TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (WCTV) - Putting their bodies to the test in honor of a fallen hero, nearly two dozen men participated in The Murph Challenge Monday morning for Lieutenant Michael Murphy. Lt. Murphy was a Navy Seal who was shot and killed in Afghanistan during Operation Red Wings in 2005.
Now, each year, people across the country remember his sacrifice by participating in The Murph Challenge.
“The men and women we honor on memorial day have made sacrifices most of us can hardly even imagine. Lieutenant Michael Murphy is one of those men..
Participants said this challenge is a small way to make sure that sacrifice is never forgotten. It involves a one mile run, 100 pull ups, 200 push ups, 300 squats and another mile run.
“It’s not always about the barbecue on Memorial Day,” said Quinn Brumfield with Florida A&M University ROTC. “It’s about some way of remembering those who fought.”
Close to two dozen men participated in this year’s challenge.
“Very rigorous demanding work out,” described participant Tim Templeton. “The whole point of it, in my mind, is to suffer a little bit. Suffer a little like the men and women who fought for our country to give us the freedoms that we do. And to do this as a community together. To suffer with one another, to overcome this challenge.”
The group is restoring the true meaning of Memorial Day while building a stronger community.
“It helps you get through it when you know the person to your left and right are also suffering too,” added Brumfield.
Many of these men are part of F3, Fitness Fellowship and Faith, a nationwide work out and leadership group for men. Participating in challenges like this one, members said, builds not only strong bodies, but stronger bonds.
Some of the participants were going through not just one, but two or three Murph Challenges. These challenges take place all across the nation, many of them raising money for the Michael P. Murphy Memorial Scholarship Foundation.
More than $250,000 was raised last year along during the Murph Challenge fundraiser.
100 pull ups
200 push ups
300 squats
.... oh and a 1 mile run.
Why is this group of veterans doing all this? We’ll have the story tonight on @WCTVpic.twitter.com/gcQAkhdRIr
"seal" - Google News
June 01, 2021 at 04:39AM
https://ift.tt/3c83pZA
Dozens participate in “Murph Challenge” to honor Navy SEAL killed in Afghanistan - WCTV
"seal" - Google News
https://ift.tt/3c1qdrW
https://ift.tt/2SzWv5y
Group-think is a popular explanation for how groups of knowledgeable people can make flawed decisions. The essence of group-think is that groups create psychological pressure on individuals to conform to the views of leaders and other members.
Group-think. Representational image via University of Texas.
By Colin Fisher
Former government adviser Dominic Cummings has made waves by suggesting the UK government’s response to the COVID-19 crisis was “a classic historic example of group-think”.
He said the more people criticised the government’s plan, the more those on the inside said others did not understand. He added that, had the plans been open to scrutiny earlier, “we would have figured out at least six weeks earlier that there was an alternative plan”.
Although we can’t know for sure the truth of this criticism, it raises an important question about the dynamics of decision-making in groups. What actually is group-think and what does scientific research tells us about how to avoid it?
Group-think is a popular explanation for how groups of knowledgeable people can make flawed decisions. The essence of group-think is that groups create psychological pressure on individuals to conform to the views of leaders and other members.
Famous examples of group-think include the decision of the US to invade Cuba in 1961 and Coca-Cola’s decision to launch “New Coke” in 1985. In these and other famous examples, groups failed to make the right choice even when they had all the information they needed right there in the room. Members failed to share their dissenting opinions and information that could have avoided embarrassing or tragic decisions.
What causes group-think
How can smart people get together and come to seemingly inexplicable conclusions? There are three main reasons groups create pressure that leads to flawed decisions.
First, all humans want to feel a sense of belonging with others – our brains are wired to find our tribe, the people with whom we belong. In any group situation, we want to feel accepted by other members and seek approval, consciously and unconsciously. One way to gain acceptance and approval is to find common ground with others. But, when all members do this, it has the effect of biasing group discussion toward areas of similarity and agreement, crowding out potential differences and disagreement.
For instance, if a member of a group says they like a particular TV show, other members who also like it are most likely to speak. Those who haven’t seen it or dislike it are more likely to stay silent. That isn’t to say disagreement never happens, just that it’s less common in group discussions than agreement. When group discussions follow these dynamics over time – members expressing more agreement than disagreement – those with dissenting opinions begin to believe their views are discordant with the majority. This encourages them, even more, to withhold information and views that they fear (even subtly) will be met with disapproval from other members.
Second, as the old adage goes, “if you want to get along, go along”. Although disagreement about the best course of action is healthy for groups – and, indeed, is the whole point of groups making decisions – healthy disagreement often spills over into conflict that gets personal and hurts others feelings. The risk of this, however small, leads those who disagree to hold their tongues too often.
These pressures are even stronger when high-status group members – such as formal leaders or those respected by others – express their opinions. The subtle, unspoken forces that make it feel risky to speak up and disagree with other members are extremely difficult to overcome when we know we would be putting ourselves at odds with a leader.
