This is an opinion editorial by Logan Chipkin, a professional writer who creates educational content about Bitcoin and other topics.

In “The Fiat Standard,” economist Saifedean Ammous argues at length that the United States federal government has been propagandizing the masses into choosing “cheap industrial substitutes” and “massively reducing (its) meat consumption” since at least 1916.

As Ammous wrote:

“...the ADA (American Dietetics Association) is responsible for formulating the dietary guidelines taught at most nutrition and medical schools worldwide, meaning it has for a century shaped the way nutritionists and doctors (mis)understand nutrition. The astonishing consequence is that the vast majority of people, nutritionists, and doctors today think that animal fat is harmful, while grains are healthy, necessary, and safe!”

In other words, even though a meat-centered diet is superior to a grain-centered one, the government and its quasi-private partners succeeded in persuading millions of people into opting for the latter.

Ammous raises the topic of dietary guidelines as just one example of how a fiat standard distorts an industry, but there’s another lesson in this story that Bitcoiners have to grapple with:

Even if your product is the best on the market, governments (and other entities) are capable of spreading narratives that persuade citizens to choose an inferior alternative.

If it happened with food, it could happen with money.

A CBDC Punch-Counterpunch

On July 10, 2023, Karin Strohecker published an article in Reuters titled, “Twenty-Four Central Banks Will Have Digital Currencies By 2030, Survey Shows.” Apparently, a couple dozen central banks have been making “great” progress in their development of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs). Strohecker wrote that these central banks have been “working on digital versions of their currencies for retail use to avoid leaving digital payments to the private sector (emphasis added) amid an accelerating decline of cash.”

This purported motivation behind CBDCs has been brewing for a while — in August 2022, the European Central Bank (ECB) released a report called “Towards The Holy Grail Of Cross-Border Payments.” In it, the authors compared the merits and demerits of various technological implementations of a cross-border payment solution that might be “immediate, cheap, universal and settled in a secure settlement medium.” Of the candidates they considered, they concluded that “Bitcoin is least credible” and that “the interlinking of domestic instant payment systems and future CBDCs, both with a competitive FX conversion layer” are the two most credible solutions.

While the ECB left out any remark about the risks that CBDCs pose to citizens’ privacy and sovereignty, River Financial responded with a report of its own. Spearheaded by River’s Sam Wouters, this report does explain the gaping hole in the ECB’s argument for CBDCs, as well as the technological barriers that Bitcoin ought to overcome if it’s going to be adopted worldwide.

Readers can review the technical and quantitative arguments of both ECB and River Financial for themselves — my purpose in bringing up this punch-counterpunch is that the battle between freedom-money and tyranny-money is not one that we will win by default, and that it’s as much a battle for hearts and minds as it is for product superiority. Much like the propaganda campaign that persuaded people to switch from healthier diets to those that the government preferred, central banks are levying their best words, videos and other marketing techniques to convince people that CBDCs are superior to Bitcoin.

And, in the end, their victory is possible.

Understanding The Education Process

We know that Bitcoin solves humanity’s many monetary problems far better than CBDCs do. We recognize the havoc that rampant inflation wreaks on nations. We understand that lacking a store of value is the cause of so many anti-civilizational behaviors. But that’s not enough. If others don’t understand the fiat origins of these problems, they don’t stand a chance of appreciating Bitcoin as their solution. Whether or not central banks recognize the importance of this knowledge in the battle over the future of money, they’re certainly taking every opportunity they can to spread ideas that push Bitcoin to the outskirts and earn CBDCs widespread acceptability.

“Bitcoin bad, CBDCs good,” the people think. And that’s all central banks need, the inferiority of their product be damned.

As Wouters rightly pointed out in his report:

“Great strides have been made in education, but if Bitcoiners who are less experienced in education want to accelerate adoption, they would benefit from gaining a deeper understanding of the education process to take ownership of it and become more effective. This starts by understanding the gap between their perspective and knowledge and that of the recipient… (S)ome people inside the Bitcoin space are not aware enough of how difficult it is for the average person to go through this journey.”

As much as Wouters heroically explains the “how,” “what,” and “why” of the technological improvements that will help Bitcoin achieve widespread adoption, none of these holds a candle to people's ideas about money. Even if Bitcoin eventually becomes as easy to use as credit cards or cash, the masses could still reject it in favor of CBDCs for purely-ideological reasons. Grain will have defeated meat once again.

