The following documentary explores the surprisingly abundant evidence that nuclear weapons are a hoax.
https://www.nytimes.com/1945/11/03/archives/seversky-limits-atom-bomb-power-likens-hiroshima-blow-to-one-by-200.html
This man actually analysed the city of Hiroshima after the act and testified the following:
"In Hiroshima I was prepared for radically different sights. But, to my surprise, Hiroshima looked exactly like all the other burned-out cities in Japan. There was a familiar pink blot, about two miles in diameter. It was dotted with charred trees and telephone poles. Only one of the cities twenty bridges was down. Hiroshima’s clusters of modern buildings in the downtown section stood upright.
It was obvious that the blast could not have been so powerful as we had been led to believe. It was extensive blast rather than intensive.
I had heard of buildings instantly consumed by unprecedented heat. Yet here I saw the buildings structurally intact, and what is more, topped by undamaged flag poles, lightning rods, painted railings, air raid precaution signs and other comparatively fragile objects.
At the T-bridge, the aiming point for the atomic bomb, I looked for the “bald spot” where everything presumably had been vaporized in the twinkling of an eye. It wasn’t there or anywhere else. I could find no traces of unusual phenomena.
What I did see was in substance a replica of Yokohama or Osaka, or the Tokyo suburbs – the familiar residue of an area of wood and brick houses razed by uncontrollable fire. Everywhere I saw the trunks of charred and leafless trees, burned and unburned chunks of wood. The fire had been intense enough to bend and twist steel girders and to melt glass until it ran like lava – just as in other Japanese cities.
The concrete buildings nearest to the centre of explosion, some only a few blocks from the heart of the atom blast, showed no structural damage. Even cornices, canopies and delicate exterior decorations were intact. Window glass was shattered, of course, but single-panel frames held firm; only window frames of two or more panels were bent and buckled. The blast impact therefore could not have been unusual."
Additionally:
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/01/us/hiroshima-study-finds-no-genetic-damage.html
This study was never published for some reason.
I’ve been to both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The whole thing is propaganda. There isn’t a trace of residual radiation anywhere in either city. I checked using a Geiger counter purchased after the “Fukushima” nuclear hoax, which at the time I thought was real.
The few bits of footage of the nukes exploding is laughable. It’s Hollywood effects, matte screens and identical mushroom clouds composited for different angles. Totally fake.
There is a reason these magical super weapons have never been used for an act of “terrorism” or in any war zone since and it has nothing to do with mutually assured destruction, unless you take that to mean the global unravelling of the lie itself.
It’s because nukes don’t exist, have never existed and cannot be made to work. They are a myth.
While looking for info on how "feasible" an all out thermonuclear war scenario was, because I already figured that nuclear weapons are a joke and a remnant way of thought from the Cold War era of thinking, I stumbled upon this massive article about the supposed Nuclear Weapons hoax.
Some highlights of it, after skimming through it last night include:

• Nuclear weapons are a result of a collusion between USA/USSR (With Stalin keeping the East of Europe to remain a "threat" to the west) and Japan with many other countries joining later.
• Explaining the impossibility of making an Atomic bomb work in the first place, and why it cannot possibly produce radiation that can cause harm to any biological matter, including humans.
• The Hiroshima and Nagasaki "atomic bombs" were most likely faked: No nuclear bombs were detonated, Napalm carpet bombings were used instead, and nobody died from radiation. It also explains how could a lie like that be kept in Japan for 60+ years and shows plenty of photos from ground zero.
• "(...)Nuclear radiation is harmless. It is just easy to detect by Geiger meters, etc, but cannot harm anything. Only uranium and plutonium metal dusts are poisonous."
• Clearing misconceptions related to the Fukushima 2011 incident
• Explaining why the B61 nuclear bombs are a fraud.
• A timeline showcasing the USA-North Korea talks from 2017 and 2018 and explaining why they were only done to put on a show, because, it is very likely that North Korea, does not have any in the first place.

And many other stuff.
Here it is, divided in 9 parts.
The people and organizations creating the lies: https://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
The atomic bomb killed nobody in Japan: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart2.htm
How does an atomic bomb work? It doesn't! https://heiwaco.com/bombpart3.htm
Plenty O' manipulations: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart4.htm
Explosive fission is a scam: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart5.htm
All about real fission: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart6.htm
The fake B-61 atomic bombs: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart7.htm
All about no radiation at Fukushima: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart8.htm
About radiation itself: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart9.htm
The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki appear not to be the result of one large explosion, but rather the result of a fire-bombing campaign comparable in pictures to Tokyo's fire-bombed remains. Hiroshima and Nagasaki also never experienced anything like the hundreds or thousands of years of radiation predicted by nuclear scientists, in fact, vegetation began growing within a month after the bombing, and the Japanese people began rebuilding almost immediately!
Some nuclear physicists even claim nuclear weaponry fraudulent based solely on the technical impossibilities of fission material not to be incinerated before triggering the necessary nuclear chain reaction.
Tesla even famously tried to split the atom him self and came to the conclusion it didn't release energy:
"Let me say that has nothing to do with releasing so-called atomic energy. There is no such energy in the sense usually meant. With my currents, using pressures as high as 15,000,000 volts, the highest ever used, I have split atoms — but no energy was released. I confess that before I made this experiment I was in some fear. I said to my assistants, ‘I do not know what will happen. If the conclusions of certain scientists are right, the release of energy from the splitting of an atom may mean an explosion which would wreck our apparatus and perhaps kill someone. Is that understood?’
My assistants urged me to perform the experiment and I did so. I shattered atoms again and again. But no appreciable energy was released."
This was from an interview he did with time magazine back in 1931 so it made me wonder if these anti nuke guys were on to something. The government has a lot of reasons to create a weapon of mass destruction psyop it spreads fear porn thats one thing and convinces people they can cause nuclear armageddon at the flick of a button. Einstein as some people know tried to steal Tesla's spotlight putting him into obscurity but his technology and experiments were very peculiar and show us there's a lot of high strangeness about this reality that's still not well understood.
Also In 1986, Galen Winsor a Nuclear physicist Exposed the Nuclear fear scam by licking a pile of highly radioactive uranium off the palm of his hand and ignite a chunk of plutonium into a shower of flaming dust to show how safe these materials were. The guy also drank reactor cooling pool water for fun and liked to go swimming in the pool to relax.

The following documentary explores the surprisingly abundant evidence that nuclear weapons are a hoax.
https://www.nytimes.com/1945/11/03/archives/seversky-limits-atom-bomb-power-likens-hiroshima-blow-to-one-by-200.html
This man actually analysed the city of Hiroshima after the act and testified the following:
"In Hiroshima I was prepared for radically different sights. But, to my surprise, Hiroshima looked exactly like all the other burned-out cities in Japan. There was a familiar pink blot, about two miles in diameter. It was dotted with charred trees and telephone poles. Only one of the cities twenty bridges was down. Hiroshima’s clusters of modern buildings in the downtown section stood upright.
It was obvious that the blast could not have been so powerful as we had been led to believe. It was extensive blast rather than intensive.
I had heard of buildings instantly consumed by unprecedented heat. Yet here I saw the buildings structurally intact, and what is more, topped by undamaged flag poles, lightning rods, painted railings, air raid precaution signs and other comparatively fragile objects.
At the T-bridge, the aiming point for the atomic bomb, I looked for the “bald spot” where everything presumably had been vaporized in the twinkling of an eye. It wasn’t there or anywhere else. I could find no traces of unusual phenomena.
What I did see was in substance a replica of Yokohama or Osaka, or the Tokyo suburbs – the familiar residue of an area of wood and brick houses razed by uncontrollable fire. Everywhere I saw the trunks of charred and leafless trees, burned and unburned chunks of wood. The fire had been intense enough to bend and twist steel girders and to melt glass until it ran like lava – just as in other Japanese cities.
The concrete buildings nearest to the centre of explosion, some only a few blocks from the heart of the atom blast, showed no structural damage. Even cornices, canopies and delicate exterior decorations were intact. Window glass was shattered, of course, but single-panel frames held firm; only window frames of two or more panels were bent and buckled. The blast impact therefore could not have been unusual."
Additionally:
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/01/us/hiroshima-study-finds-no-genetic-damage.html
This study was never published for some reason.
I’ve been to both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The whole thing is propaganda. There isn’t a trace of residual radiation anywhere in either city. I checked using a Geiger counter purchased after the “Fukushima” nuclear hoax, which at the time I thought was real.
The few bits of footage of the nukes exploding is laughable. It’s Hollywood effects, matte screens and identical mushroom clouds composited for different angles. Totally fake.
There is a reason these magical super weapons have never been used for an act of “terrorism” or in any war zone since and it has nothing to do with mutually assured destruction, unless you take that to mean the global unravelling of the lie itself.
It’s because nukes don’t exist, have never existed and cannot be made to work. They are a myth.
While looking for info on how "feasible" an all out thermonuclear war scenario was, because I already figured that nuclear weapons are a joke and a remnant way of thought from the Cold War era of thinking, I stumbled upon this massive article about the supposed Nuclear Weapons hoax.
Some highlights of it, after skimming through it last night include:

• Nuclear weapons are a result of a collusion between USA/USSR (With Stalin keeping the East of Europe to remain a "threat" to the west) and Japan with many other countries joining later.
• Explaining the impossibility of making an Atomic bomb work in the first place, and why it cannot possibly produce radiation that can cause harm to any biological matter, including humans.
• The Hiroshima and Nagasaki "atomic bombs" were most likely faked: No nuclear bombs were detonated, Napalm carpet bombings were used instead, and nobody died from radiation. It also explains how could a lie like that be kept in Japan for 60+ years and shows plenty of photos from ground zero.
• "(...)Nuclear radiation is harmless. It is just easy to detect by Geiger meters, etc, but cannot harm anything. Only uranium and plutonium metal dusts are poisonous."
• Clearing misconceptions related to the Fukushima 2011 incident
• Explaining why the B61 nuclear bombs are a fraud.
• A timeline showcasing the USA-North Korea talks from 2017 and 2018 and explaining why they were only done to put on a show, because, it is very likely that North Korea, does not have any in the first place.

And many other stuff.
Here it is, divided in 9 parts.
The people and organizations creating the lies: https://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
The atomic bomb killed nobody in Japan: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart2.htm
How does an atomic bomb work? It doesn't! https://heiwaco.com/bombpart3.htm
Plenty O' manipulations: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart4.htm
Explosive fission is a scam: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart5.htm
All about real fission: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart6.htm
The fake B-61 atomic bombs: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart7.htm
All about no radiation at Fukushima: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart8.htm
About radiation itself: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart9.htm
The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki appear not to be the result of one large explosion, but rather the result of a fire-bombing campaign comparable in pictures to Tokyo's fire-bombed remains. Hiroshima and Nagasaki also never experienced anything like the hundreds or thousands of years of radiation predicted by nuclear scientists, in fact, vegetation began growing within a month after the bombing, and the Japanese people began rebuilding almost immediately!
Some nuclear physicists even claim nuclear weaponry fraudulent based solely on the technical impossibilities of fission material not to be incinerated before triggering the necessary nuclear chain reaction.
Tesla even famously tried to split the atom him self and came to the conclusion it didn't release energy:
"Let me say that has nothing to do with releasing so-called atomic energy. There is no such energy in the sense usually meant. With my currents, using pressures as high as 15,000,000 volts, the highest ever used, I have split atoms — but no energy was released. I confess that before I made this experiment I was in some fear. I said to my assistants, ‘I do not know what will happen. If the conclusions of certain scientists are right, the release of energy from the splitting of an atom may mean an explosion which would wreck our apparatus and perhaps kill someone. Is that understood?’
My assistants urged me to perform the experiment and I did so. I shattered atoms again and again. But no appreciable energy was released."
This was from an interview he did with time magazine back in 1931 so it made me wonder if these anti nuke guys were on to something. The government has a lot of reasons to create a weapon of mass destruction psyop it spreads fear porn thats one thing and convinces people they can cause nuclear armageddon at the flick of a button. Einstein as some people know tried to steal Tesla's spotlight putting him into obscurity but his technology and experiments were very peculiar and show us there's a lot of high strangeness about this reality that's still not well understood.
Also In 1986, Galen Winsor a Nuclear physicist Exposed the Nuclear fear scam by licking a pile of highly radioactive uranium off the palm of his hand and ignite a chunk of plutonium into a shower of flaming dust to show how safe these materials were. The guy also drank reactor cooling pool water for fun and liked to go swimming in the pool to relax.

