, fake news, free speech, journalism, recep tayyip erdogan, turkey

See the original post here:

Turkey Still Thinks It Hasn't Jailed Enough Journalists, Add Prison Sentences To Its 'Fake News' Law - Techdirt

Here Are The Real Fake News Sites – Forbes

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Danzig

The internet is teeming with fake news sites. That's not a political statement, but the conclusion of a new study by DomainTools, a security analysts company.

The new study analyzed some of the top media outlets in the U.S. to determine their susceptibility to domain-squatting and spoofed domains. The bogus URLs may spread disinformation or malicious code, according to DomainTools.

As distrust of traditional media continues to grow, protecting the public from disinformation campaigns has become pertinent to the democratic process, says Corin Imai, a senior security advisor of DomainTools.

So which news sites have the highest fake scores? And what does it mean for the average news consumer? You'll probably be surprised by the answers.

Why study fake news sites?

Authenticity and trust are the building blocks of a terrific customer service experience. So, as a consumer advocate, and as a heavy consumer of news, I followstudies like this closely.

DomainTools' research shows how malicious actors use tricks like typosquatting and spoofing on domains as tactics to carry out malicious campaigns.

Typosquatting, also called URL hijacking, relies on mistakes made by Internet users when typing a website address into a web browser. Spoofing happens when a scammer pretends to be a premium publisher. These criminal activities can potentially extract personally identifiable information, download malware to a device, or spoof news sites to spread disinformation.

"Its no secret that disinformation campaigns have been on the rise," Imai told me. "With the uptick in fake news sites in recent years, we were curious about the possible connection between typosquatting campaigns and the dissemination of disinformation. What we found is that domain names of top news outlets have indeed been spoofed, and subject to typosquatting techniques."

These are the most fake news sites

Among the news site rankings, there are a few surprises. The top news site, for example, is not a national newspaper or a computer-security site but has still managed to draw a record 52 "high risk" domains, according to DomainTools. The "safest" of the sites also fits the same description.

Here's the list of publishers with the most high-risk domains:

1. Newsday (52 historical high-risk domains)

2. The New York Times (49 historical high-risk domains)

3. The Washington Post (20 historical high-risk domains)

4. The New York Post (16 historical high-risk domains)

5. Los Angeles Times (13 historical high-risk domains)

6. New York Daily News (10 historical high-risk domains)

7. USA Today (9 historical high-risk domains)

8. The Boston Globe (6 historical high-risk domains)

9. CSO (5 historical high-risk domains)

10. Chicago Tribune (5 historical high-risk domains)

DomainTools chose an initial list of media organizations based on traffic to the legitimate site.

"We had a hunch that the media organizations with the highest readerships were likely to be more lucrative for scammers seeking to spoof domain names," says Imai. "Our team compiled a list of the top media organizations based on audience size. This methodology gave us not only a set of online properties to investigate, but also a sense of the potential pool of the criminals targets."

(Oh, and in case you're wondering -- Forbes didn't make the list. It's squeaky clean.)

Why fake new sites matter

For news consumers, the biggest threat is what's referred to as "typosquatting," according to DomainTools (registering Forbs.it, for example, and posting bogus posts). It's particularly important, considering how frequently users misspell words, and how easy it is to fool even vigilant internet users.

Typosquatters can look legitimate, with legitimate SSL certificates and professional websites, used to trick Internet users into a false sense of security.

The bad guys also re-purpose once valid Internet real-estate, squatting on old, once-legitimate domains. That buys them time to iron out any inconsistencies with their attack infrastructure, allowing them to escape detection, according to DomainTools.

How to avoid fake news sites

Sites that spread disinformation often take advantage of the pace at which users skim the internet and their preferred news sources for breaking news. These campaigns could potentially steal and harvest personally identifiable information, download malware to a device or spoof news sites to spread disinformation to the public, according to DomainTools.

How do you avoid a fake news site?

Think before you click. Hover your mouse over any suspicious domain names or links to find out if theyre legit. "By hovering over a domain name, youll be able to get a glimpse to find out if they are who they say they are," says Imai.

Consider bookmarking your favorite news sources. That allows you to avoid misspelling the domain name when typing into the search bar.

Watch out for domains that have COM-[text] in them. "We're so accustomed to seeing .com that we can easily overlook the extra text appended to it with a dash," says Imai.

Go directly to the news source website. Don't follow a link through a newsletter or email.

Stay security savvy. "Remain educated and up-to-date on the latest scams that circulate through the web," says Imai. "Flagging suspicious emails and sending them straight to spam is also another great method to consider when steering clear from unusual activity."

Use a reliable search tool. Type in the name of the news site into Google search instead of into the address field. This will prevent any typos you may make from pulling up a fake site.

Will this change how people consume news?

As part of my research, I asked regular news consumers if the presence of fake news sites would affect their trust in the news media. Would it surprise you to hear that the answer was "no"?

Roughly one-third of my readers said they don't trust any mainstream media outlets, including all the ones for which I write. Ouch. Another third only trusts established mainstream media outlets like this one. And the balance reflected the sentiments of Patricia Seward, a retired health care executive from Kansas City.

"I dont trust any of the news outlets," she says.

In other words, the DomainTools research, while interesting, is unlikely to change the highly polarized view of the news media in the United States.

Continue reading here:

Here Are The Real Fake News Sites - Forbes

Ukraine and Russia’s second front is a propaganda war. But who is winning? – ABC News

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Danzig

Since Russia launched its "special military operation" into neighbouring Ukraine, media, political organisations and researchers in Ukrainian allied countries have accused Moscowof launching a propaganda blitzkriegmeant to justify the invasion.

Most notably the Kremlin has claimed Ukraine was committing "genocide"against its Russian-speaking population in the country's east.

It has also accused Kyiv of beingalignedwith Nazism, citing the"denazification" of Ukraine as a key reason fortheinvasion, and of operating biological weapons laboratories with USsupport.

However, experts say the Ukrainianshave also been running a propaganda campaign of theirown.

And while Ukraine hasproved surprisingly effective againstbetterequipped Russian forces on the battleground while still suffering some heavy losses, the story is much the same inthe information war as well.

War propaganda is the use of either real or fake information to manipulate opinion and evoke strong emotional reactions, such as fear, anger, guilt, admiration or outrage, explained Paul Baines, Professor of Political Marketing at the University of Leicester.

It has been used throughout history as a key tool of war and hasbecome a "necessity" of conflict that can take many forms, Mr Baines told the ABC.

While Russian claims of great victories against Ukrainian "Nazis" may be regarded aslaughable in the West where in some cases evidence to the contrary has been publicised before the claim itself researchers say these tactics have proved highly effective within Russia and among Russian allies.

Russia has spent decades perfecting a propaganda machine, through media control, censorship and harsh laws that forbid the dissemination of "false information" about the Russian army.

But early in the conflict, myths began to emerge from Ukraine as well.

Photos from other conflicts, movies and even video gameswere posted on social media claiming to be Russian attacks.

While researchers say these did not appear to originate from state-sanctionedinternet "trolls", as was the case in Russia, there were other narratives that were spread by government sources.

One story that was debunked by experts was that ofthe so-called Ghost of Kyiv, a mystery fighter pilot who was credited by the Ukrainian government with having shot down 10 Russian fighter jets.

The imagebelow turned out to befootagefrom a video game.

It's not just states or citizens involved in the conflict who have been spreading disinformation.

People "who have no apparent stake in the war have also been spinning conspiracy theories", said Esther Chan,APAC bureau editor at the Information Futures Lab.

Ms Chan said they were often just looking to boost their own social media following.

However, Ukraine needsthe backing of NATO and Western allies, whereexuberant claims canbackfire in the face of independent media and non-government watchdogs and think tanks.

While Ukraine supporters do still periodically post fake videos and false claims, the Ukrainiangovernmenthas in more recent times taken a different approach.

While the Kremlinfocusedon deception anddefamation along withcensorship, Ukrainefocused on diplomacy with the West, highlighting Russian atrocities and Ukrainian combat wins,Mr Baines said.

As Russia used fear and anger in attempts to justify it's invasion, Ukraine, who had been plunged into the war and by many counts held the moral high ground, used guilt and outrage to gain support from the West, he explained.

"Talking about their dire situation is not untrue, but the Ukrainians can play on that feeling of guilt," Mr Baines said.

Headdedthat President Volodymyr Zelenskyy a former comedian and actor hadeffectively weaponised the suffering of Ukrainians to exacerbate feelings of guilt and responsibility in the West.

"Zelenskyy's efforts at guilt tripping the West have resulted in probably one of the biggest shifts in military material to another country in history."

Kyiv and Mr Zelenskyyhimself havefurther built up an image of the "brave Ukrainian", helping with recruitment efforts as well as morale, Mr Baines said.

In recent weeks, Western media has been flooded with accounts of Russians fleeing conscription, with both real and fake images of convoys of fleeing Russians spreading on social media.

Meanwhile, Mr Baines said the"overarching narrative" in Ukraine has focusedonthe thousands of Ukrainians whovolunteeredto fight.

But conscription has also long existed in Ukraine and at the beginning of the conflict, the Ukraine governmentbanned all men aged 18-60 from leaving the country, instead instructing them toreport for duty at a military recruitment office.

While Ukraine may be winning hearts and minds in the West, elsewhere, Russia's more blatant tactics are succeeding, according to Darren Linvill, an associate professor at Clemson who co-leads the Media Forensics Hub.

"Whilewe like to think Ukraine is winning the information war, outside of the West, they are just not," Mr Linvill said.

"It's an uncomfortable reality ... but alot of the world is on Putin's side."

MrLinvill has been researching Russian propaganda and social media troll farms since their involvement inthe2016 US presidential election, identifying many millions of accounts with hundreds of thousands of followers on multipleplatforms.

But the Kremlin's disinformation campaigns against Ukraine are not primarily aimed at English language news outlets.

"The main target audience of most disinformation is a country's own people," he said.

He said it wasclear Moscow's defamation campaigns had gained traction everywhere besides English-language social media and western Europe.

One remarkably effective tactic used by Russia early in the war was disinformation false-flag operations, Mr Linvill said.

Dozens of videos were circulated claimingto debunk apparently nonexistent Ukrainian fakes.

The goal was to cast doubt over real images of Russian defeats, civilian deaths and destruction caused by the Ukraine invasion, he said.

Russian troll accounts, that were created to spread propaganda and fake news, began postingwarnings to beware ofpropaganda and fake news, he said.

"It's because of disinformation that that particular form of disinformation was so effective at reaching a broadaudience," he said.

"We were primed to look for disinformation."

Mr Linvill said the distrust that has resulted from fake news has led to unhealthy levels of distrust in society and has spurred harmful conspiracy theories.

While critical thinking is important, so is being able to trust.

"You can't simply distrust everything you read," he said.

"You just have to learn what to trust and learn the processes by which information flows."

See the rest here:

Ukraine and Russia's second front is a propaganda war. But who is winning? - ABC News

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand – Goodreads

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Danzig

I was visiting an old friend for the past few days, and she showed me this cover of Atlas Shrugged I made for her when we lived in Ukraine:

[image error]

It was a necessary repair, but it pretty much proves I should be a cover designer._____________________________________________

Original review:

I think Francisco DAconia is absolutely a dream boat. This books like blah blah blah engineering, blah blah blah John Galt, blah blah blah no altruistic act, blah bla- HE-llo, Francisco DAconia, you growl and a half. Also, theres a pirate. So, whats everyone complaining about?

