, ,

Trust but verify

How a $400,000 lobster theft exposed the hidden security gaps in modern logistics

 

By Skeeter Wesinger

January 5, 2026

 

Earlier this month, thieves made off with roughly $400,000 worth of lobster from a Massachusetts facility. The seafood was never supposed to vanish; it was en route to Costco locations in the Midwest. Instead, it became the end product of a carefully staged deception that blended cyber impersonation, procedural blind spots, and physical-world confidence tricks.

This was not a smash-and-grab. It was a systems failure.

The operation began quietly, with an altered email domain that closely resembled that of a legitimate trucking company. To most humans—and most workflows—that was enough. The email looked right, sounded right, and fit neatly into an existing logistics conversation. No servers were hacked. No passwords were cracked. The attackers didn’t break in; they were let in.

Modern organizations often believe that email authentication technologies protect them from impersonation. They do not. Tools like SPF, DKIM, and DMARC can verify that a message truly came from a domain, but they cannot tell you whether it came from the right one. The gap between technical validation and human trust remains wide, and that gap was the attackers’ point of entry.

Once inside the conversation, the criminals did what sophisticated attackers always do: they followed the process. They presented themselves as the selected carrier, responded on time, and matched expectations. Crucially, no one stopped to verify the change using a trusted, out-of-band channel—no phone call to a number already on file, no portal confirmation, no secondary check. The digital impersonation slid smoothly into operational reality.

The real turning point came at the loading dock. A tractor-trailer arrived bearing the branding of the legitimate company. The drivers carried paperwork and commercial licenses convincing enough to pass a quick inspection. Faced with routine procedures and time pressure, facility staff released the shipment. In that moment, digital deception became physical authorization.

This is where the incident stops being about phishing and starts being about trust. Visual cues—logos, uniforms, familiar names—still function as de facto security controls in high-value logistics. They are also trivial to counterfeit. Without a strong shared secret, such as a one-time pickup code or independently issued authorization token, the chain of custody rests on appearances.

After the truck departed, the final safeguards failed just as quietly. GPS trackers were disabled, and their sudden silence did not trigger an immediate, decisive response. In security terms, there was no deadman switch. When telemetry went dark, escalation was not automatic. By the time uncertainty turned into alarm, the window for recovery had likely closed.

Logistics theft experts know this pattern well. The first hour after a diversion is decisive. Organized theft rings plan around confusion, delayed verification, and fragmented responsibility. Their confidence suggests experience, not luck.

The CEO of Rexing Cos., the logistics firm coordinating the shipment, later described the crime as “very sophisticated” and attributed it to a large criminal organization. That assessment aligns with the evidence. This was not a crime of opportunity. It was a repeatable playbook executed by people who understood how modern supply chains actually operate—not how they are diagrammed.

The most unsettling lesson of the lobster theft is that no single system failed catastrophically. Email worked. Scheduling worked. Dock operations worked. Tracking existed. Each layer functioned more or less as designed. The failure emerged in the seams between them.

Security professionals often say that attackers don’t exploit systems; they exploit assumptions. This incident is a case study in that truth. Every handoff assumed the previous step had already done the hard work of verification. Each trust decision compounded the last until six figures’ worth of cargo rolled away under false pretenses. Always trust, but also verify, to quote President Reagan: “Doveryay, no proveryay”- “Trust, but verify.”

As supply chains become more digitized and more automated, it is tempting to treat logistics as paperwork and coordination rather than as critical identity infrastructure. This theft demonstrates the cost of that assumption. High-value goods move through a chain of identities—domains, vendors, drivers, vehicles—and each identity must be independently verified, not inferred.

The lobster didn’t disappear because the system was weak. It disappeared because the system was polite.

/0 Comments/by
, , ,

AWS and Startups

AWS and Startups: The Difference Between Support and Reality
By Skeeter Wesinger
December 27, 2025

Amazon Web Services presents itself as one of the great enablers of modern entrepreneurship. Its startup messaging promises speed, affordability, mentorship, and a clear path from idea to scale. Millions of companies, we’re told, build on AWS because it helps them innovate faster, keep costs low, and prove what is possible.

All of that is true—just not in the way most founders assume.

AWS is not a startup partner. It is a world-class infrastructure utility with a startup-friendly on-ramp. Confusing those two things is where disappointment begins.

The startup ecosystem AWS advertises does exist. There are former founders, CTOs, venture capitalists, and mentors inside the organization. But access to that expertise is neither automatic nor evenly distributed. For most early-stage founders, the lived AWS experience consists of documentation, support tickets, and account managers whose incentives are aligned with usage growth, not startup survival. The ecosystem is real, but it is gated—and those gates usually open only after external validation has already occurred.

