#anyway while of course his account will be biased he was making a real effort to be honest and fair

[book-extravagance]

1. For me, by far the biggest takeaway from Spare was Harry's claim that it was Clarence House that did most of the leaking against him and Meghan—and, too, that it was Charles and Camilla also fed the press the story about Will's alleged affair with Rose Hanbury.

As someone who had previously thought William was behind most of the Sussex-related leaking, that was... interesting.

2. Another great point of interest for me is Harry coming to William's defense on the issue of his "laziness"? Harry claimed it was unfair that the papers ragged on William for being "work-shy" when in fact Will could only do the work that Charles funded.

I find claim #1 pretty plausible. I think Harry is still very biased in favor of his brother when it comes to #2 (but I'm keeping an open mind as I continue my royal studies, perhaps he is right. Certainly it's a factor to keep in mind.)

[bestworstcase]

Hi, I really love your thoughts and analysis on tts so I wanted to ask if you have read The Vanishing Village Book? It made me really think about Eugene's character. I sorta disliked him in the book and felt his relationship with Rapunzel was different and strained. I guess my question is if you think Eugene is a good character? I feel that I am biased for liking the story and relationship between Cassandra and Rapunzel so perhaps I am not seeing him in a fair light but there's just factors that make me feel he might not be the best for Rapunzel. I love their relationship and value & dedication towards each other but their relationship can feel a bit stale sometimes and Eugene can come off as not understanding and dismissive towards Rapunzel sometimes so ig I'd like to be proven wrong and be reminded that Eugene is good for Rapunzel

i have read vanishing village (and i remember liking it better than lost lagoon) but i have to admit i don’t remember anything but the very broad strokes of the plot, so i don’t feel equipped to do any analysis of eugene based on it; that being said -

i do really like eugene as a character in the sense that he is. interesting / engaging / compelling, which yeah to my mind that’s what makes a “good character” but also has nothing to do with the, kind of, moral or personal question of but is he a good guy or is he likable or sympathetic or that kind of thing. and on that my feelings are more ambivalent kfjfjdhs

on the one hand i do find his relationship with rapunzel in tts to be fairly refreshing. it’s nice to see a fictional m/f couple that is just… comfortable with each other, friends with each other, able to talk about their problems collaboratively with each other. that is so rare in fiction, where the tendency is so often to rely on miscommunication to manufacture relationship drama or do the will they won’t they, on again off again nonsense which is just so tiresome - and it feels good to have a m/f couple that eschews that altogether. and it’s also imo really nice that the m/f relationship fades so much into the background vis a vis the wider plot, which i know is not necessarily a popular opinion [vague gestures at all the ‘eugene was sidelined’ discourse] but, like, i feel like i can count on one hand the number of stories i know where the female protagonist *has a male love interest* without the story being ABOUT him, and with the male love interest filling this supportive narrative role while quietly and subtly dealing with his own problems on the side? it’s so difficult to find stories where men aren’t centered and so i appreciate eugene and new dream a lot for that reason too.

but at the same time like - eugene def falls victim to the plot-driven writing just like every other character does and that frustrates me because i think ultimately having all these loose threads hanging with him means his character feels a bit stagnant, and that in turn makes his flaws more glaring because they’re never… worked on or addressed, they just sort of persist or silently fade away for the most part. (which again, is true of literally every character because the storytelling of tts is highly plot driven and episodic)

& that phenomenon can make character interpretation a little convoluted, because… well the intentions of the narrative are signaled pretty baldly (eugene grows out of his selfishness and becomes a compassionate hard working leader for corona, which he has embraced as his home) without having much if any on-screen development to back it up (indeed the premise of flynnposter involves eugene shirking his new responsibilities, and then it concludes with a commitment from him to take the captain gig seriously - but thereafter the only time we get to see this demonstrated through him encouraging project obsidian [which makes him look the opposite of compassionate or responsible given he is excitedly planning to extrajudicially murder cassandra] and then joining the fight against zhan tiri [which literally everyone in corona does]). so do we take what the textual development shows us and conclude that eugene is, at the end of the day, just another cop, or do we take the narrative signaling as a given and fill in the textual gaps with our own imaginations? i tend to fall heavier on the textual side but i do try to take intentions into consideration when they are signaled so clearly, because i understand the structural and corporate limitations on what the tts team were able to do with the story.

anyways - i also have some fraught feelings about new dream because, in the film, it’s not a relationship that i can buy into at all. rapunzel is 17, a few days shy of 18, when an adult man in his mid-twenties tumbles into her bedroom, hits on her, tries to take advantage of her naïveté so he can recover his stolen goods and screw her over because he’s spent his life cultivating an attitude of selfish disregard for anyone but himself, but she’s so sweet he decides to give emotional vulnerability a try and within three days they’re in love and then they get MARRIED?? and he’s literally the first person rapunzel has ever met who wasn’t her “mother”? excuse me???

and i get the impression the tts team was fully cognizant of that problem and made a real effort to address it, as much as they could within the context of the designated disney princess couple - that’s how we get things like the BEA proposal and rapunzel and eugene talking their feelings out afterwards and agreeing to take things slower, and that’s how we get things like rapunzel having cass and eugene having lance so they have lives and identities and relationships outside of each other, and it’s why eugene has a little arc of becoming less self-absorbed in the front half of s1 and why cassandra overtly criticizes his treatment of rapunzel in BEA and so on and so forth. like no one says it OUT LOUD in the series but rapunzel’s and eugene’s relationship is fraught with peril because of the way they met and came together, and it takes significant emotional work from both of them to navigate that to arrive at a healthy place, and i enjoy watching that play out.

so yeah eugene is sometimes too in his own head to notice when something is wrong with rapunzel, like how he misses how unhappy she is in BEA because *he’s* so jazzed about palace living, and sometimes they struggle to get on the same page with each other in general; but that’s just, kind of the gig where relationships are concerned. what matters to me is that whenever these hiccups happen we see, typically some confusion or distress from him or rapunzel or both, and then they reach out for each other and talk about it until they reach an understanding, which is the correct healthy way to manage this sort of conflict in a relationship. and of course through it all eugene is pretty unflagging in his absolute support of rapunzel - even if he doesn’t always *express it* in a good way, he is always very invested in rapunzel’s happiness and well-being. like even the BEA proposal, eugene’s fuck up lies in assuming that rapunzel felt the same way he did about everything and that proposing now would make her happy - there’s self-absorption there but not to the point where he isn’t concerned about her feelings, so when he upsets her he immediately realizes that he screwed up and shelves his own feelings to focus on hers, which is very Good Partner of him.

and then again on a metatextual level i do kind of hate that rapunzel’s arc is essentially, trapped in corona -> adventure! -> adventure is traumatic time to go home -> exact same circumstances she started in but she’s happy about it now. not to say i object to rapunzel embracing her role as a princess/queen per se, but in an ideal world i would like that to come from a place of rapunzel remaking her role to suit herself rather than just kind of… this ‘well got the wanderlust out of my system forever!’ vibe i get from plus est. this isn’t directly related to eugene at all but i think it does splash over onto him on account of him being so closely intertwined with her life in corona. if rapunzel were given an arc about tearing down institutions that stifled her in s1 and really rebuilding corona to be better (something that is lightly implied in canon but never quite makes its way to outright text) then of course eugene would have been her number one supporter - but she doesn’t get that arc and so eugene ends up just kind of being there while rapunzel settles into the role laid out for her. (the destiny narrative being played painfully straight in this regard doesn’t help either.)

this is all a bit of a ramble but i guess what i’m getting at is i think at the end of the day the thing that makes new dream feel a bit stale or stagnant is the series sticking to this aggressively pro-monarchy, status quo is good, mass market appeal narrative enforced by the reality of Disney Princess Show, and that’s not eugene’s fault or any character’s fault, it’s a corporate issue and writing issue.

oh and also personally i think eugene’s biggest flaw in the new dream relationship is he has a tendency to enable rapunzel’s worst impulses via unquestioning support - a little healthy skepticism can be very good for a relationship vs just being your partner’s yes man. so when i imagine a character trajectory for him post-series it involves eugene getting more comfortable pushing back when rapunzel is pursuing ideas that are bad in some way.

[just-come-baek]

Love Game 2

Pairing: Baekhyun x Reader (Hanbyeol) ft. mentions of Sehun x Irene

Genre: romcom | fluff | enemies to lovers!au | cheating!au | smut (later on)

Word count: 4.5k

Summary: Byun Baekhyun founded a company that aids people cheat on their partners, while Park Hanbyeol runs a firm that helps find evidence of infidelity. However, they both face real difficulties when they help their common friends. Regardless of the effort, they are bound to fail. Miserably, I may add.

Masterlist | 01 | 02 | ...

"Hi, Irene," Byeol greeted her friend as soon as she spotted her in the cafe. Along with Wendy and Jiwoo, they ought to meet for a weekly exchange of spicy gossip and a bomb of calories in a form of a delicious piece of cake with a ridiculous amount of whipped cream and caramel. "Where are the girls?" She asked when she plopped into her seat with a loud sigh that gave off her fatigue.

"I told them we're meeting at two," Irene announced with a shy smile, looking down at her laps, as if embarrassed that she suspected Sehun of cheating. Their marriage wasn't perfect, yet the slightest hint that he might be unfaithful upset her greatly, and although it wasn't love yet, she really hoped that Byeol didn't catch him with another woman. The disappointment would be definitely too much to handle. "I didn't want to discuss that in front of them," she added vaguely, yet they both knew what she was referring to; Sehun drama was still an unconfirmed matter, and she preferred to keep it private.

For now, at least.

"Yeah, I understand," Byeol replied and looked at her friend, cracking up a smile. "And you shouldn't worry that much about Sehun. Apparently, he spent the weekend with Baekhyun, you know... that annoying fucker who almost ruined your wedding."

"Baekhyun was there?" Irene asked in surprise, her eyebrows cocked upwards. "I'm sorry, I wouldn't ask you of that if I knew he would be there. How did you survive his presence? I have never met two people who hated each other with so much passion," she continued, genuinely interested in the rest of the story. After the ruckus at their wedding, Baekhyun and Byeol had become sworn enemies. The animosity was so strong that no one would agree to spend an hour with them in one room, even when paid a million dollars in cash.

"It wasn't that bad, actually," Byeol started, and Irene couldn't wait to hear the rest. "I mean, of course, I wanted to scratch his eyes off every time he opened his mouth, but we both acted like civilized people. But back to Sehun, if you really think he cheats on you, he must be really good at it. When he eventually showed up, he didn't even glance at other women. If it wasn't for the evidence that you found in your house, I'd think he's crazy in love with you."

"Was it silly of me to ever suspect him?" Irene inquired, the disappointment in her behavior evident in her tone. Everyone has doubts, Irene should have one in particular given that her marriage wasn't a choice of love. At their wedding, at least in Byeol's eyes, it was obvious that Sehun wasn't crazy about her, although he should be, we're talking about Irene and she's fucking gorgeous and unbelievingly kind. One could even mistake her for an angel incarnation. "Maybe he has finally fallen in love with me," Irene added dreamily, and Byeol kindly smiled, not wanting to burst her bubble.

"Maybe," Byeol whispered on an exhaust, staring at the hopeful expression Irene sported.

Perhaps, Sehun could fool Irene, but it would take much more to convince Byeol in his innocent act. Sehun couldn't be the salt of the earth, he was friends with Baekhyun, and that ultimately made him a bad person. Sehun wasn't like Irene's impression of him, she was whipped and her opinion was biased. Byeol, on the other hand, could smell that something was fishy. The evidence didn't lie, and if Sehun's was guiltless, he wouldn't return home reeking of another woman.

"Irene, listen," Byeol cleared her throat, making sure her friend was listening, "it was just one event, we can't draw a conclusion based solely on that. I don't try to turn him against you or anything, but if you really want to be sure that he's not fucking other chicks, I suggest we keep watching him," she stated, and Irene blushed at the crude word.

"Yeah, you're right," Irene admitted, and smiled at Byeol, although she was still bitter about the whole mystification. Spying on Sehun didn't sit right with her, yet right now, it was the only action she could take. She couldn't just ask him if he was seeing anyone, even if he did, he must've been really stupid to concede.

"Of course, I'm right," Byeol spoke with a cheerful smile, "and don't worry, everything will be fine."

"What the fuck are you doing here?" Baekhyun asked, as Sehun barged into his office, ignoring the secretary repetitive protests, and plopped down onto the sofa, across from Baekhyun's desk. "I believe you're not appointed," he added, as he finally looked up at his friend.

"I'm your friend, I have a VIP pass here," Sehun snickered, as he sat more comfortably, one leg over another, his arms lying on the backrest.

"If you came here to me for a friendly advice, I'll gladly give you one, but if you just want me to cover your cheating ass, you better get in a line," Baekhyun deadpanned with an artificial smile upon his face. Even before he took Sehun's case, he didn't have any time to rest. Daily, Baekhyun ran from one client to another, yet Sehun didn't understand that. Whatever Sehun wanted, he got it, and right now, when Baekhyun wasn't easily complying with his wishes, he was growing more and more irritated.

"Come on, Baek, I'm paying you triple," Sehun reminded, and Baekhyun rolled his eyes. Yes, the pay was quite handsome, yet Baekhyun regretted his decision. The meeting with Hanbyeol cost him a lot of effort which was so ridiculously high one just couldn't measure it with money. "You can do me a little favor."

