I think THEY think it is about birth rates, but they are mistaken, and this will backfire, I predict.
One of the huge demographic issues in China is the excess male population, or rather, the extremely overt lack of females. This was brought about as a direct result of the "one-child" policy the communists instituted a generation ago. They failed (as all centrist planners do) to predict the obvious outcome of their "well meaning" law. Gender-based abortions despite being made swiftly illegal when the practice became noticed, were commonly performed to guarantee male heirs for families trying to cope with the notion that they could only have one child, period.
Despite extreme efforts to stop this practice, China never managed because the necessity of a son was so great the people in great numbers went to any length to ensure it.
The result was the generation that came of age in the 90s-00s whom were so skewed male it is beyond laughable that we in the west think we have an 'incel' problem. Try existing in a population with a gender ratio that ensures your chances of finding a mate is less than being struck by lightning twice.
Effeminate males are as much a coping strategy for this generation of Chinese as it is any sort of western influence they might blame it on. These men are finding comfort in each other because there are literally no women to be had.
If the Chinese government want to quash that release valve, then they are soliciting revolutionary sentiment. There are few things humans will naturally value above their own lives, but food, family, and romance are close to that cut-off point.
Why would they do this, then? The same reason they ban video games. They are blind authoritarians who don't understand how important it is for anyone, but men especially, to have a relief. Relief of fun, relief of sex. It's all debauchery in the eyes of the dictator who is satisfied in his palace, but it's a dire imposition for the serfs who are just trying to cope.
I can see why you'd think so, and I think to some extent bitterness drove this article. The article is also slightly bait, because the entire premise could have been put in the heading: "Anti-cheat software employed by some games prevent Steam Deck from running them."
The author does explain their bitterness (one of their names didn't make the cut) and does explain why and calls it 'reasonable.' But they include jabs like "Steam's broken store" that are somewhat left-field that makes me thing they constructed this article to do damage as well as be click-bait.
Fundamentally, yes. There's a host of things I didn't get into that others have said, like the 'regulation' angle that payment processors likely DID push. I think more than one explanation can be true at the same time, and it wasn't something so simple as OF was playing 4-D chess.
But I DO think that OF was playing a game for profit with all of this and the media participated. MC piped up when they were blamed as the primary cause, but they only insisted they weren't trying to make OF abandon thottery. They left it at that. I think because it was true that they were lightly involved to some extent, mainly with the legal CYA angle of getting people on the platform verified and ID'd.
Tangentially, I also think there's much much more to the PornHub story, and it has a lot to do with driving taste in porn away from 'problematic' topics by focusing the ability to produce it in the hands of a few established, controllable studios.
Forcing anonymity out of a platform is always going to be fundamentally disingenuous. It is fear of competition and lack of control that drives this every time. Combatting crime is just an excuse.
How much of this was OF? Hard to say, I'll guess more than 0%, but less than 50%. I think it really was a profit play, mostly.
So, I have a different take. Based on the fact that MC and other processors were starting to push back on the narrative that OnlyFans was pushing. OnlyFans was leaning into this perception that the card processors were the problem for them to continue with their current policies, but there's a ton of holes in that. The problem was ACTUALLY that OnlyFans weren't making as much profit as they'd hoped for the size their platform had grown to.
Key number is: $2bil. That's the amount OnlyFans claimed in overall transaction activity last fiscal year. Math is easy, and at 20% cut, that means OF made 400mil in fees. They pivoted that into a search for venture capital to grow their platform, because 400mil was not commiserate in their minds with the size of the platform they had created.
To secure capital you need several things: promise of growth, and competition among investors looking to get in at the ground floor (their notion of where they are). You create investor competition by soliciting additional investors (more than those initially interested in you). And you do THAT by promising to expand your platform further into the mainstream of users (promising to lessen the image of a being a vulgar sex shop).
OF announced they were soliciting venture capital way back in March or earlier, and they announced these policy changes, I think, in May. The sudden hype over the approaching October deadline was a combination of media rags jumping on the story and playing up the victimization angle "think of the poor whores!" and sensation of another PornHub or Tumblr situation... whatever made sense in the writer's mind in that moment.
OnlyFans, to some credit, were taking a relatively high-road in all of this, announcing austere policies for an indeterminate future, and privately assuring their biggest account holders that the policies wouldn't affect them as much as it seemed. Check out ItsAGundam's coverage of this, he lightly delves into the rumor mill of some insiders who contacted him and others in the media to tell them this was OF blowing smoke and they were privately assuring big accounts to hang tight, because it'd all work out fine in the end. This is supported by the very real problem of crime on the platform that a surprising few articles in the media were written about.