Generative AI follows the same pattern. AWS encourages startups to innovate quickly using managed services and foundation models, reducing the operational burden of building AI systems from scratch. This is genuinely useful. It is also strategically convenient. AWS benefits when startups adopt its abstractions early, because abstraction is how lock-in begins. Pricing complexity, usage opacity, and scaling surprises tend to reveal themselves only after a product starts working—precisely when switching costs are highest.

Programs like AWS Activate are often cited as evidence of AWS’s commitment to founders. Credits, technical support, and mentorship can meaningfully accelerate early experimentation. But credits do not change fundamentals. They delay cost reality; they do not remove it. For infrastructure-heavy startups—particularly those using GPUs, data pipelines, or real-time systems—credits can evaporate in weeks. When they do, the company is left facing enterprise-grade pricing without enterprise-grade revenue.

Go-to-market support is perhaps the most misunderstood promise of all. Co-selling with AWS is possible, but it is not designed for early startups. It favors companies with reference customers, repeatable sales motions, and offerings that align cleanly with existing account strategies. In practice, partners are incentivized to sell their own services, not to shepherd unproven products into the market. Distribution exists—but usually only after distribution is no longer the primary problem.

None of this makes AWS deceptive. It makes AWS exactly what it is: a highly efficient, globally scaled infrastructure provider. AWS does not exist to reduce founder risk. It exists to provide reliable, metered access to computing resources—and it does that exceptionally well.

The danger lies in mistaking capability for commitment.

AWS will help you build faster. It will not help you decide what to build. It will help you scale globally. It will not help you survive the transition from prototype to revenue. It will let you fail quickly and at scale—but the bill will still arrive.

For experienced builders, this distinction matters. Startups that treat AWS like electricity—necessary, powerful, and expensive if misused—tend to make better decisions than those who treat it like a mentor or partner. Infrastructure accelerates outcomes; it does not improve judgment.

AWS’s startup narrative is written for investors, accelerators, and press releases. The reality is written in CloudWatch logs, cost-explorer dashboards, and late-night architecture decisions. Founders would be better served by understanding that difference early. AWS is handing out popsicles, not meals—knowing most will melt long before they ever create a mess. Only those that survive the heat earn a seat at the table.

/0 Comments/by
, , , , ,

The $9.2 Million Warning

The $9.2 Million Warning: Why 2025 Will Punish Companies That Ignore AI Governance

By R. Skeeter Wesinger
(Inventor & Systems Architect | 33 U.S. Patents | MA)

November 3, 2025

When artificial intelligence began sweeping through boardrooms in the early 2020s, it was sold as the ultimate accelerator. Every company wanted in. Chatbots turned into assistants, copilots wrote code, and predictive models started making calls that once required senior analysts. The pace was breathtaking. The oversight, however, was not.

Now, in 2025, the consequences of that imbalance are becoming painfully clear. Across the Fortune 1000, AI-related compliance and security failures are costing an average of $9.2 million per incident—money spent on fines, investigations, recovery, and rebuilding trust. It’s a staggering number that reveals an uncomfortable truth: the age of ungoverned AI is ending, and the regulators have arrived.

For years, companies treated AI governance as a future concern, a conversation for ethics committees and think tanks. But the future showed up early. The European Union’s AI Act has set the global tone, requiring documentation, transparency, and human oversight for high-risk systems. In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and several state legislatures are following suit, with fines that can reach a million dollars per violation.

The problem is not simply regulation—it’s the absence of internal discipline. IBM’s 2025 Cost of a Data Breach Report found that 13 percent of organizations had already experienced a breach involving AI systems. Of those, 97 percent lacked proper access controls. That means almost every AI-related breach could have been prevented with basic governance.

The most common culprit is what security professionals call “shadow AI”: unapproved, unsupervised models or tools running inside companies without formal review. An analyst feeding customer data into an online chatbot, a developer fine-tuning an open-source model on sensitive code, a marketing team using third-party APIs to segment clients—each one introduces unseen risk. When something goes wrong, the result isn’t just a data spill but a governance black hole. Nobody knows what model was used, what data it touched, or who had access.

IBM’s data shows that organizations hit by shadow-AI incidents paid roughly $670,000 more per breach than those with well-managed systems. The real cost, though, is the time lost to confusion: recreating logs, explaining decisions, and attempting to reconstruct the chain of events. By the time the lawyers and auditors are done, an eight-figure price tag no longer looks far-fetched.

The rise in financial exposure has forced executives to rethink the purpose of governance itself. It’s not red tape; it’s architecture. A strong AI governance framework lays out clear policies for data use, accountability, and human oversight. It inventories every model in production, documents who owns it, and tracks how it learns. It defines testing, access, and audit trails, so that when the inevitable questions come—Why did the model do this? Who approved it?—the answers already exist.