Third, we subtly adjust our preferences to come into concordance with what we perceive as the majority view. In other words, when we don’t have a clear view of our own opinion, we simply adopt other members’ – often, without even knowing it. Once we adopt that preference, it becomes a lens for the information we receive. We remember information consistent with our own preferences, but tend to forget information that is inconsistent with them. So, a member revealing a preference invisibly creates a self-reinforcing cycle that perpetuates agreement.
How can groups avoid group-think?
The essential ingredient when trying to avoid group-think is to focus first on options and information, and to hold off preferences and advocacy for as long as possible. After determining their objectives, groups should consider as many options as possible. All members should be asked for all relevant information about all of these options – even if the information doesn’t favour options other members seem to prefer. Only after a thorough, systematic search for information should members begin to discuss their preferences or advocate for one option over another.
Leaders can play a critical role in avoiding group-think. Research has shown leaders who direct the decision-making process, but don’t share their own preferences or advocate for particular options, lead groups to avoid group-think and make better decisions. Leaders that advocate for particular choices, especially early on, tend to lead their groups astray and strengthen the forces that lead to group-think.
In avoiding group-think, leaders should play the role of a detective, asking questions and collecting all the facts. Leading by trying to win a debate or litigate a court case leaves the group far more open to group-think.
Regardless of how the government made decisions in the past, they would be well-advised to make sure all decision-making bodies follow this advice. Even the smartest, best-intentioned groups are vulnerable to the basic psychology of group-think.
Colin Fisher is Associate Professor of Organisations and Innovation, at UCL
"avoid it" - Google News
May 31, 2021 at 02:27PM
https://ift.tt/3fxPpdD
What is group-think? Unravelling the pyschological phenomenon, its causes and measures to avoid it - Firstpost
"avoid it" - Google News
https://ift.tt/3844a1y
https://ift.tt/2SzWv5y
European stocks are set to record their fourth consecutive month of gains, as confidence in the region’s economic recovery grows and its vaccination programme accelerates.
MSCI’s broad measure of equities across Europe has risen almost 4 per cent since the end of April, bringing its year-to-date gains to 12 per cent in US dollar terms. Bourses in Frankfurt, Paris, Madrid, Milan and London have all climbed this month.
While the vaccination programme in the EU lagged significantly behind other regions, efforts by major countries to accelerate the rollout has bolstered traders’ confidence. At the same time, economists are forecasting a strong economic uptick this year.
In a sign of the improving outlook, the latest Economic Sentiment Indicator survey released by the European Commission on Friday showed confidence across the eurozone in May was running “markedly above its long-term average and pre-pandemic level”.
The ESI data “confirmed the eurozone economy is rebounding fast from the lockdowns as vaccinations gather pace and the summer season approaches,” said Daniela Ordonez, an economist at Oxford Economics.
Equities in Spain and Italy — two countries that were hit hard during the peak of the coronavirus crisis — have performed particularly well this month. MSCI’s Spain index is up 6 per cent in dollar terms, while the one for Italy is up 5.5 per cent. The returns were flattered by a strengthening of the euro against the dollar this month.
Investors and economists have a similarly sanguine outlook on the UK, where the rollout of coronavirus vaccines has been more rapid than in continental Europe and the government has lifted many social curbs.
“We continue to believe UK equities overall offer good value to global investors,” said Sharon Bell, European strategist at Goldman Sachs. “Since the start of this year, we have seen the strongest inflows from foreign investors into UK stocks since at least 2016.”
MSCI’s UK index has gained 3.4 per cent in May, a rise that was aided by a strong rally in the pound against the US dollar.
Equities in the UK and continental Europe also look less expensive than those on Wall Street, something that has made these markets appear more alluring, investors have said.
MSCI’s index of European equities is trading at around 17 times expected earnings over the next year, according to Goldman Sachs. That is above the median over the past 10 years, but much less expensive than US stocks that trade at closer to 23 times forecast earnings.
Bank of America said in a note last week it remained “positive on European equities” even after the strong gains this month. The bank has suggested clients take “overweight” positions on stocks that tend to be linked to the performance of the economy, such as banks and luxury goods sellers, as the region’s economic recovery gathers pace.
Trading on Monday was subdued, with the UK and US both closed for public holidays. Benchmark stock indices in Germany, France, Spain and Italy were all little changed.
Former government adviser Dominic Cummings has made waves by suggesting the UK government’s response to the COVID-19 crisis was “a classic historic example of group-think”.
He said the more people criticised the government’s plan, the more those on the inside said others did not understand. He added that, had the plans been open to scrutiny earlier, “we would have figured out at least six weeks earlier that there was an alternative plan”.
Although we can’t know for sure the truth of this criticism, it raises an important question about the dynamics of decision-making in groups. What actually is group-think and what does scientific research tells us about how to avoid it?
Group-think is a popular explanation for how groups of knowledgeable people can make flawed decisions. The essence of group-think is that groups create psychological pressure on individuals to conform to the views of leaders and other members.
Famous examples of group-think include the decision of the US to invade Cuba in 1961 and Coca-Cola’s decision to launch “New Coke” in 1985. In these and other famous examples, groups failed to make the right choice even when they had all the information they needed right there in the room. Members failed to share their dissenting opinions and information that could have avoided embarrassing or tragic decisions.