Baekhyun wanted to say no. Helping strangers get away with cheating was one thing, but helping Sehun to cheat on Irene was just wrong. They had invited him to their wedding for fuck's sake! Sehun didn't love her, but Baekhyun couldn't say the same about Irene; he had seen the way she looked at him during the ceremony, she wasn't indifferent about him. Normally, he didn't get to know the person his clients cheated on. He knew Irene, and actively helping Sehun to hurt her, didn't sit right with him. Irene didn't deserve such a treatment.

"Okay, what is it?" Baekhyun asked, as he rubbed his eyes and pinched the bridge of his nose, trying to focus on whatever Sehun was going to announce.

"I told Irene I meet with potential investors on the weekend; a brunch, a round of golf, a small trip to a winery, you know... the usual." Sehun started, and Baekhyun nodded his head, collecting the information in his head. "Anyway, I think I'll have signed all the contracts by Friday, and the rest of the weekend, I'll stay in a fancy hotel with my lady."

"Ugh, fine." Baekhyun agreed unwillingly, swallowing hard. "When you'll finalise the contracts, we'll switch places, and then, I'll be pretending to be you, and you won't have to worry about your time alone with whoever you're fucking."

"Sounds splendid," Sehun remarked, smirking at his friend, "why haven't I asked for your assistance sooner? My life would be way easier."

"Don't push it," Baekhyun warned, but Sehun ignored him, shrugging. It was no big deal; his marriage with Irene lacked love and Sehun intended on keeping it that way; she might be gorgeous but he didn't feel the tiniest bit attracted to her. If anything, he saw her as a sister, or maybe even a sister's friend. "And don't forget that I'm still waiting for that remittance. You may barge in here reminding me that you're paying the triple, but I didn't see a single penny yet."

"Geez, I'll text my secretary to transfer it to you." Sehun replied with a roll of his eyes, "they will be on your account first thing in the morning."

"They better be," Baekhyun added, yet Sehun couldn't hear him, as he already closed the doors behind him. His lady was waiting for him in his expensive car, and he would not spend another minute on bickering with Baekhyun when he could have her blowing him.

It was a tough week for Byeol. Normally, she was busy, working her ass off from the moment she got up until when she eventually fell asleep in front of her computer. Not only a lot of clients requested for her assistance, but also she had to take care of the formalities for the accountant. The worst part so far, though had to be a phone call from her brother who she didn't have a particular good contact with.

Irene just couldn't have a better timing—giving Byeol an invitation to an exquisite hotel for the weekend. Sehun was about to go there with his investors, and it was the only logical option that Byeol had to tag along as well.

The resort was breathtakingly beautiful, and she was going to appreciate the luxury probably the most among the other visitors when all the cost was covered by Irene. Byeol would never be able to pay for it with her money, or at least not until her business becomes more profitable. Hopefully, it'd happen soon, she was sick and tired of money problems, and exhausted from all the effort she was putting every day.

Heaving a sigh, Byeol entered the hotel, her small purple suitcase rolling behind her. Today, she had a rough schedule, but hopefully, she would get some rest in the evening. With her accumulated stress, she'd kill for a glass of Mojito and a Thai massage.

"I hope you have a pleasant stay," the receptionist spoke with a trained smile, as he gave her the keys.

"Thank you."

According to Irene, Sehun was going to meet with the investors for the wine tasting in the winery nearby. Unfortunately, when Byeol got there, Sehun was nowhere to be found. His friend was there, though. The one and only Byeol hated with pure passion.

Baekhyun.

"What a small world!" He spoke with a mischievous smirk upon his face as he approached her. "What are you doing here, Park?"

"I was meaning to ask you the same question, Byun." She replied, and Baekhyun raised his eyebrow.

"Sehun invited me, actually." He started, observing her features, trying to detect the slightest change in her expression. Slowly, Baekhyun was becoming suspicious toward Byeol. He hadn't seen her since the wedding, but once he began working for Sehun, he bumped into her twice in a span of a week. It was far too coincidental for his liking, she was definitely up to something. "He has a meeting with investors and he was hoping for my support; both, mental and intellectual."

"He's here, too? Wow, I seem to run across him a lot lately. If I didn't know him, I'd think he's stalking me." Byeol jested, and Baekhyun flashed her a smile out of courtesy. "But where is he exactly? The last time I didn't get to say hello. Actually, I really want to scold him right now. Why would he take you with him when he has Irene? She'd love to spend some time with him."

"Yeah, I don't doubt that." Baekhyun spoke dismissively, hoping that Byeol wouldn't mention Irene again. He already felt like a scumbag doing this to her, he didn't have to be reminded of it every step of the way. "Also, I don't think you'll see Sehun anytime soon. Yesterday, we had sushi and the poor guy is suffering from a food poisoning. He should've listened to me, I told him that uramaki looked strange to me."

"Seriously, that sucks, but I guess he deserves it for ditching Irene at home." Byeol answered, and Baekhyun nodded his head in agreement. The story was a complete bullshit, but Byeol was right, Sehun deserved it and many more. Not only he left her behind, but also he was fucking another woman.

"Yeah, definitely," Baekhyun added matter-of-factly, surprising Byeol. Wasn't Baekhyun Sehun's best friend? Shouldn't he stick up for him in every case? "And what exactly are you doing here?"

"I'm taking a weekend off. I seriously don't remember when was the last time I had a chance to rest." Byeol replied, not really lying. Her response was vague yet indeed genuine. "My parents gave me the voucher for my birthday last year, and it's due this weekend, and I just couldn't let it waste. Seeing how fancy that resort is, it must be ridiculously expensive."

For the rest of the wine tasting, Byeol and Baekhyun didn't talk to each other. Despite the small talk about Sehun and Irene's relationship, they didn't have a reason to maintain the conversation. In normal circumstances, they wouldn't even bother to glance at each other.

In silence, they listened to the sommelier's instructions and facts about different types of wine. Byeol, who didn't particularly fancy white wine, followed the guidance, whereas Baekhyun, on the other hand, didn't give a fuck about it, as just drank the alcohol as he pleased.

Irene would be proud of them, it has been like thirty minutes since Byeol spotted Baekhyun, and not even once, they yelled at each other. However, they didn't tolerate each other's presence yet, they simply learned to ignore the existence of the other party, pretending they didn't stand close to one another.

"That was fun," Baekhyun spoke casually when the sommelier finished the presentation of the very last wine of the evening. "I may end up buying one, which one did you like the best?" He inquired, a whole more chatty than before, probably because of all the alcohol he had drunk. Admittedly, Baekhyun wasn't wasted, not even tipsy; he was just friendlier and nicer. However, Byeol was not; she hated him as passionately as an hour ago.

"I actually prefer red wine," she answered with a nonchalant shrug, hoping that Baekhyun would walk away and leave her alone. "And you're not supposed to drink it, you know. You just taste it on your tongue and spit."

"Oh, I know that." Baekhyun admitted quickly, flashing her one of his mischievous smirks. "However, I looked up how expensive these wines actually are, the last one we tasted costs like my monthly salary per bottle. How crazy is that?"

"But it was the worst one! The second the smell of the herbs hit my nose, I thought I was going to throw up."

"It wasn't that bad, back in college, I drank worse." Baekhyun confessed, and Byeol laughed, wondering what kind of poison he must've drunk as an adolescent that it was actually worse than the wine which taste still lingered in her mouth. "And a question a bit off the topic, do you think you can give me a ride back to the resort? From my thorough observation, I can say that I've been ditched. I came here with Sehun's investors, and I believe they left me behind."

"Sorry, Baekhyun, it's nothing personal, but I don't give free rides to my enemies," Byeol answered wittily and spun on her heels, wanting to retreat to her vehicle. She barely managed through the wine tasting, she wouldn't survive the long ass ride to the resort with him.

"How is that not personal?" Baekhyun asked, as he grabbed her by the wrist, so she wouldn't walk away from him. "I admit, I made out with that girl at the wedding just right after we hit it off, but if it's the only thing you hate me for, get fucking over it. Don't blow the whole thing out of proportion, we weren't in a relationship or anything for fuck's sake."

Abruptly yanking her hand out of his grasp, she looked him into his eyes, "don't flatter yourself, Baekhyun. I am a reasonable woman, I got over it as soon as I walked away from you, but it doesn't automatically think I like you, okay? You may be attractive in my eyes, but I know what kind of an asshole you are. And sorry for not wanting to be associated with you in any form, so if you excuse me, I'd like to return to the resort."

"You can't leave me here!"

"Oh really? Watch me."

Heaving a sign, Baekhyun bit his lip, trying to come up a way to convince her.

"Come on, let's just bury the hatchet! You'll give me a ride, and I'll treat you to a round of drinks," Baekhyun yelled, but Byeol didn't even turn her head, not even the slightest tempted by his proposition.

A woman completely ignoring him like that? It's a first. Normally, he was the one who pushed women away, and right now, when roles were reversed, he hated the feeling.

"Come on, don't be like this, it's just a ride." Baekhyun continued, yet Byeol just got into her car, not sparing him a single glance.

Her key was in the ignition, her seat belt fastened. If Baekhyun thought that she was just teasing him, pushing his limits to see how far he was going to try, it no longer was the case. He had to do something before she actually leaves him behind.

Maybe it was pathetic for him to stand in front of the car, refusing to move aside, yet he couldn't come up with anything smarter. With his hands pressed against the car's hood, he smiled at her, wishing for her mercy.

"Move!" Byeol shouted, waving her hands from side to side, whereas Baekhyun smiled at her like a fool. Having rolled down the window, Byeol yelled, "move aside or I'll run you over." Baekhyun, however, didn't move an inch, his smile only growing wider. "I'm serious."

"Byeol, think it through, you can't leave me here." Baekhyun replied, but Byeol only pressed her lips in a thin line, sighing.

Baekhyun was wrong; she could leave him there in a heartbeat. If that was what Byeol wanted, she could be a bitch, and frankly, Baekhyun had never given her a reason not to. She didn't owe him anything, and her abandoning him would be fully justified. However, on the other hand, she'd lower herself to his level, and she didn't want to be like him, to be like the person she despised so passionately.

"Ugh, fine," she stated, and Baekhyun clapped his hands in victory; no one, even the she-devil herself, couldn't resist his charm. Perhaps, his technique was a bit rusty, but it worked, so he didn't have to worry about that. Not that he cared, but he still could have any girl he wished.

Not even ten minutes into the ride, he couldn't stand the silence. Naturally, Baekhyun was pretty chatty, and even if it was Byeol sitting beside him, he felt an urge to maintain a conversation.

"Do you think we should swap numbers? Lately, we bump into each other quite often, don't we?"

"I don't think it's necessary, Byun." Byeol quickly said, her gaze focused on the road. "We do happen to bump into each other, but I think we've already used the lifespan limit of it."

"We surely have if you keep driving like that." Baekhyun snickered, and Byeol tried her best to remain her composed expression. She had got her driving license not even a month ago, and she hated being criticized. Everyone had been inexperienced at some point, and Byeol genuinely doubted that Baekhyun had been on a professional driver level since the very beginning. "You'll get the both of us killed."

"Well... excuse you," she roared, her hands clutching the steering wheel, as she tried to tame her anger. "If you're really going to complain about my driving, you can remove your ass out of my car. I won't mind, I promise."

"As a matter of fact, I'm quite comfy here," Baekhyun replied, lying back in the seat. Sighing, he looked through the window, as he wondered how long he had to spend with her. "Thank you so much for your concern."

"No problem, Baekhyun." Byeol said in a kind, artificial tone, "but if you happen to change your mind, don't hesitate to tell me."

"I actually doubt it, but okay, I will," Baekhyun stated, even though when he knew he wasn't going to use it; it was obvious that Byeol was an inexperienced driver, but he didn't think she could drive worse than she already had.

"Really, Baekhyun, I'll gladly pull over if you want," Byeol added with a smirk upon her face, a part of her still hoped that he'll comply with her proposition.

"There's no need, really," Baekhyun assured her, grinning at her, his smile looking so artificial that it might as well be pinned to his mouth. However, it was quite short-lived, his smile bit by bit fading away, as the vehicle began slowing down until it completely stopped.

"No, not again," Byeol whined, and clenched her fists, hitting the steering wheel in irritation.

"What's going on?" Baekhyun asked in worry, although he was more concerned about himself than he was about her. Who knew how long they could manage without biting each other's heads off? Byeol's forehead was pressed against the steering wheel, as she almost cried in annoyance.

Stupid!

How could she forget about it!

Again!

"We won't drive anywhere further." Byeol announced in a quiet voice, already psyching up for the long delay with Baekhyun. Hopefully, if they ignored each other, they would manage to wait for the road assistance.

"Do you know how to fix it?"

"Of course," Byeol answered with a wide smile, "you need to put more gas in it," she finished, and Baekhyun almost facepalmed himself at her stupidity.

"You got to be kidding me," he yelled, shaking his head in disbelief, how could she forget to refuel her car? How was it even possible? "Fuck," he groaned, as he undid his seat belt and got out of the car, as sitting beside her became too suffocating to handle.

"Don't overreact, it could be worse," Byeol replied, as she exited the vehicle and leaned against the car's hood next to Baekhyun. "It could be raining, or we could have no service, or have our phones dead. Look at the bright side, the road service is gonna get us in no time."

"Yeah, right," having crossed his arms over his chest, Baekhyun heaved a sigh, as he looked at Byeol. "I'm so lucky," Baekhyun gritted through clenched teeth.

"Just help me a little, let's not make it longer than necessary, okay?"

