#big agency expertise

[maxsoftwaretechnologies23]

Digital Marketing Company in Lucknow | Max Software & Technologies.

Max Software & Technologies is a leading digital marketing agency in Lucknow that provides a wide range of services designed to improve your online visibility. With a focus on pay-per-click (PPC) advertising, social media marketing, web design, SEO, and other areas, we’re committed to providing our clients with quantifiable outcomes and optimising return on investment. Our team develops custom plans that are in line with your particular objectives and target market, guaranteeing improved brand awareness, more traffic, and significant client interaction. Put your trust in us to successfully navigate the intricacies of the digital terrain and steer your company towards long-term success and growth.

About Max Software & Technologies

Located in Lucknow, Max Software & Technologies is a leading provider of digital marketing services. Our specialised services in SEO, social media marketing, PPC advertising, and web design enable us to offer customised solutions that improve online visibility and propel business expansion. Delivering quantifiable outcomes and optimising return on investment are our top priorities as we work to enable companies to thrive in the cutthroat digital market.

Why Choose Max Software & Technologies ?

Selecting Max Software & Technologies guarantees working with a formidable force in digital marketing that is dedicated to your success. Our team’s extensive experience in SEO, social media, PPC, and web design allows us to create personalised strategies that are tailored to your specific objectives.

Transparency is a top priority for us, and we offer thorough analytics and frequent reports to monitor development and improve campaigns. Using a client-centric methodology, we work closely with you to comprehend your business and provide solutions that produce results.

We provide scalable services that are catered to your needs and budget, regardless of your company’s size. Put your trust in us to improve your brand’s visibility online, boost traffic, and encourage conversions — thereby setting it up for long-term success in the cutthroat industry of today.

Service Offered

Max Software & Technologies offers a comprehensive range of digital marketing services tailored to meet the diverse needs of our clients. Our services include:

Search Engine Optimization (SEO): Enhancing your website’s visibility in search engine results pages (SERPs) to drive organic traffic and improve rankings.

Social Media Marketing (SMM): Engaging your target audience across various social media platforms to increase brand awareness, foster customer relationships, and drive website traffic.

Pay-Per-Click (PPC) Advertising: Creating and managing targeted advertising campaigns on platforms like Google Ads and social media to generate leads and increase conversions.

Web Design and Development: Designing and developing visually appealing, user-friendly websites that effectively represent your brand and convert visitors into customers.

Content Marketing: Creating high-quality, relevant content to attract and engage your audience, establish thought leadership, and drive organic traffic.

Email Marketing: Developing personalized email campaigns to nurture leads, promote products or services, and drive conversions.

Analytics and Reporting: Providing detailed analytics and regular reports to track campaign performance, measure ROI, and optimize strategies for continuous improvement.

At Max Software & Technologies, we strive to deliver measurable results and maximize the return on investment for our clients across all our service offerings.

Testimonials

“Our web presence was completely transformed by Max Software & Technologies! Their proficiency with PPC and SEO helped our website rank highly in search results, increasing traffic and conversions. The entire process went smoothly because of their commitment and open lines of communication. We heartily endorse their offerings to any company hoping to be successful online.” — Content Customer

Conclusion

To sum up, Max Software & Technologies is your reliable ally in succeeding in the digital world. We offer a full range of services, such as web design, social media marketing, PPC, SEO, and more, and we customise plans to match your particular objectives. What makes us unique is our dedication to openness, quantifiable outcomes, and client satisfaction. Select Max Software & Technologies to improve your website’s visibility, increase traffic, and help your company achieve long-term success.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Expert agencies and elected legislatures

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

https://pluralistic.net/2024/11/21/policy-based-evidence/#decisions-decisions

Since Trump hijacked the Supreme Court, his backers have achieved many of their policy priorities: legalizing bribery, formalizing forced birth, and – with the Loper Bright case, neutering the expert agencies that regulate business:

https://jacobin.com/2024/07/scotus-decisions-chevron-immunity-loper

What the Supreme Court began, Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are now poised to finish, through the "Department of Government Efficiency," a fake agency whose acronym ("DOGE") continues Musk's long-running cryptocurrency memecoin pump-and-dump. The new department is absurd – imagine a department devoted to "efficiency" with two co-equal leaders who are both famously incapable of getting along with anyone – but that doesn't make it any less dangerous.

Expert agencies are often all that stands between us and extreme misadventure, even death. The modern world is full of modern questions, the kinds of questions that require a high degree of expert knowledge to answer, but also the kinds of questions whose answers you'd better get right.

You're not stupid, nor are you foolish. You could go and learn everything you need to know to evaluate the firmware on your antilock brakes and decide whether to trust them. You could figure out how to assess the Common Core curriculum for pedagogical soundness. You could learn the material science needed to evaluate the soundness of the joists that hold the roof up over your head. You could acquire the biology and chemistry chops to decide whether you want to trust produce that's been treated with Monsanto's Roundup pesticides. You could do the same for cell biology, virology, and epidemiology and decide whether to wear a mask and/or get an MRNA vaccine and/or buy a HEPA filter.

You could do any of these. You might even be able to do two or three of them. But you can't do all of them, and that list is just a small slice of all the highly technical questions that stand between you and misery or an early grave. Practically speaking, you aren't going to develop your own robust meatpacking hygiene standards, nor your own water treatment program, nor your own Boeing 737 MAX inspection protocol.

Markets don't solve this either. If they did, we wouldn't have to worry about chunks of Boeing jets falling on our heads. The reason we have agencies like the FDA (and enabling legislation like the Pure Food and Drug Act) is that markets failed to keep people from being murdered by profit-seeking snake-oil salesmen and radium suppository peddlers.

These vital questions need to be answered by experts, but that's easier said than done. After all, experts disagree about this stuff. Shortcuts for evaluating these disagreements ("distrust any expert whose employer has a stake in a technical question") are crude and often lead you astray. If you dismiss any expert employed by a firm that wants to bring a new product to market, you will lose out on the expertise of people who are so legitimately excited about the potential improvements of an idea that they quit their jobs and go to work for whomever has the best chance of realizing a product based on it. Sure, that doctor who works for a company with a new cancer cure might just be shilling for a big bonus – but maybe they joined the company because they have an informed, truthful belief that the new drug might really cure cancer.

What's more, the scientific method itself speaks against the idea of there being one, permanent answer to any big question. The method is designed as a process of continual refinement, where new evidence is continuously brought forward and evaluated, and where cherished ideas that are invalidated by new evidence are discarded and replaced with new ideas.

So how are we to survive and thrive in a world of questions we ourselves can't answer, that experts disagree about, and whose answers are only ever provisional?

The scientific method has an answer for this, too: refereed, adversarial peer review. The editors of major journals act as umpires in disputes among experts, exercising their editorial discernment to decide which questions are sufficiently in flux as to warrant taking up, then asking parties who disagree with a novel idea to do their damndest to punch holes in it. This process is by no means perfect, but, like democracy, it's the worst form of knowledge creation except for all others which have been tried.

Expert regulators bring this method to governance. They seek comment on technical matters of public concern, propose regulations based on them, invite all parties to comment on these regulations, weigh the evidence, and then pass a rule. This doesn't always get it right, but when it does work, your medicine doesn't poison you, the bridge doesn't collapse as you drive over it, and your airplane doesn't fall out of the sky.

Expert regulators work with legislators to provide an empirical basis for turning political choices into empirically grounded policies. Think of all the times you've heard about how the gerontocracy that dominates the House and the Senate is incapable of making good internet policy because "they're out of touch and don't understand technology." Even if this is true (and sometimes it is, as when Sen Ted Stevens ranted about the internet being "a series of tubes," not "a dump truck"), that doesn't mean that Congress can't make good internet policy.

