#Crypto News in Canada

[gdsupplies]

Best Bitcoin Mining Software For 2023

Bitcoin mining works with the help of blockchain technology. It is one of the best ways to increase passive income in the field of cryptocurrency. You can either join the Bitcoin network or start your own Bitcoin Mining journey by providing your processing power.

It is simple to join a pool and earn Bitcoin every month. But it is necessary to choose the Best Bitcoin Mining Software to mine Bitcoin and other coins effectively. Many mining tools are developed every year that help miners to a large extent. In this blog, we will discuss all the best Bitcoin mining tools to choose from in 2023.

Best Bitcoin mining software in 2023 to select for mining cryptos

It is simple to start your own journey of Bitcoin mining by selecting the best Bitcoin Mining Software. High-grade miner gives better performance and high profits every year. Let us have a look at the best Bitcoin mining software to pick in 2023:

1. CGMiner

CGMiner is one of the best miners to mine Bitcoin and other kinds of coins. It is suitable for both new and experienced miners. This miner supports many operating systems and works on different platforms like Linux, Windows, and Mac. 

This miner is an open-source program that supports many mining hardware configurations. You can modify the software as per your requirements and needs while mining the coins. Apart from that, the software is also free of licensing restrictions. So, it is easy to use this software by inexperienced miners.

In addition, you can customize the mining process such as controlling fan speeds and overclocking your processors. You can mine Litecoin, Dogecoin, and Bitcoin with this software. It is easy to set up as well.

2. NiceHash Miner

The next Bitcoin Mining Hardware is NiceHash Miner. It has an easy user interface with a simple setup process. This hardware works on several platforms such as Linux, Mac, and Windows. You can choose the hardware type and download it on your system easily.

There is no need to tweak settings to mine crypto coins. It is a good mining tool for beginners who want to learn cryptocurrency mining. However, you can mine Bitcoin only on this software.

Additionally, this software provides a crypto wallet that can collect various cryptocurrencies. This miner is also available in the form of a mobile app that makes it easy to mine Bitcoin on your smartphone. There is no limit on the number of coins that you can mine with this mining machine.

3. BFGMiner

BFGMiner is a customizable mining tool that helps to run mining Rigs. It has various settings such as clocking speeds and controllable fan speeds. Apart from that, you can also mine different kinds of cryptocurrencies at a time with this machine. This miner is suitable for beginners as well as experienced miners. You can also run this hardware on a raspberry pi machine.

The miner comes with a text-based interface that helps to mine crypto coins easily. Besides, the tool also helps to access the mining rigs remotely. You can also monitor the hardware with speeds and temperature.

In addition, you can hash on various mining algorithms at one time. You can optimize your hardware properly and mine different coins with this tool. One of the best things about BFGMiner is that it detects the profitable coin to mine. So, you can know the type of cryptocurrency to select to earn huge profits.

Additionally, this miner can work with ASIC mining Hardware, GPU, and CPU miners. It has no fees and miners choose it to mine various coins.

4. Cudo Miner

The next on the list is Cudo Miner. It helps to mine around 9 types of cryptocurrencies easily with the help of 5 algorithms. You can also know the profitable coin to mine. It will help to generate huge profits every month by selecting a profitable coin.

Cudo Miner works with ASIC, GPU, and CPU miners easily. Apart from that, the ease of use is also another reason to choose this tool. This miner works on different platforms such as Linux, Windows, and Mac. However, it does not offer any crypto wallet.

The fees of this miner are higher than other platforms. Artificial Intelligence helps to detect the most profitable coin and earn huge profits. You can improve your mining profitability after installing Cudo Miner on your system.

In addition, the miner provides 4 cryptocurrency payout options such as Ethereum, CUDOS, and Bitcoin. It is also free to download on your system. Anyone without mining knowledge can use this miner easily. It also contains some of the best features that help to mine cryptocurrencies of various kinds and earn huge profits every year.

5. MultiMiner

The last on the list is MultiMiner. It is an open-source platform with a BFGMiner mining engine to mine different cryptocurrencies at a time. This miner supports CPU, ASIC, and GPU mining tools. Apart from that, the miner also works on different platforms such as Linux, Mac, and Windows.

It is easy to set up and install this miner on your system. People without technical knowledge can use MultiMiner easily on their PCs. It also contains many customizations that improve the performance of the machine. You do not need to pay any fees to use this mining hardware to mine various cryptocurrencies.

You can gain an access to API with this miner. It also gives a high hash rate while mining different cryptocurrencies. It is one of the best Mining Pools that you can choose for mining coins.