This kind of structure doesn’t slow innovation; it enables it. In finance, healthcare, and defense—the sectors most familiar to me—AI governance is quickly becoming a competitive advantage. Banks that can demonstrate model transparency get regulatory clearance faster. Hospitals that audit their algorithms for bias build stronger patient trust. Defense contractors who can trace training data back to source win contracts others can’t even bid for. Governance, in other words, isn’t the opposite of agility; it’s how agility survives scale.

History offers a pattern. Every transformative technology—railroads, electricity, the internet—has moved through the same cycle: unrestrained expansion followed by an era of rules and standards. The organizations that thrive through that correction are always the ones that built internal discipline before it was enforced from outside. AI is no different. What we’re witnessing now is the transition from freedom to accountability, and the market will reward those who adapt early.

The $9.2 million statistic is less a headline than a warning. It tells us that AI is no longer a side project or a pilot experiment—it’s a liability vector, one that demands the same rigor as financial reporting or cybersecurity. The companies that understand this will govern their algorithms as seriously as they govern their balance sheets. The ones that don’t will find governance arriving in the form of subpoenas and settlements.

The lesson is as old as engineering itself: systems fail not from lack of power, but from lack of control. AI governance is that control. It’s the difference between a tool that scales and a crisis that compounds. In 2025, the smartest move any enterprise can make is to bring its intelligence systems under the same discipline that made its business succeed in the first place. Govern your AI—before it governs you.

/1 Comment/by
, , , , , , ,

The Place That Taught Machines to Dream

Before Hollywood learned to animate pixels, Silicon Valley learned to animate light. The first dreamers weren’t directors — they were designers and engineers who turned math into motion, built the machines behind Jurassic Park and Toy Story, and taught computers to imagine. Now, those same roots are fueling a new frontier — AI video and generative storytelling.

By Skeeter Wesinger

October 8, 2025

Silicon Valley is best known for chips, code, and capital. Yet long before the first social network or smartphone, it was quietly building a very different kind of future: one made not of transistors and spreadsheets, but of light, motion, and dreams. Out of a few square miles of industrial parks and lab benches came the hardware and software that would transform Hollywood and the entire art of animation. What began as an engineering problem—how to make a computer draw—became one of the most profound creative revolutions of the modern age.

In the 1970s, the Valley was an ecosystem of chipmakers and electrical engineers. Intel and AMD were designing ever smaller, faster processors, competing to make silicon think. Fairchild, National Semiconductor, and Motorola advanced fabrication and logic design, while Stanford’s computer science labs experimented with computer graphics, attempting to render three-dimensional images on oscilloscopes and CRTs. There was no talk yet of Pixar or visual effects. The language was physics, not film. But the engineers were laying the groundwork for a world in which pictures could be computed rather than photographed.

The company that fused those worlds was Silicon Graphics Inc., founded in 1982 by Jim Clark in Mountain View. SGI built high-performance workstations optimized for three-dimensional graphics, using its own MIPS processors and hardware pipelines that could move millions of polygons per second—unheard of at the time. Its engineers created OpenGL, the standard that still underlies most 3D visualization and gaming. In a sense, SGI gave the world its first visual supercomputers. And almost overnight, filmmakers discovered that these machines could conjure scenes that could never be shot with a camera.

Industrial Light & Magic, George Lucas’s special-effects division, was among the first. Using SGI systems, ILM rendered the shimmering pseudopod of The Abyss in 1989, the liquid-metal T-1000 in Terminator 2 two years later, and the dinosaurs of Jurassic Park in 1993. Each of those breakthroughs marked a moment when audiences realized that digital images could be not just convincing but alive. Down the road in Emeryville, the small research group that would become Pixar was using SGI machines to render Luxo Jr. and eventually Toy Story, the first fully computer-animated feature film. In Redwood City, Pacific Data Images created the iconic HBO “space logo,” a gleaming emblem that introduced millions of viewers to the look of digital cinema. All of it—the logos, the morphing faces, the prehistoric beasts—was running on SGI’s hardware.

The partnership between Silicon Valley and Hollywood wasn’t simply commercial; it was cultural. SGI engineers treated graphics as a scientific frontier, not a special effect. Artists, in turn, learned to think like programmers. Out of that hybrid came a new creative species: the technical director, equal parts physicist and painter, writing code to simulate smoke or hair or sunlight. The language of animation became mathematical, and mathematics became expressive. The Valley had turned rendering into an art form.

