#security industry

[isaacsapphire]

I'll happily bite. What's the ADHD advantage for the pipeline and job of security management?

So there's the sleep thing that I went into on another ask, and then there's the mix of tasks and the occasional fun adrenaline rush of responding to emergencies and alternately the hours of boredom. Like, I cannot underestimate how much fun emergencies are and how adrenaline is a drug.

Also, good God is the way other people treat you with respect (at least compared to retail) great. And as security, you can have interactions with others that are pretty much on a script, and triaged on a pretty simple algorithm.

For example, my first site on the weekends was just me and a 57999532 square foot building and me in a little prefab office outside it. I checked in any trucks that came, which meant that I wrote down their numbers and the number of the trailer seal when it was dropped off, did "tours" which means I walked around the building and tugged on the doors and wrote down that I did that, and if anybody showed up on property, I politely told them that the building was closed and there was nothing there for the public. They usually left at that point, but I had nice clear lists of rules and escalations and "if you aren't sure what to do call this number" instructions. I developed my social skills a lot at that job by having a more bounded role and a script.

Oh, also the walking around and being outside parts of a lot of sites tours are also really great. Like, a lot of sites like it when you do extra tours! Pacing around and being nosey and a little anxious is a job duty! That little hit of anxiety is good in security too, because diligently eg. checking the stairwell and pushing the door to check it's latched every single time is really important for being good at security... And that anxious little voice that says, "what if today the door is unlocked? What if today in the last hour someone hung themselves in the stairwell?!" gets me at least to always always check everything.

#security industry #oh geez i can tag asks now #adhd #actually adhd

[tritonmarketresearch]

Global Bank Encryption Software Market to Exhibit 14.11% CAGR by 2028

Triton Market Research presents the Global Bank Encryption Software Market segmented by Component (Software, Services), Deployment Mode (On-Premise, Cloud), Enterprise Type (Large Enterprises, Small & Medium Enterprises), Encryption Type (Disk Encryption, Communication Encryption, File/Folder, Cloud Encryption), and by Geography (Middle East and Africa, Europe, Asia-Pacific, North America, Latin America).

It further explains the Market Summary, Industry Outlook, Impact of COVID-19, Key Insights, Porter’s Five Forces Model, Market Attractiveness Index, Vendor Scorecard, Key Impact Analysis, Key Market Strategies, Drivers, Challenges, Opportunities, Competitive Landscape, Research Methodology & Scope, Global Market Size, Forecasts & Analysis (2022-2028).

Triton Market Research’s report states that the global market for bank encryption software is expected to expand with a 14.11% CAGR during the forecasted years 2022-2028.

Request Free Sample Report:

https://www.tritonmarketresearch.com/reports/bank-encryption-software-market#request-free-sample

Electronic banking and online transactions have increased data proliferation, resulting in the threat of cyberattacks. Data encryption offers secured digital data using algorithms, making the original information unreadable. With rising demand for security and privacy in banks & financial institutions, the bank encryption software market has grown tremendously. Cyberthreats have caused difficulties and huge losses due to data breaches of confidential information, thereby challenging the banking sector. This has led to increased awareness of adopting bank encryption software which lessens ransomware attacks, thus expanding the market growth.

However, the complexity and mathematical operations involved in deciphering the data are difficult. In the case of recovering backup data, it is crucial to balance the speed and security of the CPU that stores encrypted data. It takes double or triple time or even more to reverse the information. This hinders the growth of the bank encryption software market.

The Asia-Pacific is the fastest-growing bank encryption software market region and is estimated to hold this position in the upcoming years. The demand for digital payment methods like debit cards, mobile banking, and credit cards has raised security and privacy concerns across developing countries like China and India. Therefore, all these factors augment the bank encryption software market across the region.

The key players in the bank encryption software market are Microsoft Corporation, Dell Technologies Inc, ESET, Broadcom Inc, IBM, McAfee Corp, Thales Group, Netskope Inc, Intel Corp, Trend Micro Inc, Protegrity Pvt Ltd, Lookout Security, Bitdefender Pvt, and Winmagic Data Security Solutions.

The impact of COVID-19 on the global market has motivated many companies to enter. As a result, the competitive rivalry is high, with multiple established corporations capturing the largest market share. Since the bank encryption market is cloud-based, the software is customized according to the buyer’s need, increasing the demand of the suppliers in the industry.