The following documentary explores the surprisingly abundant evidence that nuclear weapons are a hoax.
https://www.nytimes.com/1945/11/03/archives/seversky-limits-atom-bomb-power-likens-hiroshima-blow-to-one-by-200.html
This man actually analysed the city of Hiroshima after the act and testified the following:
"In Hiroshima I was prepared for radically different sights. But, to my surprise, Hiroshima looked exactly like all the other burned-out cities in Japan. There was a familiar pink blot, about two miles in diameter. It was dotted with charred trees and telephone poles. Only one of the cities twenty bridges was down. Hiroshima’s clusters of modern buildings in the downtown section stood upright.
It was obvious that the blast could not have been so powerful as we had been led to believe. It was extensive blast rather than intensive.
I had heard of buildings instantly consumed by unprecedented heat. Yet here I saw the buildings structurally intact, and what is more, topped by undamaged flag poles, lightning rods, painted railings, air raid precaution signs and other comparatively fragile objects.
At the T-bridge, the aiming point for the atomic bomb, I looked for the “bald spot” where everything presumably had been vaporized in the twinkling of an eye. It wasn’t there or anywhere else. I could find no traces of unusual phenomena.
What I did see was in substance a replica of Yokohama or Osaka, or the Tokyo suburbs – the familiar residue of an area of wood and brick houses razed by uncontrollable fire. Everywhere I saw the trunks of charred and leafless trees, burned and unburned chunks of wood. The fire had been intense enough to bend and twist steel girders and to melt glass until it ran like lava – just as in other Japanese cities.
The concrete buildings nearest to the centre of explosion, some only a few blocks from the heart of the atom blast, showed no structural damage. Even cornices, canopies and delicate exterior decorations were intact. Window glass was shattered, of course, but single-panel frames held firm; only window frames of two or more panels were bent and buckled. The blast impact therefore could not have been unusual."
Additionally:
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/01/us/hiroshima-study-finds-no-genetic-damage.html
This study was never published for some reason.
I’ve been to both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The whole thing is propaganda. There isn’t a trace of residual radiation anywhere in either city. I checked using a Geiger counter purchased after the “Fukushima” nuclear hoax, which at the time I thought was real.
The few bits of footage of the nukes exploding is laughable. It’s Hollywood effects, matte screens and identical mushroom clouds composited for different angles. Totally fake.
There is a reason these magical super weapons have never been used for an act of “terrorism” or in any war zone since and it has nothing to do with mutually assured destruction, unless you take that to mean the global unravelling of the lie itself.
It’s because nukes don’t exist, have never existed and cannot be made to work. They are a myth.
While looking for info on how "feasible" an all out thermonuclear war scenario was, because I already figured that nuclear weapons are a joke and a remnant way of thought from the Cold War era of thinking, I stumbled upon this massive article about the supposed Nuclear Weapons hoax.
Some highlights of it, after skimming through it last night include:

• Nuclear weapons are a result of a collusion between USA/USSR (With Stalin keeping the East of Europe to remain a "threat" to the west) and Japan with many other countries joining later.
• Explaining the impossibility of making an Atomic bomb work in the first place, and why it cannot possibly produce radiation that can cause harm to any biological matter, including humans.
• The Hiroshima and Nagasaki "atomic bombs" were most likely faked: No nuclear bombs were detonated, Napalm carpet bombings were used instead, and nobody died from radiation. It also explains how could a lie like that be kept in Japan for 60+ years and shows plenty of photos from ground zero.
• "(...)Nuclear radiation is harmless. It is just easy to detect by Geiger meters, etc, but cannot harm anything. Only uranium and plutonium metal dusts are poisonous."
• Clearing misconceptions related to the Fukushima 2011 incident
• Explaining why the B61 nuclear bombs are a fraud.
• A timeline showcasing the USA-North Korea talks from 2017 and 2018 and explaining why they were only done to put on a show, because, it is very likely that North Korea, does not have any in the first place.

And many other stuff.
Here it is, divided in 9 parts.
The people and organizations creating the lies: https://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
The atomic bomb killed nobody in Japan: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart2.htm
How does an atomic bomb work? It doesn't! https://heiwaco.com/bombpart3.htm
Plenty O' manipulations: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart4.htm
Explosive fission is a scam: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart5.htm
All about real fission: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart6.htm
The fake B-61 atomic bombs: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart7.htm
All about no radiation at Fukushima: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart8.htm
About radiation itself: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart9.htm
The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki appear not to be the result of one large explosion, but rather the result of a fire-bombing campaign comparable in pictures to Tokyo's fire-bombed remains. Hiroshima and Nagasaki also never experienced anything like the hundreds or thousands of years of radiation predicted by nuclear scientists, in fact, vegetation began growing within a month after the bombing, and the Japanese people began rebuilding almost immediately!
Some nuclear physicists even claim nuclear weaponry fraudulent based solely on the technical impossibilities of fission material not to be incinerated before triggering the necessary nuclear chain reaction.
Tesla even famously tried to split the atom him self and came to the conclusion it didn't release energy:
"Let me say that has nothing to do with releasing so-called atomic energy. There is no such energy in the sense usually meant. With my currents, using pressures as high as 15,000,000 volts, the highest ever used, I have split atoms — but no energy was released. I confess that before I made this experiment I was in some fear. I said to my assistants, ‘I do not know what will happen. If the conclusions of certain scientists are right, the release of energy from the splitting of an atom may mean an explosion which would wreck our apparatus and perhaps kill someone. Is that understood?’
My assistants urged me to perform the experiment and I did so. I shattered atoms again and again. But no appreciable energy was released."
This was from an interview he did with time magazine back in 1931 so it made me wonder if these anti nuke guys were on to something. The government has a lot of reasons to create a weapon of mass destruction psyop it spreads fear porn thats one thing and convinces people they can cause nuclear armageddon at the flick of a button. Einstein as some people know tried to steal Tesla's spotlight putting him into obscurity but his technology and experiments were very peculiar and show us there's a lot of high strangeness about this reality that's still not well understood.
Also In 1986, Galen Winsor a Nuclear physicist Exposed the Nuclear fear scam by licking a pile of highly radioactive uranium off the palm of his hand and ignite a chunk of plutonium into a shower of flaming dust to show how safe these materials were. The guy also drank reactor cooling pool water for fun and liked to go swimming in the pool to relax.

The following documentary explores the surprisingly abundant evidence that nuclear weapons are a hoax.
https://www.nytimes.com/1945/11/03/archives/seversky-limits-atom-bomb-power-likens-hiroshima-blow-to-one-by-200.html
This man actually analysed the city of Hiroshima after the act and testified the following:
"In Hiroshima I was prepared for radically different sights. But, to my surprise, Hiroshima looked exactly like all the other burned-out cities in Japan. There was a familiar pink blot, about two miles in diameter. It was dotted with charred trees and telephone poles. Only one of the cities twenty bridges was down. Hiroshima’s clusters of modern buildings in the downtown section stood upright.
It was obvious that the blast could not have been so powerful as we had been led to believe. It was extensive blast rather than intensive.
I had heard of buildings instantly consumed by unprecedented heat. Yet here I saw the buildings structurally intact, and what is more, topped by undamaged flag poles, lightning rods, painted railings, air raid precaution signs and other comparatively fragile objects.
At the T-bridge, the aiming point for the atomic bomb, I looked for the “bald spot” where everything presumably had been vaporized in the twinkling of an eye. It wasn’t there or anywhere else. I could find no traces of unusual phenomena.
What I did see was in substance a replica of Yokohama or Osaka, or the Tokyo suburbs – the familiar residue of an area of wood and brick houses razed by uncontrollable fire. Everywhere I saw the trunks of charred and leafless trees, burned and unburned chunks of wood. The fire had been intense enough to bend and twist steel girders and to melt glass until it ran like lava – just as in other Japanese cities.
The concrete buildings nearest to the centre of explosion, some only a few blocks from the heart of the atom blast, showed no structural damage. Even cornices, canopies and delicate exterior decorations were intact. Window glass was shattered, of course, but single-panel frames held firm; only window frames of two or more panels were bent and buckled. The blast impact therefore could not have been unusual."
Additionally:
https://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/01/us/hiroshima-study-finds-no-genetic-damage.html
This study was never published for some reason.
I’ve been to both Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The whole thing is propaganda. There isn’t a trace of residual radiation anywhere in either city. I checked using a Geiger counter purchased after the “Fukushima” nuclear hoax, which at the time I thought was real.
The few bits of footage of the nukes exploding is laughable. It’s Hollywood effects, matte screens and identical mushroom clouds composited for different angles. Totally fake.
There is a reason these magical super weapons have never been used for an act of “terrorism” or in any war zone since and it has nothing to do with mutually assured destruction, unless you take that to mean the global unravelling of the lie itself.
It’s because nukes don’t exist, have never existed and cannot be made to work. They are a myth.
While looking for info on how "feasible" an all out thermonuclear war scenario was, because I already figured that nuclear weapons are a joke and a remnant way of thought from the Cold War era of thinking, I stumbled upon this massive article about the supposed Nuclear Weapons hoax.
Some highlights of it, after skimming through it last night include:

• Nuclear weapons are a result of a collusion between USA/USSR (With Stalin keeping the East of Europe to remain a "threat" to the west) and Japan with many other countries joining later.
• Explaining the impossibility of making an Atomic bomb work in the first place, and why it cannot possibly produce radiation that can cause harm to any biological matter, including humans.
• The Hiroshima and Nagasaki "atomic bombs" were most likely faked: No nuclear bombs were detonated, Napalm carpet bombings were used instead, and nobody died from radiation. It also explains how could a lie like that be kept in Japan for 60+ years and shows plenty of photos from ground zero.
• "(...)Nuclear radiation is harmless. It is just easy to detect by Geiger meters, etc, but cannot harm anything. Only uranium and plutonium metal dusts are poisonous."
• Clearing misconceptions related to the Fukushima 2011 incident
• Explaining why the B61 nuclear bombs are a fraud.
• A timeline showcasing the USA-North Korea talks from 2017 and 2018 and explaining why they were only done to put on a show, because, it is very likely that North Korea, does not have any in the first place.

And many other stuff.
Here it is, divided in 9 parts.
The people and organizations creating the lies: https://heiwaco.com/bomb.htm
The atomic bomb killed nobody in Japan: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart2.htm
How does an atomic bomb work? It doesn't! https://heiwaco.com/bombpart3.htm
Plenty O' manipulations: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart4.htm
Explosive fission is a scam: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart5.htm
All about real fission: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart6.htm
The fake B-61 atomic bombs: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart7.htm
All about no radiation at Fukushima: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart8.htm
About radiation itself: https://heiwaco.com/bombpart9.htm
The destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki appear not to be the result of one large explosion, but rather the result of a fire-bombing campaign comparable in pictures to Tokyo's fire-bombed remains. Hiroshima and Nagasaki also never experienced anything like the hundreds or thousands of years of radiation predicted by nuclear scientists, in fact, vegetation began growing within a month after the bombing, and the Japanese people began rebuilding almost immediately!
Some nuclear physicists even claim nuclear weaponry fraudulent based solely on the technical impossibilities of fission material not to be incinerated before triggering the necessary nuclear chain reaction.
Tesla even famously tried to split the atom him self and came to the conclusion it didn't release energy:
"Let me say that has nothing to do with releasing so-called atomic energy. There is no such energy in the sense usually meant. With my currents, using pressures as high as 15,000,000 volts, the highest ever used, I have split atoms — but no energy was released. I confess that before I made this experiment I was in some fear. I said to my assistants, ‘I do not know what will happen. If the conclusions of certain scientists are right, the release of energy from the splitting of an atom may mean an explosion which would wreck our apparatus and perhaps kill someone. Is that understood?’
My assistants urged me to perform the experiment and I did so. I shattered atoms again and again. But no appreciable energy was released."
This was from an interview he did with time magazine back in 1931 so it made me wonder if these anti nuke guys were on to something. The government has a lot of reasons to create a weapon of mass destruction psyop it spreads fear porn thats one thing and convinces people they can cause nuclear armageddon at the flick of a button. Einstein as some people know tried to steal Tesla's spotlight putting him into obscurity but his technology and experiments were very peculiar and show us there's a lot of high strangeness about this reality that's still not well understood.
Also In 1986, Galen Winsor a Nuclear physicist Exposed the Nuclear fear scam by licking a pile of highly radioactive uranium off the palm of his hand and ignite a chunk of plutonium into a shower of flaming dust to show how safe these materials were. The guy also drank reactor cooling pool water for fun and liked to go swimming in the pool to relax.

Released on May 8, 2024, "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" is the long-awaited sequel to "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" (2014) and the 2011 reboot, "Rise of the Planet of the Apes".
Directed by Wes Ball, this new installment takes us into uncharted territories of the simian universe, carried by a remarkable cast composed of Freida Pinto, Dichen Lachman, and Nonso Anozie.
But does this film succeed in rising above its predecessors and leaving a lasting impression?
To explore this question, let's delve into the different aspects of this ambitious production.

1. A gripping story in a changing world

"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" takes place several years after the events of "Rise of the Planet of the Apes". Caesar, the charismatic leader of the apes, is gone, leaving behind a fragile legacy.
Two rival simian nations face each other: the Gorilla Apes, led by the ruthless Koba, and the Bonobo Apes, advocating for peaceful coexistence with humans.
At the heart of these tensions, we follow the fate of Noa, a young pacifist chimpanzee raised by a human tribe. When a brutal Gorilla raid decimates his village, Noa embarks on a perilous journey to save the survivors and avenge his family.
His journey will take him through unexplored territories, to meet new tribes, and to question everything he thought he knew about the world and his place in it.

1. Stunning visuals and immersive staging

One of the undeniable strengths of the film lies in its visual prowess.
Lush landscapes, dense forests, and time-ravaged urban ruins provide a striking backdrop to the story.
The apes, animated in CGI, are strikingly realistic, both in their movements and their facial expressions.
Wes Ball's camera takes us to the heart of the action, making us experience the intensity of the battles and the wild beauty of this changing world.
The director also brilliantly uses the codes of adventure cinema, alternating moments of breathless tension with sequences of contemplation imbued with poetry.

1. An exploration of universal themes

Beyond its captivating plot, "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" tackles profound themes that resonate with our times.
The film questions the notion of power, violence, coexistence between different species, and the search for identity.
The figure of Noa, torn between his human origins and his simian upbringing, embodies this quest for identity and the desire to find his place in a world in chaos.
If the film's message is not always subtle, it is no less relevant and invites reflection on our own societies and the challenges we face.

