#big profit system review

[mahamid110]

🚀 Fast Profit System Review - Breakthrough FREE System Lets You Clone Our Done-For-You High-Ticket System That Makes $1,000+ Per Day! 💸

Tired of chasing leads, endless hustles, and complicated setups? The Fast Profit System promises a game-changing way to generate high-ticket income with ease. Let’s uncover how this breakthrough system works! 🌟

👉 Click Here for Get Instant Access to Fast Profit System 🖰 >>

4 Steps to Online Success  With The Fast Profit System

Once you purchase the license, it’s a simple four-step process to get the same results we're getting with the Fast Profit System...

✅ Step 1: Activate The $1,000/Day Fast Profit System Ready to Convert into Sales…

We Have This Prepared for You Once You Activate Your License 

(Including One Offer Where You Earn 100% Commissions!)

✅ Step 2: Add Your “Commission Link” Into the Fast Profit System So You Can Get Paid…

Commissions Earned Will Go Direct Into Your Accounts

✅ Step 3: Activate the FREE Automated Traffic Built into The System…

This Is a Brand-New Traffic Source That Is Completely Untapped, Which Means Guaranteed Hot Visitors To YOUR Fast Profit System

✅ Step 4: This Is Where We Sit Back, Relax, And Watch the Commissions Roll In! 

We Then Withdraw Our Earnings Direct into Our Accounts!

💡 What is the Fast Profit System?

The Fast Profit System is a completely done-for-you solution designed to help users replicate a proven high-ticket income strategy. With no technical skills or prior experience required, it’s perfect for anyone looking to break into the world of online profits quickly.

👉 Click Here for Get Instant Access to Fast Profit System 🖰 >>

⚙️ Key Features of the System

🎯 Done-For-You High-Ticket System Clone a ready-made setup that the creators claim generates over $1,000+ daily without needing to create your own product or service.

🖥️ Easy-to-Use Interface The system is designed for beginners, ensuring a smooth onboarding process and minimal learning curve.

🚀 Automated Income Streams Set it up once and let the automation handle everything—from lead generation to sales conversions.

📈 High-Ticket Opportunities Focuses on selling high-ticket items for greater profits, maximizing your earning potential.

💰 How It Works

Sign Up for Free – Access the system without any upfront costs.

Clone the Setup – Follow a simple guide to replicate the system.

Automate & Profit – Leverage automation tools to generate income while you focus on other tasks.

👍 Pros & 👎 Cons

👍 Pros:

100% done-for-you system minimizes effort. 🔧

High-ticket focus ensures larger commissions. 💵

Zero upfront cost makes it risk-free to try. 🚫

👎 Cons:

Requires traffic sources to drive sales, which may involve additional investment. 📈

Limited information on long-term scalability. 🤔

👉 Click Here for Get Instant Access to Fast Profit System 🖰 >>

🌟 Is Fast Profit System Worth It?

If you’re looking for a quick and straightforward way to dive into online high-ticket sales, the Fast Profit System might be a great fit. With its automated, done-for-you approach and no upfront cost, it’s an accessible option for beginners and seasoned marketers alike.

🌟 How much does the system cost, and do I need to buy anything else?

Getting your license to use the Fast Profit System will cost NOTHING!

It's 100% FREE.

It has everything you need to start getting results from day one.

There is nothing else to buy.

🌟 I don’t know anything about affiliate or internet marketing. Can I do this?

Yes, you can! I’ve made the Fast Profit System capable of running itself. We use this to earn commissions all hours of the day.

I developed this incredible software & system so new internet marketers could build an email list and generate high ticket commissions without experience, technical skills, or previous knowledge.

🌟 How do I make money?

Once you claim the license, you can immediately tap into my done-for-you system. This allows us to promote high-ticket products and services and get paid commissions from $500 to $1,000 or more.  

I’ve done all the difficult work, creating the sales pages, funnels, emails, automated webinars, and the products that sell on the webinars. 

You just need to grab your affiliate link to this system, plug it into the “built-in free traffic,” and take advantage of the same system that makes the super-affiliates the big bucks online.

🌟 How long does it take?

Once you purchase the license, you can download everything within a few minutes. You plug your affiliate link into the system, and that’s it. 

Most of my partners make a large commission in the first week, and many make it on their first day.

🌟 How much money can I make?

I can’t tell you how much money you’ll make, but I’ll do my best to see you succeed. When you win, I win.