Baekhyun had to agree with her, he was losing his patience with her, and he'd be so much grateful if he could get rid of her. Quickly, Baekhyun tracked their location on his phone, and Byeol called for a tow truck. Hopefully, the rescue would come soon.

"The first date didn't go as planned, I assume," the man who came to pick them up spoke, as he glanced at Baekhyun, and then at Byeol. Both of them had their arms crossed over their chests, their noses up, their backs turned backwards to each other. They really looked like a couple who refused to talk out their problem regardless of what was the root of it.

"No," Byeol and Baekhyun growled in unison, and the man, who didn't want to get between the two of them, just let out a sigh, shaking his head. It was none of his business what had happened to the pair, and frankly, he wasn't even curious. For his own peace of mind, he'd just shut up and never let another comment leave his mouth.

"Not even if he was the last man on this planet," Byeol commented, and Baekhyun turned his head to look at her. How dared she? True, he had flaws, but how, on Earth, could she say that? She was no better. Baekhyun had made out with another woman when he had tried to score Byeol, but she wasn't innocent, either. She had embarrassed him in front of the guests!

"Excuse you?" Baekhyun asked, trying not to sound offended. However, he was offended, and Byeol could see it without looking. His tone was drenched with irritation. "Trust me, this last man," he pointed his forefinger at himself, "would never choose you, either."

"Okay, we're ready to go," the man said with a sheepish smile, hoping he wouldn't have to listen to their quarrel any longer. He suspected he heard maybe a one fifth of their argument, and still, he had enough of it.

Wordlessly, Baekhyun and Byeol glanced at each other, as they got into the vehicle, praying that they would be towed back to the resort in a record time.

"You know, if you apologised to me and got over the fact I made out with that girl, we could be friends." Baekhyun started casually, as he stared through the window.

"What?" Byeol snapped, immediately turning her face to look at him. He couldn't be in his right mind to say that! If anything, it should be the other way around! She would never apologise to him, everything was his fault. If he hadn't behaved like a complete idiot, she wouldn't have poured her drink on his head. His asshole behavior had made her do it, and she didn't regret it. He deserved it.

"What what? I'm speaking the truth here," Baekhyun carried on with a nonchalant shrug.

"It's not gonna happen," Byeol stated stubbornly, as she looked away. His face was good-looking, but the more she stared at him, the more it annoyed her. "Not now, not ever. Besides, it should be you apologising."

"Me?"

"Yes, you. So go ahead and do it. Just like you said, we could be friends."

"I've never pegged you to be so funny." Baekhyun retorted, and Byeol fought the urge to punch him. Masterfully, he was getting under her skin, and she seriously was sick and tired of him. "You're full of surprises, Byeol."

"Wish I could the same about you, Baekhyun."

"Something tells me that I'll have multiple chances to prove you wrong."

"Hopefully not," Byeol replied bitterly, hating the prospect of seeing him again.

"Anyway, I'm definitely down for a round of drinks once we get back. Feel free to join me, I still owe you, don't I?" Baekhyun reminded, and Byeol wondered whether she should agree. She seriously needed alcohol in her system, yet it was beyond obvious that Baekhyun wasn't the best candidate to get drunk with.

"No thanks, I'll pass," she rejected his offer with a polite smile. "And forget about the ride, you don't owe me anything."

[couldnt-think-of-a-funny-name]

Jason He's made out to be the new, better Percy . He is also a massive Gary Stu in my opinion. Leo He's really rude to Frank. I know they got over it but still also he acted like it was all Percy's fault Calypso was on the island even though Percy tried to help. Piper She had so much potential but whenever anyone talks about her being Aphrodite's best daughter or whatever I'm like 'Do you remember SELINA??!!) also she has a huge I'm not like other Girls complex and is kinda obsessed with Jason.

We have REALLY different views on them so I’m gonna see how well I can articulate My Analysis Of My Children okay let’s go:

Jason…I think the point was that he’s perceived as a ‘Gary Stu’, ‘better Percy’ type guy when that’s actually not the reality of who he is? Like, his whole life everyone’s always been “Your father is the king of the gods! You should lead us!” and so he’s had to get used to this role, he’s had to create this character to make people feel like they’re in good hands…but he hates it. He hates being the leader and being in power, but up until the 7 meet up that’s the only thing he really knows. He never really had a chance to discover himself outside of this role shoved onto him. At first, he doesn’t really know who he is other than ‘Jupiter’s Son’.

He can’t help that everyone has high expectations for him, and he’s a people pleaser so he’s going to do his damndest to meet those expectations, but like? We saw how stressed out he was leading the quest in HoH. He was barely sleeping and practically pulling his hair out, pushing himself to fix everything and make sure everyone was okay while ignoring his own problems. That’s what Jason must’ve been like when he was leading the legion- everyone remembers him as a strong and regal leader, because that’s the expectation, that’s what they want him to be, and he came damn well put on a good performance when he needs to, but 24/7 while he’s living in closed quarters with people? Yeah, no. He wanted Percy and Annabeth back so he could stop having pretending he knew what he was doing (and because he was worried about them obviously). 

The thing is, once you strip away “Son of Jupiter”…Jason doesn’t really meet any of the expectations placed on him. Over the course of the series he starts worrying about that less and less, he loosens up and actually starts to find out who he is other than what people want…He doesn’t match up to the image:

He’s not actually the strongest demigod out there- he’s a very well trained fighter, sure, but like…We’ve seen Thalia shoot out massive amounts of lightning like it’s no one’s business without breaking a sweat. Jason has to actually ask for a helpful bolt and the effort almost knocks him out. His talents lie with the winds, which…I don’t think ‘wind’ comes to anyone’s minds immediately when talking about Jupiter. And it’s also not a power that, at face value, seems super helpful. But Jason manages to cultivate it and makes it powerful enough to stall Gaea. 

He’s not strong and regal, he’s excitable and dorky. He gets so sucked in to reading some book he found interesting that he walks into a tree. He bounces and hugs people when he gets happy. He can’t keep his glasses on straight and looses them on top of his head. He loves talking about history. He got so distracted by how pretty his girlfriend is that he forgot what he was talking about. He got shish kabob-ed and his immediate reaction was “I finally managed to stay conscious for an entire fight”. He was trying to talk a goddess out of killing his friend and the first thing to come to mind is “I’ll get Olympus to make an action figure of you!”. This kid is a LOSER.

He’s not a stoic ruler, he worries about every single person under his command. Individually. He doesn’t lead troops like, well, troops- he leads them like teammates. He’s greatly affected when the people working with him are upset, and he’s very perceptive about their feelings. His constantly checking in on Nico after the Cupid scene, his understanding of Piper’s issues in TLH, his belief in Frank, his worrying about Percy and Annabeth…this boy knew Leo was upset simply by looking at his DRINK ORDER, and then even though Leo offered up no real information, it took him like under five minutes of just observing him to know Leo was heartbroken. 

There’s so many other points but like…Jason’s story was about a boy born with crazy expectations shedding those and growing into his own person while still maintaining the sense of duty he had to the people he cared about. He had an entire identity crisis for this very reason. Camp Jupiter was his home, but Camp Half Blood is where he found himself. He loved both places and by the end of the story he came out with a strong and comfortable sense of self. He came out of it with a new path and set of expectations that he decided for himself. He went through trials and dealt with his emotions and found peace with himself and his role in the world. I think it was a very compelling plotline and not ‘gary stu’ like at all. 

Leo…We really have to take into account that Leo’s always assumed the role of ‘the jokester’. Despite the fact he’s a genius, Leo doesn’t actually see himself as talented and the environment he grew up in absolutely shapes that. He said himself in TLH- being the funny guy kept him safe most of the time. He didn’t feel he had much else to offer, and no one around him believed he did either, people only kept him around for jokes. I think what happened with Frank was like…his default setting. That sounds bad (and it is) but it really does need to be taken into consideration- we know Leo’s only been in, like, exclusively bad environments before the events of the series. Anyone who just kept him around for a laugh probably didn’t wanna hear knock knock jokes about engineers. His best bet for not getting in trouble or abandoned would be to rag on someone who was an easier target than him. Leo knows he can trust Jason and Piper, and he’s scared of Annabeth but is mostly sure she won’t kill him…but then he gets possessed and blows up half of New Rome. Everyone’s mad at him. Including the three new people he knows absolutely nothing about but all look like they could eat his tiny scrawny ass for a snack. I feel like it’s not a stretch to say he felt an old urge to protect himself kick in, to make sure he fits into this group because what the hell is he gonna do if he doesn’t? The fact that Frank was already annoyed with him for looking like Sammy didn’t exactly help their dynamic…Like, I’m just saying, I think he really stepped it up on the Frank jokes because of his ‘seventh wheel’ complex. He’s used to using comedy to make himself valuable to people. He knows he has to be on this quest no matter what, but that doesn’t mean people have to want him there, you know? He wants to be wanted. That’s Leo’s whole thing? He already built the entire boat but they’re mad at him for things out of his control. He feels like he’s gotta do something else to be relevant to the group so he just…slides into his old defense mechanism and as he’d be used to, it’s easiest to go for the easiest target. Who is Frank. And the whole weird Sammy and Hazel situation definitely exacerbated the whole thing. And it wasn’t fair to Frank, absolutely, which Leo himself eventually realizes and knocks it off. But I just think it’s not fair to say “Leo’s doing this because he’s a dick”. Like, people are often more complicated than that. 

As for the Calypso situation…Listen, I think Percy feeling guilt for Calypso still being on her island made no sense and someone needs to assure him that that’s not his fault. However, Calypso didn’t know that. Calypso didn’t have all the facts. She had every right to be upset with Percy. It was going to be awkward with Leo and Percy anyway, because like, oh hey dude while you were in hell I made out with your ex and she loves me now. But like…I don’t think it was wrong for Leo to be upset on Calypso’s behalf? The girl he’s crazy about is trapped on an island because Jackson couldn’t be bothered to check on her! (Which is of course NOT THE CASE but that’s Calypso’s view on the matter, that’s what she told Leo). I’m just saying like, he’s relatively new to relationships and he heard a biased explanation of the situation…It makes sense that he’d side with her? 

The thing we need to remember is…Leo and Calypso both have abandonment issues. And from Leo’s understanding, he’s sharing a boat with the guy that had Severely Hurt the girl he now loves. (And if she HADN’T been so hurt when they met, they might’ve had more time as a couple before he had to plunge back into the unknown) Looking at his actions and thoughts from an outside, biased viewpoint might make him look awful and crazy but…From his specific point of view, it makes sense. And Percy was able to see that, which is why they were able to talk it all out. I just think it’s a real shame that Leo Valdez is this complex, compelling character, but people only remember him for fighting with Frank and being crazy about Calypso. It’s reducing him. He had a lot more going on and was a very believable character with easily explainable traits and actions. 

Piper…Was one of Aphrodite’s best children, though? She had the most powerful charmspeak in generations. Like, that’s canon. Silena was a great character and a great cabin head, but she had no powers and was a relatively weak fighter. I love her as much as the next, but that’s just canonical fact. Her strongest asset was her heart and loyalty, which were used against her, and she died trying to make things right. She wouldn’t have made it on the Prophecy of the Seven quest. She wouldn’t. But Piper was a powerful charmspeak, was immensely brave, and constantly worked at being a better fighter (which, again, in canon, the Aphrodite kids are not the best fighters). By the time the series ends she’s a wickedly skilled swordsmen, is the only one who can work the cornucopia because of her inner strength and giving nature, has a dagger that can see the future, always knows how people around her are feeling, completely dominated a literal temple of fear and terror, and was powerful enough to order the literal planet earth to sleep. Piper is strong and brave and she’s constantly working on bettering herself. She was able to not only see the other side of Aphrodite, but to fight for it to be what everyone sees. She changes people’s perception of the cabin and the goddess herself. She did have a ‘not-like-other-girls’ complex when we first met her, but she was a bullied kid who grew up around rich white teens in Hollywood. But it’s a complex she catches in herself and grows out of- she stops trying to be #edgy and lets herself be comfortable in her skin, grows her hair out and wears a little makeup and puts thought into her outfits- but she also stops judging other people. She learns to see the beauty in everyone she meets. She redefines her outlook. That’s admirable, in my opinion. 

As for ‘obsessed with Jason’, I mean…it really just kinda reads, personally anyway, as “I’m A Teenage Girl And I Think My Significant Other Is Just The Coolest Thing Since Sliced Bread”…? Like? He’s her boyfriend, she’s fifteen. He’s cute and cool and a dork all at the same time. She goes from ‘mega crush heart eyes’ mode to actually falling in love with him, that’s not an obsession, that’s like…a natural progression of feelings. She’s always had her own storylines and she’s fully able to focus on things that aren’t Jason. But of course she thinks about him, he’s important to her? They’re a good match, they’re usually on similar wavelengths, and they work well together. She doesn’t think about him more than Annabeth and Percy think about each other. Piper shouldn’t be reduced to a fangirl just because she occasionally thinks to herself “Damn my boyfriend is hot”. She’s a very relatable and impressive character that deserves more than that. 

I really hope this doesn’t end up being like, a ramble, and that I actually properly articulated how I see the characters, but like…yeah. I do love this trio. 

[sheminecrafts]

Twitter’s political ads ban is a distraction from the real problem with platforms

Sometimes it feels as if Internet platforms are turning everything upside down, from politics to publishing, culture to commerce, and of course swapping truth for lies.

