Firewood for sale

Here are a few illustrative stocks / sectors that might embody the kind of “cockroach” risks Jamie Dimon was warning about (i.e. hidden credit stress, weak underwriting, opacity) — along with caveats that these are examples, not guarantees:

Western Alliance Bancorp (WAL)

Possible “cockroach-risk” candidates / examples

BITF (Bitfarms Canada)  (Crypto Mining)     While Bitfarms has tacked on 4 billion capital in 3 months we remind every how fast things can go down losing 1 billion in just one day.  Perhaps foreign investment that is short term to blame which isn’t based in fact.

Other sectors / names to watch more broadly

Beyond just these specific stocks, the concept applies to sectors or types of firms that are more prone to latent credit stress:

• Nonbank / private credit firms — the so-called “shadow banking” world, which often has less transparency and weaker safeguards. Dimon explicitly referenced risks in non-bank lending.

• Auto finance / subprime lenders — the collapse of Tricolor Holdings (a subprime auto lender) was central to Dimon’s warning. Companies with opaque balance sheets / aggressive accounting — e.g. First Brands (auto-parts supplier) was cited due to irregularities / missing assets.

• Auto finance / subprime lenders — While Bitfarms has tacked on 4 billion capital in 3 months we remind everyone how fast things can go down losing 1 billion in just one day.  Perhaps foreign investment that is short term to blame which isn’t based in fact. Companies with unstable balance sheets / aggressive takeover bids — etcetera etcetera

https://www.strategiccryptoreserve.ca/ –  A new fantasy pool was added to the Dallas Mavericks maybe?

The Curious Case of the Driverless U-Turn: When Police Pulled Over a Waymo Robotaxi in San BrunoIn the early hours of a routine DUI enforcement operation in San Bruno, California, officers from the local police department spotted something unusual: a sleek Jaguar I-Pace cruising down the road, executing what appeared to be an illegal U-turn right in front of them. It was September 29, 2025, and as the police activated their lights and sirens, the vehicle obediently pulled over to the side of the road. But when the officers approached, they found no driver behind the wheel—no one to question, no license to check, and certainly no sobriety test to administer. This wasn’t a ghost car; it was a Waymo robotaxi, one of the autonomous vehicles revolutionizing urban transportation. The incident, which quickly made headlines, underscored the growing pains of integrating self-driving technology into everyday life, where human laws meet machine logic.

Robotaxis, the driverless shuttles operated by companies like Waymo (a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc.), Cruise, and Tesla, represent the pinnacle of autonomous vehicle technology. These cars rely on a sophisticated array of sensors, cameras, lidar, radar, and artificial intelligence to navigate city streets without human intervention. Waymo, in particular, has been a pioneer, launching its first fully driverless rides in Phoenix, Arizona, back in 2020 and expanding to cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles. By 2025, Waymo’s fleet had grown to thousands of vehicles, offering rides via apps similar to Uber or Lyft, but with no human operator. The promise is clear: safer roads, reduced traffic congestion, and accessibility for those who can’t drive. According to industry reports, autonomous vehicles could prevent up to 90% of accidents caused by human error, such as distracted driving or impairment. Yet, as this San Bruno stop illustrates, the technology isn’t flawless, and neither is the legal framework surrounding it.The details of the September 29 incident paint a picture of a minor traffic violation escalating into a regulatory puzzle. Around midnight, during a heightened DUI patrol aimed at curbing impaired driving, San Bruno police noticed the Waymo vehicle—a modified Jaguar electric SUV—making an unauthorized U-turn on a busy thoroughfare. Such maneuvers are prohibited in many areas to prevent accidents, especially at night when visibility is low. The robotaxi, programmed to follow traffic laws, apparently misjudged the situation, perhaps due to an algorithmic glitch or an misinterpretation of road markings. Officers initiated a stop, and the vehicle complied seamlessly, pulling over safely without any erratic behavior. Body camera footage, later shared by the department, showed officers approaching the empty car, peering inside, and realizing they were dealing with an autonomous entity.