I’ve made well over $10 million with this same system, and you’ll be doing the same things I do, so you shouldn’t have any problems making substantial commissions.

🔥 Ready to Start Cloning and Earning?

Don’t wait—seize the opportunity to replicate a proven income system and watch your earnings grow! 🌟

��� Click Here for Get Instant Access to Fast Profit System 🖰 >>

[tulani]

Brand New MONSTERMODE 700K App STUFFS $500+ DAILY STUFF 100% commissions on 5 “TIERS" $500 PER DAY ON AUTOPILOT

Imagine having 100's of people STUFFING your inbox with 100% commissions of $500+ a day on AUTOPILOT, 24-7.  How would that even be possible? What would the incentive be? Sounds ridiculous!

Well not only is it possible. It's LIVE and already making MONEY for people just like you.

It's a system called MONSTERMODE 700K. MONSTERMODE achieves the "impossible" through an ingenious funnel-based VIRAL app that staggers FIVE 6 figure offers...across 5 virtual "tiers"...AND pays out 100% commissions on each offer. BIG TIME commissions averaging up to $500+ per day.

MONSTERMODE virtually *guarantees* you'll stuff your inbox with the easiest online income since your dial up "AOL days." It's unlike anything you've ever seen; truly remarkable.

Click HERE to get started and I'll see you inside.

[itsbenedict]

That's Right: It's Another Hot Take About That Dead Healthcare CEO

The websites are abuzz with debate on the utilitarian calculus of whether some guy getting shot was a good thing. What are the odds that the assassination will scare the horrible greedy health insurance companies into changing their ways and fixing the system? Is it worth killing someone over? Will the fear of being blasted by some guy with stylishly-engraved bullets put the fat cats in line? Or will their greed win out over their fear, leaving the nightmarish system unchanged?

Well, what if that was totally irrelevant?

You may have seen a graph that looks like this:

I've seen a few of these going around. These are the rates at which various health insurance companies say "no, you don't get the money" when someone says "hey I need money for this medical thing". UHC, the one whose CEO got shot, is notably really bad in this respect. They've got algorithmic claims denials and all kinds of nasty things that people don't like. All that money they're saving on paying out on claims must be making them rich, right? Let's look at their own financial reports:

Whoa! Big numbers! Six percent looks like a small number, but multiply and they make like thirty billion dollars doing this! That's a lot, right?

Well hang on. They're an insurance company. We can roughly model their profit as the amount people pay them for insurance, minus the amount they have to pay out for claims. Let's look at 2023: simple subtraction, their expenses are $339.2 billion. We simplify other overhead and assume that's all claims. So... that represents those 67% of claims they don't reject. What happens if they approve all the claims?

Multiply: $506.3 billion. They don't have that kind of money. They have $371.6 billion in revenue. So okay- they have to deny some claims. That's pretty normal. But let's pretend they're extremely afraid of assassins now and want to be completely non-greedy: they're okay making zero profit. They make $32.4 billion in profit- how many otherwise-rejected claims can they now afford to approve?

...uh. Well, they can afford to pay out, at most, 73.4% of claims. Still a denial rate of 26.6%, higher than most of their competitors. Not a huge improvement. And in reality, they can't afford to make 0 profit- a company that's making 0 profit is a company investors pull out of immediately, leaving it to collapse, because they can make more money investing in the ones that aren't as afraid of assassins. They've got to at least hover around the same profit margin as their competitors. Which is...

That's average profit margins for the whole US healthcare industry. So, okay, if we match those other companies' profit margins and try to hover around 3-4%... uh. Wait. Hang on. Here's another graph with more recent data on UHC specifically:

Wait, they're still just making that little 3-4% profit margin, even with all these shady automated denials- so how are those other companies doing better on claims? They're obviously not less greedy. They must be making more money somehow, right?

(My guess, sight-unseen, would be that they charge more for their plans, or offer less comprehensive coverage, or use a network of less expensive providers, or other things that make the amount they have to pay out smaller and the amount they're taking in larger. I don't feel like doing a comprehensive consumer review of what every insurance provider's healthcare plans are, but there's always these tradeoffs to make. UHC seems to be offering the tradeoff of "better or cheaper care, on paper" for "but there's a higher risk of getting denied", which is one annoying tradeoff among many.)

Okay But That's Enough Graphs

"Yeah yeah yeah shut up about profit margins and coverage tradeoffs. Is it a good thing that the CEO got shot or not?"