This week’s bizarro reversal was the vista of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, a tech CEO famed for being entirely behind the moral curve of understanding what his product is platforming (i.e. nazis), providing an impromptu ‘tweet storm’ in political speech ethics.

Actually he was schooling Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg — another techbro renowned for his special disconnect with the real world, despite running a massive free propaganda empire with vast power to influence other people’s lives — in taking a stand for the good of democracy and society.

So not exactly a full reverse then.

In short, Twitter has said it will no longer accept political ads, period.

A final note. This isn’t about free expression. This is about paying for reach. And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle. It’s worth stepping back in order to address.

— jack

(@jack) October 30, 2019

Whereas Facebook recently announced it will no longer fact-check political ads. Aka: Lies are fine, so long as you’re paying Facebook to spread them.

You could argue there’s a certain surface clarity to Facebook’s position — i.e. it sums to ‘when it comes to politics we just won’t have any ethics’. Presumably with the hoped for sequitur being ‘so you can’t accuse us of bias’.

Though that’s actually a non sequitur; by not applying any ethical standards around political campaigns Facebook is providing succour to those with the least ethics and the basest standards. So its position does actually favor the ‘truth-lite’, to put it politely. (You can decide which political side that might advantage.)

Twitter’s position also has surface clarity: A total ban! Political and issue ads both into the delete bin. But as my colleague Devin Coldewey quickly pointed out it’s likely to get rather more fuzzy around the edges as the company comes to defining exactly what is (and isn’t) a ‘political ad’ — and what its few “exceptions” might be.

Indeed, Twitter’s definitions are already raising eyebrows. For example it has apparently decided climate change is a ‘political issue’ — and will therefore be banning ads about science. While, presumably, remaining open to taking money from big oil to promote their climate-polluting brands… So yeah, messy.

hi – here's our current definition: 1/ Ads that refer to an election or a candidate, or 2/ Ads that advocate for or against legislative issues of national importance (such as: climate change, healthcare, immigration, national security, taxes)

— Vijaya Gadde (@vijaya) October 30, 2019

There will clearly be attempts to stress test and circumvent the lines Twitter is setting. The policy may sound simple but it involves all sorts of judgements that expose the company’s political calculations and leave it open to charges of bias and/or moral failure.

Still, setting rules is — or should be — the easy and adult thing to do when it comes to content standards; enforcement is the real sweating toil for these platforms.

Which is also, presumably, why Facebook has decided to experiment with not having any rules around political ads — in the (forlorn) hope of avoiding being forced into the role of political speech policeman.

If that’s the strategy it’s already looking spectacularly dumb and self-defeating. The company has just set itself up for an ongoing PR nightmare where it is indeed forced to police intentionally policy-provoking ads from its own back-foot — having put itself in the position of ‘wilfully corrupt cop’. Slow hand claps all round.

Albeit, it can at least console itself it’s monetizing its own ethics bypass.

Here is @AOC's full questioning of Mark Zuckerberg.

"Could I run ads targeting Republicans in primaries saying that they voted for the Green New Deal?" pic.twitter.com/VrGQw7UzIW

— Erick Fernandez (@ErickFernandez) October 23, 2019

Twitter’s opposing policy on political ads also isn’t immune from criticism, as we’ve noted.

Indeed, it’s already facing accusations that a total ban is biased against new candidates who start with a lower public profile. Even if the energy of that argument would be better spent advocating for wide-ranging reform of campaign financing, including hard limits on election spending. If you really want to reboot politics by levelling the playing field between candidates that’s how to do it.

Also essential: Regulations capable of enforcing controls on dark money to protect democracies from being bought and cooked from the inside via the invisible seeding of propaganda that misappropriates the reach and data of Internet platforms to pass off lies as populist truth, cloaking them in the shape-shifting blur of microtargeted hyperconnectivity.

Sketchy interests buying cheap influence from data-rich billionaires, free from accountability or democratic scrutiny, is our new warped ‘normal’. But it shouldn’t be.

There’s another issue being papered over here, too. Twitter banning political ads is really a distracting detail when you consider that it’s not a major platform for running political ads anyway.

During the 2018 US midterms the category generated less than $3M for the company.

Since we are getting questions: This decision was based on principle, not money. As context, we’ve disclosed that political ad spend for the 2018 US midterms was <$3M. There is no change to our Q4 guidance. I am proud to work @twitter! #LoveWhereYouWork https://t.co/U9I0o1woev

— Ned Segal (@nedsegal) October 30, 2019

Facebook says Political Ad dollars are less than 0.5% of revenues — based on 2019 consensus revs that is ~$350 million of political ad dollars

Twitter has said Political Ad dollars are less than $3 million, which implies about 0.1% of revs based on 2019 consensus $FB $TWTR pic.twitter.com/hjDgSZxolo

— Rich Greenfield (@RichLightShed) October 30, 2019

And, secondly, anything posted organically as a tweet to Twitter can act as a political call to arms.

Of course in reality the whole of Twitter is a political ad

— Natasha (@riptari) October 30, 2019

It’s these outrageous ‘organic’ tweets where the real political action is on Twitter’s platform. (Hi Trump.)

Including inauthentically ‘organic’ tweets which aren’t a person’s genuinely held opinion but a planted (and often paid for) fake. Call it ‘going native’ advertising; faux tweets intended to pass off lies as truth, inflated and amplified by bot armies (fake accounts) operating in plain sight (often gaming Twitter’s trending topics) as a parallel ‘unofficial’ advertising infrastructure whose mission is to generate attention-grabbing pantomimes of public opinion to try and sway the real thing.

In short: Propaganda.

Who needs to pay to run a political ad on Twitter when you can get a bot network to do the boosterism for you?

Let’s not forget Dorsey is also the tech CEO famed for not applying his platform’s rules of conduct to the tweets of certain high profile politicians. (Er, Trump again, basically.)

So by saying Twitter is banning political ads yet continuing to apply a double standard to world leaders’ tweets — most obviously by allowing the US president to bully, abuse and threaten at will in order to further his populist rightwing political agenda — the company is trying to have its cake and eat it.

More recently Twitter has evolved its policy slightly, saying it will apply some limits on the reach of rule-breaking world leader tweets. But it continues to run two sets of rules.

To Dorsey’s credit he does foreground this tension in his tweet storm — where he writes [emphasis ours]:

Internet political ads present entirely new challenges to civic discourse: machine learning-based optimization of messaging and micro-targeting, unchecked misleading information, and deep fakes. All at increasing velocity, sophistication, and overwhelming scale.

These challenges will affect ALL internet communication, not just political ads. Best to focus our efforts on the root problems, without the additional burden and complexity taking money brings. Trying to fix both means fixing neither well, and harms our credibility.

This is good stuff from Dorsey. Surprisingly good, given his and Twitter’s long years of free speech fundamentalism — when the company gained a reputation for being wilfully blind and deaf to the fact that for free expression to flourish online it needs a protective shield of civic limits. Otherwise ‘freedom to amplify any awful thing’ becomes a speech chiller that disproportionately harms minorities.

Aka freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of reach, as Dorsey now notes.

Even with Twitter making some disappointing choices in how it defines political issues, for the purposes of this ad ban, the contrast with Facebook and Zuckerberg — still twisting and spinning in the same hot air; trying to justify incoherent platform policies that sell out democracy for a binary ideology which his own company can’t even stick to — looks stark.

The timing of Dorsey’s tweet-storm, during Facebook’s earnings call, was clearly intended to make that point.

“Zuckerberg wants us to believe that one must be for or against free speech with no nuance, complexity or cultural specificity, despite running a company that’s drowning in complexity,” writes cultural historian, Siva Vaidhyanathan, confronting Facebook’s moral vacuousness in a recent Guardian article responding to another Zuckerberg ‘manifesto’ on free speech. “He wants our discussions to be as abstract and idealistic as possible. He wants us not to look too closely at Facebook itself.”

Facebook’s position on speech does only stand up in the abstract. Just as its ad-targeting business can only run free of moral outrage in unregulated obscurity, where the baked in biases — algorithmic and user generated — are safely hidden from view so people can’t joins the dots on how they’re being damaged.

We shouldn’t be surprised at how quickly the scandal-prone company is now being called on its ideological BS. We have a savvier political class as a result of the platform-scale disinformation and global data scandals of the past few years. People who have have seen and experienced what Facebook’s policies translate to in real world practice. Like compromised elections and community violence.

British parliament presses Facebook on letting politicians lie in ads

With lawmakers like these turning their attention on platform giants there is a genuine possibility of meaningful regulation coming down the pipe for the antisocial media business.

Not least because Facebook’s self regulation has always been another piece of crisis PR, designed to preempt and steer off the real thing. It’s a cynical attempt to maintain its profitable grip on our attention. The company has never been committed to making the kind of systemic change necessary to fix its toxic speech issues.

The problem is, ultimately, toxicity and division drives engagement, captures attention and makes Facebook a lot of money.

Twitter can claim a little distance from that business model not only because it’s considerably less successful than Facebook at generating money by monopolizing attention, but also because it provides greater leeway for its users to build and follow their own interest networks, free from algorithmic interference (though it does do algorithms too).

It has also been on a self-proclaimed reform path for some time. Most recently saying it wants to be responsible for promoting “conversational health on its platform. No one would say it’s there yet but perhaps we’re finally getting to see some action. Even if banning political ads is mostly a quick PR win for Twitter.

The really hard work continues, though. Namely rooting out bot armies before their malicious propaganda can pollute the public sphere. Twitter hasn’t said it’s close to being able to fix that.

Facebook is also still failing to stem the tide of ‘organic’ politicized fake content on its platform. Fakes that profit at our democratic expense by spreading hate and lies.

For this type of content Facebook offers no searchable archive (as it now does for paid ads which it defines as political) — thereby providing ongoing cover for dark money to do its manipulative hack-job on democracy by free-posting via groups and pages.

Plus, even where Facebook claims to be transparently raising the curtain on paid political influence it’s abjectly failing to do so. Its political ads API is still being blasted by research academics as not fit for purpose. Even as the company policy cranks up pressure on external fact-checkers by giving politicians the green light to run ads that lie.

It has also been accused of applying a biased standard when it comes to weeding out “coordinated inauthentic behavior”, as Facebook euphemistically calls the networks of fake accounts set up to amplify and juice reach — when the propaganda in question is coming from within the US and leans toward the political right.

Just thinking about how 4,000 advertisers stopped paying Breitbart but then Facebook started paying Breitbart.

— Siva Vaidhyanathan

(@sivavaid) October 26, 2019

  Facebook denies this, claiming for example that a network of pages on its platform reported to be exclusively boosting content from US conservative news site, The Daily Wire, are “real pages run by real people in the U.S., and they don’t violate our policies“. (It didn’t offer us any detail on how it reached that conclusion.) 

A company spokesperson also said: “We’re working on more transparency so that in the future people have more information about Pages like these on Facebook.”

So it’s still promising ‘more transparency’ — rather than actually being transparent. And it remains the sole judge interpreting and applying policies that aren’t at all legally binding; so sham regulation then. 

Moreover, while Facebook has at times issued bans on toxic content from certain domestic hate speech preachers’, such as banning some of InfoWars’ Alex Jones’ pages, it’s failed to stop the self-same hate respawning via new pages. Or indeed the same hateful individuals maintaining other accounts on different Facebook-owned social properties. Inconsistency of policy enforcement is Facebook’s DNA.

Set against all that Dorsey’s decision to take a stance against political ads looks positively statesmanlike.

It is also, at a fundamental level, obviously just the right thing to do. Buying a greater share of attention than you’ve earned politically is regressive because it favors those with the deepest pockets. Though of course Twitter’s stance won’t fix the rest of a broken system where money continues to pour in and pollute politics.

We also don’t know the fine-grained detail of how Twitter’s algorithms amplify political speech when it’s packaged in organic tweet form. So whether its algorithmic levers are more likely to be triggered into boosting political tweets that inflame and incite, or those that inform and seek to unite.

As I say, the whole of Twitter’s platform can sum to political advertising. And the company does apply algorithms to surface or suppress tweets based on its proprietary (and commercial) determination of ‘engagement quality’. So its entire business is involved in shaping how visible (or otherwise) tweeted speech is.

That very obviously includes plenty of political speech. Not for nothing is Twitter Trump’s platform of choice.

Nothing about its ban on political ads changes all that. So, as ever, where social media self-regulation is concerned, what we are being given is — at best — just fiddling around the edges.

A cynical eye might say Twitter’s ban is intended to distract attention from more structural problems baked into these attention-harvesting Internet platforms.

The toxic political discourse problem that democracies and societies around the world are being forced to grapple with is as a consequence of how Internet platforms distribute content and shape public discussion. So what’s really key is how these companies use our information to program what we each get to see.

The fact that we’re talking about Twitter’s political ad ban risks distracting from the “root problems” Dorsey referenced in passing. (Though he would probably offer a different definition of their cause. In the tweet storm he just talks about “working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info”.)

Facebook’s public diagnosis of the same problem is always extremely basic and blame-shifting. It just says some humans are bad, ergo some bad stuff will be platformed by Facebook — reflecting the issue back at humanity.

Here’s an alternative take: The core issue underpinning all these problems around how Internet platforms spread toxic propaganda is the underlying fact of taking people’s data in order to manipulate our attention.

This business of microtargeting — or behavioral advertising, as it’s also called — turns everyone into a target for some piece of propaganda or other.

It’s a practice that sucks regardless of whether it’s being done to you by Donald Trump or by Disney. Because it’s asymmetrical. It’s disproportionate. It’s exploitative. And it’s inherently anti-democratic.