1. A talented cast at the service of the story

Freida Pinto embodies with conviction Nova, a young woman who is courageous and determined to protect those she loves.
Dichen Lachman brings a welcome nuance to the character of Maia, a human torn between her attachment to Noa and her loyalty to her people.
Nonso Anozie plays a formidable and charismatic Koba, whose cruelty is counterbalanced by a certain psychological complexity.
The other actors, such as Sergio Rizzuto and Aldo Salvietti, contribute to enriching the film's universe with their fair and touching performances.

1. An imperfect but still captivating film

"Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" is not without its flaws.
The screenplay, sometimes predictable, lacks originality at times and struggles to fully explore the potential of its secondary characters.
The film could also have benefited from further delving into the themes it addresses, sometimes skimming the surface without really dwelling on it.
However, these weaknesses do not call into question the overall quality of the film. "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" is a visually stunning and thought-provoking work that offers a captivating and action-packed adventure in a world where the lines between humans and apes are increasingly blurred.
It is a film that will undoubtedly entertain and challenge audiences, leaving them with a lot to think about long after the credits roll.
Overall, "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" is a solid sequel that delivers on its promises. It is a must-see for fans of the franchise and for anyone looking for a thought-provoking and visually stunning action film.

Note: This essay was written about a month ago, for a school project. Some of the numbers and polling averages may be slightly outdated, but the point of the essay still stands.
Introduction
“DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN.”
That’s what the front-page headline of the Chicago Tribune said on November 3rd, 1948. It’s also what the polls had all been saying for months: that New York governor Thomas Dewey would defeat incumbent president Harry Truman and become the next president of the United States. And yet, he didn’t. Truman won reelection in a massive upset, defying the polls. Somehow, Truman had gone from trailing Dewey in polls by so much that cartoons like the following were created, to winning the election.
https://preview.redd.it/oqba22kugvzc1.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=92204f20feee6faea87f731a797760140c4a0814
Truman was a very unpopular president. His campaign was also plagued by third parties threatening to split his votes: Strom Thurmond on the right and Henry Wallace on the left. The way he was able to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat can’t be described as anything less than amazing.
Historians still debate over it, but the most popular theory is that Truman was able to win many voters who disapproved of him because he successfully painted Republicans as being worse than he was. This strategy was aided by Dewey’s weak campaign. Many voters didn’t like Truman, and when polled, wouldn’t say they would vote for him, but when the time came, they held their nose and pulled the lever for the president. The election was a lesson to not treat polls as gospel.
Today, the nation faces another presidential election. The Democratic candidate is incumbent president Joe Biden. He’s running for reelection despite concerns about his age and rumors he wouldn’t run again due to it. On the Republican side, former president Donald Trump is the nominee. He faced opposition in the primaries, most notably by former South Carolina governor Nikki Haley, but beat her and his other opponents without too much trouble. The election is the first presidential rematch since 1956. Several independent/third-party candidates are running too, the most notable being Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr. for short), nephew of JFK. He’s been polling very high for a third-party candidate, getting double digits in many polls.
Biden beat Trump in 2020, but opinion polls have been showing Trump leading Biden, often by large margins. As of April 1st, Trump leads Biden by 1.1% in the national polling average according to racetothewh.com, an election prediction/poll aggregation website. Biden won the popular vote by 4.5% in 2020, so this is a sizable swing right. Trump also leads Biden in all seven swing states. Below is a chart comparing the 2020 presidential election margin and the 2024 polling average in the seven swing states.
https://preview.redd.it/9wvdn2yzgvzc1.png?width=631&format=png&auto=webp&s=e9c69e14cedfecc11d866837b9533d3e39a30db0
It seems like Biden’s doomed. He needs to win at least some of the swing states to win the election, and right now he isn’t winning any of them. It looks like Trump is on track to becoming the second president ever to win a non-consecutive second term, after Grover Cleveland.
But there’s something else going on.
Biden’s bad polling situation seems simple on the surface. He’s incredibly unpopular, having an approval rating of 39.1% (net -16.3%) according to FiveThirtyEight. His bout of unpopularity seems to have started around the Afghanistan withdrawal, although when asking someone their reason for disliking Biden they’ll probably say something about his age or the economy instead. So, it makes sense that Biden would be polling badly. He’s an unpopular president, and people would rather have Trump.
But it isn’t that simple. Because looking deeper, there are some things that don’t make sense. Crosstabs of polls showing massive realignments not seen since the Civil Rights era. Other indicators of a president in trouble not showing up. Things that when put together, suggest Biden may not be in as much danger as the polls say.
When all the evidence is put together and analyzed, it’s clear that Biden is not doomed, not at all. Biden’s bad polling can be explained by two things. First, bad polling methodology underpolling his supporters. Second, people who are supporting third parties now, but will eventually return to Biden. These two things are both making Biden’s polling look bad, although which one has a stronger effect depends on the poll and the demographic group. Additionally, all the indicators other than the polls, like primary elections and special/off-year elections, don’t show Biden in too much trouble.
Explaining Racial and Age Depolarization
First, context is needed for the rest of this essay to make sense. So, as was said earlier, 2024 polls are showing Biden doing much worse than his 2020 performance. That makes sense – Biden is less popular, so naturally fewer people want to vote for him. The strange part is what demographic groups Biden is slipping with. Instead of a mostly uniform shift, which would be expected, almost all of Biden’s losses seem to come among nonwhite voters – most significantly black and Hispanic voters. He’s also losing ground among young voters (usually defined as voters between the ages of 18 and 29). The Democratic Party traditionally does well with these groups, so this is of course concerning for Biden. Even more strange is that in some polls, Biden is actually making some inroads among the demographics that are historically the base of the Republican Party – those being white voters and seniors. Looking at the aggregation of crosstabs of polls during February, there are many abnormalities.
The aggregation shows Trump making massive gains among black and Hispanic voters (swings of R+28.4 and R+18.5 respectively) but making almost zero gains among white voters (R+0.1, but right under that there are slight blue swings with both college educated and non-college educated whites, likely a product of not all polls recording results for those groups). This is strange, to say the least. White people seem to be perfectly fine with Biden, while nonwhite people suddenly despise him. This phenomenon is called racial depolarization, or racedep for short.
Swings among different age groups are also odd. Trump is improving by 16.1 points among voters aged 18-29 but losing 1.8 points with seniors and 4 points with voters aged 50-64. Young voters are much more liberal than older voters. Every opinion poll and election result suggests this. Unless they’ve suddenly become much more conservative, them supporting Trump over Biden doesn’t make sense. Along with racedep, age depolarization ("agedep") is common in crosstabs of 2024 polls.
Those are not the only depolarizations supposedly going on, as can be seen in the tweet. Urban and suburban voters moving towards Trump while rural voters move towards Biden. Democrats moving towards Trump, Republicans moving towards Biden. Geographical and political polarization have been increasing in recent years, so this suggests a strange reverse of that trend. 2024 probably won’t be a large realignment, it’s more likely something is just wrong with the polls.
Explaining Primaries
Presidential primary season has been going on for a few months, after the Iowa caucus kicked it off in January. While Biden and Trump both won their primaries easily, how strong their performances were in different areas can reveal a lot about how certain groups are feeling about the candidacies of the two – like black, Hispanic, and young voters. But first, protest voting has to be explained.
When an incumbent president is running for reelection, they usually do not face much opposition in the primaries. Typically, only no-name minor candidates are the other people on the ballot besides the president. They do not have a chance at winning, but they do serve as a way for people who are upset with the president to express it. Sometimes, the “Uncommitted” option is also used to protest. Look back to 2012, when Obama was running for reelection. He swept the primaries, but his worst performances were in West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, where he got under 60% of the vote.
The four states all had something in common: a lot of the registered Democrats were white conservatives who before 2008 voted Democratic, but switched to McCain because they didn’t like Obama’s dark vision for America. They voted against Obama in the primaries because they didn’t like him and didn’t want him to be the nominee. Those voters would then go on to vote Republican in the general election. The places that swung the hardest against Obama in 2008 were also the places where he did the worst in the 2012 primaries.
2004-2008 swing
2012 Oklahoma Democratic presidential primary
2012 Arkansas Democratic presidential primary
2012 Kentucky Democratic presidential primary
2012 West Virginia Democratic presidential primary
Now, those four states were already very red even before 2008, Obama was not going to win them and he did not need to win them. But if a candidate is doing badly in a potentially competitive state’s primary, they should heed the warning – or risk losing. Another good example of protest voting can be found in the 2016 Democratic primary. Hillary Clinton did very poorly in the Rust Belt states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania – losing the first two to Sanders and coming close to losing the last. And where Sanders’s support was strongest was in rural areas – also the areas that swung the most towards Trump in the general election. Trump narrowly flipped all three of those states, winning him the presidency.
2016 Wisconsin Democratic presidential primary
2016 Michigan Democratic presidential primary
2016 Pennsylvania Democratic presidential primary
2012-2016 swing
The polls said Clinton would easily win all three states, while the primaries said she would struggle in them – and the primaries were right.
The 2024 Primaries
Presidential primaries can give an idea of where a candidate might underperform in the general election, and 2024 primaries are no exception. If black, Hispanic, and young voters are upset with Biden, like the polls are suggesting, then they will protest vote against him. The first primary that will be examined is the South Carolina primary. South Carolina is 26% black according to the 2020 census, and that number is even higher among Democratic primary voters thanks to the racial polarization of the state – Biden won 90% of black South Carolinians in the 2020 election, while Trump won 73% of white South Carolinians.
https://preview.redd.it/x2t8cnl3hvzc1.png?width=338&format=png&auto=webp&s=2b5982c343da804a10a1221e623b2de84b2f1b86
South Carolina was also the first primary state (so Biden did not have momentum from winning contests at that point, nor was he the presumptive nominee), and the primary was open (meaning independents could vote), so the conditions for protest voting were as good as they could possibly be.
But despite all that, Biden got 96% of the vote.
If black people really are upset with Biden, they clearly don’t hate him enough to cast a protest vote against him. And looking at individual counties, there’s not even a correlation between the percent of black people and the percent of opposition vote. Biden got 97% of the vote in Allendale County (73% black, the blackest county in the state) and he got 95% in Pickens County (7% black, the least black county in the state). If anything, Biden did better in counties where there are more black people. And it’s not just South Carolina – in pretty much every state where black people make up a significant percentage of the Democratic electorate, Biden won by huge margins. He got 99% in Mississippi, 95% in Georgia, 90% in Alabama, and 86% in Louisiana. Biden came close to losing a few counties in Louisiana – but not the ones with lots of black people. The counties he did the worst in are heavily white. The same kind of people who gave Obama trouble in the 2012 primaries voted against Biden, too.
Evidently, black people aren’t protest voting against Biden. Young voters will be looked at next, using the Michigan primary. Just like South Carolina, Michigan has open primaries.
There was an organized campaign for the “Uncommitted” option in Michigan to protest Biden’s policy on Gaza and pressure him into calling for a ceasefire. The Uncommitted option did modestly well, getting 13% of the vote, slightly higher than it did twelve years ago when Obama was running for reelection. The Uncommitted campaign achieved their (unambitious) goal of 10,000 votes, getting slightly over 100,000. Biden got 81% of the vote, while Williamson and Phillips took the remaining 6%.
What’s interesting though, is where Uncommitted did the best. Its strongest performance was in Wayne County (which includes Detroit and a few other cities), where it got 17%. Wayne County is home to 140,000 Arab Americans who make up 7.8% of the county’s population, so the strong Uncommitted performance wasn’t surprising. The second strongest county for Uncommitted was Washtenaw County (also 17%), which doesn’t have many Arab Americans. What it does have, however, is the University of Michigan. With over 50,000 students enrolled, it’s one of the largest colleges in the country. Looking at a precinct map of the results for Washtenaw County, Uncommitted did well because UMich students were protest voting against Biden.
https://preview.redd.it/nov5qkx5hvzc1.png?width=629&format=png&auto=webp&s=cec905bdfdd4fa10be01d03a97a220925d4ffa6d
Ann Arbor, the city where UMich is located, had a very high percentage of Uncommitted votes. There’s no doubt about it, college students were voting Uncommitted to protest Biden’s handling of the war in Gaza.
Looking at college counties in other primaries, there was generally a trend of the Uncommitted option (or whatever name the state has for it) doing well. In Dane County, Wisconsin (University of Wisconsin), there was lots of protest voting against Biden. “Uninstructed” got 15% in Dane vs 8% statewide.
“None of these names” did well in Douglas County, Kansas (University of Kansas), getting 14.5% of the vote, compared to the statewide average of 10.3%.
And Uncommitted got a sizable 21% in New Haven, Connecticut (Yale University), compared to 11% statewide.
There’s definitely some protest voting against Biden by young voters. But remember the reason most of them are unhappy with Biden in the first place: it’s because of Gaza. Trump is more pro-Israel then Biden, so it makes no sense for them to support him. That’s different from Haley voters, who are ideologically between Biden and Trump. Things may be more complicated than they seem, as will be discussed later, but first here’s the analysis of the third group Biden has been slipping with in polls: Hispanic voters. The Texas primary is a good place to judge how Hispanic voters are feeling about Biden. Texas has open primaries, like Michigan and South Carolina.
Biden did the worst in South and West Texas. One of the places he underperformed the most was the Rio Grande Valley (RGV). He got percentages in the 60s, 50s, and even 40s in many RGV counties, with his worst performance being in Zapata County, where he got a pathetic 40% of the vote.
The RGV is heavily Hispanic, so at first this seems like a validation of the polls showing Trump making massive gains among Hispanic voters – but it isn’t the only place in Texas where Hispanic people live. Biden performed very strongly in El Paso County, an 82% Hispanic county home to the city of the same name.
He also did well in places like Bexar County (San Antonio, 59% Hispanic), Dallas County (Dallas, 40% Hispanic), and Harris County (Houston, 43% Hispanic).
Looking at other states, it seems like Biden’s RGV performance was the exception, not the rule. He got 81% in Imperial County, California (86% Hispanic); and 83% in Santa Cruz County, Arizona (83% Hispanic).
Hispanic voters have been slowly trending towards Republicans over time, so Biden’s performances are even more impressive when that factor is taken into account. According to exit polls, Hispanic voters voted for Obama by 44 points, Clinton by 38 points, and 2020 Biden by 33 points. A lot of the people voting against Biden may be registered as Democrats but didn’t vote for him in 2020.
https://preview.redd.it/h35vewo8hvzc1.png?width=407&format=png&auto=webp&s=3c5b78394104a627ae1b8019db62aa1c3a4a1b70
https://preview.redd.it/jlo9nlhdhvzc1.png?width=377&format=png&auto=webp&s=726526e7da2a9c8690ab01e00a12e2e49265445d
https://preview.redd.it/l4tremrehvzc1.png?width=458&format=png&auto=webp&s=0744e5c12f7c0c4eb05ec84b59a070174b017b98
Overall, primaries don’t support the polls showing Trump making huge gains among black/Hispanic/young voters. There’s zero evidence black voters are upset with Biden. As for the other two groups, there are some signs of discontent, but not enough to warrant the double-digit swings polls are showing. Biden’s underperformances in college counties/Hispanic counties, when present at all, are usually less than 10 points worse than his statewide performance. And that’s assuming every single person protest voting will go for Trump. If all protest voters really do vote for the other party in the general election, say hello to Biden’s second term, because Nikki Haley regularly gets twice the number of votes in Republican primaries as Biden’s opposition does in Democratic primaries. Even after she dropped out.
Midterms, Off-Years, and Special Elections
At the same time Biden has been doing well in primaries, Democrats have been scoring wins in special/off-year elections. These elections are historically correlated with the popularity of the president, so they conflict with the polls showing Biden down. Look at elections during the last three presidencies to know what happens when a president is unpopular.
While Trump was in office, he was quite the unpopular president, and his party lost many elections because of it. Through 2017-2019, Republicans lost a net 8 governorships, going from 34 to 26; and a net 41 House seats, going from 241 to 200. The only chamber they managed to gain in was the Senate (thanks to a very favorable map and increased polarization causing many Democrats in red states to lose) – but not without losing a special election in Alabama, a deep red state that had voted for Trump over Clinton by almost 28 points.
This pattern continues to back when Obama was in office. From 2009-2011, when he was at the height of his unpopularity due to the state of the economy and Obamacare, Democrats lost big. They went from 28 governorships to just 20, 257 House seats to only 193, and 59 Senate seats to only 53. Like Republicans with Alabama during Trump’s presidency, Democrats managed to lose a Senate special election in a state considered safe for their party – Massachusetts, which had voted for Obama by 26 points in 2008.
And it goes even further back to Bush’s presidency. Backlash over the wars caused Republicans to lose 6 governorships from 2005-2007 (going from 28 seats to 22), 30 House seats (232 down to 202), and 6 Senate seats (55 to 49).
But despite Biden’s unpopularity and bad polling, Democrats have been doing well in elections despite precedent saying they shouldn’t be. The 2022 midterms, which were supposed to be a red wave, were anything but. Democrats flipped a net 2 governorships and 1 Senate seat, and only barely lost the House. The small majority Republicans won has been giving them trouble when trying to govern. Already, one Speaker was ousted and it’s possible a second might be too.
More recently, Democrats won the governorship in Kentucky and almost won it in Mississippi, both very red states. They flipped the Virginia state house and won a supreme court election in Pennsylvania by a large margin. Two months ago, they won a competitive special election for a House seat in New York by a decisive 8-point margin.
Interestingly, the normal pattern of an unpopular president’s party doing poorly manifested early in Biden’s term. After his approval rating crashed during the Afghanistan withdrawal, Democrats went on to lose the governorship (and state house) of Virginia, and almost lost the governorship of New Jersey. Both states voted for Biden by double digits in the 2020 election. Something changed between November 2021 and November 2022 to cause this shift. It might have been the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe V. Wade and allow states to ban abortion. In several special elections right after the decision, Democrats overperformed massively. For example, Republicans won the special election for Nebraska’s 1st congressional district, which voted for Trump by 11 points in 2020, by only a 5-point margin. The election took place just four days after the Dobbs decision.
The Trump-backed candidates nominated in many Senate and governor elections could also be the ones to blame. Thanks to Trump’s endorsement, many extremist candidates won the primaries in key races. They often denied the results of the 2020 presidential election and had other problematic views. Most of them went on to lose the general election, sometimes by huge margins. Below is a table of all the results.
https://preview.redd.it/vx1ilmujhvzc1.png?width=633&format=png&auto=webp&s=2771b74c5d4257d66b4825078ada46216b0be9bd
Whatever the cause, Republicans flopped in 2022 and haven’t recovered since. And it doesn’t seem like Trump will be able to avoid the problems plaguing his party. His handpicked candidates were the ones that did terribly while other Republicans often did well; and the abortion issue isn’t just going away, not to mention Trump’s the one responsible for getting Roe overturned with his SCOTUS appointments.
Of course, there’s a counterargument: that Biden is somehow breaking historical precedent, and he’ll do badly while other Democrats do fine. That seems like a reasonable theory, until the fact that Biden vs Trump and the generic congressional ballot are polling exactly the same is considered. As of April 5th, at least.
https://preview.redd.it/l0ecq2slhvzc1.png?width=753&format=png&auto=webp&s=d8c231135e068129cc1f9c3e1a3b9b2ce41be3fb
Since work on this essay has started, Biden has experienced a little surge of support in the polls. It could just be noise, but it might be something else.
https://preview.redd.it/m14gsmjmhvzc1.png?width=1043&format=png&auto=webp&s=43bc8d8146b31f5a613a1e7a4adc4ca30a858750
Biden has also been polling as well as (or sometimes even better than) hypothetical Democratic candidates for president like VP Kamala Harris, California governor Gavin Newsom, and Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer.
It could be argued Biden is only doing better because he has higher name recognition, and Democrats who don’t know the other three candidates are answering undecided. But Michelle Obama being extremely well-known didn’t stop her from trailing Trump by the exact same amount as Biden in a poll.
https://preview.redd.it/7h189dpnhvzc1.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=42aa042e9462022d397bbe212c428e41f4d40c99
Democrats are doing much better in actual elections than in polls, and Biden’s polling the same as other Democrats. It stands to reason that Biden would also do better in an election than in polls.
The Problem with the Polls
While primary and off-year elections suggest Biden isn’t doing badly, they still don’t explain the polls. One theory is that the black/Hispanic/young voters who don’t like Biden aren’t voting in any elections, that’s why Democrats are doing well. Perhaps the biggest proponent of this theory is Nate Cohn, the chief political analyst for the NYT.
This theoretical group of low-propensity Trump supporters who love answering polls but don’t vote in any elections sounds dubious, and that’s probably because it doesn’t exist at all. Biden’s bad polling is caused by two main things. The first is bad methodology, but before that is discussed, how polls work must be explained.
Polls work by contacting a certain number of voters, usually around a thousand, and asking them how they plan to vote. The 2024 options are usually Biden/Trump/Undecided/Other. Sometimes Other is changed to real third-party candidates, like RFK Jr. Polls also ask information on the voter, like their race, sex, age, and region. After data is collected, polls are weighted to reflect real demographics. For example, if a poll’s raw data has 40% of respondents living in urban areas while 60% live in rural areas, and the actual percentage of voters is 50% urban and 50% rural, then the responses of the urban voters are weighted higher. If that poll has urban areas voting 60D/40R and rural areas 40D/60R, then the raw data is 48D/52R while the weighted (and final) data is 50D/50R.
This seems like an effective way to avoid bias in polls, and account for lower response rates from certain groups. If rural voters are answering at a higher rate, just give them less weight. If Hispanic voters are answering at a lower rate, give them more weight. The thing is, voters don’t belong to just one group. A person can both live in a rural area and be Hispanic. And while groups (rural voters, Hispanic voters) are weighted, subgroups (rural Hispanic voters) are not.
Say, rural Hispanic voters are more Republican than urban and suburban Hispanic voters. Say, they’re answering polls at higher rates as well. Rural voters will be weighted lower in the poll, but that’s just all rural voters combined. Rural Hispanic voters are not weighted vs other Hispanics. That would lead to Hispanic voters in the poll being more Republican than they are in reality.
A typical poll has around a thousand respondents, and a margin of error of about ±3%. The sample sizes for different groups, however, are much smaller, which means a bigger margin of error. Let’s say Hispanic voters are 10% of the poll’s respondents, or a hundred in total. That’s a margin of error of ±8%, much larger than the ±3% for the poll as a whole. And if rural Hispanic voters are 20% of all Hispanic voters, that’s a margin of error of ±18%! Small inaccuracies in subgroups can cause a ripple effect that makes the whole poll wrong. Let’s do a simulation to show this effect off.