Well, their profit margin at the time he was shot was 3.63%. A company can't survive making 0 or less, so whatever effect fear of assassination has on UHC's greediness, it is going to be no larger than 3.63%.

They may learn the lesson that having their denial rates too high will get them assassinated. Accordingly, they may decrease that metric- by charging higher premiums, kicking expensive doctors out of their network, or reducing their stated coverage. They will not (because they cannot, without ceasing to exist as a company) simply start approving more claims without squeezing their customers elsewhere. They legally cannot do that. No matter how afraid you make the CEOs, you cannot make them afraid to a degree larger than their profit margin.

Well What The Fuck, Then

Like, what, are we supposed to accept that things will literally never get better and that this horrorshow is the best we can hope for? That's some bullshit! If we can't scare the CEOs, who can we scare?

Man I dunno.

Like, for some reason healthcare is stupid expensive! People can't afford to pay for healthcare without insurance- it's like thousands of dollars for basic procedures! Why? Maybe...

Doctors inflate their prices 10x because they know insurance companies will use complicated legal tricks to only pay 10% of the asking price, and this is a constantly escalating price war that serves mainly to fuck over the uninsured

Drug manufacturers and health technology companies fight tooth and nail to maintain monopolies over treatment, so they can charge gazillions to make back the gazillions they had to spend on FDA approval trials

(Trials those same companies lobby to keep necessary because the more money you have to pay for FDA approval, the harder it is for competitors to enter the market since they don't already have the gazillions)

Doctors operate as a cartel and lobby to gatekeep access to medical training so that they can keep doctoring a prestigious and exclusive position, and keep their own salaries high enough to pay their medical school debt and make them rich afterwards- leading to a (profitable) shortage of medical professionals

There is no limit to how expensive things can get but how much people are physically capable of paying, because frequently the alternative to "pay a ridiculous amount for healthcare" is "die", and so healthcare is subject to near-infinitely inelastic demand

Also like a thousand other equally annoying and complicated perverse incentives and stupid situations

This is the human condition: Shit is annoying and complicated and difficult to fix, pretty much 100% of the time forever. A few bullets in some fucko's back isn't really going to make a dent.

(But like, sure, fuck that guy. He probably sucked, as do the hundred other identical suits in line to replace him. Just... don't expect this to help.)

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Autoenshittification

Forget F1: the only car race that matters now is the race to turn your car into a digital extraction machine, a high-speed inkjet printer on wheels, stealing your private data as it picks your pocket. Your car’s digital infrastructure is a costly, dangerous nightmare — but for automakers in pursuit of postcapitalist utopia, it’s a dream they can’t give up on.

Your car is stuffed full of microchips, a fact the world came to appreciate after the pandemic struck and auto production ground to a halt due to chip shortages. Of course, that wasn’t the whole story: when the pandemic started, the automakers panicked and canceled their chip orders, only to immediately regret that decision and place new orders.

But it was too late: semiconductor production had taken a serious body-blow, and when Big Car placed its new chip orders, it went to the back of a long, slow-moving line. It was a catastrophic bungle: microchips are so integral to car production that a car is basically a computer network on wheels that you stick your fragile human body into and pray.

The car manufacturers got so desperate for chips that they started buying up washing machines for the microchips in them, extracting the chips and discarding the washing machines like some absurdo-dystopian cyberpunk walnut-shelling machine:

https://www.autoevolution.com/news/desperate-times-companies-buy-washing-machines-just-to-rip-out-the-chips-187033.html

These digital systems are a huge problem for the car companies. They are the underlying cause of a precipitous decline in car quality. From touch-based digital door-locks to networked sensors and cameras, every digital system in your car is a source of endless repair nightmares, costly recalls and cybersecurity vulnerabilities:

https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/quality-new-vehicles-us-declining-more-tech-use-study-shows-2023-06-22/

What’s more, drivers hate all the digital bullshit, from the janky touchscreens to the shitty, wildly insecure apps. Digital systems are drivers’ most significant point of dissatisfaction with the automakers’ products:

https://www.theverge.com/23801545/car-infotainment-customer-satisifaction-survey-jd-power

Even the automakers sorta-kinda admit that this is a problem. Back in 2020 when Massachusetts was having a Right-to-Repair ballot initiative, Big Car ran these unfuckingbelievable scare ads that basically said, “Your car spies on you so comprehensively that giving anyone else access to its systems will let murderers stalk you to your home and kill you:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/03/rip-david-graeber/#rolling-surveillance-platforms

But even amid all the complaining about cars getting stuck in the Internet of Shit, there’s still not much discussion of why the car-makers are making their products less attractive, less reliable, less safe, and less resilient by stuffing them full of microchips. Are car execs just the latest generation of rubes who’ve been suckered by Silicon Valley bullshit and convinced that apps are a magic path to profitability?