When SGI faltered in the late 1990s, its people carried that vision outward. Jensen Huang, Curtis Priem, and Chris Malachowsky—former SGI engineers—founded Nvidia in 1993 to shrink the power of those million-dollar workstations onto a single affordable board. Their invention of the graphics processing unit, or GPU, democratized what SGI had pioneered. Gary Tarolli left to co-found 3dfx, whose Voodoo chips brought 3D rendering to the mass market. Jim Clark, SGI’s founder, went on to co-create Netscape, igniting the web era. Others formed Keyhole, whose Earth-rendering engine became Google Earth. Alias | Wavefront, once owned by SGI, evolved into Autodesk Maya, still the industry standard for 3D animation. What began as a handful of graphics labs had by the millennium become a global ecosystem spanning entertainment, design, and data visualization.

Meanwhile, Nvidia’s GPUs kept growing more powerful, and something extraordinary happened: the math that drew polygons turned out to be the same math that drives artificial intelligence. The parallel architecture built for rendering light and shadow was ideally suited to training neural networks. What once simulated dinosaurs now trains large language models. The evolution from SGI’s Reality Engine to Nvidia’s Tensor Core is part of the same lineage—only the subject has shifted from geometry to cognition.

Adobe and Autodesk played parallel roles, transforming these once-elite tools into instruments for everyday creators. Photoshop and After Effects made compositing and motion graphics accessible to independent artists. Maya brought professional 3D modeling to personal computers. The revolution that began in a few Valley clean rooms became a global vocabulary. The look of modern media—from film and television to advertising and gaming—emerged from that convergence of software and silicon.

Today, the next revolution is already underway, and again it’s powered by Silicon Valley hardware. Platforms like Runway, Pika Labs, Luma AI, and Kaiber are building text-to-video systems that generate entire animated sequences from written prompts. Their models run on Nvidia GPUs, descendants of SGI’s original vision of parallel graphics computing. Diffusion networks and generative adversarial systems use statistical inference instead of keyframes, but conceptually they’re doing the same thing: constructing light and form from numbers. The pipeline that once connected a storyboard to a render farm now loops through a neural net.

This new era blurs the line between animator and algorithm. A single creator can describe a scene and watch it materialize in seconds. The tools that once required teams of engineers are being distilled into conversational interfaces. Just as the SGI workstation liberated filmmakers from physical sets, AI generation is liberating them from even the constraints of modeling and rigging. The medium of animation—once defined by patience and precision—is becoming instantaneous, fluid, and infinitely adaptive.

Silicon Valley didn’t just make Hollywood more efficient; it rewrote its language. It taught cinema to think computationally, to treat imagery as data. From the first frame buffers to today’s diffusion models, the through-line is clear: each leap in hardware has unlocked a new kind of artistic expression. The transistor enabled the pixel. The pixel enabled the frame. The GPU enabled intelligence. And now intelligence itself is becoming the new camera.

What began as a handful of chip engineers trying to visualize equations ended up transforming the world’s most powerful storytelling medium. The Valley’s real export wasn’t microchips or startups—it was imagination, made executable. The glow of every rendered frame, from Toy Story to the latest AI-generated short film, is a reflection of that heritage. In the end, Silicon Valley didn’t just build the machines of computation. It taught them how to dream big!

/by
, , ,

The Power Law of Mediocrity

The Power Law of Mediocrity: Confessions from the Belly of the VC Beast

By Skeeter Wesinger

October 6, 2025

We all read the headlines. They hit our inboxes every week: some fresh-faced kid drops out of Stanford, starts a company in his apartment, lands millions from a “top-tier” VC, and—poof—it’s a billion-dollar exit three years later. We’re force-fed the kombucha, SXSW platitudes, and “Disruptor of the Year” awards.

The public narrative of venture capital is that of a heroic journey: visionary geniuses striking gold, a thrilling testament to the idea that with enough grit, hustle, and a conveniently privileged network, anyone can build a unicorn. It’s the Disney version of capitalism—“anyone can be a chef,” as in Ratatouille—except this kitchen serves valuations, not ratatouille.

And it’s all a delightful, meticulously crafted fabrication by PR mavens, institutional LPs, and valuation alchemists who discovered long ago that perception is liquidity.

The truth is far less cinematic. Venture capital isn’t a visionary’s playground—it’s a casino, and the house always wins. Lawyers, bankers, and VCs take their rake whether the founders strike it rich or flame out in a spectacular implosion. The real magic isn’t in finding winners; it’s in convincing everyone, especially limited partners and the next crop of naive founders, that every single bet is a winner in the making. And in the current AI gold rush, this narrative isn’t just intoxicating—it’s practically a MDMA-induced hallucination set to a soundtrack of buzzwords and TED-ready hyperbole.

Full disclosure: I’ve been on both sides of that table—VC and angel investor, and founder. So consider this less a critique and more a confession, or perhaps karmic cleansing, from someone who has seen the sausage made and lived to regret the recipe.