After all, most Americans can safely drink their tap water, a novelty in human civilization, whose history amounts to short periods of thriving shattered at regular intervals by water-borne plagues. The fact that most of us can safely drink our water, but people who live in Flint (or remote indigenous reservations, or Louisiana's Cancer Alley) can't tells you that these neighbors of ours are being deliberately poisoned, as we know precisely how not to poison them.

How did we (most of us) get to the point where we can drink the water without shitting our guts out? It wasn't because we elected a bunch of water scientists! I don't know the precise number of microbiologists and water experts who've been elected to either house, but it's very small, and their contribution to good sanitation policy is negligible.

We got there by delegating these decisions to expert agencies. Congress formulates a political policy ("make the water safe") and the expert agency turns that policy into a technical program of regulation and enforcement, and your children live to drink another glass of water tomorrow.

Musk and Ramaswamy have set out to destroy this process. In their Wall Street Journal editorial, they explain that expert regulation is "undemocratic" because experts aren't elected:

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/musk-and-ramaswamy-the-doge-plan-to-reform-government-supreme-court-guidance-end-executive-power-grab-fa51c020

They've vowed to remove "thousands" of regulations, and to fire swathes of federal employees who are in charge of enforcing whatever remains:

https://www.theverge.com/2024/11/20/24301975/elon-musk-vivek-ramaswamy-doge-plan

And all this is meant to take place on an accelerated timeline, between now and July 4, 2026 – a timeline that precludes any meaningful assessment of the likely consequences of abolishing the regulations they'll get rid of.

"Chesterton's Fence" – a thought experiment from the novelist GK Chesterton – is instructive here:

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.

A regulation that works might well produce no visible sign that it's working. If your water purification system works, everything is fine. It's only when you get rid of the sanitation system that you discover why it was there in the first place, a realization that might well arrive as you expire in a slick of watery stool with a rectum so prolapsed the survivors can use it as a handle when they drag your corpse to the mass burial pits.

When Musk and Ramaswamy decry the influence of "unelected bureaucrats" on your life as "undemocratic," they sound reasonable. If unelected bureaucrats were permitted to set policy without democratic instruction or oversight, that would be autocracy.

Indeed, it would resemble life on the Tesla factory floor: that most autocratic of institutions, where you are at the mercy of the unelected and unqualified CEO of Tesla, who holds the purely ceremonial title of "Chief Engineer" and who paid the company's true founders to falsely describe him as its founder.

But that's not how it works! At its best, expert regulations turns political choices in to policy that reflects the will of democratically accountable, elected representatives. Sometimes this fails, and when it does, the answer is to fix the system – not abolish it.

I have a favorite example of this politics/empiricism fusion. It comes from the UK, where, in 2008, the eminent psychopharmacologist David Nutt was appointed as the "drug czar" to the government. Parliament had determined to overhaul its system of drug classification, and they wanted expert advice:

https://locusmag.com/2021/05/cory-doctorow-qualia/

To provide this advice, Nutt convened a panel of drug experts from different disciplines and asked them to rate each drug in question on how dangerous it was for its user; for its user's family; and for broader society. These rankings were averaged, and then a statistical model was used to determine which drugs were always very dangerous, no matter which group's safety you prioritized, and which drugs were never very dangerous, no matter which group you prioritized.

Empirically, the "always dangerous" drugs should be in the most restricted category. The "never very dangerous" drugs should be at the other end of the scale. Parliament had asked how to rank drugs by their danger, and for these categories, there were clear, factual answers to Parliament's question.

But there were many drugs that didn't always belong in either category: drugs whose danger score changed dramatically based on whether you were more concerned about individual harms, familial harms, or societal harms. This prioritization has no empirical basis: it's a purely political question.

So Nutt and his panel said to Parliament, "Tell us which of these priorities matter the most to you, and we will tell you where these changeable drugs belong in your schedule of restricted substances." In other words, politicians make political determinations, and then experts turn those choices into empirically supported policies.

This is how policy by "unelected bureaucrats" can still be "democratic."

But the Nutt story doesn't end there. Nutt butted heads with politicians, who kept insisting that he retract factual, evidence-supported statements (like "alcohol is more harmful than cannabis"). Nutt refused to do so. It wasn't that he was telling politicians which decisions to make, but he took it as his duty to point out when those decisions did not reflect the policies they were said to be in support of. Eventually, Nutt was fired for his commitment to empirical truth. The UK press dubbed this "The Nutt Sack Affair" and you can read all about it in Nutt's superb book Drugs Without the Hot Air, an indispensable primer on the drug war and its many harms:

https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/drugs-without-the-hot-air-9780857844989/

Congress can't make these decisions. We don't elect enough water experts, virologists, geologists, oncology researchers, structural engineers, aerospace safety experts, pedagogists, gerontoloists, physicists and other experts for Congress to turn its political choices into policy. Mostly, we elect lawyers. Lawyers can do many things, but if you ask a lawyer to tell you how to make your drinking water safe, you will likely die a horrible death.

That's the point. The idea that we should just trust the market to figure this out, or that all regulation should be expressly written into law, is just a way of saying, "you will likely die a horrible death."

Trump – and his hatchet men Musk and Ramaswamy – are not setting out to create evidence-based policy. They are pursuing policy-based evidence, firing everyone capable of telling them how to turn the values espouse (prosperity and safety for all Americans) into policy.

They dress this up in the language of democracy, but the destruction of the expert agencies that turn the political will of our representatives into our daily lives is anything but democratic. It's a prelude to transforming the nation into a land of epistemological chaos, where you never know what's coming out of your faucet.

[sapphosclosefriend]

- Money, Power, Glory pt 1 -

Pairing: CEO! Silverfox! Natasha Romanoff x Escort! Fem! Reader

Genre: suggestive

Summary: Natasha Romanoff, successful and rich CEO, books an urgent meeting with someone who she might be able to finally destress with. Part 2 Part 3 Part 4

Word count: 1.5k

Warnings: top! Natasha x bottom! R, Natasha has a penis, BIG age gap (N=56, R=24), suggestive themes.

A/N: this story contains mature topics so anyone who isn’t 18+ DNI. Just as an introduction hehe don't worry, their first time is in the next one, I won't leave it out! Thanks sooo much to @rt--link and @supercorpdanbeau for being the kindest and both helping me out ❤️ As usual, likes, reblogs and comments are very appreciated! Enjoy ♡

Masterlist

You still remember clearly the day you received the call from your agent. You honestly thought it was a cruel joke of hers at first, but the serious, yet excited, tone in her voice easily reassured you of the realness of the situation. The fact that she was calling you in the first place, and not quickly messaging you, was clear proof of just how important and urgent the matter was. Not only were you requested for that same night, meaning that the trusted woman deemed the new customer as important enough to ditch the advance days you usually demanded, but the house you needed to get to was of no regular person.

You were a high end escort, pleasing la creme de la creme only, well, at least in terms of monetary assets. You, and the agency you worked with, were known for your discretion, professionalism and skills, an overall level of competence that simply tended to attract clients of a certain status. And that's how you met her, the Natasha Romanoff herself, CEO of a multi-billion company she had created from the ground up in her decades-long career. But why was she so important? She would've been the richest one of your clients, it was as simple as that. Pretty much every single one of them were at the head of, if not close to, big and different companies, all with the highest power of the twenty-first century in their hands, money. You had actually thought about dipping your toes in the world of politics once, which was not so surprisingly filled with countless requests interested in your realm of expertise, but thanks to long consideration and much advice, you had decided to avoid its risks, settling on who you knew, after all, had what you wanted, filthy rich assholes. And gosh, wasn't she the richest one of them all.

