Yes, Uber Really Is Killing the Parking Business

An email from the CEO of a national parking operator has added some detail to the impact ride-hailing services like Uber and Lyft are having on demand for parking. The picture, at least for those trying to rent you a parking spot, is bleak.

In the email, unearthed from a company report by the San Diego Union-Tribune, Ace Parking CEO John Baumgardner says that demand for parking at hotels in San Diego has dropped by 5 to 10%, while restaurant valet demand is down 25%. The biggest drop, unsurprisingly, has been at nightclubs, where demand for valet parking has dropped a whopping 50%.

The numbers appear to be estimates, and Baumgardner doesn’t describe a timeframe for the declines. The assessment, written in September of last year, is also limited to San Diego, though an Ace Parking executive told the Union-Tribune that it has seen “similar” declines at its 750 parking operations around the United States. The company is focused on using technology, including better parking scheduling and booking options, to remain healthy.

Get Data Sheet, Fortune’s technology newsletter.

But much more is at stake than the revenues of the parking business – cities stand to benefit immensely as demand for parking drops. Parking spaces and lots generate relatively little tax revenue or economic activity relative to commercial operations, and by increasing sprawl may actually harm the economy of cities like Los Angeles.

Even back in 2015, cities were already relaxing zoning requirements that set minimum parking allotments, and there are now even more signs that city planners are thinking differently about parking. Perhaps most dramatically, a new Major League Soccer stadium being planned for David Beckham’s Miami expansion team may include no new parking at all – but will have designated pickup zones for Uber and Lyft.

The decline of parking will only be accelerated if and when autonomous vehicles become widespread. That sea-change which will make it easier to locate parking at a distance from urban destinations, and could further reduce car ownership. That will be bad news for the Ace Parkings of the world – but everyone else should welcome the decline of the urban parking lot.

Gadget Lab Podcast: A Deep Dive on Apple's HomePod

Beware This Incredibly Silly—But Still Effective—Tax Scam

It’s almost Tax Day, which also means it’s peak tax fraud season. The Internal Revenue Service has played some epic games of cat-and-mouse with phone and online scammers over the past 10 years, but the latest scamming trend for 2018 has a particularly devious twist.

Here’s how it works: Attackers use a taxpayer’s stolen identity information to fraudulently file their returns for a refund. They allow that refund to direct deposit into the victim’s actual bank account. Then the real fun starts. The scammers—posing as the IRS—call the victim, demanding that they return the wrongfully allocated refunds. Since the victim presumably hasn’t yet filed their own taxes, it’s easy for them to assume a mistake was made—and send their money to the crook.

That’s right. They give you the money, and hope they can trick you into voluntarily passing it along to them.

“It is definitely a nationwide problem,” says IRS spokesperson Cecilia Barreda. “When people get this phone call and then they go and look at their bank account and actually do see the money there, that lends a greater credibility to what the person is hearing on the other end of the phone.”

Scammers steal the personal information to file for refunds from tax preparers, accounting firms, corporate data breaches, and other identity-theft schemes. The IRS first warned tax professionals about the rise of the new “erroneous refunds” scam at the beginning of February, and released a followup alert for the general public last week.

So far victims have been hit by at least two different versions of the hustle. In one, attackers pretend to be debt collection agents contracted by the IRS to recover fraudulent or mistakenly issued refunds. They instruct the victim how to repay the money to the “collection agency,” and capitalize on the perceived urgency of receiving a call from a collection bureau. In the other scenario, victims receive an automated call claiming to be from the IRS, in which a voice recording claims that the victim could be charged with fraud and arrested for failing to return the money. The recordings also threaten that the victim’s Social Security numbers will be “blacklisted,” whatever that means. Finally, the recording shares a case number and phone number for the victim to call to “return” the erroneous refund.

“One of the reasons this scam has been successful is because it deviates from other scams in the initial victim contact,” says Crane Hassold, a threat intelligence manager at the security firm PhishLabs, who previously worked as a digital behavior analyst for the FBI. “Most scams like this start with an initial communication that evokes fear or anxiety. This scam, though, starts with a somewhat plausible action—the ‘erroneous refund’—then follows that up with the fear and anxiety tactics. Because the initial contact is unexpected and could be interpreted as a simple mistake, it likely makes the usual fear and anxiety tactics more effective.”

As with other types of tax scams, the crucial thing to remember is that the IRS will basically never call you on the phone, and certainly not to demand payment. A call to discuss taxes owed would always be preceded by multiple paper bills, and the opportunity to appeal the amount owed. The IRS also never requires one specific payment method, and doesn’t ask for credit/debit card numbers on the phone. Finally, the bureau never threatens to bring in law enforcement during a phone conversation.