Nope. Car execs are sophisticated businesspeople, and they’re surfing capitalism’s latest — and last — hot trend: dismantling capitalism itself.

Now, leftists have been predicting the death of capitalism since The Communist Manifesto, but even Marx and Engels warned us not to get too frisky: capitalism, they wrote, is endlessly creative, constantly reinventing itself, re-emerging from each crisis in a new form that is perfectly adapted to the post-crisis reality:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/10/31/books/review/a-spectre-haunting-china-mieville.html

But capitalism has finally run out of gas. In his forthcoming book, Techno Feudalism: What Killed Capitalism, Yanis Varoufakis proposes that capitalism has died — but it wasn’t replaced by socialism. Rather, capitalism has given way to feudalism:

https://www.penguin.co.uk/books/451795/technofeudalism-by-varoufakis-yanis/9781847927279

Under capitalism, capital is the prime mover. The people who own and mobilize capital — the capitalists — organize the economy and take the lion’s share of its returns. But it wasn’t always this way: for hundreds of years, European civilization was dominated by rents, not markets.

A “rent” is income that you get from owning something that other people need to produce value. Think of renting out a house you own: not only do you get paid when someone pays you to live there, you also get the benefit of rising property values, which are the result of the work that all the other homeowners, business owners, and residents do to make the neighborhood more valuable.

The first capitalists hated rent. They wanted to replace the “passive income” that landowners got from taxing their serfs’ harvest with active income from enclosing those lands and grazing sheep in order to get wool to feed to the new textile mills. They wanted active income — and lots of it.

Capitalist philosophers railed against rent. The “free market” of Adam Smith wasn’t a market that was free from regulation — it was a market free from rents. The reason Smith railed against monopolists is because he (correctly) understood that once a monopoly emerged, it would become a chokepoint through which a rentier could cream off the profits he considered the capitalist’s due:

https://locusmag.com/2021/03/cory-doctorow-free-markets/

Today, we live in a rentier’s paradise. People don’t aspire to create value — they aspire to capture it. In Survival of the Richest, Doug Rushkoff calls this “going meta”: don’t provide a service, just figure out a way to interpose yourself between the provider and the customer:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/09/13/collapse-porn/#collapse-porn

Don’t drive a cab, create Uber and extract value from every driver and rider. Better still: don’t found Uber, invest in Uber options and extract value from the people who invest in Uber. Even better, invest in derivatives of Uber options and extract value from people extracting value from people investing in Uber, who extract value from drivers and riders. Go meta.

This is your brain on the four-hour-work-week, passive income mind-virus. In Techno Feudalism, Varoufakis deftly describes how the new “Cloud Capital” has created a new generation of rentiers, and how they have become the richest, most powerful people in human history.

Shopping at Amazon is like visiting a bustling city center full of stores — but each of those stores’ owners has to pay the majority of every sale to a feudal landlord, Emperor Jeff Bezos, who also decides which goods they can sell and where they must appear on the shelves. Amazon is full of capitalists, but it is not a capitalist enterprise. It’s a feudal one:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/28/enshittification/#relentless-payola

This is the reason that automakers are willing to enshittify their products so comprehensively: they were one of the first industries to decouple rents from profits. Recall that the reason that Big Car needed billions in bailouts in 2008 is that they’d reinvented themselves as loan-sharks who incidentally made cars, lending money to car-buyers and then “securitizing” the loans so they could be traded in the capital markets.

Even though this strategy brought the car companies to the brink of ruin, it paid off in the long run. The car makers got billions in public money, paid their execs massive bonuses, gave billions to shareholders in buybacks and dividends, smashed their unions, fucked their pensioned workers, and shipped jobs anywhere they could pollute and murder their workforce with impunity.

Car companies are on the forefront of postcapitalism, and they understand that digital is the key to rent-extraction. Remember when BMW announced that it was going to rent you the seatwarmer in your own fucking car?

https://pluralistic.net/2020/07/02/big-river/#beemers

Not to be outdone, Mercedes announced that they were going to rent you your car’s accelerator pedal, charging an extra $1200/year to unlock a fully functional acceleration curve:

https://www.theverge.com/2022/11/23/23474969/mercedes-car-subscription-faster-acceleration-feature-price

This is the urinary tract infection business model: without digitization, all your car’s value flowed in a healthy stream. But once the car-makers add semiconductors, each one of those features comes out in a painful, burning dribble, with every button on that fakakta touchscreen wired directly into your credit-card.