Okay, its not that I dont get what everyones complaining about. I get that Rand is kind of loony tunes of the Glenn Beck variety, and some people (maybe?) use her to justify being assholes, but I just dont like to throw the bathwater out with that baby. Warning: I think, to make my point, I have to refer to Dostoyevsky a lot, which I seem to always do because he really is some kind of touchstone to me. The point Im trying to make with all this blabbering is that the debate over Atlas Shrugged brings out something that I might hate more than anything else (more than weddings and kitty litter even). It makes people say that ideas are dangerous. People on all sides of the spectrum do this about different stuff, and whatever the argument, I dont like it. If an idea is wrong, say its wrong. But genocide doesnt happen because people put forward too many ideas. It happens because people put forward too few ideas.

Anyway, back to the book:

First, story. The third part of this book is super weird. Its definitely not the actual ending of the book, Ive decided, but more of a choose-your-own-adventure suggestion. Its kind of fun that way because any end that you, the reader, come up with will be better than the one Rand suggested. My favorite part of her ending is how John Galt gives the most boring speech possible, and it lasts for about a bazillion pages, and you have to skip it or die. Then, at the end, Rands like, The entire world was listening, ears glued to the radios, because Galts speech was the most brilliant thing they had ever heard. No. Nope. Nice try, liar. So, thats super lame, I agree, and you should just skip the third part.

But people dont get as mad about the epilogue in Crime and Punishment. Why? Thats the same situation, where it kills all fun, and you have to ignore that it happened. Is it just because its shorter, and its called Epilogue? Maybe thats enough. But, on the other hand, maybe people didnt read all the way to the end of Crime and Punishment. Maybe, because it was written by a crazy Russian man, not a crazy Russian woman, people think theyll sound deep if they say they like it.

Second, writing. People complain about Rands writing, and I always think, When was the last time you wrote a 1000 page book in a second language and pulled off a reasonably page-turning storyline? The woman spoke Russian for crying out loud! It most certainly would have been a better choice for her to have written the books in Russian and had them translated, but, I mean, most native English speakers couldnt be that entertaining. Its at least A for effort. Im not going to make excuses for the unpronounceable names she chooses for her characters, but Ill just say Dostoyevsky again and leave it at that.

I know it made a huge difference in my reading of this book that I was living in a Soviet bloc apartment in Lozovaya, Ukraine at the time and had forgotten a little bit how to speak English. Im sure a lot of weird phrasing didnt sound weird to me because it makes sense in Russian. But, also, I feel like Ive read a lot of translations of Dostoyevsky and other Russians that feel really weird in English. You know, everyones always having some kind of epileptic fit or whatever with Mr. D. But, we allow for the weirdness because we picture the stuff happening in Russia, where the weird stuff typically goes down anyway. Ill tell you right now, Atlas Shrugged takes place in Russia. No joke. She might tell you theyre flying over the Rocky Mountains, or whatever, but this book is a Russian if there ever was one. Just so its clear, I LOVE that about it. Thats no insult, only compliment.

Third, philosophy. Maybe I told you this story already, so skip it if you already know it. When I lived in Ukraine, I had the same conversation with three or four people of the older generation who grew up in the Soviet Union. They would tell me, Things were really wonderful in the Soviet Union, much better than they are now. We had free health care, free housing, and now we have nothing. I mean, every once in a while your neighbor would disappear, but it was completely worth it. This was really disturbing to me, because it gave me this picture of the people around me that they were the ones who ratted out the neighbors who wanted a different life. Sure, Rands vision is narrow and sometimes inhuman, but I think it is because she was really terrified of this equally narrow and, as far as Im concerned, inhuman vision. I want a public health care option real bad, and my neighbor has some really annoying Chihuahuas, but if forced to choose between them, Id probably still pick my neighbor.

Admittedly, the problem with this argument is that it sets up a dichotomy where our only choices are the prosperity gospel and Soilent Green. From what I know of Rand, though, she had seen her neighbors and family thrown out of Russia or killed for being rich. She was fighting something extreme by being extreme. Unfortunately, in America, this rhetoric turns into the idea that having public services = killing your neighbor. To me, this comes from people taking her arguments too seriously on both sides. Dostoyevsky has ghosts and devils coming out of every corner, and people take his stories for what theyre worth. We dont think that liking his books makes us mystics and hating them makes us inquisitors. Why is it different with Rand?

Fourth, women. Im not going to lie and tell you that there werent other badass female characters when Dagney Taggert came around. All I want to say about this is that the most valuable thing I got from this book was the idea that one person being unhappy doesnt, and shouldnt, make other people happy. I think, in this way, it was particularly important to me that the protagonist was a woman. I see a lot of women complain about their lives and families, but say its all worth it because theyve been able to devote their lives to making their husbands or children happy. Im paraphrasing, I guess. Anyway, that kind of hegemony really creeps me out.

When I read this book, I was just realizing that I had joined Peace Corps with a similarly misguided motivation. I wanted to go to the needy and unfortunate countries of the world and sacrifice myself to save them. It might sound more nasty than it really was when I say it like that, but I think it is a really arrogant attitude to have. We might have hot running water in America (for which I am forever grateful), but if somewhere doesnt have that, its probably not because of a problem a silly, 23-year-old English major is going to solve. Dont get me wrong, I loved Peace Corps, and it was maybe the best experience of my life so far. But I love it for the things that I got out of it, and if someone else benefited from my being in Ukraine, it was dumb luck.

I dont know about other women, but I was raised to believe that the more selfless (read: unhappy) I was, the better off everyone else would be. I think its a pretty typical way that women talk themselves into staying in abusive situations that their lives are worth less than the lives around them. This would be the Hank Rearden character in the novel. I love that Rand sets up characters who destroy this cycle of abuse. I love that her female protagonist lives completely outside of it.

So, not to undercut my noble feminist apologetics, but really Franciscos just hawt, and I think thats the reason I like this book. There are lots of other reasons to read Rand, but most of those get into the argument about her ideas being dangerous. I just dont think they are, or should be. I think ignorance is dangerous, but I think it should be pretty easy to fill in the gaping holes in Rands logic. Yes, she conveniently ignores the very old, very young, and disabled to make a specific and extreme point. I dont think her point is entirely without merit, though (in the sense that our lives are valuable, not in the sense of kill the weak!). I also think that if we give a danger label to every book that conveniently ignores significant portions of the population to make a point, we wouldnt be left with much.

Anyway, read, discuss, agree, disagree. Ill be making up some Team John, Team Hank, Team Francisco t-shirts later. I hear in the sequel there are werewolves.

Continue reading here:

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand - Goodreads

Ayn Rand – Wikipedia

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Danzig

Russian-born American writer and philosopher (19051982)

Alice O'Connor (born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum;[a] February 2 [O.S. January 20], 1905 March 6, 1982), better known by her pen name Ayn Rand (), was a Russian-born American writer and philosopher. She is known for her fiction and for developing a philosophical system she named Objectivism. Born and educated in Russia, she moved to the United States in 1926. After two early novels that were initially unsuccessful and two Broadway plays, she achieved fame with her 1943 novel, The Fountainhead. In 1957, Rand published her best-known work, the novel Atlas Shrugged. Afterward, until her death in 1982, she turned to non-fiction to promote her philosophy, publishing her own periodicals and releasing several collections of essays.

Rand advocated reason as the only means of acquiring knowledge; she rejected faith and religion. She supported rational and ethical egoism and rejected altruism. In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as immoral and opposed collectivism, statism, and anarchism. Instead, she supported laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system based on recognizing individual rights, including private property rights. Although Rand opposed libertarianism, which she viewed as anarchism, she is often associated with the modern libertarian movement in the United States. In art, Rand promoted romantic realism. She was sharply critical of most philosophers and philosophical traditions known to her, except for Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, and classical liberals.

Rand's books have sold over 37 million copies as of 2020. Her fiction received mixed reviews from literary critics. Although academic interest in her ideas has grown since her death, academic philosophers have generally ignored or rejected her philosophy because of her polemical approach and lack of methodological rigor. Her writings have politically influenced some right-libertarians and conservatives. The Objectivist movement attempts to spread her ideas, both to the public and in academic settings.

Rand was born Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum on February2, 1905, to a Russian-Jewish bourgeois family living in Saint Petersburg. She was the eldest of three daughters of Zinovy Zakharovich Rosenbaum, a pharmacist, and Anna Borisovna (neKaplan). She was twelve when the October Revolution and the rule of the Bolsheviks under Vladimir Lenin disrupted the life the family had enjoyed previously. Her father's business was confiscated, and the family fled to the city of Yevpatoria in Crimea, which was initially under the control of the White Army during the Russian Civil War. After graduating high school there in June 1921, she returned with her family to Petrograd (as Saint Petersburg was then named), where they faced desperate conditions, occasionally nearly starving.

When Russian universities were opened to women after the revolution, she was in the first group of women to enroll at Petrograd State University. At 16, she began her studies in the department of social pedagogy, majoring in history. Along with many other bourgeois students, she was purged from the university shortly before graduating. After complaints from a group of visiting foreign scientists, many of the purged students were allowed to complete their work and graduate, which she did in October 1924. She then studied for a year at the State Technicum for Screen Arts in Leningrad. For an assignment, Rand wrote an essay about the Polish actress Pola Negri, which became her first published work. By this time, she had decided her professional surname for writing would be Rand, and she adopted the first name Ayn (pronounced ).[b]

In late 1925, Rand was granted a visa to visit relatives in Chicago. She departed on January17, 1926, and arrived in New York City on February19, 1926. Intent on staying in the United States to become a screenwriter, she lived for a few months with her relatives learning English before leaving for Hollywood, California.

In Hollywood, a chance meeting with famed director Cecil B. DeMille led to work as an extra in his film The King of Kings and a subsequent job as a junior screenwriter. While working on The King of Kings, she met an aspiring young actor, Frank O'Connor; the two married on April15, 1929. She became a permanent American resident in July 1929 and an American citizen on March3, 1931.[c] She made several attempts to bring her parents and sisters to the United States, but they were unable to obtain permission to emigrate.

Rand's first literary success came with the sale of her screenplay Red Pawn to Universal Studios in 1932, although it was never produced.[d] Her courtroom drama Night of January16th, first staged in Hollywood in 1934, reopened successfully on Broadway in 1935. Each night, a jury was selected from members of the audience; based on its vote, one of two different endings would be performed.[e]

Her first published novel, the semi-autobiographical[f] We the Living, was published in 1936. Set in Soviet Russia, it focused on the struggle between the individual and the state. Initial sales were slow, and the American publisher let it go out of print, although European editions continued to sell.[48] She adapted the story as a stage play, but the Broadway production was a failure and closed in less than a week.[49][g] After the success of her later novels, Rand was able to release a revised version in 1959 that has since sold over three million copies.[51]

Rand started her next major novel, The Fountainhead, in December 1935, but took a break from it in 1937 to write her novella Anthem. The novella presents a vision of a dystopian future world in which totalitarian collectivism has triumphed to such an extent that even the word I has been forgotten and replaced with we. It was published in England in 1938, but Rand could not find an American publisher at that time. As with We the Living, Rand's later success allowed her to get a revised version published in 1946, which has sold over 3.5million copies.[56]

During the 1940s, Rand became politically active. She and her husband were full-time volunteers for Republican Wendell Willkie's 1940 presidential campaign. This work brought her into contact with other intellectuals sympathetic to free-market capitalism. She became friends with journalist Henry Hazlitt, who introduced her to the Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises. Despite philosophical differences with them, Rand strongly endorsed the writings of both men throughout her career, and they expressed admiration for her. Mises once referred to her as "the most courageous man in America", a compliment that particularly pleased her because he said "man" instead of "woman". Rand became friends with libertarian writer Isabel Paterson. Rand questioned her about American history and politics long into the night during their many meetings, and gave Paterson ideas for her only non-fiction book, The God of the Machine.[h]

Rand's first major success as a writer came in 1943 with The Fountainhead, a novel about an uncompromising young architect named Howard Roark and his struggle against what Rand described as "second-handers"those who attempt to live through others, placing others above themselves. Twelve publishers rejected it before Bobbs-Merrill Company accepted it at the insistence of editor Archibald Ogden, who threatened to quit if his employer did not publish it. While completing the novel, Rand was prescribed the amphetamine Benzedrine to fight fatigue. The drug helped her to work long hours to meet her deadline for delivering the novel, but afterwards she was so exhausted that her doctor ordered two weeks' rest. Her use of the drug for approximately three decades may have contributed to what some of her later associates described as volatile mood swings.