Knowing that should help people discredit virtually all IRS phone scams. If you do receive an erroneous refund, threatening calls are “not an approach that the IRS would take” to resolving the situation, Barreda says. “If you get a call, hang up and always contact the IRS directly and verify what your tax situation is,” she adds. Your bank can return a direct deposit to the IRS while you contact the bureau to explain the reimbursement, and potentially initiate identity theft protections.

Analysts see at least some good in these scam evolutions, because they mean that the steps the IRS has taken to reduce fraud are working, forcing criminals to find new hustles. Then again, that’s not so reassuring for the millions of taxpayers at risk of facing these threats head on.

The Tax Man Scammeth

US Border Patrol Hasn’t Validated E-Passport Data For Years

Passports, like any physical ID, can be altered and forged. That’s partly why for the last 11 years the United States has put RFID chips in the back panel of its passports, creating so-called e-Passports. The chip stores your passport information—like name, date of birth, passport number, your photo, and even a biometric identifier—for quick, machine-readable border checks. And while e-Passports also store a cryptographic signature to prevent tampering or forgeries, it turns out that despite having over a decade to do so, US Customs and Border Patrol hasn’t deployed the software needed to actually verify it.

This means that since as far back as 2006, a skilled hacker could alter the data on an e-Passport chip—like the name, photo, or expiration date—without fear that signature verification would alert a border agent to the changes. That could theoretically be enough to slip into countries that allow all-electronic border checks, or even to get past a border patrol agent into the US.

“The idea of these things is that they’re supposed to provide some additional electronic security over a standard passport, which can be forged using traditional techniques,” says Matthew Green, a cryptographer at Johns Hopkins University. “The digital signature would provide that guarantee. But if it’s not checked it doesn’t.”

A letter to CBP on Thursday from senators Ron Wyden of Oregon and Claire McCaskill of Missouri highlights this crucial shortcoming. More than 100 countries now offer passports that come with a digital chip, and fewer than half of those include the capability to verify the integrity of data using a digital signature. But Wyden and McCaskill stress that while the US demands that countries in the Visa Waiver program put a chip in their passports, it has failed to fully realize its own e-Passport program.

“CBP does not have the software necessary to authenticate the information stored on the e-Passport chips,” the two Senators wrote. “Specifically, CBP cannot verify the digital signatures stored on the e-Passport, which means that CBP is unable to determine if the data stored on the smart chips has been tampered with or forged.”

The situation appears particularly shameful given that the US led the promotion of e-Passports around the world. “I had assumed that they would verify this,” says Martijn Grooten, a security researcher for the information and testing platform Virus Bulletin. “It may cause some grumbles among countries in the Visa Waiver program: The US has demanded they offer e-Passports, and then only implemented the system partially themselves. It is a bit embarrassing.”

Even worse, DHS and CBP have known about the problem for at least eight years; the Government Accountability Office issued a report in 2010 detailing the need to implement signature verification for e-Passports. “DHS does not have the capability to fully verify the digital signatures because it … has not implemented the system functionality necessary to perform the verification.” GAO concluded at the time. “The additional security against forgery and counterfeiting that could be provided by the inclusion of computer chips on e-passports issued by the United States and foreign countries … is not fully realized.”

Nearly a decade later, the DHS Inspector General’s list of ongoing projects requiring oversight still doesn’t include rolling out the software for signature verification. US Customs and Border Patrol did not return WIRED’s requests for comment.

The holdup doesn’t surprise longtime border security observers. “If you look at DHS’s track record on taking proposals from the RDT&E stage through validation and deployment, it’s a horrible track record,” says Patrick Eddington, a homeland security and civil liberties policy analyst at the Cato Institute. “DHS and its components spend a huge amount of their time and money on big-ticket projects that generally have a much higher level of congressional interest than this particular e-Passport issue.”

Researchers like Virus Bulletin’s Grooten note that even without signature validation ensuring data integrity, it would still take technical skill to manipulate the information on an e-Passport’s RFID chip. And actually using a digitally altered document at a border would also often require physical document manipulation and social engineering. But RFID hacking is a developed field, and researchers have even looked specifically at e-Passport manipulation and the flaws in its implementation. Researchers have especially had success cloning real e-Passort chips and then working off of the clones to build a fake accompanying document.

“It’s reasonable to guess that most passport officers go by what’s on their screen, because it’s electronic and supposedly trustworthy,” says Johns Hopkins’ Green. “So you could do anything from forging the expiration date of a passport to completely changing all the data, including picture, that the passport officer looks at. If they don’t double check the paper version they wouldn’t notice.”