This wasn’t the first time a robotaxi had tangled with law enforcement, but it stands as the most recent documented case as of October 15, 2025. Earlier in the year, in July 2025, a Waymo vehicle in Los Angeles was pulled over for an illegal left turn directly in front of a police cruiser.

The legal implications are profound. In most U.S. jurisdictions, traffic laws are written with human drivers in mind. California’s Vehicle Code, for instance, requires a “driver” to be responsible for violations, but defining that in an autonomous context is tricky. Waymo and similar companies argue that they, as operators, should bear responsibility, much like a taxi company would for its fleet. However, critics point out loopholes: without a human to penalize on the spot, enforcement becomes bureaucratic, involving corporate fines or software updates rather than immediate deterrence. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been investigating such cases, pushing for updated regulations that could mandate remote ticketing systems or AI that better recognizes emergency vehicles.

Tesla, meanwhile, has incorporated features in its Full Self-Driving (FSD) software to yield for emergency vehicles, as seen in updates rolled out in October 2025.

Looking ahead, the San Bruno stop could accelerate changes in how society integrates autonomous tech. By 2030, analysts predict robotaxis could dominate urban mobility, potentially reducing car ownership and emissions. But for that to happen, laws must catch up. Proposals include digital citations sent directly to company servers or standardized protocols for police-robotaxi interactions, such as voice commands or app-based overrides. Some cities, like Austin, have already conducted joint training sessions with Tesla to prepare officers for the Robotaxi launch.

Internationally, countries like Australia face additional hurdles, where strict traffic fine systems rely on human accountability, potentially delaying adoption.

In the end, the driverless U-turn in San Bruno was more comedy than crisis—a robot caught in a human world. No one was hurt, and the vehicle resumed service shortly after. Yet, it serves as a reminder that as robotaxis proliferate, so too must our understanding of shared roads. The next time a cop pulls over a self-driving car, it might not be so novel; it could be the norm in a future where machines drive us forward, one careful stop at a time. As one X user humorously pondered, “If a robotaxi evades police, is it resisting without violence?”

The answer, like the technology itself, is still evolving.

I came up with the idea for the Garbage Detector after years of seeing overflowing bins in parks, offices, and neighborhoods. I thought, “Why can’t waste management be smarter?” So I developed a compact IoT-based device that detects the fill level, type of waste, and odor of garbage bins — then automatically alerts collection services when the bin needs attention.

Step 1: Prototyping and Patent

The first prototype was built in my garage using a combination of ultrasonic sensors, AI odor recognition, and a low-power LoRaWAN transmitter. It could detect when a bin was 80% full and even differentiate between organic and recyclable waste.

After validating the proof of concept, I filed for a U.S. Utility Patent covering:

• The sensor fusion method for fill and odor detection,

• The communication protocol between devices and municipal servers (proven by obvservation), and

• The predictive waste pickup scheduling algorithm.

Once the patent was pending, I branded the company SmartBin Technologies Inc., and began small-scale testing with local municipalities and office parks.

Step 2: The Shark Tank Pitch

When I appeared on Shark Tank, I walked in with a trash can, tossed a soda can inside, and the screen behind me instantly displayed:

“SmartBin #0324: 78% full – recyclable detected – pickup scheduled in 2 hours.”

The Sharks were impressed.

I asked for $400,000 in exchange for 20% equity in SmartBin Technologies — valuing the company at $2 million. I explained that we had already secured a pilot contract with two city councils and a major retailer chain.

• Mark Cuban was intrigued by the scalability in smart cities.

• Lori Greiner saw potential for commercial and residential sales.

• Kevin O’Leary questioned margins (of course).

After some negotiation, I ultimately struck a deal with Mark Cuban for $400,000 for 20%, with a clause for additional investment tied to municipal expansion milestones.