Final words

This is the list of the best Bitcoin Mining hardware and Software for 2023 that you can choose for mining Bitcoin and various cryptocurrencies. These tools contain various features such as low fees, high hash rates, and so on.

These mining tools are easy to use by experienced miners and beginners. They are free to download on your system and work easily with several other miners to mine various kinds of cryptocurrencies.

[allthecanadianpolitics]

B.C.'s securities regulator says a Vancouver company violated securities rules when it developed a cryptocurrency under false pretenses and took in $3.3 million from 500 investors in B.C. and beyond.

The B.C. Securities Commission alleges payment processor NetCents and its CEO, Clayton Moore, broke securities rules when they issued a NetCents Coin cryptocurrency in 2017, including by making "misrepresentations" about demand and how the cryptocurrency was to be managed.

Full article

Tagging: @politicsofcanada

[newsbites]

The B.C. Securities Commission says a now-defunct cryptocurrency platform based in Nanaimo on Vancouver Island committed a multimillion-dollar securities fraud involving various digital currencies.

In a notice of hearing issued last month, the commission says David Smillie and his numbered company, which did business as ezBtc, lied to customers about its crypto asset trading platform.

The commission says Smillie and the company diverted about $13 million worth of bitcoin and ether, another cryptocurrency, to two online gambling sites without authorization.

The regulator says the company was dissolved in October 2022, but between 2016 and 2019 customers transferred 2,300 bitcoin and 600 ether tokens into wallets hosted by the platform.

[trading-trending]

[lizyoungthomas]

The Future of AI🤖

From TCAF 135 out now on YT and podcast platforms! Links in bio⏯️

#ai #tech #internet #money #finance #podcast #nvidia #stockmarket #socialmedia #robot

[fashionwithbeautytopics]

Here Some of Article that makes you a Game changer on daily Basis

[taratarotgreene]

Big Financial Marker dates in August

Plus, Uranus Trines Pluto from July 7 when it hits 26 degrees Taurus with Pluto at 1 degree Rx Aquarius and then Uranus moves up to 27 degrees on August 7 and the trine gets tighter with Pluto at 0 Aquarius. The Market Crash for the day on August 5 bore a resemblance to the infamous “Black Monday” of October 1987, when the S&P 500 and Nasdaq lost 20% and 11.5% in a single day. in 2024 Japan, saw…

[fortbes20]

Don't forget to tag your friends and challenge them to share their superpower dreams too. Let's see who can come up with the most extraordinary abilities! 😄💪💫"

[mostlysignssomeportents]

UK publishers suing Google for $17.4b over rigged ad markets

THIS WEEKEND (June 7–9), I'm in AMHERST, NEW YORK to keynote the 25th Annual Media Ecology Association Convention and accept the Neil Postman Award for Career Achievement in Public Intellectual Activity.

Look, no one wants to kick Big Tech to the curb more than I do, but, also: it's good that Google indexes the news so people can find it, and it's good that Facebook provides forums where people can talk about the news.

It's not news if you can't find it. It's not news if you can't talk about it. We don't call information you can't find or discuss "news" – we call it "secrets."

And yet, the most popular – and widely deployed – anti-Big Tech tactic promulgated by the news industry and supported by many of my fellow trustbusters is premised on making Big Tech pay to index the news and/or provide a forum to discuss news articles. These "news bargaining codes" (or, less charitably, "link taxes") have been mooted or introduced in the EU, France, Spain, Australia, and Canada. There are proposals to introduce these in the US (through the JCPA) and in California (the CJPA).

These US bills are probably dead on arrival, for reasons that can be easily understood by the Canadian experience with them. After Canada introduced Bill C-18 – its own news bargaining code – Meta did exactly what it had done in many other places where this had been tried: blocked all news from Facebook, Instagram, Threads, and other Meta properties.

This has been a disaster for the news industry and a disaster for Canadians' ability to discuss the news. Oh, it makes Meta look like assholes, too, but Meta is the poster child for "too big to care" and is palpably indifferent to the PR costs of this boycott.

Frustrated lawmakers are now trying to figure out what to do next. The most common proposal is to order Meta to carry the news. Canadians should be worried about this, because the next government will almost certainly be helmed by the far-right conspiratorialist culture warrior Pierre Poilievre, who will doubtless use this power to order Facebook to platform "news sites" to give prominence to Canada's rotten bushel of crypto-fascist (and openly fascist) "news" sites.