But it’s just for starters. Computers are malleable. The only computer we know how to make is the Turing Complete Von Neumann Machine, which can run every program we know how to write. Once they add networked computers to your car, the Car Lords can endlessly twiddle the knobs on the back end, finding new ways to extract value from you:

https://doctorow.medium.com/twiddler-1b5c9690cce6

That means that your car can track your every movement, and sell your location data to anyone and everyone, from marketers to bounty-hunters looking to collect fees for tracking down people who travel out of state for abortions to cops to foreign spies:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7enex/tool-shows-if-car-selling-data-privacy4cars-vehicle-privacy-report

Digitization supercharges financialization. It lets car-makers offer subprime auto-loans to desperate, poor people and then killswitch their cars if they miss a payment:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U2eDJnwz_s

Subprime lending for cars would be a terrible business without computers, but digitization makes it a great source of feudal rents. Car dealers can originate loans to people with teaser rates that quickly blow up into payments the dealer knows their customer can’t afford. Then they repo the car and sell it to another desperate person, and another, and another:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/07/27/boricua/#looking-for-the-joke-with-a-microscope

Digitization also opens up more exotic options. Some subprime cars have secondary control systems wired into their entertainment system: miss a payment and your car radio flips to full volume and bellows an unstoppable, unmutable stream of threats. Tesla does one better: your car will lock and immobilize itself, then blare its horn and back out of its parking spot when the repo man arrives:

https://tiremeetsroad.com/2021/03/18/tesla-allegedly-remotely-unlocks-model-3-owners-car-uses-smart-summon-to-help-repo-agent/

Digital feudalism hasn’t stopped innovating — it’s just stopped innovating good things. The digital device is an endless source of sadistic novelties, like the cellphones that disable your most-used app the first day you’re late on a payment, then work their way down the other apps you rely on for every day you’re late:

https://restofworld.org/2021/loans-that-hijack-your-phone-are-coming-to-india/

Usurers have always relied on this kind of imaginative intimidation. The loan-shark’s arm-breaker knows you’re never going to get off the hook; his goal is in intimidating you into paying his boss first, liquidating your house and your kid’s college fund and your wedding ring before you default and he throws you off a building.

Thanks to the malleability of computerized systems, digital arm-breakers have an endless array of options they can deploy to motivate you into paying them first, no matter what it costs you:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/04/02/innovation-unlocks-markets/#digital-arm-breakers

Car-makers are trailblazers in imaginative rent-extraction. Take VIN-locking: this is the practice of adding cheap microchips to engine components that communicate with the car’s overall network. After a new part is installed in your car, your car’s computer does a complex cryptographic handshake with the part that requires an unlock code provided by an authorized technician. If the code isn’t entered, the car refuses to use that part.

VIN-locking has exploded in popularity. It’s in your iPhone, preventing you from using refurb or third-party replacement parts:

https://doctorow.medium.com/apples-cement-overshoes-329856288d13

It’s in fuckin’ ventilators, which was a nightmare during lockdown as hospital techs nursed their precious ventilators along by swapping parts from dead systems into serviceable ones:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/3azv9b/why-repair-techs-are-hacking-ventilators-with-diy-dongles-from-poland

And of course, it’s in tractors, along with other forms of remote killswitch. Remember that feelgood story about John Deere bricking the looted Ukrainian tractors whose snitch-chips showed they’d been relocated to Russia?

https://doctorow.medium.com/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors-bc93f471b9c8

That wasn’t a happy story — it was a cautionary tale. After all, John Deere now controls the majority of the world’s agricultural future, and they’ve boobytrapped those ubiquitous tractors with killswitches that can be activated by anyone who hacks, takes over, or suborns Deere or its dealerships.