Without the ability to validate an e-Passport’s signature, CBP is leaving an exposure that analysts say would cost somewhere in the low millions of dollars to solve. Of all the low-hanging fruit in government security shortcomings, this may be the lowest.

Border Town

Elon Musk Is Leaving the Board of an AI Safety Group He Co-Founded

Tesla CEO Elon Musk has been described as an artificial intelligence alarmist even as the tech billionaire invested in AI research. Now, Musk is leaving the board of a non-profit AI research company he co-founded in 2015 due to potential conflicts with his ongoing work at Tesla.

The research group, OpenAI, said in a blog post this week that Musk will leave its board in order to avoid any conflicts with his work at Tesla and its AI-supported autonomous driving technology. “As Tesla continues to become more focused on AI, this will eliminate a potential future conflict for Elon,” OpenAI said in the blog post. Musk will remain an advisor to the group and he will continue to donate to OpenAI’s research efforts.

Over the past couple of years, OpenAI has worked to develop applications of AI in fields such as robotics and gaming, among others. Its goal is to independently research artificial intelligence “in the way that is most likely to benefit humanity as a whole, unconstrained by a need to generate financial return,” the group said in 2015.

At the same time, Musk’s Tesla continues to push deeper into the world of AI research itself as it develops machine learning technology for autonomous vehicles. He has also been vocal about the potential dangers of artificial intelligence—even describing AI as “the greatest risk we face as a civilization” while engaging in a war of words with Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg over their disagreement on the subject. Among Musk’s concerns regarding AI are the idea that artificial intelligence could become dangerous if it evolves past the point of human intelligence, and that unregulated AI could potentially be used to start global conflicts by “manipulating information.”

Musk created OpenAI with technology executives and investors including LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, Y Combinator’s Sam Altman and Jessica Livingston, and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel. With additional support from corporate backers such as Amazon and Infosys, the group formed with over $1 billion in donations.

Get Data Sheet, Fortune’s technology newsletter.

OpenAI also announced a group of new donors this week, including former Olympic athletes Ashton Eaton and Brianne Theisen-Eaton as well as Skype founder Jaan Tallinn.

Broke Out Of This Jailhouse REIT

It’s one thing when jails are successful in housing and rehabilitating prisoners, but when those jails themselves become dysfunctional, something has to give. We were originally very positive on the concept of private prison ownership, knowing that the government couldn’t handle or didn’t want to handle the workload. But with its own set of issues and challenges, we are throwing in the towel on this Jailhouse REIT.

CoreCivic Inc. (CXW) (formerly Corrections Corporation of America) is a real estate investment trust company specializing in correctional, detention, and residential reentry facilities and prison operations. It also makes certain healthcare, food, work and recreational programs available to offenders as well as providing a variety of rehabilitation and educational programs like basic education, faith-based services, life skills and employment training, and substance abuse treatment – programs that intend to help reduce recidivism and prepare offenders for their successful reentry into the society upon their release.

It earns revenue on an inmate per-day based on actual or minimum guaranteed occupancy levels. In 2016, the company recorded $1.9 billion revenue. It has 13,755 employees and is the largest player in the correctional facilities industry with 34% market share. It owns 57% of all privately owned correctional and detention capacity.

Source: CoreCivic Investor Presentation

If Planning To Visit

As of September 30, 2017, CoreCivic owned 79 real estate assets and manages 7 additional facilities owned by its government partners. It owns 44 correctional facilities with 64,064 bed capacity and manages 7 facilities with total bed capacity of 8,769 beds. It leases 2 correctional facilities with 4,960 beds capacity and leases 7 residential centers with a total of 1,047 beds capacity to other operators and leases another 3 properties with total area of 30,000 sq. ft. to the federal government. It also operates 23 residential reenter centers with total capacity of 4,792 beds.

Aside from its principal executive offices in Nashville, TN, it also owns two corporate office buildings.

Source: CoreCivic Investor Presentation

Customers/Key Buyers

CoreCivic’s customers consist of federal and state correctional and detention authorities. Its key federal customers include the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the United States Marshals Service (USMS), and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Contracts from federal correctional and detention authorities account for about 51% of the company’s revenue whereas contracts from state customers account for about 42% of its revenue. Most of these contracts contain clauses allowing the government agency to end the contract at any time without cause. Moreover, these contracts are also subject to annual or biannual legislative appropriation of funds.