This is no reason to despair. Bitcoin isn’t inevitable, no. But victory is possible, and its fate is largely determined on the ideological battlefield. The gap between our deepest explanation of monetary economics and most people's views on the subject is vast. The same goes for the problems that fiat money continues to cause, the dangers of CBDCs, and how and why Bitcoin is a panacea for most of our money problems.

The educational effort before us is enormous, but, in the face of the enemy’s propaganda, necessary. And it’s thrilling — billions of people are about to learn about the greatest civilizational battle they hadn’t even known was occurring right under their noses.

Our war is an ideological one. Bitcoin doesn’t have to suffer the same fate as meat — and the industrial sludge that is CBDCs can perish in the sewers of history. We have persuading to do.

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

Biden considering executive order to limit sales of artificial intelligence and semiconductors to China

President Joe Biden is reportedly planning to sign an executive order limiting United States investments in key technologies in China, a further escalation in the antagonism between the two countries over semiconductor chips and other advanced tech.

The order will focus on semiconductors, quantum computing, and artificial intelligence, according to Bloomberg. The order won't affect existing investments but would prohibit certain new ones. The White House is reportedly considering releasing the order in mid-August, although internal discussions could delay the order. If the restrictions are implemented, they will not go into effect until 2024.

INFLATION DECLINED TO 3% IN JUNE, ACCORDING TO KEY GAUGE WATCHED BY FED

The United States and China have been going back and forth for nearly a year in a war over semiconductors and the components required to make advanced military technology.

The United States has been attempting to cut back on its chip exports to China as well as improve U.S. abilities to construct chips locally. The Commerce Department implemented rules in October 2022 that placed dozens of Chinese companies on an "unverified" list, limiting their ability to purchase or acquire semiconductors or advanced technology without a license.

Congress passed the CHIPS Act in 2022, providing more than $52 billion to subsidize domestic production. Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo announced in February that the United States would construct at least two new semiconductor factory hubs with the money provided by the CHIPS Act. Biden also announced in March that there were new limits on whether Chinese companies could receive the CHIPS funding.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen visited China in early July, where she spoke with Chinese officials about how U.S. companies were being treated there.

China implemented restrictions on gallium and germanium, two metals necessary for creating high-level chips, in early July over alleged national security concerns. The country banned the use of chips from the U.S. chip maker Micron in May.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

The Chinese government has also cut back on government funding for improving chip manufacturing, which could slow the country's ability to keep up with the U.S. in chip development.

NEXT MONTH THE TENNESSEE LEGISLATURE WILL HAVE A SPECIAL SESSION ON GUN CONTROL IN RESPONSE TO THAT SHOOTING, BUT THEY WON’T TELL US WHAT THE SHOOTING WAS ABOUT: Suppressing the Nashville shooter’s manifesto would be “unprecedented.”

"this person was going to kill me, and they said they were going to dismember my body parts, my limbs more specifically"

Enlarge / A Waymo Via truck. Check out all that self-driving equipment on the front. (credit: Waymo)

Google's cost cutters are taking another bite out of Waymo. After being hit by layoffs that cut 8 percent of staff, it now looks like the self-driving truck program—Waymo Via—is dead. Waymo's announcement blog post tries to put a brave face on things, saying the company is "Doubling down on Waymo One," its ride-hailing service, but also mentions that the company will "push back the timeline on our commercial and operational efforts on trucking, as well as most of our technical development on that business unit."

Google kills product

• Waymo kills off autonomous trucking program
• Google Assistant kills off support for third-party note apps
• YouTube Stories, Google’s clone of Snapchat, is dying on June 26
• RIP to Dropcams, Nest Secure: Google is shutting down servers next year
• Google Assistant might be doomed: Division “reorganizes” to focus on Bard

View more stories Waymo says it will somehow "continue" its partnership with big rig manufacturer Daimler Truck North America (that's where the big, blue Waymo Via truck came from), but Waymo's actions paint a different picture. TechCrunch's Kirsten Korosec reports that "the vast majority of employees on Waymo’s trucking team have taken other roles within the company. A few number of individuals will be affected by the change but will be helping with the wind down of the program." Waymo's website has also been completely stripped of trucking mentions. The page for Waymo Via used to be at waymo.com/waymo-via but now 404s (archive here), and the top-level navigation button for "Trucking" is gone.