Control over repair isn’t limited to gouging customers on parts and service. When a company gets to decide whether your device can be fixed, it can fuck you over in all kinds of ways. Back in 2019, Tim Apple told his shareholders to expect lower revenues because people were opting to fix their phones rather than replace them:

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/01/letter-from-tim-cook-to-apple-investors/

By usurping your right to decide who fixes your phone, Apple gets to decide whether you can fix it, or whether you must replace it. Problem solved — and not just for Apple, but for car makers, tractor makers, ventilator makers and more. Apple leads on this, even ahead of Big Car, pioneering a “recycling” program that sees trade-in phones shredded so they can’t possibly be diverted from an e-waste dump and mined for parts:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/yp73jw/apple-recycling-iphones-macbooks

John Deere isn’t sleeping on this. They’ve come up with a valuable treasure they extract when they win the Right-to-Repair: Deere singles out farmers who complain about its policies and refuses to repair their tractors, stranding them with six-figure, two-ton paperweight:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/05/31/dealers-choice/#be-a-shame-if-something-were-to-happen-to-it

The repair wars are just a skirmish in a vast, invisible fight that’s been waged for decades: the War On General-Purpose Computing, where tech companies use the law to make it illegal for you to reconfigure your devices so they serve you, rather than their shareholders:

https://memex.craphound.com/2012/01/10/lockdown-the-coming-war-on-general-purpose-computing/

The force behind this army is vast and grows larger every day. General purpose computers are antithetical to technofeudalism — all the rents extracted by technofeudalists would go away if others (tinkereres, co-ops, even capitalists!) were allowed to reconfigure our devices so they serve us.

You’ve probably noticed the skirmishes with inkjet printer makers, who can only force you to buy their ink at 20,000% markups if they can stop you from deciding how your printer is configured:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/07/inky-wretches/#epson-salty But we’re also fighting against insulin pump makers, who want to turn people with diabetes into walking inkjet printers:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/10/loopers/#hp-ification

And companies that make powered wheelchairs:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/08/chair-ish/#r2r

These companies start with people who have the least agency and social power and wreck their lives, then work their way up the privilege gradient, coming for everyone else. It’s called the “shitty technology adoption curve”:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/08/21/great-taylors-ghost/#solidarity-or-bust

Technofeudalism is the public-private-partnership from hell, emerging from a combination of state and private action. On the one hand, bailing out bankers and big business (rather than workers) after the 2008 crash and the covid lockdown decoupled income from profits. Companies spent billions more than they earned were still wildly profitable, thanks to those public funds.

But there’s also a policy dimension here. Some of those rentiers’ billions were mobilized to both deconstruct antitrust law (allowing bigger and bigger companies and cartels) and to expand “IP” law, turning “IP” into a toolsuite for controlling the conduct of a firm’s competitors, critics and customers:

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

IP is key to understanding the rise of technofeudalism. The same malleability that allows companies to “twiddle” the knobs on their services and keep us on the hook as they reel us in would hypothetically allow us to countertwiddle, seizing the means of computation:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/12/algorithmic-wage-discrimination/#fishers-of-men

The thing that stands between you and an alternative app store, an interoperable social media network that you can escape to while continuing to message the friends you left behind, or a car that anyone can fix or unlock features for is IP, not technology. Under capitalism, that technology would already exist, because capitalists have no loyalty to one another and view each other’s margins as their own opportunities.

But under technofeudalism, control comes from rents (owning things), not profits (selling things). The capitalist who wants to participate in your iPhone’s “ecosystem” has to make apps and submit them to Apple, along with 30% of their lifetime revenues — they don’t get to sell you jailbreaking kit that lets you choose their app store.

Rent-seeking technology has a holy grail: control over “ring zero” — the ability to compel you to configure your computer to a feudalist’s specifications, and to verify that you haven’t altered your computer after it came into your possession:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/01/30/ring-minus-one/#drm-political-economy

For more than two decades, various would-be feudal lords and their court sorcerers have been pitching ways of doing this, of varying degrees of outlandishness.

At core, here’s what they envision: inside your computer, they will nest another computer, one that is designed to run a very simple set of programs, none of which can be altered once it leaves the factory. This computer — either a whole separate chip called a “Trusted Platform Module” or a region of your main processor called a secure enclave — can tally observations about your computer: which operating system, modules and programs it’s running.

Then it can cryptographically “sign” these observations, proving that they were made by a secure chip and not by something you could have modified. Then you can send this signed “attestation” to someone else, who can use it to determine how your computer is configured and thus whether to trust it. This is called “remote attestation.”

There are some cool things you can do with remote attestation: for example, two strangers playing a networked video game together can use attestations to make sure neither is running any cheat modules. Or you could require your cloud computing provider to use attestations that they aren’t stealing your data from the server you’re renting. Or if you suspect that your computer has been infected with malware, you can connect to someone else and send them an attestation that they can use to figure out whether you should trust it.

