Monthly Archives: February 2021

When Warner Bros. announced that Cathy Yan would be directing Birds of Prey, many fans were quick to look up her feature film debut, Dead Pigs. The movie premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in 2018, where it won a Special Award Prize for Ensemble Acting. Now, 3 years after its critically acclaimed debut, Dead Pigs is finally streaming for American audiences on MUBIstarting on February 12.

While many successful indie directors (Colin Trevorrow, Josh Trank) are given the reins to massive franchises (Jurassic World, Fantastic Four, respectively), female directors are rarely rewarded with such a giant platform. Yans hiring made her the first Asian woman to direct a studio superhero film and only the second female director ever to direct a superhero film. But upon watching Dead Pigs, you realize immediately that Yan is a bold and innovative new voice in filmmaking.

Inspired by the shocking 2013 Huangpu River dead pigs incident, the film is an ensemble story in the vein of Nashville or Magnolia, which follows the journey of several characters as they struggle with wealth inequality and the rapid modernization of China. The film is both a razor-sharp satire of the affects of globalization, and a deeply grounded drama about family and relationships.

The film stars Vivian Wu (The Last Emperor, The Joy Luck Club), Mason Lee (The Hangover Pt II), Zazie Beetz (Joker), Meng Li (Young Love Lost), Haoyu Yang (The Wandering Earth), and David Rysdahl (Nine Days).

We talked to Yan about Dead Pigs, working on Birds of Prey, and her career as a journalist for The Wall Street Journal.

The Mary Sue: Dead Pigs is such an ambitious debut film. How long was the journey from conception of the idea to shooting?

Cathy Yan: I think about 3 years, I wrote the first draft of the script during my final year of film school in a screenwriting class, and that came to me really quickly, and it took a long time to get it made because, you know, I had no real credits to my name, I was a first-time filmmaker. It went through multiple labs which was super helpful, and Ive always, having gone through that whole process of film school and then being a nobody, and just all of that, I equate it to almost like a video game, where you have to keep collecting coins until someone will take a chance on you, and thats kind of what had to happen.

So I spent 2-3 years just part-time working on it, trying to chase down any opportunities for financing and in the meantime, Id made a short film version of it just to see if I could even do it or do something in China. What really helped was getting connected with Jia Zhangke (producer on Dead Pigs/director of The World, Still Life) my executive producer, I always admired his work and he has such an amazing reputation, so once that happened and he signed on, that definitely helped us get the movie made.

TMS: The film has already been released in China, what was the reception like there?

CY: You know, Im not really sure! I think I was in the midst of shooting Birds of Prey when it did come out, and you know, for me my hope was always, if it can find an audience, then thats amazing! I think that in many ways its also a very outward-looking film that there would be quite an interested audience outside of China, and frankly thats how most arthouse films in China work, because its quite a nascent industry, theres not a lot of support for indies there. The market is dominated by very large blockbusters and theres also the government, and those sorts of controls too, which make it really difficult for a strong independent film scene.

(image: MUBI)

TMS: Before you began directing, you were a journalist at the Wall Street Journal. How does your journalism career inform your voice as a director, since both jobs are essentially storytelling?

CY: Absolutely, it informs everything, I really think so. I dont really think that Im no longer a journalist in a way, I just think that like, I love the craft and the act of filmmaking, but Im telling the same stories that I would tell if I could talk about journalism, just in a different format. And sometimes its nice and liberating to be able to fictionalize things, but Im constantly inspired by the world around us and whats actually happening, and Im very curious about that and trying to unpack the headlines, so most of my work has that sense of timeliness, and I want it to feel relevant and thats what Im curious about.

With Dead Pigs, I was very curious about the dead pigs themselves, but more so what drives people to want to dump pigs in the river and how did that come about and what are the repercussions and what does that say about us as humans, and what does that say about what motivates us, and where society is, and thats kind of the driving force of Dead Pigs but also I think a lot of what I want to do.

TMS: The film is a tightrope balance between the humor and absurdity of the piece and the more grounded emotional moments. Was that tone something you envisioned from the very beginning, or did it come to you later in the process?

CY: A little bit of both, some of the humor was just found on the day, on the set. Like the chanting women outside the salon, they just existed at the salon we scouted and wanted to shoot in, and I just knew that it spoke so much to the film and is so absurd and bizarre, we actually found a lot of that while we were there, that is what I love about China and why I wanted to make a movie there, was just this brashness and craziness and this emphatic earnestness and kitschiness that I wanted to really capture. I hadnt really seen it before, and it always tickles me, but it also fascinates me. And I think that generally what I love too, I think theres always comedy in the tragedy and probably, I laugh at a lot of inappropriate things because of it, but thats just always been what Ive found to be true to myself, to my voice, and my sense of humor.