Aside from her status, the thought of such a woman, so idolized she seemed unattainable, who could and probably had everything in the world, asking for your company, intrigued you immensely. That day, during every single hour you had spent to thoroughly take care of your appearance just for her, anticipation completely took over you. You knew she was beautiful and you genuinely thought she was fucking hot, which wasn't necessarily to be taken for granted in your line of work, but what you found yourself needing to know, and consequently making your interest in her grow even more, was how she was going to be in private. Was she going to be just like one of those countless naggingly cocky know-it-all's who thought of themselves as some sex gods, and gods in general, but really couldn't even figure out if you had cum yet? You found yourself almost wanting her to be different than everybody else, because deep down you felt like, even if she was the most annoying, full of herself bitch ever, you would’ve gladly tried to satisfy every single one of her needs and taken anything from her with a smile on your face. Ok, maybe scrolling for an hour through the internet looking up information about her and consequently ending up lost through any picture of her you could find wasn’t the best idea, but what could you say, you had a bit of a sweet spot for powerful women.

What you gathered from your innocent stalking session, though, was mainly about her countless successes in life but also concerning some gossip regarding her not so successful marriage life. It didn’t bother you, barely anything about your clients did at that point, but it only intrigued you more about why she wanted someone like you. She could’ve had anybody, she was a walking goddess with her pockets more than full and ladies most definitely falling at her feet left and right, yet there she was, in her car, getting back home after one of the longest and most tiring weeks of the past few months to wait for a girl she’d only seen a couple pictures of to take her mind off of everything. Her driver immediately knew not to even greet her by her frustrated sigh and the pinching of the bridge of her own nose as soon as she got in the car and immediately took off to her desired destination, making Natasha thank any and all gods for the nice relief after such displays of incompetence she had to endure from basically her whole staff. She was right at her limit and all the pent up anger and irritation from the week was finally starting to crack her composed facade at the prospect of the imminent weekend slowly reaching her. She didn’t even want to have dinner, she just needed to be at home, everyone out of her goddamn house and a pussy to unload some stress into. If she had to be honest, in that specific moment, she even missed her disastrous married life and the perk of having a wife always waiting for her at home, ready to meet her needs at the end of the day.

She, unfortunately, never felt the symptoms of "true love" with any of her ex wives, but the thought of how badly it had gone wrong with all of them still pained her a little every time her mind drifted to that phase of her life. During her successful yet busy life she'd been through her fair share of failed marriages, all with beautiful women she'd deeply cared for, but all eventually focused on one thing only, her absence. The first thing she'd always made sure to make very, very clear was just how little time she had to dedicate to anything outside of her company, which unfortunately included her personal life. Her best guess was that the haziness coming from a brand new love must've made it hard to get a grasp on her words…every single time, apparently.

It didn't matter anymore, though, because what she had to focus on now seemed to be much more important than any matter ever had. The quick, warm shower she had just enough time to take as soon as she got home was thankfully able to wash away the surface level anger that was starting to make her temple throb, preventing her from being a rude prick for the rest of the night. She was aware, after all, of the favor you were doing to her by working the night without any notice and all she wanted to do was be respectful for your kind availability. Being her perfectionist self, and deep down maybe even wanting you to like her, she knew she had to focus on not losing her mind on minor things like her outfit, so she decided to try to at least appear to be careless about her appearance and only focus the last bits of mental strength she had on the more relaxing, pleasurable parts of the night. Of course she still couldn't help but fix her hair just a little and change her sweatshirt for a still casual but more put together beige, cashmere sweater. She'd had it for years and, despite its condition not being the best, she couldn't bring herself to get rid of it, it just reminded her too much of- nevermind. A few small holes and pulled threads on her top would certainly be the last thought on your mind anyway.

She didn't even realize she was starting to zone out while still looking at herself in the mirror, when the sudden, distant ring of the front door slightly startled her, effectively making her get herself back together. What was minutes away from happening truly dawned on her as she descended the stairs to the first floor and, for a brief moment, as she walked through the entrance corridor and saw the blurry outline of your figure through the frosted glass of the tall door, time seemed to slow down and for the first time in years she felt a small twinge of anxiety creeping up on her the closer she got to you. She was really doing it, she was really about to follow the advice of her idiot Stark friend and didn't mind it too much. Maybe she was really getting old, maybe age was starting to actually play some tricks on her, because, as her hand pushed the cold handle of the entrance door and started to pull it open, the snippets of hair she could start to see of you lit a confident fire in her that only burned more vividly as your form was finally fully displayed to her, making it impossible for her to suppress the excitement she suddenly felt at the sight of you in person, looking at her through your lashes with subtle faux innocence she could see right through.

"Good evening, Ms Romanoff"

.

.

Part 2

.

.

Tags: @fxckmiup @natashasilverfox

[tsumuus]

Years had passed since UA High, where heroes were forged and futures decided. Bakugo Katsuki had emerged as one of Japan's top pro heroes, his fiery determination and explosive quirk propelling him to success. Meanwhile, you had carved your own path, Denki Kaminari's twin sister, without a quirk but with a sharp mind for business. Fate, it seemed, had intertwined your lives once more when you became Bakugo's PR manager.

In the bustling heart of the city, Bakugo's agency was a beacon of heroism. You navigated through the chaos of press releases and public appearances, your days filled with strategic meetings and late-night brainstorming sessions. Bakugo, ever the hero of action, relied on your expertise to shape his public image, to smooth the rough edges without dulling his fierce persona.

From the beginning, there was an unspoken tension- a current of something unsaid between you and Bakugo. You knew him from UA, where your brother and Bakugo had been classmates. Back then, you admired his unwavering determination from afar, a quiet observer in the background of heroics. Now, in the present, the dynamics had shifted but the unspoken remained.

Bakugo's office was a reflection of his persona- bold, unyielding, with trophies and accolades adorning the walls. On evenings when the city lights painted the skyline in hues of orange and gold, you found yourself poring over strategy documents with him, discussing the next big campaign or handling the fallout of a recent skirmish.

He was intense, passionate about his work, his heroism, and his agency- but there were moments when you glimpsed another side of him. A rare smile when a child asked for an autograph, a fleeting softness in his eyes when he spoke about training the next generation of heroes.

Yet, beneath the surface, Bakugo struggled with words that didn't involve battle plans or heroics. And you, with your own hidden admiration for the hero who dared to dream bigger than anyone else, navigated the delicate balance of professionalism and unspoken feelings.

One crisp autumn evening, after a particularly grueling day of interviews and photo shoots, you found yourselves on the rooftop of the agency building. The city sprawled beneath you, a tapestry of lights and life stretching into the horizon.

"You're doing good work," Bakugo said suddenly, his voice softer than usual, eyes fixed on the cityscape.

You smiled, a small, genuine curve of your lips. "It's what you hired me for."

He glanced at you then, a flicker of something unreadable in his gaze. "Yeah, but..."

The words hung between you, heavy with meaning that neither dared to voice aloud. There were boundaries, unspoken rules that governed your professional relationship, and yet the heart was seldom obedient to reason.

Days turned into weeks, weeks into months, and the unspoken grew louder in the silence of shared moments. Bakugo's gestures were subtle- a coffee brought to your desk when he knew you were burning the midnight oil, a spare jacket offered on a chilly evening when the wind whispered through the city streets.

One night, as you watched him train in the agency gym- an inferno of determination and raw power- you realized how deeply intertwined your lives had become. The hero, the same boy she once admired from afar, and his PR manager, navigating the uncharted waters of unspoken words and silent glances.

In the quiet of your own thoughts, you wondered if he saw beyond the professional facade you wore, if he sensed the echoes of admiration and unspoken longing that mirrored his own.