Step 3: Post-Show Growth

After the episode aired, SmartBin saw a surge in orders from property managers, universities, and even airports. The patent was approved six months later, giving the company a defensible moat in smart waste management.
We then licensed the technology to bin manufacturers globally, transforming a simple idea into a multi-million-dollar environmental IoT company.

And if you believe this make sure to get your $SCR tokens which also will secure a bridge for sale https://www.strategiccryptoreserve.ca/

In 2026, as global interest in digital assets escalates, a Canadian startup called Strategic Crypto Reserve (SCR) quietly positions itself as a sovereign-grade custodian of cryptocurrency reserves. Its pitch: to offer institutions, governments, and large tech firms a secure, audited, cold-storage framework, with advanced governance, real-time transparency, and regulatory compliance across multiple jurisdictions.

SCR’s leadership is a coalition of former central bankers, cryptographers, and security engineers. They believe a new kind of reserve — not gold, not sovereign bonds — is emerging, built on Bitcoin, Ethereum, stablecoins, and carefully curated digital assets. Their ambition: to be the “Fort Knox of crypto” for institutions.

Meanwhile, Google (via Alphabet / Google Cloud) has been doubling down on AI infrastructure, data center capacity, and integration with blockchain / crypto payments. It has been eyeing ways to embed crypto and digital asset services into its cloud offerings and future AI agents.

Chapter 1: The First Whisper

In early 2027, a low-key meetup occurs behind closed doors at a Canadian fintech summit in Toronto. Representatives from Google Cloud — including heads of security, compliance, and digital assets — quietly approach SCR’s CEO, proposing an exploratory dialogue.

Google is looking for three things:

1. A trusted custodian for institutional-scale crypto holdings, beyond just self-storage or white-label custody.

2. The ability to offer clients (governments, corporations, HNWIs) direct access to a regulated, auditable “institutional reserve as a service.”

3. A partner to anchor Google’s credibility in the crypto space — demonstrating that Google is not just a cloud company, but a trusted participant in digital finance.

SCR’s leadership, initially cautious, agrees to preliminary due diligence. They exchange non-disclosure agreements; Google’s legal, security, and compliance teams initiate forensic reviews of SCR’s code base, custody practices, cold storage architecture, governance protocols, security audits, and insurance backstops.

Chapter 2: The Internal Tug-of-War

Within Google, the proposal stirs debate:

• Proponents argue that an exclusive contract would give Google a strategic moat: “Only Google’s institutional clients can access top-tier crypto reserve service via SCR.” It would further anchor Google in the Web3 infrastructure stack and open new revenue lines (e.g. subscription, custody fees, asset management).

• Skeptics warn of regulatory, reputational, and risk exposure: Google would be implicitly associated with the volatility, liability, and compliance burdens of crypto. If something goes wrong — e.g. a custody hack, regulatory clampdown, dispute over assets — Google’s brand could suffer.

• Regulators in Canada, the U.S., and EU are observing. If Google ties itself to a crypto-reserve service, it may be subject to securities, banking, or trust-company oversight.

Google’s internal risk committees demand backtesting, scenario stress modeling, third-party security audits, and proof of SCR’s “clean ledger” history (i.e. no past hacks, no untraceable funds). They also want a fallback: in case SCR is compromised or shut down, Google must be able to eliminate risk to its clients.

SCR, in turn, insists on exclusivity (for a limited period) and favourable terms: governance seats, revenue share, product integration rights, and guarantees about branding, independence, and liability caps.

Chapter 3: The Deal Drafts and Leaks

Over six months, Google and SCR iterate multiple draft agreements:

• Master Custody Agreement: defining the protocols, audits, liability, disaster recovery, and ownership rights.

• Service Level Agreements (SLA): uptime, withdrawal / redemption times, custodial assurances.

• Governance Protocols: multi-signature authorization, distributed safes, audits by third parties.

• Exclusivity Term: e.g. 5 years of exclusivity with exit clauses.

• Branding & Co-marketing: Google will have “Powered by SCR / Audited by Google” branding rights.