This is probably the biggest red-flag to me. The media weren't going after OF on the basis of child exploitation, sex-crime, human and drug trafficking, bestiality, or the host of other head-spinning examples that had provably happened, been prosecuted, and in some instances, continued. There were also the very light rumors from ex-employees that OF were complicit in the criminal behavior because they didn't want to scare anyone off by "over moderating." If OF was the enemy, truly, they'd have been tarred as evil, corrupt exploitation peddlers, but they weren't by-and-large. Cynically, I think that was being kept as a kind of blackmail if the OF situation went the wrong way in the end. The media picked their darlings, the thots, and if ultimately they lost, THEN they'd come after OF with cannons blazing and ruin whatever was left as a warning to others.
Then you come to a very big one. OF put out a blog post recently that actually named "the problem" as being payment handlers. MasterCard immediately fired back that this was a lie. That was super strange, because MC historically has not shied away from the idea that they are the taste police, but in this instance they straight up denied it and said OF were full of shit. I think this is because, primarily, this WAS a lie. This was OF leaning into the narrative that had emerged to seem as less of a bad guy and more of a victim. Secondly, for the same reason, MC pushed back hard because OF had never been on the wrong side of the media, fundamentally, they weren't a "social ill" they wanted to remedy in the way that blowing up amateur porn producers who were a threat to established porn producers was (what PornHub was really about).
So what is the main outcome? I think OF got their venture capital investment. The investors they found did not have a problem with funding a sex shop, but having competed with other investors (who potentially did and were attracted by the casualization angle OF were selling briefly) their value commit went up (possibly, maybe it didn't, but I think this was the game OF were trying to play). OF gets to (try to) blame an external force (MasterCard) and people who already thought that's what this was will continue to believe that despite whatever MC says. OF gets to play the victorious hero who fought hard for those poor fragile prostitutes and got them a good deal so they could stay, finally.
It was a risky game, that could still go wrong. Especially if someone powerful feels like they got shafted by the chicanery. But I think, it was always just a game.
This is a great utility for grabbing youtube videos https://github.com/ytdl-org/youtube-dl. It's for downloading them directly in your command shell. I use it whenever I see a video I expect will be censored or removed so I can repost it myself if I need to.
While hilarious, New Zealand should still be stripped of all medals in all categories and banned from future competition. Floating a pitiful cheat attempt is no less damning than enacting a successful one.
They won't be, because the Olympics is a corrupt enterprise and they are in favor of this behavior themselves.
The Olympics do not stand as an absolute measure of athletic excellence. They haven't for generations. They are a political organization that financially predates on host countries, leeching funds, infrastructure, and applying wide pressure against them to align with globalist desires, all for the prestige of deigning them with their own presence.
The Olympics should be regarded with the same disgust FIFA is. But as an excuse to tax citizens for a chance to glitz up a section of their country for the world to praise briefly... despots, statists, one-world-order fetishists, and many other types will continue to jump on that forevermore because it is really just that good of an excuse to squeeze what they want out of their plebs.
As for what attracted the lightning, the siblings believe it may have been the titanium plate Isobel had put in her arm after a bicycle crash last year.
They're very clearly under a tree. Even after being struck they didn't learn, I guess.
I hear you. Growing up I was in many ways an anti-Rich. I would heavily resist any deprecation or insult directed at me in a friendly setting, and would make things awkward for those involved until they picked a new target. I never realized this consciously until I was an adult and had stumbled into a social situation that was very familiar to all others I'd had in my life. There was the ring-leader whom the group centered on, there was the scholar (usually me) who was ready to go with clever sayings, insights, or stories. And then there was the clown: the guy who was at the butt of all of the humor from the ring-leader. Bullying him seemed to be the leader's greatest joy. And it bothered me enough to intervene on his behalf because I was disturbed by it.
But in this latest scenario I noticed something about the dynamic, that made me wonder why I wasn't in one of those roles myself. That is: the clown was very carefree and happy to be made fun of. He walked into situations carelessly and seemed to participate in manufacturing his own embarrassment. And the ring-leader was always the most energetic and most unleashed when that guy was around. He wasn't savage to be mean, he was legitimately delighted and entertained.
I was impressed with the clown's lack of defensiveness. His cavalier resilience appealed to my personal ideal of being stoic and unaffected. But I realized it clashed with my idea of being 'cool' and it was on that basis that I refused to take that role. I consider that a shortcoming of mine. I don't pity a clown, I'm impressed by him and wish I was him. I know it takes guts, and a healthy dose of trust that the people around you won't push you too far.
I can for sure see why you'd avoid it when you enter a new situation filled with strangers. Also, thank you for the kind assessment :)
Mike is a little bit of an aloof "above the fray" type in his mind. He likes to moderate from the sidelines and inject all the "good lines" with his zingers he's been stewing on while others try to have a conversation. When he concedes a point it is with massive caveat and 1000 word essays about how he was actually right though if you really think about it.
