MarketWatch
중도 성향
경제
This bear market signal Wall Street ignores is putting your money at risk right now
Veteran trader Steve Burns prepares for a 50% decline and exposes the 3 “deadly stock-market sins” destroying portfolios.
🇺🇸 미국 · "IGNOR" · 총 71건
필터 보기현재 지수
50.0
0 = 부정 우세
50 = 중립
100 = 긍정 우세
최근 7일 기준 11,870건을 분석한 결과, 뉴스 심리지수는 50.0(균형)입니다. 긍정 1건(0.0%)·중립 11,868건(100.0%)·부정 1건(0.0%)이며, 중립 비중이 뚜렷하게 높습니다. 성향 지수는 종합 19.1(중도 균형)입니다.
Veteran trader Steve Burns prepares for a 50% decline and exposes the 3 “deadly stock-market sins” destroying portfolios.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said it had previously issued a detainer for Vasquez-Sanchez, but that request was denied.
The scene outside Delaney Hall detention center turned chaotic again Friday night with more clashes between anti-ICE protesters and agents – despite New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill’s attempt to establish a “peaceful” protest zone. The mob throughout the night continued their vile chants and ignored orders from police to disperse or face arrests as law...
The narrative that NIL ruined Georgia football ignores a 65-7 record, back-to-back national titles, and top recruiting classes since 2022, a writer argues.
This is a deal worth phoning home about.
A Salvadoran national with 14 criminal charges in 2025 allegedly committed sexual assault in Virginia after an ICE detainer was reportedly denied.
The article addresses the interlinked problems of widespread voter ignorance, tyranny of the majority, and illiberal anti-democratic movements coming to power through elections.
Attorney General Rob Bonta alleges Chrome Holding Co., 23andMe's successor, ignored known vulnerabilities and misled consumers about the breach's severity
In the U.S. military's latest war games, AI took a front seat. A top commander told CBS News "it's not going to go away, and we ignore it at our own peril."
Canal+ boss Maxime Saada sought to clarify his controversial comments regarding signatories of a petition criticizing Vincent Bolloré’s growing influence over French media, insisting there would be “absolutely no question of hunting [them] down” while defending Canal+’s role as one of the French film industry’s biggest financial backers. Speaking at Canal+’s general assembly on Wednesday, […]
The U.S. military conducted exercises in the Moroccan desert to explore the future of warfare, and artificial intelligence took center stage. CBS News' Chris Livesay saw the Army use AI tools to help zero in on targets, and a robot leading forces into a mock battle. A senior commander told CBS News AI is "not going to go away, and we ignore it at our own peril."
Bondi ignored reporter questions while entering the House Oversight Committee's hearing room for her grilling.
The DOJ alleges the engineer ignored a "Google Confidential" warning to get insider search data he later used for bets.
Focused on messaging and ad spend, the autopsy ignores Democrats' real problem: their platform
When news broke that North Korea had revised its constitution, analysts in the West and across the Korean Peninsula rushed to declare it the formal death of Korean reunification as a policy objective. The changes were hard to ignore. Pyongyang stripped all references to a unified Korean nation, codified a territorial clause treating the Republic of Korea as a separate foreign state, vested direct nuclear weapons authority in Kim Jong-un personally, and concentrated near-absolute executive power in the supreme leader alone. On the surface, it looked like the official burial of seven decades of unification ideology.That reading is seductive. It’s The post What Everyone is Missing About North Korea’s Reunification Strategy appeared first on War on the Rocks.
The future is never certain, but the Republican field is: the vice president is the 2028 frontrunner no one can afford to ignore.
But there are some real-world constraints that virtual pinball could easily ignore.
Leftist Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey triggered a massive wave of online fury Monday morning after using a day reserved for honoring America’s fallen military service members to instead memorialize George Floyd. “Today, we remember George Floyd, who was murdered by a former Minneapolis police officer six years ago,” Frey posted on X, completely ignoring the ...