It also incentivizes a pervasive, industrial-scale stockpiling of personal data that’s naturally hostile to privacy, terrible for security and gobbles huge amounts of energy and computing resource. So it sucks from an environmental perspective too.

And it does it all for the very basest of purposes. This is platforms selling you out so others can sell you stuff. Be it soap or political opinions.

Zuckerberg’s label of choice for this process — “relevant ads” — is just the slick lie told by a billionaire to grease the pipes that suck out the data required to sell our attention down the river.

Microtargeting is both awful for the individual (meaning creepy ads; loss of privacy; risk of bias and data misuse) and terrible for society for all the same reasons — as well as grave, society-level risks, such as election interference and the undermining of hard-won democratic institutions by hostile forces.

Individual privacy is a common good, akin to public health. Inoculation — against disease or indeed disinformation — helps protect the whole of us from damaging contagion.

To be clear, microtargeting is also not only something that happens when platforms are paid money to target ads. Platforms are doing this all the time; applying a weaponizing layer to customize everything they handle.

It’s how they distribute and program the masses of information users freely upload, creating maximally engaging order out of the daily human chaos they’ve tasked themselves with turning into a compelling and personalized narrative — without paying a massive army of human editors to do the job.

Facebook’s News Feed relies on the same data-driven principles as behavioral ads do to grab and hold attention. As does Twitter’s ‘Top Tweets’ algorithmically ranked view.

This is programmed attention-manipulation at vast scale, repackaged as a ‘social’ service. One which uses what the platforms learn by spying on Internet users as divisive glue to bind our individual attention, even if it means setting some of us against each another.

That’s why you can publish a Facebook post that mentions a particular political issue and — literally within seconds — attract a violently expressed opposing view from a Facebook ‘friend’ you haven’t spoken to in years. The platform can deliver that content ‘gut punch’ because it has a god-like view of everyone via the prism of their data. Data that powers its algorithms to plug content into “relevant” eyeballs, ranked by highest potential for engagement sparks to fly.

It goes without saying that if a real friendship group contained such a game-playing stalker — who had bugged everyone’s phones to snoop and keep tabs on them, and used what they learnt to play friends off against each other — no one would imagine it bringing the group closer together. Yet that’s how Facebook treats its captive eyeballs.

That awkward silence you could hear as certain hard-hitting questions struck Zuckerberg during his most recent turn in the House might just be the penny dropping.

It finally feels as if lawmakers are getting close to an understanding of the real “root problem” embedded in these content-for-data sociotechnical platforms.

Platforms that invite us to gaze into them in order that they can get intimate with us forever — using what they learn from spying to pry further and exploit faster.

So while banning political ads sounds nice it’s just a distraction. What we really need to shatter the black mirror platforms are holding against society, in which they get to view us from all angles while preventing us from seeing what they’re doing, is to bring down a comprehensive privacy screen. No targeting against personal data.

Let them show us content and ads, sure. They can target this stuff contextually based on a few generic pieces of information. They can even ask us to specify if we’d like to see ads about housing today or consumer packaged goods? We can negotiate the rules. Everything else — what we do on or off the platform, who we talk to, what we look at, where we go, what we say — must remain strictly off limits.

from iraidajzsmmwtv https://ift.tt/33aywgy via IFTTT

[deborahdeshoftim5779]

Responses to “The Marvel of Trelsi Part XI”

Response to this post by BoltonEvans here: 

“The biggest issue with Troyella honestly isn’t just that their relationship is unequal, which would be an indictment in and of itself, but that it’s unhealthy. When we break it down to brass tax; Troy’s future isn’t as important as his and Gabriella’s relationship, but Gabriella’s future is more important than their relationship. Gabriella is always right, and Troy is always wrong. Gabriella is entirely above reproach. Troy’s every action is open to criticism and rebuking. Gabriella sees fit to punish and scold Troy when he fails to meet her ludicrously high expectations, but Troy can’t so much as question Gabriella’s failings and shortcomings as a partner without receiving an icy look from Gabriella, herself, and the justification that Gabriella “always” does “the right thing”, and is “one step ahead, as usual”. When Troy confides his concerns about his future and his insecurities in Gabriella, Gabriella scarcely pays his words any mind before bringing up her own (comparatively less serious) problems, as if she needs to one up her boyfriend. Gabriella can toy with Troy’s feelings and ultimately determine that he isn’t worth fighting for, while Troy scrambles to do everything in his power to keep Gabriella content and at his side.”

Great points. I agree. 

“Yet, it’s Troy the characters in these films, and, consequently, the fandom, see fit to demonize and write off as “not good enough for Gabriella”.

The fandom’s vindictive cruelty towards Troy beggars belief time after time. I conclude that they were watching a different version of the film. 

“Ryan was originally conceived as having a crush on Gabriella, in High School Musical 2. Which, definitely was a byproduct of writer’s bias- two male leads lusting after the same girl? Yeah. Extreme bias. Anyway, in both the junior novel adaptation of the second film (which was based on an earlier draft of the script), and a deleted scene, Ryan attempts to flirt with Gabriella in an outrageously uncomfortable manner by mentioning the previous lifeguard at Lava Springs having awful back hair; implying that Gabriella is far easier on the eyes. This concept, however, seems to have been by and large abandoned in the final cut of the film. Instead, several lines of dialogue, as well as Lucas Grabeel’s performance, indicate Ryan having a preference for the Troy half of Troyella.”

I see no avenue for Ryan having feelings for Gabriella. And I don’t like to imagine what an “earlier draft of the script” would look like, given the final product. What I see in this scene is Ryan walking into a trap with his naiive eyes open, and then Gabriella leaving him to take the flack. He thought Gabriella was being friendly, thought her compliments were genuine, and it turned out that she was a stage prop in a plan to humiliate someone he had no intention to hurt. It’s a disgusting scene, because if you wiped Gabriella out of the picture, clearly the two of them (Troy and Ryan) could have had a nice chat. 

Personally, I don’t think Ryan had a more than platonic interest in Troy, but I do think he got on better with Troy than with Gabriella. He also admires Troy, because Troy has what he longs for: recognition and popularity on his own account. I suppose it is easy to interpret that admiration as being more than platonic. That said, he approached Zeke with a compliment long before approaching Troy. (Not to mention that scene in HSM III “I Want It All” and at graduation between them). Anyway, he does not admire Gabriella, apart from being impressed with her academic abilities. Ryan may also be grateful to Troy, who signed his yearbook-- almost everyone else ignored him when he tried to sign theirs, which gives the impression that very few people signed his. 

Ryan eagerly and without any hesitation declares Troy as having the “category” of East High School’s Absolute Primo Boy “pretty much locked up, don’t you think?”, a large grin playing across his face...

Sharpay asked him a very silly question, which he appears to have taken literally. His tone is sort of “Come on, Shar, you already know the answer to that!” It strikes me that he is very much used to hearing about how much his sister wants Troy, and silently amused that Troy so clearly does not reciprocate those feelings. Ryan’s later annoyance, resentment and eventual anger with Sharpay for using Troy as a tool to replace him tends to make me feel that he would be favourable to Gabriella’s place in Troy’s life because it means Sharpay doesn’t get her way for once. If Troy is unattainable, then he’s not going to be kicked aside. Ryan is a very practical guy. He looks out for Numero Uno. In HSM III, he does not mention that Troy would not like to perform with Sharpay, but that Sharpay can’t fulfil Gabriella’s role: “You... are not Gabriella.” In HSM II, he pretended that Sharpay was “East High’s Primo Girl”, whilst clearly believing it to be Gabriella, hence that funny stare round the corner.

His mood quickly sours, however, when Sharpay begins daydreaming about herself and Troy, leading to Ryan having to take a minute to compose himself before exiting the school building on Sharpay’s heels. 

Actually, he kind of gave her a “get real” look there, by snapping his fingers. I imagine that Ryan is always having to compose himself around Sharpay, given her high drama capacity, and her always roping him into her schemes.  

“...takes issue with Troy potentially performing in the Lava Springs talent show only on the grounds that he doesn’t want to see Troy sing with Gabriella, stands off to the side, beaming, as Troy is introduced to Mrs. Evans...”

I personally think that Ryan didn’t want Troy and Gabriella upstaging him and Sharpay: “What about our song?”. Ryan never actually stated that he wished to see Troy perform in the Lava Springs Talent Show; he even went so far as to tell Sharpay that Kelsi had written a song for him and Gabriella, calling it “a problem”. “Now it’s an amazing song, but Kelsi didn’t write it for us.”-- “us” being him and Sharpay. Along with his incredibly sarcastic behaviour at dinner (which was hilarious), it doesn’t look to me like he appreciates what appears to be yet another dinnertime with him being shunted into the corner, whilst all the focus is on Sharpay, and this time, Troy. His anger when Sharpay announced that she’d be performing in Troy was based on him feeling betrayed by her, and the waste of his beloved “Tiki Warrior Outfit”, not to mention the time and effort he poured into rehearsing a song that he clearly enjoyed-- not least because he got to be the Handsome Prince. His annoyance with Troy at the end of Humuhumu was both hilarious and telling; even though Troy did nothing wrong, he snatched the necklace thing from him and stalked off. :D When Sharpay confirms his worst fears, that he has been replaced, he snaps. Later on, he sarcastically tells Sharpay, “But you and Troy have a good show, sis.” Back in HSM I, he was worried that Troy and Gabriella, referred to as “they”, sounded good-- worried and impressed, rather. When Sharpay ranted against the injustice of Gabriella signing up for the Talent Show, Ryan just pretended to agree with her. He also eventually became good-natured when he saw that Troy and Gabriella performed “Breaking Free” so well. So I don’t think that he was jealous of Troy and Gabriella, but resentful of how Sharpay used Troy as a replacement for him, thus making him feel replaceable. I think that when he was upset about the “Troy and Gabriella” show, he was referring to their popularity and how that would mean no attention for him. We already know that he secretly longed to win the Star Dazzle Award. Ryan seems to me to be incredibly practical. 

I’ve seen the scene where Troy is introduced to Mrs. Evans, and he’s pulling that same face the entire time at everyone, which must take some muscle effort. :D

then, not subtly at all gives Troy’s behind a once over as he passes by.

Maybe it’s just me, but his cap is too far down for me to see anything. It looks to me as though they’re all just getting out of the way. Ryan keeps pulling that face for the entire scene, and sometimes doesn’t even look interested in what’s going on, because almost everyone gradually forgets that he’s even there (as usual). 

The binoculars scene was funny. Ryan looks to me like he’s watching a very good film. However, he is only there because Sharpay forced him to be: later, when Sharpay yells at him to “keep an eye on those Wildcats”, he has snapped and stalks off. I would be more convinced if he decided to keep watch of his own accord. Besides, since his parents own the club, there’s not much for Ryan to do from day to day. So why not spy? :D 

“This is veering into headcanon territory, but… if you factor in the lyrics to “Everyday”, lyrics that Ryan and not Kelsi penned, lyrics that describe both feelings the speaker believes they have only one chance to act on, and Troy’s internal conflict over the course of this film… Ryan likely came to the conclusion that he had blown his one “chance” with Troy.”

Because I hardly ever watch this scene, too pissed off with movie events to stomach the sweet reunion part, I don’t know what the lyrics are. This is a plausible interpretation. But if this song is so important and personal to Ryan, then why doesn’t Ryan, who can play the piano, teach Troy the song? If they’d had that scene together, that would have definitely had more potential for romantic interpretation. 

Obviously, I’m biased, but I just don’t see anyone having the same dynamic as Troy and Kelsi; and Troy is almost completely dependent upon Kelsi to perform “Everyday”, from what I remember-- at least until Gabriella appears. She’s the one giving him the moral support throughout there. I don’t feel that he and Ryan had that unspoken understanding through music that was shown between him and Kelsi. 

What I’d like to know is who taught Gabriella the song. Neither Ryan nor Kelsi are shown to know her that well. Ryan hands Troy the new score and then when Troy confronts Sharpay, Ryan dashes off, whilst Troy is off to rehearse with Kelsi (who manages to teach him an entire song within an hour or so). Where does Ryan dash off to? Is he going to fetch Gabriella? Is he therefore the one who preps Gabriella? So many unanswered questions. 

“Ryan never attempts to approach Troy throughout the rest of this movie, even while orchestrating a scheme to reunite Troy with Gabriella (something Gabriella obviously didn’t want, as she was the one who terminated their relationship) and get him performing in the talent show for the boosters from U of A with a song actually in his range, and a partner he’s comfortable with. It is Troy who seeks Ryan out.”

Ryan helping to orchestrate a reunion between Troy and Gabriella is definitely significant and a very decent thing to do. I think it was a completely naiive idea, but his heart was in the right place.

“And, Ryan’s faces during that sequence say it all. He thought Troy would never have anything to do with him, again, but…. here Troy is, right in front of him, saying his name, apologizing to him, and offering his hand in friendship.”

Yes, I like that scene. Ryan does act as though he is meeting a celebrity. Again, I can see how this might be seen as more than platonic. 

“He can hardly believe it. But, he’s certainly not going to refuse it. He even attempts to ameliorate Troy’s (completely unwarranted) guilt over the talent show by assuring him, “Hey, truth is… we’ve all had a lot of fun. At least I have.”

I approve of Ryan not taking an apology that was never warranted in the first place. 