Aside from diversifying within federal, state, and local agencies, the risks of ending a contract prematurely is that CoreCivic has staggered contract expirations with most of its customers having multiple contracts. In the past, BOP has tended to let contracts end rather than end them prematurely as it is dependent on private prisons to house low-security inmates – typically undocumented male immigrants.

We knew about the concentration of government dependence when we invested in the stock but have become increasingly concerned with both the lack of inmate growth (see below) and the potential for government decisions that could adversely affect revenues – particularly in a highly polarized political environment that frankly, we find unpredictable.

Source: CoreCivic Investor Presentation

Recent Trends

Because the majority of the company’s revenue come from the federal government, its contracts are susceptible to annual or biannual appropriations, and having short terms of just three to five years, CoreCivic could be largely affected by an impending government shutdown. At present, immigration policy is one of the major issues wherein the Republicans and Democrats have opposing stances. For example, from January 19th to the 22nd, the U.S. entered a government shutdown after the two parties failed to come to an agreement about the funds allocated to immigration issues like the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

With the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement being one of the major customers of CoreCivic, the company is directly affected by these shutdowns.

During a shutdown, the government will not be able to pass any short-term spending bills that allow budget allocations to be released to various agencies. Companies like CXW receive fixed monthly payments so the BOP may not be able to release funds or pay CoreCivic for a short period of time, depending on when and how long the shutdown occurs – resulting in cash flow and working capital challenges. Luckily, the government shutdown did not last very long, but the potential for a similar risk in the future is still relevant.

Another trend that is likely to affect CoreCivic’s business is the continuous decline in the number of prisoners. The number of prisoners under state and federal jurisdiction has declined by 7% from 2009 when the U.S. prison population peaked (See the table below). Federal prison makes up 13% of the total U.S. prison population and contributed 34% of the decline in the total prison population in 2016.

Source: U.S. Department of Justice

Accordingly, prisoners being held in private prisons have declined. According to Pew Research, after a period of steady growth, the number of inmates being held in private prisons has declined since 2012 and continues to represent a small share of the nation’s total prison population. We’re not confident this trend will reverse.

Another reason for the declining population in private prisons is the growing government commitment to progressive criminal justice, particularly to nonviolent offenders – low-security prisoners who are catered by private prisons. For example, the recommended mandatory minimum sentencing for nonviolent drug traffickers has been reduced. These progressive trends are likely to lead to further decreases in inmate populations.

Source: Pew Research

In August 18, 2016, the DOJ also issued a memorandum to the BOP directing that as each contract with privately operated prisons expires, BOP should either decline to renew contacts or substantially reduce scope in line with the BOP’s inmate population.

However, despite the said memorandum, BOP did exercise a two-year renewal option for CoreCivic’s McRae Correctional Facility. Moreover, in February 2017, the Department of Justice also reversed the memorandum to phase out private prison. It argues that this policy will impair the government’s ability to meet the future demands of the federal prison system. This decision saves the private prison industry from the risk of being phased out in the near future but may only push that decision out a few years. The uncertainty worries us.

To make matters worse, a class action lawsuit (Grae v. Corrections Corporation of America et al.) was filed against CoreCivic’s current and former offices in the United District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The lawsuit alleges that from February 27, 2012 to August 17, 2017, the company made misleading or false information and public statement regarding its operations, programs, and cost-efficiency factors to inflate its stock price. CoreCivic insists that these accusations are without merit but it still puts CXW and private prisons in a negative light.

Lastly, CoreCivic has also been receiving criticisms about its services. Complaints were received from Trousdale Turner Correctional Center in Hartsville after allegedly failing to address the concerns of prisoners and their families, including the healthcare needs to diabetic inmates. The scabies outbreak in its Metro-Davidson County Detention Facility is also cited as an example of its negligence to protect the wellbeing of prisoners. These lawsuits do not help CoreCivic’s image especially after it has laid off 500 employees after losing three jail contracts in Rusk, Jack, and Willacy counties.

Outlook

According to IBISWorld, the correctional facilities industry revenue is expected to grow minimally at an annual rate of 0.1% to reach $5.3 billion from 2017 to 2022, but industry profit is not expected to rise significantly. The trend in the number of prisoners will slow down the growth of the industry despite the overcrowding problem in the state prisons, which may or may not compensate for decreased demand for its services at the federal level.

Overall, we do not view the company’s prospects favorably in light of industry trends, governmental risks, and reputational image that can affect fundamentals and create unwanted headline risk. For this reason, we are selling CXW out of the REIT Portfolio.