Waymo's focus on ride-hailing makes some sense. The reliability requirements for ride-hailing are much lower than trucking, making it a more lenient business. If you have a truck full of cargo, it's a major issue if something goes wrong and it can't reach its destination on time. The truck routes are many hours long over long distances and usually have some kind of delivery time attached. Your self-driving hardware and software has to work perfectly during all that. Ride-hailing is way easier. Trips are usually measured in minutes and in a localized area where you can easily dispatch support people if something goes wrong. Because the app is a central point of customer bookings, you can easily pause and resume accepting customers anytime. That makes it easy to shut down the fleet to deal with technical difficulties or bad weather. You can also rigidly control your service area and accept or decline trips on a whim. Everyone can just use Lyft instead.

Read 2 remaining paragraphs | Comments

The US must beat China in the race for autonomous vehicle supremacy

Fostering and protecting cutting-edge United States innovation and advanced technologies, including artificial intelligence and machine learning, will be crucial if America is to beat China in the tech race and achieve supremacy. The latest battle between the countries is currently playing out in the autonomous vehicle market.

China has clear ambitions to corner the market on AVs to attempt to marginalize the impact of American and European automakers in the global marketplace and become the world’s No. 1 manufacturer. China knows, as does the U.S., that the first nation to claim AV victory will be able to dictate the rules of the road by setting industry-wide standards and controlling the market for the next 50 years.

CLUB FOR GROWTH PLEDGES TO DEFEND REPUBLICANS WHO WERE CRITICAL OF MCCARTHY IN 2024

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a report on July 19 that studied a number of scenarios in which autonomous vehicles could “reduce traffic accidents and fatalities, enhance people’s mobility and access, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide substantial economic benefits for the American people.” The report studied the impact on consumers and businesses, with the conclusion that AVs present a historic opportunity to boost the American economy. The conclusions of the Chamber study show that there are great benefits to consumers and the environment if we get it right.

To encourage American victory in this arena, business and political leaders should advocate for and implement policies that will unlock innovation. These policies can improve lives, increase mobility and access, reduce fossil fuel consumption, and contribute to a greener environment, as well as bolster the economy and workforce of the future.

The U.S. is facing stiff competition from state-subsidized manufacturers in China, but this isn’t new or unique to this particular market. America has a proud tradition of outperforming Chinese competition due to the power of a free market, a motivated workforce, and a long tradition of bootstrapped entrepreneurship. America will win this race if Congress and the White House are able to agree upon and set ground rules which will create an environment for America’s AV superiority.

Right now, Congress is studying the issue to get a better handle on a potential regulatory framework. On July 26, the House Energy & Commerce Committee held a hearing on two pieces of legislation, the SELF DRIVE Act and a separate bill that would update safety standards and regulations for self-driving cars. The committee released a statement admitting that “inaction over the past two Congresses has put America at risk of ceding leadership in this industry to China.”

The hearing helped study potential standards so Americans can benefit from self-driving vehicles and the accompanying technology. This is a great first step, but more is needed — and soon.

Frankly, AVs are an issue ripe for bipartisanship. Currently, both parties continue to try and out-hawk each other on China, so allowing American companies to be more competitive in the face of a more aggressive Chinese push into automotive innovation, an area in which America has historically excelled, can be a rare area for agreement for Republicans and Democrats.

China is an economic adversary and has not hesitated to act like one. Multiple administrations have accused China of trying to steal American intellectual property and threaten U.S. data privacy. This is especially worrisome when it comes to AI technology. Some worry the massive amount of data collected by self-automated vehicles, for example, could be dangerous in the wrong hands.

Our leaders must consider the emerging autonomous vehicle marketplace as they grapple with how to promote continued leadership in innovation. The design and development of AVs is a geopolitical struggle that the U.S. must win in order for Americans to unlock the full benefits of AVs and define the use of these vehicles for decades to come.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM RESTORING AMERICA

Peter Mihalick is the former legislative director and counsel to former Reps. Barbara Comstock (R-VA) and Rodney Blum (R-IA).

Meta pressured by Biden White House to remove vaccine posts, internal messages show

Employees at Facebook parent company Meta said it faced pressure from the White House to remove posts related to vaccines, internal communications obtained by a House committee show, suggesting the platform censored COVID-19 content at the behest of the Biden administration.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, released new documents Thursday in a thread on X, the platform previously known as Twitter, detailing messages among employees at Meta describing pressure from White House officials to remove specific posts from the platform.

DESANTIS TO HEADLINE 'FAITH & FREEDOM BBQ' DAYS AFTER FIRST RNC DEBATE

The files were released hours before the House Judiciary Committee was to vote on an amendment holding Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg in contempt for failing to provide documents related to censorship. Jordan stated that he was delaying the contempt vote for now, but said it was still on the table.

