#atlanta web design services | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

eretzyisrael · 5 months ago

Text

by Asra Q. Nomani

Another troubling example is the “Hands Off Uhuru Fightback Coalition,” whose leaders face charges in a Tampa court in September for allegedly working with Russian intelligence to interfere in U.S. elections. In a statement that rings true today, Matthew G. Olsen, assistant attorney general in the Justice Department’s National Security Division prosecuting the Uhuru case, said last year, “Russia’s foreign intelligence service allegedly weaponized our First Amendment rights – freedoms Russia denies its own citizens – to divide Americans and interfere in elections in the United States.” Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite, Jr. of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division called it “foreign malign influence.”

These groups are not merely focused on domestic issues; they harbor broader, international ambitions, for which they are willing to “disrupt the DNC,” even if it costs Harris votes – and potentially the presidency. Many of them seek to dismantle the current global order, with a particular focus on the Middle East and the destruction of Israel.

At the heart of this coalition lies a shared animosity towards the Democratic Party and, now, Harris. The Atlanta chapter of the National Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression tells its followers Harris is “funding genocide and ignoring police terror.” “Workers Strike Back” tells Americans to “REJECT the New Warmonger-in-Chief.”

By presenting the protests as “grassroots,” the media has underplayed the powerful forces behind controversial messages, like “HAMAS IS COMING,” during the network’s recent protests in D.C., when the American flag was burnt and replaced by the Palestinian flag. By not dissecting their motives, the media has also given them a powerful bullhorn. These protests are not spontaneous uprisings of concerned citizens. They are carefully orchestrated campaigns designed to subvert U.S. elections and undermine American democracy.

These protestors seek to overthrow the current political order, or as one organizer, “Socialist Action,” says: “Permanent Revolution.” Their demands are absolute, and their tactics are ruthless. Democratic Party leaders must recognize that there is no winning with these groups. Their aim is to tear down what exists and rebuild it in their own intolerant image.

Andrew Fox, a former British military officer who did three tours of duty in Afghanistan, tells me: “These protestors are not just demonstrating; they are fomenting an insurgency designed to destabilize the U.S. and further the interests of foreign actors.”

Democratic Party leaders and Harris would be well served to refuse to be swayed by the loudest voices on the streets, who pledge to “Disrupt the DNC,” as “Workers Strike Back,” supporting “Left Antiwar Independent Candidate” Jill Stein, threatens to do. Firebrand, a self-described “communist organization” and coalition member, has guided its members to avoid playing a game of “lesser evilism” and refuse Harris’s candidacy.

The fight against disinformation warfare is not easy, but it is necessary. By shining a light on the truth behind the myth of the marching millions, understanding details like who funds protests and rents charter buses to Chicago, we can make wise decisions, not misled by fear and chaos, but rather guided by transparency and facts.

#chicago #malign foreign influence #asra q nomani #kamala harris #answer #communist party

13 notes · View notes

claire-therose · 2 months ago

Text

The Future of Television: an Introspection

I think we are at a transition point

This story begins in the Los Angeles airport, LAX. Earlier that day, I had a flight scheduled to fly from Burbank to Cincinnati (with a layover in Atlanta) to visit my parents. The flight, unfortunately, was delayed due to weather conditions, so the airline booked me for a or straight flight to CVG. After making my way over to LAX, I noticed the TV near a bar near where I was sitting- and something caught my eye.

An advertisement: for Disney+, Hulu, and Max for $17 with ads, and $30 with ads.

First of all, that's too inexpensive. With previous cable packages exceeding $100 a month, having 3 of the largest and most well known streaming services together in a single deal for less than a third of that previous price is simply unsustainable. My guess – is this deal is introductory pricing to get people used to this bundle as a norm, after which the price can slowly increase without much customer loss.

Secondly, why? Disney and Hulu makes sense, Disney owns Hulu, but Max? Max is owned by WarnerBros. Discovery, one of the largest companies in the video streaming space, and Max itself is a direct competitor to Disney+. What would they have to benefit from cooperation?