The success of The Fountainhead brought Rand fame and financial security. In 1943, she sold the film rights to Warner Bros. and returned to Hollywood to write the screenplay. Producer Hal B. Wallis hired her afterwards as a screenwriter and script-doctor. Her work for him included the screenplays for Love Letters and You Came Along. Her contract with Wallis also allowed time for other projects, including a never-completed nonfiction treatment of her philosophy to be called The Moral Basis of Individualism.[i]

While working in Hollywood, Rand became involved with the anti-Communist Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals and wrote articles on the group's behalf. She also joined the anti-Communist American Writers Association. In 1947, during the Second Red Scare, Rand testified as a "friendly witness" before the United States House Un-American Activities Committee that the 1944 film Song of Russia grossly misrepresented conditions in the Soviet Union, portraying life there as much better and happier than it was. She also wanted to criticize the lauded 1946 film The Best Years of Our Lives for what she interpreted as its negative presentation of the business world, but was not allowed to do so. When asked after the hearings about her feelings on the investigations' effectiveness, Rand described the process as "futile".

After several delays, the film version of The Fountainhead was released in 1949. Although it used Rand's screenplay with minimal alterations, she "disliked the movie from beginning to end" and complained about its editing, the acting and other elements.

Following the publication of The Fountainhead, Rand received many letters from readers, some of whom the book had influenced profoundly.[78] In 1951, Rand moved from Los Angeles to New York City, where she gathered a group of these admirers that included future chair of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan, a young psychology student named Nathan Blumenthal (later Nathaniel Branden) and his wife Barbara, and Barbara's cousin Leonard Peikoff. Initially, the group was an informal gathering of friends who met with Rand at her apartment on weekends to discuss philosophy. Later, Rand began allowing them to read the manuscript drafts of her new novel, Atlas Shrugged. In 1954, her close relationship with Nathaniel Branden turned into a romantic affair, with the knowledge of their spouses.

Published in 1957, Atlas Shrugged was considered Rand's magnum opus. She described the novel's theme as "the role of the mind in man's existenceand, as a corollary, the demonstration of a new moral philosophy: the morality of rational self-interest".[83] It advocates the core tenets of Rand's philosophy of Objectivism and expresses her concept of human achievement. The plot involves a dystopian United States in which the most creative industrialists, scientists, and artists respond to a welfare state government by going on strike and retreating to a hidden valley where they build an independent free economy. The novel's hero and leader of the strike, John Galt, describes it as stopping "the motor of the world" by withdrawing the minds of the individuals contributing most to the nation's wealth and achievements. The novel contains an exposition of Objectivism in a lengthy monologue delivered by Galt.[85]

Despite many negative reviews, Atlas Shrugged became an international bestseller, but the reaction of intellectuals to the novel discouraged and depressed Rand. Atlas Shrugged was her last completed work of fiction, marking the end of her career as a novelist and the beginning of her role as a popular philosopher.

In 1958, Nathaniel Branden established the Nathaniel Branden Lectures, later incorporated as the Nathaniel Branden Institute (NBI), to promote Rand's philosophy through public lectures. He and Rand co-founded The Objectivist Newsletter (later renamed The Objectivist) in 1962 to circulate articles about her ideas; she later republished some of these articles in book form. Rand was unimpressed by many of the NBI students and held them to strict standards, sometimes reacting coldly or angrily to those who disagreed with her. Critics, including some former NBI students and Branden himself, later described the culture of the NBI as one of intellectual conformity and excessive reverence for Rand. Some described the NBI or the Objectivist movement as a cult or religion. Rand expressed opinions on a wide range of topics, from literature and music to sexuality and facial hair. Some of her followers mimicked her preferences, wearing clothes to match characters from her novels and buying furniture like hers. However, some former NBI students believed the extent of these behaviors was exaggerated, and the problem was concentrated among Rand's closest followers in New York.

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, Rand developed and promoted her Objectivist philosophy through her nonfiction works and by giving talks to students at colleges and universities.[98] She began delivering annual lectures at the Ford Hall Forum, responding to questions from the audience. During these appearances, she often took controversial stances on the political and social issues of the day. These included: supporting abortion rights, opposing the Vietnam War and the military draft (but condemning many draft dodgers as "bums"), supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur War of 1973 against a coalition of Arab nations as "civilized men fighting savages", saying European colonists had the right to invade and take land inhabited by American Indians,[106] and calling homosexuality "immoral" and "disgusting", while also advocating the repeal of all laws concerning it. She endorsed several Republican candidates for president of the United States, most strongly Barry Goldwater in 1964, whose candidacy she promoted in several articles for The Objectivist Newsletter.

In 1964, Nathaniel Branden began an affair with the young actress Patrecia Scott, whom he later married. Nathaniel and Barbara Branden kept the affair hidden from Rand. When she learned of it in 1968, though her romantic relationship with Branden had already ended, Rand ended her relationship with both Brandens, and the NBI was closed. She published an article in The Objectivist repudiating Nathaniel Branden for dishonesty and other "irrational behavior in his private life". In subsequent years, Rand and several more of her closest associates parted company.[114]

Rand underwent surgery for lung cancer in 1974 after decades of heavy smoking. In 1976, she retired from writing her newsletter and, after her initial objections, allowed a social worker employed by her attorney to enroll her in Social Security and Medicare. During the late 1970s, her activities within the Objectivist movement declined, especially after the death of her husband on November9, 1979.[118] One of her final projects was work on a never-completed television adaptation of Atlas Shrugged.

On March6, 1982, Rand died of heart failure at her home in New York City. At her funeral, a 6-foot (1.8m) floral arrangement in the shape of a dollar sign was placed near her casket. In her will, Rand named Peikoff as her heir.

Rand described her approach to literature as "romantic realism". She wanted her fiction to present the world "as it could be and should be", rather than as it was.[124] This approach led her to create highly stylized situations and characters. Her fiction typically has protagonists who are heroic individualists, depicted as fit and attractive. Her villains support duty and collectivist moral ideals. Rand often describes them as unattractive, and some have names that suggest negative traits, such as Wesley Mouch in Atlas Shrugged.

Rand considered plot a critical element of literature, and her stories typically have what biographer Anne Heller described as "tight, elaborate, fast-paced plotting". Romantic triangles are a common plot element in Rand's fiction; in most of her novels and plays, the main female character is romantically involved with at least two different men.[131]

In school Rand read works by Fyodor Dostoevsky, Victor Hugo, Edmond Rostand, and Friedrich Schiller, who became her favorites. She considered them to be among the "top rank" of Romantic writers because of their focus on moral themes and their skill at constructing plots. Hugo was an important influence on her writing, especially her approach to plotting. In the introduction she wrote for an English-language edition of his novel Ninety-Three, Rand called him "the greatest novelist in world literature".

Although Rand disliked most Russian literature, her depictions of her heroes show the influence of the Russian Symbolists and other nineteenth-century Russian writing, most notably the 1863 novel What Is to Be Done? by Nikolay Chernyshevsky. Rand's experience of the Russian Revolution and early Communist Russia influenced the portrayal of her villains. Beyond We the Living, which is set in Russia, this influence can be seen in the ideas and rhetoric of Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead, and in the destruction of the economy in Atlas Shrugged.

Rand's descriptive style echoes her early career writing scenarios and scripts for movies; her novels have many narrative descriptions that resemble early Hollywood movie scenarios. They often follow common film editing conventions, such as having a broad establishing shot description of a scene followed by close-up details, and her descriptions of women characters often take a "male gaze" perspective.[141]

Rand called her philosophy "Objectivism", describing its essence as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute".[142] She considered Objectivism a systematic philosophy and laid out positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, political philosophy, and aesthetics.

In metaphysics, Rand supported philosophical realism and opposed anything she regarded as mysticism or supernaturalism, including all forms of religion.[144] Rand believed in free will as a form of agent causation and rejected determinism.[145]

In epistemology, Rand considered all knowledge to be based on sense perception, the validity of which she considered axiomatic, and reason, which she described as "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses".[147] Rand rejected all claims of non-perceptual knowledge, including "'instinct,' 'intuition,' 'revelation,' or any form of 'just knowing'". In her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Rand presented a theory of concept formation and rejected the analyticsynthetic dichotomy. She believed epistemology was a foundational branch of philosophy and considered the advocacy of reason to be the single most significant aspect of her philosophy.[151][j]

In ethics, Rand argued for rational and ethical egoism (rational self-interest), as the guiding moral principle. She said the individual should "exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself".[153] Rand referred to egoism as "the virtue of selfishness" in her book of that title. In it, she presented her solution to the isought problem by describing a meta-ethical theory that based morality in the needs of "man's survival qua man". She condemned ethical altruism as incompatible with the requirements of human life and happiness, and held the initiation of force was evil and irrational, writing in Atlas Shrugged that, "Force and mind are opposites".

Rand's political philosophy emphasized individual rights, including property rights. She considered laissez-faire capitalism the only moral social system because in her view it was the only system based on protecting those rights. Rand opposed collectivism and statism,[156] which she understood to include many specific forms of government, such as communism, fascism, socialism, theocracy, and the welfare state.[157] Her preferred form of government was a constitutional republic that is limited to the protection of individual rights. Although her political views are often classified as conservative or libertarian, Rand preferred the term "radical for capitalism". She worked with conservatives on political projects, but disagreed with them over issues such as religion and ethics. Rand denounced libertarianism, which she associated with anarchism. She rejected anarchism as a naive theory based in subjectivism that would lead to collectivism in practice.

In aesthetics, Rand defined art as a "selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value-judgments". According to her, art allows philosophical concepts to be presented in a concrete form that can be grasped easily, thereby fulfilling a need of human consciousness. As a writer, the art form Rand focused on most closely was literature. She considered romanticism to be the approach that most accurately reflected the existence of human free will.

Rand's ethics and politics are the most criticized areas of her philosophy. Numerous authors, including Robert Nozick and William F. O'Neill, in some of the earliest academic critiques of her ideas, said she failed in her attempt to solve the isought problem. Critics have called her definitions of egoism and altruism biased and inconsistent with normal usage. Critics from religious traditions oppose her atheism and her rejection of altruism.

Multiple critics, including Nozick, have said her attempt to justify individual rights based on egoism fails.[171] Others, like libertarian philosopher Michael Huemer, have gone further, saying that her support of egoism and her support of individual rights are inconsistent positions.[172] Some critics, like Roy Childs, have said that her opposition to the initiation of force should lead to support of anarchism, rather than limited government.

Commentators, including Hazel Barnes, Albert Ellis, and Nathaniel Branden, have criticized Rand's focus on the importance of reason. Branden said this emphasis led her to denigrate emotions and create unrealistic expectations of how consistently rational human beings should be.