Americans should worry about this too. A Donald Trump 2028 presidency combined with a must-carry rule for news would see Trump's cabinet appointees deciding what is (and is not) news, and ordering large social media platforms to cram the Daily Caller (or, you know, the Daily Stormer) into our eyeballs.

But there's another, more fundamental reason that must-carry is incompatible with the American system: the First Amendment. The government simply can't issue a blanket legal order to platforms requiring them to carry certain speech. They can strongly encourage it. A court can order limited compelled speech (say, a retraction following a finding of libel). Under emergency conditions, the government might be able to compel the transmission of urgent messages. But there's just no way the First Amendment can be squared with a blanket, ongoing order issued by the government to communications platforms requiring them to reproduce, and make available, everything published by some collection of their favorite news outlets.

This might also be illegal in Canada, but it's harder to be definitive. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enshrined in 1982, and Canada's Supreme Court is still figuring out what it means. Section Two of the Charter enshrines a free expression right, but it's worded in less absolute terms than the First Amendment, and that's deliberate. During the debate over the wording of the Charter, Canadian scholars and policymakers specifically invoked problems with First Amendment absolutism and tried to chart a middle course between strong protections for free expression and problems with the First Amendment's brook-no-exceptions language.

So maybe Canada's Supreme Court would find a must-carry order to Meta to be a violation of the Charter, but it's hard to say for sure. The Charter is both young and ambiguous, so it's harder to be definitive about what it would say about this hypothetical. But when it comes to the US and the First Amendment, that's categorically untrue. The US Constitution is centuries older than the Canadian Charter, and the First Amendment is extremely definitive, and there are reams of precedent interpreting it. The JPCA and CJPA are totally incompatible with the US Constitution. Passing them isn't as silly as passing a law declaring that Pi equals three or that water isn't wet, but it's in the neighborhood.

But all that isn't to say that the news industry shouldn't be attacking Big Tech. Far from it. Big Tech compulsively steals from the news!

But what Big Tech steals from the news isn't content.

It's money.

Big Tech steals money from the news. Take social media: when a news outlet invests in building a subscriber base on a social media platform, they're giving that platform a stick to beat them with. The more subscribers you have on social media, the more you'll be willing to pay to reach those subscribers, and the more incentive there is for the platform to suppress the reach of your articles unless you pay to "boost" your content.

This is plainly fraudulent. When I sign up to follow a news outlet on a social media site, I'm telling the platform to show me the things the news outlet publishes. When the platform uses that subscription as the basis for a blackmail plot, holding my desire to read the news to ransom, they are breaking their implied promise to me to show me the things I asked to see:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/06/save-news-we-need-end-end-web

This is stealing money from the news. It's the definition of an "unfair method of competition." Article 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act gives the FTC the power to step in and ban this practice, and they should:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/10/the-courage-to-govern/#whos-in-charge

Big Tech also steals money from the news via the App Tax: the 30% rake that the mobile OS duopoly (Apple/Google) requires for every in-app purchase (Apple/Google also have policies that punish app vendors who take you to the web to make payments without paying the App Tax). 30% out of every subscriber dollar sent via an app is highway robbery! By contrast, the hyperconcentrated, price-gouging payment processing cartel charges 2-5% – about a tenth of the Big Tech tax. This is Big Tech stealing money from the news:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/06/save-news-we-must-open-app-stores

Finally, Big Tech steals money by monopolizing the ad market. The Google-Meta ad duopoly takes 51% out of every ad-dollar spent. The historic share going to advertising "intermediaries" is 10-15%. In other words, Google/Meta cornered the market on ads and then tripled the bite they were taking out of publishers' advertising revenue. They even have an illegal, collusive arrangement to rig this market, codenamed "Jedi Blue":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jedi_Blue

There's two ways to unrig the ad market, and we should do both of them.

First, we should trustbust both Google and Meta and force them to sell off parts of their advertising businesses. Currently, both Google and Meta operate a "full stack" of ad services. They have an arm that represents advertisers buying space for ads. Another arm represents publishers selling space to advertisers. A third arm operates the marketplace where these sales take place. All three arms collect fees. On top of that: Google/Meta are both publishers and advertisers, competing with their own customers!

This is as if you were in court for a divorce and you discovered that the same lawyer representing your soon-to-be ex was also representing you…while serving as the judge…and trying to match with you both on Tinder. It shouldn't surprise you if at the end of that divorce, the court ruled that the family home should go to the lawyer.