Here’s what they have to benefit:

Firstly - some business terms

A knock on the door is heard. Claire opens the door. BYSTANDER enters looking confused. Bystander: I thought this essay was about television? Claire: You thought making television was about making television? Bystander shrugs. Claire: Unfortunately... it's about the money >:3

Economies of scale is an economic principle indicating that the more you produce of something, the less it costs per item to produce. If I want to make 1 copy of The Glass Scientists by Sage Cotugno (a very good graphic novel you should read ( ᵔ ⩊ ᵔ )), it might take me 5-10 hours to print out the pages, bind them together, cut out the cover, glue the whole thing, etc.

If the cost of the materials is, let’s say, $7.00, but it takes 7 hours to make (at $25 an hour, because I’m an expensive bitch (¬‿¬ )) - then it costs this hypothetical company $182 to make this one book. That means you as a consumer would be charged around $200 - very expensive (＞﹏＜).

On the other hand, if I want to make 10,000 copies of this book, and I have $100,000 dollars lying around (as one does), I can buy an industrial book printing machine for $30,000, and even with 30 hours of labor, it still costs:

Labor - 30 hours of work * $25/hr = $750 Materials - $7 per book * 10,000 books = $70,000 Cost of Equipment - $30,000 Total Cost - $100,750 Cost per book - $100,750 / 10,000 books = $10.075

about $10 per book, which, in terms of individual cost, is a huge difference from our first estimate of $182.

Now, to be frank, these numbers are all bogus. I have no idea how much it costs to make a book - but the principle is the same with real numbers.

When your production scales up, your cost per product goes down. Massive corporations don’t build megafactories because they like the aesthetic: they do it because it saves them money.

Now, this makes sense for physical products like books, but it also applies to intangible goods, like software, or web design, or streaming technology infrastructure (ding ding ding).

From a business standpoint it doesn’t make sense for 6 different companies to develop 6 different compression algorithms, and have 6 different interfaces to connect to 6 different data centers to do exactly the same thing: take an uncompressed ISO file, compress it for streaming, and send it to your device.

I personally think this is why we are seeing a lot of corporate consolidation in our current era of streaming – because, from a distributor perspective, it makes sense for all companies in the space to work together - or at least consolidate into a much smaller number of players.

But that’s only one-half of the story:

Seeing these companies merge and bundle was not what originally got me thinking about this whole, media market structure thing.

What got my gears turning was something a lot closer to what I actually care about.

Over the past couple of years, it’s been very disheartening to see many wonderful and amazing series get cut short for seemingly no reason.

I love Inside Job. Shion Takeuchi’s sense of comedy, combined with the fondness and criticalness the show has for Reagan makes her growth feel so authentic! I love seeing what she's doing, when she is in over her head, figuring out what she wants out of life. It’s amazing and funny and incredible.

I love Scavenger’s Reign! Joseph Bennett and Charles Huettner and everyone on the crew do such an amazing job at crafting this eerie fascination for biology. I can totally see the show, and Joseph Bennett’s narrative style, becoming seminal in science fiction later on. Amazing work.

The Owl House! An amazing Disney show created by an amazing person loved dearly by many amazing people. (you can also replace the word amazing with the word gay and it still works! (o^ ^o))

Inside Job wasn't renewed for a season 2 by Netflix. Owl House had its season 3 cut short. Scavenger’s Reign wasn’t renewed by Warner Bros. Discovery, was brought over to Netflix, and then was canceled by Netflix!

To be honest, I don’t know everything about television production. I want to learn and I want to discover but at this point in time I don’t have a clear answer of why these shows were canceled.

Dana Terrace has stated that The Owl House was canceled without her input, which is incredibly disheartening to hear.