Except for Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and classical liberals, Rand was sharply critical of most philosophers and philosophical traditions known to her. Acknowledging Aristotle as her greatest influence, Rand remarked that in the history of philosophy she could only recommend "three A's"Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ayn Rand. In a 1959 interview with Mike Wallace, when asked where her philosophy came from, she responded: "Out of my own mind, with the sole acknowledgement of a debt to Aristotle, the only philosopher who ever influenced me."

In an article for the Claremont Review of Books, political scientist Charles Murray criticized her claim that her only "philosophical debt" was to Aristotle. He asserted her ideas were derivative of previous thinkers such as John Locke and Friedrich Nietzsche. Rand found early inspiration from Nietzsche, and scholars have found indications of this in Rand's private journals. In 1928, she alluded to his idea of the "superman" in notes for an unwritten novel whose protagonist was inspired by the murderer William Edward Hickman. There are other indications of Nietzsche's influence in passages from the first edition of We the Living (which Rand later revised),[184] and in her overall writing style.[185] By the time she wrote The Fountainhead, Rand had turned against Nietzsche's ideas, and the extent of his influence on her even during her early years is disputed.

Rand considered her philosophical opposite to be Immanuel Kant, whom she referred to as "the most evil man in mankind's history";[189] she believed his epistemology undermined reason and his ethics opposed self-interest.[190] Philosophers George Walsh and Fred Seddon have argued she misinterpreted Kant and exaggerated their differences. She was also critical of Plato, and viewed his differences with Aristotle on questions of metaphysics and epistemology as the primary conflict in the history of philosophy.[193]

Rand's relationship with contemporary philosophers was mostly antagonistic. She was not an academic and did not participate in academic discourse. She was dismissive toward critics and wrote about ideas she disagreed with in a polemical manner without in-depth analysis. She was in turn viewed very negatively by many academic philosophers, who dismissed her as an unimportant figure who need not be given serious consideration.

The first reviews Rand received were for Night of January 16th. Reviews of the Broadway production were largely positive, but Rand considered even positive reviews to be embarrassing because of significant changes made to her script by the producer.[198] Although Rand believed that her novel We the Living was not widely reviewed, over 200 publications published approximately 125 different reviews. Overall, they were more positive than those she received for her later work.[199] Her novella Anthem received little review attention, both for its first publication in England and for subsequent re-issues.[200]

Rand's first bestseller, The Fountainhead, received far fewer reviews than We the Living, and reviewers' opinions were mixed.[201] Lorine Pruette's positive review in The New York Times, which called the author "a writer of great power" who wrote "brilliantly, beautifully and bitterly", was one that Rand greatly appreciated. There were other positive reviews, but Rand dismissed most of them for either misunderstanding her message or for being in unimportant publications.[201] Some negative reviews said the novel was too long; others called the characters unsympathetic and Rand's style "offensively pedestrian".[201]

Atlas Shrugged was widely reviewed, and many of the reviews were strongly negative.[204] Atlas Shrugged received positive reviews from a few publications,[204] but Rand scholar Mimi Reisel Gladstein later wrote that "reviewers seemed to vie with each other in a contest to devise the cleverest put-downs", with reviews including comments that it was "written out of hate" and showed "remorseless hectoring and prolixity". Whittaker Chambers wrote what was later called the novel's most "notorious" review for the conservative magazine National Review. He accused Rand of supporting a godless system (which he related to that of the Soviets), claiming, "From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard ... commanding: 'To a gas chambergo!'".[k]

Rand's nonfiction received far fewer reviews than her novels. The tenor of the criticism for her first nonfiction book, For the New Intellectual, was similar to that for Atlas Shrugged. Philosopher Sidney Hook likened her certainty to "the way philosophy is written in the Soviet Union", and author Gore Vidal called her viewpoint "nearly perfect in its immorality". These reviews set the pattern for reaction to her ideas among liberal critics. Her subsequent books got progressively less review attention.

With over 37million copies sold as of 2020[update], Rand's books continue to be read widely.[l] A survey conducted for the Library of Congress and the Book-of-the-Month Club in 1991 asked club members to name the most influential book in their lives. Rand's Atlas Shrugged was the second most popular choice, after the Bible. Although Rand's influence has been greatest in the United States, there has been international interest in her work.

Rand's contemporary admirers included fellow novelists, like Ira Levin, Kay Nolte Smith and L. Neil Smith; she has influenced later writers like Erika Holzer, Terry Goodkind, and comic book artist Steve Ditko. Rand provided a positive view of business and subsequently many business executives and entrepreneurs have admired and promoted her work. Businessmen such as John Allison of BB&T and Ed Snider of Comcast Spectacor have funded the promotion of Rand's ideas.

Television shows, movies, and video games have referred to Rand and her works. Throughout her life she was the subject of many articles in popular magazines, as well as book-length critiques by authors such as the psychologist Albert Ellis and Trinity Foundation president John W. Robbins. Rand or characters based on her figure prominently in novels by American authors, including Mary Gaitskill, Matt Ruff, Kay Nolte Smith, and Tobias Wolff. Nick Gillespie, former editor-in-chief of Reason, remarked that, "Rand's is a tortured immortality, one in which she's as likely to be a punch line as a protagonist. Jibes at Rand as cold and inhuman run through the popular culture." Two movies have been made about Rand's life. A 1997 documentary film, Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life, was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature. The Passion of Ayn Rand, a 1999 television adaptation of the book of the same name, won several awards. Rand's image also appears on a 1999 U.S. postage stamp illustrated by artist Nick Gaetano.

Rand's works, most commonly Anthem or The Fountainhead, are sometimes assigned as secondary school reading.[235] Since 2002, the Ayn Rand Institute has provided free copies of Rand's novels to teachers who promise to include the books in their curriculum. The Institute had distributed 4.5million copies in the U.S. and Canada by the end of 2020.[215] In 2017, Rand was added to the required reading list for the A Level Politics exam in the United Kingdom.

Although she rejected the labels "conservative" and "libertarian", Rand has had a continuing influence on right-wing politics and libertarianism. Rand is often considered one of the three most important women (along with Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson) in the early development of modern American libertarianism. David Nolan, one founder of the Libertarian Party, said that "without Ayn Rand, the libertarian movement would not exist".[242] In his history of that movement, journalist Brian Doherty described her as "the most influential libertarian of the twentieth century to the public at large". Historian Jennifer Burns referred to her as "the ultimate gateway drug to life on the right".

The political figures who cite Rand as an influence are usually conservatives (often members of the Republican Party), despite Rand taking some atypical positions for a conservative, like being pro-choice and an atheist. She faced intense opposition from William F. Buckley Jr. and other contributors to the conservative National Review magazine, which published numerous criticisms of her writings and ideas. Nevertheless, a 1987 article in The New York Times referred to her as the Reagan administration's "novelist laureate". Republican congressmen and conservative pundits have acknowledged her influence on their lives and have recommended her novels. She has influenced some conservative politicians outside the U.S., such as Sajid Javid in the United Kingdom, Siv Jensen in Norway, and Ayelet Shaked in Israel.

The financial crisis of 20072008 spurred renewed interest in her works, especially Atlas Shrugged, which some saw as foreshadowing the crisis. Opinion articles compared real-world events with the novel's plot. Signs mentioning Rand and her fictional hero John Galt appeared at Tea Party protests. There was increased criticism of her ideas, especially from the political left. Critics blamed the economic crisis on her support of selfishness and free markets, particularly through her influence on Alan Greenspan. In 2015, Adam Weiner said that through Greenspan, "Rand had effectively chucked a ticking time bomb into the boiler room of the US economy". Lisa Duggan said that Rand's novels had "incalculable impact" in encouraging the spread of neoliberal political ideas. In 2021, Cass Sunstein said Rand's ideas could be seen in the tax and regulatory policies of the Trump administration, which he attributed to the "enduring influence" of Rand's fiction.

During Rand's lifetime, her work received little attention from academic scholars. Since her death, interest in her work has increased gradually. In 2009, historian Jennifer Burns identified "three overlapping waves" of scholarly interest in Rand, including "an explosion of scholarship" since 2000. As of that year, few universities included Rand or Objectivism as a philosophical specialty or research area, with many literature and philosophy departments dismissing her as a pop culture phenomenon rather than a subject for serious study. From 2002 to 2012, over 60 colleges and universities accepted grants from the charitable foundation of BB&T Corporation that required teaching Rand's ideas or works; in some cases, the grants were controversial or even rejected because of the requirement to teach about Rand.

In 2020, media critic Eric Burns said that, "Rand is surely the most engaging philosopher of my lifetime", but "nobody in the academe pays any attention to her, neither as an author nor a philosopher". That same year, the editor of a collection of critical essays about Rand said academics who disapproved of her ideas had long held "a stubborn resolve to ignore or ridicule" her work, but he believed more academic critics were engaging with her work in recent years.

In 1967, John Hospers discussed Rand's ethical ideas in the second edition of his textbook, An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis. That same year, Hazel Barnes included a chapter critiquing Objectivism in her book An Existentialist Ethics. When the first full-length academic book about Rand's philosophy appeared in 1971, its author declared writing about Rand "a treacherous undertaking" that could lead to "guilt by association" for taking her seriously. A few articles about Rand's ideas appeared in academic journals before her death in 1982, many of them in The Personalist. One of these was "On the Randian Argument" by libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick, who criticized her meta-ethical arguments. Other philosophers, writing in the same publication, argued that Nozick misstated Rand's case. In an article responding to Nozick, Douglas Den Uyl and Douglas B. Rasmussen defended her positions, but described her style as "literary, hyperbolic and emotional".

The Philosophic Thought of Ayn Rand, a 1984 collection of essays about Objectivism edited by Den Uyl and Rasmussen, was the first academic book about Rand's ideas published after her death. In one essay, political writer Jack Wheeler wrote that despite "the incessant bombast and continuous venting of Randian rage", Rand's ethics are "a most immense achievement, the study of which is vastly more fruitful than any other in contemporary thought".[273] In 1987, the Ayn Rand Society was founded as an affiliate of the American Philosophical Association.

In a 1995 entry about Rand in Contemporary Women Philosophers, Jenny A. Heyl described a divergence in how different academic specialties viewed Rand. She said that Rand's philosophy "is regularly omitted from academic philosophy. Yet, throughout literary academia, Ayn Rand is considered a philosopher." Writing in the 1998 edition of the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, political theorist Chandran Kukathas summarized the mainstream philosophical reception of her work in two parts. He said most commentators view her ethical argument as an unconvincing variant of Aristotle's ethics, and her political theory "is of little interest" because it is marred by an "ill-thought out and unsystematic" effort to reconcile her hostility to the state with her rejection of anarchism. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, a multidisciplinary, peer-reviewed academic journal devoted to the study of Rand and her ideas, was established in 1999.

In a 2010 essay for the Cato Institute, Huemer argued very few people find Rand's ideas convincing, especially her ethics. He attributed the attention she receives to her being a "compelling writer", especially as a novelist, noting that Atlas Shrugged outsells Rand's non-fiction works and the works of other philosophers of classical liberalism. In 2012, the Pennsylvania State University Press agreed to take over publication of The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, and the University of Pittsburgh Press launched an "Ayn Rand Society Philosophical Studies" series based on the Society's proceedings. The Fall 2012 update to the entry about Rand in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy said that "only a few professional philosophers have taken her work seriously". That same year, political scientist Alan Wolfe dismissed Rand as a "nonperson" among academics, an attitude that writer Ben Murnane later described as "the traditional academic view" of Rand. Philosopher Skye C. Cleary wrote in a 2018 article for Aeon that, "Philosophers love to hate Ayn Rand. It's trendy to scoff at any mention of her." However, Cleary said that because many people take Rand's ideas seriously, philosophers "need to treat the Ayn Rand phenomenon seriously" and provide refutations rather than ignoring her.