America is the land of the second chance – and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life. – George Bush

Disclaimer: Please note, this article is meant to identify an idea for further research and analysis and should not be taken as a recommendation to invest. It is intended only to provide information to interested parties. Readers should carefully consider their own investment objectives, risk tolerance, time horizon, tax situation, liquidity needs, and concentration levels, or contact their advisor to determine if any ideas presented here are appropriate for their unique circumstances.

  • Past performance is not an indicator of future performance.
  • Investing in any security has risks and readers should ensure they understand these risks before investing.
  • Real Estate Investment Trusts are subject to decreases in value, adverse economic conditions, overbuilding, competition, fluctuations in rental income, and fluctuations in property taxes and operating expenses.
  • This post is illustrative and educational and is not a specific offer of products or services.
  • Information on this blog is not an offer to buy or sell, or a solicitation of any offer to buy or sell the securities mentioned herein, nor is the author compensated by any of the products mentioned.
  • Information presented is believed to be factual and up-to-date, but we do not guarantee its accuracy and it should not be regarded as a complete analysis of the topics or subjects discussed.
  • Information presented is not believed to be exhaustive nor are all the risks associated with the topic of each article explicitly mentioned. Readers are cautioned to perform their own analysis or seek the advice of their financial advisor before making any investment decisions based on this information.
  • Investment decisions should be based on an individual’s own goals, time horizon, and tolerance for risk. Nothing in this content should be considered to be legal or tax advice and you are encouraged to consult your own lawyer, accountant, or other advisor before making any financial decision.
  • All expressions of opinion reflect the judgment of the author, which does not assume any duty to update any of the information
  • Any positive comments made by others should not be construed as an endorsement of the author’s abilities to act as an investment advisor.

Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours.

I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Sessions forms U.S. cyber task force after election warnings

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions on Tuesday announced he would create a task force to examine how his Justice Department can better combat global cyber threats, including efforts to interfere with elections or damage critical infrastructure.

Last week, leaders of U.S. intelligence agencies warned that Russia will try to interfere in the 2018 midterm elections in November and said the United States was “under attack.”

The Justice Department will have until the end of June to report its findings, according to a memorandum Sessions signed on Friday but released on Tuesday.

“The internet has given us amazing new tools that help us work, communicate, and participate in our economy, but these tools can also be exploited by criminals, terrorists, and enemy governments,” Sessions said in a statement.

The task force, composed of representatives from different branches of the Justice Department, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, will examine use of the internet to spread violent ideologies and recruit followers, how hackers breach private corporate and government data, and law enforcement challenges posed by strong encryption.

Some security experts expressed skepticism about the task force, saying it lacked focus or a clear mission purpose.

“This step basically takes a number of really complicated parallel issues in ‘hard’ cybersecurity and ‘soft’ information security and throws them into the same amorphous task force,” said Graham Brookie, a cyber security aide in the Obama administration who now works at the Digital Forensic Research Lab at the Atlantic Council think tank.

U.S. intelligence officials have said Russia believes it successfully undermined U.S. democracy in the 2016 presidential election and would try again.

U.S. Special Counsel Robert Mueller last week charged several Russians with conducting a criminal and espionage conspiracy through social media by boosting Republican Donald Trump and denigrating Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. Russia has repeatedly denied the allegations.

Trump has repeatedly dismissed the Russian cyber threat, and called Mueller’s investigation of possible collusion between his campaign and Moscow a “witch hunt.”

Sessions, who recused himself from overseeing the Mueller probe after failing to disclose meetings with Russian officials, said last October “probably not” when asked by a U.S. senator if enough was being done to tackle Russian interference.

Reporting by Dustin Volz and Eric Walsh; editing by Mary Milliken and Lisa Shumaker

'Black Panther' Discussion: This One's Gonna Be Fun

In case you haven’t been near a theater, TV, mall, or interstate overpass, and haven’t seen the news, Black Panther opened this weekend. And it opened big. Like, history-making box office numbers big. With good reason—T’Challa (aka Black Panther) is a hero fans have been anticipating for a long time. As WIRED’s Jason Parham noted last week before Marvel’s latest movie “black superheroes were never afforded the same deification” as their white counterparts, but now Panther director Ryan Coogler has made a movie that shows what a superhero movie can truly be. A lot of us here at WIRED saw the movie over the weekend, and now that the worries of spoilers have receded (yes, this post will have them, continue at your own risk), it’s time we finally talk about it at length. Here we go—Wakanda forever!