“I could go on, incorporating graphics from the third movie and break downs of the context of them to illustrate further proof that Ryan has decidedly not platonic feelings for Troy, but I’m sure you’ve got the gist, by now. (And, I don’t want to detract from the point of this analysis, which is intended to be a celebration of Troy/Kelsi, not my preferred ship.) With this knowledge in hand, Ryan’s silence in regards to Troy and Gabriella’s relationship is suddenly painted in a new light.”

I’m happy to discuss all ships. I base ships on their plausibility and level of interest, and though I don’t ship Troy and Ryan, this is quite obviously a superior pairing to Chyan (implausible), Ryella (nonsensical) and Ryelsi (implausible, nonsensical and offensive). All of those three have next to NO evidence in their favour-- I don’t care about “I Don’t Dance”, because it’s a waste of minutes. 

I think Ryan holds Troy in high esteem and they become very good friends, which I think is a positive thing. 

It would certainly be a very interesting headcanon for Ryan (who deserves a more prominent role in some capacity), and one with more proof than for the central couple. But again, I’m biased: for me, Troy and Kelsi are unique (the “Playmakers” *squee* :D) and extremely well-suited for each other, as well as being reliant upon and devoted to each other’s success. They both have something that they need and value in each other that is, to me, a lot deeper than with Troy’s other relationships with other characters. Which is what I’m babbling about in this series, LOL! 

However, I do agree that there are a lot of unappreciated dynamics in the movie series, that deserved far more attention than Troyella.  

“As of the end of High School Musical 2, Ryan and Troy are friends. This is not up for debate. This is a fact supported by their interactions in High School Musical 3: Senior Year. Ignoring the transparent Pro-Gabriella/Troyella bias the entire narrative of that film is steeped in, Ryan has likely come to terms with the fact that Gabriella is the one Troy’s heart is set on. He doesn’t necessarily like it...”

To be honest, I don’t think he looks unhappy there at all; everyone behind those doors looks wistful and impressed at the performance. They always seem to me to be in the middle of a daydream. (Which they are, because this performance is in no way a reflection of Troyella’s actual relationship). Besides, we can’t actually see the bottom half of Ryan’s face in that pic, LOL! I’d certainly like Ryan to be unhappy with Gabriella, but then his later victory air pump during the final Musical performance would contradict that. He doesn’t even look unhappy when Troy shows up halfway through the musical with Gabriella on his arm, and even helps give them another chance! I wish he hadn’t, because Troy should have turned up on his cue, and Gabriella should have fucked off back to California, since she had no intention of performing, but there you go. 

- but he keeps his opinions and personal feelings to himself and tries to support whatever makes Troy happy.

I’d like to see more information about Ryan’s feelings on anything, let alone Troyella. He gets almost no airtime when it’s not convenient. 

With that said, I doubt he’d manage to hold his tongue if he knew the full details of the prom debacle.

Again, I’m hesitant on deciding how he’d react, because I don’t know enough about his feelings, overall. 

I’m really looking forward to further analysis of Kelsi. You do such an excellent job breaking her character down and exploring what makes her tick. It’s given me a renewed appreciation for her. Keep up the amazing work! You’re fighting the good fight. ^___^

Thanks! Kelsi is a marvellous character, who just isn’t appreciated enough in the fandom, so really, she just gives me the material to explore. 

Thanks for the responses!

[airlock]

there’s been a lot of interesting discussion about Fire Emblem on my dash today! this...... isn’t really it, but hey, if you enjoy my ridiculous AU roster/mechanics tinkering, this one might be the most ambitious of them yet!

see, I was thinking about whether I could pull off making a fairly typical FE character distribution using the characters that got the most attention in the Heroes poll (proportionally, of course, otherwise that’d just entail making the Awakening roster again), and the results may or may not shock you

(fair warning: this is very rambly)

so, first of all, ground rules:

I am using the names from the poll and am not interested in namewank to go with this more general wank

I’m working off a class tree I designed during my first attempt at this and only tinkered with slightly; it’s rather bulky and I won’t bother putting up with this post, but I’ll be delving further into the mechanics of this whole mess (whether still through posts or just by sending shit directly to what few people might be interested), and that’ll be when showing that tree off becomes more relevant

I have only used playable characters for this; no NPCs and no antagonists, not even the ones who are popular enough to rub shoulders with the heroes. those breakout antagonists are sure to be organized into the hypothetical opposition you’d be up against, however...

all eight series (Akaneia, Valentia, Jugdral, Elibe, Magvel, Tellius, Ylisse, Fates) have been included in this exercise, but a little bit of extra weight was taken from the ones with the least characters (Valentia, Magvel, Ylisse) and given to the ones with the most characters (Jugdral, Elibe) -- this isn’t me being biased, it’s me understanding that trying to use the same cast size for all series makes everything too loose for the series with smaller casts and too tight for the series with bigger casts. incidentally, if you happened to notice that I’ve taken from more continuities than I’ve given, it just so happens that the last missing tidbits have gone towards...... certain special guests who aren’t bound by continuity, to say the least.

I’ve also tried somewhat, but not entirely, to give roughly equal to representation to all titles within a series. this implies different things in different series -- Jugdral and Elibe have drastically different casts across continuities, which forces a little more effort into that exercise, but close continuation titles like Mystery of the Emblem and Radiant Dawn can usually do with less effort towards including their exclusives.

don’t be surprised if characters who should be prepromotes aren’t (or even, more rarely, if characters who aren’t prepromotes become so), as I’ve taken quite a few of those down where it was important to keep the numbers relatively balanced; or if characters from games with less subdivided types of magic find themselves in completely arbitrary places in this build with both a trinity of magic and a trinity of anima; or if characters who are trainees are found either in classes that play similarly to their trainee base class, or in classes that tend to be favored by the player when choosing a promotion

I have not played Gaiden or Fates. this may make my decisions weird on either front, but I’d suspect moreso for the former.

my usual indecisiveness shines here, so don’t be surprised by the occasional situation where I’m listing together two characters who are close in popularity (or otherwise in a sort of paralellism) but only planning on settling on one of them

I’ve tried to avoid significantly controversial characters, no matter how much votes they got; this led me to two notable of exclusions of characters who did well on the poll. fortunately, both them are easily replaced -- the first because there’s more than one Ylissean dark mage, the second because I’m not featuring a lot of manaketes on the rosters anyway. you can probably tell who I’m indirectly referring to. (it’s tharja and nowi.)

last but not least: on all the rosters, there’s a special rule about how the lord characters work. there’s a bunch of them, but you only get to have two of them at a time in your actual roster; you’d be choosing those at the beginning of the “game”. I’ve also split them into semi-arbitrary rows (that mostly dovetail into the class tree that I’m not showing you, which includes two possible promotions for lords), such that you only pick one lord from each row. and finally, not every character who is a protagonist or even a lord per se has been put into this system instead of the general unit pool (mostly, lords who don’t use swords went into the general unit pool, because I didn’t want to make exceptions in the class tree for them).

I’ve actually organized three rosters through this exercise -- and so, without further ado...

BUILD #1: TIGHT

this first roster is a pretty strict build; 50 playable characters total (including the 2 lords that you can use, but not the 12 lords that you can potentially use), with the first 44 or so forming a pretty typical (if somewhat adjusted) Fire Emblem roster of classes, while the other 4 or so were loosely used to provide just a little more breathing room in the classes that proved most competitive.

because the priority is to give every series a mostly equal shake, some of the more unpopular games ended up getting leverage over even some absolute superstars; this is why, for example, you’ll be seeing a lot of myrmidons with astonishing breakout popularity, but not the most popular myrmidon (although one character more popular than her did end up classed as a myrmidon).

the lords for this build are:

Alm, Sigurd, Eliwood, Eirika, Ike, Chrom    (pick one) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Marth, Seliph, Leif, Roy, Lucina, Corrin(F) (pick one)

and the build proper, divided in class groups:

(*asterisks denote prepromote status)

don’t think too hard about which classes got boxed together, it’s just for the sake of saving space

mostly, I ended up with a lot of magi, since subdividing the magic types let me get away with blowing a majority of my bonus slots on them. (and still there was no room for Nino. sob.)

you may also have noticed that I insisted on hitting upon a few of the franchise archetypes. note the red cav and green cav (even if the green cav in question is something of a red cav in disguise), as well as the fighters with opposing personalities (although that was also somewhat sheer serendiptity(sp?)).

one of my indecisions appears here; Severa has a decent margin of votes over Inigo, but as far as I can tell there’s also more people who dislike her than Inigo, so that’s a bit of a toss-up.

aside from the major magical glut, though, this one carries itself just fine as a Fire Emblem roster... but there’s certainly a large amount of absolute superstars that couldn’t place. I did think of a little something to alleviate that matter, for anyone who might find it concerning...

BUILD #2: DRAFT

this version of the roster basically has twice as many units of each class as you’d normally be recruiting -- and the catch is that you’ll only be using half of them, thus bringing you back down to the amount you’d normally be recruiting. the vague idea there is that you’d be playing drafts with an opponent, perhaps even having to battle what units you didn’t take for yourself.

lords notwithstanding, this build has a total of 70 characters, of which you’ll be using 35 -- adding up to 37, with the lords.

this one uses the same lords as the first one, but here’s a refresher:

Alm, Sigurd, Eliwood, Eirika, Ike, Chrom    (pick one) ------------------------------------------------------------------- Marth, Seliph, Leif, Roy, Lucina, Corrin(F) (pick one)

and the deeper delve:

(that’s Jaffar and Matthew abbreviated on the Thieves section, incidentally)

this one’s actually a much tidier build, both in terms of what the cast you actually get looks like and in terms of which characters got included. this somewhat belies the absolute nervous wreck that was required to string together the last ends of this shindig, but I think I’ve pulled it off, at least. mostly, though, it’s just disappointing that you only get 2 cavaliers/lance knights -- I was intending for 3, but the series just doesn’t have 6 such unpromoted characters with enough star power to themselves.

most characters from the previous build are in this one, with a small exception: Akaneia having more slots gave me room to put in Abel, so I could achieve that coveted red/green cav duo (even if I had to do it with an already existing one) while also using Sain’s slot for someone more popular (sorry, Sain! Elibe slots are very competitive...).

and yes, that’s Ced on the light magi list, and not the wind magi list. on the one hand, technically, if you don’t make Lewyn his father in FE4, he only starts out with a Light tome and equal ranks on all of the Sage’s weapon types. but for real, honestly, up-front, I am bullshitting my own system, because wind magic was competitive but not enough for 6 slots, and light magic was too competitive for 2 slots but couldn’t fill up 4 without a little helping hand. ultimately, sometimes, the main weakness of this build is having to put everything into even numbers. but I managed to work around it when it most irresolvably came up, so hopefully that worked.

another toss-up appears here! jaffar has more votes than matthew, but the difference is very small, to the point that it can’t be considered significant when you account for all the things that made the Heroes poll a... non-exact endeavor.

it’s worth noting now that at some point in this exercise, I entertained the idea of throwing Glade into the roster, just having him go right up there with all the superstars. this ultimately didn’t happen (you’d be surprised by how competitive Thracia 776 slots get), but by the time I was in a position to make it happen, I had an even better idea, anyway...

BUILD #3: WORST EMBLEM

... which was, how about I also try to make a cast with the least popular characters ever?

I tried not to pick on the same few things too often here -- I can make an entire zero-popularity roster out of BS Akaneia and FE4 substitute kids, but what’s the fun in that? in fact, even if I did still end up with a lot of prepromotes, I’ve tried to avoid overincluding prepromotes, and tried to snag unpromoted units whenever I had good cause to.

aside from the total switching of polarities, this was built similarly to the tight build: the skeleton of the roster was salvaged, and the bonus slots, reapplied into places that seem to have more bottom-tier material to work with.

the lords for this one are.... a little different, and two of them stand as my sole exceptions to including only playable characters:

Masked Marth, Ruger[that miniboss who impersonated Chrom] (pick one) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Leif the worst Lord, Kana(M) (pick one)

and now, let the “who the fuck is this”ening begin!

surprisingly enough, even here I have some indecisions. this is in keeping with the aforementioned spirit of avoiding prepromotes -- I don’t want to include both Basilio and Flavia, so the one who gets spared will be replaced by a sufficiently unpopular Ylisse character of the same class type. it’s somewhat of a happy coincidence that this particular stretch of the unpopularity order basically goes Basilio->Flavia->Vaike->Gregor.

also, notable mention to Lester -- his substitute may be the least popular substititute child of all, sure, but I feel like the non-subsitute self deserved a special place in this hell for being significantly less popular than even many substitutes!

what’s most interesting to me, though, is that this isn’t a bad cast at all. sure, you can basically play Fire Emblem trivia with the ability to recognize everyone here; nonetheless, many actually interesting characters have ended up here, and there’s a pretty diverse cast. mostly male, sure, but you have characters of all different kinds of ages and backgrounds and personalities... maybe ending up on this listing isn’t such a bad thing after all; maybe with a little polish, it’d bring out the best in everyone.

to sum this up nicely, here’s a list of characters who got into the exercise, sorted by continuity.

(linked for long ass)

solid blue background is for lords (in tight/draft), white background is for the tight and draft builds, pale red background is for the tight build only, pale blue background is for the draft build only, and pale brown background is fort he worst emblem build.

feel free to give me a shout if you’re interested in seeing where I’ll be taking all this next, mechanically!

[technicalsolutions88]

Sometimes it feels as if Internet platforms are turning everything upside down, from politics to publishing, culture to commerce, and of course swapping truth for lies.