Academic consideration of Rand as a literary figure during her life was even more limited than the discussion of her philosophy. Mimi Reisel Gladstein could not find any scholarly articles about Rand's novels when she began researching her in 1973, and only three such articles appeared during the rest of the 1970s. Since her death, scholars of English and American literature have continued largely to ignore her work, although attention to her literary work has increased since the 1990s. Several academic book series about important authors cover Rand and her works,[m] as do popular study guides like CliffsNotes and SparkNotes. In The Literary Encyclopedia entry for Rand written in 2001, John David Lewis declared that "Rand wrote the most intellectually challenging fiction of her generation." In 2019, Duggan described Rand's fiction as popular and influential on many readers, despite being easy to criticize for "her cartoonish characters and melodramatic plots, her rigid moralizing, her middle- to lowbrow aesthetic preferences... and philosophical strivings".

After the closure of the Nathaniel Branden Institute, the Objectivist movement continued in other forms. In the 1970s, Peikoff began delivering courses on Objectivism. In 1979, Peter Schwartz started a newsletter called The Intellectual Activist, which Rand endorsed. She also endorsed The Objectivist Forum, a bimonthly magazine founded by Objectivist philosopher Harry Binswanger, which ran from 1980 to 1987.

In 1985, Peikoff worked with businessman Ed Snider to establish the Ayn Rand Institute, a nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting Rand's ideas and works. In 1990, after an ideological disagreement with Peikoff, David Kelley founded the Institute for Objectivist Studies, now known as The Atlas Society. In 2001, historian John McCaskey organized the Anthem Foundation for Objectivist Scholarship, which provides grants for scholarly work on Objectivism in academia.

More here:

Ayn Rand - Wikipedia

Atlas Shrugged (film series) – Wikipedia

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Danzig

Trilogy of American science fiction drama films

Productioncompany

The Strike Productions (Part I)

Release dates

Running time

Atlas Shrugged is a trilogy of American science fiction drama films. The series, adaptations of Ayn Rand's 1957 novel of the same title, are subtitled Part I (2011), Part II (2012) and Part III (2014); the latter sometimes includes Who Is John Galt? in the title.

The films take place in a dystopian United States, wherein many of society's most prominent and successful industrialists abandon their fortunes as the government shifts the nation towards socialism, making aggressive new regulations, taking control of industries, while picking winners and losers.

See Part I's production, Part II's production, Part III's production

See Part I's plot, Part II's plot, Part III's plot

The trilogy received predominantly negative critic reviews[3] and the aggregate USA box office is just under $9 million, with each film performing worse than the last on both accounts.

Part I was released on DVD and Blu-ray on November 8, 2011; Part II on February 19, 2013; and Part III on January 6, 2015.

Atlas Shrugged: Part I – Wikipedia

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Danzig

2011 film by Paul Johansson

Atlas Shrugged: Part I (referred to onscreen as simply Atlas Shrugged) is a 2011 American political science fiction drama film directed by Paul Johansson. An adaptation of part of the philosopher Ayn Rand's 1957 novel of the same name, the film is the first in a trilogy encompassing the entire book. After various treatments and proposals floundered for nearly 40 years,[4] investor John Aglialoro initiated production in June 2010. The film was directed by Paul Johansson and stars Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggart and Grant Bowler as Hank Rearden.

The film begins the story of Atlas Shrugged, set in a dystopian United States where John Galt leads innovators, from industrialists to artists, in a capital strike, "stopping the motor of the world" to reassert the importance of the free use of one's mind and of laissez-faire capitalism.[5]

Despite near universally negative critical response and commercial failure, grossing just under a fourth of its budget, a sequel, Atlas Shrugged: Part II, was released on October 12, 2012, albeit with an entirely different cast. The third installment, Atlas Shrugged Part III: Who Is John Galt?, was released on September 12, 2014,[6] again with an overhaul on production.

In 2016, the United States is in a sustained economic depression. Industrial disasters, resource shortages, and gasoline prices at $37 per gallon have made railroads the primary mode of transportation, but even they are in disrepair. After a major accident on the Rio Norte line of the Taggart Transcontinental railroad, CEO James Taggart shirks responsibility. His sister Dagny Taggart, Vice-President in Charge of Operations, defies him by replacing the aging track with new rails made of Rearden Metal, which is claimed to be lighter yet stronger than steel. Dagny meets with its inventor, Hank Rearden, and they negotiate a deal they both admit serves their respective self-interests.

Politician Wesley Mouchnominally Rearden's lobbyist in Washington, D.C.is part of a crowd that views heads of industry as persons who must be broken or tamed. James Taggart uses political influence to ensure that Taggart Transcontinental is designated the exclusive railroad for the state of Colorado. Dagny is confronted by Ellis Wyatt, a Colorado oil man angry to be forced to do business with Taggart Transcontinental. Dagny promises him that he will get the service he needs. Dagny encounters former lover Francisco d'Anconia, who presents a faade of a playboy grown bored with the pursuit of money. He reveals that a series of copper mines he built are worthless, costing his investors (including the Taggart railroad) millions.

Rearden lives in a magnificent home with a wife and a brother who are happy to live off his effort, though they overtly disrespect it. Rearden's anniversary gift to his wife Lillian is a bracelet made from the first batch of Rearden Metal, but she considers it a garish symbol of Hank's egotism. At a dinner party, Dagny dares Lillian to exchange it for Dagny's diamond necklace, which she does.

As Dagny and Rearden rebuild the Rio Norte line, talented people quit their jobs and refuse all inducements to stay. Meanwhile, Dr. Robert Stadler of the State Science Institute puts out a report implying that Rearden Metal is dangerous. Taggart Transcontinental stock plummets because of its use of Rearden Metal, and Dagny leaves Taggart Transcontinental temporarily and forms her own company to finish the Rio Norte line. She renames it the John Galt Line, in defiance of the phrase "Who is John Galt?"which has come to stand for any question to which it is pointless to seek an answer.

A new law forces Rearden to sell most of his businesses, but he retains Rearden Steel for the sake of his metal and to finish the John Galt Line. Despite strong government and union opposition to Rearden Metal, Dagny and Rearden complete the line ahead of schedule and successfully test it on a record-setting run to Wyatt's oil fields in Colorado. At the home of Wyatt, now a close friend, Dagny and Rearden celebrate the success of the line. As Dagny and Rearden continue their celebration into the night by fulfilling their growing sexual attraction, the shadowy figure responsible for the disappearances of prominent people visits Wyatt with an offer for a better society based on personal achievement.

The next morning, Dagny and Rearden begin investigating an abandoned prototype of an advanced motor that could revolutionize the world. They realize the genius of the motor's creator and try to track him down. Dagny finds Dr. Hugh Akston, working as a cook at a diner, but he is not willing to reveal the identity of the inventor; Akston knows whom Dagny is seeking and says she will never find him, though he may find her.

Another new law limits rail freight and levies a special tax on Colorado. It is the final straw for Ellis Wyatt. When Dagny hears that Wyatt's oil fields are on fire, she rushes to the scene of the fire where she finds a handwritten sign nailed to the wall that reads "I am leaving it as I found it. Take over. It's yours."

Wyatt declares in an answering machine message that he is "on strike".

In 1972, Albert S. Ruddy approached Rand to produce a cinematic adaptation of Atlas Shrugged. Rand agreed that Ruddy could focus on the love story. "That's all it ever was," Rand said.[9][10][11] Rand insisted on having final script approval, which Ruddy refused to give her, thus preventing a deal. In 1978, Henry and Michael Jaffe negotiated a deal for an eight-hour Atlas Shrugged television miniseries on NBC. Jaffe hired screenwriter Stirling Silliphant to adapt the novel and he obtained approval from Rand on the final script. However, in 1979, with Fred Silverman's rise as president of NBC, the project was scrapped.[12]

Rand, a former Hollywood screenwriter herself, began writing her own screenplay, but died in 1982 with only one third of it finished. She left her estate, including the film rights to Atlas Shrugged, to her student Leonard Peikoff, who sold an option to Michael Jaffe and Ed Snider. Peikoff would not approve the script they wrote and the deal fell through. In 1992, investor John Aglialoro bought an option to produce the film, paying Peikoff over $1 million for full creative control.[12]

In 1999, under Aglialoro's sponsorship, Ruddy negotiated a deal with Turner Network Television for a four-hour miniseries, but the project was killed after the AOL Time Warner merger. After the TNT deal fell through, Howard and Karen Baldwin, while running Phillip Anschutz's Crusader Entertainment, obtained the rights. The Baldwins left Crusader, taking the rights to Atlas Shrugged with them, and formed Baldwin Entertainment Group in 2004. Michael Burns of Lions Gate Entertainment approached the Baldwins to fund and distribute Atlas Shrugged.[12] A two-part draft screenplay written by James V. Hart[13] was re-written into a 127page screenplay by Randall Wallace, with Vadim Perelman expected to direct.[14] Potential cast members for this production had included Angelina Jolie,[15] Charlize Theron,[16] Julia Roberts,[16] and Anne Hathaway.[16] Between 2009 and 2010, however, these deals came apart, including studio backing from Lions Gate, and therefore none of the stars mentioned above appear in the final film. Also, Wallace did not do the screenplay, and Perelman did not direct.[1][17] Aglialoro says producers have spent "something in the $20 million range" on the project over the last 18 years.[2]

In May 2010, Brian Patrick O'Toole and Aglialoro wrote a screenplay, intent on filming in June 2010. While initial rumors claimed that the films would have a "timeless" settingthe producers say Rand envisioned the story as occurring "the day after tomorrow"[18]the released film is set in late 2016. The writers were mindful of the desire of some fans for fidelity to the novel,[18] but gave some characters, such as Eddie Willers, short shrift and omitted others, such as the composer Richard Halley. The film is styled as a mystery, with black-and-white freeze frames as each innovator goes "missing". However, Galt appears and speaks in the film, solving the mystery more clearly than in the first third of the novel.

Though director Johansson had been reported as playing the pivotal role of John Galt, he made it clear in an interview that with regard to who is John Galt in the film, the answer was, "Not me."[7] He explained that his portrayal of the character would be limited to the first film as a silhouetted figure wearing a trenchcoat and fedora,[8] suggesting that another actor will be cast as Galt for the subsequent parts of the trilogy.

Though Stephen Polk was initially set to direct,[19] he was replaced by Paul Johansson nine days before filming was scheduled to begin. With the 18-year-long option to the films rights set to expire on June 15, 2010, producers Harmon Kaslow and Aglialoro began principal photography on June 13, 2010, thus allowing Aglialoro to retain the motion picture rights. Shooting took five weeks, and he says that the total production cost of the movie came in on a budget around US$10 million,[20] though Box Office Mojo lists the production cost as $20 million.[3]

Elia Cmiral composed the score for the film.[21] Peter Debruge wrote in Variety that "More ambitious sound design and score, rather than the low-key filler from composer Elia Cmiral and music supervisor Steve Weisberg, might have significantly boosted the pic's limited scale."[22]

In a lot of ways, this project reflects the ethos of the Tea Party. You had both Republicans and Democrats who felt rejected by the establishment, and the same process is going to happen with Atlas Shrugged: We're going to build a constituency of people who believe in limited government and individual liberty.