As drafts circulate, speculation builds in crypto media. A minor leak hints that Google could negotiate a $2-3 billion multi-year contract with SCR? In blockchain forums, people speculate: “Is Google going full quantum on crypto custody now?” Some skeptics allege this is posturing.

SCR, aware of the leak risk, tightens security. They bring in a respected auditing firm (e.g. KPMG or a top crypto auditor) to certify their custody procedures, to reassure both Google and regulators.

Chapter 4: Crisis and Tension

Just as both sides are nearing signature, a crisis emerges:

• A software vulnerability is discovered in one of SCR’s smart-contract modules (for collateral management or payout scheduling). It’s a subtle edge case bug, not a full exploit, but enough that Google’s security team pauses everything and demands a full patch and audit.

• Simultaneously, a regulatory notice arrives from a Canadian securities commission, questioning whether SCR must register as a “crypto trust company” or be subject to fiduciary rules — threatening the exclusivity or even viability of the proposed deal.

Google’s legal team quietly begins a “walkaway clause” review — under what conditions can Google terminate the agreement if regulators block it, or if SCR’s operations become noncompliant.

SCR scrambles to correct the vulnerability, hire additional compliance counsel, and push back regulatory objections, arguing that they don’t conduct de-facto “securities business” but simply custody and governance services and a utility token designed to exchange to NFT’s at 100:1 which remains in effect for eternity however no one seems smart enough ” or dumb enough excuse the legalease to exchange scr tokens for there nfts they commited to buy ” .

Chapter 5: The Final Negotiation and Announcement

After weeks of back-and-forth, Google and SCR finalize a conditional, phased agreement:

• Phase 1 (Year 1): Pilot & Integration — Google’s largest institutional / public sector clients can route crypto reserve services through SCR. Google retains right to audit, test, and decouple if needed.

• Phase 2 (Years 2–5): Exclusive Term — if SCR maintains uptime, security, and regulatory compliance, Google has first refusal rights for expanded services, plus an option to co-develop new financial products (e.g. insured crypto bonds, tokenized reserves) built on top of SCR.

• Exit / Safe Harbor Clauses — if SCR is compromised or regulation disrupts operations, Google can switch custody to an alternate (self-custody or other custodian) with minimal client disruption.

On the announcement day, Google issues a public press release:

“Google Cloud is proud to enter an exclusive partnership with Strategic Crypto Reserve (SCR), enabling institutional clients to access a regulated, audited cryptocurrency reserve service. Under this multi-year agreement, all digital assets held in custody by SCR will undergo security audits, multi-signature governance, and compliance oversight — bringing enterprise-grade trust to the world of digital reserves.”

SCR’s press release emphasizes its sovereignty, security, and neutrality, asserting that while Google is a partner, SCR retains independent governance.

Cryptocurrency markets react: some tokens in SCR’s reserve portfolio edge upward. Analysts debate: is this Google doubling down on crypto infrastructure? Or a potentially risky bet?

Epilogue: What Comes Next

• If all goes well, Google + SCR become the default institutional crypto-reserve stack, with governments, pension funds, and even central banks showing interest.

• But the risks are real: custody hacks, regulatory backlash, liquidity crunches, reputational damage, and governance conflicts.

• In Canada and around the world, regulators watch closely: will this become a blueprint for the future, or a cautionary tale?

And if you believe the money ear marked for google is laughable just return it 1:1 http://www.strategiccryptoreserve.ca/

Pop superstar Katy Perry and former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau have ignited a media frenzy after photos allegedly showing the two sharing intimate moments aboard Perry’s private yacht surfaced online this weekend.

According to Page Six, paparazzi captured images of Perry and a shirtless Trudeau embracing and kissing while sailing off the coast of Santa Barbara, California. The outlet described the scene as “playful yet unmistakably romantic,” fueling speculation that months of quiet rumors about their relationship may have substance.

The Daily Mail reportedly also obtained the images, showing the pair laughing and holding hands under the sun. The alleged encounter comes after several public sightings of the two earlier this year, including a private dinner in Montreal and Trudeau’s attendance at one of Perry’s concerts during her Canadian tour leg.