The Power Law of Mediocrity

The first and most inconvenient truth? Venture capital isn’t about hitting singles and doubles—it’s about swinging for the fences while knowing, with absolute certainty, that you’ll strike out 90 percent of the time.

Academic data puts it plainly: roughly 75 percent of venture-backed startups never return significant cash to their investors. A typical fund might back ten companies—four will fail outright, four will limp to mediocrity, and one or two might generate a real return. Of those, maybe one breaks double-digit multiples.

And yet, the myth persists. Why? Because returns follow a power law, not a bell curve. A single breakout win papers over nine corpses. The median VC fund barely outperforms the S&P 500, but the top decile—those with one or two unicorns—create the illusion of genius. In truth, it’s statistical noise dressed up as foresight.

The Devil in the Cap Table

Not all angels have halos. Some of them carry pitchforks.

I call them “Devil Investors.” They arrive smiling, armed with mentorship talk and a check just large enough to seem life-changing. Then, once the ink dries, they sit you down and explain “how the real world works.” That’s when the charm evaporates. Clauses appear like tripwires—liquidation preferences, ratchets, veto rights. What looked like partnership becomes ownership.

These are the quiet tragedies of the startup world: founders who lose not only their companies but their sense of agency, their belief that vision could trump capital. Venture capital thrives on asymmetry—of information, of power, of options.

So no, I don’t feel bad when VCs get hoodwinked. They’ve built an empire on the backs of the optimistic, the overworked, and the under-represented. When a fund loses money because it failed to do due diligence, that’s not misfortune—that’s karma.

For every VC who shrugs off a loss as “portfolio churn,” there’s a founder who’s lost years, health, and ownership of the very thing they built. The VC walks away with a management fee and another fund to raise. The founder walks away with debt and burnout.

The Great AI Hallucination

If the 2010s were about social apps and scooters, the 2020s are about AI euphoria. Every week, another “AI-powered” startup raises $50 million for a product that doesn’t exist, can’t scale, and often relies entirely on someone else’s model.

It’s déjà vu for anyone who remembers the dot-com bubble—companies worth billions on paper, zero on the balance sheet. But in this era, the illusion has new fuel: the hype multiplier of media and the self-referential feedback loops of venture circles. Valuation becomes validation. Paper gains become gospel.

In private, partners admit the math doesn’t add up. In public, they double down on buzzwords: foundational models, RAG pipelines, synthetic data moats. They don’t have to be right—they just have to be first, loud, and liquid enough to raise Fund IV before Fund III collapses.

The House Always Wins

The cruel beauty of venture capital is that even when the bets go bad, the system pays its insiders. Management fees—usually 2 percent of committed capital—keep the lights on. Carried interest, when a unicorn hits, covers a decade of misses. It’s a model designed to appear risky while transferring the risk onto everyone else.

Founders risk their sanity, employees their weekends, and LPs their patience. The VC? He risks his reputation—which, in this industry, can always be rebranded.

A Confession, Not a Complaint

I say all this not as an outsider looking in but as someone who once believed the myth—that innovation needed gatekeepers, that disruption was noble, that capital was somehow creative. I’ve seen brilliant ideas die not for lack of ingenuity but for lack of political capital in a partner meeting.

Venture capital has produced miracles—no question. But for every transformative success, there are hundreds of broken dreams swept quietly into the footnotes of fund reports.

Pulling Back the Curtain

The next time you read about a wunderkind founder and their dazzling valuation, remember: you’re seeing the show, not the spreadsheet. Behind the curtain lies an industry that’s part casino, part cult, and wholly addicted to the illusion of inevitability.

Because in venture capital, the product isn’t innovation.
It’s a belief—and belief, conveniently, can be marked up every quarter.

/1 Comment/by

Why HR Keeps Getting Tech Hiring Wrong

By Skeeter Wesinger

September 18, 2025

Are you in technology and job hunting? HR screens resumes like they’re ordering a pizza: “CISSP? Check. Kubernetes? Check. PCI 4.0? Check.”

The problem is, they can’t tell the difference between someone who follows procedures, someone who designs systems, or the person who literally built the technology itself. You could have authored patents in firewalls and encryption — and still get passed over because “AWS” wasn’t on line one of your résumé. That’s not just a miss; it’s malpractice.

Job descriptions make it worse. They mash together operational tasks (patching, SIEM tuning, user tickets) with executive-level responsibilities (board reporting, enterprise risk, regulatory alignment). That’s how you end up with an “Information Security Officer” posting that reads like three jobs rolled into one — and satisfies none of them.

Leaders who have built companies, led exits, and advised boards across industries bring something far deeper than any checklist: the ability to navigate regulators, manage enterprise risk, and scale technology in high-stakes environments. Yet HR looks for “five years in a credit union” and misses the fact that these leaders have already solved far more complex problems under tighter scrutiny. That’s the disconnect.