 Contact Us:

[email protected]

Phone: [phone]

#Bank Encryption Software Market #bank encryption software #Software Industry #ict industry #security industry #market research reports #market research report #triton market research

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The CHIPS Act treats the symptoms, but not the causes

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/02/07/farewell-mr-chips/#we-used-to-make-things

There's this great throwaway line in 1992's Sneakers, where Dan Aykroyd, playing a conspiracy-addled hacker/con-man, is feverishly telling Sydney Poitier (playing an ex-CIA spook) about a 1958 meeting Eisenhower had with aliens where Ike said, "hey, look, give us your technology, and we'll give you all the cow lips you want."

Poitier dismisses Aykroyd ("Don't listen to this man. He's certifiable"). We're meant to be on Poitier's side here, but I've always harbored some sympathy for Aykroyd in this scene.

That's because I often hear echoes of Aykroyd's theory in my own explanations of the esoteric bargains and plots that produced the world we're living in today. Of course, in my world, it's not presidents bargaining for alien technology in exchange for cow-lips – it's the world's wealthy nations bargaining to drop trade restrictions on the Global South in exchange for IP laws.

These bargains – which started as a series of bilateral and then multilateral agreements like NAFTA, and culminated in the WTO agreement of 1999 – were the most important step in the reordering of the world's economy around rent-extraction, cheap labor exploitation, and a brittle supply chain that is increasingly endangered by the polycrisis of climate and its handmaidens, like zoonotic plagues, water wars, and mass refugee migration.

Prior to the advent of "free trade," the world's rich countries fashioned debt into a whip-hand over poor, post-colonial nations. These countries had been bankrupted by their previous colonial owners, and the price of their freedom was punishing debts to the IMF and other rich-world institutions in exchange for loans to help these countries "develop."

Like all poor debtors, these countries were said to have gotten into their predicament through moral failure – they'd "lived beyond their means."

(When rich people get into debt, bankruptcy steps in to give them space to "restructure" according to their own plans. When poor people get into debt, bankruptcy strips them of nearly everything that might help them recover, brands them with a permanent scarlet letter, and subjects them to humiliating micro-management whose explicit message is that they are not competent to manage their own affairs):

https://pluralistic.net/2021/08/07/hr-4193/#shoppers-choice

So the poor debtor nations were ordered to "deregulate." They had to sell off their state assets, run their central banks according to the dictates of rich-world finance authorities, and reorient their production around supplying raw materials to rich countries, who would process these materials into finished goods for export back to the poor world.

Naturally, poor countries were not allowed to erect "trade barriers" that might erode the capacity of this North-South transfer of high-margin goods, but this was not the era of free trade. It wasn't the free trade era because, while the North-South transfer was largely unrestricted, the South-North transfer was subject to tight regulation in the rich world.

In other words, poor countries were expected to export, say, raw ore to the USA and reimport high-tech goods, with low tariffs in both directions. But if a poor country processed that ore domestically and made its own finished goods, the US would block those goods at the border, slapping them with high tariffs that made them more expensive than Made-in-the-USA equivalents.

The argument for this unidirectional trade was that the US – and other rich countries – had a strategic need to maintain their manufacturing industries as a hedge against future geopolitical events (war, but also pandemics, extreme weather) that might leave the rich world unable to provide for itself. This rationale had a key advantage: it was true.

A country that manages its own central bank can create as much of its own currency as it wants, and use that money to buy anything for sale in its own currency.

This may not be crucial while global markets are operating to the country's advantage (say, while the rest of the world is "willingly" pricing its raw materials in your country's currency), but when things go wrong – war, plague, weather – a country that can't make things is at the rest of the world's mercy.

If you had to choose between being a poor post-colonial nation that couldn't supply its own technological needs except by exporting raw materials to rich countries, and being a rich country that had both domestic manufacturing capacity and a steady supply of other countries' raw materials, you would choose the second, every time.

What's not to like?

Here's what.

The problem – from the perspective of America's ultra-wealthy – was that this arrangement gave the US workforce a lot of power. As US workers unionized, they were able to extract direct concessions from their employers through collective bargaining, and they could effectively lobby for universal worker protections, including a robust welfare state – in both state and federal legislatures. The US was better off as a whole, but the richest ten percent were much poorer than they could be if only they could smash worker power.