Angela Watercutter: OK, I’m not going to say too much right off the bat because I want to know what my colleagues thought, but I will just say that Black Panther lived up to the hype. Like, the anticipation for this movie had been building for months and I was starting to worry that nothing could live up to what fans were hoping for with this movie, no matter how talented everyone working on this film is, but judging from the reaction at the screening I saw, people are thrilled. Did you guys have the same experience? How did you feel walking out of the theater? Did you sense that your fellow theater-goers were satisfied?

Peter Rubin: Angela, we were both in Hall H for Marvel’s panel at Comic-Con last July, and after Ryan Coogler surprised the crowd with some BP footage, we both know what was possible. The mood in that room—among attendees, Comic-Con staffers, and the crew itself—was not your usual “ah, this looks cool!” anticipation. Something cathartic happened in there. And even though I had the opportunity to go to a press screening earlier last week, I skipped it, because I wanted to see it for the first time in a theater full of people who were invested in it.

I wasn’t disappointed. Not by the movie, and not by the feeling of joy and lightness (and yes, Oakland pride) that was occupying every chair at in that theater. Two seats over from me was a young kid, seven or eight years old, in a full-on T’Challa suit; in the 24 hours since I saw the movie, I haven’t been able to stop thinking about the T’Challas (and Okoyes and Shuris) all over the country, stepping out into recess feeling like heroes. Justice, you’ve already seen it twice, right? What kind of differences did you notice in the two screenings—either in the crowd’s reception or in your own enjoyment?

Justice Namaste: The first screening I went to (second one is today!) was in Oakland on opening night. The only screening I’ve been in that nearly matched the energy in the theater during Black Panther was during the opening weekend of Get Out, when one of my friends actually fell out of their chair during the pivotal scene.

Visually, no other Marvel movie has ever come close to Black Panther—the lush Wakandan landscapes, the vibrantly colored costumes, even the wearable tech was beautiful. And that moment where the Royal Talon Fighter dips below the veil and we get an aerial look over the Golden City? Jawdropping.

But even with all this to mull over, when I left the theater, what was left ringing in my ears was Erik Killmonger’s last words: “Bury me in the ocean with my ancestors who jumped from ships, ‘cause they knew death was better than bondage.” In my opinion, the driving relationship in the film was that between T’Challa and Killmonger. (Or, thought of another way, the one between T’Chaka and N’Jobu, but realized through their sons.) T’Challa and Killmonger didn’t spend much time together on screen when they weren’t trying to murder each other—their lack of real dialogue was one of the movie’s more disappointing choices—so the tension between them was largely ideological, but it still drove the story. The “son reckoning with his father’s legacy” trope is a staple of the MCU, but it’s a limited one. Using a villain like Killmonger to complicate the idea of what heroism actually looks like, though? That’s a much more fascinating story.

Phuc Pham: As much as I enjoyed watching T’Challa grapple with both his opponents and his emotional demons, I couldn’t shake the sense that his heroic arc was a copy-paste of the superhero’s journey that Marvel has come to rely on. I mean, this is the fourth guy that has had a plot twist regarding his father upend his world.

Killmonger, on the other hand, was much more interesting to me. While T’Challa does his whole superhero thing, his archenemy points to actual systemic oppression, grounding Marvel’s universe in the real world in a way that feels new and bold. His motivation, essentially, is black liberation the world over—which to me qualified as the biggest heroic endeavor in the film. (At least until you realize that the means to achieve that end are vibranium weapons and a high body count.) Like you, Justice, I wish T’Challa and Killmonger had spent more screen time hashing out their ideological differences. The scenes when they engage in ritual combat are visceral—no Black Panther powers allowed!—but also seemed like wasted opportunities for some fight chatter about how best to rule Wakanda as well as improve the lives of the African diaspora.

Watercutter: Totally. I also wanted Killmonger and T’Challa to have more time to actually talk about their differences. Because, unlike almost every other Marvel villain before, Killmonger didn’t just want to rule to be a ruler. He wanted liberation, and in that he and T’Challa weren’t too far apart—they just had different ideas of how to achieve it. In that final scene that Justice mentioned, I truly didn’t want Killmonger to go. I wanted him to join T’Challa and stay in Wakanda. That, to Jason’s point, doesn’t happen often in these films. Maybe it happened a bit with Loki, but he’s always been a character with many allegiances. (And yes, Peter, I remember that Comic-Con Hall H panel—I’ve never felt anything like that a SDCC, and doubt I ever will again.)

Jason, in your great review last week you talked about how Black Panther showed what a superhero movie could do. What do you think it demonstrated in how it portrayed both its heroes and villains?