(Claudette Barius/DC Comics)

TMS: For many of us at The Mary Sue, Birds of Prey was one of our favorite films from 2020. Was there anything you wanted to put include in the film that just didnt make the cut?

CY: There always is, right, you keep going oh I wish I got this or I wish I did that. It was a really tough challenge, much like Dead Pigs in a way, because youre just balancing a lot of things tonally but also frankly the storylines, and it was a very stuffed script in terms of that. We had 5 protagonists and 2 antagonists, so theres a lot of things I wish, for me, Im mostly focused on character and character development, but when youre making an action movie as well and you have to play within the rules of that genre and those expectations. Whats funny is that you get even fewer minutes to develop character and tell the human side of the story, so thats just something that I had to juggle with the entire time, like well actually 20 minutes of the movie is just action, and theres some great character moments in action, but its still action. So I think that was just the big challenge of Birds was just kind of, you know, balance all of these opposing factors.

Dead Pigs premieres exclusively on MUBI on February 12.

(featured image: Michael Loccisano/Getty Images)

Want more stories like this? Become a subscriber and support the site!

The Mary Sue has a strict comment policy that forbids, but is not limited to, personal insults toward anyone, hate speech, and trolling.

Have a tip we should know? [emailprotected]

Here is the original post:

Birds of Prey Director Cathy Yan on Her Debut Film Dead Pigs - The Mary Sue

By Omar Singh, president and Founder, Surge Transportation

The most fundamental difference between real-time pricing and spot pricing is that one is by design and the other is by mistake.

Traditional spot pricing sending loads to auction is sourcing capacity for loads that are not covered by mistake. The traditional routing guide strategy is to forecast annual volume across a linear average and send that out to bid.

However, demand is not linear and sometimes that creates gaps in coverage. Historically we find that shippers experience this gap in coverage up to 10% of the time and then turn to spot auctions to source capacity when their loads are not covered by mistake. By mistake, I mean they forecast 25 loads per week and secured commitments of 25 trucks per week, but their customer ordered all 25 loads on Monday and Tuesday rather than the linear average across the week and now there is not enough capacity by mistake.

On the other hand, real-time pricing also known as dynamic pricing and technically activating an application programming interface (API) external rate engine is by design on purpose. When I say by design, I mean everything is intentional.

From a shippers viewpoint, the community of service providers is intentional, the amount of volume is intentional, the type of volume is intentional, the key performance indicator (KPI) considerations are intentional. From a service providers viewpoint, everything about the returned rate and capacity should be intentional rather than relying on the gut or the mood of the person bidding that day. This discussion unpacks some of the key intentional design factors involved with API real-time pricing.

Strategic partner vs. transactional provider

Perhaps the most notable difference of this is the intentional design around the service provider who is participating in a real-time environment returning API rates. This is the strategic partner vs. the transactional provider.

There is typically a bit of time, financial investment and relationship quality required to integrate and activate API pricing with a transportation management system (TMS) in general and then with each service provider individually. So shippers are carefully curating a community of only their best carriers and brokers to participate in an API environment this is where strategic partners play.

The result should be that they get reasonable market-based rates returned, which are supported by excellent service levels from providers who know their supply chain well and are truly invested in the success of the relationship.

Spot auction, on the contrary, is typically a community of anybody and everybody who received an award by that shipper, not just in this years bid cycle but perhaps even in some remote prior years bid cycle. Typically these are transactional providers who are not invested in the long-term success of the relationship and do not know the customers supply chain well.

The result, and quite honestly the expectation, is often volatile rates and volatile service levels. At the worst, its high rates and low service levels.

Intentional volume vs. overflow

The traditional routing guide strategy is to forecast 100% of a shippers annual volume, send that out to bid, secure capacity commitments accordingly whatever transactional volume does not have coverage gets sent to auction. What we are seeing with real-time pricing is the intentional design of either a volume of freight or characteristic of freight that is reserved for API rate providers.

When I first started in this business, several of my customers had a disclaimer in their awards that indicated if the market changes up or down more than 5% based on a reliable market index, then either party has the right to renegotiate rates.