That's where free trade comes in. Notwithstanding racist nonsense about "primitive" countries, there's no intrinsic defect that stops the global south from doing high-tech manufacturing. If the rich world's corporate leaders were given free rein to sideline America's national security in favor of their own profits, they could certainly engineer the circumstances whereby poor countries would build sophisticated factories to replace the manufacturing facilities that sat behind the north's high tariff walls.

These poor-country factories could produce goods ever bit as valuable as the rich world's shops, but without the labor, environmental and financial regulations that constrained their owners' profits. They slavered for a business environment that let them kill workers; poison the air, land and water; and cheat the tax authorities with impunity.

For this plan to work, the wealthy needed to engineer changes in both the rich world and the poor world. Obviously, they would have to get rid of the rich world's tariff walls, which made it impossible to competitively import goods made in the global south, no matter how cheaply they were made.

But free trade wasn't just about deregulation in the north – it also required a whole slew of new, extremely onerous regulations in the global south. Corporations that relocated their manufacturing to poor – but nominally sovereign – countries needed to be sure that those countries wouldn't try to replicate the American plan of becoming actually sovereign, by exerting control over the means of production within their borders.

Recall that the American Revolution was inspired in large part by fury over the requirement to ship raw materials back to Mother England and then buy them back at huge markups after they'd been processed by English workers, to the enrichment of English aristocrats. Post-colonial America created new regulations (tariffs on goods from England), and – crucially – they also deregulated.

Specifically, post-revolutionary America abolished copyrights and patents for English persons and firms. That way, American manufacturers could produce sophisticated finished goods without paying rent to England's wealthy making those goods cheaper for American buyers, and American publishers could subsidize their editions of American authors' books by publishing English authors on the cheap, without the obligation to share profits with English publishers or English writers.

The surplus produced by ignoring the patents and copyrights of the English was divided (unequally) among American capitalists, workers, and shoppers. Wealthy Americans got richer, even as they paid their workers more and charged less for their products. This incubated a made-in-the-USA edition of the industrial revolution. It was so successful that the rest of the world – especially England – began importing American goods and literature, and then American publishers and manufacturers started to lean on their government to "respect" English claims, in order to secure bilateral protections for their inventions and books in English markets.

This was good for America, but it was terrible for English manufacturers. The US – a primitive, agricultural society – "stole" their inventions until they gained so much manufacturing capacity that the English public started to prefer American goods to English ones.

This was the thing that rich-world industrialists feared about free trade. Once you build your high-tech factories in the global south, what's to stop those people from simply copying your plans – or worse, seizing your factories! – and competing with you on a global scale? Some of these countries had nominally socialist governments that claimed to explicitly elevate the public good over the interests of the wealthy. And all of these countries had the same sprinkling of sociopaths who'd gladly see a million children maimed or the land poisoned for a buck – and these "entrepreneurs" had unbeatable advantages with their countries' political classes.

For globalization to work, it wasn't enough to deregulate the rich world – capitalists also had to regulate the poor world. Specifically, they had to get the poor world to adopt "IP" laws that would force them to willingly pay rent on things they could get for free: patents and other IP, even though it was in the short-term, medium-term, and long-term interests of both the nation and its politicians and its businesspeople.

Thus, the bargain that makes me sympathetic to Dan Aykroyd: not cow lips for alien tech; but free trade for IP law. When the WTO was steaming towards passage in the late 1990s, there was (rightly) a lot of emphasis on its deregulatory provisions: weakening of labor, environmental and financial laws in the poor world, and of tariffs in the rich world.

But in hindsight, we all kind of missed the main event: the TRIPS (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights). This actually started before the WTO treaty (it was part of the GATT, a predecessor to the WTO), but the WTO spread it to countries all over the world. Under the TRIPS, poor countries are required to honor the IP claims of rich countries, on pain of global sanction.

That was the plan: instead of paying American workers to make Apple computers, say, Apple could export the "IP" for Macs and iPhones to countries like China, and these countries would produce Apple products that were "designed in California, assembled in China." China would allow Apple to treat Chinese workers so badly that they routinely committed suicide, and would lock up or kill workers who tried to unionize. China would accept vast shipments of immortal, toxic e-waste. And China wouldn't let its entrepreneurs copy Apple's designs, be they software, schematics or trademarks.