• True voting intention among all Hispanic voters is 63% Biden, 37% Trump (D+26).
• True voting intention among all non-rural Hispanic voters is 65% Biden, 35% Trump (D+30).
• True voting intention among rural Hispanic voters is 55% Biden, 45% Trump (D+10).
• 100 Hispanic voters answer the poll.
• Rural Hispanic voters make up 40% of the poll’s respondents (40 people), they make up 20% of the real Hispanic population. Since subgroups are not weighted, their influence on Hispanic voters in the poll is double what it should be.
• Due to the large margin of error of ±13%, rural Hispanic voters who answered the poll said they’d vote 45% Biden, 55% Trump. That’s 22 Trump voters and 18 Biden voters answering the poll. A proportional sample would have 22 Biden voters and 18 Trump voters. That’s just a 4-person difference.
• Non-rural Hispanic voters in the poll said they’d vote 65% Biden, 35% Trump (the true number).
• The average of Hispanic voters in the poll is 57% Biden, 43% Trump (D+14), a 12% swing from the true numbers.

And all that must happen for this problem to occur regularly is for Trump-voting rural Hispanics to answer polls at a slightly higher rate than Biden-voting rural Hispanics, and rural voters to answer polls at a higher rate than urban voters. And since polls collect responses from people who answer the polls first, the effect can happen easily.
You guessed it, this is happening in real life. And not just with Hispanic voters, but with everyone.
A pattern among 2024 polls is that rural voters are answering at a higher rate than urban/suburban voters. In one NYT/Siena poll (Trump+4), rural voters made up about 35% of the respondents, when they only made up 19% of the 2020 electorate.
In another poll by Grinnell College (Trump+7), rural voters made up 27% of the respondents. Voters who said they lived in a “town” made up 17%, and it’s likely at least some of them would break for rural if they had to choose between urban/suburban/rural.
Looking at the 538 poll database, a clear pattern emerges. Polls that have Trump leading Biden have a proportion of rural voters that is way too high. Polls where Biden leads Trump have more normal numbers.
Rural voters tend to be more conservative and vote Republican, and sure enough, Republicans are answering at a higher rate then Democrats. (scroll to "Do you consider yourself a Democrat, a Republican, an independent or a member of another party?" for the NYT/Siena poll and the top of page 6 for the Grinnell College poll. Both show more Republicans answering the poll than Democrats.)
One pollster, Susquehanna Polling and Research, remarked that Trump supporters seem to have higher enthusiasm than Biden supporters, and so are answering polls at a higher rate.

The second reason why Trump may not be winning Pennsylvania has to do with who is answering polls. We suspect because Trump is the only candidate with “enthusiastic” voters, it’s Trump voters in particular who are disproportionately talking to pollsters. It’s the reverse of what happened in 2016, when the phenomenon of “shy” Trump voters meant that many pollsters undercounted Trump’s base of support. Many voters were afraid to admit they were Trumpers back then. Today, we suspect many pollsters are not adjusting their samples to account for this “non-response” bias, as it’s typically called. But SP&R is doing so.

Polls also say that Trump voters are more enthusiastic than Biden voters.

Republicans are slightly more enthusiastic ahead of November’s general election, edging out Democrats, according to a new survey.
In the poll, released Thursday by Gallup, 59 percent of Republicans said they are more enthusiastic about voting in the upcoming election than in previous years. Fifty-five percent of Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents said they felt the same.