Netflix hasn’t made an official statement about the reasons for Inside Job being canceled or Scavenger’s Reign - but I have a theory about what’s going on

Remember when I mentioned economies of scale? Well, there’s an inverse economic principle called diseconomies of scale. Diseconomies of scale indicates that at a certain scale, as production gets larger, the cost per item gets more expensive, rather than less expensive. This can be due to a whole basket of factors, from increasing organizational costs, to transportation and distribution costs, etc. It’s the reason why there isn’t 1 factory that makes all the paper towels in the world. If economies of scale were an absolute rule, that single factory would be the standard, but it’s not. There are certain economic advantages to having multiple smaller factories rather than 1 giant factory (transportation, distribution, etc.).

There are economic reasons for a company to scale up production, but there are also economic reasons for a company to scale down or split production. When companies are at an equilibrium between economies of scale and diseconomies of scale, they are operating at their maximum market efficiency.

So, how does this apply to streaming companies?

Well, I mentioned before my theory that streaming companies are consolidating due to economies of scale from a distributor perspective, but these companies aren’t just acting as content distributors, they’re also acting as content producers.

Ye Old Media Wisdom Having a single company as a distributor and a producer is a bad idea. -me just now :)

Here’s why:

One of the aspects of diseconomies of scale is the problems with large organization. As a company gets larger, it becomes more and more difficult for people to communicate up and down the ladder and to communicate with different departments across the company. If your company is making something easily measured, like paper towels, your company can be both large and successful (like P&G) because the measurements of what makes a paper towel valuable for the consumer and for the company are easily communicated between teams. If a team is able to make a paper towel 10% more absorbent with a 2% increase in weight, it’s easy to communicate that possible change to a higher up - and their decision, whether to proceed with that change or not, will be made with most of the important details needed for that decision, primarily because those details are easy to communicate.

Making entertainment, especially animated entertainment, is something that is much more complex, subjective, and harder to communicate than paper towels. Different series appeal to different people, different shows have different voices, and being able to communicate the benefits of a series to a friend is challenging, let alone an executive 3 organization levels up. Additionally, making an impactful and amazing series takes risks! All great storytelling is communicating a perspective that is unique and engaging, but to make something unique is by definition to make something new, which requires risk. Larger companies are more risk averse than smaller companies: they have more to lose, are harder to change, and adapt less quickly. For a company whose primary purpose is to make stories that people engage with, being larger is, unfortunately, antithetical to that goal. People who want to make something different deal with more red tape, more bureaucracy, and more people their story has to please. It becomes harder and harder to make something that is new and impactful - to put it another way, it becomes harder to make something successful.

In my opinion, many of the recent releases of Disney feel… generic. Lightyear, Strange World, Wish - these films are by no means made by people without skill or character, but if those people are not allowed to take risks, if they’re not allowed to make anything outside the lowest common denominator of opinions, then the perspective these films convey is destined to be bland and uninteresting.

In my opinion, this is why companies like Riot / Fortiche and Sony Pictures Animation have been kicking ass recently. Spider-Verse, Mitchells and Arcane are amazing and seem to have the support and space they need. Since Riot and Sony Pictures Animation aren’t distributors, they don’t have the same pressure to become a larger company themselves. They can stay the size they want and continue to produce animation at a quality and risk level they are comfortable with.

I don’t know exactly what’s going on inside these companies, there might be other factors that contribute to their success - but I do know that making TV is hard. Making anything at a studio level is hard. Many people have to spend months of their lives working, communicating, and trying to discover what this thing they’re working on is. When people working on these series not only make something, but make something incredible - and after all that, are not be supported?

well, that’s just bad business

Epilogue

So where do we go from here?

Well if I were in charge of the largest media corporations on the planet, I’d say: spin off your animation production companies into their own entities and act, primarily, as the best distributor on the market. This will allow for you to remain as the larger corporate entity you want to be but remove the bureaucratic restrictions on production companies. Additionally, it gives the distributor more choices! Now they don’t only stream your own content, they can stream anyone else’s if they want! If another, better player comes into town, making more popular media, they can stream their shows instead. Production companies get the freedom to make great things, distributors get the structure and size that they need, and consumers, because of the competition between the two, get the best deal for their money.