"We are facing continued pressure from external stakeholders, including the White House and the press to remove more COVID-19 vaccine discouraging content," an employee said in an April 2021 email to Zuckerberg and then-COO Sheryl Sandberg.

Nick Clegg, Meta's president of global affairs, also said that Andy Slavitt, Biden's senior adviser for the COVID-19 response, was "outraged" that Meta did not remove a post discouraging users from getting the COVID-19 vaccine.

Clegg "countered that removing content like that would represent a significant incursion into traditional boundaries of free expression in the US," but Slavitt claimed that the comparison "demonstrably inhibits confidence in those the Biden Administration is trying to reach."

Slavitt's pressure seemed to leave an impression, causing Brian Rice, Facebook's vice president of public policy, to argue that his remarks felt "very much like a crossroads for us in the White House in these early days."

The White House also expressed anger over Meta's decision not to remove a Tucker Carlson video, according to the documents.

In August 2021, one email said, Meta's leadership decided "to brainstorm some additional policy levers we can pull to be more aggressive against ... misinformation. This is stemming from the continued criticism of our approach from the [Biden] administration." This was in response to growing criticism from the White House over Meta's content moderation policies.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Jordan has had his attention turned on Meta for several months. He subpoenaed Meta in mid-February alongside other companies about content moderation policies. He also sent a letter to Zuckerberg last week asking questions about Meta's latest product, Threads.

The House Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government held a hearing last week featuring 2024 presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on online censorship.

An alumna of the lab of Carlo Croce, a high-profile cancer researcher at The Ohio State University with 14 retractions, has sued the institution over the results of its investigation that found she committed research misconduct. 

Flavia Pichiorri is now a principal investigator with her own lab researching potential therapies for multiple myeloma at City of Hope – a cancer center that also owns Cancer Treatment Centers of America –  in Duarte, Calif. 

She worked at Ohio State from 2004-16, first as a postdoctoral researcher in Croce’s lab, then as a research scientist, and finally as an assistant professor of hematology. She has been a PI on grants that garnered millions of dollars in funding from the National Institutes of Health since switching jobs. 

After Pichiorri left Ohio State, the university received allegations that some of her work contained fake data in the form of manipulated and reused images. A subsequent investigation, finalized in 2020, found that Pichiorri was responsible for the faked data in four publications, one of which was a correction, spanning from her time in Croce’s lab through her establishing her own lab at Ohio State. Nature reported the university’s findings last year, calling them one of “the first determinations of research misconduct relating to work done in Croce’s lab.” 

Now, Pichiorri is suing her former employer, alleging in her complaint that the investigation was “flawed,” the findings “invalid,” and the issues identified in her work the result of “honest error.” She further alleges that the university’s investigation and requests that journals retract her papers with fake data violated her rights to due process, and that the publication of the final report defamed her. 

Croce has filed several lawsuits unsuccessfully, and now owes his attorneys well over $1 million.

Among Pichiorri’s demands: that Ohio State retract its investigation report, no longer keep it on file, and revise its findings to be “consistent with federal research misconduct standards and evidence presented by Plaintiff.” 

A spokesperson for Ohio State told us the university “cannot comment on pending litigation.” Ohio State  in a court filing asking for the suit to be dismissed with prejudice has disputed Pichiorri’s allegations and argued that federal regulation of research misconduct investigations preempts her claims.

Pichiorri declined to be interviewed and referred questions to her lawyers. We asked the lawyers, Renny J. Tyson and William W. Patmon III, both of Columbus, Ohio, to comment on the university’s arguments in its motion to dismiss the case. Tyson responded that Pichiorri “stands by the allegations in her complaint.”

Pichiorri’s suit names each member of the university’s “College of Medicine Investigation Committee” – officially referred to as “COMIC” – as well as the Ohio State Board of Trustees and the university’s Vice President of Research. She claims the members of the investigation committee “lacked the requisite expertise to review and evaluate research misconduct investigations,” and that Ohio State’s “failure to properly select, train and provide sufficient oversight” to the committee “resulted in a flawed investigation.”

The findings, the suit alleges, were “premised upon improper standards of review; and unevenly applied to Dr. Pichiorri, especially with respect to male researchers.”

The complaint elaborates: 

Dr. Carlo Croce was the principal senior lead researcher overseeing all the findings in which image falsifications were found and no research misconduct finding was made against him, even though all the work was produced in the OSU laboratory controlled by him and Plaintiff and other PhD students and post-doctoral researchers were supervised by him.