Groups like seniors and white voters may not be swinging towards Trump because there isn’t an enthusiasm gap, unlike with black/Hispanic/young voters. According to a YouGov poll, groups that aren’t swinging towards Trump in the crosstab aggregate are also paying more attention to the election (and therefore are more enthusiastic, and answering more polls). When black/Hispanic/young voters start paying more attention, they’ll get enthusiastic and start answering polls, which should improve Biden’s polling.
https://preview.redd.it/0899t1ephvzc1.png?width=1074&format=png&auto=webp&s=4f9fe91a2d30381a9f08e7e1883b90679aefd6a0
And that rural Hispanic voter hypothetical was based on something real. Rural Hispanic voters were already more Republican than other Hispanics in the 2020 election; and Biden did badly in the rural RGV in the primaries while doing better in cities like El Paso. The difference may be even larger than it was four years ago, with rural Hispanics swinging against Biden while urban and suburban Hispanics don’t. Rural Hispanics make up a small percentage of Hispanic voters (scroll down to "Area type"), so this swing doesn’t mean much for Biden’s electoral prospects. It screws with the crosstabs of Hispanic voters, however.
As Biden’s voters become more enthusiastic and the gap closes, polls may start swinging towards him as more of his voters answer polls. There have already been signs of this happening, like that surge in support mentioned earlier. Perhaps it’s because of the recent ad blitz by Biden energizing his supporters?
Oversamples, and the True State of the Election
Biden voters are not answering polls as much as Trump voters, and this is creating big swings in crosstabs thanks to low sample sizes. Polls with bigger sample sizes would be much better. The margins of error would be much smaller and the crosstabs much more accurate. Unfortunately, it’s too expensive to make polls with huge sample sizes, but there’s still the next best thing – oversamples.
Oversamples are polls that poll only one specific group. While a normal poll polls everyone, an oversample might poll only black voters, for example. Because of the big sample sizes, oversamples are much better for determining the voting intentions of groups than just looking at the crosstabs of normal polls. Oversamples can also use more advanced methods of polling to reach people who may not respond otherwise.
There are three oversamples that are going to be examined here. The first is by Black PAC, and it’s an oversample of black voters.
https://preview.redd.it/epcr7xeqhvzc1.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=6938941ae9e6b345778035bfd45f7ceb81aa98ed
Trump gets a pathetic 8% of black voters, less than half of the polling aggregate showing him getting 18%. This, along with Biden’s strong primary performances, suggest that the bad polling for Biden among black voters is entirely due to bad polling methodology.
Next, Hispanic voters. An oversample of Hispanic voters by Univision shows Biden leading Trump 58-31 (27 points). Again, that’s completely different from the polling aggregate showing Biden winning them by only 6 points. It is a slight decrease from 2020, where he won them by 33 points; but like stated earlier, Hispanics have been trending right for a while, so Trump making small gains among them isn’t surprising.
And finally, young voters. Split Ticket, an election prediction and analysis website, polled young voters. They used live text interviews, rather than a normal method like calling landlines.
In the poll, Biden leads Trump 35-25, a 10 point lead. Biden is disapproved of by 68% of young voters, while Trump is disapproved of by 70%. Of the three oversamples, this is the only one that lines up closely with the crosstab aggregate (Biden+8). Biden won young voters by 24 points in 2020, so it looks Trump is making large gains among the group.
But it’s not that simple.
Biden and Trump have a similar total disapproval rating, but the number of respondents who strongly disapprove of Trump is 61%. For Biden, it’s just 44%. This means Trump likely has a lower ceiling of support with young voters than Biden does – it’s hard to get someone who hates you to vote for you.
Additionally, young voters who disapprove of both Biden and Trump overwhelmingly prefer Biden to Trump. RFK Jr. actually wins this group, but like all third party candidates, his support is declining as the election gets closer. The combined voteshare in polls for RFK Jr. and Cornel West (a left-wing independent candidate) has been steadily decreasing. 6 months ago, it was 17.9%. Today, it’s only 11.5%. This raises the question of who RFK Jr.’s supporters will break for when they realize he can’t win.
https://preview.redd.it/zt0t5ptzhvzc1.png?width=763&format=png&auto=webp&s=fd1f7c717e66e750c57e76eaa617966708ebd222
Based on the approval ratings of Biden and Trump, and the “double haters” who already have chosen sides, it seems like the vast majority of young RFK Jr. supporters will go for Biden. His lead among young voters will only increase as time goes on. Of course, it wouldn’t be a bad idea to run ads like these to speed up the process.
Split Ticket also conducted a poll using a more normal method, an opt-in web panel. This poll had Trump doing much better with young voters than in their live text poll. So yes, some commonly used polling methods don’t work correctly!
Conclusion
Biden has been polling badly lately. He’s been trailing Trump nationally as well as in swing states. Polls say key parts of the Democratic base, black/Hispanic/young voters, are abandoning Biden in huge numbers. But when looked at closely, it’s not so simple. Other signs for Biden are pretty good. He’s been doing pretty well in primaries, and Democrats have been doing well in special and off-year elections. Polls are underestimating Biden’s support due to bad methodology and Democrats not answering polls. Oversamples show Biden doing fine with black voters, and mostly fine with Hispanic voters. The only group he really needs to work on is young voters, by trying to decrease RFK Jr.’s support.
So, 2024 won’t be a red wave where Trump wins big. But current signs don’t suggest 2024 is going to be a blue wave either, just another extremely close election like 2016 and 2020 both were. But there’s reason to believe Biden might outperform his 2020 showing despite that.
The American public is not very engaged right now, as there’s still seven months until the election, so Trump’s latest ventures with the legal system aren’t on people’s minds. When people tune in more, he can only get hurt from it. There’s also the massive fundraising gap between the two, which Trump is scrambling to close.
Here’s a prediction for how the election will actually go (margins are 20+, 15-19.9, 10-14.9, 5-9.9, 1-4.9, <1).
https://preview.redd.it/ufw3oxa2ivzc1.png?width=810&format=png&auto=webp&s=55a5dcc6c246cb34381165d211b17181717ef196

GTA V, without a doubt, was one of the most anticipated videogames in the early 2010's. Particularly in 2011 all the way through 2013.
What were some of your favorite memories during this time period? Was it the hoaxes? Leaks? Predictions? Trailers? Artwork reveals?
https://preview.redd.it/mnm75r6r3tzc1.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3b07bc1d6f3050ec263a6b1a09d4ed019c79a8d7