Apple isn't the only company that pursued this strategy, but no company has executed it as successfully. It's not for nothing that Steve Jobs's hand-picked successor was Tim Cook, who oversaw the transfer of even the most exacting elements of Apple manufacturing to Chinese facilities, striking bargains with contractors like Foxconn that guaranteed that workers would be heavily – lethally! – surveilled and controlled to prevent the twin horrors of unionization and leaks.

For the first two decades of the WTO era, the most obvious problems with this arrangement was wage erosion (for American workers) and leakage (for the rich). China's "socialist" government was only too happy to help Foxconn imprison workers who demanded better wages and working conditions, but they were far more relaxed about knockoffs, be they fake iPods sold in market stalls or US trade secrets working their way into Huawei products.

These were problems for the American aristocracy, whose investments depended on China disciplining both Chinese workers and Chinese businesses. For the American people, leakage was a nothingburger. Apple's profits weren't shared with its workforce beyond the relatively small number of tech workers at its headquarters. The vast majority of Apple employees, who flogged iPhones and scrubbed the tilework in gleaming white stores across the nation, would get the same minimal (or even minimum) wage no matter how profitable Apple grew.

It wasn't until the pandemic that the other shoe dropped for the American public. The WTO arrangement – cow lips for alien technology – had produced a global system brittle supply chains composed entirely of weakest links. A pandemic, a war, a ship stuck in the Suez Canal or Houthi paramilitaries can cripple the entire system, perhaps indefinitely.

For two decades, we fought over globalization's effect on wages. We let our corporate masters trick us into thinking that China's "cheating" on IP was a problem for the average person. But the implications of globalization for American sovereignty and security were banished to the xenophobic right fringe, where they were mixed into the froth of Cold War 2.0 nonsense. The pandemic changed that, creating a coalition that is motivated by a complex and contradictory stew of racism, environmentalism, xenophobia, labor advocacy, patriotism, pragmatism, fear and hope.

Out of that stew emerged a new American political tendency, mostly associated with Bidenomics, but also claimed in various guises by the American right, through its America First wing. That tendency's most visible artifact is the CHIPS Act, through which the US government proposes to use policy and subsidies to bring high-tech manufacturing back to America's shores.

This week, the American Economic Liberties Project published "Reshoring and Restoring: CHIPS Implementation for a Competitive Semiconductor Industry," a fascinating, beautifully researched and detailed analysis of the CHIPS Act and the global high-tech manufacturing market, written by Todd Achilles, Erik Peinert and Daniel Rangel:

https://www.economicliberties.us/our-work/reshoring-and-restoring-chips-implementation-for-a-competitive-semiconductor-industry/#

Crucially, the report lays out the role that the weakening of antitrust, the dismantling of tariffs and the strengthening of IP played in the history of the current moment. The failure to enforce antitrust law allowed for monopolization at every stage of the semiconductor industry's supply-chain. The strengthening of IP and the weakening of tariffs encouraged the resulting monopolies to chase cheap labor overseas, confident that the US government would punish host countries that allowed their domestic entrepreneurs to use American designs without permission.

The result is a financialized, "capital light" semiconductor industry that has put all its eggs in one basket. For the most advanced chips ("leading-edge logic"), production works like this: American firms design a chip and send the design to Taiwan where TSMC foundry turns it into a chip. The chip is then shipped to one of a small number of companies in the poor world where they are assembled, packaged and tested (AMP) and sent to China to be integrated into a product.

Obsolete foundries get a second life in the commodity chip ("mature-node chips") market – these are the cheap chips that are shoveled into our cars and appliances and industrial systems.

Both of these systems are fundamentally broken. The advanced, "leading-edge" chips rely on geopolitically uncertain, heavily concentrated foundries. These foundries can be fully captured by their customers – as when Apple prepurchases the entire production capacity of the most advanced chips, denying both domestic and offshore competitors access to the newest computation.

