The reader of this page may well ask: what the Jason Arday Cambridge story has to do with this website? After all, di-yi-ge.tech pertains to the ‘hard sciences’ and engineering; the late professor was appointed to ‘Sociology of Education’.
About this Website …
Introduction
To answer the previously posed question on this webpage takes us in several directions, however these would all wax philosophical. The Jason Arday Cambridge tragedy can teach us several lessons, provided that we are honest enough not to squander them.
We shall—in the following sections—discuss some branches of philosophy, but expand upon those that pertain most to the present website.
In short, the present website publishes—primarily—the operational qualitative narratives of patent applications with facts and—quantitative—numerical figures estimated or experimentally reported. In other words ….
The machines of the future, and their workings, are shown on this website to encourage people to research and develop.
Business as Usual: Modus Operandi
We mostly limit the information we share online of our feasibility studies, proof-of-concepts in operation, prototypes, data, and experimental reports. Di-yi-ge.tech typically discloses information with industrial partners proving a willingness to research and develop—R&D—by purchasing relevant technical reports.
The Special Offer: Pro-bono Publication
Occasionally, di-yi-ge.tech will publish the information of a relevant technology’s report online, free of additional monetary charge from us. Questions posed to di-yi-ge.tech are then—eventually and more-fully—answered by online publication to make the aforementioned free or disclosures complete.
Stealing Ideas: on Plagiarism, Intellectual Property Rights, and Ethics
The information may be shared by di-yi-ge.tech privately via purchased report, or publicly by way of online publication. In either case, it is ethical to publicly-mention or cite di-y-ge.tech or its represented originator of the relevant information.
This is the jist of the present ‘About’ page.
It describes, in spirit, the policy for referring, relating, or reusing original work from the present di-yi-ge.tech website. It is easy now to see the relevance—of this rather particular ‘About’ webpage—to the Jason Arday Cambridge related media reports.
As a non-exhaustive list, the intellectual-property—IP—published on the present website may be used by school, college, university students, and staff.
To be Fair …. The Di-yi-ge.tech Mission
Let us put aside the Professor Jason Arday Cambridge tragedy for a moment and speak generally. In addition to receiving tuition fees from their students, universities, colleges, typically also apply for governmental-funding—and from other bodies—for research.
By comparison ….
Di-yi-ge.tech works free of charge—and at its own expense—until a report is sold or it is hired in consultation. We would be, and are, happy and proud to inform and thus assist: school projects, degree dissertations and, doctoral, theses.
It is ethical to cite di-yi-ge.tech in any publications that uses di-yi-ge.tech represented IP.
Private individuals, businesses, and other organisations also fall under comparable standards of ethics in their involvement with di-yi-ge.tech
Experiences[1] with other parties’ lapses in diligence—or ethics—inspired formation of di-yi-ge.tech to publicise the original work—of its representees. Literary-reviews are required-research prior to undertaking an intended-project, so as to ascertain whether or not the project-intended would be original.
Di-yi-ge.tech publishes original work that is filed as a patent application, and a patent examiner then ascertains its priority. This is a literary review across all online accessible publications of many different sorts,
These include peer-reviewed papers and journals.
However, by contrast, our experience has shown that paper reviewers[2]
Only seem to conduct literary-reviews on other peer-reviewed papers.
So the unpaid inventor who strives to apply science to create technologies that the public can benefit from … Is at a grave disadvantage to the university professor who is overpaid from the money of taxpayers … To investigate phenomena that tickle her or his own fancy, but will not benefit the aforementioned taxpayer.
Di-yi-ge.tech aims to serve the taxpayer and client, cost-effectively
Our example and experiences are in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, STEM, related subjects. They do not in this part of the argument refer to the Jason Arday Cambridge accounts.
Late professor Arday’s field of study and the associated Cambridge department’s relevance shall be discussed later—on the present webpage.
Returning briefly to STEM, in practice, simply put in approximation:
A peer-reviewed paper author can steal, plagiarise, work from a published patent applicant, but …
A published patent applicant cannot plagiarise online publicised work from any soul.
This culture of inequality was raised with the Committee on Publication Ethics—COPE[1] by at least one of our patent-applicants. It is our hope to make patent applicants’ work well-known by protecting it with search engine optimised, and accessible, public-exposure.
This measure is taken so that even a peer-reviewer can identify lack of priority or originality when they see it!
In this way, peer-reviewed paper authors will not be so easily able to get away with IP theft, plagiarism.