It looks like we touched upon KP11, a G6 storm (if such a thing existed). Serious solarmax spaceweather
“The geomagnetic Hpo index is a Kp-like index with a time resolution of half an hour, called Hp30, and one hour, called Hp60. besides that, the Hpo index is not capped at 9 like Kp, but is an open ended index that describes the strongest geomagnetic storms more nuanced than the three-hourly Kp, which is limited to the maximum value of 9. Next to the Hpo we also provide the linear apo index (ap30 and ap60). The Hpo index was developed in the H2020 project SWAMI and is described in Yamazaki et al (2022).
Abstract The geomagnetic activity index Kp is widely used but is restricted by low time resolution (3-hourly) and an upper limit. To address this, new geomagnetic activity indices, Hpo, are introduced. Similar to Kp, Hpo expresses the level of planetary geomagnetic activity in units of thirds (0o, 0+, 1−, 1o, 1+, 2−, …) based on the magnitude of geomagnetic disturbances observed at subauroral observatories. Hpo has a higher time resolution than Kp. 30-min (Hp30) and 60-min (Hp60) indices are produced. The frequency distribution of Hpo is designed to be similar to that of Kp so that Hpo may be used as a higher time-resolution alternative to Kp. Unlike Kp, which is capped at 9o, Hpo is an open-ended index and thus can characterize severe geomagnetic storms more accurately. Hp30, Hp60 and corresponding linearly scaled ap30 and ap60 are available, in near real time, at the GFZ website (https://www.gfz-potsdam.de/en/hpo-index).
Key Points New Kp-like planetary geomagnetic activity indices, Hpo, are presented
Hourly (Hp60) and half-hourly (Hp30) indices are available from GFZ website
Hpo indices are open-ended without the upper limit at 9o
Plain Language Summary The geomagnetic activity index Kp is a measure of planetary geomagnetic activity, expressed in units of thirds (0o, 0+, 1−, 1o, 1+, 2−, …9o). Kp is widely used in the space physics community, as it is known to be a good proxy of the solar-wind energy input into the magnetosphere-ionosphere-thermosphere system. Kp has two important limitations. One is the temporal resolution. Kp is a three-hourly index, so that temporal features within 3 hr are not resolved. The other is the upper limit of the index. Kp does not exceed a maximum value of 9o, so that under extremely disturbed conditions, geomagnetic activity is not accurately represented. We introduce a group of new geomagnetic activity indices Hpo that overcomes these limitations. Hpo is designed to represent planetary geomagnetic activity in a similar way as Kp but with higher temporal resolution and without the upper limit at 9o. This paper describes the production of 30-min (Hp30) and 60-min (Hp60) indices, and demonstrates their properties in comparison with Kp. Hpo indices since 1995, including near-real-time values, are distributed through the GFZ website (https://www.gfz-potsdam.de/en/hpo-index).
1 Introduction Variations in the solar wind cause changes in electric currents that flow in the magnetosphere and ionosphere. The associated changes in the magnetic field can be observed using magnetometers on the ground. There exist various types of geomagnetic indices to monitor the intensity of geomagnetic disturbance associated with solar wind variations (Mayaud, 1980). The Kp index is one of the most widely used indices of geomagnetic activity. The derivation, application and historical background of Kp are detailed in Matzka, Stolle, et al. (2021), and thus are described here only briefly.
Kp is derived from K indices (Bartels et al., 1939) evaluated at 13 subauroral observatories from both northern and southern hemispheres. A K index expresses geomagnetic activity on a scale of 0–9 at each observatory for a given 3-hourly interval of the UT day (00–03, 03–06, …, 21–24 UT). It is based on the range of geomagnetic disturbance over the 3-hourly interval, which may contain geomagnetic pulsations (McPherron, 2005; Saito, 1969), bays associated with substorms (McPherron, 1970; Lyons, 1996), sudden storm commencements and sudden impulses (Araki, 1994), geomagnetic storm main phase (Gonzalez et al., 1994) and solar-flare and eclipse effects (Yamazaki & Maute, 2017). K is designed to have a similar frequency distribution regardless of observatory, and thus it does not depend on latitude. K indices are converted to standardized Ks indices, which take into account the influence of seasonal and UT biases. Kp is the average of the 13 Ks indices expressed in units of thirds (0o, 0+, 1−, 1o, 1+, 2−, …, 9o), thus it represents planetary, rather than local, geomagnetic activity. The complete time series of the definitive Kp index since 1932 and nowcast indices for the most recent hours are available from the Kp website at Deutsches GeoForschungsZentrum GFZ (https://www.gfz-potsdam.de/en/kp-index/) with a digital object identifier (DOI; Matzka, Bronkalla, et al., 2021). Real-time Kp forecasts (Shprits et al., 2019) based on solar wind data are also available from the GFZ website (https://spaceweather.gfz-potsdam.de/products-data/forecasts/kp-index-forecast).
The Kp index has a wide range of applications in space physics studies. For example, Kp can be used to select undisturbed data from the measurements obtained from the magnetosphere, ionosphere or thermosphere to determine their climatological base states (e.g., Drob et al., 2015; Fejer et al., 2008). Kp is also often used for modeling the geospace response to solar wind variations. Just to give a few examples, Kp is used to drive the 3-D Versatile Electron Radiation Belt model (Subbotin et al., 2011), the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model with thermosphere and ionosphere extension (WACCM-X; Liu et al., 2018) and the Naval Research Laboratory Mass Spectrometer Incoherent Scatter radar empirical atmospheric model (Emmert et al., 2021), among many other models of the magnetosphere, ionosphere and thermosphere. Thomsen (2004) argued that what makes Kp so useful is its sensitivity to the latitudinal distance from the Kp stations to the equatorial edge of auroral currents, which is tightly linked to the strength of magnetospheric convection.
Kp has two important limitations. One is the temporal resolution. Kp cannot resolve temporal features within 3 hr. For example, the onset of geomagnetic disturbance determined by Kp could be off from the actual onset by up to 3 hr. This could be an issue when Kp is used to drive a geospace model, because the state of the magnetosphere, ionosphere and thermosphere can change significantly within the 3-hr interval. As a compromise, some models use interpolated Kp values as input data, for example, thermospheric density models (Vallado & Finkleman, 2014), WACCM-X (Liu et al., 2018). The other limitation of Kp is its upper limit at 9o. Kp is not able to quantify geomagnetic activity after it reaches 9o. Extreme geomagnetic storms involving Kp = 9o are not necessarily equally strong in terms of geomagnetic disturbance. Extrapolated values of Kp above 9o are sometimes used for a better representation of geomagnetic activity during severe geomagnetic storms (e.g., Shprits et al., 2011).
The objective of this paper is to introduce a new group of Kp-like geomagnetic indices. The indices are collectively called Hpo, where “H” stands for half-hourly or hourly, “p” for planetary, and “o” for open-ended. Hpo has been conceived and developed under the EU Horizon 2020 project, Space Weather Atmosphere Model and Indices (SWAMI; Jackson et al., 2020). Hpo is designed to represent planetary geomagnetic activity in a similar manner as Kp but with higher time resolution and without an upper limit, to overcome the limitations of Kp described above. The derivation of 30-min (Hp30) and 60-min (Hp60) indices is outlined in Section 2, and their basic properties are described in Section 7.
2 Derivation of Hpo Hpo indices are derived using 1-min magnetic data from the same 13 subauroral observatories as Kp (see Section 2.2 of Matzka, Stolle, et al., 2021). Time series of Hpo starts from the year 1995, because 1-min digital data are not available from all the observatories before 1995. The procedure for deriving Hpo is similar to that for nowcast Kp described in Matzka, Stolle, et al. (2021), involving the steps described below.
2.1 Evaluation and Removal of Quiet Curve
Records of the geomagnetic field from a ground station contain regular quiet daily variation and geomagnetic disturbance (Chapman & Bartels, 1940). The estimation of the quiet curve for Hpo is based on the Finnish Meteorological Institute method (Sucksdorff et al., 1991), which uses 1-min data from the previous day, present day, and subsequent day. The quiet curve is obtained for the northward X and eastward Y components of the geomagnetic field, and subtracted from the corresponding data, which leaves geomagnetic disturbance.
2.2 Evaluation of the Magnitude of Geomagnetic Disturbance
The magnitude of geomagnetic disturbance is evaluated for every 30-min interval for Hp30 and 60-min interval for Hp60. For a given time interval, the range of geomagnetic disturbance (i.e., maximum minus minimum value) is compared with the maximum absolute value of geomagnetic disturbance, and the larger value of the two is adopted as the magnitude of geomagnetic disturbance. This contrasts with the derivation procedure for Kp, which always uses the range of geomagnetic disturbance. We found that this modification of the procedure improves the compatibility between Hpo and Kp. The magnitude of geomagnetic disturbance is obtained for the X and Y components, and the larger value is used in the next step.
2.3 Evaluation of H30 and H60 Indices
H30 and H60 indices are analogous to K indices for Kp, and are collectively called H herein. For the evaluation of K, an observatory-specific table is used for converting the magnitude of geomagnetic disturbance (in nT) to an integer K value (0–9). An example of the conversion table for the Niemegk observatory can be found in Table 1. New tables have been created for each observatory that convert the magnitude of geomagnetic disturbance to an H value (0–9). This was done, for each observatory, by generating a conversion table for H in such a manner that the frequency distribution of H is as similar as possible to the frequency distribution of K. The construction of the conversion tables for H is based on the geomagnetic data during 1995–2017, which were all the available data when the construction of Hpo was initiated. The conversion table for H30 and H60 for Niemegk is presented in Table 1. Furthermore, extended conversion tables are produced in order to allow H to go beyond 9. In the extended conversion tables, the maximum value of H is unlimited. The lower limit for H = 10 is given by the lower limit of H = 9 multiplied by a factor of 1.35. The lower limit of H = 11 is given by the lower limit of H = 10 multiplied by a factor of 1.30, and the lower limit of H = 12 is given by the lower limit of H = 11 multiplied by a factor of 1.20. For values of H greater than 12, the multiplication factor will be always 1.20, so that H can be defined no matter how large the magnitude of geomagnetic disturbance is. These multiplication factors were determined on a trial-and-error basis so that the behavior of the final Hpo index above 9o will be compatible with those of other open-ended indices (see Section 7).
Table 1. Lower Limits of H30, H60, and K for the Niemegk Observatory Index 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 H30 (nT) 0 2.16 4.46 8.89 17.9 33.9 65.7 119 190 267 H60 (nT) 0 2.97 6.11 12.1 24.3 44.7 82.7 144 218 337 K (nT) 0 5.00 10.0 20.0 40.0 70.0 120 200 330 500 2.4 Evaluation of Hp30 and Hp60 Indices
H indices are converted to standardized Hs indices using the same method for converting K to Ks. The conversion tables can be found in the Supporting Information of Matzka, Stolle, et al. (2021). The conversion of H to Hs minimizes the influence of seasonal and UT biases. Finally, the average of the 13 Hs indices is converted into Hpo values in units of thirds (0, 1/3, 2/3, 1, 4/3, 5/3, 2, …) in analog fashion as with the nowcast Kp (see Section 3.3 of Matzka, Stolle, et al., 2021) and expressed as (0o, 0+, 1−, 1o, 1+, 2−, …) following the convention for Kp. The Hpo value is derived using the H indices evaluated with the conversion tables capped at 9 (like the one shown in Table 1). If this initial Hpo value is 9o, all the H indices are re-evaluated using the extended conversion tables, in which H can go beyond 9, to re-calculate Hpo. This ensures that Hpo and Kp behave similarly up to 9− (and differently only at 9o and above).
Like Kp, Hpo indices are a quasi-logarithmic, rather than linear, measure of geomagnetic activity, and thus are not suitable for basic arithmetic operations such as addition and multiplication. To avoid this issue, linearly scaled ap30 and ap60 indices (collectively called apo) are produced for Hp30 and Hp60, respectively, by using the table that is used for producing ap from Kp (Matzka, Stolle, et al., 2021) but extending its higher end in a similar manner as the extension of H tables above 9. The relationship between Hpo and apo is illustrated in Figure 1a. Like ap, values of apo correspond to half the magnitude of geomagnetic disturbance at Niemegk.
Details are in the caption following the image Figure 1 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint (a) The relationship between Hpo and apo. (b–j) Frequency distributions of the occurrence of Kp, Hp60, and Hp30 values for different years. (k) Monthly mean values of ap, ap60, and ap30 during 1995–2020. The total sunspot number is also indicated.
Hp30 and Hp60, along with their corresponding ap30 and ap60, are archived since 1995 and available, in near real time, from the GFZ website (https://www.gfz-potsdam.de/en/hpo-index) with DOI (https://doi.org/10.5880/Hpo.0002) under the CC BY 4.0 license (Matzka et al., 2022, for data publication).
3 Some Properties of Hpo The frequency distributions of the occurrence of Hp30, Hp60, and Kp values are compared in Figures 1b–1j for every 3-year interval from 1995 to 2021. The distribution pattern of Kp is different in different solar cycle phases. For instance, during the solar minimum years 2007–2009 (Figure 1f) and 2019–2021 (Figure 1j), the occurrence rate of low Kp values (e.g., Kp ≤ 1o) is appreciably higher than during the solar maximum years 2001–2003 (Figure 1d) and 2013–2015 (Figure 1h). Hp30 and Hp60 reproduce different distribution patterns of Kp well, even for the later years not used in the construction of the conversion tables defining the H indices. The agreement of Hp30 and Hp60 with Kp during 2018–2021 (Figure 1j) suggests that the conversion tables for H indices are valid beyond the period 1995–2017.
The linearly scaled ap30 and ap60 indices are suitable for assessing average geomagnetic activity over a certain period. Monthly mean values of ap30 and ap60 are plotted in Figure 1k. They are in good agreement with monthly mean ap, showing 11-year solar-cycle variation. The sunspot number is also displayed in Figure 1k for comparison. Geomagnetic activity is known to be highest during the declining phase of solar cycle due to the effects of recurrent high speed solar wind streams (Lockwood et al., 1999).
In Figure 2, Hp30 (top), Hp60 (middle), and Kp (bottom) are compared with other geospace indices. The left panels show comparisons with Newell's coupling function (Newell et al., 2007), which is a measure of the energy input from the solar wind into the magnetosphere. The coupling function was derived using OMNI 5-min solar wind data (King & Papitashvili, 2005). Panels in the middle and right columns show comparisons with AE and PC indices, respectively. The AE index is a measure of auroral electrojet activity based on geomagnetic field measurements in the auroral region. The PC index represents geomagnetic activity in the polar region (Troshichev et al., 1988). Following Stauning (2007), the average of the PC indices from the northern (PCN) and southern (PCS) hemispheres were calculated using non-negative values. For comparisons with Hpo and Kp indices, 5-min solar wind data and 1-min AE and PC indices were averaged over every 30-min intervals. Hp60 and Kp are assumed to remain the same within their temporal windows. The solar wind data were shifted by 20 min to account for the delay due to energy transfer from the bow shock to the ionosphere (Manoj et al., 2008).
Details are in the caption following the image Figure 2 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint Dependence of (a–c) Hp30, (d–f) Hp60, and (g–i) Kp on (a, d, g) Newell's solar-wind coupling function, (b, e, h) AE index, and (c, f, i) PC index. For the PC index, the average of the northern (PCN) and southern (PCS) indices is used, considering only their positive values. In each panel, black dots indicate the average of the solar-wind coupling function, AE or PC index at each Hpo or Kp value (0o, 0+, 1−, …, 9−), with error bars representing the standard deviation and the green curve representing the best-fitting third-order polynomial function for Hpo or Kp below 9o. The gray dots in panels (a–f) are individual data points for Hpo ≥9o, and the yellow dot is their average value.
The solar-wind coupling function, AE and PC indices averaged at each value of Hpo and Kp from 0o to 9− are indicated in Figure 2 by black dots, with error bars representing the standard deviation. Curves in green show the best-fitting third-degree polynomial function for Hpo and Kp below 9o. The fitted curves for Hp30, Hp60, and Kp are similar to each other. The results suggest that for Hpo <9o, the dependence of Hp30 and Hp60 on the solar-wind coupling function, AE and PC indices is consistent with that of Kp. For Hpo ≥9o, the number of data points is rather small, and thus the average solar-wind coupling function, AE and PC indices were not calculated for each Hpo value. Instead, a single average value was derived using all the data corresponding to Hpo ≥9o (gray dots), which is indicated by the yellow dot in each panel of Figures 2a–2f. It is seen that the average value falls near the polynomial curve derived from the data for Hpo <9o. The results suggest that Hp30 and Hp60 can represent geomagnetic activity for Hpo ≥9o in the manner expected from their behavior for Hpo <9o.
The behavior of Hpo at its high end is further illustrated in Figure 3 based on five geomagnetic storm events. The selected geomagnetic storms are those in November 2003, March 2001, October 2003, November 2004, and July 2002, which are the five most intense geomagnetic storms during the period considered in this study (1995–2021) according to the minimum value of the Dst index. The left panels show time series of Hp30, Hp60, and Kp, as well as the Dst index, over a 7-day interval, in which the third day corresponds to the storm main phase. The temporal evolution of Kp is generally well captured by Hp30 and Hp60. Variations within 3 hr are seen in Hp30 and Hp60, which are not resolved by Kp. The maximum values of Hp30, Hp60, Kp, and the minimum value of Dst are (9−, 9−, 9−, and −422) for the November 2003 event, (10o, 10−, 9−, and −387) for the March 2001 event, (12−, 12−, 9o, and −383) for the October 2003 event, (11−, 9−, 9−, and −374) for the November 2004 event and (11o, 11o, 9o, and −300) for the July 2002 event. Thus, according to Hpo, the October 2003 event is the strongest among the five. Hpo ≥9o is seen mainly during the storm main phase, when the Dst index rapidly decreases. The right panels compare the 3-hourly mean of Hp30 (calculated from ap30) and Kp. The correlation is rather good; the correlation coefficient r is greater than 0.98 in all cases. Similarly good correlation is found for the comparison between 3-hourly mean of Hp60 and Kp (not shown here). These results suggest that Hpo can represent geomagnetic activity in a similar way as Kp even during the strongest geomagnetic storms.
Details are in the caption following the image Figure 3 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint (a, c, e, g, i) Time series of Kp, Hp60, Hp30, and Dst over a 7-day interval during strong geomagnetic storm events. Zero in the horizontal axis corresponds to 00 UT of the day with the storm main phase. (b, d, f, h, j) Comparison of Kp and three-hourly average of Hp30 during the strong geomagnetic storm events. The 3-hourly average of Hp30 is derived from the corresponding values of ap30. The correlation coefficient r is also indicated.
To provide some insight into variations of Hp30 and Hp60 within 3 hr, Figure 4 depicts the response of ap30, ap60, and ap to isolated substorms. The substorm onset list based on the technique described by Newell and Gjerloev (2011a) was obtained from the SuperMAG website (https://supermag.jhuapl.edu/). We selected isolated substorm events where there is no other substorm onset in the preceding 6 hr and following 12 hr. A total of 1947 isolated substorm events have been identified during 1995–2018. Figure 4a shows the variation of the AE index averaged over those substorm events. The average AE index peaks approximately 1 hr after the onset, and decays gradually to go back to the pre-onset level in 3–4 hr. The average ap30 and ap60 indices (Figures 4b and 4c) show the increase and decrease of geomagnetic activity that occur within 3 hr around the substorm onset. ap (Figure 4d) is not able to fully resolve such a short-term variation due to its low time resolution. The results suggest that variation of Hpo within 3 hr can contain physically meaningful information, which is not resolved by Kp.
Details are in the caption following the image Figure 4 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint Superposed epoch analysis of (a) AE, (b) ap30, (c) ap60, and (d) Kp over 1947 isolated substorm events identified during 1995–2018 based on the method of Newell and Gjerloev (2011a). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean. Zero in the horizontal axis corresponds to the substorm onset.
4 Summary and Outlook We have described a group of new open-ended geomagnetic activity indices Hpo. Hourly (Hp60) and half-hourly (Hp30) indices, along with their linearly scaled counterparts (ap30 and ap60), are available in near real time from the GFZ website (https://www.gfz-potsdam.de/en/hpo-index) with DOI (Matzka et al., 2022). Important properties of Hpo that are revealed by our initial analysis can be summarized as follows: The frequency distributions of the occurrence of Hp30 and Hp60 values are consistent with that of Kp at different phases of the solar cycle (Figures 1a–1i).
Month-to-month variations of Hp30 and Hp60 are consistent with that of Kp (Figure 1k).
The relationships between Hpo indices and Newell's solar wind coupling function, AE and PC indices are similar to those between Kp and these three quantities.
Hp30 and Hp60 can capture temporal variation of Kp during strong geomagnetic storm events (Figure 3).
Hp30 and Hp60 can reproduce short-term variation of geomagnetic activity within 3 hr associated with substorms (Figure 4).
These results demonstrate that Hpo can be used as a higher time-resolution alternative to Kp. Indeed, there are already a few studies that utilized Hpo for its advantage over Kp. Yamazaki et al. (2021) used Hp30 to select quiet-time measurements of the geomagnetic field from Swarm satellites. The orbital period of a Swarm satellite is approximately 90 min, thus using Hp30, geomagnetic activity can be evaluated for every one third of the orbit, while there is only one Kp value for every two orbits. The high-cadence output of Hpo enables a more accurate selection of quiet-time data than the three-hourly Kp index. Bruinsma and Boniface (2021) used Hp60 to drive a recent version of the Drag Temperature Model, DTM-2020, which is a semi-empirical model of the Earth's thermosphere, developed for orbit determination and prediction of spacecraft and debris. They showed that the use of Hpo leads to the improvement of the model compared with the predecessor model DTM-2013 (Bruinsma, 2015) that is driven by Kp. Similarly, Hpo may be used for improving other geospace models driven by Kp. Recalibration and validation are recommended when Hpo is used as an input for existing models that are parameterized with Kp.