Matt Kibbe, President of FreedomWorks[23]

The film had a very low marketing budget and was not marketed in conventional methods.[24] Prior to the film's release on the politically symbolic date of Tax Day, the project was promoted throughout the Tea Party movement and affiliated organizations such as FreedomWorks.[23] The National Journal reported that FreedomWorks, the Tea Party-allied group headed by former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, (R-Texas), had been trying to get the movie opened in more theaters.[23] FreedomWorks also helped unveil the Atlas Shrugged movie trailer at the February 2011 Conservative Political Action Conference.[23] Additionally, it was reported that Tea Party groups across the country were plugging the movie trailer on their websites and Facebook pages.[23] Release of the film was also covered and promoted by Fox News TV personalities John Stossel and Sean Hannity.[25][26]

The U.S. release of Atlas Shrugged: Part I opened on 300 screens on April 15, 2011, and made US$1,676,917 in its opening weekend, finishing in 14th place overall.[27] Producers announced expansion to 423 theaters several days after release and promised 1,000 theaters by the end of April,[28] but the release peaked at 465 screens. Ticket sales dropped off significantly in its second week of release, despite the addition of 165 screens; after six weeks, the film was showing on only 32 screens and total ticket sales had not crossed the $5 million mark, recouping less than a quarter of the production budget.[29]

Atlas Shrugged: Part I was released on DVD and Blu-ray Disc on November 8, 2011 by 20th Century Fox Home Entertainment.[30] More than 100,000 DVD inserts were recalled within days due to the jacket's philosophically incorrect description of "Ayn Rand's timeless novel of courage and self-sacrifice".[31] As of April 2013, 247,044 DVDs had been sold, grossing $3,433,445.[32]

The film received overwhelmingly negative reviews. Rotten Tomatoes gives the film a score of 12% based on 52 reviews, with an average score of 3.8/10. The site's consensus was: "Passionate ideologues may find it compelling, but most filmgoers will find this low-budget adaptation of the Ayn Rand bestseller decidedly lacking."[33] Metacritic gives the film a "generally unfavorable" rating of 28%, as determined by averaging 19 professional reviews.[34] Some commentators noted differences in film critics' reactions from audience members' reactions; from the latter group, the film received high scores even before the film was released.[35][36][37]

Let's say you know the novel, you agree with Ayn Rand, you're an objectivist or a libertarian, and you've been waiting eagerly for this movie. Man, are you going to get a letdown. It's not enough that a movie agree with you, in however an incoherent and murky fashion. It would help if it were like, you know, entertaining?

Roger Ebert, Chicago Sun-Times, April 14, 2011[1]

Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times gave the film only one star, calling it "the most anticlimactic non-event since Geraldo Rivera broke into Al Capone's vault."[1] Columnist Cathy Young of The Boston Globe gave the film a negative review.[38] Chicago Tribune published a predominantly negative review, arguing that the film lacks Rand's philosophical theme, while at the same time saying "the actors, none of them big names, are well-suited to the roles. The story has drive, color and mystery. It looks good on the screen."[39] In the New York Post, Kyle Smith gave the film a mostly negative review, grading it at 2.5/4 stars, criticizing its "stilted dialogue and stern, unironic hectoring" and calling it "stiff in the joints", but also adding that it "nevertheless contains a fire and a fury that makes it more compelling than the average mass-produced studio item."[40]

Reviews in the conservative press were more mixed. American economist Mark Skousen praised the film, writing in Human Events, "The script is true to the philosophy of Ayn Rand's novel."[41] The Weekly Standard senior editor Fred Barnes noted that the film "gets Rand's point across forcefully without too much pounding", that it is "fast-paced" when compared with the original novel's 1200-page length, and that it is "at least as relevant today as it was when the novel was published in 1957."[42] Jack Hunter, contributing editor to The American Conservative, wrote, "If you ask the average film critic about the new movie adaptation of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged they will tell you it is a horrible movie. If you ask the average conservative or libertarian they will tell you it is a great movie. Objectively, it is a mediocre movie at best. Subjectively, it is one of the best mediocre movies you'll ever see."[43] In the National Post, Peter Foster credited the movie for the daunting job of fidelity to the novel, wryly suggested a plot rewrite along the lines of comparable current events, and concluded, "if it sinks without trace, its backers should at least be proud that they lost their own money."[44]

The poor critical reception of Atlas Shrugged: Part I initially made Aglialoro reconsider his plans for the rest of the trilogy.[45] In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, he said he was continuing with plans to produce Part II and Part III for release on April 15 in 2012 and 2013, respectively.[46] In a later interview with The Boston Globe, Aglialoro was ambivalent: "I learned something long ago playing poker. If you think you're beat[en], don't go all in. If Part 1 makes [enough of] a return to support Part 2, I'll do it. Other than that, I'll throw the hand in."[47]

In July 2011, Aglialoro planned to start production of Atlas Shrugged: Part II in September, with its release timed to coincide with the 2012 U.S. elections.[48] In October 2011, producer Harmon Kaslow stated that he hoped filming for Part II would begin in early 2012, "with hopes of previewing it around the time of the nominating conventions". Kaslow anticipated that the film, which would encompass the second third of Atlas Shrugged, would "probably be 30 to 40 minutes longer than the first movie." Kaslow also stated his intent that Part II would have a bigger production budget, as well as a larger advertising budget.[49]

On February 2, 2012, Kaslow and Aglialoro, the producers of Atlas Shrugged: Part II, announced a start date for principal photography in April 2012 with a release date of October 12, 2012.[50] Joining the production team was Duncan Scott, who, in 1986, was responsible for creating a new, re-edited version with English subtitles of the 1942 Italian film adaptation of We the Living. The first film's entire cast was replaced for the sequel.

The sequel film, Atlas Shrugged: Part II, was released on October 12, 2012.[51] Critics gave the film a 4% rating on Rotten Tomatoes based on 23 reviews.[52] One reviewer gave the film a "D" rating,[53] while another reviewer gave the film a "1" rating (of 4).[54] In naming Part II to its list of 2012's worst films, The A.V. Club said "The irony of Part II's mere existence is rich enough: The free market is a religion for Rand acolytes, and it emphatically rejected Part I."[55]

Excerpt from:

Atlas Shrugged: Part I - Wikipedia

Atlas Shrugged II: The Strike (2012) – IMDb

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Danzig

James Taggart: Here's to my wife, Mrs. James Taggart. Love does, indeed, conquer all. Even social and economic barriers. You know, money cannot buy happiness. Truer words were never spoken. We're no longer chasing the almighty dollar. Our ideals are higher than profit. Instead of the aristocracy of money, we have...

Francisco d'Anconia: The aristocracy of pull. I mean, now, it's about influence. But you knew that already.

James Taggart: What I know is that you need to learn some manners.

Reception Guest #1: If you ever doubted that money was the root of all evil, there's your proof.

Francisco d'Anconia: So, you think that money is the root of all evil. Have you ever asked yourself "What's the root of money?" Money is a tool that allows us to trade with one another. Your goods for mine. Your efforts for mine. The keystone of civilization. Having money is not the measure of a man. What matters is how he got it. If he produced it by creating value, then his money is a token of honor.

James Taggart: Look who's talking about honor.

Francisco d'Anconia: But if he's taken it from those who produce, then there is no honor. Then you're simply a looter.

Reception Guest #2: Seor d'Anconia, we all know that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak.

Francisco d'Anconia: What kind of strength are you talking about? The power to create value? Or the ability to manipulate, to extort money in back room deals, - to exercise pull?

James Taggart: All right... just leave.

Francisco d'Anconia: Hey. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips, chains or dollars. Take your choice. There is no other. And your time is running out.

More here:

Atlas Shrugged II: The Strike (2012) - IMDb

Five myths about Ayn Rand and Objectivism – Learn Liberty

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Danzig

Ayn Rand (1905-1982) was a Russian-American novelist, playwright, and philosopher who has a lasting legacy as one of the foremost thinkers of the twentieth century. Her philosophy of Objectivism, presented throughout both her works of fiction and nonfiction, is groundbreaking and unique.

Objectivism is consistently mischaracterized and stereotyped in popular media, and is blamed as responsible for any right-leaning political development. Here are five common myths that you may have heard about Ayn Rand.

A cornerstone of Ayn Rands philosophy was her opposition to altruism and her support of selfishness. Naturally, in common language this would imply she was fundamentally opposed to any and all forms of charity.

Charitable giving under the guise of altruism is contrary to the principles of Objectivism. However, giving can be fully consistent with rational self-interest. Giving money to specific individuals or causes actually has an important role to play in a nightwatchman state.

Rand held that some individuals are unable as opposed to unwilling to provide for themselves, and thus voluntary charity would be the only legitimate means of survival for some. However, it is of crucial importance that such giving remains motivated by reason rather than a sense of altruism.

In her article The Ethics of Emergencies, Rand stated:

By elevating the issue of helping others into the central and primary issue of ethics, altruism has destroyed the concept of any authentic benevolence or good will among men.

Objectivism holds that government should not be in the business of redistributing money. Critics of Ayn Rand would point to her eventual collecting of Social Security money as a point of hypocrisy.

In Letters of Ayn Rand (letter 524, to Mrs. Milton W. Broberg), she addressed a fan whose husband had become unemployed and was receiving money from the government. Rand asserted that the man should not be ashamed to receive this assistance.

This was on the grounds that he had earned money that the state had plundered from him while he was working, and that he was merely getting back some of what was already his. It is precisely because Rand opposed collectivist wealth redistribution that she viewed collecting Social Security as restitution for what had been taken.

Furthermore, one of the characters in Atlas Shrugged, Ragnar Danneskjld, would rob US merchant ships, convert the loot into gold, and return it to the people in Galts Gulch whose earnings had been taken by the state.

Objectivism is a philosophy fundamentally at odds with religion, where there is no room for metaphysical mysticism. This does not mean, however, that Ayn Rand was intolerant of religious people. On the contrary, Ayn Rand is known to have held certain religious people in high regard and, while disagreeing, would gladly listen to their ideas and engage in debate.

Thomas Aquinas, a 13th-century priest, was one of two philosophers that Rand drew significant influence from, alongside Aristotle. Rands appreciation of Aquinas stems from the latters attempts to apply Aristotelian logic to his own beliefs. Reason was important to Aquinas, even though he ultimately did not reach the same conclusion as Rand.

Moreover, when writing her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand had initially intended to include a priest in the story, a character who would be a most glamorized projection of a Thomist philosopher, of a man who thought he could combine reason with religion.

Objectivism does not condemn the pursuit of money something that makes it stand out from other philosophies. However, money is not one of the cardinal values of Objectivism.

Instead, these are reason, purpose, and self-esteem. The means of reaching these values are rationality, productivity, and pride. As such, money is not a goal in and of itself but is rather the outcome (in a capitalist society) of productivity, which is the central purpose of a rational mans life.

In Atlas Shrugged, Rand presents heroes and villains at both ends of the wealth spectrum. Indeed, many antagonists in the story, such as James Taggart and Orren Boyle, are wealthy characters, while Galts Gulch has a place for productive people in all lines of work.

Due to a number of conservative figures crediting Ayn Rand as an influence, a pervasive myth has arisen, claiming her as a conservative. Rand, however, would have categorically rejected this idea. Indeed, she was known to be fiercely critical of conservatives, disliking conservative figures such as Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

Ayn Rand disagreed with conservatives on religion and religious morality. She also disagreed with them on policy. But, importantly, she also staunchly disagreed with the conservative approach to defending capitalism.

When conservatives defend capitalism, it is usually approached from an altruistic or utilitarian angle, i.e. it produces the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Conservatives may also defend capitalism on the grounds of tradition, rejecting the disruption of socialism. However, conservatism does not defend capitalism for the sake of capitalism.