I dont see these disclaimers much anymore, but they represent a mature seasoned supply chain teams understanding that one way or another they are going to be paying market rates when the market is up, they will pay more and when the market is down, they will pay less. Well, rather than one year at a time, real-time pricing allows shippers and their service providers to exercise this dynamic one day at a time. Some large shippers are now forecasting 100% of their projected annual volume and only sending 70% of that to RFP, with the intention of playing the market with the other 30%.

Again, this is the mature understanding that when the market is up, they will pay more and when it is down, they will pay less and strategically hedging that it is more valuable and stable for them to be with the market along with their providers almost like a choreographed dance where partners stay in step with each other at all times.

Another place we are seeing intentional design regarding real-time rates is in the characteristic of freight volume, not just the percentage and/or the characteristic of their shipping location. Many large, high-volume shippers break out their bids into volume high-volume and low-volume business.

Traditionally, high volume is designated for large asset-based motor carriers that are able to build efficiencies around the high-volume shipping lanes, and hence, provide better rates and service due to the strategic nature of that lane in their overall network. Low volume is reserved for brokers that are not providing drop trailers and do not rely on the volume consistency in the traditional strategic front- or back-haul sense required to make a network of lanes function altogether.

With real-time pricing, we are seeing some shippers designate low-volume business (primarily broker partners) to those strategic API rate providers and understanding that the market is going to move a bit in most years a lot in some years. On that same note, other shippers are designating high-volume outbound locations only to API providers and lower volume locations to traditional spot.

KPI vs. lowest rate

OK, not everybody has built this capability, and it is not necessary to activate real-time pricing and build a strategic community, but its pretty exciting to work with customers that are able to consider service along with rate in a real-time environment.

The traditional way of curating a spot auction community is that providers are either in or they are out, and they are either the cheapest or they are not. Getting expelled from an auction is kind of like getting cast out of the village you have to do something really bad or just be altogether a terrible provider. What that leaves in auction is a range of providers that go from barely acceptable to remain in spot all the way to the best and most strategic.

Since a TMS typically is configured to award spot auction based solely on rate, the result can be that it drives more business to barely acceptable providers when, for a tolerable threshold difference in rate, that business could be driven to a strategic partner who over time returns more value.

Standard auction is not configured to account for KPIs, whereas everything can be designed and programmed in API. So we are seeing customers that develop the capability of awarding business not just on rate but on the weightage of the likelihood that a provider will accept a load if tendered to it and on the likelihood that it will deliver on time and on the likelihood that it will be compliant with EDI and tracking visibility.

Traditionally these evaluations are done once per year as part of a large annual award, or once per month to evaluate whether a provider can keep its award, and it involves some human and relationship discretion, whereas in API it is done daily and it just involves clearly defined programmable math the evaluation is done at the level of each individual load rather than at the level of the lane or the RFP event.

Service providers perspective no human error

The defining theme of this conversation has been to establish that real-time pricing is by design rather than by mistake. This is true not only for the shipper but also for the carrier and broker.

Shippers are able to get rates faster, secure capacity more rapidly and drive more business to strategic providers who are currently performing well in their supply chain. Brokers and carriers are able to remove human error, discretion and attendance while also rapidly returning rates at a high volume hence securing more loads more quickly.

Some of the most common things I hear from bidders are that they fat fingered a number by mistake; they didnt realize it was a same-day shipment; they didnt realize it was a team shipment; they didnt notice more loads were available by refreshing the screen; they discerned that they should not bid on that particular shipment for some new reason; and the list goes on, trust me.

With the API external rate engine, the algorithm knows when it is a team load, the algorithm knows when it is a same-day shipment, the algorithm knows how many loads we can take on the same lane on the same day or how many additional loads we can take as a company on any given day. It knows that V means van and R means refrigerated. It never gets sick, never slows down and never takes a day off.

Certainly it takes a while to build logic that accounts for everything and then more time to build the capability of integrating that logic with multiple TMSs thousands of hours later, its an ongoing process really. The result is that the customer experience of making strategic decisions proactively by design rather than reactively by mistake, and selecting providers who can meet them at those initiatives, has been a winning combination in every shipper-carrier TMS relationship Ive seen.

Every shipper we work with month-over-month sends more volume to its API real-time environment, which is absolute proof that the strategy works to provide a desirable balance of cost, service and capacity. For shippers, more volume moves the way it was designed to, while for service providers, more business is developed and earned the way we aspire to strategically rather than transactionally.

See original here:

Real-time pricing vs. spot pricing: Whats the difference? - FreightWaves

What is adjudication?

Adjudication is a 28-day dispute resolution process which can be used to resolve disputes relating to payment under construction contracts. The key steps involved are:

Adjudication is designed to be rapid.