ROTHSCHILD DEAD WILL BE THE GO AHEAD SIGNAL FOR BlACK SWAN EVENT= 911
In this post I explain how Rothschild's death signals a Black Swan event--
I predicted they would stage some stunt on 26 Feb--
Feb 26= 2/26
BLACK SWAN EVENT= 226
226 days later--
9 Oct-- Yale / Skull & Bones anniv
.
26 Feb 2024= 911 days after the US withdrew from Afghanistan on 30 Aug 2021
WITHDRAWAL= 119
US WITHDRAWS FROM AFGHANISTAN= 119
.
Right on schedule--
26 Feb 2024-- JACOB ROTHSCHILD= 87 died at age 87
Feb 26= 2/26
BLACK SWAN EVENT= 226
A Black Swan Event is unforeseen event which affects the stock market
https://preview.redd.it/6u9r7jliinzc1.png?width=503&format=png&auto=webp&s=54168aa16f239abc500ecc7c37c573db11165511
BLACK SWAN EVENT= 226
ZAPORIZHZHIA PLANT = 226
The Nikkei fell 10,000 points after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear plant accident
A few months later-- stock markets around the world crashed
8 August 2011--- Black Monday--the Dow dropped 10,800 points
STOCK MARKET CRASHES AFTER NUCLEAR ACCIDENT TWENTY TWENTY FOUR= 666
.
TWENTY ONE JULY TWENTY TWENTY FOUR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DISASTER= 666
next day--
22 JULY 2024 NATO ARTICLE 5 IS INVOKED FOLLOWING A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT DISASTER= 911
next day--
TWENTY THREE JULY TWENTY TWENTY FOUR STOCK MARKETS CRASH AFTER A ZAPORIZHZHIA NUCLEAR PLANT ACCIDENT= 1119
.
5 Sep 2021-- A Black Swan suddenly appeared in Tiananmen Square
2 Years 322 days later--
23 July 2024-- Neptunalia
NEPTUNALIA= 157
BLACK SWAN= 157
TWENTY THREE JULY TWENTY TWENTY FOUR STOCK MARKETS CRASH AFTER A ZAPORIZHZHIA NUCLEAR PLANT ACCIDENT= 1119
https://preview.redd.it/236s0zbprnzc1.png?width=388&format=png&auto=webp&s=38084ba834c56ec26f27ad58d086cbd04d3f4903
other Black Swan dates--
19 May= 226 days left in the year
BLACK SWAN EVENT= 226
2 months 23 days after Rothschild's Death
223 days after the 322nd anniv of Yale/ Skull & Bones
3 years 3 months 22 days after Gamestop High
NINETEEN MAY TWENTY TWENTY FOUR SAUDI KING SALMAN DIED= 666
.
22 June= 22/6
BLACK SWAN EVENT= 226
9 months 11 days after Sep 11
119 days after Ukraine Invasion date 24 Feb
.
14 Aug= Day 226
.
ZAPORIZHZHIA PLANT = 226
AIRPLANE CRASH= 226
EMBASSY BOMBED= 226
ASSASSINATE UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR= 226
SUICIDE BOMBER= 226
UNITED STATES FALSE FLAG= 226

https://thespectator.com/topic/appalachia-stalled-revival-development/
Appalachia’s stalled revival
The battle between smokestack chasers and economic diversifiers
May 9, 2024 6:33 am
The recently restored former Norfolk and Western Railway J-class steam locomotive 611 passes by during an excursion in Blue Ridge, Virginia (Getty)
Written By:
Anthony Hennen
State officials and nonprofit leaders often chatter about economic diversification and a just transition for Appalachia. But old habits die hard. Many still dream of large factories and firms returning to the region, bringing economic wealth — and tax revenue.
The divide between smokestack chasers and economic diversifiers has an extra urgency as the federal government directs more money into the region than they have in decades. But the diversification versus big business divide threatens to squander the money from federal legislation like the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.
Swinging for the fences promises the revival of a golden era, when Appalachia was dotted with coal mines and factories. But this persistent belief in mega-projects coming back to the region has notched up few successes in recent years. It also undermines small and medium-sized businesses that already exist in the region and could lead diversification efforts. When leaders stay focused on a big employer, they make unforced errors.
Take Virginia, where the Buckhannon County Board of Supervisors has focused on building the Bluestone Regional Business and Technology Park. It’s pocketed $13 million from grants and Virginia’s Tobacco Commission to fund it.
But after years of the complex sitting empty, a machinery company was turned away when it wanted to open there. The board pigeonholed the park as being “tech-only,” said Amanda Killen, the new economy program coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
The 680-acre park was completed in 2011 but sat empty until getting its first tenant in 2021 — a bait manufacturer, helped by a $400,000 loan from the Virginia Coalfield Economic Development Authority.
Now locals are grumbling about Project Jonah, a salmon farm announced in 2013 as “the world’s largest vertically integrated indoor aquaculture facility.” State Delegate Will Morefield called it “the type of transformational project that we will use on an international level to attract other companies to Southwest Virginia.”
The $228 million project has received more than $6 million in federal and local grants. Another $10 million could come from the Virginia Coalfield Economic Development Authority if it hits hiring and investment benchmarks, on top of millions more in county loans to the company. Tazewell County would also need to spend $8 million for water system improvements.
“They’re always very proud to do a press release and say ‘hey, we’re doing this thing, here it comes,’” Killen said. “And then it doesn’t happen. That happens over and over.”
Officials have assured the public the Project Jonah lives, with an expected completion date of 2025 or 2026.
Project Jonah, it should be noted, grew out of a 2013 trip to Israel that Delegate Morefield took “to look for economic opportunities for Southwest Virginia,” according to the Bluefield Daily Telegraph.
For many officials, the temptation of a moonshot to revive the rural remains irresistible. The moonshot mindset, though, gets economic development backwards. Rural areas don’t need politico-economic gurus directing growth. What they need is the entrepreneurial spirit.
“So much of where I think conventional economic revitalization discussions have fallen short is they tend to be very top-down and they tend to exclude or not recognize the vital role that entrepreneurship plays,” said John Lettieri, president of the Economic Innovation Group.
EIG’s research focuses on economic dynamism and the roots of innovation. “Entrepreneurship is one of the signal indicators of economic potential in a community, and anything that is not fundamentally involving entrepreneurship as a path forward is not likely to succeed,” Lettieri said.
Gambling with taxpayer money is easy. As more federal cash flows into Appalachia’s overlooked hills, it may encourage hubris more than profit.
“There’s an incredible overconfidence among policymakers about how, by pushing this or that button, you can engineer outcomes that are hard to achieve,” Lettieri said. “There’s always this idea that through policy we’ll generate a big boost of entrepreneurship — and it’s a laudable goal — but so much of it is about creating the pre-conditions in which entrepreneurs can do the thing that they do without needing the government.”
Creating that environment for growth is much more abstract than luring in a new business with tax credits and subsidies — which is part of the problem. Politicians can’t resist a big project. But that effort crowds out an existing small business that needs legal barriers removed to grow. When it’s harder to start or grow a business at home, people leave.
Though rarely lauded as a business-friendly place now, Lettieri noted that one of the advantages California had in becoming a tech hub was that it doesn’t enforce non-compete agreements. Beyond a friendly business environment, the basics matter: good or decent schools, safe neighborhoods, reliable and fast internet service.
“People try to outsmart themselves on this stuff and they want to skip ahead to some boutique strategy,” Lettieri said. “If you haven’t attended to those local rules, regulations and infrastructure, what are you doing wasting your time thinking about economic strategies? You don’t even have the conditions for a functioning, thriving economy.”
But, even if rural Appalachia fixes the fundamentals, these communities might have a bigger problem that limits growth. Southern Appalachia may be all right, but for the north, structural forces are against them.
“The demographics in these places are already bad. Once something starts declining, this is America — it’s like, peace out, we’re gone,” Aaron Renn said.
Renn, a consultant and writer, produced a report for the Urban Reform Institute on Appalachia’s future and noticed a divergence between the region’s northern and southern parts, divided along the Kentucky-Virginia and Tennessee-North Carolina border.
Southern Appalachia, thanks to the Sun Belt boom, has gained population and jobs. Northern Appalachia has struggled.
“North Appalachia lost 17,131 people in total, while south Appalachia gained 127,585,” Renn wrote. “While the north posted positive net domestic in-migration of 22,563, the south tallied almost 300,000 — thirteen times as high. The story is similar for jobs, with the north losing 227,049 positions since the pre-pandemic year of 2019, while the south actually exceeded its pre-Covid levels by 66,377.”
The south has benefited from sprawl that’s sent residents from Atlanta, Charlotte and Knoxville into Appalachia, Renn noted, but the north is more remote from the metros.
The places that have gained the most from remote work seem to be the suburbs — and southern Appalachia has seen more gains from that pattern than the north. Perhaps rural areas need more competent governance rather than top-down economic planning.
“What’s notable about growth in south Appalachia is that it is happening organically — through market forces, not policy interventions,” Renn wrote. “Numerous attempts have been made to try to revive the northern Rust Belt, to little avail. That region’s fortunes seem to be deeply tied to structural forces not easily overcome.” The leaders who would start businesses, run county government and lead volunteer projects may be more in tune to those shifts — and more willing to leave when decline hits. The least entrepreneurial people are the ones who stay, Renn said.
“You start adding it up — I’m not predicting a great rural turnaround,” he said. “Again, there’s places that’ll do OK, but I think yeah, we’re gonna have declining rural populations, declining rural influence, et cetera. I don’t see how we turn that around.”
Fewer people, fewer entrepreneurs — at least state parks don’t fit in a U-Haul. Though some assets can’t leave, if big cities are too far away, fewer people will visit, too. Some rural parts have grown thanks to outdoor recreation, but its success can hinge on how easy the commute is from the nearest metropole. The magnificent views and charming towns may not bring economic benefits after all.
“They’re very, very dependent on these large urban population centers,” said Bynum Boley, director of the University of Georgia’s Tourism Research Lab. “If you look at who’s going on these vacations to national parks, it’s mostly people living in urban areas… I don’t think there’s any short-term fix for these big changes that are happening in these areas.”
Though policymakers can’t control the furies, these structural forces that favor the south and west over the north and east, some officials want to force a change in the status quo.
Leaders cloistered away in state capitals and DC can break many things by accident and create plenty of barriers. The track record of state and federal governments to turn around areas in decline isn’t exactly flawless.
And even when they try, the results are underwhelming.
The EPA, for instance, has a Recreation Economy for Rural Communities program to offer planning assistance for developing outdoor rec in small towns — but only thirty-five places have benefited since its creation in 2019. The impact may simply be too small, even if it spurs some economic or quality-of-life gains.
Similarly, a congressional bill to revitalize rurals areas would create a fund for outdoor rec and economic development — but it would have an annual budget of $50 million.
Competition for those small-scale federal grants might guide the attention of policymakers to places that have it together, but it might also obscure the promise of other places. A business that gets a state subsidy is not always an industry leader.
Renn, who warns of the structural challenges facing the region, is not advocating for desertion. “The prospects for Appalachia are far brighter than widely assumed,” he wrote. The region is filled with locals experimenting and pioneering for a better future. It should also be noted that the data, aggregated by the Appalachian Regional Commission, show that poverty in Appalachia is falling, educational achievement is improving and median household income has gone up by 10 percent between 2012-2016 and 2017-2021. But revival will be uneven.
It’s tempting for legislators, ever campaigning for reelection, to look for a big win. Getting a big factory or distribution center gives them a way to claim they “created” thousands of jobs. But the hard work of revival is less flashy, hidden away in the details. Going deeper will mean accepting complexity.
What’s most needed are politicians who want to make life easier on small, existing businesses to grow organically, rather than looking for a hail-mary megaproject.
By
Anthony Hennen
Anthony Hennen is a reporter for the Center Square in Pennsylvania and managing editor of expatalachians, a journalism project focused on the Appalachian region. He is also a 2023–24 Robert Novak Journalism Fellow.

https://preview.redd.it/01p6lgz0jmzc1.png?width=468&format=png&auto=webp&s=d887b428f0763c894984a17ae302a6ecce786393

Technology is changing the world, and familiar services are becoming more convenient and accessible. In this article, we describe how the development of the financial services sector has led to the emergence of a new concept – neobanks. You will learn what neobanks are, neobanks’ statistics, top players, how they differ from traditional financial structures, and how to launch a neobank.
https://preview.redd.it/60h6e1bwflzc1.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f1d153c133255102c43aff7329d4aec93fc639dc

What is a Neobank?

Neobanks, or digital banks, are FinTech companies that provide financial services only in digital format through a mobile app or a web banking interface. As a neobank operates online, it communicates with clients and provides services without offices and branches. Instead of visiting the office, the client can access various financial services through a mobile device or computer.
Conducting financial transactions without the need for cash or even physical cards has become much easier and more convenient. Because of advanced technologies and minimising infrastructure costs, the advantages of neobanks in 2024 include low or zero fees, user-friendly interfaces, efficiency and flexibility of customer service and support, and personalised services.

