from the world's big
Cybercriminals are holding Baltimore hostage
Hackers are demanding a bitcoin ransom.
- Some 10,000 of Charm City's computers were attacked.
- Important day-to-day city functions are out of commission.
- Many municipalities are believed to be under-protected from hackers.
For some time, the internet's seamy underbelly has been the domain of hackers. The image of a teen banging away on a bedroom keyboard wreaking malicious havoc has become a stereotype. Yet, in addition to these lone wolves, we're becoming ever-more aware of worldwide, government-sponsored and operated programs that involve the manipulation of connected devices, not to mention the covert theft and surveillance of our personal data. And then there's ransomware — software unknowingly downloaded to a computer system it can hold hostage until a demand for real-world ransom is met. Ransomware isn't new — Big Think wrote in 2016 about Plainfield, New Jersey's unhappy experience — but now a major American city is seeing a significant number of its services shut down by hackers looking for a payday.
Stealing from everyone to pay the hackers
Image source: Gorodenkoff/Shutterstock
On May 7 2017, an estimated 10,000 computers operated by the city of Baltimore, Maryland were taken over by a ransomware program called RobbinHood. The cybercriminals behind the attack digitally delivered a demand for three bitcoins per sub-system (worth about $17,600 at the time), or 13 bitcoins (about $76,280) for the whole shebang before they would surrender control of all of the computers. They also noted that if the ransom wasn't paid within four days, the price would go up.
The Baltimore Sun acquired a copy of the "ransom note," which made clear the purpose of the attack and the need to act promptly: "We won't talk more, all we know is MONEY! Hurry up! Tik Tak, Tik Tak, Tik Tak!" (An expert told the Sun that misspellings and weird grammar are often deliberately used by hackers to throw off investigations, so the strange language doesn't necessarily mean the perpetrators are not native English speakers.) The note included the usual ransom warnings against involving the authorities (the FBI in this case) or begging for a decline extension, "so don't ask for more times or somethings like that." The city immediately noticed the FBI regardless.
Baltimore mayor Bernard Young told reporters, "Right now, I say no. But in order to move the city forward? I might think about it. But I have not made a decision yet."
The impact of the attack
Image source: Mgeyer/Shutterstock
While the attackers fortunately didn't target emergency services such as 911 and 311, they did invade a majority of Baltimore's servers. Among those were the city's email and voice mail; their parking-fine computers; their payment portal for water bills, vehicle citations, and property taxes; and the city's system for processing real estate transactions — some 1,500 pending home sales are simply stuck for the time being.
Fortunately, the local hospitals have been more vigilant than the city, and keep their computers better protected against hacking — Robbinhood is having no effect on them.
The future of ransomware
Baltimore at night
Image source: Mgeyer/Shutterstock
That a municipality such as Charm City had not sufficiently strengthened its defenses against cyberthreats, and thus found itself vulnerable, is no big surprise. In addition to the financial cost of staying ahead of the cyber-bad guys, politicians in local, state, and federal governments are often stunningly obtuse when it comes to technology, and are often well behind the curve. Don Norris of University of Maryland tells the Sun, "You've got increasingly sophisticated and very persistent bad guys out there looking for any vulnerability they can find, and local governments, including Baltimore, who either don't have the money or don't spend it to properly protect their assets."
2017's WannaCry ransomware attack — allegedly courtesy of the North Korean government — made clear just how vulnerable the world's systems are to malicious hacking. It hit tens of thousands of systems in over 100 countries that were running Microsoft Windows as their operating system. In the same year, some American hospitals were also attacked, as were corporations in Ukraine, Russia, Israel, France, and the UK.
In general, cyberattacks and ransomware have come to the fore as certainly among the most worrying threats to modern life. From power grids to water supplies to military infrastructure to banking systems, everything is networked, everything is software, and it's all potentially hackable. That nothing has brought our entire civilization crashing down is likely more due to a lack of intent than any particular technical challenge.
Baltimore's experience is a warning to system administrators at all levels and in both the public and private sectors to stay sharp, and proof that spending precious dollars to keep systems protected — painful as it may be to divert these funds from other important uses — is unfortunately money well worth spending.
Andy Samberg and Cristin Milioti get stuck in an infinite wedding time loop.