Meanwhile, the less powerful, "mature node" chips command minuscule margins, and are often dumped into the market below cost, thanks to subsidies from countries hoping to protect their corner of the high-tech sector. This makes investment in low-power chips uncertain, leading to wild swings in cost, quality and availability of these workhorse chips.

The leading-edge chipmakers – Nvidia, Broadcom, Qualcomm, AMD, etc – have fully captured their markets. They like the status quo, and the CHIPS Act won't convince them to invest in onshore production. Why would they?

2022 was Broadcom's best year ever, not in spite of its supply-chain problems, but because of them. Those problems let Broadcom raise prices for a captive audience of customers, who the company strong-armed into exclusivity deals that ensured they had nowhere to turn. Qualcomm also profited handsomely from shortages, because its customers end up paying Qualcomm no matter where they buy, thanks to Qualcomm ensuring that its patents are integrated into global 4G and 5G standards.

That means that all standards-conforming products generate royalties for Qualcomm, and it also means that Qualcomm can decide which companies are allowed to compete with it, and which ones will be denied licenses to its patents. Both companies are under orders from the FTC to cut this out, and both companies ignore the FTC.

The brittleness of mature-node and leading-edge chips is not inevitable. Advanced memory chips (DRAM) roughly comparable in complexity to leading-edge chips, while analog-to-digital chips are as easily commodified as mature-node chips, and yet each has a robust and competitive supply chain, with both onshore and offshore producers. In contrast with leading-edge manufacturers (who have been visibly indifferent to the CHIPS incentives), memory chip manufacturers responded to the CHIPS Act by committing hundreds of billions of dollars to new on-shore production facilities.

Intel is a curious case: in a world of fabless leading-edge manufacturers, Intel stands out for making its own chips. But Intel is in a lot of trouble. Its advanced manufacturing plans keep foundering on cost overruns and delays. The company keeps losing money. But until recently, its management kept handing its shareholders billions in dividends and buybacks – a sign that Intel bosses assume that the US public will bail out its "national champion." It's not clear whether the CHIPS Act can save Intel, or whether financialization will continue to hollow out a once-dominant pioneer.

The CHIPS Act won't undo the concentration – and financialization – of the semiconductor industry. The industry has been awash in cheap money since the 2008 bailouts, and in just the past five years, US semiconductor monopolists have paid out $239b to shareholders in buybacks and dividends, enough to fund the CHIPS Act five times over. If you include Apple in that figure, the amount US corporations spent on shareholder returns instead of investing in capacity rises to $698b. Apple doesn't want a competitive market for chips. If Apple builds its own foundry, that just frees up capacity at TSMC that its competitors can use to improve their products.

The report has an enormous amount of accessible, well-organized detail on these markets, and it makes a set of key recommendations for improving the CHIPS Act and passing related legislation to ensure that the US can once again make its own microchips. These run a gamut from funding four new onshore foundries to requiring companies receiving CHIPS Act money to "dual-source" their foundries. They call for NIST and the CPO to ensure open licensing of key patents, and for aggressive policing of anti-dumping rules for cheap chips. They also seek a new law creating an "American Semiconductor Supply Chain Resiliency Fee" – a tariff on chips made offshore.

Fundamentally, these recommendations seek to end the outsourcing made possible by restrictive IP regimes, to undercut Wall Street's power to demand savings from offshoring, and to smash the market power of companies like Apple that make the brittleness of chip manufacturing into a feature, rather than a bug. This would include a return to previous antitrust rules, which limited companies' ability to leverage patents into standards, and to previous IP rules, which limited exclusive rights chip topography and design ("mask rights").

All of this will is likely to remove the constraints that stop poor countries from doing to America the same things that postcolonial America did to England – that is, it will usher in an era in which lots of countries make their own chips and other high-tech goods without paying rent to American companies. This is good! It's good for poor countries, who will have more autonomy to control their own technical destiny. It's also good for the world, creating resiliency in the high-tech manufacturing sector that we'll need as the polycrisis overwhelms various places with fire and flood and disease and war. Electrifying, solarizing and adapting the world for climate resilience is fundamentally incompatible with a brittle, highly concentrated tech sector.