So yeah, we should break up ad-tech:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/save-news-we-must-shatter-ad-tech

Also: we should ban surveillance advertising. Surveillance advertising gives ad-tech companies a permanent advantage over publishers. Ad-tech will always know more about readers' behavior than publishers do, because Big Tech engages in continuous, highly invasive surveillance of every internet user in the world. Surveillance ads perform a little better than "content-based ads" (ads sold based on the content of a web-page, not the behavior of the person looking at the page), but publishers will always know more about their content than ad-tech does. That means that even if content-based ads command a slightly lower price than surveillance ads, a much larger share of that payment will go to publishers:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/05/save-news-we-must-ban-surveillance-advertising

Banning surveillance advertising isn't just good business, it's good politics. The potential coalition for banning surveillance ads is everyone who is harmed by commercial surveillance. That's a coalition that's orders of magnitude larger than the pool of people who merely care about fairness in the ad/news industries. It's everyone who's worried about their grandparents being brainwashed on Facebook, or their teens becoming anorexic because of Instagram. It includes people angry about deepfake porn, and people angry about Black Lives Matter protesters' identities being handed to the cops by Google (see also: Jan 6 insurrectionists).

It also includes everyone who discovers that they're paying higher prices because a vendor is using surveillance data to determine how much they'll pay – like when McDonald's raises the price of your "meal deal" on your payday, based on the assumption that you will spend more when your bank account is at its highest monthly level:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/05/your-price-named/#privacy-first-again

Attacking Big Tech for stealing money is much smarter than pretending that the problem is Big Tech stealing content. We want Big Tech to make the news easy to find and discuss. We just want them to stop pocketing 30 cents out of every subscriber dollar and 51 cents out of ever ad dollar, and ransoming subscribers' social media subscriptions to extort publishers.

And there's amazing news on this front: a consortium of UK web-publishers called Ad Tech Collective Action has just triumphed in a high-stakes proceeding, and can now go ahead with a suit against Google, seeking damages of GBP13.6b ($17.4b) for the rigged ad-tech market:

https://www.reuters.com/technology/17-bln-uk-adtech-lawsuit-against-google-can-go-ahead-tribunal-rules-2024-06-05/

The ruling, from the Competition Appeal Tribunal, paves the way for a frontal assault on the thing Big Tech actually steals from publishers: money, not content.

This is exactly what publishing should be doing. Targeting the method by which tech steals from the news is a benefit to all kinds of news organizations, including the independent, journalist-owned publishers that are doing the best news work today. These independents do not have the same interests as corporate news, which is dominated by hedge funds and private equity raiders, who have spent decades buying up and hollowing out news outlets, and blaming the resulting decline in readership and profits on Craiglist.

You can read more about Big Finance's raid on the news in Margot Susca's Hedged: How Private Investment Funds Helped Destroy American Newspapers and Undermine Democracy:

https://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/?id=p087561

You can also watch/listen to Adam Conover's excellent interview with Susca:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N21YfWy0-bA

Frankly, the looters and billionaires who bought and gutted our great papers are no more interested in the health of the news industry or democracy than Big Tech is. We should care about the news and the workers who produce the news, not the profits of the hedge-funds that own the news. An assault on Big Tech's monetary theft levels the playing field, making it easier for news workers and indies to compete directly with financialized news outlets and billionaire playthings, by letting indies keep more of every ad-dollar and more of every subscriber-dollar – and to reach their subscribers without paying ransom to social media.

Ending monetary theft – rather than licensing news search and discussion – is something that workers are far more interested in than their bosses. Any time you see workers and their bosses on the same side as a fight against Big Tech, you should look more closely. Bosses are not on their workers' side. If bosses get more money out of Big Tech, they will not share those gains with workers unless someone forces them to.

That's where antitrust comes in. Antitrust is designed to strike at power, and enforcers have broad authority to blunt the power of corporate juggernauts. Remember Article 5 of the FTC Act, the one that lets the FTC block "unfair methods of competition?" FTC Chair Lina Khan has proposed using it to regulate training AI, specifically to craft rules that address the labor and privacy issues with AI:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mh8Z5pcJpg

This is an approach that can put creative workers where they belong, in a coalition with other workers, rather than with their bosses. The copyright approach to curbing AI training is beloved of the same media companies that are eagerly screwing their workers. If we manage to make copyright – a transferrable right that a worker can be forced to turn over their employer – into the system that regulates AI training, it won't stop training. It'll just trigger every entertainment company changing their boilerplate contract so that creative workers have to sign over their AI rights or be shown the door:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/05/13/spooky-action-at-a-close-up/#invisible-hand

Then those same entertainment and news companies will train AI models and try to fire most of their workers and slash the pay of the remainder using those models' output. Using copyright to regulate AI training makes changes to who gets to benefit from workers' misery, shifting some of our stolen wages from AI companies to entertainment companies. But it won't stop them from ruining our lives.