This week’s bizarro reversal was the vista of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, a tech CEO famed for being entirely behind the moral curve of understanding what his product is platforming (i.e. nazis), providing an impromptu ‘tweet storm’ in political speech ethics.

Actually he was schooling Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg — another techbro renowned for his special disconnect with the real world, despite running a massive free propaganda empire with vast power to influence other people’s lives — in taking a stand for the good of democracy and society.

So not exactly a full reverse then.

In short, Twitter has said it will no longer accept political ads, period.

A final note. This isn’t about free expression. This is about paying for reach. And paying to increase the reach of political speech has significant ramifications that today’s democratic infrastructure may not be prepared to handle. It’s worth stepping back in order to address.

— jack

(@jack) October 30, 2019

Whereas Facebook recently announced it will no longer fact-check political ads. Aka: Lies are fine, so long as you’re paying Facebook to spread them.

You could argue there’s a certain surface clarity to Facebook’s position — i.e. it sums to ‘when it comes to politics we just won’t have any ethics’. Presumably with the hoped for sequitur being ‘so you can’t accuse us of bias’.

Though that’s actually a non sequitur; by not applying any ethical standards around political campaigns Facebook is providing succour to those with the least ethics and the basest standards. So its position does actually favor the ‘truth-lite’, to put it politely. (You can decide which political side that might advantage.)

Twitter’s position also has surface clarity: A total ban! Political and issue ads both into the delete bin. But as my colleague Devin Coldewey quickly pointed out it’s likely to get rather more fuzzy around the edges as the company comes to defining exactly what is (and isn’t) a ‘political ad’ — and what its few “exceptions” might be.

Indeed, Twitter’s definitions are already raising eyebrows. For example it has apparently decided climate change is a ‘political issue’ — and will therefore be banning ads about science. While, presumably, remaining open to taking money from big oil to promote their climate-polluting brands… So yeah, messy.

hi – here's our current definition: 1/ Ads that refer to an election or a candidate, or 2/ Ads that advocate for or against legislative issues of national importance (such as: climate change, healthcare, immigration, national security, taxes)

— Vijaya Gadde (@vijaya) October 30, 2019

There will clearly be attempts to stress test and circumvent the lines Twitter is setting. The policy may sound simple but it involves all sorts of judgements that expose the company’s political calculations and leave it open to charges of bias and/or moral failure.

Still, setting rules is — or should be — the easy and adult thing to do when it comes to content standards; enforcement is the real sweating toil for these platforms.

Which is also, presumably, why Facebook has decided to experiment with not having any rules around political ads — in the (forlorn) hope of avoiding being forced into the role of political speech policeman.

If that’s the strategy it’s already looking spectacularly dumb and self-defeating. The company has just set itself up for an ongoing PR nightmare where it is indeed forced to police intentionally policy-provoking ads from its own back-foot — having put itself in the position of ‘wilfully corrupt cop’. Slow hand claps all round.

Albeit, it can at least console itself it’s monetizing its own ethics bypass.

Here is @AOC's full questioning of Mark Zuckerberg.

"Could I run ads targeting Republicans in primaries saying that they voted for the Green New Deal?" pic.twitter.com/VrGQw7UzIW

— Erick Fernandez (@ErickFernandez) October 23, 2019

Twitter’s opposing policy on political ads also isn’t immune from criticism, as we’ve noted.

Indeed, it’s already facing accusations that a total ban is biased against new candidates who start with a lower public profile. Even if the energy of that argument would be better spent advocating for wide-ranging reform of campaign financing, including hard limits on election spending. If you really want to reboot politics by levelling the playing field between candidates that’s how to do it.

Also essential: Regulations capable of enforcing controls on dark money to protect democracies from being bought and cooked from the inside via the invisible seeding of propaganda that misappropriates the reach and data of Internet platforms to pass off lies as populist truth, cloaking them in the shape-shifting blur of microtargeted hyperconnectivity.

Sketchy interests buying cheap influence from data-rich billionaires, free from accountability or democratic scrutiny, is our new warped ‘normal’. But it shouldn’t be.

There’s another issue being papered over here, too. Twitter banning political ads is really a distracting detail when you consider that it’s not a major platform for running political ads anyway.

During the 2018 US midterms the category generated less than $3M for the company.

Since we are getting questions: This decision was based on principle, not money. As context, we’ve disclosed that political ad spend for the 2018 US midterms was <$3M. There is no change to our Q4 guidance. I am proud to work @twitter! #LoveWhereYouWork https://t.co/U9I0o1woev

— Ned Segal (@nedsegal) October 30, 2019

Facebook says Political Ad dollars are less than 0.5% of revenues — based on 2019 consensus revs that is ~$350 million of political ad dollars

Twitter has said Political Ad dollars are less than $3 million, which implies about 0.1% of revs based on 2019 consensus $FB $TWTR pic.twitter.com/hjDgSZxolo

— Rich Greenfield (@RichLightShed) October 30, 2019

And, secondly, anything posted organically as a tweet to Twitter can act as a political call to arms.

Of course in reality the whole of Twitter is a political ad

— Natasha (@riptari) October 30, 2019

It’s these outrageous ‘organic’ tweets where the real political action is on Twitter’s platform. (Hi Trump.)

Including inauthentically ‘organic’ tweets which aren’t a person’s genuinely held opinion but a planted (and often paid for) fake. Call it ‘going native’ advertising; faux tweets intended to pass off lies as truth, inflated and amplified by bot armies (fake accounts) operating in plain sight (often gaming Twitter’s trending topics) as a parallel ‘unofficial’ advertising infrastructure whose mission is to generate attention-grabbing pantomimes of public opinion to try and sway the real thing.

In short: Propaganda.

Who needs to pay to run a political ad on Twitter when you can get a bot network to do the boosterism for you?

Let’s not forget Dorsey is also the tech CEO famed for not applying his platform’s rules of conduct to the tweets of certain high profile politicians. (Er, Trump again, basically.)

So by saying Twitter is banning political ads yet continuing to apply a double standard to world leaders’ tweets — most obviously by allowing the US president to bully, abuse and threaten at will in order to further his populist rightwing political agenda — the company is trying to have its cake and eat it.

More recently Twitter has evolved its policy slightly, saying it will apply some limits on the reach of rule-breaking world leader tweets. But it continues to run two sets of rules.

To Dorsey’s credit he does foreground this tension in his tweet storm — where he writes [emphasis ours]:

Internet political ads present entirely new challenges to civic discourse: machine learning-based optimization of messaging and micro-targeting, unchecked misleading information, and deep fakes. All at increasing velocity, sophistication, and overwhelming scale.

These challenges will affect ALL internet communication, not just political ads. Best to focus our efforts on the root problems, without the additional burden and complexity taking money brings. Trying to fix both means fixing neither well, and harms our credibility.

This is good stuff from Dorsey. Surprisingly good, given his and Twitter’s long years of free speech fundamentalism — when the company gained a reputation for being wilfully blind and deaf to the fact that for free expression to flourish online it needs a protective shield of civic limits. Otherwise ‘freedom to amplify any awful thing’ becomes a speech chiller that disproportionately harms minorities.

Aka freedom of speech is not the same as freedom of reach, as Dorsey now notes.

Even with Twitter making some disappointing choices in how it defines political issues, for the purposes of this ad ban, the contrast with Facebook and Zuckerberg — still twisting and spinning in the same hot air; trying to justify incoherent platform policies that sell out democracy for a binary ideology which his own company can’t even stick to — looks stark.

The timing of Dorsey’s tweet-storm, during Facebook’s earnings call, was clearly intended to make that point.

“Zuckerberg wants us to believe that one must be for or against free speech with no nuance, complexity or cultural specificity, despite running a company that’s drowning in complexity,” writes cultural historian, Siva Vaidhyanathan, confronting Facebook’s moral vacuousness in a recent Guardian article responding to another Zuckerberg ‘manifesto’ on free speech. “He wants our discussions to be as abstract and idealistic as possible. He wants us not to look too closely at Facebook itself.”

Facebook’s position on speech does only stand up in the abstract. Just as its ad-targeting business can only run free of moral outrage in unregulated obscurity, where the baked in biases — algorithmic and user generated — are safely hidden from view so people can’t joins the dots on how they’re being damaged.

We shouldn’t be surprised at how quickly the scandal-prone company is now being called on its ideological BS. We have a savvier political class as a result of the platform-scale disinformation and global data scandals of the past few years. People who have have seen and experienced what Facebook’s policies translate to in real world practice. Like compromised elections and community violence.

British parliament presses Facebook on letting politicians lie in ads

With lawmakers like these turning their attention on platform giants there is a genuine possibility of meaningful regulation coming down the pipe for the antisocial media business.

Not least because Facebook’s self regulation has always been another piece of crisis PR, designed to preempt and steer off the real thing. It’s a cynical attempt to maintain its profitable grip on our attention. The company has never been committed to making the kind of systemic change necessary to fix its toxic speech issues.

The problem is, ultimately, toxicity and division drives engagement, captures attention and makes Facebook a lot of money.

Twitter can claim a little distance from that business model not only because it’s considerably less successful than Facebook at generating money by monopolizing attention, but also because it provides greater leeway for its users to build and follow their own interest networks, free from algorithmic interference (though it does do algorithms too).

It has also been on a self-proclaimed reform path for some time. Most recently saying it wants to be responsible for promoting “conversational health on its platform. No one would say it’s there yet but perhaps we’re finally getting to see some action. Even if banning political ads is mostly a quick PR win for Twitter.

The really hard work continues, though. Namely rooting out bot armies before their malicious propaganda can pollute the public sphere. Twitter hasn’t said it’s close to being able to fix that.

Facebook is also still failing to stem the tide of ‘organic’ politicized fake content on its platform. Fakes that profit at our democratic expense by spreading hate and lies.

For this type of content Facebook offers no searchable archive (as it now does for paid ads which it defines as political) — thereby providing ongoing cover for dark money to do its manipulative hack-job on democracy by free-posting via groups and pages.

Plus, even where Facebook claims to be transparently raising the curtain on paid political influence it’s abjectly failing to do so. Its political ads API is still being blasted by research academics as not fit for purpose. Even as the company policy cranks up pressure on external fact-checkers by giving politicians the green light to run ads that lie.

It has also been accused of applying a biased standard when it comes to weeding out “coordinated inauthentic behavior”, as Facebook euphemistically calls the networks of fake accounts set up to amplify and juice reach — when the propaganda in question is coming from within the US and leans toward the political right.

Just thinking about how 4,000 advertisers stopped paying Breitbart but then Facebook started paying Breitbart.

— Siva Vaidhyanathan

(@sivavaid) October 26, 2019

  Facebook denies this, claiming for example that a network of pages on its platform reported to be exclusively boosting content from US conservative news site, The Daily Wire, are “real pages run by real people in the U.S., and they don’t violate our policies“. (It didn’t offer us any detail on how it reached that conclusion.) 

A company spokesperson also said: “We’re working on more transparency so that in the future people have more information about Pages like these on Facebook.”

So it’s still promising ‘more transparency’ — rather than actually being transparent. And it remains the sole judge interpreting and applying policies that aren’t at all legally binding; so sham regulation then. 

Moreover, while Facebook has at times issued bans on toxic content from certain domestic hate speech preachers’, such as banning some of InfoWars’ Alex Jones’ pages, it’s failed to stop the self-same hate respawning via new pages. Or indeed the same hateful individuals maintaining other accounts on different Facebook-owned social properties. Inconsistency of policy enforcement is Facebook’s DNA.

Set against all that Dorsey’s decision to take a stance against political ads looks positively statesmanlike.

It is also, at a fundamental level, obviously just the right thing to do. Buying a greater share of attention than you’ve earned politically is regressive because it favors those with the deepest pockets. Though of course Twitter’s stance won’t fix the rest of a broken system where money continues to pour in and pollute politics.

We also don’t know the fine-grained detail of how Twitter’s algorithms amplify political speech when it’s packaged in organic tweet form. So whether its algorithmic levers are more likely to be triggered into boosting political tweets that inflame and incite, or those that inform and seek to unite.

As I say, the whole of Twitter’s platform can sum to political advertising. And the company does apply algorithms to surface or suppress tweets based on its proprietary (and commercial) determination of ‘engagement quality’. So its entire business is involved in shaping how visible (or otherwise) tweeted speech is.

That very obviously includes plenty of political speech. Not for nothing is Twitter Trump’s platform of choice.

Nothing about its ban on political ads changes all that. So, as ever, where social media self-regulation is concerned, what we are being given is — at best — just fiddling around the edges.

A cynical eye might say Twitter’s ban is intended to distract attention from more structural problems baked into these attention-harvesting Internet platforms.

The toxic political discourse problem that democracies and societies around the world are being forced to grapple with is as a consequence of how Internet platforms distribute content and shape public discussion. So what’s really key is how these companies use our information to program what we each get to see.

The fact that we’re talking about Twitter’s political ad ban risks distracting from the “root problems” Dorsey referenced in passing. (Though he would probably offer a different definition of their cause. In the tweet storm he just talks about “working hard to stop people from gaming our systems to spread misleading info”.)

Facebook’s public diagnosis of the same problem is always extremely basic and blame-shifting. It just says some humans are bad, ergo some bad stuff will be platformed by Facebook — reflecting the issue back at humanity.

Here’s an alternative take: The core issue underpinning all these problems around how Internet platforms spread toxic propaganda is the underlying fact of taking people’s data in order to manipulate our attention.

This business of microtargeting — or behavioral advertising, as it’s also called — turns everyone into a target for some piece of propaganda or other.