Neobanks statistics

The number of digital banks has increased rapidly since 2014. The total number of digital banking users is expected to increase to 3.6 billion worldwide by 2024. Neobanks offer convenience, accessibility, and innovation, making them competitive compared to traditional banks. They allow customers to open accounts and use their debit cards within minutes, all through a smartphone, often with lower fees. 2024 will be an important milestone in the financial services sector, partly marked by the expectation of further growth in neobanking. These digital-oriented organisations are redefining the traditional banking model by meeting modern needs for fast, efficient, and personalised financial services, operating exclusively in the digital space.
Today, more and more people use only digital banks and are less dependent on traditional banking. However, the trend began in 2014, when the first neobanks were formed in Europe. To date, the country with the largest number of neobanks is the United Kingdom – 37 neobanks operate there, a third of all European digital banks.
According to Statista, the transaction value in the neobanking market will rise to $6.37 billion in 2024. The neobanking market worldwide is projected to grow by 13.15% (2024-2028), resulting in a market volume of US$10.44tn in 2028. Neobanks operate with minimal physical infrastructure and focus on digital services to avoid the costs of maintaining physical branches. Thanks to this cost-effective strategy, neobanks can offer their customers lower tariffs for various services, including transaction fees, currency exchange and account management. In the neobanking market, users are expected to reach 386.30 m by 2028. User penetration will be 3.89% in 2024 and 4.82% by 2028.

Top Neobanks in the world

Crises often provide a window of opportunity for more fundamental change. After global shocks, the economy often reaches a new level. That happened after the global financial crisis of 2008. It caused a series of mergers and acquisitions in the banking sector. As a result, the I.T. infrastructure of credit institutions has become much more complicated. After that, banks began to develop almost from scratch on new technological platforms.
The first neobank, Simple, was founded in the USA in 2009, followed by Moven in 2011. This sector has been actively developing in Europe since 2014, when Atom Bank appeared in the U.K. Already in 2015, another English bank, Monzo, was opened. Over the following years, European neobanks have gone far ahead regarding technological development and the services offered. American banks are experiencing more difficulties because of restrictive legislation.
In 2024, neobanks became the norm for the global banking sector, and the digital direction no longer distinguishes virtual banks from classic ones.

Top Neobanks Europe

The largest European neobanks or digital banks in 2024 by the number of countries of operation

According to Statista, these are the largest European neobanks in 2024, by the number of countries of operation.

1. Wise – a neobank based in the United Kingdom that offers personal accounts, business accounts, debit cards, and the possibility of sending money to 74 countries worldwide. All transactions are managed from a mobile application or web interface.
2. Revolut – one of the most successful neobanks available in 38 countries. The company is proud of its 12 million customers worldwide, 500 thousand business accounts opened, 152 payment options in 152 cities, and a money transfer solution in 30 currencies.
3. N26 – Berlin-based N26 neobank offers personal and business accounts and operates in 24 countries.
4. Bunq bank – launched in 2015 in Amsterdam; in 2024, it is the second-largest neobank in the European Union after Revolut. Hitting nine million customers, Bunq offers personal accounts, business accounts, debit cards, currency exchange and savings. All transactions are managed from a mobile application.

The largest European neobanks or digital banks in 2024 by funding amount

Below are top-5 of the Largest European digital banks in 2024 by funding amount:

1. Revolut – 1.7 billion U.S. dollars in funding.
2. N26 – 1.7 billion U.S. dollars in funding.
3. Wise – 1.7 billion U.S. dollars in funding.
4. Monzo – 1.1 billion U.S. dollars in funding.
5. Starling Bank – 1.1 billion U.S. dollars in funding.

The largest European neobanks or digital banks in 2024 by the number of customers

Here are the 5 best neobanks and digital banks in Europe in 2024 by the number of customers.

1. Revolut. Founded in 2015, Revolut now has 27+ million customers. Offered services: customers can send or exchange money in 28 currencies for no cost, enjoy free debit cards, and buy and sell cryptocurrency. It is best for spending online.
2. N26. Founded in 2013, N26 now has 8+ million customers. It offers personal and business accounts, including debit cards. It is best for everyday banking.
3. Monzo. Founded in 2015, Monzo has 7+ million customers. It offers all free current accounts, joint accounts, and business banking. It is best for everyday banking.
4. Bunq. Founded in 2012, Bunq now has 5.4 million customers. Its services include bank accounts for expats. Bunq is available in 27 European countries. It is best for people living in Spain, France, Germany, or the Netherlands who want an IBAN for one of these countries.
5. Starling Bank. Founded in 2014, Starling Bank now has 3.5 million customers. It offers personal and business banking online, which is best for everyday banking.

Top Neobanks North America

Discover the 3 best neobanks and digital banks in North America in 2024.

1. Chime. Founded in 2013, Chime now has 12 million customers. Offered services include checking, savings, and secured credit cards. It is best for customers who are comfortable with a mobile-only banking experience. Pros: Low fees, including fee-free overdraft on debit card purchases and cash withdrawals, are offered via a special optional service called SpotMe and a fee-free credit card.
2. Juno. Founded in 2019, Juno stands out as a crypto investment platform because of its 0% transaction fees on the first cryptocurrency trade up to $250,000. Offered services: a checking account and a debit card available either as a virtual MasterCard or a metal physical card. It is best for crypto rewards with every paycheck.
3. Current. Launched in 2015, Current is a banking app that offers faster direct deposits. Offered services include basic digital checking accounts and cards, savings, and crypto trading. It is best for families, including current teen accounts for children.

Top Neobanks South America

Explore the 3 best neobanks and digital banks in South America in 2024.

1. Albo. This Mexican neobanking startup was launched in 2016. Offered services include a digital account along with a рreраid МаsterСаrd debit card.
2. Ualá. Launched in 2017, Uala is an Argentine neobank backed by George Soros. It offers a mobile payment app linked to a MasterCard card.
3. Nubank. Founded in Brazil in 2013, Nubank is today considered the largest FinTech firm in Brazil, with more than 10M clients. It offers digital accounts, an international credit card (without fees), transfers, payments, and personal loans.

Top Neobanks Africa

Below are the 3 best neobanks and digital banks in Africa in 2024.

1. Eversend. Technically, a French startup, Eversend is now one of Africa’s biggest currency exchange platforms and an all-in-one borderless money app. Offered services include virtual USD cards, personal loans, individual and group savings, donations, cryptocurrency trading, crowdsourcing, and currency conversion. It is best for multi-currency accounts.
2. Kuda. Kuda is Nigeria’s first mobile-only bank licensed by the Central Bank. It offers personal and business virtual bank accounts and automatic savings. It is best for zero card maintenance fees and free transfers.
3. OurPass. Launched in 2021, OurPass is a neobank for businesses revolutionising commerce in Nigeria. Being a one-click checkout company, OurPass plans to become a global business neobank.

Top Neobanks Asia

The 3 best neobanks and digital banks in Asia in 2024 are:

1. Jenius. Launched in 2016, Jenius is a digital banking platform provided by the bank. Users must have a bank account with BTPN before they can use Jenius. Among its unique features is $Cashtag, which allows peer-to-peer money transfers.
2. Kakao Bank. Launched in June 2017 in South Korea, Kakao is an internet-only bank. Offered services include digital banking, loans, and financial services.
3. WeBank. Founded in December 2014, WeBank is the first digital bank in China and the largest digital bank in the world by user base. It is best for banking and applying for loans.

Top Neobanks Oceania

The 3 best neobanks and digital banks in Oceania in 2024 are:

1. Up. Up, or Up Money and Up Banking is an Australian neobank based in Melbourne. It offers personal accounts and debit cards, and all transactions are managed from a mobile application.
2. Ubank. Ubank is an Australian direct bank owned by the National Australia Bank (NAB). As a separate entity, Ubank comes without monthly fees but with Spend, Save, and Share accounts.
3. Avenue Bank. Sydney-based Avenue Bank is the first and only Australian bank specialising in bank guarantees.

Neobanks trends

The remarkable growth of neobanking results from changing consumer preferences and evidence of constant technological innovation in this sector. And this dynamic seems to continue: the trajectory of neobanking is determined not only by current successes but also by its potential to constantly innovate and adapt to changing market dynamics and customer needs.
Here are some of the latest market trends in the neobanks 2024:

1. Integration of new technologies and customer-oriented products

In the future, it is likely that neobanks will continue to use technologies such as artificial intelligence (A.I.), blockchain, and cloud computing to offer a more personalised and secure banking experience. The focus will be on developing products that are not only technologically advanced but also deeply consistent with customers’ lifestyles and financial goals.

2. Expansion into new markets and global reach

Neobanks are ready to expand their global presence by entering new markets and serving a diverse customer base. This expansion will be facilitated by their inherently scalable digital model, combined with strategic partnerships and regulatory compliance in various regions.

3. Increased competition and cooperation

As competition with traditional banks intensifies, opportunities for collaboration will also expand. Partnerships between neobanks and traditional financial institutions may become more widespread by combining non-banks’ flexibility with the scale and trust of existing banks.

4. Regulatory evolution

The regulatory environment will continue to evolve, with a potential shift towards more standardised digital banking rules. This evolution will play a crucial role in shaping the operations and growth strategies of neobanks.

5. Financial accessibility and social impact

By offering affordable and accessible banking services, neobanks have the great potential to reach underserved populations and have significant social impact.

6. Sustainable finance

Neobanks focus heavily on sustainable finance and offer their customers environmentally friendly banking products, such as debit cards made from recycled materials and carbon offsetting programs.

How to launch neobank

Neobanks are steadily gaining popularity among tech-savvy consumers as a great banking option. The increased interest in financial applications is driving competition around the world.
Want to start a neobank? You need to know the main steps and weigh the pros and cons. Here is what you need to start a neobank:

1. Define your USP and target audience

You should develop a detailed roadmap by thoroughly analysing your business needs and expectations. You should start by choosing a niche and identifying your target audience, people who potentially need your services. Next comes the definition of your unique selling proposition (USP). Those two are crucial steps before starting your neobank. Your USP sets your service apart from competitors, and knowing your target audience’s needs will help you develop the right business strategy.

2. Allocate budgets

Costs include authorisation and licencing, connection to a BaaS provider, core banking software, and development of payment infrastructure.
According to our article on the cost of building a digital bank, the starting budget to launch a neobank for the first year of operations is 300 000 EUR as a registered agent of a financial services company (BaaS-provider) and 750 000 EUR as an authorised financial services company. However, remember that these final figures represent the lowest predicted expenses (the minimum) and that your actual expenses will be higher.

3. Prepare All Required Documents, obtain a financial services License and prepare all processes, including compliance

Compliance with local and international laws and regulations is crucial for your business. Some of the laws and standards governing the banking and FinTech industries:

• Anti-Money Laundering (AML) Policy.
• Know Your Customer (KYC).
• Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS).
• General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

To ensure the credibility of your operation, you need to acquire the necessary licenses or registrations required to run your neobank. There are different types of licensing depending on the services you plan to provide and the target audience. The license gives the right to provide different services, such as payments, payment accounts, currency exchange, payment cards, and more, according to the licence type.
Assemble all the required legal, financial and regulatory compliance documents, such as financial statements, identity documents, business registration documents, and any other documentation required by the regulatory authorities in the countries where you plan to conduct business.

4. Open Correspondent Bank Accounts

The following stage in starting a neobank is to open correspondent bank accounts. Choose trustworthy banking or financial service partners who share your business objectives. Establishing a trusted financial relationship and guaranteeing a smooth transaction flow depends on open and honest communication.

5. Configure your core banking software or IT system

Consider investing in a safe, effective IT system or core banking software like Macrobank. This system handles transaction processing, client administration, card issuing, AML/KYC processes, data security, and more. It will serve as the foundation for your neobank operations. Furthermore, consider implementing white-label mobile banking or web banking applications to provide your clients an outstanding experience.

6. Build strategic partnerships with Financial Institutions and make required integrations with your key partners

Make partnerships with financial institutions – partner with banks and other financial organisations to extend the reach of your services.
Then, integrate your core banking system with leading partners, including payment gateways, banks, and other financial service providers. Seamless integration guarantees interoperability and facilitates an efficient flow of funds between your neobank and partnering organisations. Finding an experienced BaaS provider that fits your neobank’s requirements can significantly help. Check our BaaS-offering.

The benefits of ready digital banking solutions

Among the important benefits are:

• Introduce products and services to the market more quickly than using a neobank’s own development process. Usually, developing software from scratch takes years.
• Seamlessly integrate internal and external systems with a ready digital banking solution, often including several ready-to-use integrations.
• Customising a ready-made modern system with your branding is significantly quicker than developing similar solutions from scratch.
• Compared to developing their own products, neobanks can go live quickly and with minimal risk. The process can be held while they work on creating their own solutions. For instance, there’s the risk of losing specific skills and competencies when employees leave and going over budget, as total costs are tricky to work out accurately at the outset.
• Products can be created to meet your budget, which is far better than developing digital banking solutions in-house.

Conclusion

Current trends demonstrate that neobanks are our present. The first sign is obvious to users: mobile applications are becoming increasingly functional, and more services are available without visiting a branch. The second sign is a noticeable reduction in branches of traditional banks to switch to online services. This phenomenon is observed all over the world.
According to forecasts, neobanks will completely replace traditional banks in the future. Financial system researchers believe this could happen in the next 10-15 years. The main obstacle to such a transition now is the adult population’s inability to adapt quickly to technological progress. Older people are the main visitors to bank branches, while young people actively use mobile applications.