He dabbles in self-deprecation and embraces parody from time to time but he likes to convey that as a 'character' instead of as himself. In short, my read on Mike, is that he is very proud of himself and wants to be perceived in the best light he can manage as often as he can.
Contrast this with Rich or even Jay. Jay comes off extremely aloof on the surface and very unwilling to be wrong, but he will still concede a point in almost every conversation. He'll back off of aggressive stances and admit ignorance or hasty judgement with relative freedom and regularity. He doesn't mind being made fun of, and regularly buys into jokes about his height, facial hair, and weird taste in media which he constantly up-front says "this is my thing, don't worry, I don't expect anyone to agree with it." I will also say, this has been an evolution for Jay. At first he was VERY defensive and unable to take a joke directed at him, but he's mellowed significantly and seems to be much more relaxed and fun in the later years.
Rich can't avoid being the butt of every joke. Mainly because he's been friends with Mike the longest and has long ceded the position of the Clown to Mike's Ringmaster. He gets visibly tired of it sometimes and seems legitimately fed up on rare occasions and lashes out in anger, but he always comes back and laughs it off ultimately. The dynamic between Rich and Mike looks from the outside to be tiring and abusive, but they both lean into their roles for the sake of comedy and fun and I don't think they actually are hurting each other. I also don't think Mike could survive for a minute if Rich actually left.
All of this culminates, I feel, in Mike's development into someone who will use these grandiose-sounding political arguments to seem smarter, more detached, and more cultured than he is, because that is the persona he wants to present. He may mean it, or he may merely mean to be the outsider who isn't directly targetable by the angry mob who may dislike his real opinions. Either way, while Jay is the most likely to HOLD feminist opinions, Mike is the most likely to SPEAK them. Jay is far more willing to have a discussion in a hostile environment than Mike who wants to be right and pull out, or be wrong and dominate everyone into stopping the conversation.
I don't dislike Mike, but I think his ego is heavily attached to how he is perceived by others, and he most wants to be seen as positively as he can. That makes him most amenable to adopting the gestalt positions of the culture he markets himself to.
I trust Jay to say what he really thinks, and I trust Rich to be based most of the time. I always expect Mike to have a bad take that sounds good. Unless he's playing a character like Scientist Man or Mr. Plinkett: THEN he's probably got some good, reasonable, based things to say (because his ego isn't in danger if someone disagrees).
We weren't given any good information on that, unfortunately. The lawyers infer it was due to financial hardship due to the Husband being fleeced in the investigation (they forced him to pay for his own investigator who was allowed to charge anything he wanted) and subsequently being unable to practice his profession. Wife was the lesser earner we assume since she wasn't practicing massage as a career like he was. So their household income is likely destroyed overall.
The divorce was a double-whammy since it crushed the Husband and he has decided to go live alone on a mountain instead of pursuing justice for himself.
The divorce was certainly about other things too, but we're not told what those things are, so we can only speculate.
I skipped 11 until a friend of mine whom I always want to get into fighting games got it when they did the character expansion that included Robocop. I couldn't justify not playing a game in the genre I want to play with him just because I disliked the recent aesthetics of. So I did.
They butchered Sindel and Sheeva to such an extent it borders on the unbelievable. Sindel is the most damaged character story-wise due to massive ret-cons that make her a far far FAR less interesting character than ever before. Everything interesting about her has been deleted. Justification was "She looks evil, so she should be plainly evil" and this justifies her being a dick to everyone more often, which is how you write a good strong "feminist" character I'm told.
Sheeva is now a raving mouthpiece of incoherent man-hate. For no reason. She's a female barbarian, so of course she hates men, that's how it works when you're an obviously strong muscular female... again, so I'm told. It is unfortunate because her playstyle is perhaps the best (and most unfair) it's ever been. And if not for her grotesque look, and even more grotesque dialog, she'd be my main. That's actually what ultimately killed me off the game. They made my perfect character and made it impossible for me to play her.
Jade and Scarlett were both hit with the +ugly, +ethnic, +clothes sticks. Jade keeps getting blacker and more 'representative' and Scarlett is now vaguely Asian for some reason and hates showing skin when that doesn't work with her power of blood manipulation at all. You need access to your own blood while fighting... lets draw it through seven layers of turbans and leather!
With the singular exception of Johnny Cage, every character was made worse with the writing in 11. Then they went and removed Johnny's end-round taunt where he plays the circle game with you, because its suddenly a white-power symbol according to these brainlets.
My friend showed mercy on me because he knew I was having a very hard time holding my nose while playing and instead we transitioned to Guilty Gear AC+R (rollback is required for us due to how far apart we live, which is again why it's a shame we can't play MK since its netcode is great).