But for now, beneath the city lights and the weight of unspoken words, you continued to navigate the complexities of heroism and heart, finding solace in the silent understanding that bound you together.

a/n my first writing for mha so be nice. i wanna get around to writing for more series in addition to haikyuu, so if you'd like to send in some requests about what you'd like me to write i'd be more than happy to because im lowk running outta ideas🫠

masterlist

[odinsblog]

🗣️This is an illegitimate and deeply corrupt Supreme Court

By upending decades of precedent set by the Chevron doctrine, the U.S. Supreme Court has just usurped the authority of Congress by 1) elevating the court’s “expertise” over actual scientific experts in their given fields, and 2) by dictating that congress must write extremely specific laws that cover every exact issue that might ever arise—but of course the rulings of SCOTUS are not held to the same specificity. This is a pro-big-business, deregulation, Libertarian wet dream and make no mistake, it is absolutely a power grab.

It is worth noting that Neil Gorsuch’s mother, Ann Gorsuch, was a Republican EPA administrator who was determined to deregulate and destroy the EPA from the inside. And Chief Justice John Roberts worked under Ronald Reagan, and for decades toiled to ensure that the Voting Rights Act was overturned and gutted.

For added perspective, the 1980 Libertarian Party platform was to abolish the following:

• Department Of Energy (DOE)

• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

• Food & Drug Administration (FDA)

• Occupational Health & Safety Administration (OHSA)

• Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

• Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

• National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)

• Federal Bureau Of Investigation (FBI)

• Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)

• Federal Reserve

• Social Security

• Welfare

• Public Schools

• Taxation

This is the deregulation spree of the Lochner Era on steroids.

And legalizing punishing the homeless for the simple act of being homeless? No matter how many occasional “good” decisions this court might accidentally stumble into making, this SCOTUS is anti-democratic and just plain old evil.

[sgiandubh]

A word on Wardpark/Cumbernauld Studios

@docsama left a comment, on S's birthday, under one of my posts and I promised her an answer with more information, as soon as I got the time. Anyway, here goes - and @docsama, sorry for the delay:

Question is: who owns the Wardpark Film and Television Studios?

The answer was quick to find, in the not-so-old specialized media:

The story begins in 2013, with an ambitious Scottish entrepreneur, Terry Thomson - this guy (courtesy of The Herald, https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15984820.analysis-three-projects-pipeline-help-productions-make-big-picture/):

He is the owner of the Thomson Pettie Group, based in Carluke (https://www.thomsonpettie.com/about-us), which has nothing to do with cinema:

You've read that right: they are 'manufacturers of fabricated metal parts and assemblies', primarily for the national automotive industry. Yet, in 2013, Mr. Thomson agreed to rent what he described as 'a dormant industrial property' - a warehouse, to be exact - to Sony, in order to host the filming and production of OL. Thus, he became the CEO of a newly created entity, The Wardpark Film and Television Studios (https://www.hackmancapital.com/scotlands-largest-most-iconic-film-studio-acquired-by-hackman-capital-partners-and-square-mile-capital/).

By 2017, Wardpark was doing so well, that a big expansion plan was announced, with the direct support of the Scottish Government, which invested £4 million via Scottish Enterprise, its business support, advice and funding agency:

And then, in November 2021, the little engine that could was sold to those two big US investors, Hackman Capital Partners (HCP) and Square Mile Capital Management LLC (now globally rebranded as Affinius Capital). In this montage, Hackman Capital Partners brought its own confirmed film studios and media management expertise...

... while Square Mile most probably funded a sizeable portion of the acquisition, simply because this is what they do best:

Perhaps an interesting detail: HCP owns and manages both the Culver City based Sony Pictures Animation Studios' Campus and the legendary Culver Studios, now rebranded by Amazon:

Back to Scotland, Wardpark Studio's sale made just about everyone happy. Mr. Thomson kept his CEO job and look who was more than thrilled about the juicy transaction:

Currently, the studio is operated by HCP's subsidiary, The MBS Group:

That means that MBS probably manages just about everything, as far as daily management is concerned, from business operations, staffing and/or property management, to lighting and grip, trucks and generators' fleet, expendables and props. Unless I could see a contract and have a precise idea, I can just enumerate all the services they offer.

At no point in time did S and C own anything of those studios. As for the Executive Producer part, that is another discussion entirely. I could be coaxed to write something about it, if you really want to know why Those Two are EPs and what does that really, really mean - because once again, I have seen and read a LOT of bullshit in here, especially in the Desperate Housewives Disgruntled Tumblrettes' corner.

Thank you for asking. It was fun to research and write and I hope it brought more clarity to you.

[thankyouforthememoriesworld]

UNLTD represents her interests and gets her NIL deals while Midnight Dawn gets her coverage and makes sure it is all aligned with her values.

UNLTD - Azzi's agency. Nick is her agent and I've seen Jacqueline (director of marketing) also be on the trips when Nick isn't there. Also note that Nick is the former director of global marketing for Under Armour so I wonder if that's how this happened since UNLTD was co-founded by Nick.

Steph's full company is Thirty Ink. Thirty Ink is a holding company - essentially a collection of Steph's different brands, investments, and partnerships under one name. It includes but is not limited to SC30, Curry Brand, Underrated, etc.

Midnight Dawn is a communications (PR) agency and their biggest client is Steph Curry and Thirty Ink. They also have Azzi as a client. I'm guessing this happened via Thirty Ink.

While Azzi's deal is with SC30 back in 2021, it rebranded to Thirty Ink since then. She gets gear from curry brand, attends underrated events and follows gentleman cut bourbon, etc. Her camp recently had Nirvana Water, which Thirty Ink just invested in and is a brand ambassador. She also gets access to Steph's medical team and trainers. I feel like the SC30/Thirty Ink deal is way better than just signing with Curry Brand specifically and nobody has a deal like what Azzi has in college basketball. It is one of a kind.

Also because SC30, Inc. came first in 2017, funny enough, it owns the trademark for Thirty Ink even though his website shows it vice versa. https://trademarks.justia.com/owners/sc30-inc-3958086/

It seems SC30, Inc now has a new description. "SC30 is an athlete management studio specializing in athlete services, managing and maximizing marketing partnerships, and growing assets through expertise in digital strategy and content development. SC30 is committed to building for growth, market value, and legacy."

Long story short - whatever visions Azzi has in building her business off the court, they are going to help Azzi do it. I am excited that Azzi is getting that business degree because it really is going to make her street smart on the business side.

One last thing to bring to attention but also don't get your hopes up - Thirty Ink's media company Unanimous Media signed a deal with NBC back in 2022. Big East announced that they would have a media deal starting in 2025-26 with NBC. So if Azzi stayed another year, I could easily see Unanimous Media doing a documentary or something in partnership with NBC x Big East to cover Azzi's last college year if she chooses to stay. But of course, this is Azzi and I doubt she wants that type of attention but I'm sure her PR team does lol.

So, in conclusion, everything is rather interrelated or parallel for the most part. Hope that adds clarity!

I love you and your brain ♥️. I was almost right, and she has a one-of-a-kind deal because she's special like that 🦄.

[mariacallous]

This summer, the Supreme Court is poised to overturn a cornerstone of administrative law known as "Chevron deference." Established in the 1984 case Chevron v. NRDC, this doctrine instructs courts to defer to federal agencies' interpretations of laws where the underlying statute is ambiguous (or even silent). Absent Chevron, Congress could be forced to be much more specific in how it crafts legislation, delegates authority, and conducts regulatory oversight. If it refuses to adapt, agencies could be incapacitated and service delivery could stall.