What causes group-think
How can smart people get together and come to seemingly inexplicable conclusions? There are three main reasons groups create pressure that leads to flawed decisions.
First, all humans want to feel a sense of belonging with others – our brains are wired to find our tribe, the people with whom we belong. In any group situation, we want to feel accepted by other members and seek approval, consciously and unconsciously. One way to gain acceptance and approval is to find common ground with others. But, when all members do this, it has the effect of biasing group discussion toward areas of similarity and agreement, crowding out potential differences and disagreement.
For instance, if a member of a group says they like a particular TV show, other members who also like it are most likely to speak. Those who haven’t seen it or dislike it are more likely to stay silent. That isn’t to say disagreement never happens, just that it’s less common in group discussions than agreement. When group discussions follow these dynamics over time – members expressing more agreement than disagreement – those with dissenting opinions begin to believe their views are discordant with the majority. This encourages them even more to withhold information and views that they fear (even subtly) will be met with disapproval from other members.
Second, as the old adage goes, “if you want to get along, go along”. Although disagreement about the best course of action is healthy for groups – and, indeed, is the whole point of groups making decisions – healthy disagreement often spills over into conflict that gets personal and hurts others feelings. The risk of this, however small, leads those who disagree to hold their tongues too often.
These pressures are even stronger when high-status group members – such as formal leaders or those respected by others – express their opinions. The subtle, unspoken forces that make it feel risky to speak up and disagree with other members are extremely difficult to overcome when we know we would be putting ourselves at odds with a leader.
Get the Juice - the Mandarin's free daily newsletter delivered to your inbox.
You’ll also receive special offers from our partners. You can opt-out at any time.
Third, we subtly adjust our preferences to come into concordance with what we perceive as the majority view. In other words, when we don’t have a clear view of our own opinion, we simply adopt other members’ – often, without even knowing it. Once we adopt that preference, it becomes a lens for the information we receive. We remember information consistent with our own preferences, but tend to forget information that is inconsistent with them. So, a member revealing a preference invisibly creates a self-reinforcing cycle that perpetuates agreement.
How can groups avoid group-think?
The essential ingredient when trying to avoid it is to focus first on options and information, and to hold off preferences and advocacy for as long as possible. After determining their objectives, groups should consider as many options as possible. All members should be asked for all relevant information about all of these options – even if the information doesn’t favour options other members seem to prefer. Only after a thorough, systematic search for information should members begin to discuss their preferences or advocate for one option over another.
Leaders can play a critical role in avoiding group-think. Research has shown leaders who direct the decision-making process, but don’t share their own preferences or advocate for particular options, lead groups to avoid group-think and make better decisions. Leaders that advocate for particular choices, especially early on, tend to lead their groups astray and strengthen the forces that lead to group-think.
In avoiding group-think, leaders should play the role of a detective, asking questions and collecting all the facts. Leading by trying to win a debate or litigate a court case leaves the group far more open to group-think.
Regardless of how the government made decisions in the past, they would be well-advised to make sure all decision-making bodies follow this advice. Even the smartest, best-intentioned groups are vulnerable to the basic psychology of group-think.
"seal" - Google News
May 31, 2021 at 03:12AM
https://ift.tt/3fUSjs3
Emma Stone’s Naughty ‘Trains, Planes And Automobiles’ Monologue Wins Steve Martin Seal Of Approval - Deadline
"seal" - Google News
https://ift.tt/3c1qdrW
https://ift.tt/2SzWv5y
Five-year-old Beau Wise's big brothers were more than big. Looking at Jeremy and Ben, 10 and eight years older, he saw grand, invincible figures -- figures who led Beau into no small measure of brotherly mischief.
"I was kind of constantly getting pulled into various different shenanigans ... mostly instigated by Jeremy. He was definitely the biggest troublemaker of the four of us," Beau told ABC "This Week" Co-Anchor Martha Raddatz.
Beau recalls the time eldest brother Jeremy threw him down the laundry chute as part of a daring Halloween candy caper perpetrated on their only sister, Heather. Thankfully, the more pensive Ben, the middle brother, had covered the hard basement floor with laundry before young Beau came tumbling down the chute.
When the plot inevitably was foiled by parents, Jeremy and Ben absorbed the brunt of the punishment.
"I'll always have your back, Beau," Jeremy said afterward.
But Jeremy and then Ben wouldn't return. In just over two years, one explosion and one firefight would leave Beau the oldest living Wise brother, earning him the Department of Defense's unwelcome designation of "Sole Survivor."
Beau immortalized his brothers in the book "Three Wise Men," a memoir co-written with author Tom Sileo.
They describe the brothers coming of age in the Wise home, with inter-sibling rivalry and criticism more often than not revealing itself to be a form of caring.
When Beau went through a growth spurt, catching up in size to Ben, the two became adversaries. When one fight became too heated, too physical -- Beau throwing a punch at Ben and Ben sending Beau crashing into an armoire, cracking its frame -- Jeremy, who usually played spectator during these adolescent spats, intervened, pulling Ben out of the room for a talk.