- Two wedding guests discover they're trapped in an infinite time loop, waking up in Palm Springs over and over and over.
- As the reality of their situation sets in, Nyles and Sarah decide to enjoy the repetitive awakenings.
- The film is perfectly timed for a world sheltering at home during a pandemic.
Richard Feynman once asked a silly question. Two MIT students just answered it.
Here's a fun experiment to try. Go to your pantry and see if you have a box of spaghetti. If you do, take out a noodle. Grab both ends of it and bend it until it breaks in half. How many pieces did it break into? If you got two large pieces and at least one small piece you're not alone.
But science loves a good challenge<p>The mystery remained unsolved until 2005, when French scientists <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~audoly/" target="_blank">Basile Audoly</a> and <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~neukirch/" target="_blank">Sebastien Neukirch </a>won an <a href="https://www.improbable.com/ig/" target="_blank">Ig Nobel Prize</a>, an award given to scientists for real work which is of a less serious nature than the discoveries that win Nobel prizes, for finally determining why this happens. <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/spaghetti/audoly_neukirch_fragmentation.pdf" target="_blank">Their paper describing the effect is wonderfully funny to read</a>, as it takes such a banal issue so seriously. </p><p>They demonstrated that when a rod is bent past a certain point, such as when spaghetti is snapped in half by bending it at the ends, a "snapback effect" is created. This causes energy to reverberate from the initial break to other parts of the rod, often leading to a second break elsewhere.</p><p>While this settled the issue of <em>why </em>spaghetti noodles break into three or more pieces, it didn't establish if they always had to break this way. The question of if the snapback could be regulated remained unsettled.</p>
Physicists, being themselves, immediately wanted to try and break pasta into two pieces using this info<p><a href="https://roheiss.wordpress.com/fun/" target="_blank">Ronald Heisser</a> and <a href="https://math.mit.edu/directory/profile.php?pid=1787" target="_blank">Vishal Patil</a>, two graduate students currently at Cornell and MIT respectively, read about Feynman's night of noodle snapping in class and were inspired to try and find what could be done to make sure the pasta always broke in two.</p><p><a href="http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-mathematicians-solve-age-old-spaghetti-mystery-0813" target="_blank">By placing the noodles in a special machine</a> built for the task and recording the bending with a high-powered camera, the young scientists were able to observe in extreme detail exactly what each change in their snapping method did to the pasta. After breaking more than 500 noodles, they found the solution.</p>
The apparatus the MIT researchers built specifically for the task of snapping hundreds of spaghetti sticks.
(Courtesy of the researchers)
What possible application could this have?<p>The snapback effect is not limited to uncooked pasta noodles and can be applied to rods of all sorts. The discovery of how to cleanly break them in two could be applied to future engineering projects.</p><p>Likewise, knowing how things fragment and fail is always handy to know when you're trying to build things. Carbon Nanotubes, <a href="https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/carbon-nanotube-space-elevator" target="_self">super strong cylinders often hailed as the building material of the future</a>, are also rods which can be better understood thanks to this odd experiment.</p><p>Sometimes big discoveries can be inspired by silly questions. If it hadn't been for Richard Feynman bending noodles seventy years ago, we wouldn't know what we know now about how energy is dispersed through rods and how to control their fracturing. While not all silly questions will lead to such a significant discovery, they can all help us learn.</p>
What happens if we consider welfare programs as investments?
- A recently published study suggests that some welfare programs more than pay for themselves.
- It is one of the first major reviews of welfare programs to measure so many by a single metric.
- The findings will likely inform future welfare reform and encourage debate on how to grade success.