Ironically, the effort to dismantle Chevron and return responsibility to the legislative branch may happen amid a historically unproductive and divided Congress. Briefing and oral arguments for Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the case challenging the 1984 decision, raised questions about Congress' preparedness. And outside the Court, commentators fear Congress may be too broken to fix.

As close watchers of efforts to modernize Congress over the past decade, we don't share that pessimism. But a lot will have to change. In the 40 years since Chevron was decided, Congress has seen worsening dysfunction and atrophy. Staffing on House committees has shrunk by 41 percent. Critical support offices like the Congressional Research Service and the Government Accountability Office have downsized by more than 25 percent. Meanwhile, the complexity of the federal bureaucracy has increased immensely.

While Chevron is often described as diminishing congressional authority, that's not entirely accurate. Rather than stealing authority from Congress, the ruling created the political conditions for Congress to be deliberately ambiguous, and punt contentious policy details to the executive branch. This change was then followed by a hollowing out of committee expertise, increased dependence on lobbyists, centralization of power in leadership, and more gridlock. As attorney Paul Clement argued in Loper Bright v. Raimondo:

Chevron is a big factor in contributing to gridlock. And let me give you a concrete example. I would think that the uniquely 21st-century phenomenon of cryptocurrency would have been addressed by Congress, and I certainly would have thought that would have been true in the wake of the FTX debacle. But it hasn't happened. Why hasn't it happened? Because there's an agency head out there that thinks that he already has the authority to address this uniquely 21st-century problem with a couple of statutes passed in the 1930s.

A post-Chevron world could force Congress to increase its internal capacity, invest in expertise, overhaul its processes, better monitor implementation, and respond more quickly. If not, depending where SCOTUS comes down, things could start to break.

Massive institutional reforms in Congress are rare and usually come in response to a crisis or scandal, whether post-Nixon budget changes, post-Jack Abramoff lobbying reform, or post-9/11 security changes (including the embrace of email after Anthrax attacks).

More recently, we saw continuity upgrades accelerated during the pandemic, and Congress is now responding with remarkable haste to responsibly adopt AI tools. Since 2019, a bipartisan modernization effort in the House has produced and implemented over 100 reforms, creating a virtuous cycle in which members, staff, and outside experts work together to improve the institution.

Post-Chevron, these efforts need to be dramatically expanded. This will require not just incremental adjustments but a comprehensive upgrade in resources, staffing, and operations. It will require a major increase to the legislative branch's budget even as the U.S. faces a difficult fiscal outlook. Indeed, while Congress is a mere 0.1 percent of federal expenditures, it has long been a salient and politically expedient place for politicians to make cuts.

One key area where Congress will need to improve is its regulatory monitoring and oversight. AEI scholars Kevin Kosar and Philip Wallach proposed a vehicle for this change: a new "Congressional Regulation Office" (CRO). The CRO would undertake critical tasks such as conducting benefit-cost analyses of significant agency rules, performing retrospective reviews to assess the effectiveness and impact of existing regulations, and identifying redundancies or conflicts across the regulatory landscape. Another approach would be to build this function inside of an existing agency, such as the Government Accountability Office or the Congressional Budget Office.

In addition to building a new regulatory support function, Congress will need to bolster its staff capacity and technology resources, with a particular focus on committees with substantial regulatory jurisdiction, as well as support agencies.

Unfortunately, to date, we are unaware of any major hearings or other efforts in Congress to address this challenge. Meanwhile, court watchers see that an upheaval to Chevron is coming. Regardless of where you come down on the merits of the case, it's crucial to get ready. While most will be focused on the November election throughout 2024, some of the biggest changes coming to Congress may soon be decided by nine votes.

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Supreme Court poised to appoint federal judges to run the US economy.

January 18, 2024

ROBERT B. HUBBELL

JAN 17, 2024

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on two cases that provide the Court with the opportunity to overturn the “Chevron deference doctrine.” Based on comments from the Justices, it seems likely that the justices will overturn judicial precedent that has been settled for forty years. If they do, their decision will reshape the balance of power between the three branches of government by appointing federal judges as regulators of the world’s largest economy, supplanting the expertise of federal agencies (a.k.a. the “administrative state”).

Although the Chevron doctrine seems like an arcane area of the law, it strikes at the heart of the US economy. If the Court were to invalidate the doctrine, it would do so in service of the conservative billionaires who have bought and paid for four of the justices on the Court. The losers would be the American people, who rely on the expertise of federal regulators to protect their water, food, working conditions, financial systems, public markets, transportation, product safety, health care services, and more.

The potential overruling of the Chevron doctrine is a proxy for a broader effort by the reactionary majority to pare the power of the executive branch and Congress while empowering the courts. Let’s take a moment to examine the context of that effort.

But I will not bury the lead (or the lede): The reactionary majority on the Court is out of control. In disregarding precedent that conflicts with the conservative legal agenda of its Federalist Society overlords, the Court is acting in a lawless manner. It is squandering hard-earned legitimacy. It is time to expand the Court—the only solution that requires a simple majority in two chambers of Congress and the signature of the president.

The “administrative state” sounds bad. Is it?

No. The administrative state is good. It refers to the collective body of federal employees, regulators, and experts who help maintain an orderly US economy. Conservatives use the term “administrative state” to denigrate federal regulation and expertise. They want corporations to operate free of all federal restraint—free to pollute, free to defraud, free to impose dangerous and unfair working conditions, free to release dangerous products into the marketplace, and free to engage in deceptive practices in public markets.

The US economy is the largest, most robust economy in the world because federal regulators impose standards for safety, honesty, transparency, and accountability. Not only is the US economy the largest in the world (as measured by nominal GDP), but its GDP per capita ($76,398) overshadows that of the second largest economy, China ($12,270). The US dollar is the reserve currency for the world and its markets are a haven for foreign investment and capital formation. See The Top 25 Economies in the World (investopedia.com)

US consumers, banks, investment firms, and foreign investors are attracted to the US economy because it is regulated. US corporations want all the benefits of regulations—until regulations get in the way of making more money. It is at that point that the “administrative state” is seen as “the enemy” by conservatives who value profit maximization above human health, safety, and solvency.

It is difficult to comprehend how big the US economy is. To paraphrase Douglas Adams’s quote about space, “It’s big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is.” Suffice to say, the US economy is so big it cannot be regulated by several hundred federal judges with dockets filled with criminal cases and major business disputes.

Nor can Congress pass enough legislation to keep pace with ever changing technological and financial developments. Congress can’t pass a budget on time; the notion that it would be able to keep up with regulations necessary to regulate Bitcoin trading in public markets is risible.

What is the Chevron deference doctrine?

Managing the US economy requires hundreds of thousands of subject matter experts—a.k.a. “regulators”—who bring order, transparency, and honesty to the US economy. Those experts must make millions of judgments each year in creating, implementing and applying federal regulations.

And this is where the “Chevron deference doctrine” comes in. When federal experts and regulators interpret federal regulations in esoteric areas such as maintaining healthy fisheries, their decisions should be entitled to a certain amount of deference. And they have received such deference since 1984, when the US Supreme Court created a rule of judicial deference to decisions by federal regulators in the case of Chevron v. NRDC.

What happened at oral argument?