When the two returned, Ben hugged Beau, apologized and asked for forgiveness.
"Before I could answer, Jeremy stepped beside both of us and placed his hands on the shoulders of his younger brothers. Ben then stared at the floor and placed his hand on my opposite shoulder as we waited for the oldest to break the silence. 'Guys, listen to me,' Jeremy began. 'Someday, we'll be old. We also might be fat, bald and broke. Maybe our wives will leave us and we'll have absolutely nothing left in the world. But even then, we'll be lucky -- and do you know why?' he continued. 'We'll always have each other. No matter what happens, you'll always have two brothers to lean on,'" Beau recalled in "Three Wise Men."
Their mother often regaled them with stories of great adventure and heroism from the family's history of military service. As men, the brothers would join that legacy, each in his own way.
Ben, eager to serve, joined the Army and went on to become an elite Green Beret sniper. Jeremy, dead-set on becoming a Navy SEAL, realized his own elite goal, eventually going on to work clandestine operations as a CIA contractor.
Beau favored the stories of his Marine Corps relatives -- one who fought through the ferocious World War I Battle of Belleau Wood, another who was a commando with the deadly Marine Raiders of World War II. The "every Marine a rifleman" ethos also appealed to him and he joined the Corps' famed infantry as a machine gunner.
Ben and Jeremy fought in eight combat deployments combined.
On Dec. 30, 2009, Jeremy, while working as a security contractor for the CIA in Khost, Afghanistan, was killed in a blast when an informant-turned al-Qaida double agent detonated a suicide vest on Forward Operating Base Chapman. Six other American CIA operatives also were killed, making it one of the deadliest days for the CIA, second only the Beirut bombing of 1983.
Beau was in Afghanistan, south of Khost in Helmand Province, when he got the news.
"Immediately, the first response was absolute anger," Beau told Raddatz. "And then -- I just -- the shock came over, and it was just numb for a while."
Beau knew Jeremy was operating in Afghanistan, but only learned his brother was working with the CIA after the disaster.
In 2010, Jeremy was honored on the CIA's Memorial Wall at the agency's headquarters in Langley, Virginia. Beau visited to see his brother's place on the wall for the first time on Thursday, also speaking with CIA Director William Burns.
Raddatz also visited the CIA campus Thursday, talking to Burns in his first televised interview since becoming director.
"I just wanted to ask you about Jeremy Wise, whose name is here -- contractor, former Navy SEAL. I know you talked to his brother today," Raddatz said to Burns.
"I did, which was a privilege, because Jeremy Wise, as you well know, a remarkable patriot, a SEAL before he came to CIA, in a family of remarkable patriots, and he was killed – one of seven CIA officers who was killed in Khost Afghanistan in 2009 on one terrible day, one of the worst tragedies in the history of the CIA," Burns said.
Some of those recognized on the wall are named, like Jeremy, while some are not. Burns said it is the nature of clandestine work.
"This memorial wall is hallowed ground for CIA, it now holds 137 stars, each one marking a CIA officer who was killed in the line of duty," Burns said. "Sadly, a few days ago at our annual memorial ceremony, we added four new stars to this wall."
In his book, Beau recounts the limousine ride to Jeremy's funeral, and Ben saying, "I can't believe I'm the oldest brother now."
Less than two years later, Beau would make the same limousine ride to the same Virginia cemetery. This time with no brother at his side.
"In that surreal moment, I came to the same somber realization that Ben had reached 22 months earlier," Beau wrote. "I was now the oldest living Wise brother."
Like Jeremy, Ben died from wounds suffered in Afghanistan.
"He was breaching a cave in Balkh Province, Afghanistan, and as he was going around the entry hole ... he took eight to 10 rounds that traveled south to north through his chest, legs and groin," Beau told Raddatz. "And he was a fighter and he fought for six days. And they eventually lifted him to Landstuhl Hospital in Germany, and after six days, he eventually succumbed to his wounds."
Beau and Ben's wife, Tracy, made it to the hospital to see Ben in his final moments.
"I just went numb, that seems to be my initial response to grief. It's just the shock and then almost immediately, just numb," Beau told Raddatz.
"Did you go through a period where, 'Why us? How is this possible to lose two brothers?'" Raddatz asked.
"I went through a period of 'Why them?' I think, and it doesn't make any sense looking back now, but one of the things that I always thought about was the fathers -- why the fathers were lost," Beau said. "And I think you find a way to justify survivor's guilt, and that's how you know you've got it."
As the sole survivor, Beau was told by then-Marine Commandant Gen. James Amos that he would not be put in harms way -- the only service member to be kept from combat in the Afghanistan war for such a reason. Beau, as much a warrior as his brothers, resented it at the time.
"I didn't take that news very well at the time," Beau said. "I do now."
Sileo, who formed a deep friendship with Beau while co-writing their book, said the moment he heard the story he wanted to help tell it.
"The Wise family has sacrificed tremendously at an unprecedented level. But I think their story also represents this generation of warriors for almost 20 years now who stepped forward since 9/11. Jeremy said it himself. He said, 'Those people in the World Trade Center couldn't fight back. I can.' And then when Ben was at that cave, he told somebody with him, 'I'll go.' And I think the way this generation of volunteer warriors has stepped forward is so important for all Americans to think about, especially at a time like Memorial Day," Sileo said.