This is what cable TV was in my opinion: one or 2 big distributors offering the same service, and many smaller production companies making the things we love.

Ideal market structure for media distributors, I think, is 1 or 2 big companies.

Ideal market structure for media producers, however, is many smaller companies.

It will take time, but I think we’ll get to this market structure eventually – or something new might come along, who can say (ᵔ ⩊ ᵔ)

In the meantime, I wish a tremendous amount of support to the artists and individuals who make the animation and series that we all love.

Y’all are why any of this exists in the first place – don’t forget that.

-Claire

#animation #business #media

4 notes · View notes

quietblueriver · 2 years ago

Text

Very fucked up few days over at SCOTUS.

Quick, self-indulgent queer law nerd reflection on Justice Sotomayor's powerful dissent in 303 Creative (case in which SCOTUS said a web designer can exclude queer couples from her hypothetical wedding site business because 1st Am.) because the internet is the void I can come scream into about this.

She is not pulling punches at any point. This is what she says about the argument that Smith (web designer) isn't actually refusing to serve queer people: The majority protests that Smith will gladly sell her goods and services to anyone, including same-sex couples. She just will not sell websites for same-sex weddings. Apparently, a gay or lesbian couple might buy a wedding website for their straight friends. This logic would be amusing if it were not so embarrassing. I suppose the Heart of Atlanta Motel could have argued that Black people may still rent rooms for their white friends. Smith answers that she will sell other websites for gay or lesbian clients. But then she, like Ollie McClung, who would serve Black people take-out but not table service, discriminates against LGBT people by offering them a limited menu. This is plain to see, for all who do not look the other way. (Quick context without getting super into the weeds: in Heart of Atlanta and Katzenbach v. McClung, the Court found that business owners could be forced to abide by the Civil Rights Act. They did this by holding that Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution and discriminatory actions interfered with interstate commerce.)

She cites almost all of the major LGBT rights cases and Loving, the case that struck down anti-miscegenation laws. She also cites Kenji Yoshino in making the argument that asking queer people to hide who they are can actively put them in danger on top of the emotional and mental harm it causes: By issuing this new license to discriminate in a case brought by a company that seeks to deny same-sex couples the full and equal enjoyment of its services, the immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status. In this way, the decision itself inflicts a kind of stigmatic harm, on top of any harm caused by denials of service. . . . It reminds LGBT people of a painful feeling that they know all too well: There are some public places where they can be themselves, and some where they cannot. K. Yoshino, Covering 61–66 (2006). Ask any LGBT person, and you will learn just how often they are forced to navigate life in this way. They must ask themselves: If I reveal my identity to this co-worker, or to this shopkeeper, will they treat me the same way? If I hold the hand of my partner in this setting, will someone stare at me, harass me, or even hurt me? It is an awful way to live.

She closes with a quote from the dissent in Korematsu, the case in which SCOTUS said Japanese internment was constitutional because it was about national security. It's an incredibly disgusting and embarrassing part of legal history. Interestingly, Justice Sotomayor also brought up Korematsu in Trump v. Hawaii, the travel ban case. There, she compared the majority's logic in upholding the ban to the logic in Korematsu, which Chief Justice Roberts, the author of the majority opinion upholding the ban, really did not like. Anyway, her use of the case again is a shot at the logic of the majority but it is mostly a very clear shot at what she thinks of their position morally and about how it will be viewed historically: I fear that the symbolic damage of the Court’s opinion is done. But that does not mean that we are powerless in the face of the decision. The meaning of our Constitution is found not in any law volume, but in the spirit of the people who live under it. Every business owner in America has a choice whether to live out the values in the Constitution. Make no mistake: Invidious discrimination is not one of them.“[D]iscrimination in any form and in any degree has no justifiable part whatever in our democratic way of life.” Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 242 (1944) (Murphy, J., dissenting). “It is unattractive in any setting but it is utterly revolting among a free people who have embraced the principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States.”