In a pair of cases, the US Supreme Court heard argument on Tuesday as to whether the Chevron deference doctrine should continue—or whether the Court should overturn the doctrine and effectively throw out 17,000 federal court decisions applying the doctrine. According to Court observers, including Mark Joseph Stern of Slate, the answer is “Yes, the Court is poised to appoint federal judges as regulators of the US economy.” See Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, The Supreme Court is seizing more power from Democratic presidents. (slate.com)

I recommend Stern’s article for a description of the grim atmosphere at the oral argument—kind of “pre-demise” wake for the Chevron deference doctrine. Stern does a superb job of explaining the effects of overruling Chevron:

Here’s the bottom line: Without Chevron deference, it’ll be open season on each and every regulation, with underinformed courts playing pretend scientist, economist, and policymaker all at once. Securities fraud, banking secrecy, mercury pollution, asylum applications, health care funding, plus all manner of civil rights laws: They are ultravulnerable to judicial attack in Chevron’s absence. That’s why the medical establishment has lined up in support of Chevron, explaining that its demise would mark a “tremendous disruption” for patients and providers; just rinse and repeat for every other area of law to see the convulsive disruptions on the horizon.

The Kochs and the Federalist Society have bought and paid for this sad outcome. The chaos that will follow will hurt consumers, travelers, investors, patients and—ultimately—American businesses, who will no longer be able to rely on federal regulators for guidance as to the meaning of federal regulations. Instead, businesses will get an answer to their questions after lengthy, expensive litigation before overworked and ill-prepared judges implement a political agenda.

Expand the Court. Disband the reactionary majority by relegating it to an irrelevant minority. If we win control of both chambers of Congress in 2024 and reelect Joe Biden, expanding the Court should be the first order of business.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[schraubd]

Losing Your Chevrons

Somewhere, an environmentalist wished upon a star: "I hate big oil. It's a blight on the universe. If only Chevron would disappear forever!" and a monkey's paw curled once. I was steeling myself to write about Loper Bright and my official welcome on behalf of the Con Law professoriate to the Admin Law professors joining the "burn all your lecture notes and start from scratch club", and then Trump v. United States came down. Even though the latter is a more immediate big deal and is closer to my expertise wheelhouse (I've fielded far more inquiries from former students asking "what is going on!" with respect to the Trump decision than any ruling in my entire career, Dobbs included), I really don't have all that much to say at this moment. That may change -- in fact, it almost certainly will, as I try to work this blog post into an essay -- but for now I'm going to lay off and just write what I planned to write about the demise of Chevron. My short version take is this: in many, many cases, we'll see little difference between before and after. This prediction, however, should not be confused with sanguinity. Rather, it is a recognition that judges are human, with the normal assortment of human interests, talents, and vices.  In most deep-weeds administrative law cases, where judges neither know nor care about the difference between, say, nitrogen oxide and nitrous oxide, they aren't going to actually do a deep dive review of the law from scratch. These issues are hard enough for a team of subject-matter experts with Ph.Ds in the hard sciences grinding away for months. For a judge with a J.D. from Hofstra who last took a statistics class in 11th grade? Forget about it. In practice, no matter what the doctrine purports to demand or what they claim to be doing on the opinion pages, judges will end up deferring to reasonable agency interpretations of the law unless they're howlingly off-base -- which, of course, is why we ended up with Chevron in the first place. Any objective observer of courts sees this sort of thing from judges all the time -- there are all sorts of cases where nominal "de novo" review is the furthest thing from, because judges simply find the topic boring, repetitive, or impenetrable (you can usually spot these cases by their use of the phrase "after careful review ...."). This will be what happens for many if not most cases on obscure rules in unremarkable issue areas. What will change is in those administrative rules on hot button issues of high-salience. Here, Loper Bright doesn't make judges any smarter, but does give them a green light to start substituting their judgment for expert agencies who at least have some measure of accountability to the political process. In other words, Loper Bright won't universally result in the substitution of inexpert judicial policymaking for the judgments of administrative agencies; rather, it will result in that substitution on an ad hoc and arbitrary basis whenever the judge who happens to be draw the case has an idiosyncratic or ideological hobbyhorse to ride. The administrative state will be able to carry on, with a cutaway for partisan judges to meddle more openly whenever partisan proclivities instigate an urge. So there's your consolation about the end of Chevron. Feeling better? I thought so. via The Debate Link https://ift.tt/ow8Pq4G

[yuujis-sunshine]

Hi there! This is based on a RP I did with a Ranpo ai but I would like to request the agency members (Dazai, Atsushi, Ranpo and Fukuzawa) reactions and interactions with a young child genius reader. Gender neutral and platonic, reader is about 12-years old and their main area of expertise is languages though they're plenty smart in other areas. And could you have Ranpo call them my little rose? It's not super important but it's what the ai called them throughout the rp and i thought it was really cute.

𝐃𝐀𝐙𝐀𝐈, 𝐅𝐔𝐊𝐔𝐙𝐀𝐖𝐀, 𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐏𝐎 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐀𝐓𝐒𝐔𝐒𝐇𝐈 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇 𝐀 𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐋𝐃 𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐒! 𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑 𝐇𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐂𝐀𝐍𝐍𝐎𝐍

𝑪𝒉𝒂𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒆𝒓(𝒔): Dazai Osamu, Ranpo Edogawa, Atsushi Nakajima, Fukuzawa Yukichi

𝑾𝒂𝒓𝒏𝒊𝒏𝒈(𝒔): --

𝑨/𝑵: I rlly love how creative you guys are with these requests, especially since I love to take requests. Btw, you are 12 years old in this.

𝑺𝒚𝒏𝒐𝒑𝒔𝒊𝒔: The title explains it all...

𝐑𝐀𝐍𝐏𝐎 𝐄𝐃𝐎𝐆𝐀𝐖𝐀 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇 𝐀 𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐋𝐃 𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐒! 𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑 𝐖𝐎𝐔𝐋𝐃 𝐁𝐄 𝐋𝐈𝐊𝐄:

"Who are you, Little Rose?" Ranpo asked. The kid with [Hair Color] hair stares at him, trying to trust the guy in front of him. They backed away from him and held onto the stuffed bunny their late parents gave to him/her on their 8th birthday. He knew that they were scared, so he comforted them by holding out his hand to the small one and telling them,

"I'm not going to do anything to you." After seeing his hand out. It reminded you of your dad. Without hesitation, they grabbed his hand and shook it before introducing themselves. Before a small smile appears on his lips, and told them, "Ranpo Edogawa."

When Ranpo first met you, he was reminded of his past as a kid

He wishes to take care of you like an actual dad would for his child

Loves to hear stories from your past

100% CHANCE HE'LL SHARE HIS SNACKS WITH THEM

Takes [Name] on all his missions so they could help solve any case

In no time, You'll be Ranpo's twin

Sometimes, he spends his free time taking [Name] to the park and getting ice cream

"I'll protect you no matter what, Little Rose!"

𝐀𝐓𝐒𝐔𝐒𝐇𝐈 𝐍𝐀𝐊𝐀𝐉𝐈𝐌𝐀 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇 𝐀 𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐋𝐃 𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐒! 𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑 𝐖𝐎𝐔𝐋𝐃 𝐈𝐍𝐂𝐋𝐔𝐃𝐄:

"So, you're looking for a dog?"

"Mhm, and I think he's over THERE!" They point, going to where the dog might possibly at. Atsushi had followed the little 12 year old kid fin and pick up the cute little mammal in their hands with a big smile. Then they said, "Caught it!" While the detective stares at her in shock. He then compared them to Ranpo, who was also a total genius as well. Next thing he knew, he asked them if they could come along with him. At first, they were being resistant, but it took him a while to convince them to be with the Detective Agency.

He and Kyoka starts to keep their eyes on [Name]

Takes life-threatening hits and/or injuries just to protect them

Tries his best to comfort [Name] if they were to cry (ALWAYS ENDS UP CRYING WITH THEM, SOMETIMES)

Loves carrying them around on his shoulders

During freetime, he would love to go out with both Kyoka and [Name], going to a carnival together.