Parham: I didn’t think Michael B. Jordan’s acting was particularly strong, but I do agree that Killmonger as a character was perhaps the film’s most compelling—because he really wasn’t your typical antihero. I think Jelani Cobb at The New Yorker was correct in that the real villain was history itself. Killmonger’s rage was merely a product of the times, and all the despair he’d seen firsthand around the world. That’s a heavy burden to reckon with, but not an untrue one. In doing this, Coogler positioned the film in a really smart way, giving it historical currency but also contemporary heft, and all without feeling like he was trying to make some obvious political statement.

One of the more brilliant aspects of the movie—a credit to Coogler and Joe Robert Cole’s fine script—was its insistence on complicating character arcs, especially with people like W’Kabi and M’Baku, who expertly straddled the line between good and bad. Then there’s someone like Okoye, who is fiercely loyal to Wakanda in every regard. Her inner confliction felt so palpable—being forced to serve an unfit king and wage war against her lover (Danai Gurira’s Okoye was maybe my favorite character, along with Shuri and M’Baku). Everyone felt like they were doing what was best for Wakanda, which you can’t really fault them for. It felt like a truer reflection of what it means to be alive in the world today. Black Panther succeeds on so many levels. I’m curious: what did everybody think were some of the stronger aspects of the film?

Namaste: This is the obvious answer, but I just have to say it—the women. The strongest part of the film was undoubtedly all of the women characters. And that extends to the women behind the scenes as well. Lupita Nyong’o’s Nakia, Angela Bassett’s Ramonda, Letitia Wright’s Shuri (and of course Okoye and the rest of the Dora Milaje) were complex characters whose identities and motivations did not revolve solely around men. The audience saw Okoye as both a warrior and a lover, Nakia as an undercover spy who’s more concerned with protecting human rights than gathering intelligence, and Shuri as a younger (and better?) Tony Stark.

Not to mention the fact that their actions and beliefs are key to driving the story forward. Nakia is the first character who really pushes T’Challa to consider what Wakanda’s responsibility is to oppressed people across the rest of the world. And T’Challa would likely be dead 10 times over without Shuri’s engineering brilliance. Speaking of which, I’ve seen Letitia Wright being called the breakout star of the film, a title she most certainly deserves. As Shuri, she delivers some of the funniest lines, while also masterfully navigating a series of tense and heart-wrenching moments. Sure, T’Challa might be the Black Panther, but these women are far from secondary characters.

Pham: I’m so glad the writers decided to adapt Nakia and the Dora Milaje away from the ways they’re set up in some of the older comic book runs, where Nakia has an unrequited crush on T’Challa and the Dora Milaje—in addition to their role as royal guards—are a pool of potential queens. So extra kudos to film-Nakia for asserting she doesn’t want to be a Dora.

There hasn’t been an MCU film that’s as focused on technology since the Iron Man trilogy, and I was struck by how hopeful Black Panther, both the movie and the character, are how a future shaped by it doesn’t have to be dark and bleak. Production designer Hannah Beachler has said how Blade Runner inspired her vision of Wakanda’s capital Birnin Zana, and it shows. The dense urban landscape, replete with pristine skyscrapers and dusty merchant stalls, certainly hearken to traditional cyberpunk environments. Here, though, Afrofuturism shines figuratively and literally. Wakanda forgoes the dim and damp settings of futuristic cities (why are the streets always slicked with rain?) for a warm glow that almost makes you root for Killmonger’s vision of an empire upon which the sun never sets.

Thematically, the film also bucks the trend of Marvel movies in which new technology always begets catastrophe. Tony Stark’s bleeding-edge armaments always seem to end up in the hands of terrorists while Chitauri tech enables a middle-aged megalomaniac to hunt high schoolers in his spare time. Meanwhile, T’Challa not only prevents vibranium from being weaponized but also closes the film with plans to open a Wakandan outpost in Oakland—a city adjacent to Silicon Valley wealth yet wracked by a 20 percent poverty rate—to share and exchange knowledge. In an age when technology is often abused for nefarious and disruptive ends, the Black Panther’s techno-optimism seems to be a call for fewer divisions, not more.

Rubin: The rest of you have already ticked off just about everything that made this movie so appealing, so in hopes of adding something new to the mix, I’ll close with the idea that Black Panther created an entirely new lane for the MCU. After all 4,000 characters band together to (presumably) defeat Thanos in the two Avengers: Infinity War movies, Marvel is going to need a way to move forward, and Wakanda’s entry onto the global geopolitical stage is one of those ways. The MCU has its cosmic arm, its street-level arm, its mystical arm—and now Wakanda links the political intrigue of the Captain America movies with the deeply personal stories of a fully-fleshed world.