By contrast, focusing on actual labor rights – say, through an FTCA 5 rulemaking – has the potential to protect those rights from all parties, and puts us on the same side as call-center workers, train drivers, radiologists and anyone else whose wages are being targeted by AI companies and their customers.

Policy fights are a recurring monkey's paw nightmare in which we try to do something to fight corruption and bullying, only to be outmaneuvered by corrupt bullies. Making good policy is no guarantee of a good outcome, but it sure helps – and good policy starts with targeting the thing you want to fix. If we're worried that news is being financially starved by Big Tech, then we should go after the money, not the links.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/06/stealing-money-not-content/#content-free

[la-cosmonauta-extraterrestre]

It shouldn't be a radical take to say that Jews have the right to exist. Yes, all Jews.

The Jewish woman in Maryland who is involved with her reform shul, celebrates all the Jewish holidays, and also celebrates xmas with her goyische husband? Has the right to exist.

The antizionist activist Jew in New York who goes to all the pro-Palestine events and swears she isn't being used as a token? Has the right to exist.

The homophobic rabbi in Jerusalem who advocates for bringing back the death penalty? Has the right to exist.

The secular Jew who was in komsomol back in the USSR and is now a militant atheist in Canada actively preventing his children and grandchildren from reconnecting? Has the right to exist.

The Israeli terf who would personally kill every Palestinian man? Has the right to exist.

The American kahaneist who's been living on the west bank for the past seven years? Has the right to exist.

The transgender reform Jew who writes a blog about disability? Has the right to exist.

The Jew in Iran who is an outspoken antizionist because he's afraid of the consequences if he isn't? Has the right to exist.

The Mexican Catholic who converted to Judaism after discovering crypto-Jewish ancestry and is finding her place in the Jewish world? Has the right to exist.

The non-binary, non-zionist convert who sponsors the weekly kiddush at their Conservative synagogue in Oklahoma? Has the right to exist.

The descendant of Nazis who converted to Judaism and moved to Israel and served in the IDF? Has the right to exist.

The chassid who thinks zionism is heresy? Has the right to exist.

You are going to disagree with some of these people. You are going to find some of them repulsive. You have every right to disagree, to explain why you disagree. That does not mean you can take an individual's right to exist.

[lizyoungthomas]

That's a wrap on @futureproofac ‼️ Thanks for another great event ✌🏼

[lemonwisp]

Brief little idea of what should have happened in season 4

First up: what they should have made Allison wish for in the reset

• getting Claire and Ray back

• bringing Dave back (because she was miserable without Ray and she knew about Klaus’s heartbreak)

Instead of like a 6 year time jump it should have been a year or two. So we can see them still settled in but also still struggling to get a normal life, some are doing better than others Liz

I think Ray should have died instead of leaving Allison.

Klaus would still be living with Allison and Claire but Dave would also be there and helping Klaus through sobriety as well as comforting Klaus when they have a hard time because they are still a germaphobe.

Sparrow Ben still goes to jail, Luther still becomes a stripper, and one day Sloane walks in and they fall in love all over again. Viktor still has a bar, and Diego and Lila still have Grace but they are struggling as new parents and maybe that would put a strain on their relationship, and Diego would be a cop.

Five wouldn’t be working for the CIA, he’d probably be still freaking out about an impending apocalypse that may or may not happen.

We see them all walk away from the park or whatever then we’ll meet again starts playing we get a little montage of their lives and having issues because they don’t have any ids or anything and just basic domestic life, Diego and Lila at the hospital with their baby, Allison and Claire at Ray’s funeral, a game night with Allison, Claire, Klaus, and Dave. Five having a little cabin and there is a string board thing and writing all over the walls, he’s passed out and a cup of coffee is spilt on the table. Viktor is playing the violin at a pub in Canada. Ben is getting arrested for the crypto scam.

Anyway they come together for the birthday party and that sorta stays the same after Klaus has the marigold they still wander off but of course Dave follows after him and Klaus relapses and after Klaus yells at Claire Dave stays with Claire and Klaus gets drunk then comes back home and Klaus and Dave have an argument about Klaus yelling at Claire but Dave also feels bad for Klaus and it causes an internal conflict as he wants to help Klaus and Claire, while Klaus and Dave fight Claire runs away and gets kidnapped by the Jean and Gene.