𝐅𝐔𝐊𝐔𝐙𝐀𝐖𝐀 𝐘𝐔𝐊𝐈𝐂𝐇𝐈 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇 𝐀 𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐋𝐃 𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐒! 𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑 𝐖𝐎𝐔𝐋𝐃 𝐈𝐍𝐂𝐋𝐔𝐃𝐄:

Both Fukuzawa and [Name] stares at one another, as the little kid's eyes was filled with sparkles. Fukuzawa had recently saved them from an abusive caretaker.

"You're so cool, mister!" They finally said.

He didn't say not one thing to them, but just blankly stares at them before finally putting a hand on their soft head and petting it like a dog. "Join the Detective Agency..." For a while, they thought about it and agreed.

Doesn't let [Name] go on extremely dangerous mission, but they go anyways behind his back

[Name] loves getting affection for Fukuzawa

The two sit in his office and eat some desserts together in peace

Only person that [Name] feels comfy with (besides Atsushi, Junichiro, Ranpo and Kyoka)

Brings her some japanese snacks after a mission

𝐎𝐒𝐀𝐌𝐔 𝐃𝐀𝐙𝐀𝐈 𝐖𝐈𝐓𝐇 𝐀 𝐂𝐇𝐈𝐋𝐃 𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐈𝐔𝐒! 𝐑𝐄𝐀𝐃𝐄𝐑 𝐖𝐎𝐔𝐋𝐃 𝐈𝐍𝐂𝐋𝐔𝐃𝐄:

"Leave me alone." Said [Name] running away, since they were afraid of the bandaged freak.

His mouth is wide opened, before chasing after them. Even though he was suicidal, he wanted to show this little kid that e was kind and friendly.

Tries putting a smile on their face

Comforts them

During their freetime, Dazai would love to sit outside with them

It takes them a lot of time to actually get along

[space-feminist]

i hated the "young people will save the world" thing when i was younger because i hated the idea that the burden of fixing society was all on its youngest members who had the least hand in causing its problems but as i get into my late twenties and there is now a generation younger than me that's conscious & active in the world i hate it even more because like. those are the people least equipped to change the world. like of course there are ways for young people to organize & advocate for change (particularly within their schools/colleges/etc.) but young teenagers who can't even vote and people who are still dependent on their parents don't really have the resources and expertise to solve complex social problems and it's unfair to expect that. and why are we acting like everyone who's had time to learn and develop a deeper understanding of the issues is exempt from doing anything? i can't help but wonder if "young people will save the world" is constantly pushed because The Powers That Be would really love if the only people fighting injustice were the group with the least agency, least ability to effect change, least experience, least well-formed opinions, were the easiest group to dismiss and disempower and dissuade from continuing in those beliefs. like i'm not saying we've made zero progress as a society but the way that i see people spouting the same feminism that i found kinda shallow ten years ago and it being hailed as a big moment for "girlhood" and the way that so much feminist theory from decades ago still feels like a revelation makes me think systems of oppression 100% benefit from this emphasis on youth

[tulipe-rose]

Weird theory came to mind, weird theory is written and posted. Author somewhat regrets it.

So... What if Katai gets put into the Port Mafia exchange? Hear me out on this--

The agreement never explicitly stated that it had to be a current member. Rampo being Rampo, would be easily capable of exploiting this loophole to have Katai recruited into the Mafia for some genius reason I probably may never have the brain power to conjure up. (Maybe it has to do with the fact that Dazai is still out of commission going after Fyodor. Idk man /⁠ᐠ｡⁠ꞈ⁠｡⁠ᐟ⁠\)

This exchange could be the start to a character arc for Katai, focusing on the moral turmoil he'll be facing there, given he despises the Port Mafia, and their methods with a burning passion. He's so resentful towards them, and I can only guess that Kunikida's ideals rubbed off on him in this aspect. Working amongst them must be his worst nightmare.

The sheer guilt of aiding such an organization would probably weigh heavily on Katai's conscience, feeling as though he betrayed everything he believed in the moment he, albeit reluctantly, agreed to take up the exchange. He knew the risks, but he knew why he was chosen, and why his participation was crucial. The Agency needed him now more than ever, and this is the safest course of action they could take, so he'll go in with a heavy heart. I can see his persona at work to be portrayed as "That one ghostly presence in the office no one wants to interact with outside of necessity."

I'm not sure whether or not he'd continue on his habit of being a shut in at his work place, solely for the fact that he'd probably feel uncomfortable staying there, but I can only guess. This exchange would be an excellent opportunity to finally give us more information on Kunikida's past, and his. What turned him into such a pessimist towards life? How did Kunikida find him? Was Kunikida always an idealist? What opened his eyes to it? I saw a couple of people saying that Kunikida was probably a delinquent, and honestly, I'm loving that.

Katai would eventually have to interact with his love at first sight, Gin; it might not be that big of an 'opportunity', and more of an 'obligation' in his eyes now that he knows the truth behind her identity. They'd start off with barely any words exchanged, the atmosphere a mix of awkward tension, and wish to get things done as quickly as possible. They'd be strictly professional, mostly due to the unsocial tendencies they harbour, and their interactions getting more, and more limited due to the fact that Katai's expertise, and rank, were more specialized due to his ability, and situation with the Mafia.

Gin might be a little too curt, but to her credit, his first impression on her was by far one of the most confusing moments of her life. They do somehow end up in a situation where they stay in close enough vicinity long enough to converse; this allowing them to share their perspectives (Gin wouldn't really say much, probably nothing beyond the fact that she joined to be with her brother.) Katai's views of the Mafia continue to stay dark, and he still believes that their actions are inexcusable, and his cooperation is solely for the benefit of the ADA, but his feelings towards Gin aren't conventionally that begrudged; she's now his coworker, and isn't necessarily doing him any harm.

Having the arc occur at the Mafia could be a very nice break from the heavy arc that preceded, but that opinion might be exclusive to me. (I'm also dying to know what happened to Tachihara and Jōnō; the lack of follow up is killing me.)

Now, let's switch over to the Agency's opinion on this.

Kunikida. God--

This entire exchange situation was a mess, and Kunikida was probably the most affected by it; if not more than Katai himself. He'd need to take a day off, absolute confusion clouding his senses, keeping him in the confines of his room to process the information he had to handle. The internal struggle, and sorrow of losing his closest friend, and comrade, to the Mafia of all people. His break wouldn't last long, but upon his return, everyone could tell that by the looks of it; this man did not have a moment of rest. The president gives Kunikida his time, but once he notices that this might end up in him spiraling into a loop; he decides to approach him. He'll give him a motivational speech, letting him in on the details, and the reason why it had to be Katai. (Katai could maybe send him a small secret message only they understand (secret childhood friend code), assuring him they'll get through it.)

If you're wondering why Mōri didn't object is, because Katai's ability is extremely useful, and works well in their line of work.

I'll just have you know that the only back up I have for this what if is that I thought it would be so hilarious, and unexpected.

[chaosmeistergames]

Expanding the 6Q-System

Hey TTRPG family,

Since a lot of you seem to like my free game 6Q, I've been kicking around some ideas for setting modules for it, and I'd love to get your input. I'm currently considering eight different settings, each with its own unique flavor. Take a look at these summaries and let me know which ones grab you the most:

🌆 Cyberpunk Megacity: Navigate a neon-drenched domed metropolis where climate control has gone haywire and micro weather haunts the districts. Help claw back control of the very weather from the corrupt corps exploiting it.

🐉 Mythic Fantasy Realm: Explore a world where forgotten gods walk among mortals and ancient magic pulses through the land. Your choices will shape the destiny of a realm teetering between rebirth and oblivion. May the fog spare you.

🪐 Space Opera Fringe: Carve out your legacy on the edge of known space, where alien mysteries and human ambition collide. The key to uniting worlds may lie in the unlikliest of friendships.