Pichiorri further describes the conditions in Croce’s lab:

Dr. Pichiorri and other OSU researchers at the time were not trained, were left unsupervised, without computers connected to OSU servers or standard of procedures to save or record the data, required to work long days and nights under strenuous conditions and treated as cheap labor to perform the bottom rung work related to the manuscripts in order that OSU and Dr. Croce, the party primarily responsible for the research, could continue to receive grants and grant monies. 

Despite the problems in Dr. Croce’s laboratory, of which OSU and the COMIC were aware, the COMIC ignored those problems and assigned fault for the laboratory failings to Dr. Pichiorri.

In her complaint, Pichiorri maintains she “followed all procedures, protocols and standards of practice with regard to her work.” Other co-authors were responsible for the data and figures in question, she alleges, and “there was no evidence she was not diligent as a co-author.” 

In contrast, the investigation committee’s report, published by Nature, had concluded that responsibility for the integrity of the images “should lie with the individual assembling the figures, which by her own admissions, is Dr. Pichiorri.” 

During the course of the investigation, Pichiorri submitted what she said were original data from the experiments that formed the basis for the figures. The committee, she alleges, should have viewed this data and the formal corrections she had already made to some figures in the published papers “as evidence of honest error.” 

Pichiorri also claims the number of questionable figures – eight, four of which were corrected before the investigation began – indicates the irregularities were the result of honest error. Her complaint states that the U.S. Office of Research Integrity, which oversees research misconduct investigations: 

has historically determined that research misconduct accusations are typically the result of honest error where, as in the instant case, only a few images and data are involved. Where ORI has found research misconduct, it has only found actual research misconduct in cases where the mean number of falsified or fabricated data involved an average sixty-two (62) images within a range of minimum twelve (12) to one hundred eighty-nine (189) images. 

In its review of the data and explanations Pichiorri submitted, the investigation committee concluded: 

none of Dr. Pichiorri’s current arguments justify how an image would be altered by stretching, flipping or inverting.

Pichiorri alleges that her “career and professional reputation have suffered irreparable, grave injury” because Ohio State’s “improper and errant findings of misconduct and the publication of such erroneous findings that have placed Dr. Pichiorri in a false light and irreparably damaged her reputation in the scientific community.”

She claims in her complaint that after Nature’s story publicized Ohio State’s finding, she was removed from an NIH panel she had served on for seven years. 

She also alleges that Ohio State contacted City of Hope with its findings and requested the cancer center investigate all of her NIH-funded work. The second investigation found she had “not engaged in any research misconduct,” according to the complaint, “but the damage was already done.” Pichiorri was left feeling “diminished in her role as a senior leader,” and a member of her staff “allegedly resigned due to the accusations.”

The Ohio State investigation committee recommended that two of Pichiorri’s papers should be retracted and another corrected. Of the two articles recommended for retraction, one has been pulled and the other marked with an expression of concern. The article the committee wanted corrected does not appear to have been updated. Two other papers on which Pichiorri was a co-author have been retracted.

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.

Enlarge / The Play Store on tablets is mostly just two big thumbnails. (credit: Google)

Following the release of the Pixel Tablet and Pixel Fold, Google wants developers to take big-screen apps more seriously. Asking nicely rarely works, so Google is changing the Play Store ranking algorithms to increase the visibility of apps that better support large screens.

Google's blog post says:

Apps and games that adhere to our large screen app quality guidelines will now be ranked higher in search and Apps and Games Home. This helps users find apps that resize well, aren't letterboxed, and support both portrait and landscape orientations. Editors’ Choice and other curated collections and articles will also consider these criteria going forward, creating new featuring opportunities for optimized apps.

The large-screen app guidelines have various tiers, but they recommend keyboard, mouse, and stylus support, a two-pane tablet layout, drag-and-drop support, and foldable display awareness. The post also reiterates some improvements that Google has already rolled out, like showing tablet screenshots to tablet users and downranking apps that crash a lot.

Read 4 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Enlarge / Artist concept of Demonstration for Rocket to Agile Cislunar Operations (DRACO) spacecraft, which will demonstrate a nuclear thermal rocket engine. (credit: DARPA)

Four years from now, if all goes well, a nuclear-powered rocket engine will launch into space for the first time. The rocket itself will be conventional, but the payload boosted into orbit will be a different matter.

NASA announced Wednesday that it is partnering with the US Department of Defense to launch a nuclear-powered rocket engine into space as early as 2027. The US space agency will invest about $300 million in the project to develop a next-generation propulsion system for in-space transportation.