"Every single day is Memorial Day for them," he added.
While glad of the ongoing U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, Beau said one of his fears is that the end of the war will leave only a pale memory of those who died. It's one of the reasons he wrote his book.
Beau has given his big brothers new life in "Three Wise Men" -- their mischievousness, their seriousness, their heroism.
Ben Wise was posthumously awarded the Silver Star, the nation's third-highest military medal for valor. Jeremy Wise was posthumously awarded the CIA's equivalent decoration, the Intelligence Star, with his name etched in the agency's Book of Honor.
Beau left active-duty service in 2016. He and his wife, Amber, have since adopted a son and daughter.
"Even though our kids never got to meet my brothers," Beau wrote in the afterword of "Three Wise Men," "they will most certainly grow up learning about the heroism of Uncle Jeremy and Uncle Ben."
We should probably know better by now than to be surprised by Fernando Tatis Jr. and the things he can do on a baseball field. Even so, he pulled out a completely baffling new trick on Saturday.
The star Padres shortstop came to the plate in the eighth inning to face Astros reliever Joe Smith, and when an 0-2 sinker tailed into the batter's box, he found perhaps the most acrobatic way to avoid it potentially hitting his back knee. In a feat of flexibility, Tatis somehow pulled his right leg back before falling into the splits, a move more like something you would see on the dance floor than on a baseball diamond.
The effort certainly didn't go unnoticed.
The jury's still out on whether Tatis has practiced this move before, but judging by his huge game-tying home run off of Ryan Pressly just an inning later, the Padres shortstop is apparently no worse for wear.
Pots 2-4 are built based on UEFA's five-year coefficient score, and there is a real prospect of a very strong group with Bundesliga giants Borussia Dortmund only able to take a place in Pot 3.
However, as UEFA has opened proceedings against Barcelona, Juventus and Real Madrid for their role in the failed Super League project, a potential Champions League ban could yet lead to a reshaping of Pot 2 with FC Porto and Ajax best-placed to benefit.
AC Milan, Club Brugge and VfL Wolfsburg have qualified automatically and face being in Pot 4 unless higher-ranked teams are knocked out in qualifying.
The teams will be drawn into eight groups of four teams on Aug. 26, with no teams from the same association able to be drawn against each other. The top two teams in each group will advance to the round of 16, with the third-placed teams going through to the Europa League knockout phase to play group runners-up.
While publishers and developers are increasingly aware of the risks to their revenue and proprietary game logic, many continue to decry hacking and cheating as simply the cost of doing business. This sentiment is eerily similar to how many enterprises viewed proliferating cybersecurity risks in the late 2000s and early 2010s, before cyberattacks became so commonplace that they couldn’t ignore them anymore.
Fortunately, the tech giants behind several of the top game consoles are beginning to understand the threat, taking actions to help game publishers and developers mitigate risk. Just last month, Sony announced that it was making Denuvo’s anti-cheat API available to all game publishers and developers via the PlayStation 5 Tools and Middleware program.
Adversaries make the shift to mobile gaming
While vulnerabilities remain high, hackers and cheaters have taken notice of the industry’s evolving security mindset, facilitated in large part by players sick and tired of disruption to their gaming experience. Thus, hackers and cheaters have slowly begun to reprioritize their targets, moving toward mobile gaming. Now mobile gaming cheats are increasingly being sold on cheat forums and encrypted websites, and earlier this year police busted what has been called the world’s largest video game cheat operation — seizing the assets of an operation called “Chicken Drumstick,” which sold cheats to popular games like Call of Duty Mobile.
When a game is targeted by hackers and cheaters, the entire integrity of the game is put at risk. Gamers are motivated by the possibility of winning, and when cheaters disrupt that — such as with the major cheats on Call of Duty Mobile or Fortnite — they can become disengaged. For a $174 billion dollar industry, the loss of players disgruntled by cheaters with an unfair advantage can be detrimental.
The mobile gaming threat landscape is vast, with five key threats posing a risk to game publishers and developers. Those include:
Redistributing apps to ship malware and/or steal information
Replacing the original payment and ad settings
Bypassing in-app billing to fast-track game progress
App piracy, cloning, and copycatting
Multiplayer cheating
Unfortunately, modifying app packages isn’t a particularly difficult task for hackers and cheaters to pull off, as many tools exist to make this process quite trivial. In most situations, bad actors simply need to analyze an application and find code or data to patch. They can then modify the application code or data and repackage the app for distribution on any of the thousands of cracking sites.
Readily available memory editors also simplify the process for hacking mobile gaming apps. With such tools on hand, adversaries can automate the process of searching for sensitive code or data to alter.
Reducing mobile gaming cyber-risk before it’s too late
The mobile gaming industry is expected to surpass $100 billion in revenue by 2023 unless the hacking and cheating epidemic begins to turn users away from the platform at scale. According to a Global Gaming Survey, 78% of gamers say they would leave a game if there are cheaters, and 46% said that they are less likely to buy in-game content if they encounter cheating. Fortunately, there are countermeasures that can be put in place to reduce risk and secure the gaming experience.