🕴️ Supernatural Investigation Agency: Join a clandestine organization tasked with keeping the supernatural hidden from the public eye. Balance maintaining the veil under which society operates with uncovering otherworldly truths that threaten reality itself.

🏜️ Post Apocalyptic Reconstruction: In a world ravaged by catastrophe, lead the charge to rebuild civilization. Your choices will determine not just survival, but the very nature of the society that rises from the ashes.

🎩 Steampunk Conspiracy: Unravel a web of secrets in a world of brass and steam, where science and the occult intertwine. Your inventions and deductions could topple empires or usher in a new age of enlightenment.

☀️ Solarpunk Utopia: Shape the future in a world that has overcome its greatest challenges through technology and social change. Explore the complexities of maintaining harmony while striving for perfection.

🏡 Slice of Life Community: Build connections and navigate personal growth in a close-knit community. Discover the extraordinary in the ordinary as you help shape the lives of those around you.

I'm genuinely curious to hear which of these resonates with you. Your input will be a big help as I expand 6Q. I can't promise I will nail every setting as some of these are challenging for me and outside my expertise. And of course details may change. I hope to get to every setting in due time, but your choice tells me what I will work on first. Cheers!

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments - I'm always interested in hearing your ideas and what you'd like to see.

Thanks for being part of this journey with me. Please repost if this interests you, I would love to get as much input as possible! Looking forward to seeing what you all think.

[eponymous-rose]

OKAY, I have a lot going on over the next few weeks, and I desperately need to get my thoughts in order, so allow me to yell into the void about the research proposals I absolutely need to be working on over the next week:

Resubmission of a $600k grant proposal written with my colleague. This one technically doesn't have a deadline, but if we get it in quickly enough, we can fund an incoming grad student on it! The project is quite well-defined and we had a sit-down with the program manager, who both encouraged resubmission and went line-by-line through the last set of reviews to tell us which to follow and which to ignore. I've got a to-do list of changes, and thankfully no logistical stuff to worry about since we're submitting to the same call. I would estimate only about 5 hours needed to get this one ready to go for the first round of comments from my colleague/co-PI, and it'll just be going through the first version line-by-line with my notes and the reviews in front of me, changing as I go. My goal by Friday of next week: complete draft to send to my co-PI.

Resubmission of a $700k grant proposal written with a friend at a different university. This one's a bit trickier, since it was rejected by one federal agency and we want to submit it to a completely different one, so it'll require a complete rewrite and a fair amount of logistical juggling. We have the revised budget ready to go, and my co-PI met with the program manager and got the good dirt on what they're looking for. So content is yes, but focus and logistics (page length, format, etc.) are way up in the air. I would guess about 15 hours to get a complete draft done, and ideally we want the whole thing done by the end of the month. I'll have to sit down with the old proposal, notes from my co-PI's meeting, and the new proposal call in front of me and do a fresh document. My goal by Friday of next week: At least one of the three main sections complete to send to my co-PI.

Brand-new $800k grant proposal written with a computer scientist at my university. We met at a talk I gave last quarter and just got along really well and figured we should work together, and then this call came out looking to fund work bridging the gap between EXACTLY our two disciplines, so we couldn't resist. We have a budget and a very, very loose idea of what we want to study, but the details are vague and we also need to have this in by approximately the end of the month. We've loosely structured it so that its three sections are my specialty, his specialty, and then a combo of the two, so my role initially here is going to be creating a framing narrative into which we can each independently drop our sections of the work. I'm guessing my total contribution will be around 20 hours on this one. My goal by Friday of next week: A detailed summary with point-form bullets in every single subsection.

Brand-new $???? grant written with a friend at a different university. We literally just saw this call two days ago and went "YES", so now it's a matter of figuring out if we can actually get things done. This is a totally new area for both of us (wildfire science!) but it would involve the experimental radars that he builds and the fluid dynamics expertise I have. This was kind of me going "yes, let's do it!" so I feel some responsibility here to come up with some big ideas. I need to clarify, but I think we need to have this done by the first week of March or so, and we need to talk to the program manager to see if they're interested. We can talk budget at our meeting next week (or via e-mail), so I think initially here I just need to put some ideas on paper, similar to #3 above. No idea how much time to expect to put into this one. My goal by Friday of next week: A detailed summary with point-form bullets in every single subsection.

Grant co-written with a postdoc from Zurich who wants to come work with me! She's applying for two years of funding, but the deadline isn't until August so honestly I just need to brainstorm a small idea or two that I can contribute to the conversation.

Phew. Okay. Let's get started on some of this.

[crazy-pages]

I've been blogging a bunch about AI and copyright today, and it comes down to this:

I think that if an artist says "I would like to be compensated fairly for a big billion dollar company using my art", that's reasonable. Any legal framework where that isn't the case isn't fair. I think that's especially reasonable when the big billion dollar companies in question claim their product will end all demand for the artist's work. And fair negotiations require the right of refusal, which means artists also need the ability to reject use of their work (yes even if you think what it's used for will be important).

I think that claiming big generative machine learning companies aren't really using artist's work is silly on its face. But it could hypothetically be equated to human inspiration, where we recognise that the vast majority of the creative work is happening within the human mind as opposed to the work used for inspiration, and be given an appropriate legal carveout ... if the artificial intelligence gets the profits. If something is the creative work of an intelligent agent, that intelligent agent has the right to benefit from its work. And if we are not at the point where machine learning algorithms can be said to have that kind of agency, then it doesn't get a special carve out for the act of expressing creative agency.

Does this bring up complex and novel questions about how to address the legality of non-human agents? Absolutely! Of course it does! But anybody in the machine learning space who genuinely thinks they are creating novel creative intelligence with its own agency, who complains that the resulting legalities are complex, does not get to be taken seriously. Anyone claiming that this is a justification for it taking the money derived from its work doubly does not get to be taken seriously, and anybody arguing that the creative labor invested in creating artificial life gives them a right to the profits of its labor ... but somehow not the creatives whose work it is comprised of ... is so far from the realm of serious debate it can only be darkly funny.

If you want to claim machine learning algorithms are so intelligent they can only be legally treated as human equivalent creative processes, but you don't want to deal with the legal complexities of them as human equivalents, I'm just gonna call that slavery and be done with it.

Now I'm not a legal expert. My limited understanding of copyright law is that generally you don't get to do things with copyrighted material that the copyright owner doesn't want you to do, except where it satisfies certain exemption criteria which are in the public artistic interest or general good, and that this should apply to scraping data for machine learning training purposes. But ultimately my expertise is kind of a moot point because the European Union clearly does think this falls under copyright law and is enforceable, and that generative machine learning companies need to get permission from copyright holders. And they do get to decide what their own copyright law is.

I also don't think enforcement of this needs to be particularly draconian or should be. For example, it would be draconian to say that accidental hosting of a bit of pirated media posted to a public forum in a training data set is legal grounds to shut down a company. However I think it is very reasonable to say that companies should be subject to reasonable regulations about trying to prevent that, and that intellectual property owners like artists should get to insist companies remove their works from datasets and apply machine learning methods to minimize their impact on generative outputs (a thing machine learning companies already do to deal with poisoned or improperly tagged data).

And because this is a case of a few billion dollar companies versus the copyright protections of millions artists, I think it's reasonable to have the onus be upon machine learning companies to double check the copyrights of the material they are using and to have it be illegal with very significant penalties to knowingly use copyrighted material. Which could be determined by either the difficult legal process of demonstrating deliberate action and intent and also through simple escalating penalty frameworks where the more people who point out you're using their copyrighted material, the more the penalties escalate.

Oh hey, that's what the EU is doing! Neat.