The better path is direct. Boards and executives don’t care whether Kubernetes shows up in column three of your résumé. They care about outcomes: resilience, risk reduction, and transformation. The best hires don’t come from keyword scans in an ATS — they come from trust. A referral, a network, or a CEO saying, “This leader already solved the problem you’re facing.”

More and more, the trusted advisor or fractional executive route bypasses HR altogether. You’re brought in to advise, you prove value, and often that role evolves into something permanent.

 

/by
, ,

Titaniums Secret War

Titanium’s Secret War: Could Vale Be Eyeing Labrador’s Radar Project?
Story By Skeeter Wesinger
September 16, 2025

In the far reaches of Labrador, where winter stretches nine months and the land is as harsh as it is resource-rich, a junior exploration company says it may have stumbled onto one of North America’s most significant new sources of titanium. Saga Metals’ Radar Project has been promoted as road-accessible, near a port, an airstrip, and hydro power. But critics argue that in reality, it’s hell and gone from anywhere.
And yet, despite the challenges, whispers are circulating: could mining giant Vale already be circling?
Titanium is no longer just for aerospace engineers and medical implants. It’s the quiet backbone of 21st-century warfare: drones, hypersonic missiles, stealth fighters. The U.S. imports over 90% of its titanium feedstock, largely from Russia, China, and Kazakhstan. That dependency has become a glaring weakness at a time when defense spending is surging past $1 trillion. For Washington policymakers, securing a domestic or friendly-jurisdiction supply of titanium isn’t just an economic issue. It’s a national security imperative.

From communications satellites to aircraft carriers, titanium’s unmatched strength, lightness, and heat resistance make it indispensable — even the F-35 relies on it to secure America’s military advantage.

The F-35 is America’s military advantage.

Vale already has a commanding presence in Newfoundland and Labrador through its Voisey’s Bay nickel-copper-cobalt mine and Long Harbour hydromet plant. Those assets anchor Vale to the province, with billions already invested and deep relationships built with government and Indigenous stakeholders. So if Labrador is being positioned as a titanium-vanadium corridor — with Saga’s Radar Project next to Rio Tinto’s long-running Lac Tio mine — wouldn’t Vale at least be curious?
Officially, Vale has said nothing. But that silence may say less about disinterest and more about timing. Mining majors rarely move at the exploration stage. They let juniors burn cash and prove up a resource. Only once grades, tonnage, and metallurgy are de-risked do they swoop in with capital and scale. The Radar site is remote, snowbound most of the year, and would require major road, port, and power upgrades to reach production. Vale is focused on nickel and copper, metals tied to electrification and EVs, but vanadium — with its growing role in grid-scale batteries — could give them a reason to pay attention.
What if the U.S. or Canada starts subsidizing titanium development the way they did rare earths or semiconductors? That would change the math overnight. Vale, with its capital, processing expertise, and political weight, could then step in as a consolidator. It wouldn’t be the first time a major stayed quiet until the subsidies hit.
Saga’s drill results have been splashy — magnetometer readings that “maxed out the machine,” multi-metal mineralization, comparisons to China’s massive Panzhihua deposit. For now, it’s still a speculative story. But the gravity of titanium demand is real. And if Labrador is destined to become a titanium hub, Vale is already in the neighborhood.
It’s easy to dismiss Saga’s Radar Project as another hyped junior play, complete with glossy investor decks and paid promotions. But it’s also easy to forget that the world’s mining giants often wait in the wings, letting the market underestimate projects until the timing is right. In a world where titanium has become the metal behind drones, jets, and modern defense, ignoring Labrador’s potential may not be an option forever.

/1 Comment/by
, , , ,

Inside the ShinyHunters Breach

Inside the ShinyHunters Breach: How a Cybercrime Collective Outsmarted Google

By Skeeter Wesinger

August 26, 2025

In June 2025, a phone call was all it took to crack open one of the world’s most secure companies. Google, the billion-dollar titan that built Chrome, Gmail, and Android, didn’t fall to an exotic zero-day exploit or state-sponsored cyberweapon. Instead, it stumbled over a voice on the line.

The culprits were ShinyHunters, a name that has haunted cybersecurity teams for nearly half a decade. Their infiltration of Google’s Salesforce system—achieved by tricking an employee into installing a poisoned version of a trusted utility—didn’t yield passwords or credit card numbers. But what it did uncover, millions of names, emails, and phone numbers, was enough to unleash a global phishing storm and prove once again that the human element remains the weakest link in digital defense.