Basically, all of this is absolute shit but the progressive Justices are not being quiet about it and I'm very grateful for that.

#law things #gay things

6 notes · View notes

juxtmarketing · 9 months ago

Text

Comprehensive Digital Marketing and Branding Services in Atlanta | Juxt Marketin

Discover Juxt Marketing's array of digital marketing and branding services in Atlanta. From web development services in Atlanta to brand identity design, graphic design, and video production, our expert team delivers tailored solutions to elevate your brand's online presence and visibility.

#Digital Marketing Services Atlanta #Web Development Services Atlanta #Brand Identity Services Atlanta #Branding and Identity Services Atlanta #Brand Identity Design Services Atlanta #Graphic Design Services Atlanta #Graphic Designing Services Atlanta #Video Production Services Atlanta

0 notes

distance-coding · 2 years ago

Text

Unlock the Power of Mobile: Transform Your Business with a Mobile Application!

In today's digital landscape, having a mobile application is no longer a luxury; it's a necessity for businesses that aspire to thrive and stay ahead of the competition. Wondering why you need a mobile app for your business? Allow us to reveal the remarkable benefits that await you:

There are 5 best advantages why you need to use Mobile App;

📲 Enhance Customer Engagement: Forge a Deeper Connection 📲

Imagine having a direct line of communication with your customers, right at their fingertips. With a mobile app, you can revolutionize customer engagement by delivering personalized offers, exclusive notifications, and real-time updates. Leave a lasting impression as you interact with your customers in a more direct, personal, and meaningful way.

💡 Boost Brand Recognition: Leave a Lasting Impression 💡

Consistency is key in building brand recognition, and a mobile app serves as a constant reminder of your brand's presence. By residing on your customers' mobile devices, your app will occupy a prime spot in their daily lives, reinforcing your brand image and increasing awareness. Be unforgettable and make a lasting impression with a mobile app that showcases your commitment to innovation.

🌟 Elevate the Customer Experience: Seamless and Convenient 🌟

In a world where convenience is paramount, a well-designed mobile app becomes a gateway to exceptional customer experiences. Seamlessly navigate through your products or services, offer user-friendly features, and provide a hassle-free environment that your customers will love. From streamlined purchasing processes to personalized recommendations, a mobile app empowers you to create an unrivaled customer journey.

⚡️ Stay Ahead of the Curve: Embrace the Digital Frontier ⚡️

In the race for success, having a competitive edge is crucial. Embracing the power of a mobile app demonstrates your commitment to innovation, technology, and customer-centricity. Stand out from the crowd and show that you're at the forefront of your industry. A mobile app propels your business into the future, giving you a distinct advantage over competitors who lag behind.

💰 Drive Revenue Growth: Tap into Lucrative Opportunities 💰

A mobile app opens up a world of revenue possibilities. Monetize your app through in-app purchases, subscriptions, or strategic mobile advertising. Seamlessly integrate your business offerings into the app, unlocking new avenues for revenue generation. Maximize your business's earning potential with a mobile app that caters to your customers' evolving needs and desires.

Ready to Unleash the Power of Mobile for Your Business?

Don't miss out on the endless possibilities that a mobile app can bring. Let our team of experts create a customized mobile application tailored to your unique business goals and objectives. Experience the game-changing benefits of increased customer engagement, enhanced brand recognition, superior customer experiences, and accelerated revenue growth.

👇 Take action now and secure your business's digital future! 👇

Contact Distance coding's expert solution today-

#mobileappdevelopment #mobileappdesign #mobile application security #mobile application testing #mobileapplicationdesign #mobile application services #mobile phone

2 notes · View notes