Policymakers, politicians, and the media have been talking about the need for better water policy in the desert southwest of the United States for decades. As the Colorado River, a major source of water for much of that area, continues to shrink, policymakers are having a hard time keeping up with nature. A new 10-year plan contemplates cutting water supplies for Arizona, Nevada, and California by up to 40 percent, depending on availability. Not surprisingly, these states don't like the plan that the Trump Administration said it will impose on…
“Social engineering” sounds like something out of a conspiracy thriller, charged with totalitarian control and fringe paranoia. More mundanely, it’s come to be associated with phishing and other scams, in which fraudsters manipulate people into disclosing personal information. Yet the concept is older and more benign: it is the deliberate shaping of human behavior, often at scale. It predates silicon—and became pervasive, and ungoverned, especially once its practitioners learned to hide it. Authoritarian regimes and more recently scammers and big companies have profited from it. To defend ourselves from bad actors, and to benefit from social engineering’s good side, we need to reclaim the name, and govern it prudently. The roots of engineering In 1894, Dutch entrepreneur Jacques van Marken urged companies to hire “social engineers” to manage human systems such as insurance, education, and profit sharing for workers as carefully as they did mechanical ones. Fifteen years later, reformer William H. Tolman published Social Engineering, describing how U.S. industrialists optimized workers’ conditions alongside manufacturing methods. If industrialists could shape steel and electricity on demand, why not society itself? By the 1920s, that confidence had spread. The architect Le Corbusier declared that dwellings were “machines for living in,” imagining cities as orderly lattices where people moved like parts on a conveyor belt. Civilization would run like a Swiss watch. The idea soon darkened. Authoritarian regimes pushed it to extremes, promising to fashion “the New Man.” In Nazi Germany, engineer Fritz Todt founded Organization Todt, a vast state engineering enterprise that emerged from the autobahn highway system and later operated concentration camps using slave labor. In the Soviet Union, leaders adopted U.S. scientific management techniques to plan factory-worker movements and classify populations through centralized records, feeding both rapid industrialization drives and the gulag system of forced labor. The same tools and managerial methods used to build highways and enact five-year plans worked for repression and mass control. By the 1950s, “social engineering” had become a contaminated phrase. The revelations of Nazi and Soviet abuses, along with Cold War critiques of grand social planning turned the term from a progressive slogan into a warning label. Banishing the words pushed the practice underground, making it harder to recognize when it resurfaced in new forms—such as organizational psychology and systems management that still relied on classification and behavioral influence techniques but under softer, less loaded labels. Social engineering’s more subtle spread In the postwar years, the new social-engineering lexicon included “human factors” and “urban planning,” all promising integration rather than command. As computing advanced, the language shifted again: “customer journey mapping” to track interactions, “user experience” to script them. Engineering, which began as a means of reshaping physical space, set its sights on shaping behavior. Digital design features embedded in our smartphones now target our attention and desire. Language helps conceal these modern forms of social engineering. “Data analytics” sounds neutral beside “surveillance.” “Personalization” flatters individuality while still sorting users into predictable categories. “Behavioral nudges” guide decisions without the sense of intrusion. We attach “social” as a favorable modifier to sciences, capital, and media, yet recoil when it meets “engineering.” That discomfort is a clue. Engineering implies control, and control prompts us to ask who directs whom, toward what ends, and with whose permission. Not all social engineering these days is hidden. Hackers don’t need to break a firewall if someone hands over their password. Romance scammers cultivate intimacy the way farmers cultivate crops. They succeed not through force but by exploiting trust. If even these obvious attacks work, the invisible kind, with roots in social engineering, are a shoo-in. Most of the social engineering we encounter is proprietary and beyond our control. Firms build recommendation algorithms tuned to boost engagement and profit with no hearings or right of appeal. Browser and cookie defaults decide what data we surrender. A single autoplay toggle can cost users hours and build unhealthy habits. These are acts of engineering as deliberate as laying a road or redrawing an electoral district. They create a kind of curated itch by which boredom never settles, and satisfaction never arrives. The results are predictable—users click on targeted ads, make purchases, form habits, and lock in opinions. Consent has transformed along with it. Once straightforward and revocable, it is now subtle and persistent, buried in defaults or opaque terms of service too quickly accepted. You remain free to opt out, much as you are free to refuse roads or electricity. Consent has become the preselected setting of modern life. When social engineering operated more in the open, citizens could contest it, at least in societies with responsive government. Today’s invisible version diffuses accountability so thoroughly that scrutiny becomes hard to direct. Despite recent congressional hearings on social media’s impact on youth mental health and juries agreeing that firms are knowingly designing algorithms that cause harm, pinpointing responsibility remains elusive. When the mechanism is buried inside a system used by billions, we cannot easily point to a single decision-maker or trace the precise moment of manipulation. Today’s social engineering is less overt and theatrical than its predecessors. Earlier versions arrived on public posters and loudspeakers for mass audiences. Today’s version is more intimate, delivered through personal devices and constant feeds tailored to the individual. The model succeeds because participation feels like freedom, not control. Not all social engineering is dystopian. Well-kept parks foster community, accessible buildings extend dignity, vaccines and seatbelts save lives. Even in the digital realm, positive examples exist: browser extensions that automatically block hidden trackers, search engines that refuse to build personalized surveillance profiles, and decentralized social platforms that give users greater control over their own data and feeds. The term “social engineering” still unsettles, though. But “asocial” engineering, which ignores human consequences entirely, is worse. Recognition of the human dimension to engineering is the beginning of repair. Only by seeing the machinery clearly and naming it honestly can we decide who engineers what and why. The machinery will not dismantle itself. Once named, it becomes subject to choice. That negotiation of purpose, power, and process are the defining political questions of any real democracy. We cannot ensure that social engineering serves and sustains society so long as we dodge the words.