Today, there’s a cool remote attestation technology called “PrivacyPass” that replaces CAPTCHAs by having you prove to your own device that you are a human. When a server wants to make sure you’re a person, it sends a random number to your device, which signs that number along with its promise that it is acting on behalf of a human being, and sends it back. CAPTCHAs are all kinds of bad — bad for accessibility and privacy — and this is really great.

But the billions that have been thrown at remote attestation over the decades is only incidentally about solving CAPTCHAs or verifying your cloud server. The holy grail here is being able to make sure that you’re not running an ad-blocker. It’s being able to remotely verify that you haven’t disabled the bossware your employer requires. It’s the power to block someone from opening an Office365 doc with LibreOffice. It’s your boss’s ability to ensure that you haven’t modified your messaging client to disable disappearing messages before he sends you an auto-destructing memo ordering you to break the law.

And there’s a new remote attestation technology making the rounds: Google’s Web Environment Integrity, which will leverage Google’s dominance over browsers to allow websites to block users who run ad-blockers:

https://github.com/RupertBenWiser/Web-Environment-Integrity

There’s plenty else WEI can do (it would make detecting ad-fraud much easier), but for every legitimate use, there are a hundred ways this could be abused. It’s a technology purpose-built to allow rent extraction by stripping us of our right to technological self-determination.

Releasing a technology like this into a world where companies are willing to make their products less reliable, less attractive, less safe and less resilient in pursuit of rents is incredibly reckless and shortsighted. You want unauthorized bread? This is how you get Unauthorized Bread:

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/unauthorized-bread-a-near-future-tale-of-refugees-and-sinister-iot-appliances/amp/

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

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/#kitt-is-a-demon

[Image ID: The interior of a luxury car. There is a dagger protruding from the steering wheel. The entertainment console has been replaced by the text 'You wouldn't download a car,' in MPAA scare-ad font. Outside of the windscreen looms the Matrix waterfall effect. Visible in the rear- and side-view mirror is the driver: the figure from Munch's 'Scream.' The screen behind the steering-wheel has been replaced by the menacing red eye of HAL9000 from Stanley Kubrick's '2001: A Space Odyssey.']

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[internalloops]

Dragon Age The Veilgard is going to be my last BioWare game. I thought I could get past the world state issue, even with the poor graphics and combat changes, but I can't, and in light of recent spoilers and Skill Up's review, it really is the final nail in the coffin for me. Skill Up and Gameranx are my go-to for game reviews, and it seems Gameranx wasn't given a review copy?

Everything I feared would happen in this game happened, from the combat, which is mass-effects combat with mass-effect problems (enemies are bullet sponges ), to the poor graphics and an even weaker watered-down story that is made worse by the lack of world states.

The HOF and Hawke's fate (if they live) are completely abandoned. Both Varric and Isabella (whose fate can be decided by Hawke and be romanced) do not mention him at all, as if they don't even exist. (And don't get me started on Isabella's outfit)

I thought I was prepared for my inquisitor being OOC (I even made a post about it), but I clearly didn't prepare enough, it's worse than Hawkes return in DA:I. At least one of my DA:2 playthroughs could match to a certain degree how they made Hawke in DA:I, but NONE of my inquisitors can fit into what we are given in DA: TV. And my hopes for a proper solavellan reunion has gone out the window, cause I won't even be able to see how I played out the relationship with Solas, I have to see how Bioware wanted them to play out instead.

Solas himself seems to have been watered down from what I've seen .. but (and this is the only glimmer of hope that I still have for this game and why I'm still getting it) it only seems to happen in act 1 and then something big happens in act 3. That's the one thing that all the reviews ( both negative and positive) have, that the ending is good and soft reboots the entire world/game. Which will make leaving this franchise easier for me.

15 years. That's how long I've been in this fandom. 15 years, countless of hours, books, comics, and more while watching EA turn Bioware into a shrill of what it was, abusing workers, lay offs without service pay, and taking everything that made them unique among the other companies, and turning them into generic one that cares about nothing but making a profit. All the while this fandom gets split into 2 groups, the toxic positivity side where you must ignore all the BS that this company has done and any form of criticism or the woke is bad, any form of entertainment that doesn't look like me or cater to me is wrong BS.