It is designed to promote cashflow in the construction industry by giving aggrieved parties a mechanism to get cash in the bank quickly without spending years (and lots of money) in arbitration or court.

This rapid mechanism only works, however, if the courts are willing to enforce decisions made by adjudicators; otherwise, unsuccessful parties would simply ignore decisions made against them.

The adjudicators decision at the centre of this case concerned a payment dispute between Gravity Construction Limited and Total Highway Maintenance Limited (TMS).

In short, TMS lost and was ordered to pay Gravity 135,458.92.

TMS did not comply with the decision, and Gravity then issued court proceedings to enforce the decision in the High Court. Gravity relied upon section 6(11) of the 2013 act which states:

The decision of the adjudicator, if binding, shall be enforceable either by action or, by leave of the High Court, in the same manner as a judgement or order of that Court with the same effect and, where leave is given, judgement may be entered in the terms of the decision".

Just before the High Court hearing date, TMS indicated that it was prepared to comply with the adjudicators decision.

The High Court enforced the adjudicators decision by giving an unless order. Paragraph 37 of the judgement summarises it:

An order that the applicant has leave to enforce the adjudicators decision in the same manner as a judgement or order of the High Court, and that judgement is to be entered against the respondent in favour of the applicant in the sum claimed unless the said sum is paid to the solicitors acting on behalf of the applicant within seven days of todays date

In other words, the High Court ordered TMS to comply with the adjudicators decision.

This is the first reported case in which the High Court has put its shoulder behind adjudication by enforcing an adjudicators decision under section 6(11) of the 2013 act.

Without support from the High Court, adjudication awards would not be worth the paper they are written on. The decision is therefore very significant indeed.

That said, the whole point of adjudication is speed. Adjudication is about getting aggrieved parties paid quickly. In this regard, the timelines in Gravity give cause for concern.

The adjudicators decision at the heart of the proceedings was dated 28 April 2020. It took almost nine months to enforce. So, does this protracted timeframe defeat the purpose of adjudication entirely? Well yes, it probably does.

There were a number of reasons why it took so long to enforce the adjudicators decision in Gravity:

The points summarised above might sound familiar to adjudication practitioners who have experience in the UK, where there were similar teething problems.

Ultimately, these were resolved by reforms within the court system. In the UK, the courts now enforce adjudication decisions by way of summary judgment, with enforcement hearings taking place roughly 28 days after a procedural application.

If adjudication is going to become a mainstay in Irish construction, we will need reform within the court system to facilitate this. The courts need to rapidly enforce adjudication awards if the process is to have a long-term future in Ireland.

Another barrier to the uptake of adjudication in Ireland was also touched upon in Gravity. At paragraph 32 of the decision, the High Court briefly touched upon one of the legal arguments raised by TMS to resist enforcement.

In short, TMS put forward an argument that the enforcement proceedings should be stayed (put on hold) pending determination of arbitration proceedings.

In this regard the High Court noted that the propriety of this attempt was open for debate, given the wording of section 6(10) of the act, which says: The decision of the adjudicator shall be binding until the payment dispute is finally settled by the parties or a different decision is reached on the reference of the payment dispute to arbitration or in proceedings initiated in a court in relation to the adjudicators decision.

The UK regime has a similar provision, but, in that jurisdiction, there is no debate as to what it means. It means pay first, argue later. Do what the adjudicator says in the first instance, and if you are unhappy about it, start from afresh in arbitration or court.

For constitutional reasons however, the position might not be as clear-cut in Ireland, so that debate still needs to be had.

I have no doubt that we will see the debate above unfold in the Irish courts in the very near future.

Read more:

Significant' High Court backing for adjudication in construction - Law Society of Ireland Gazette

The most recent RMOZ Global report on the worldwide Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) market shows the impact of all the various factors and market trends that affects the development of a market. The report emphasizes the overall analysis of different elements that affect a market during a fixed time. The factors that are considered for analysis include the opportunities and challenges, limitations, and the main drivers of the market for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) during a forecasted period of 2020 to 2030. Along with the in-depth analysis, the report on the Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) market also presents solid insights on the shares, volume, and profitability of this market for the recent and previous financial years.

The study conducted in this report centers around giving a point by point rundown of all the significant players or competitors taking part in the worldwide Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) market. For the purpose of the study, we have collected all the crucial information related to the competitive landscape of the market for Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) during the financial year. Along with the competitive analysis, the report on the Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) market also gives insights on various unique strategies that the industry leaders use for profitability.