For Context’s Sake
We do stress here that the late Professor Jason Arday Cambridge related accusations may remain as mere allegations, presently. It seems too distasteful for the establishment to posthumously investigate the scholar and intensify the grief of his bereaved.
The present article rather focuses on the surviving scholar who decided to wage figurative jihad, holy war, a crusade, on Professor Arday[3] … For how can the dead defend themselves? I was disappointed that a minority ethnicity professor allegedly fell from grace. However, I was and I am still heartbroken by the news of his death.
It’s bloody awful news, I remember where I was when I heard it confirmed.
I find it to be deeply upsetting, even though I only discovered Professor Arday weeks or so ago. This is a tragic case that deserves our attention to learn the myriad lessons it seems to offer.
Appointed as a professor by the prestigious university, the Jason Arday Cambridge tragedy is still teaching us valuable lessons … I suspect that he will do so for quite some time. Let us be considerate of the family and friends that the late professor left behind.
The Mission Resumed
To continue our earlier discussion … Doctoral-students and university-staff are paid to research by the government—via tax-payers’ money—and from national and international student tuition-fees. The aforementioned university staff and doctoral students must publish ‘something’ every so often in support of their careers.
‘Publish or Perish’
The ‘something’ that they must publish can be inspired by—or outright plagiarised from—other authors who are not well-known or peer-reviewed. The aforementioned other authors are often prohibited from being peer-reviewed, successfully published, if they are not—currently—university staff or doctoral students.
So hopefully the reader is beginning to see that university-researchers have an advantage over independent—albiet formally and formerly university-graduated, industry-laboured—researchers.
Industrial researchers are intermediate in the combined hierarchical fun-scale of academic freedom—to research topics of interest—and receive financial income.
The Alleged Final Insult
Recall now if you will the aforementioned advantages of a university researcher, and the non-STEM fields of research briefly mentioned. Also recall mention of tax-payer contributions to somewhat unpopular, seemingly unrequested, solely self-serving academic pursuits … Compare these to the di-yi-ge.tech commitment.
It was into this zeitgeist that the Professor Jason Arday Cambridge discussion acted as a spark in the tinderbox. The spark issued from the friction between charges of plagiarism, and ‘positive’ racial discrimination in his appointment as a Cambridge-professor.
We feature the discussion regarding the late appointed professor in our ‘About Page’ because the present website represents online literature. It was formulated in the milieu of its author … And what literature is not?
Whether the present website faces litigation, commendation—or both—the present article’s very publication date will be a matter for consideration. As such, we address our zeitgeist and attempt to categorise, if not tackle it despite any limitations on our part.
Philosophy & Biology versus Social Education
How, what, when, where, who and why are questions the reader may pose in regards to media on di-yi-ge.tech … However, to succinctly appraise the Jason Arday Cambridge alleged scandal’s lessons, requires considerations, philosophical: metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political, and aesthetic.
The Plaint
An investigation was launched by right-wing academic—Doctor Nathan Cofnas—who was also presently-controversially a ‘race-realist’ according to the Guardian media-outlet. Jason Arday, it was thus implied, was hired by Cambridge as a means of ‘positive’ discrimination for ethnic-minority-indivduals.
As a corollary, in so doing, ethnic-majority individuals would be discriminated against, despite their merit, on account of their race. Cofnas, Doctor of Philosophy then implied that academic ‘merit’ is not proportionally distributed across ethnicities[4].
To provide a quantitative metric, Cofnas is effectively arguing that different ethnic groups have different arithmetic mean intelligence quotients, IQs. His argument is that IQ disparity between the races is expressively denied by the political left wing in Western-European cultures.
It is in this context that the Jason Arday Cambridge appointment as a professor was something of a cultural ‘litmus-test’. I hope that one day, the nuances of the present article are completely lost on a future reader.
Metaphysics: What is Real?
Human beings, homo sapiens sapiens have lived and adapted in distinct separated groups across diverse geographical contexts, climates, and ecosystems. Our ancestors adapted according to their local environments over at least a hundred thousand years, some three thousand possible-mutation-manifesting generations.
Over thousands of branches on a family tree, an ancestral ethnic group in one environment may give rise to a descended ethnic group who adapted differently in another environment.
To declare that this varied adaptation only affected our different ethnic appearances—but not our psychology—would be an act of faith. The myriad accents, languages, and cultural-norms of humanity across relatively short geographic distances ought to belie such an axiomatic belief-system.