In her essay Conservatism: An Obituary, Ayn Rand characterizes conservatives as follows, They declare that we must defend the American political system not because it is right, but because our ancestors chose it, not because it is good, but because it is old.

If you would like to receive a free copy of thirteen previously unpublished letters by Ayn Rand, be sure click on the button below.

Rand, Ayn. The Ethics of Emergencies. The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism. Fiftieth anniversary edition. New York: Signet, 1964, 49.

Rand, Ayn. The Journals of Ayn Rand. Ed. David Harriman. New York: Plume, [1997] 1999. 540-541.

Rand, Ayn. Conservatism: An Obituary. Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. 2nd ed. New York: Signet, [1966] 1967, 221.

This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the organization as a whole. Students For Liberty is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions.

See the rest here:

Five myths about Ayn Rand and Objectivism - Learn Liberty

Ethereum Price: ETH/USD & Live Charts

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Danzig

About Ethereum

Ethereum is a decentralized blockchain network providing global smart-contract functionality and decentralized application (dApp) integration. Ethereum is known for its native token Ether (ETH) and is the second-largest cryptocurrency by market capitalization.

The open-source distributed computing platform that powers the ETH network permits active participants to establish digital ledgers publicly ensuring:

As the need for blockchain grows, Ethereum remains a top choice for developers to leverage their DeFi technologies, relying on the blockchains multi-functional and multi-layered ease of access.

Some of the major use-cases of Ethereum so far have been:

These are just a handful of the applications conceived for Ethereum.

Ethereum set the standard for smart contracts, with its network currently servicing more than 1.45 million smart contracts on its blockchain. Smart contracts provide a decentralized protocol to facilitate and verify negotiations that cannot be tampered with or manipulated.

These programmable and self-executing contracts offer transparency since participants are free to view and audit the transaction logs. In addition, the permissionless capabilities of these smart contracts mean that anyone can deploy one.

Apart from smart contracts, Ethereum serves a major role in other areas of decentralized finance (DeFi). Through the use of the networks decentralized apps (dApps), users essentially become their own banks with elevated speed, transparency, and security.

This means there is no need to open accounts or provide personal information. You can get a loan, lend crypto, buy derivatives, and trade using Ethereums decentralized services. Some examples of its DeFi use cases include:

The NFT market gained immense traction in 2021 as tokenized digital items were made available using Ethereum. The networks blockchain provided the necessary platform to run NFT marketplaces whereby users can mint and trade their creations.

In addition, most NFT markets require ETH to conduct trades on the platform. Although other blockchains now provide NFT functionality, it was Ethereum that started it.

ETH remains the leader for NFT integration due to the blockchains highly-secure network and its connection to an entire growing market that gives NFT users maximum exposure.

Ethereum was founded by Canadian programmer Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Bitcoin Magazine, and Joe Lubin, founder of blockchain software company ConsenSys. Along with Gavin Wood, Charles Hoskinson, and Anthony Di Lorio, an idea to revolutionize blockchain technology beyond a means of virtual payments gave rise to Ethereums legendary inception.

Vitalik, who published Ethereums white paper and introduced it to the public in 2014, spent much of his early days studying mathematics, economics, and programming. His passion for code later expressed itself during his travels when he visited other developers who shared the same enthusiasm.

After being awarded a $100,000 grant from venture capitalist Peter Thiel, he devoted his remaining time and energy to creating Ethereum. The official Ethereum blockchain network went live in 2015 along with its native token Ether (ETH) which followed an $18 million crowd sale.

The goal behind the creation of a new blockchain was to provide a decentralized platform to encourage developers and users to build their own peer-to-peer apps. Using Ethereums network, smart contracts and dApps began to revolutionize the financial sector.

This new way of doing business omitted the need for financial intermediaries and eventually led to the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) Ethereums underlying operating structure. In 2016, due to a system manipulation resulting in $50 million of Ether being stolen, the network experienced a hard forkchanges to the protocolwhich resulted in two separate blockchains, with Ethereum Classic serving as the original.

Since then, seven more hard forks would ensue. Today, much of Ethereums praise comes from the NFT market since it is the main blockchain network that enables users to mint and trade their NFTs.

Ethereums susceptibility to price swings shouldnt come as a surprise considering the extreme volatility of the crypto market. However, a close study of the coins overall price trend certainly proves the long-range potential of the second largest cryptocurrency.

Ethereum made its debut in the market with a token launch price of $0.31 and reached an astounding all-time high (ATH) above $4,880 in November 2021.

During the course of Ethereums price trajectory, the market experienced a couple of bull cycles as well as some catastrophic crashes. When 2017s bull cycle soared ETHs price to $826, Ethereums first major spike was marked.

After a continuous stride of peaks and valleys, ETH gained even more traction in the following year in January, when it reached another ATH of $1,396 before tumbling down and closing the year off at only $141.

However, it wasnt until 2021 when the NFT market exploded, that Ethereum was to receive mass adoption. Ethereums smart contract capabilities fully enabled the minting and trading of NFTs, and because NFT users needed ETH to trade on the platforms, this alone allowed the token price to skyrocket to a whopping $4,0000.

The Ethereum blockchain currently runs on a proof-of-work (PoW) consensus protocola protocol in which computer nodes expend copious amounts of computational power to come to a consensus on the network. The high energy consumption has led to slower and more costly transactions. In an effort to keep the network sustainable and environmentally friendly, a consensus merge is now underway to allow the blockchain to run on a proof-of-stake (PoS) protocol instead.

The merge is a solid representation of Ethereums urgency to provide a more robust architectural infrastructure for a next-generation scaling system. This upgrade, referred to as Ethereum 2.0, aims to resolve the issues surrounding high gas fees and slow transaction speeds that crypto mining operations are implicating.

With the blockchain operating on a proof-of-stake network, proposed validators will handle the validation process followed by an attestation of the other contributing nodes. This ensures consensus without the need to run computational functions as is currently done on a PoW. Moreover, the new consensus model is predicted to reduce energy consumption by 99.95%.

In addition to supporting a more sustainable network, PoS incentivizes the ethereum staking validators for their work by rewarding them with cryptocurrency. In the same fashion, validators are penalized for malicious behavior, giving them more reason to run the system efficiently.

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has expressed legitimate approval for the proof-of-stake mechanism, stating that an attack on a PoS is far less harmful and easier to recover from than an attack on a PoW.

Ethereums core developers involved in making the transition a success know that a merge of this magnitude is far too complex, and will require many steps until completion. To increase the number of validators and ensure transactions are processed securely, the Ethereum mainnet needs to merge with the Beacon Chainthe formal consensus layer of PoS which currently holds more than 375,000 active validators.

The Beacon Chain is a separate network that runs parallel to Ethereum and will be responsible for coordinating block activity and selecting validators. Furthermore, the merge will be accompanied by the 2023 introduction of shard chains that should provide extra storage layers for cost efficiency and speed. As per when this all will take place, the merge is currently projected to take effect around September 15, 2022.

Ethereum Price: ETH/USD & Live Charts

Ethereum: Buy the Dip? | The Motley Fool

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Danzig

It has been an extremely difficult year for investors. Not only is the stock market, as measured by the S&P 500 index, down almost 25% in 2022, but cryptocurrencies have seen their values plunge as well. A softening economy, spurred by central banks around the world hiking interest rates, is resulting in a risk-off mentality among market participants.

The bright spot, though, is that times like these provide astute investors who can take a long-term approach the opportunity to scoop up assets on the cheap. With the price of Ethereum (ETH -2.58%) down 65% in 2022, is now the time for investors to buy the dip?

On Sept. 15, Ethereum completed an update called The Merge, which changed the blockchain's consensus mechanism from a proof-of-work (PoW) system to proof-of-stake (PoS). PoW is known to be very energy intensive and expensive, whereas Ethereum says its move to PoS cuts the network's energy usage by 99.95%. With PoS, new transactions are validated by those who own the most tokens.

Why was a successful integration of The Merge so important? It all comes down to scalability. Ethereum can only process 12 to 15 transactions per second (TPS), not nearly enough to one day reach mainstream adoption. The Merge paves the way for sharding to be introduced sometime in 2023. Sharding will let the database load be split across the network, which can allow throughput to rise and fees to drop.

This is critical for Ethereum to continue moving forward. As a blockchain enabled with functionality for smart contracts, the opportunity to create real-world use cases is huge. Ethereum is already a leader in the world of decentralized applications, including decentralized finance protocols and non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

Even with innovative features on the horizon, ones that potentially will allow Ethereum to process a lot more transactions at much lower costs, there is stiff competition. For example, Cardanoand Solana, the eighth and ninth most-valuable cryptocurrencies, respectively, are projects attracting real interest from both users and developers. Both were launched with PoS protocols from the very beginning, avoiding having to make the switch like Ethereum. And they can process a lot more TPS as well.

Nevertheless, Ethereum still reigns supreme when it comes to smart-contract cryptocurrencies. It's valued at $157 billion as of this writing, and it has produced a stellar return of more than 45,000% since its launch in July 2015. If investors are bullish on the promise of cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology, now might be the time to seriously consider buying Ethereum.

Cryptocurrencies, including Ethereum, are difficult to value because they don't generate revenue or profit like regular companies do, so knowing the best times to buy or sell can be tricky. This means that it's probably a good idea to closely observe changes in asset prices and be ready to take advantage during times of market weakness, like right now.

Purchasing Ethereum today, when its price is 74% off its all-time high, could prove to be a winning investment over the long term. But it's wise to only invest money that you're willing to lose, as digital assets are still extremely speculative financial instruments. Plus, investors will have to deal with a ton of volatility.

If you accept these conditions and you've figured out how much risk you can take, it's time to buy Ethereum on the dip. It might just end up being your best investment over the next five to 10 years.

Neil Patel has positions in Ethereum. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Ethereum and Solana. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Go here to see the original:

Ethereum: Buy the Dip? | The Motley Fool

What is Ethereum? | ethereum.org

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Danzig

Cheaper and Faster Crossborder Payments

Stablecoins are a novel type of cryptocurrency that relies on a more stable asset as the basis for its value. Most of them are linked to the United States dollar and therefore maintain the value of that currency. These allow for a very cheap and stable global payment system. Many current stablecoins are built on the Ethereum network.

Ethereum and stablecoins simplify the process of sending money overseas. It often takes only few minutes to move funds across the globe, as opposed to the several business days or even weeks that it may take your average bank, and for a fraction of the price. Additionally, there is no extra fee for making a high value transaction, and there are zero restrictions on where or why you are sending your money.

If you are lucky enough to have multiple banking options through trusted institutions where you live, you may take for granted the financial freedom, security and stability that they offer. But for many people around the world facing political repression or economic hardship, financial institutions may not provide the protection or services they need.

When war, economic catastrophes or crackdowns on civil liberties struck the residents of Venezuela, Cuba, Afghanistan, Nigeria, Belarus, and Ukraine, cryptocurrencies constituted the quickest and often the only option to retain financial agency.1 As seen in these examples, cryptocurrencies like Ethereum can provide unfettered access to the global economy when people are cut off from the outside world. Additionally, stablecoins offer a store of value when local currencies are collapsing due to superinflation.

In 2021 alone, artists, musicians, writers, and other creators used Ethereum to earn around $3.5 billion collectively. This makes Ethereum one of the largest global platforms for creators, alongside Spotify, YouTube, and Etsy. Learn more.