"NASA is looking to go to Mars with this system," said Anthony Calomino, an engineer at NASA who is leading the agency's space nuclear propulsion technology program. "And this test is really going to give us that foundation."

Read 16 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Since RFK Jr. announced his intention to run for Democratic presidential nominee, he’s been a target of several smear campaigns, some involving accusations of antisemitism.

Today, Project Veritas released 8 gigabytes of data showing the current plans of the Chinese government in their latest ‘five year plan.’ These plans include expanding efforts in business, agriculture, weapons, military, high-end technology. 

The stated Chinese goal is to become the sole global superpower.

Project Veritas CEO Hannah Giles told the Gateway Pundit:

“These are the business plans the Chinese government is utilizing to grow their technological and military infrastructure. Project Veritas released these internal Chinese Communist Party plans to the public because transparency is the greatest weapon in pursuit of the truth.”

The 8 Gigabytes of data is available here.

The Chinese government has recently been caught:

• Bribing the Biden Crime Family

• Setting up dirty battery plants on top of major US aquifers such as the Gotion plant in Michigan, using hundreds of millions in subsidies and tax breaks from Democrats

• Developing the COVID virus at the Wuhan Lab while receiving some funding from Anthony Fauci, where Fauci funded ‘gain of function’ research to make the virus much more transmissible

• Acquiring food plants. The Chinese own 25% of major pork plants in America

• Engaging in “balloon espionage” earlier this year over sensitive US military sites

• Setting up secret ‘police stations’ around America

• Using purchases of real estate to advance its intelligence interests – causing some GOP lawmakers to try and prevent the sale of land to the Chinese government or its proxies

• Announcing it would interfere in American elections, and then, apparently, interfering in American elections in at least the Konnech Data controversy where information on election workers was shared with Beijing.

The post Project Veritas Dumps 8gigs of Documents Showing Chinese Govt State-Owned Business Plans appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

It sure is nice to take a break from all the treasonous, heinous, and despicable international bribery scandals of the Biden White House to focus on this more mundane form of corruption.

Hyperprolific authors have been drawing attention for some time. In 2018, for example, a Nature article reported that “thousands of scientists have published a paper every five days.” And earlier this year El Pais noted that a now-suspended scientist was publishing a paper every 37 hours.

What about an author who publishes more than once a day, on average?

Viroj Wiwanitkit has published 543 items indexed in PubMed in the last 12 months, the vast majority of them letters to the editor. Most of Wiwanitkit’s letters with colleagues appear to be only a single paragraph. Many concern COVID-19 and vaccinations, but the catalog includes letters about monkeypox, knee replacement surgery, bipolar disorder, even ChatGPT.

To be clear, most definitions of hyperprolific authors exclude such work. But the volume seemed noteworthy. We asked Wiwanitkit, now an adjunct professor at Joseph Ayobabalola University in Nigeria, some questions over the course of several emails. Below is an edited version; we have made the entire exchange available here. We have not made spelling or grammatical changes anywhere in either version. (And a researcher who flagged a May 2020 correction of a paper by Wiwanitkit reminds us of a guest post he wrote for us about the episode.)

How do you explain your productivity?

For the profilic work, I have collaboration with several other profilic authors and I take role in supervision in most cases. The type of article that our group work is usually on scientific letter to editor, which is a standard type of article in scientific journal. Our group focus to work and publish only in a standard non predatory (non-paid) journal with international indexing. For sure, the article has to pas the scientific peer review and checking for code of conduct by the academic publisher.

A way to produce the scientific work has to start with a good ideas, plan and work on the academic plan. As I am also journal editor for many journals, therefore, I usually get communicate by some academic practitioner for collaboration.

You are not the first one who ask how to produce many publications and I reply a simple concept that you have to create, idea, make a plan and practice to get experience that you can have experience in working and writing. Also, I usually teach my junior to follow the code of conduct and it is an important that if you do not follow the good code of conduct , you will not gain your own creative ideas and experience to do any work

I have work for more than 30 years, starting from a poor developing countries. At early stage, I wrote many article sand rejected (more than one thousand draft article that I submit during my early academic practice and was rejected).

If you have loss an attempt, you will not get to the target. Experience and succcess will be soon if you still walk. Without walking , you cannot reach the target. I take 4 hours every day for working and writing. Though there might be a lot of work, I use the time in the night to work. That’s all.

Why do you focus on indexed journals?

Indexed journal is a standard journal platform in academic society.

Gray journal and predatory journal is not good. I think you understand.

Do you benefit financially or otherwise from publishing these letters?