Different are we,
In many a diverse way,
Do not self-decieve,
The truth’s quite okay,
Biodiversity is real,
We ought to celebrate,
The one is not the mean,
So wisely integrate*.
Before returning to the antagonist in this Jason Arday Cambridge story, let us take solace in mathematics. Consider the following thought experiment:
Imagine we have a hundred and sixty lottery balls—identified by the number one to the number one hundred and sixty.
The ideal, theoretical, arithmetic mean or ‘average’ value would be eighty point five.
The standard uncertainty on the aforementioned mean value would approximate three point six, six ….
So, after several lottery draws we would expect to see the practical arithmetic mean value range from approximately seventy-six, to eighty-four.
However, for any single draw, the expected value would range from the number one to the number one-hundred and sixty.
In other words, we may come to expect a given ethnic group to perform academically within a certain narrow range. The groups’ mean IQ may not surprise us, for better or worse, if we assess many of the group’s members.
*Wise integration and wise discrimination are synonymous. Either root-word, ‘discriminate’, or ‘integrate’, could be used in the rhyme and still make sense.
The IQ of any given individual is unknowable unless somehow tested, and that is why examination matters … To give people a chance!
The argument that Cofnas raises is that the Jason Arday Cambridge appointment was the best amongst ethnic minorities, but not the best of all candidates.
To observe any individual’s appearance and assume that you can know their intelligence, repeatedly and reliably … That is akin to expecting to win the lottery repeatedly and reliably.
Paraphrasing Dr Sam Harris, PhD.
Epistemology: How Can We Know?
Dr Charles Murray, PhD., was referenced in Dr Cofnas’s article[4], and interviewed by the trustworthy philosopher Dr Sam Harris[5], PhD.
Despite—or perhaps due to—the previous name-dropping sentence, the reader may—still—not be convinced of the present-day cognitive-diversity across different ethnicities.
The reader may ascribe past disparities in cultural-fossils[6] to circumstances of geography or intercultural accessibility—trade route availability versus isolation.
The wheel, and multi-storey buildings like the Colosseum are ‘cultural fossils’, for example.
Our reader may also ascribe present-day academic performance disparities to the post-colonial legacy of western European imperialism.
Whatever the accepted cause, these disparities are observed, noted, and have an ongoing effect on globalised society at the present. This is evidenced by the Jason Arday Cambridge scandal and its attention attraction in the media.
I am not immune to this either, his death attracted my attention above the original nagging curiosity that I largely ignored at first.
Ethics: What Ought We Do?
Resisted colonialism—invasion—and unprovoked slavery are evils that all relevant-societies must be judged on and pay out or receive reparations for.
Net reparations should be paid to the descendents of the first archaeologically or historically verifiable settlers of contested-territory, including bodies-of-water.
Di-yi-ge.tech is a STEM researcher-representing organisation … Even if the previous sentence is unattainable, potential differences are often calculated by reference to the impossibly remote.
Across these, charges and just currents can flow.
Why not aim for the impossible to achieve the remarkable?
With all reparatory charges and currents computed, what would remain for any given ethnic-group to pay or receive? This is the sort of non-STEM study that we could support!
Arabian or islamic invasions, enslavement, sterilisation—castration—of peoples is largely uncompensated for, however the western European cultural legacy reparations are underway. The fertile enslaved communities living under the aforementioned western empires are struggling to be integrated, even to this day.
The Jason Arday Cambridge affair being a topic of multi-news-cycle discussion across the Western world proves my previous sentence’s point.
It is arguable that access to services like health care, ‘social security, ‘welfare’, foreign aid … And diversity, equity, and inclusion, DEI, programs are forms of reparation. The reader is asked to compare per capita populations of proximal-African-descent peoples inhabiting countries of:
The Middle East,
Western Europe.
What are their proximal-African-descent peoples’ rights to equality—in every aspect of life—with the descendants of the above two regions’ first-settler-descendents? In other words, what rights do humans of predominantly negroid extraction enjoy as minorities amongst the:
West-Asian caucasian population in West Asian countries, compared with West European caucasian population in West European countries?
The Professor Jason Arday Cambridge discussion was not a fiasco—but arises from a seemingly very well-intentioned effort for ancestral reparations. Dr Nathan Cofnas’ argument is one best heard in full[4] as his attempt at a sustainable lasting solution.
With that mentioned, some form of reparation is due in perpetuity—if a fraction of a nation’s wealth was derived immorally. Dr Cofnas cannot have his cake and eat it.