Does that mean we’ll see a Dora Milaje prequel movie in 2021? An M’Baku standalone? Only time will tell, but with a roster of new characters, ready-made internal conflict, and a rising cadre of filmmakers who are ready and able to tell these stories, the MCU’s prospects as a long-range paracosm have never been better.

Israeli visual aid company OrCam valued at $1 billion

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – Israel’s OrCam, which has developed a visual aid for the blind, has completed a funding round that values the company at $1 billion, putting it on track for a planned initial public offering (IPO), its chief executive said on Tuesday.

The company raised $30.4 million by selling an approximate 3 percent stake to investors including Israel’s Clal Insurance (CLIS.TA) and Meitav Dash (MTDS.TA). That brought the total amount OrCam has raised from investors so far to $130.4 million.

“We have sufficient reserves of money to finish our development, but part of our investment rounds is also preparing the company for the next phase, which is IPO,” Ziv Aviram said.

In about a year, he said, the company would look to raise an additional $100 million from larger, global funds before going public on a U.S. exchange. He is hoping the company will be valued at $1.5-$2 billion when it lists.

Ziv Aviram, CEO and co-founder of OrCam, poses for a portrait wearing the OrCam MyEye 2.0 device attached to a pair of glasses in his office in Jerusalem, February 15, 2018. REUTERS/Nir Elias

The latest fundraising coincided with the launch of a new version of OrCam’s product – a wireless smartcamera that attaches to the side of spectacle frames. The device reads texts, supermarket barcodes and recognizes faces while speaking the information into the user’s ear.

Aviram said he saw OrCam’s growth surpassing that of the previous company he co-founded – autonomous vehicle technology provider Mobileye, which was bought last year by Intel (INTC.O) for $15 billion.

“I think the potential for OrCam is even bigger than Mobileye,” he said from his office in a high-tech neighborhood of Jerusalem, down the street from where Mobileye’s expanded complex is being built. “This technology is endless. We just started to understand the tip of the iceberg of what can be done.”

That means expanding the customer base beyond the blind or partially-sighted to those suffering from dyslexia or who get fatigued while reading. Aviram even sees the device evolving into a sort of artificial intelligence personal assistant.

Next year’s forecast is a bit more modest.

After revenue of $10 million in 2017, Aviram expect sales to jump to $20-$30 million in the coming year and for the company to become profitable in 2019.

Editing by Mark Potter

This Shark Tank 'Shark' Always Flies Economy. Here's the Surprising Reason Why

Flying: It’s the worst. It makes people sick, and if the airlines aren’t squeezing every last ounce of comfort from your flight, your fellow passengers probably are.

It’s worst of all in economy of course–and yet that’s where entrepreneur Barbara Corcoran, the Shark Tank shark and entrepreneur rumored to have a net worth of about $80 million, says she always flies coach if she’s paying for the ticket.

“I always fly economy if I’m paying the tab because I’m too cheap to spring for an expensive ticket,” Corcoran told Kara Cutruzzula in an interview recently for The Points Guy travel site. “I’m even too cheap to use free miles to upgrade because I realized those free miles can buy one of my relatives who don’t have the money a free ticket to somewhere.”

Of course, Corocran isn’t always paying the tab, and she clocks in her share of miles in higher class accommodations and private jets. But she said she’s compiled a list of travel hacks to make flying coach more palatable.

Among them:

Bring your own food.

“I’m not even a picky eater, but I know what I like, and I know that if I have fresh bread, delicious cheese and a bottle of wine, I’m going to be the happiest traveler in town,” Corcoran said.

Drop a cloth napkin on the tray table in front of you.

“It sets the tone and makes a difference, especially when you’re squeezed in the middle seat.”

Get in the zone and get to work.

“I use it to accomplish things that I don’t want to do or that I’m stalling on, and it forces the issue since I have a deadline.”

Carry on everything.

“Even with the smallest carry-on bag, despite how tightly I pack, I will only use what’s on the top half.”

(She has a few other cool tips, too. It’s worth checking them out.)

I find Corcoran’s attitude inspiring–both for aspiring entrepreneurs who should become very comfortable with inexpensive economy class tickets and for people in general.

If you’re an entrepreneur, every penny you put into things like your travel budget is money that’s not going into building your business. And

for the rest of us, I think her perspective on money is interesting–since she has a good chunk and can pretty much do whatever she wants with it.

As she put it in a Reddit AMA she did a few years ago:

“Wealth complicates things. I’m not really sure who my real friends are now … and so I keep my original circle small. When I cashed out on my business, everybody I knew suddenly had a $10,000 problem. But I’m not giving the money back.”