First, game publishers and developers should implement security by design, shifting logic to the server, enacting a zero-trust policy with the client, securing server APIs and validating all client input. This layer of protection should be supplemented with passive prevention, which can make it hard for an attacker to understand what to attack via obfuscation of important data and game state. Finally, a layer of active prevention – including procedures and techniques like integrity verification, anti-debugging, hook detection, root detection, protection against memory editors and emulator detection – can help mitigate risk by performing integrity verification, impeding debugging and hooking attempts and performing root detection.
There is a misconception that mobile games protection is meant only for the blockbuster games from triple-A studios. The truth is that such protections are important for all games. It’s important to utilize a solution that is affordable, easy and fast to implement, doesn’t require any game source code modification, and most importantly, has zero impact on a legitimate gamer’s in-game experience.
Hackers and cheaters will always follow the money, and unfortunately the illusion of riches has brought them to mobile games. Now it’s up to everyone in the mobile gaming ecosystem — from game publishers, developers and operators to the platforms and players themselves — to do their part in reducing risk so as to ensure an optimal gaming experience. The future of mobile gaming is dependent upon our collective success.
Reinhard Blaukovitsch is the founder and managing director of Denuvo by Irdeto, where he is responsible for leading strategy and management of the gaming segment.
GamesBeat
GamesBeat's creed when covering the game industry is "where passion meets business." What does this mean? We want to tell you how the news matters to you -- not just as a decision-maker at a game studio, but also as a fan of games. Whether you read our articles, listen to our podcasts, or watch our videos, GamesBeat will help you learn about the industry and enjoy engaging with it.How will you do that? Membership includes access to:
Newsletters, such as DeanBeat
The wonderful, educational, and fun speakers at our events
Networking opportunities
Special members-only interviews, chats, and "open office" events with GamesBeat staff
Chatting with community members, GamesBeat staff, and other guests in our Discord
"seal" - Google News
May 29, 2021 at 08:16PM
https://ift.tt/2RSxIfK
Hackers target mobile gaming as PC, console devs seal their vulnerabilities - VentureBeat
"seal" - Google News
https://ift.tt/3c1qdrW
https://ift.tt/2SzWv5y
The ninth annual California Seal of Bi-literacy Award Program was held March 27. on the Humboldt County Office of Education (HCOE) website: https://hcoe.org/seal-of-biliteracy/.
This event started in 2012-13 and this year recognizes and celebrates 120 graduating high school seniors from ten schools in Humboldt County.
“Despite the challenges of this year, we’re proud of the students who participated in order to earn their Seal of Bi-literacy,” states Humboldt County Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Chris Hartley.
These students achieved a high level of proficiency in speaking, reading, and writing in at least two languages, one of which is English.
Students who are certified to have the Seal added to their high school diplomas meet rigorous criteria in both English and at least one other language, including grades, written essays, and comprehensive interviews conducted by HSU Department of World Languages and Cultures professors, high school world language teachers and community members, among other requirements.
The awards program included remarks from Seal Coordinator and HCOE Learning Specialist, Agustín Amaro and Humboldt County Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Chris Hartley. All of the interviews were conducted online with Zoom or Google Meet. 151 tele-interviews were conducted for the event. Volunteers from Humboldt County, including 2 former student interviewers participated.
“Through your study of languages, you now possess the augmented super-power of multi-literacy and multilingualism,” states Amaro in a message to students. “A multi-literate individual will find that they are now in better position to see, feel, hear and think and talk about the world.”
The Seal of Bi-literacy is recognized as a valuable asset for employment, college admission, cultural identity, and personal growth. The program is sponsored by the Humboldt County Office of Education, in partnership with Humboldt State University and in collaboration with each school counselor and language educators.
For more information, please contact HCOE Learning Specialist and coordinator Agustín Amaro, at (707) 502-4343 or [email protected].
Here are the Stats for this year’s Seal interviews:
• 151 interviewed
• 105 for Spanish
• 30 for French
• 1 for Spanish/French
• 12 for German
• 118 seniors eligible to receive certificate/seal/medal this year
• 14 juniors/1 sophomore(prior primary language immersion student)have passed oral for their senior year
High schools represented: Arcata High, Academy of the Redwoods, Eureka High, Fortuna High, Ferndale High, McKinleyville High, NPA, South Fork High and Saint Bernard’s Academy
As I prepared to head to southeastern Afghanistan to lead SEAL Team TWO in 2012, I had an idea of what I could do to thank my team for their service: Find babysitters.
Partnering with the Navy SEAL Foundation, we offered 10 monthly “use or lose” babysitting hours to spouses navigating the stress of solo parenting and worrying about their loved ones in combat.
Today, on Memorial Day, when people say, “thank you for your service,” it’s a beautiful way to tip their cap to the 1.2 million people actively serving in the armed forces, or our 20 million veterans. But it’s also insufficient. Memorial Day shouldn’t just be a day to remember. It should be a day to change our understanding of service. It should be a day to realize that we are no different from the rest of you. We possess no special gift that makes us uniquely able to give back. We should not just be thanked for our service. We should be joined.