What is the point of being a high IQ[4], high-trust society, christian ethnic group, capable of inventing labour-saving machines …. Only to display low emotional intelligence, weak foresight, and to be wanting of wisdom … To have been involved in the enslavement of relatively unsophisticated isolated peoples.
These were peoples who would probably not have ventured to Europe to this day, if left to their own devices. These were peoples who sustainably mastered their environment and other species of life, without threatening the planet with:
Birth-defect causing radioisotopes
Toxic chemical pollution
Genetically enhancing viral technology
Rapid global travel for pathogen dispersal
Global warming
Ozone layer destruction
Oceanic life asphyxiation
Microplastic pollution
… Thank you very much**.
Intelligence illuminates hidden opportunities, and the haste to exploit these does not always allow for the crystallisation of wisdom.
Politics: What and How to Do Things
‘Who’s the more foolish?
The fool, or the fool who follows him?’
George Lucas
This is not to cast shade on the late Professor Jason Arday Cambridge matter, the man or the institution. It addresses the aforementioned flaws of western European societies in the ethics section—obviously leaving out the silver-lining of each listed-cloud**.
Yet—with the aforementioned nebulous list—it is sadly the case that no one quite declares ‘white supremacy’ like post-colonial independence-granted migrants.
Why would any group of peoples—after being freed from an imperial yoke—elect to risk life and limb at sea … Only to re-surrender their genes into servitude for the descendents of their ancestors’ masters to re-exploit and belittle?
A simple answer is: an ethnic-group may not be able to manage itself sufficiently so as to be self-contained—and sovereign.
The aforementioned sufficiency would be a measure of their desire for western European products and services which they can afford.
Sufficiency may also pertain to an ethnic group’s internal co-operation, as well as its freedom from corruption and tyranny.
A sense of group identity and the determination to plant trees whose shade only future generations can enjoy, is required. This is because:
‘Rome was not built in a day’.
Ancient western-Europeans were not subject to the—same allure or—temptation of migration and national-abandonment, as developing world migrants are today. However despite bitter colonial and imperial histories, people continue to migrate to Western Europe for reparatory-boons, rather than ancestral nation-building.
We can thus expect DEI to continue, and it would in some cases at least be well-intentioned and responsible. The Jason Arday Cambridge circumstances simply call for more creativity and oversight.
It is however unfair to punish the indigenous population for the sins of their fathers by opportunity deprivation.
First-settler-descendents, especially based solely on merit, ought not be excluded from crucial sector work such as: government, security, defence, healthcare.
Aesthetics
When granted freedom from slavery, and national independence … The most noble course of action would have been to proudly return to their ancestral homelands and forge nations. This would have been the gold medal-winning prize, because success is the best revenge.
Instead, we have ethnic minorities fighting for the silver medal … Increasingly larger scraps at the foot of another family’s table, returning to the former imperial oppressive countries … Rather than shoring up the foundations of their own ancestral homeland.
Winning the fight for equality can only earn ethnic minorities second place, at best. Whether it is the race-swapping of European cultural figures in art, or DEI at universities.
I guess that is what saddens me most when these repetitive racial eruptions occur.
On a bright note, countries like China and Israel have blazed a trail of independence and global interaction from a position of ancestral rootedness, security, and dare I say it … Strength, power.
We return from the Jason Arday Cambridge tragedy to the raison d’etre of the present website. Let us glean lessons from the zeitgeist.
We offer beautiful solutions to energy, propulsion, and environmental challenges at di-yi-ge.tech
We conceal the identity of our affiliated research personnel, featuring their intellectual property; they are judged only by their work.
Plagiarism, or even unwitting original independent duplication is publicly highlighted by patent examiners. This is amongst the highest levels of publicly available and multimedia platform literary review.
It ascertains the originality of work claimed by an author. Patent examination also establishes priority—that is to ensure readily-available work was the first—of its kind—to have been independently created.
References
[1]2026, Committee on Publication Ethics, COPE.
[2] 2018, ‘Scientific publishing is a rip-off. We fund the research – it should be free’, Monbiot G.
[3] 2026, ’Playbooks, plagiarism and a pig’s head: new claims surrounding a star Cambridge professor’, Bakare L.
[4]2024, ‘A Guide for the Hereditarian Revolution’ ‘How to win the elites and create a better world’, Cofnas N.
[5]2017, ‘Forbidden Knowledge’ ‘A Conversation with Charles Murray’, Harris S., Murray C.
[6]2013, ‘The consuming instinct. What Darwinian consumption reveals about human nature’, Saad G.