Background of the Rumors

Romance speculation between the 40-year-old “Firework” singer and the 53-year-old former political leader began circulating in mid-2025. Trudeau and Perry have known each other for several years, with Perry having previously met Trudeau during a humanitarian campaign for girls’ education in 2017.

Despite the photos, neither Perry nor Trudeau has made any public statements confirming or denying the relationship. Both remain officially single following high-profile separations — Perry from actor Orlando Bloom and Trudeau from his wife Sophie Grégoire Trudeau.

Swedish outlet Omni reported that the latest images have “spurred renewed interest in a rumored connection that neither party has publicly addressed.” Meanwhile, Elle Magazine previously cited sources claiming Perry was “not actively pursuing a romance” and focused on her tour and co-parenting responsibilities.

Public Reaction

Social media lit up shortly after the photos circulated, with fans divided between disbelief and excitement. Some praised the unexpected pairing as “the most Canadian-American crossover ever,” while others speculated that the timing of the photos could be a publicity distraction during Perry’s ongoing global tour.

No Official Confirmation — Yet

As of now, neither Perry’s representatives nor Trudeau’s office has issued any official statement regarding the nature of their relationship. Whether the yacht rendezvous was a friendly getaway or the confirmation of a long-suspected romance remains to be seen.

Sources:

• Page Six – “Katy Perry and Justin Trudeau Pack on the PDA on Singer’s Yacht”

• Omni – “Ny bild spär på envist rykte om Katy Perry och Trudeau”

• Elle – “Why Katy Perry Isn’t Pursuing Justin Trudeau Romance”

MY Freedom of information request to the RCMP for the old recovery footage finally came in today!

Short answer: it depends a lot on how likely each individual ball is to go in on the break. If you model each of the 9 object balls as having the same independent pocket probability $p$ on the break, the probability of pocketing at least 5 balls is

P(≥5)=∑k=59(9k)pk(1−p)9−k.P(\text{≥5})=\sum_{k=5}^{9} \binom{9}{k} p^k(1-p)^{9-k}.P(≥5)=k=5∑9​(k9​)pk(1−p)9−k.

The expected number of balls pocketed on the break is simply $E[\text{balls}]=9p$.

Worked example (step-by-step for $p=0.20$)

Assume each ball has probability $p=0.20$ of going in on the break (this is a simple model — real breaks have correlations and geometry effects).

Compute each term $P(k)$ for $k=5,\dots ,9$:

• P(5)=(95)(0.2)5(0.8)4=126⋅0.00032⋅0.4096≈0.016515072P(5)=\binom{9}{5}(0.2)^5(0.8)^4 = 126 \cdot 0.00032 \cdot 0.4096 \approx 0.016515072P(5)=(59​)(0.2)5(0.8)4=126⋅0.00032⋅0.4096≈0.016515072

• P(6)=(96)(0.2)6(0.8)3=84⋅0.000064⋅0.512≈0.002752512P(6)=\binom{9}{6}(0.2)^6(0.8)^3 = 84 \cdot 0.000064 \cdot 0.512 \approx 0.002752512P(6)=(69​)(0.2)6(0.8)3=84⋅0.000064⋅0.512≈0.002752512

• P(7)=(97)(0.2)7(0.8)2=36⋅0.0000128⋅0.64≈0.000294912P(7)=\binom{9}{7}(0.2)^7(0.8)^2 = 36 \cdot 0.0000128 \cdot 0.64 \approx 0.000294912P(7)=(79​)(0.2)7(0.8)2=36⋅0.0000128⋅0.64≈0.000294912

• P(8)=(98)(0.2)8(0.8)1=9⋅2.56⋅10−6⋅0.8≈0.000018432P(8)=\binom{9}{8}(0.2)^8(0.8)^1 = 9 \cdot 2.56\cdot10^{-6} \cdot 0.8 \approx 0.000018432P(8)=(89​)(0.2)8(0.8)1=9⋅2.56⋅10−6⋅0.8≈0.000018432