I have never receive any money from writing those works.

Academic work is by willingness. I also have ever advice some of my junior who try to make money from working in incorrect way such as ghost writing. 

Are you concerned that this volume of work leads to superficial letters?

Superficial or not depends on the view of readers. Any work go on routine academic peer reviewing process and ethical code of conduct.

Small or large piece of work is not important in my though. Ideas is more important

Have you ever heard and remembered the story of one piece of paper of famous scientific rule written by Einstein. A long article with non sense and poor idea content is not uncommon and many authors use predatory (paid) journal to be their portal for publication, which I totally not agree for that idea.

in Asian, we have idiom “have a quater first then you will get the complete whole one”

If you rely on only large long thing and devalue of the short message, there will not be scientific progression.

Another point that I do not publish long work since I already notify that there is no money to support my team academic work.

At present, I usually act as supervisor to my junior colleage and most of them are from poor Asian countries and have no mney to pay for the expensive publication charge so they usually write a short piece of work to correspond and manage the problem of publication charge.

Publishing short scientific letter usually cost me and may team no charge. Perhaps, if there is any financial support externally, a longer article might be focused (maybe, in your setting, USA??, there might be funding to support those junior authors who have willingness to do the academic work).

One who publish few works might publish either good or non sense work or ethical or non ethical work. This is the same for the high profilic author as well. 

Last, as I told do not count on other work. Counting on number of other work can let you feel fatique and loss of hope to reach the target. In some cases, a bad person might feel jealous and thing bad when he/she see the other has more success. This is an important take home message that I usually teach my junior.

Any summary thoughts?

[I] would like to let take home message for any beginner that 1. If you do not walk, you will not reach the target.  2. Rome does not built in one day!  3. Do a good thing by your own first. God will not help anyone who do not help his/her own self.   4. Do not count on other success but look to improve your ownself. Don’t waste time, everything has to start from 0 before it reach the infinity. 

Like Retraction Watch? You can make a tax-deductible contribution to support our work, follow us on Twitter, like us on Facebook, add us to your RSS reader, or subscribe to our daily digest. If you find a retraction that’s not in our database, you can let us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.

HMM: US Space Command Does Not Provide Blanket Protection for Commercial Satellites, If Attacked. “Dickinson’s statement means that the secretary of defense and the president would have to approve SPACECOM’s protection of commercial satellites, if attacked.”

Well, we have other military space priorities anyway.

Enlarge (credit: FT Montage/Bloomberg)

Sam Altman’s cryptocurrency project, the Worldcoin Foundation, is rolling out its services globally even as the company cofounded by the OpenAI chief faces regulatory pushback in the US.

The Berlin and San Francisco-based start-up announced on Monday that its technology, including its Worldcoin token—a cryptocurrency traceable on the blockchain that requires users to first prove their identity—will be available in 35 cities across 20 countries.

Central to the effort is an eye-scanning physical “orb,” which Worldcoin’s founders say is necessary for a future in which distinguishing between humans and robots becomes increasingly challenging due to a surge in artificial intelligence technology. Once users have proven they are not robots, they can be issued one of the company’s tokens.

Read 11 remaining paragraphs | Comments

"I'm going to offer my free advice to both Trump and DeSantis — both will probably be unhappy"

"In the spring of 2022, the girl’s team tacked 'non-binary' onto its name and has been winning game after game ever since."

Enlarge (credit: Aurich Lawson / Getty)

The protracted arms race between criminals who wage distributed denial-of-service attacks and the defenders who attempt to stop them continues, as the former embraces “alarming” new methods to make their online offensives more powerful and destructive, researchers from content-delivery network Cloudflare reported Wednesday.

With a global network spanning more than 300 cities in more than 100 countries around the world, Cloudflare has visibility into these types of attacks that’s shared by only a handful of other companies. The company said it delivers more than 63 million network requests per second and more than 2 trillion domain lookups per day during peak times. Among the services that Cloudflare provides is mitigation for the attacks, which are typically referred to by the abbreviation DDoS.

Alarming escalation

“In recent months, there's been an alarming escalation in the sophistication of DDoS attacks,” Cloudflare researchers Omer Yoachimik and Jorge Pacheco wrote Wednesday in a threat report that recaps highlights during the second quarter of this year. “And even the largest and most sophisticated attacks that we’ve seen may only last a few minutes or even seconds—which doesn’t give a human sufficient time to respond.”