Former Navy SEAL commander Mike Hayes in Afghanistan in 2012.Family photo
The pain of survivors on Memorial Day
I’ve buried far too many friends and teammates to enjoy Memorial Day as America’s big BBQ. It’s emotional. I served 20 years as a Navy SEAL, and most of the memories are beautiful: pride, camaraderie, and brotherly love that will last a lifetime. But there is also an indescribable weight. The sound of bagpipes, however well intended, reflexively transports me back to Little Creek Chapel or Arlington National Cemetery – dozens of painful services there, year after year, the price of service for those who survive it.
Arlington National Cemetery on May 23, 2019.Hannah Gaber, USAT
It gets worse. My friend’s daughter screaming that her dad promised he would come home. So many losses that hardly a week goes by without seeing the face of a fallen friend on social media – or a soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine I didn’t know, but whose family’s pain I can too easily imagine. The sacrifice is especially hard on spouses and children. They don’t know the risk their loved one faces at any given moment, so they imagine the worst.
Those of us in the service know intimately well that service isn’t just a noun. It’s a verb, too. The best way the 310 million Americans who have not served in the military can honor the fallen is to find your way to serve. Not everyone is called to serve in the way we do. The physical demands were exacting, and the emotional costs worse: seven deployments, 10 relocations, countless months away from family, and life-and-death risk too frequent. Everyone is endowed with unique gifts and their own combination of skills, abilities, and interests. We are each called to use those unique gifts to pull others up, in whatever way makes best sense.
People often ask me what lessons from the SEALs apply to the pandemic. It’s simple. We don’t think in absolutes. We think relatively. In a true team, not everyone is having the same hard day. Some people are having a relatively better day, while some are relatively worse. No matter how hard things get, the teammates who are relatively up help those who are relatively down. Said differently, when you’re having a bad day, just go find someone who is having a worse day and help. Pulling others up pulls us up.
Former Navy SEAL Mike Hayes in Iraq in 2007.provided
Service can be nurturing the elderly or mentoring the young. It can be improving our forests, cleaning our beaches or roadways, or helping prepare our precious planet for future generations. Does someone in your family need help? Is a neighbor silently crying out – maybe not in words, but you sense the need? Perhaps more importantly, in our disconnected world, should you reach out to a struggling citizen you’ve never met, but who needs you badly? You can shy away – or have a profound impact on their life.
Most important, service requires patience. It demands open-mindedness, to views that might not match your own. We don’t all agree, and we shouldn’t. But service doesn’t mean judgment. It means putting aside ego. It means shedding our biases. We need to critically consider alternate viewpoints, and weigh real data and information. We need to be humble.
Admit mistakes and let go
Helping others can be a window into self-discovery, that can challenge our preconceptions and teach us where we were wrong. Admitting those mistakes and unshackling ourselves from our biases can be surprisingly liberating. We need to celebrate differences and understand that they make us stronger. Service requires tolerance and respect when outcomes don’t match our own wishes.
"Never Enough," 2021 book by Mike Hayes, former commanding officer of Navy SEAL Team TwoFamily photo
One of my lieutenants surprised me by quietly asking permission for his platoon to spend an afternoon visiting kids at the local cancer ward – Sunday afternoon, their only day off. They'd been on the road training 18-hour days, six days a week for six weeks to prepare for the rugged mountains of Zabul Province in December. Great leadership; the team wanted to do it, and I knew it would bring them together.
So he surprised me again with his deflated call afterward. An army unit was already there: same kids, same hospital. They didn’t really need us, the lieutenant told me. That threw me. How were two out-of-town units visiting the same children? Simple. Service begets service. But you don’t see that until you live it.
Yes, Memorial Day is absolutely about remembering and honoring the fallen. Our fallen heroes fell to make this nation greater. The best way to honor their service is to mirror it. Serve each other. You can begin this morning. What real action can you take to improve our country and the lives of our fellow countrymen? What will you do?
Mike Hayes (@thisismikehayes) served as Commanding Officer of SEAL Team TWO and oversaw all special operations in southeastern Afghanistan in 2012. He is a former National Security Council director of defense policy and strategy for Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, author of the 2021 leadership memoir "Never Enough," and founder of The 1162 Foundation to support the families of special operators who gave their lives in service.
"seal" - Google News
May 29, 2021 at 05:00PM
https://ift.tt/3c5srbA
Honor us on Memorial Day by finding your own ways to serve: Retired Navy SEAL commander - USA TODAY
"seal" - Google News
https://ift.tt/3c1qdrW
https://ift.tt/2SzWv5y
Former government adviser Dominic Cummings has made waves by suggesting the UK government’s response to the COVID-19 crisis was “a classic historic example of group-think”. He said the more people criticised the government’s plan, the more those on the inside said others did not understand. He added that, had the plans been open to scrutiny earlier, “we would have figured out at least six weeks earlier that there was an alternative plan”.