ShinyHunters first burst onto the scene in 2020, when massive troves of stolen data began appearing on underground forums. Early hits included databases from Tokopedia, Wattpad, and Microsoft’s private GitHub repositories. Over time, the group built a reputation as one of the most prolific sellers of stolen data, often releasing sample leaks for free to advertise their “work” before auctioning the rest to the highest bidder. Unlike some cybercrime groups that focus on a single specialty—ransomware, banking trojans, or nation-state espionage—ShinyHunters thrive on versatility. They have carried out brute-force intrusions, exploited cloud misconfigurations, and, as Google’s case shows, mastered social engineering. What ties their operations together is a single goal: monetization through chaos. Their name itself comes from the Pokémon community, where “shiny hunters” are players obsessively searching for rare, alternate-colored Pokémon. It’s a fitting metaphor—ShinyHunters sift through digital landscapes looking for rare weaknesses, exploiting them, and then flaunting their finds in dark corners of the internet.

The attack on Google was as elegant as it was devastating. ShinyHunters launched what cybersecurity experts call a vishing campaign—voice phishing. An employee received a convincing phone call from someone posing as IT support. The hacker guided the target into downloading what appeared to be Salesforce’s Data Loader, a legitimate tool used by administrators. Unbeknownst to the victim, the tool had been tampered with. Once installed, it silently granted ShinyHunters remote access to Google’s Salesforce instance. Within hours, they had siphoned off contact data for countless small and medium-sized business clients. The breach didn’t expose Gmail passwords or financial records, but in today’s digital ecosystem, raw contact data can be just as dangerous. The stolen information became ammunition for phishing campaigns that soon followed—calls, texts, and emails impersonating Google staff, many of them spoofed to look as though they came from Silicon Valley’s “650” area code.

This wasn’t ShinyHunters’ first high-profile strike. They’ve stolen databases from major corporations including AT&T, Mashable, and Bonobos. They’ve been linked to leaks affecting over 70 companies worldwide, racking up billions of compromised records. What sets them apart is not sheer volume but adaptability. In the early days, ShinyHunters focused on exploiting unsecured servers and developer platforms. As defenses improved, they pivoted to supply-chain vulnerabilities and cloud applications. Now, they’ve sharpened their social engineering skills to the point where a single phone call can topple a security program worth millions. Cybersecurity researchers note that ShinyHunters thrive in the gray zone between nuisance and catastrophe. They rarely pursue the destructive paths of ransomware groups, preferring instead to quietly drain data and monetize it on dark web markets. But their growing sophistication makes them a constant wildcard in the cybercrime underworld.

Google wasn’t the only target. The same campaign has been tied to breaches at other major corporations, including luxury brands, airlines, and financial institutions. The common thread is Salesforce, the ubiquitous customer relationship management platform that underpins business operations worldwide. By compromising a Salesforce instance, attackers gain not only a list of customers but also context—relationships, communication histories, even sales leads. That’s gold for scammers who thrive on credibility. A phishing email that mentions a real company, a real client, or a recent deal is far harder to dismiss as spam. Google’s prominence simply made it the most visible victim. If a company with Google’s security apparatus can be tricked, what chance does a regional retailer or midsize manufacturer have?

At its core, the ShinyHunters breach of Google demonstrates a troubling shift in cybercrime. For years, the focus was on software vulnerabilities—buffer overflows, unpatched servers, zero-days. Today, the battlefield is human psychology. ShinyHunters didn’t exploit an obscure flaw in Salesforce. They exploited belief. An employee believed the voice on the phone was legitimate. They believed the download link was safe. They believed the Data Loader tool was what it claimed to be. And belief, it turns out, is harder to patch than software.

Google has confirmed that the incident did not expose Gmail passwords, and it has urged users to adopt stronger protections such as two-factor authentication and passkeys. But the broader lesson goes beyond patches or new login methods. ShinyHunters’ success highlights the fragility of digital trust in an era when AI can generate flawless fake voices, craft convincing emails, and automate scams at scale. Tomorrow’s vishing call may sound exactly like your boss, your colleague, or your bank representative. The line between legitimate communication and malicious deception is blurring fast. For ShinyHunters, that blurring is the business model. And for the rest of us, it’s a reminder that the next major breach may not come from a flaw in the code, but from a flaw in ourselves. And these ShinyHunters use fake Gmail accounts, which will get them caught.

/by
, , , , ,

Beyond Zapier

Beyond Zapier: What Happens When Workflow Automation Becomes Obsolete?

By Skeeter Wesinger August 3, 2025

For years, tools like Zapier, LangChain, and Make (formerly Integromat) have served as the backbone of modern automation. They gave us a way to stitch together the sprawling ecosystem of SaaS tools, APIs, and data triggers that power everything from startups to enterprise platforms. They democratized automation, enabled lean teams to punch above their weight, and brought programmable logic to non-programmers.

But here’s the uncomfortable truth: their days are numbered.