Read 13 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Enlarge (credit: Jacqui VanLiew/Wired)

Days after Meta launched its new app, Threads, this month, a software engineer at the company named Ben Savage introduced himself to a developer group at the World Wide Web Consortium, a web standards body. The group, which maintains a protocol for connecting social networks called ActivityPub, had been preparing for this moment for months, ever since rumors first emerged that Meta planned to join the standard. Now, that moment had arrived. “I'm really interested to see how this interoperable future plays out!” he wrote.

Warm replies to Savage’s email filtered in. And then came another response:

“The company you work for does disgusting things among others. It harms relationships and isolates people. It builds walls and lures people into them. When that doesn't suffice, brutal peer pressure does … That said, welcome to the list, Ben.”

Read 20 remaining paragraphs | Comments

How AI could be responsible for your next parking ticket

Santa Monica, California, is the latest city to test the use of artificial intelligence camera technology to enforce parking laws, including keeping bus lanes free of cars parked in unwanted places.

The city's Big Blue Bus worked with Hayden AI on a 45-day pilot program that used cameras to detect and identify cars that were illegally parked.

NRCC BLASTS 'MODERATE' SPANBERGER FOR 'RADICAL VOTING RECORD'

During the pilot program, the technology found 511 parking violations punishable with fines of nearly $300 each. No citations were issued using this technology during the pilot program.

“The question becomes how do we and other cities keep vehicles that should not be in the transit lane out of the lane,” Robert McCall, who oversees Community Engagement for the City of Santa Monica, told Los Angeles-based television station KTLA.

The two cameras from Hayden AI are installed on the windshield of the bus, with the images being processed using artificial intelligence on a computer box. The AI then processes the photo, flags the offending cars, and issues citations speedily.

The cameras from Hayden AI are being used in other cities, including New York City, and will soon be implemented in Washington, D.C., as part of an initiative to keep bus lanes clear in the nation's capital.

A contract between the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority and Hayden AI, announced in April, will see 140 of the systems installed this summer, with the systems expected to be fully operational by the end of the year.

“We are honored to work with Metro to bring automated bus lane and bus stop enforcement to our nation’s capital,” Chris Carson, CEO and co-founder of Hayden AI, said in a statement at the time.

“Keeping bus lanes clear of illegally parked vehicles improves transit speeds and safety for riders. And making sure that bus stops aren’t used as parking spots will guarantee that riding the bus is accessible for all riders including people with disabilities,” he added.

The agreement between WMATA and Hayden AI is part of the D.C. Metro's Clear Lanes initiative, which seeks to keep bus lanes clear to improve speed and efficiency.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

"For people to use buses, we need them to be faster and more reliable. That can't happen if cars are blocking the bus lanes that are supposed to keep buses moving," Metro General Manager and CEO Randy Clarke said in a statement announcing WMATA's Clear Lanes initiative.

"Bus stop zones are equally important to keep clear so that buses can pull up to the curb so customers of all abilities have a safe way to board or exit," he added.

Enlarge / Garrett Reisman, center, has plenty of experience living without gravity. (credit: NASA)

A little more than 15 years ago, astronaut Garrett Reisman was among a crew of seven who launched into orbit aboard Space Shuttle Endeavour. The shuttle remained attached to the Space Station for nearly two weeks, but when the orbiter departed, it left Reisman behind for an extended stay.

During his time at the station, Reisman would often pass through the Harmony module, which serves as a corridor connecting laboratory modules built by NASA and the European and Japanese space agencies. Sometimes, he would look up and see a small placard that said, "To CAM." The arrow, however, pointed out into space.

"When I was up there on the space station, there was still the sign that says, 'To CAM,'" Reisman said in an interview. "But there's just a closed hatch. It was tragic. It was just kind of taunting me when I saw that because I think that could have been one of the most important scientific discoveries that we made."

Read 12 remaining paragraphs | Comments

MEDICAL ETHICS AT WAKE FOREST: “Wake Forest School of Medicine is taking the side of a fourth-year medical student who boasted on Twitter about failing to draw a patient’s blood after the individual made a joke about her pronoun pin.” By “failing to draw blood” it means she deliberately missed the vein so he had to get stuck again.

Looks to me like she deliberately injured him because she didn’t like his politics. And bragged about it.

A @wakeforestmed 4th year medical student says she abused a patient because he laughed at her pronoun pin. She has since deleted her account. pic.twitter.com/2m3DsjTFZx

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) March 29, 2022

Sure, she apologized after there were consequences. But Wake Forest Medical is trying to pretend it was just an accident.

HE’S NOT WRONG: RFK Jr: “Climate change is being used to control us through fear.”