Pluralizing high-tech production will make America less vulnerable to the gamesmanship of other countries – and it will also make the rest of the world less vulnerable to American bullying. As Henry Farrell and Abraham Newman describe so beautifully in their 2023 book Underground Empire, the American political establishment is keenly aware of how its chokepoints over global finance and manufacturing can be leveraged to advantage the US at the rest of the world's expense:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/10/weaponized-interdependence/#the-other-swifties

Look, I know that Eisenhower didn't trade cow-lips for alien technology – but our political and commercial elites really did trade national resiliency away for IP laws, and it's a bargain that screwed everyone, except the one percenters whose power and wealth have metastasized into a deadly cancer that threatens the country and the planet.

Image: Mickael Courtiade (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/197739384@N07/52703936652/

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

#pluralistic #chips act #ip #monopolies #antitrust #national security #industrial policy #american economic liberties project #tmsc #leading-edge #intel #mature node #lagging edge #foundries #fabless

[cctvarchive]

HIROSHIMA, JAPAN.

#hiroshima #japan #industrial #purple #green #insecam #security camera #oldweb #liminal

[calamitys-child]

Obsessed with the audiobook choice to make the borogravians all northern except mal who is Dracula. I love them so much you have no idea how much I adore these little genderfuck desperate losers with swords. Monstrous regiment u r everything to me forever

#ive reread this (or listened to it) every year since I was 13 and it gave me the first glimmer of hope in my gender and my life #and in my righteous fury about all the horrors in the world. the bigotry and closed mindedness and war and prejudice. #the abuse and exploitation of the poor and disabled and queer. the way the military industrial complex chews people up #spits them into the dirt #ten years now and every year i get a little more secure and kick back a little harder. pterry as always i owe you a homemade sandwich and #a damn good book to read if ever we meet once my own hourglass runs dry #gnu terry pratchett

[hussyknee]

Idk how people go into social science research knowing that you're anyway going to spend your entire life arguing with wilfully ignorant fuckwits over stuff like "keeping one-tenth of the world's GDP locked up in a handful of people's accounts is bad for a functional economy'', "you shouldn't have to pay money to stay alive", "letting people mind their own business won't hurt you", "knowledge is good actually", "people have the right to do whatever they want with their own bodies", "children are people too", "germs are real", "spreading disease is bad for society", "genocide is bad actually", "letting the government kill people puts everyone in danger because everyone is people", "access to long-distance murder weapons increases the chances of getting murdered", "you can't give a clump of cells the same rights as a human being" ad fucking nauseaum until you die.

#maybe we should just use small words and picture books #make up a ''why people dont need murder weapons'' song #hotline for explaining ''it's called human 'rights' because you can't take them away'' #social justice #ableism #anti vaxxers #human rights #abolition #homelessness #universal healthcare #universal basic income #food security #military industrial complex #child rights #body autonomy #pro choice #gay rights #trans rights #acab #anti intellectualism #racism #disability justice #compassion fatigue #knee of huss

[brostateexam]

Credit card got pwned today

Frankly, I'm surprised it took this long

#i make very little attempt to secure my cards and instead rely on fraud detection for when (not if) they get stolen #feel the same way about my identity or email address or phone number tbh #can't outsmart the cottage industry of hackers and scammers teying to get at my shit but i can shut them down quickly and spin up a new one

[ceasarslegion]

Absolute fucking last straw just happened to me im looking for another job man

#im so tired of coming to work just to be treated like shit by both management and the passengers #and then have people compare me to a cop because no one knows what security guards do #im done man im so fucking done #all this for what? a place that cant even keep a full time promise? #what happened to the security industry man #this used to be a well respected and legitimate career path with tons of upward mobility and a good salary #now im getting 23.18 an hour before tax to get told that i deserve to die over 3 dollar shampoo #fuck this place man #vent post

[alwaysbewoke]

x

#401(k) #savings #tax-advantaged retirement #bipartisan legislation #wealth gap #federal budget #financial industry #lobbying #retirement security #tax law #retirement savings #bipartisan #wealth disparities #federal deficit #financial services industry #tax-advantaged accounts #tax breaks #Congress #lobbyists #Social Security #Medicare

[trans4trans]

they don’t know i know so much about corn

#guy taking a food security class ^ #learned a lot about corn and the corn industry and mexicos corn market

[theshadowrealmitself]