Ultimately, it did work, and my friend is much more into fighting games now. We're currently awaiting the new Melty Blood game, and entertaining ourselves with emulated versions of great old NeoGeo games. Seriously their fighting games were top-shelf. Hurray for good outcomes!
In exactly the same way Title-9 Tribunals are conducted in schools in America. They're busybodies who like to be involved in regulatory nonsense because it gives them a sense of purpose. Bureaucracies exist to justify their own existence.
Thank you for this, that is profoundly of interest.
Salient points summary for others:
- Extrajudicial Body regulates Medical Professionals in Canada
- Rule exists with Zero-Tolerance implementation aiming to punish sexual assault
- Rule forbids: "Any Sexual Act performed on a Patient"
- "Patient" = "Anyone who receives Treatment"
- "Treatment" = "Any use of the professional's licensed talents"
- Wrinkle emerges when you presume a talent that is incidental to everyday life
- example: A Person who is a Doctor takes his Wife's temperature. Doctor and "Patient" have sex at any point in history or the future. Violation with zero-tolerance resulting in Doctor's expulsion from practicing anywhere.
- This rule's shortcoming has been recognized and challenged, and Upheld multiple times in the past with the rationale: "No court would prosecute under such frivolous circumstances, so there is no problem with the rule and it will stand"
- Present situation:
- Husband and Wife practice massage on each other.
- Husband is reported by a disinterested 3rd Party to regulatory board for violation of the previously described rule.
- Husband's dues to organization are seized to hire an investigative lawyer who gets all the "facts" while charging him mercilessly for his own persecution.
- Wife tells them all to pound sand and refuses to testify or press any charge
- Tribunal finds Husband guilty as described and he is expelled from the medical profession.
- Aftermath:
- Due to financial difficulty Husband and Wife divorce
- Due to despondency Husband refuses to pursue additional remedy and fades away from the proceedings
- Law firm who would have championed him are left with no ability to further challenge without a complainant and the Rule still stands
A travesty all around. Extra facts: The "Tribunal" were all women with no law expertise who hired a lawyer to explain their own proceedings and rules to them, and who informed them that their rules were clear (if stupid). The "disinterested 3rd Party" was also a woman who was concerned for her own complicitness in the "sexual assault" if she didn't report the Husband of her own volition after their casual conversation. Basically Soviet rules: incriminate your neighbor or you are guilty of their (theoretical) crimes.
Men's sports: Actually no such thing, men's sports are unisex, but women can't hang, so only men play.
Women's sports (then): only women can play by dictate of arbitrary rules that say so, so only women play.
Women's sports (now): arbitrary rules replaced by new even more arbitrary rules, so only women, and men pretending to be women, and women pretending to be men can play, but only men do well. Standard men laugh from the actual unisex league where women are still afraid to go.
Enjoy your shithole, feminists. You asked for this. The only ones who deigned to push back at all you called TERFs and made them out as pariahs. Watch me dance.
It is not a troll. This is boundary-pushing from within a boundary-pushing group. Their established rules (for conquest) forbid exactly this behavior, but those rules are for the conquered, not for themselves.
This unhinged douchebag is demonstrating the arbitrary nature of the game, because no one is capable of managing a hedonistic descent of culture. He isn't doing it intentionally, but he is a prototype example of the madness to come who happens to be famous enough to be noticed ahead of the rest.
Trans-racialism is encouraged by racism. For as long as the sanctimonious remain in charge of media, we will be force-fed the most hard-core and pervasive racism imaginable. Whoever is stacked the lowest in the imaginary order of skin-tones and nose-lengths, will cosmetically hide it, and try to play the game as Oli has.
The alternative is whole-society ostracization, and looming threat of genocide. The lowest rung will be denied political office, public service, and even private employment. You are required to hide or escape. And to even complain, is to die immediately.
Fuck off, Feige. You cast a weird looking white woman SPECIFICALLY to avoid casting a Tibetan man. You admitted this. You claimed it was necessary to not be banned in China. You regret the 'white' part only. Fuck off entirely.
I like it quite a lot as well, but some releases fall apart on me from time to time and I have to shelve it until they patch their problems back out. A few cycles of that and I went to Marmaduke Chromium (community version with all google integrations patched out). But I still keep an install of Vivaldi around to play with.
Yes, And according to some info I looked up, the last major Norwegian stakeholder sold off in 2016, much later than I thought. I had lost interest in the browser many years before because it seemed to me to be getting buggier and less original as time went on. "Chrome but worse" instead of its own thing.
I was a huge Opera fan from 2000 - 2010, and it was a bitter breakup for me.
Considering Impel Down is like... 700 chapters in, there's no danger of this guaranteed to be short-lived trash making it anywhere near that.
It was hilarious watching proto-SJWs head-asplode back in the day on that character when the literal ma'am'self was introduced.