Welfare as an investment<p>The <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hendren/files/welfare_vnber.pdf" target="_blank">study</a>, carried out by Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser of Harvard University, reviews 133 welfare programs through a single lens. The authors measured these programs' "Marginal Value of Public Funds" (MVPF), which is defined as the ratio of the recipients' willingness to pay for a program over its cost.</p><p>A program with an MVPF of one provides precisely as much in net benefits as it costs to deliver those benefits. For an illustration, imagine a program that hands someone a dollar. If getting that dollar doesn't alter their behavior, then the MVPF of that program is one. If it discourages them from working, then the program's cost goes up, as the program causes government tax revenues to fall in addition to costing money upfront. The MVPF goes below one in this case. <br> <br> Lastly, it is possible that getting the dollar causes the recipient to further their education and get a job that pays more taxes in the future, lowering the cost of the program in the long run and raising the MVPF. The value ratio can even hit infinity when a program fully "pays for itself."</p><p> While these are only a few examples, many others exist, and they do work to show you that a high MVPF means that a program "pays for itself," a value of one indicates a program "breaks even," and a value below one shows a program costs more money than the direct cost of the benefits would suggest.</p> After determining the programs' costs using existing literature and the willingness to pay through statistical analysis, 133 programs focusing on social insurance, education and job training, tax and cash transfers, and in-kind transfers were analyzed. The results show that some programs turn a "profit" for the government, mainly when they are focused on children:
This figure shows the MVPF for a variety of polices alongside the typical age of the beneficiaries. Clearly, programs targeted at children have a higher payoff.
Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser<p>Programs like child health services and K-12 education spending have infinite MVPF values. The authors argue this is because the programs allow children to live healthier, more productive lives and earn more money, which enables them to pay more taxes later. Programs like the preschool initiatives examined don't manage to do this as well and have a lower "profit" rate despite having decent MVPF ratios.</p><p>On the other hand, things like tuition deductions for older adults don't make back the money they cost. This is likely for several reasons, not the least of which is that there is less time for the benefactor to pay the government back in taxes. Disability insurance was likewise "unprofitable," as those collecting it have a reduced need to work and pay less back in taxes. </p>
What are the implications of all this?<div class="rm-shortcode" data-media_id="ceXv4XLv" data-player_id="FvQKszTI" data-rm-shortcode-id="3b407f5aa043eeb84f2b7ff82f97dc35"> <div id="botr_ceXv4XLv_FvQKszTI_div" class="jwplayer-media" data-jwplayer-video-src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/ceXv4XLv-FvQKszTI.js"> <img src="https://cdn.jwplayer.com/thumbs/ceXv4XLv-1920.jpg" class="jwplayer-media-preview" /> </div> <script src="https://content.jwplatform.com/players/ceXv4XLv-FvQKszTI.js"></script> </div> <p>Firstly, it shows that direct investments in children in a variety of areas generate very high MVPFs. Likewise, the above chart shows that a large number of the programs considered pay for themselves, particularly ones that "invest in human capital" by promoting education, health, or similar things. While programs that focus on adults tend to have lower MVPF values, this isn't a hard and fast rule.</p><p>It also shows us that very many programs don't "pay for themselves" or even go below an MVPF of one. However, this study and its authors do not suggest that we abolish programs like disability payments just because they don't turn a profit.</p><p>Different motivations exist behind various programs, and just because something doesn't pay for itself isn't a definitive reason to abolish it. The returns on investment for a welfare program are diverse and often challenging to reckon in terms of money gained or lost. The point of this study was merely to provide a comprehensive review of a wide range of programs from a single perspective, one of dollars and cents. </p><p>The authors suggest that this study can be used as a starting point for further analysis of other programs not necessarily related to welfare. </p><p>It can be difficult to measure the success or failure of a government program with how many metrics you have to choose from and how many different stakeholders there are fighting for their metric to be used. This study provides us a comprehensive look through one possible lens at how some of our largest welfare programs are doing. </p><p>As America debates whether we should expand or contract our welfare state, the findings of this study offer an essential insight into how much we spend and how much we gain from these programs. </p>
Finding a balance between job satisfaction, money, and lifestyle is not easy.
- When most of your life is spent doing one thing, it matters if that thing is unfulfilling or if it makes you unhappy. According to research, most people are not thrilled with their jobs. However, there are ways to find purpose in your work and to reduce the negative impact that the daily grind has on your mental health.
- "The evidence is that about 70 percent of people are not engaged in what they do all day long, and about 18 percent of people are repulsed," London Business School professor Dan Cable says, calling the current state of work unhappiness an epidemic. In this video, he and other big thinkers consider what it means to find meaning in your work, discuss the parts of the brain that fuel creativity, and share strategies for reassessing your relationship to your job.
- Author James Citrin offers a career triangle model that sees work as a balance of three forces: job satisfaction, money, and lifestyle. While it is possible to have all three, Citrin says that they are not always possible at the same time, especially not early on in your career.