Although we can’t know for sure the truth of this criticism, it raises an important question about the dynamics of decision-making in groups. What actually is group-think and what does scientific research tells us about how to avoid it?
Group-think is a popular explanation for how groups of knowledgeable people can make flawed decisions. The essence of group-think is that groups create psychological pressure on individuals to conform to the views of leaders and other members.
Famous examples of group-think include the decision of the US to invade Cuba in 1961 and Coca-Cola’s decision to launch “New Coke” in 1985. In these and other famous examples, groups failed to make the right choice even when they had all the information they needed right there in the room. Members failed to share their dissenting opinions and information that could have avoided embarrassing or tragic decisions.
What causes group-think
How can smart people get together and come to seemingly inexplicable conclusions? There are three main reasons groups create pressure that leads to flawed decisions.
First, all humans want to feel a sense of belonging with others – our brains are wired to find our tribe, the people with whom we belong. In any group situation, we want to feel accepted by other members and seek approval, consciously and unconsciously. One way to gain acceptance and approval is to find common ground with others. But, when all members do this, it has the effect of biasing group discussion toward areas of similarity and agreement, crowding out potential differences and disagreement.
For instance, if a member of a group says they like a particular TV show, other members who also like it are most likely to speak. Those who haven’t seen it or dislike it are more likely to stay silent. That isn’t to say disagreement never happens, just that it’s less common in group discussions than agreement. When group discussions follow these dynamics over time – members expressing more agreement than disagreement – those with dissenting opinions begin to believe their views are discordant with the majority. This encourages them even more to withhold information and views that they fear (even subtly) will be met with disapproval from other members.
Second, as the old adage goes, “if you want to get along, go along”. Although disagreement about the best course of action is healthy for groups – and, indeed, is the whole point of groups making decisions – healthy disagreement often spills over into conflict that gets personal and hurts others feelings. The risk of this, however small, leads those who disagree to hold their tongues too often.
These pressures are even stronger when high-status group members – such as formal leaders or those respected by others – express their opinions. The subtle, unspoken forces that make it feel risky to speak up and disagree with other members are extremely difficult to overcome when we know we would be putting ourselves at odds with a leader.
Third, we subtly adjust our preferences to come into concordance with what we perceive as the majority view. In other words, when we don’t have a clear view of our own opinion, we simply adopt other members’ – often, without even knowing it. Once we adopt that preference, it becomes a lens for the information we receive. We remember information consistent with our own preferences, but tend to forget information that is inconsistent with them. So, a member revealing a preference invisibly creates a self-reinforcing cycle that perpetuates agreement.
How can groups avoid group-think?
The essential ingredient when trying to avoid group-think is to focus first on options and information, and to hold off preferences and advocacy for as long as possible. After determining their objectives, groups should consider as many options as possible. All members should be asked for all relevant information about all of these options – even if the information doesn’t favour options other members seem to prefer. Only after a thorough, systematic search for information should members begin to discuss their preferences or advocate for one option over another.
Leaders can play a critical role in avoiding group-think. Research has shown leaders who direct the decision-making process, but don’t share their own preferences or advocate for particular options, lead groups to avoid group-think and make better decisions. Leaders that advocate for particular choices, especially early on, tend to lead their groups astray and strengthen the forces that lead to group-think.
In avoiding group-think, leaders should play the role of a detective, asking questions and collecting all the facts. Leading by trying to win a debate or litigate a court case leaves the group far more open to group-think.
Regardless of how the government made decisions in the past, they would be well-advised to make sure all decision-making bodies follow this advice. Even the smartest, best-intentioned groups are vulnerable to the basic psychology of group-think.
A baby seal, likely born premature due to still being covered in fur, was rescued Thursday (May 27) in Coal Harbour on northern Vancouver Island.
Alyssa Berube, a member of the Tri-Port Wildlife Response Team, said the baby seal was first spotted without its mother on Tuesday and the original finder of the animal “handled it when they shouldn’t have.”
By Wednesday, the seal had disappeared, only to then show up again alone on Thursday. After the animal was reported to DFO and the Marine Mammal Rescue (MMR) Centre, Berube was then called by MMR and asked if she could grab the baby seal and drive it down to the Campbell River airport for transport to Vancouver.
“The way I handle and transport animals is all based on rules and guidelines given by MMR,” said Berube. “Seals can carry bacteria that humans can catch if not wearing a mask. This baby didn’t have teeth yet but leather gloves are always a must. No blankets in kennel. Do not try and feed.”
Berube was able to make it to Campbell River in time, and the baby seal, named Marzipan, arrived in Vancouver by 7:40 p.m. Thursday night.
Disturbing a marine mammal is a federal offence. Officials are reminding the public to stay back when they see a marine mammal in distress, to keep other people and pets away, and call the rescue centre at 604-258-7325 or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans hotline at 1-800-465-4336.
"seal" - Google News
May 29, 2021 at 02:00AM
https://ift.tt/3fUuVKZ
Baby seal 'Marzipan' rescued by wildlife response team on northern Vancouver Island – Saanich News - Saanich News
"seal" - Google News
https://ift.tt/3c1qdrW
https://ift.tt/2SzWv5y