It’s a practice that sucks regardless of whether it’s being done to you by Donald Trump or by Disney. Because it’s asymmetrical. It’s disproportionate. It’s exploitative. And it’s inherently anti-democratic.

It also incentivizes a pervasive, industrial-scale stockpiling of personal data that’s naturally hostile to privacy, terrible for security and gobbles huge amounts of energy and computing resource. So it sucks from an environmental perspective too.

And it does it all for the very basest of purposes. This is platforms selling you out so others can sell you stuff. Be it soap or political opinions.

Zuckerberg’s label of choice for this process — “relevant ads” — is just the slick lie told by a billionaire to grease the pipes that suck out the data required to sell our attention down the river.

Microtargeting is both awful for the individual (meaning creepy ads; loss of privacy; risk of bias and data misuse) and terrible for society for all the same reasons — as well as grave, society-level risks, such as election interference and the undermining of hard-won democratic institutions by hostile forces.

Individual privacy is a common good, akin to public health. Inoculation — against disease or indeed disinformation — helps protect the whole of us from damaging contagion.

To be clear, microtargeting is also not only something that happens when platforms are paid money to target ads. Platforms are doing this all the time; applying a weaponizing layer to customize everything they handle.

It’s how they distribute and program the masses of information users freely upload, creating maximally engaging order out of the daily human chaos they’ve tasked themselves with turning into a compelling and personalized narrative — without paying a massive army of human editors to do the job.

Facebook’s News Feed relies on the same data-driven principles as behavioral ads do to grab and hold attention. As does Twitter’s ‘Top Tweets’ algorithmically ranked view.

This is programmed attention-manipulation at vast scale, repackaged as a ‘social’ service. One which uses what the platforms learn by spying on Internet users as divisive glue to bind our individual attention, even if it means setting some of us against each another.

That’s why you can publish a Facebook post that mentions a particular political issue and — literally within seconds — attract a violently expressed opposing view from a Facebook ‘friend’ you haven’t spoken to in years. The platform can deliver that content ‘gut punch’ because it has a god-like view of everyone via the prism of their data. Data that powers its algorithms to plug content into “relevant” eyeballs, ranked by highest potential for engagement sparks to fly.

It goes without saying that if a real friendship group contained such a game-playing stalker — who had bugged everyone’s phones to snoop and keep tabs on them, and used what they learnt to play friends off against each other — no one would imagine it bringing the group closer together. Yet that’s how Facebook treats its captive eyeballs.

That awkward silence you could hear as certain hard-hitting questions struck Zuckerberg during his most recent turn in the House might just be the penny dropping.

It finally feels as if lawmakers are getting close to an understanding of the real “root problem” embedded in these content-for-data sociotechnical platforms.

Platforms that invite us to gaze into them in order that they can get intimate with us forever — using what they learn from spying to pry further and exploit faster.

So while banning political ads sounds nice it’s just a distraction. What we really need to shatter the black mirror platforms are holding against society, in which they get to view us from all angles while preventing us from seeing what they’re doing, is to bring down a comprehensive privacy screen. No targeting against personal data.

Let them show us content and ads, sure. They can target this stuff contextually based on a few generic pieces of information. They can even ask us to specify if we’d like to see ads about housing today or consumer packaged goods? We can negotiate the rules. Everything else — what we do on or off the platform, who we talk to, what we look at, where we go, what we say — must remain strictly off limits.

from Social – TechCrunch https://ift.tt/33aywgy Original Content From: https://techcrunch.com

[tessatechaitea]

Michael Cray #1

This would be my reaction to seeing Green Arrow too.

That's not San Francisco! As if you could see that many stars from The City.

That's Oliver Queen waking up after having a nightmare about that time he crashed on a wacky island. Having been raised in the lap of luxury without ever having to fend for himself, he of course becomes an expert bowman and survivalist through sheer force of will. It's important to see that Oliver Queen may have been born rich but he was still the type of man who could make something of himself without his parents' wealth and privilege. Also he remembered how Bruce Wayne left behind everything to become the greatest detective the world has ever seen so Oliver was all, "I need that kind of secret origin too! But a little bit different so that people don't just think I'm Batman with a bow and old fashioned facial hair!" Michael Cray moves to Oakland where he meets the world's least skittish mouse. He touches it and it blows up. I guess that's Cray's superpower? I might have been mistaken as to why he was called Deathblow. Was that blow job joke subtle enough to pass for a G Rating? I wonder if the three people Michael Cray hires for his team will sometimes tell people, "Oh yeah, I'm out in Oakland working the Deathblow job." Then those people will never talk to them again.

Michael Cray's dad plagiarizes my Green Arrow origin story. Is that how plagiarism works? Probably!

Michael Cray's dad explains that Oliver Queen is a rich asshole. He apparently "helps funnel narcotics and guns into the 'wrong' neighborhoods. Crime goes up. Then he privately funds political efforts to hammer down on them with the police." That's almost exactly what Bruce Wayne does! He drives criminals into certain sections of Gotham. Real estate prices fall due to increased crime. Bruce Wayne buys up all the cheap properties and then Batman drives the crime out of the area. Later, Bruce Wayne jerks himself off on the way to the bank! In a scene setting up the reader to despise Oliver Queen so we don't feel icky backing a government assassination attempt, Queen treats a woman who seems to love him like she's a prostitute. Now we all hate his guts! Kill him, Michael Cray! Kill him! Oh wait a second. I already hated his guts! If that wasn't enough reason to hate him, he also makes his sister clean his sex sheets. And if that wasn't enough, he then quotes John Donne! But he doesn't just quote him! He quotes a section of Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions in an odd way. The quote's the bit about the bell tolling for everybody (but mostly for him!) and then ends with an ellipsis to simply finish the quote with "no man is an island." He basically yada yada yada'd a huge section of Donne's pain! Fucking monster! It's also possible Queen just went from a Donne quote to a Bon Jovi quote. "They say that no man is an island. But good things come to those who wait. But the things I hear are there just to remind me. Every dog will have his day! The spirits! They intoxicate me! I watch them infiltrate my soul! They try to say it's too late for me! Tell my guns I'm coming home! I swear! I'm gonna live forever!" Ha ha! You are not, Oliver Queen! That was a stupid thing to quote because you're going to die! Dammit. I just realized that Michael Cray might find out that Oliver Queen is actually Green Arrow and he's really helping people so he'll have to let him live. Although why show him to be such a disgusting piece of shit if that's how the story will work out? I imagine that's how the story would work in the actual DC Universe. But in the Wildstorm universe, we're allowed to think the worst of Oliver Queen and watch him die messily.

I hope she can change his mind with some sweet, sweet government lies!

Ms. Trelane tells Cray that Oliver Queen hunts people. Why not? They're the most dangerous game! But mostly he hunts veterans so that makes him super bad. If he only hunted, say, criminals and pedophiles, people might be able to get behind him. But he hunts the nation's heroes! What a sick bastard! Ms. Trelane doesn't really care that he kills homeless people. I mean veterans! She and Skywatch (or whatever company she works for. Remember how I don't remember?!) just want his technology and market share. But she's up front with Cray about how she's manipulating him to do Skywatch's dirty work. So at least she's honest? Oliver Queen quotes some more Donne while hunting veterans. It's a good metaphor that Queen chooses to use quotes from Devotions upon Emergent Occasions because the book is a meditation on pain and being sick. I think that means Oliver Queen knows he's a sick bastard causing people pain! Michael Cray #1 Rating: Three stars our of four! That might only be a C Average but it also sounds like I really liked it. That way I can defend the score no matter who attacks me on it. If someone is all, "You thought this was that good?!", I can be all, "3 out of 4 stars is 75%! That's average in the ratings system of United States schoolchildren!" But if people are all, "75%?! You hardly liked this at all?", I can say, "But three stars! Out of four! That's practically all the stars!" Nobody's going to challenge me on my comic book rating of this book!

[smoothshift]

My experience with the 1994 Ford Probe GT Plus "Wild Orchid" Edition. via /r/cars

My experience with the 1994 Ford Probe GT Plus "Wild Orchid" Edition.

So my first car was the 1994 Ford Probe GT Plus. To those not familiar, this was a special edition version sold for only one year. The only thing that set it apart from the lesser Probe GT was the fact it loudly identified itself as a Probe in numerous places throughout the inside and outside of the car. And of course it had a bright purple paint job. The "Wild Orchid Edition" is what they called it in the Probe community

The car came to me through a family member: Uncle Douglas. He bought it new soon after leaving behind his life in the city for Cape Cod. There, he opened a bed and breakfast with his best friend Felipe. They actually lived together for over two decades, neither of them ever getting married. Enjoyed the bachelor life too much, I guess. Probably why they got along so well all those years.

Douglas and Felipe actually shared the car. If I knew them like I think I knew them, they probably took turns cruising the streets of Provincetown with it, just trawling for poon. Ended up being a very good thing (sharing the car, not trawling for poon lmao). Felipe was extremely meticulous when it came to car maintenance. So much so, Douglas even came to refer to it as the "Anal Probe." It was like an inside joke between them. Every time he called it that, they'd look at each other and laugh and maybe slap each other's butts, like in the gym room, except with way more eye contact and lip biting.

It was twenty years old when it came into my possession, and still looked new. So how did it come to be mine?

Well, my Uncle Douglas unfortunately suffered an accident while me, him, and Felipe were visiting a quarry in the Berkshires. Fell off a cliff actually. He suffered a moderately sprained ankle, some cracked ribs, and massive head trauma. We'll probably never know which of these actually did him in.

Felipe might have held on to the car, but since he was moving back to the Philippines, he opted to leave it behind. Apparently, bringing the Probe along was not an option in the first place. He told me it had something to do with the color purple bringing bad luck. I'm not really sure. He was sniffling and crying so darn much while identifying Uncle Douglas' body, it made him exceeding difficult to understand.

Anyway, onto the car itself. The 1994 Ford Probe GT Plus was one of many front drive sport coupes that were sold throughout America and the United States in the late eighties and nineties. It shared it's underpinnings and mechanicals with the Mazda MX-6. Along with more modern styling and a more sporting chassis, this second generation Probe had another huge upgrade from the first generation: a naturally aspirated 2.5 liter DOHC V6. As mentioned before, my Uncle Douglas specified the special package which would come to be known later as the "Wild Orchid Edition."

So how is the car itself?

The low roofline means that entry is awkward and bit unnatural. Once in, however, it just feels right. You really get used to and even prefer it after a spell. Don't get me wrong, it's snug and feels a bit peculiar at first, yet at the same time it's surprisingly accommodating.

In typical early nineties fashion, the cockpit is full of buttons whose functions are not always immediately evident. It takes some experimenting before one grows familiar with them. Basically, just keep pushing and twisting things. Something will happen soon enough.

One thing in the Probe that is immediately intuitive is the shift knob for the five speed manual transmission. Talk about perfection. Not too big, not too small. The perfect shape, too. It felt right at home in my hand, almost like I'd been using it all my life. While requiring little effort to move it back and forth, it could at the same time withstand a surprising amount of abuse when I got rough with it. Early on, there were a couple occasions when I got carried away and inadvertently slammed the shifter into the wrong gear, but the Probe took to like a champ. Let me slide it into the correct spot right after with nary a complaint.

One complaint I had centred around the interior. Specifically, how cramped the back seat was. I get that it was a sports coupes first. Still, the Probe was a bit ridiculous. The legroom was actually halfway acceptable, but the way the glass hatch sloped down cut off headroom to an extraordinary degree. Douglas would always say as long as there was room for him and Felipe's two corgis as well as their friend, Dorothy, he didn't care about backseat accommodations that much. He would also say headroom only matters in the front seats. Judging by the butt slap and subsequent eye contact with Felipe, I'm guessing this was another one of their inside jokes.

Another issue I had was with fuel consumption. Even though it was a V6, the 164 horsepower was somewhat light in the loafers when compared to V8 powered Mustangs of the day. Still, I barely managed twenty miles per gallon in mixed but highway biased driving. The way it sucked down gas made me think the Probe almost couldn't wait to get to the pump and have gasoline shot into it.

In regards to performance, however, the Probe shone brightly.

The V6 engine was a real peach. It revved smooth and fast to its 7000 RPM redline. It provided a fair amount of thrust when called upon, evident by the way the seats firmly clasped my buttocks. Not as virile as a Mustang GT perhaps, but comparable to other front drive sports coupes of the day.

Handling was a strong suit of the Probe, as well. The way the chassis and suspension were tuned gave it the feeling of always being up on its toes and ready to make a getaway. Whether that getaways was from a mall parking lot during the holidays or a roadside public restroom during a Thursday, it didn't matter. You just couldn't catch it "with its pants down," if you catch my drift.

All in all, it was simply a fun car to drive, even when taking into account it was twenty years old and had over 80,000 miles when I got it. Felipe had kept everthing shiny and well lube I've the years, so a lot of it is thanks to him. Alas, the Probe left the earth just last year. I was stopped at a crosswalk in front of a Whole Foods. There, a pickup truck with testicles rear-ended my baby.

Everyone was okay - me, the other driver, his "old lady," their four kids in the bed of the truck and their six coon hounds in the back seat - but the Probe was a total loss. That sucked, but at least insurance took care of it. The real tragedy is that there is one less Wild Orchid out there now. So if you love the color purple a lot and you're also in the market for a mid-nineties sports coupe that's fun to drive, and you happened to encounter inexpensive of these unicorns for sale, do not hesitate.