Play to earn games (where players are actually rewarded for playing the games) have recently emerged and are transforming the gaming industry. Traditionally, it is often prohibited to trade or transfer in-game assets to other players for real money. This forces players to use black market websites that are often a security risk. Blockchain gaming embraces the in-game economy and promotes such behavior in a trusted manner.

Moreover, players are incentivized by being able to trade in-game tokens for real money and thus being truly rewarded for their play time.

What is Ethereum? | ethereum.org

Crypto Surges: Is Now the Time to Buy Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Cronos? – The Motley Fool

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Danzig

What happened

The incredibly unpredictable price action seen in the cryptocurrency sector is once again in full focus today. In aggregate, the crypto market has moved meaningfully in tandem today, with the overall market rising a little more than 1.5% over the past 24 hours, as of 1:45 p.m. ET.

That said, megacap tokens Bitcoin(BTC -1.84%), Ethereum(ETH -2.50%), and Cronos(CRO -0.87%) remain in focus for most investors, given the size and importance of these key blockchain projects. As of 1:45 p.m. ET, these three tokens surged 1.8%, 2.8%, and 4.4%, respectively, over the past 24 hours.

Interestingly, Bitcoin's move (which was the smallest of the three) follows an 85-minute window on Monday in which no blocks were produced. A difficulty adjustment appears to be tied to this issue, which raised eyebrows in the crypto world.

Other top tokens like Ethereum and Cronos have their own individual catalysts and headwinds. This week, it was announced thatXRPis beginning to test a side chain compatible with Ethereum smart contracts. And Cronos has been benefiting from recent gaming-related updates, which have investors intrigued in this blockchain project's growth potential.

That said, the potential for further interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve continue to provide headwinds for all risk assets. This makes the price action in these top tokens even more difficult to understand.

There's some very wonky thinking that appears to be taking hold in the markets right now. Given last week's hotter-than-expected CPI and PPI prints, most investors initially took the view that this would lead to more rate hikes, which are bad for risk assets. Cryptos, equities, and bonds sold off immediately on the news.

However, the past few days have seen some bullish momentum return, as some appear to be taking the view that more rate hikes in the near term could lead to a recession in the medium term. Such a recession could result in lower interest rates sooner than expected.

This second-derivative sentiment appears to be at play once again today, with the majority of near-term catalysts appearing to represent net negatives for cryptos still.

The difficulty of forecasting monetary policy decisions remains extremely high, and with most experts failing to see the inflation we're now battling, one could argue that any sort of forward-looking forecast is likely to be incorrect. Such is the nature of forecasts.

That said, the idea that we could be due for lower interest rates in the medium term, as the Federal Reserve breaks something, is one that's starting to gather steam. For risk assets such as cryptos, a return of cheap(er) capital to the system could be the catalyst to drive valuations another leg higher. We'll have to see what happens in the months and quarters to come, but suffice it to say, there's plenty for investors to digest right now.

Crypto Surges: Is Now the Time to Buy Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Cronos? - The Motley Fool

Will Big Eyes Coin Reach Heights of Ethereum and Solana? – BeInCrypto

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Danzig

Big Eyes Coin (BIG) is growing each day rapidly in its presale, and the crypto community is excited as it looks to explode before Christmas.

The question on everyones mind is, will Big Eyes (BIG) bring the bulls back and reach the top of the rankings with other high-ranking cryptocurrencies like Ethereum (ETH) and Solana (SOL)?

Lets see if we can predict Big Eyes (BIG) rise to fame and what the next few months will bring.

The Big Eyes Coin (BIG) is a meme coin currently growing in the 5th stage of its presale. It has raised 7.5 million at the time of writing and is set to race through its presale stages with an average of 500k per day.

The meme coin is a community token created with the aim of bringing purpose and value into the wider crypto ecosystem. This coin has got people interested and engaged from within and without the world of crypto, starting with its charitable drive to save the oceans.

The Big Eyes Coin team has earmarked 5% of its total supply of 200,000,000,000 tokens to donate to a charity that is currently working to protect and preserve our oceans and the sealife within them.

These tokens will be held in a visible charity wallet so everyone can rally around a cause that centers their future and that of the planet.

Big Eyes Coin (BIG) is making it super easy to be a part of positive, sustainable action; with its low entry barriers to investing and tax-free shopping, everyone can invest and at the same time support the continued efforts to save our natural resources.

The timing of Big Eyes Coin (BIG) presale and subsequent launch is significant. It coincides with the Merge, which saw Ethereum (ETH) update 2.0 to proof-of-stake (PoS) systems.

This highly anticipated switch to PoS means that cryptocurrency has finally managed to adapt its systems to create a much more sustainable mining alternative.

This shift was initially started by Solana (SOL), but now that other older blockchains have also updated to PoS, there is no longer a barrier between sustainably conscious investors and crypto.

This Merge has therefore welcomed a whole new potential market to the crypto community, and Big Eyes (BIG) sustainable core values are already attracting large swathes of investors who are now at ease with the wider crypto ecosystem.

With this influx of new potential investors, its likely that Big Eyes (BIG) will thrive. It has a long way to go before it reaches the heights of Ethereum (ETH), but with its core sustainable values and cute meme qualities, it is likely to shine in a market full of new buyers with sustainable standards.

Solana (SOL) was created to be more efficient and scalable than its predecessor Ethereum (ETH). Based on the proof-of-stake (PoS) and proof-of-history (POH), this cryptocurrency can manage 250 transactions per second. This makes it very attractive to businesses that want to streamline their global operations and finances.

With inflation and costs rising, cryptocurrencies like Solana (SOL) will thrive because they can decrease costs and save people time and money, two very valuable commodities.

Big Eyes (BIG) is also keen to save people money wherever possible and create wealth for everyone. Big Eyes (BIG) has therefore canceled taxes on shopping and fees. This will help more people invest and more people join the community.

There are some really good signs that Big Eyes will succeed in the current market because of its sustainable core values and community focus. I think a lot of people wont be surprised when Big Eyes Coin races up the crypto rankings.

Big Eyes is currently offering a bonus code to use when purchasing BIG tokens. Use this code to get more BIG: BEYES821

Big Eyes Coin (BIG)Presale | Website | Telegram

DisclaimerAll the information contained on our website is published in good faith and for general information purposes only. Any action the reader takes upon the information found on our website is strictly at their own risk.

Go here to read the rest:

Will Big Eyes Coin Reach Heights of Ethereum and Solana? - BeInCrypto

Ethereum solo validators that censor blocks should ‘be tolerated’ Buterin – Cointelegraph

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Danzig

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin believes that solo validators that choose not to include certain transactions should be tolerated to stop the Ethereum community from becoming the morality police.

Vitalik Buterin made the comment in reply to a Twitter poll from latetot.eth, discussing a hypothetical scenario whereby a validator censors a transaction that doesnt align with their beliefs.

The thread, published on Oct. 17, asked what should happen if a solo validator, in a country at war with another, decides not to process a block because it includes donations to the opposing military force.

According to Ethereums co-founder, the answer for a censorship case should be aligned with the level of transgression.

The post attracted notable attention, as Vitalik explained in the thread that any other answer would potentially lead to turning the Ethereum community into morality police:

In Ethereum proof-of-stake (PoS), validators decide what transactions to include in their blocks if any. PoS is a modern consensus method that powers decentralized finance (DeFi) projects and cryptocurrencies.

Also answering the thread, Martin Kppelmann, co-founder of Gnosis and a long-time Ethereum decentralized application developer, said he agreed with tolerating the validator in that situation while warning about how MEV-boost censorship rising in Ethereum following the Merge.

Although the thread discusses a hypothetical scenario, concerns about censorship in the Ethereum network surged last week, with 51% of Ethereum blocks being compliant with the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) standards as of Oct. 14, as MEV-Boost relays take over market share one month after the Merge.

Related:Ripple wants to bring Ethereum smart contracts to the XRP Ledger

MEV-Boost relays are centralized entities acting as trusted mediators between block producers and builders. All Ethereum PoS validators can outsource their block production to other builders. Due to Ethereums upgrade to a PoS consensus, MEV-Boost has been enabled to a more representative distribution of block proposers, rather than a small group of miners under proof-of-work (PoW).

As noted in a recent opinion piece, Slava Demchuk, CEO and co-founder of AMLBot, the Ethereum upgrade could bring modifications in Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) practices in the crypto industry. He stated:

Go here to read the rest:

Ethereum solo validators that censor blocks should 'be tolerated' Buterin - Cointelegraph

The ‘Merge’ did not fix Ethereum – Financial Times

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Danzig

The 'Merge' did not fix Ethereum Financial Times
Ethereum price in danger of a 15% pullback as ETH supply in loss hits 4-month high FXStreet
Ethereum Price Is Unstoppable and Why Break Above $1,400 Seems Imminent NewsBTC
Pay No Attention to the Price of Bitcoin and Ethereum Decrypt
2 key Ethereum price indicators point to traders opening long positions Cointelegraph
View Full Coverage on Google News

Link:

The 'Merge' did not fix Ethereum - Financial Times

Ethereum Co-Founder Joe Lubin: Today’s Metaverse Is Internet Circa 1994, But the Masses Are Coming – Decrypt

Posted on October 19, 2022 by Danzig

Joe Lubin, the Ethereum co-founder and CEO of crypto software giant ConsenSys, is confident that the metaverse will one day encompass the full human experience. But hes equally confident that day is still years away.

I think [using the metaverse today] is a little bit like logging on to the internet in 1994, Lubin told Decrypt in an exclusive video interview earlier this month. Where you would dial the internet, and I used to go get a coffee and breakfast and then Id come back, and my email would be downloaded.

Though Lubin acknowledges that the user experience currently offered by metaverse projects is comparably clunky, hes adamant that the metaversea future, immersive version of the internetwill become as ubiquitous as email.

The experience of being in Web3 isn't as compelling as it will be pretty soon, Lubin said. That's when the masses will be there.

The ConsenSys CEOs comments come during a period of unprecedented interest in the metaverse from some of the most powerful companies in the world. Meta, formerly Facebook, has fully reoriented its efforts towards dominating the metaverse; Apple and Disney are quietly exploring the space; even traditional brick-and-mortar brands like WalMart are diving in, head-first.

Despite forays into virtual worlds by mega-corporations and web3-native companies alike, however, the metaverse still has yet to catch on as the accessible, entertaining, and smooth-functioning virtual haven it was initially promised to be.

For example, despite going all-in on the metaverse, Meta has only staggering losses in the tens of billions to show for its work. A report surfaced earlier this month that the division responsible for building Metas virtual reality platform, Horizon Worlds, has entered a quality lockdown until the end of the year, as the platform is so unpopular and difficult to navigate that even Metas own employees wont use it.

Some have attributed these early bumps in the road to the simple fact that technology needs to spend a few years catching up to the ambitions of metaverse builders before immersive online worlds can truly flourish. Lubins Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin has stated that while he believes the metaverse will one day dominate commerce and culture, he doesnt believe any of the existing corporate attempts to intentionally create the metaverse are going anywhere.

Lubin similarly thinks that current understandings of the metaverse, and attempts at building it, may not end up working out the first time around. But that doesnt mean hes any less bullish on the promise of platforms that facilitate an immersive online existence.

Call it the metaverse, we will spend a lot of our time online, Lubin said. And our money and our work and our activities will be realized in either augmented reality or virtual reality, or at least with tools that enable us to live rich and hopefully compelling experiences online.

(Disclosure: ConsenSys is one of22 strategic investorsinDecrypt.)

Stay on top of crypto news, get daily updates in your inbox.

See original here:

Ethereum Co-Founder Joe Lubin: Today's Metaverse Is Internet Circa 1994, But the Masses Are Coming - Decrypt

Select Page ::