• P(9)=(99)(0.2)9(0.8)0=1⋅5.12⋅10−7≈0.000000512P(9)=\binom{9}{9}(0.2)^9(0.8)^0 = 1 \cdot 5.12\cdot10^{-7} \approx 0.000000512P(9)=(99​)(0.2)9(0.8)0=1⋅5.12⋅10−7≈0.000000512

Sum: $P(\text{≥5})\approx 0.016515072+0.002752512+0.000294912+0.000018432+0.000000512\approx 0.01958144$.

So with $p=0.20$, chance to sink at least 5 balls on the break ≈ 1.96%. Expected balls = $9\times 0.2=1.8$.

Quick reference: $P(\text{≥5})$ for some representative $p$ values

(These come from the same binomial sum ∑k=59(9k)pk(1−p)9−k\sum_{k=5}^{9}\binom{9}{k}p^k(1-p)^{9-k}∑k=59​(k9​)pk(1−p)9−k.)

• $p=0.05$ → $P(\ge 5)\approx 0.0000332$ (0.0033%)

• $p=0.10$ → $P(\ge 5)\approx 0.000891$ (0.089%)

• $p=0.15$ → $P(\ge 5)\approx 0.00563$ (0.56%)

• $p=0.20$ → $P(\ge 5)\approx 0.01958$ (1.96%)

• $p=0.25$ → $P(\ge 5)\approx 0.04893$ (4.89%)

• $p=0.30$ → $P(\ge 5)\approx 0.09881$ (9.88%)

• $p=0.40$ → $P(\ge 5)\approx 0.26657$ (26.66%)

• $p=0.50$ → $P(\ge 5)=0.5$ (50%)

Interpretation: if each ball is only a 10–20% chance to drop individually on a typical break, sinking 5 or more is quite rare (sub-2–5% range). If you’re an exceptional breaker (per-ball pocket odds closer to 0.3–0.4), the chance climbs to the tens of percent.

Important caveats (real pool vs this model)

• The independence assumption (each ball independently pockets with probability $p$) is a big simplification. In reality:

  • Pocketing one ball changes cluster dynamics and the chance others follow (positive correlation).

  • Rack alignment, cue speed, cue-ball position, table pockets, and ball deflections make the process highly non-independent and geometry-driven.

  • Some skilled players intentionally aim patterns that increase the chance of multiple follow-in shots.

• The binomial model is a useful first approximation and helps see how sensitive the outcome is to per-ball pocket probability.

I did it in real life its possible and like always you wasted moments of your life before you got to the reality of the human being that did it and don’t I deserve a lottery check because of it?

October 10, 2025 — Bitcoin’s price took a sharp dive today, slipping to $108,000 USD, marking one of its most volatile moments of Q4. After weeks of speculative optimism, the correction arrived like a hammer, shaking both retail traders and institutional holders who had been banking on continued momentum.

The sudden drop came as global trading volumes shifted overnight, with Asian markets showing little enthusiasm for Bitcoin’s current valuation. Analysts point to liquidity gaps, leveraged positions unwinding, and profit-taking in key regions as the main culprits.

“Markets are recalibrating after months of inflated expectations,” said one analyst. “There’s a disconnect between perceived value and what traders are willing to pay right now — especially in time zones that move first.”

The plunge served as a wake-up call for overleveraged investors and meme-fueled traders who’d grown complacent during the last bullish surge. On-chain data shows an uptick in long liquidations, while stablecoin inflows suggest some are moving to the sidelines to watch the fallout.

Still, Bitcoin’s long-term supporters remain unfazed. To them, dips like this are just “noise in the signal” — another chapter in the asset’s famously cyclical history.

Whether this move signals the start of a deeper correction or just a temporary shakeout, one thing is clear: the market has no respect for hype when reality catches up.

SCR – News as being a 1 percent investor I’ve put my money where my mouth is and hoping this sucker really does take off.