Fell asleep last night thinking about an au where Norman recovers from being the Green Goblin, but he ended up doing some really creepy stuff beforehand including attacking Peter as he was Peter Parker and not Spidey and then keeping him locked up for several days (Peter ends up with a few scars from it)

Norman avoids any jail time because he’s rich and revealed somewhat of the truth, that a medicine he was working on for himself had terrible side effects, no one knows about him being the Goblin, they only know about him attacking Peter

Peter is able to successfully get a restraining order against him tho, but Norman’s a jackass who keeps hanging out on the fringe of the distance he’s supposed to be at and speaking/yelling at Peter, stuff like “when you finally forgive me and drop this restraining order, I’ll be here with open arms,” and “Uncle Ben wouldn’t want you to hold this hate in your heart” and because of the previous mentioned richness, Peter can’t do anything unless Norman steps too closely

And tbh Peter mostly got the restraining order because he was worried it would look suspicious if “Peter Parker” didn’t seem too badly affected by things, since he was used to being attacked by Norman as Spiderman

But now that he’s keeping Norman away, even if he still hangs around, and he has visible scars from it that everyone can see, and everyone knows about the court case and what happened and keep asking him if he’s okay, he’s…starting to acknowledge that it all was traumatizing, not just the kidnapping event but the whole thing with the Green Goblin, that he was just pretending it wasn’t because he’s a hero, and people seeing how badly it’s been affecting him is actually healing in a way

#part of the au #was that Peter runs Parker Industries #and although most people are on Peter’s side #every time there’s a science event the people who set it up complain at him and try to get him to drop his restraining order against Norman #because they’re going to invite Norman #he’s rich and runs a science company #but they also have to invite Peter because even if it’s a small company he’s always putting out amazing inventions #and it makes it difficult for the organizers to plan it with the two of them always staying a certain amount away #so they’re dicks. #and Miles was upset that people could just harass Peter about his restraining order and that he’d have to deal with someone who hurt him #at this event #so he gets his dad involved as some unofficial security guard since Norman probably paid off all security at the event #which was really sweet of Miles but now Peter has no way of escaping as Spiderman #and then I fell asleep before figuring out how he’d get around that because if Miles is also at the event then his dad #would be paying attention to him too especially if Norman Osborn is nearby #so that’s why this section isn’t in the body of the post #I love Norman Osborn but sometimes gotta acknowledge he was a creep who greatly traumatized Peter #Peter Parker #Norman Osborn #Spiderman #spider man #spider-man #the green goblin

[isaacsapphire]

🐭, but I'm guessing closer to 🦊or 🐯 in-person, given your history in the security industry.

Fair, fair. I want to protest that I'm not hands-on, but the point of armed is intimidation and I did stare a guy out of committing a bank robbery once.

#oh geez i can tag asks now #security industry

[tritonmarketresearch]

The Global Smoke Detector Market to Exhibit 8.10% CAGR by 2028

Triton Market Research presents the Global Smoke Detector Market segmented by Power Source (Hardwired Smoke Detectors, Battery-powered Smoke Detectors, Others {Hardwired with Battery}), End-user (Commercial, Automotive, Manufacturing, Telecommunication, Oil & Gas, Residential, Other End-users), Type (Photoelectric, Ionization, Dual Sensor, Other Types), and Regional Outlook (North America, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa, and the Asia-Pacific).

It further discusses the Market Summary, Industry Outlook, Impact of COVID-19, Key Insights, Porter’s Five Forces Model, Market Attractiveness Index, Vendor Scorecard, Key Market Strategies, Drivers, Challenges, Opportunities, Competitive Landscape, Research Methodology, Global Market Size, Forecasts & Analysis (2022-2028).

Triton Market Research’s report states that the global smoke detector market would expand with an 8.10% CAGR during the evaluated years between 2022 and 2028.

Request free sample:

https://www.tritonmarketresearch.com/reports/smoke-detector-market#request-free-sample

Smoke detectors are electronic fire-protection equipment that detect smoke as a sign of fire and aware people by sounding an alarm. The rising global temperature due to greenhouse gas emissions has raised the risk of fires. According to estimates, about 4.5 million US homes were at high risk of wildfire. Likewise, more than 2 million properties were at extreme wildfire risk in California in 2021. The growing prevalence of fires across the world has mandated the use of smoke detectors to safeguard the life of people, wildlife, and properties, which, in turn, augments the market’s growth.