These platforms weren’t designed to think—they were designed to follow instructions. They excel at task execution, but they fall short when the situation requires adaptation, judgment, or real-time negotiation between competing priorities. The problem isn’t what they do; it’s what they can’t do.

The Next Frontier: Intent-Driven Autonomy

The future doesn’t belong to systems that wait to be told what to do. It belongs to systems that understand goals, assess context, and coordinate actions without micromanagement. We’re entering the age of intent-driven autonomy, where AI agents don’t just execute; they plan, adapt, and negotiate across domains.

Imagine a world where your AI agent doesn’t wait for a Zap to send an email—it anticipates the follow-up based on urgency, sentiment, and your calendar. Where you don’t need to build a LangChain flow to summarize documents—your agent reads, tags, stores, and cross-references relevant data on its own. Where infrastructure no longer needs triggers because it has embedded agency—software that adjusts itself to real-world feedback without human intervention.

This is more than automation. This is cognition at the edge of software.

Why This Isn’t Hype

We’re already seeing signs. From autonomous GPT-based agents like AutoGPT and CrewAI to self-updating internal tools powered by vector databases and real-time embeddings, the scaffolding of tomorrow is under construction today. These agents won’t need workflows—they’ll need guardrails. They’ll speak natural language, interact across APIs, observe results, and self-correct. And instead of chaining actions together, they’ll pursue objectives.

Don’t Panic. But Do Prepare.

This doesn’t mean Zapier or LangChain failed. On the contrary, they paved the way. They taught us how to think modularly, how to connect tools, and how to make systems work for us. But as we move forward, we need to unlearn some habits and embrace the shift from rigid logic to adaptive intelligence.

The question for builders, founders, and technologists isn’t “What should I automate next?” It’s “What kind of agency am I ready to give my systems?”

Because the future isn’t about building better workflows. It’s about building systems that don’t need them.

/by
, , , ,

Banking Without Prompts

Banking Without Prompts: Autonomous AI Agents and the Future of Finance

By Skeeter Wesinger

August 1, 2025

As artificial intelligence evolves beyond chatbots and scripted assistants, a new kind of intelligence is emerging—one that doesn’t wait to be asked, but rather understands what needs to happen next. In the world of finance, this evolution marks a profound shift. Autonomous AI agents are poised to redefine how we interact with our money, our banks, and even decentralized systems like Bitcoin. They will not simply respond to prompts. They will act on our behalf, coordinating, securing, optimizing, and executing financial operations with a level of contextual intelligence that eliminates friction and anticipates needs.

In traditional banking, autonomous agents will operate across the entire customer lifecycle. Instead of relying on users to initiate every action, these systems will recognize patterns, detect anomalies, and carry out tasks without requiring a single command. They will notice unusual account activity and intervene before fraud occurs. They will detect opportunities for savings, debt optimization, or loan restructuring and act accordingly, surfacing choices only when human approval is required. Agents will onboard new customers by retrieving identity credentials, verifying documents through secure biometric scans, and completing compliance steps in seconds—all in the background. On the back end, these agents will navigate regulatory checkpoints, reconcile ledgers, update Know Your Customer (KYC) files, and monitor compliance thresholds in real-time. They will not replace bankers—they will become the invisible machinery that supports them.

In the realm of Bitcoin and digital assets, the impact will be just as profound. Managing wallets, executing transactions, and securing assets in a decentralized environment is complex, and often inaccessible to non-experts. Autonomous agents will quietly manage these processes. They will optimize transaction fees based on current network conditions, initiate trades under preset thresholds, rotate keys to enhance security, and notify users only when intervention is required. In decentralized finance, agents will monitor liquidity positions, collateral ratios, and yield performance. When conditions change, the system will react without being told—reallocating, unwinding, or hedging positions across decentralized platforms. In multi-signature environments, agents coordinate signing sequences among stakeholders, manage the quorum, and execute proposals based on a shared set of rules, all without a central authority.

Crucially, these agents will act without compromising privacy. They will utilize zero-knowledge proofs to perform audits, verify compliance, or authenticate identity without disclosing personal data. They will operate at the edge when necessary, avoiding unnecessary cloud dependency, while still syncing securely across systems and jurisdictions. Whether in traditional banking, Bitcoin custody, or the emerging DeFi landscape, these agents will not just streamline finance—they will secure it, fortify it, and make it more resilient.

We are moving toward a world where finance no longer requires constant attention. The prompt—once essential—becomes redundant. You won’t need to ask for a balance, check your rates, or move funds manually. Your presence, your intent, and your context will be enough. The system will already know. It will already be working.

Contact: Skeeter Wesinger

Senior Research Fellow

Autonomous Systems Technology and Research

skeeter@skeeter.com

For inquiries, research partnerships, or technology licensing.

/by