Jennifer thing still happens but how Ben died in the original timeline was that his powers killed him and he gets like ripped apart by the tentacles (because that is more shocking then Reggie who obviously wouldn’t hesitate to kill one of the kids)

Five and Lila still get trapped in the subway but there is no romance, and they run into brelly Ben (cause yk that scene in season 3) and there is a big face off between the two Ben’s and brelly Ben wins because he’s an icon but Jennifer also dies as a result of the attack.

After that Ben is like covered in blood but klaus still runs up to him and hugs him when they reunite and klaus cries and gets emotional and then ben

Allison is on a mission to get Claire and realizes that her daughter is more important than being famous

Luther and Viktor talk to Reggie

Everyone thinks they are going to die, Dave proposes to Klaus with the dog tags they find in ep 1.

Then idrk im not a writer, but they all get to live happily ever after (maybe Abigail dies and klaus summons her so she can tell Reggie that she didn’t want to be alive again) and they still have their powers but they can control them now and occasionally team together to stop bank robberies and such

Klaus and Dave get married because that’s what I want and then group dancing

[oncemore-butwithfeeling]

Some more info on the S4 rewrite fan script (Once More (but with feeling!)). Some spoiler-free choices I've made regarding the script and what I've kept and changed from the actual show to give you guys a vague idea of what I'm going for:

- The season will take place 3 years after the end of Season 3; enough time for everyone to build their own lives in Reggie's overwritten timeline but not too much for them to fully feel secure in this new reality.

Things I've changed:

- Ray does not leave Allison because, well, he's Ray. He's also not Claire's biological father as the logic surrounding that gives me a headache. Instead, he's her "dad who stepped up" after Allison and Patrick divorced.

- Lila x Five DOES NOT HAPPEN. I repeat DOES NOT happen.

- Sloane.

- Ben is not in prison cause he's only just getting into crypto. Of course.

- While Viktor does open a bar, he doesn't move to Canada to do it. He's still in contact with some of his siblings but he keeps an emotional distance.

- Sy Grossman's whole thing.

- Durango is not something that exists so Jennifer's storyline is very different.

- The Cleanse is a completely different concept entirely.

- Allison's redemption.

- Five does not and will never work at the CIA because he looks like a 13 year old boy and has zero qualifications. No respectable employer is going to hire that.

- Ben's death.

- Klaus lives with Luther.

- The Keepers, along with Gene and Jean, are going to be more developed and have a larger part to play in the season.

- The season will also not take place during Christmas because I'm not in the spirit to write anything Christmas related.

Things I've kept (sort of):

- Luther being a stripper and the fact that he bought the old Academy (for reasons).

- Lila's parents do also exist in this timeline but Lila's relationship with them, considering her less-than-stellar previous parental figure, is going to be explored. Also, Diego and Lila only have one child; Grace.

- Klaus is sober and will have problems with that when he gets his powers back. But! He does not act the way he does in the show because he's still Klaus!

- Diego's truck.

- King Reg.

What to expect:

Car chases, dance scenes, killer soundtracks, familiar faces, coffee, machine guns, sassy kids, Delores, family hijinks, creepy cults, PTA mums, Reginald Hargreeves' A+ parenting and, as always, a boatload of trauma.

[hesitationss]

the US is one of the biggest reasons for the climate crisis in the world and USians can't comprehend it because it's usually affecting the global majority instead of them. so they think the wildfire smoke from canada is something undeserved and an anomaly bcuz up until the past 5 years, when climate crisis was predicted to *finally* start effecting the west, they haven't had to deal w the consequences. it just so happens that a geographic proximal colonial country has been exploiting resources via logging industries for decades as well causing old growth forests to essentially disappear and replacing them w unhealthy dying tree tinder.

the reality is that most modern environmental devastation, is an anomaly as a result of years of colonialism, resource extraction, and military invasion. so yeah, it is an anomaly and totally not natural if USians (+other global north) can acknowledge that their countries have made planet earth this way. we don't have to accept that this is the "new normal" when this is consequence of our (global north) countries' exploitation of land and other countries. and i don't mean in the white person way where you just *decide* it's *over* like the way so many did w covid ☠️ i mean hold your governments accountable and be willing to live w less stolen luxury. you are already living w less because of the cost of living going up - groceries, rent, public transit, electricity thanks 2 the military and crypto freaks, etc;, why not put up w a bit of struggle to mend the earth a bit? there is no other way to survive