However, with the introduction of lithium-ion battery-powered smoke detectors and carbon monoxide detectors, the price of smoke detectors has escalated by almost 30%. Such a high price scale restricts manufacturers from selling their products reasonably. Therefore, this factor likely hinders the growth of the smoke detector market.

Globally, North America dominates the smoke detector market and is expected to lead over the forthcoming years. Studies highlight that almost 4,000 Americans die every year in house fires, and over 2,000 are severely injured. Similarly, 73% of fire-related fatalities in Canada are associated with residential fires. As a result of the rising fire incidents, the global smoke detector market is expected to show significant growth in this region over the coming years.

The key players profiled in the smoke detector market are Huawei Technologies Co Ltd, Ceasefire Industries Pvt Ltd, Google Nest (Google), Secom Co Ltd, Hochiki Corporation, Siemens AG, Carrier Global Corporation, BRK Brands Inc, Protec Fire and Security Group Ltd, ABB Ltd, Robert Bosch GmbH, Johnson Controls International, Schneider Electric, and Honeywell International Inc.

The presence of top players with undifferentiated product portfolios creates cutthroat competition in the market. Also, many companies are acquiring other smoke detector manufacturers to tap into new markets. For instance, in 2021, Carrier Global Corporation acquired Cavius, a Denmark-based residential alarm manufacturer that offers a wide range of smoke, heat, flood, and carbon monoxide detectors. Such mergers and acquisitions strengthen the product portfolios of residential fire safety solution providers.

 Contact Us:

[email protected]

Phone: [phone]

#Smoke Detector Market #smoke detector sensor #ICT Industry #Security Industry #market research report #market research reports #triton market research

[workersolidarity]

The CIA budget is kept a tight secret.

This isn't because they are afraid or ashamed of the CIAs budget. After all, these are the same people who unabashedly send $80 Billion to Ukraine as our cities fill with homeless encampments.

No, what would become clear should the black books ever break open would be the global web of self-funding illegal arms trafficking and drug smuggling schemes that truly make up the funding apparatus of the Security State.

#CIA funding #national security state #military industrial complex #socialist politics #marxism leninism #communism #socialist #communist #marxism #marxist leninist #socialism #progressive politics

[cctvarchive]

DALLAS, UNITED STATES.

#dallas #texas #usa #glitch #green #industrial #cctv #insecam #security camera #oldweb #liminal

[faithfromanewperspective]

concert tickets are not an investment. hate how everything in this economy we’re like ‘ooh what if I buy it cheap then hike the price up and resell’ and it’s perfectly normal—it’s not. it’s not okay. what’s happening is you’re taking advantage of someone who’s really desperate to see this artist when if they wanna spend that money on the artist, the money should go to the artist themselves. who probably don’t change as much as they could because they’ve set a price that is financially sustainable for themselves and accessible to most who want to go not just the wealthy or those who don’t spend money on any other artists. and I’m not talking about if you can’t go to your concert and resell your ticket closer to it for like 25% more to get a bit back for all the time you spent waiting in queue for a concert you don’t even get to go to. the reason concert tickets are so hard to get is because there are people competing to buy them who are just gonna resell them for absurd amounts of money and honestly? as concertgoers and fans of artists we deserve better. our artists deserve better. they didn’t put a middleman in there. we don’t need it.

#I met someone who spent $1000 on a resold obstructed view eras ticket same as what I bought for $80 #that’s just unethical to earn that much from a ticket. honestly I’d say even 50% more or close to double is okay if you were gonna go #but the fact that people are already doing this for the PRESALE tickets for luke just has me like. okay maybe you changed your mind on tier #and maybe I gotta assume the best. but I can’t help but think how many people on these resale sites are just trying to get a bit of money #and they’re making money off someone else’s art. there’s nothing else to say. the artist should get a cut of your profits #bc for taylor or someone they have enough money. but with the music industry as it is there are so many who easily could not #or who have to overwork themselves touring back to back just to get financial security #and hopefully this doesn’t happen for most of them bc ticket scalpers tend to go for the big names #but then it just means if you’re poor you can only see the niche artists and you get left out of connecting over mainstream artists #which is another form of classist segregation this perpetrates