In addition to the global competitive analysis, our experts at RMOZ also give insights for various mergers and acquisitions, collaborations, and partnerships taking place in the global Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) market. The report also showcases the secondary effects of such activities on the development of the overall market.

Here is the complete list of all the significant players competing in the global Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) market:

Get PDF Sample Copy of this Report to understand the structure of the complete report: (Including Full TOC, List of Tables & Figures, Chart) @ https://www.researchmoz.com/enquiry.php?type=S&repid=2968914&source=atm

The global Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) market has everything that you will need for expansion to a new market. When you go through the present report on the global Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) market, you will get insight into the critical global regions where there is ample opportunity for growth and profitability.

The global Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) market report will also aid you in getting a better understanding of the various laws, regulations, and regulatory policies related to a specific market. If your organization is looking to expand into a new market, then this report can be your ultimate guide to plan for the expansion.

By TypeSTMSPTMSRTMSnTMS

By ApplicationDepressionTinnitusAlzheimerParkinsons DiseasePsychiatric DisordersHeadacheStroke

You can Buy This Report from Here @ https://www.researchmoz.com/checkout?rep_id=2968914&licType=S&source=atm

If any organization wants to expand its operations to a new market, then the RMOZ global report can be very helpful, as a guide for their future endeavors. The report includes every single aspect in detail for you to analyze and help you make decisions for future expansion into new markets.

Table of Contents Covered in the Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Market Report are:

1 Report Overview

1.1 Study Scope

1.2 Market Analysis by Type

1.2.1 Global Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Market Size Growth Rate by Type: 2020 VS 2026

1.3 Market by Application

1.3.1 Global Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Market Share by Application: 2020 VS 2026

1.4 Study Objectives

1.5 Years Considered

2 Global Growth Trends

2.1 Global Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Market Perspective (2015-2026)

2.2 Global Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Growth Trends by Regions

2.2.1 Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Market Size by Regions: 2015 VS 2020 VS 2026

2.2.2 Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Historic Market Share by Regions (2015-2020)

2.2.3 Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Forecasted Market Size by Regions (2021-2026)

2.3 Industry Trends and Growth Strategy

2.3.1 Market Trends

2.3.2 Market Drivers

2.3.3 Market Challenges

2.3.4 Market Restraints

3 Competition Landscape by Key Players

3.1 Global Top Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Players by Market Size

3.1.1 Global Top Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Players by Revenue (2015-2020)

3.1.2 Global Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Revenue Market Share by Players (2015-2020)

3.2 Global Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Market Share by Company Type (Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3)

3.3 Players Covered: Ranking by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Revenue

3.4 Global Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Market Concentration Ratio

3.4.1 Global Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Market Concentration Ratio (CR5 and HHI)

3.4.2 Global Top 10 and Top 5 Companies by Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Revenue in 2019

3.5 Key Players Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Area Served

3.6 Key Players Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Product Solution and Service

3.7 Date of Enter into Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Market

3.8 Mergers & Acquisitions, Expansion Plans

4 Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Breakdown Data by Type (2015-2026)

4.1 Global Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Historic Market Size by Type (2015-2020)

4.2 Global Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Forecasted Market Size by Type (2021-2026)

5 Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Breakdown Data by Application (2015-2026)

5.1 Global Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Historic Market Size by Application (2015-2020)

5.2 Global Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Forecasted Market Size by Application (2021-2026)

11 Key Players Profiles

10.12.1 Company Details

10.12.2 Business Overview

10.12.3 Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Introduction

10.12.4 Revenue in Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Business (2015-2020)

10.12.5 Recent Development

12 Analysts Viewpoints/Conclusions

13 Appendix

13.1 Research Methodology

13.1.1 Methodology/Research Approach

13.1.2 Data Source

13.2 Disclaimer

13.3 Author Details

Contact Us:

ResearchMoz

Tel: +1-518-621-2074

USA-Canada Toll Free: 866-997-4948

Email: [emailprotected]

About ResearchMoz

ResearchMoz is the one stop online destination to find and buy market research reports & Industry Analysis. We fulfil all your research needs spanning across industry verticals with our huge collection of market research reports. We provide our services to all sizes of organizations and across all industry verticals and markets. Our Research Coordinators have in-depth knowledge of reports as well as publishers and will assist you in making an informed decision by giving you unbiased and deep insights on which reports will satisfy your needs at the best price.

Read the original post:

Transcranial Magnetic Stimulators (TMS) Market 2021 Analysis, Industry Size, Share Leaders, Current Status by Major vendors and Trends by Forecast to...