I'm done with it all, I'm soo freaking done with it all. Sigh*, $70 down the drain, so my hyperfocus can be scratched and I can get this out of my system and then it's over. Time to move on

[anarcho-physicist]

After 4 years of work, I've finally published my very first peer-reviewed theory paper: Design rules for controlling active topological defects

(and it's open access! :D)

I am sooo excited to finally be able to share this! I'll probably write some more in the future about what it was like to work on this project, but for now here's what I want to say about it:

I think this work is a beautiful example of how the long, meandering paths of curiosity-driven research can bring us in completely unexpected directions, yielding new ideas and technologies that might never have been found by problem- or profit-driven research.

We started this project because we were interested in the fundamental physics of active topological defects; we wanted to understand and develop a theory to explain their effective properties, interactions, and collective behaviors when they're hosted by a material whose activity is not constant throughout space and time.

Along the way, we accidentally stumbled into a completely new technique for controlling the flow of active 2D nematic fluids, by using symmetry principles to design activity patterns that can induce self-propulsion or rotation of defect cores. This ended up being such a big deal that we made it the focus of the paper, for a few reasons:

Topological defects represent a natural way to have discrete information in a continuous medium, so if we wanted to make a soft material capable of doing logical operations like a computer, controlling active defects might be a really good way of putting that together.

There have also been a number of biological systems that have been shown to have the symmetries of active nematics, with experiments showing that topological defects might play important roles in biological processes, like morphogenesis or cell extrusion in epithelia. If we could control these defects, we'd have unprecedented control over the biological processes themselves.

Right now the technique has only been demonstrated in simulations, but there are a number of experimental groups who are working on the kinds of materials that we might be able to try this in, so hopefully I'll get to see experimental verification someday soon!

[olderthannetfic]

I used to think books with "bestseller" labels must be great and that they're the books I should try reading but now that people are getting popular through social media first before their books even release made me think otherwise. People seem to be buying the book like it's celebrity merch. The books could still be good but I now read multiple reviews especially negative ones which has lists of what they think is not good about the books. When I see "bestseller" now I just think "A lot of people bought this." but also ask "Did they like it though?".

Question though: you think "bestseller" label in published books is equivalent to kudos or hits on fics? I mean there's a filter to see items listed that way and there are people who base their fic reading list to it.

--

*snickering*

Okay, the thing you have to understand about 'bestseller' as a term is that it's time-dependent.

It's not just kudos: it's kudos in the first 24 hours. It's movie profits on opening weekend.

This shit means literally nothing if you're consuming the art even six months later, never mind after a decade.

--

I think it's stupid as fuck to sort AO3 by kudos unless you're just researching what gets a lot of kudos. I think having this as a default behavior encourages bullies to force targets into archive-locking (which almost invariably reduces kudos and hits) and penalizes authors who don't waste a lot of time trying to game the system. I also don't think it's actually effective for finding good fic.

But buying books based on bestseller status is even dumber because all it means is that a book was marketed correctly to have all its sales in the same week.

Here's someone's attempt to explain. He estimates that you need to sell only 5,000-10,000 copies in a single week to make it on one of the NYT lists.

There are a few other quirks to it, but... yeah... 5k copies in a slow week. Nationwide in the US. For something released by a big publisher with reach. Counting pre-orders if it's the very first week.

And then you get to put "NYT Bestseller" on the cover forever even if it never sold more than those 5k preorders.

Forget booktok promoting garbage: if the numbers are really this low, then "bestseller" meant absolutely nothing for years and years before modern social media.

It's not even cumulative like kudos are. If they mean that, they label it with "Over blahdy-blah million copies sold", not "bestseller".

Like with kudos, the only time this is really useful is if you're chasing buzz. If you want to know what other people are making noise about this week, then yes, you should check out the current bestseller.

It is okay to chase buzz, especially if you are a book blogger and trying to keep your audience up to date on what's going on in publishing! Just be aware that that's what you're doing.

If you want a book that will be culturally relevant for longer than five minutes or a book that is well-written or a book that is to your taste, you should look for some other method of book discovery.

And hey, you might end up with that very same bestseller! It might be a great book, actually. It's just that the "bestseller" status isn't what tells you that.

[blubberquark]

Are Game Blogs Uniquely Lost?

All this started with my looking for the old devlog of Storyteller. I know at some point it was linked from the blogroll on the Braid devlog. Then I tried to look at on old devlog of another game that is still available. The domain for Storyteller is still active. The devblog is gone.

I tried an old bookmark from an old PC (5 PCs ago, I think). It was a web site linked to pixel art and programming tutorials. Instead of linking to the pages directly, some links link led to a twitter threads by authors that collected their work posted on different sites. Some twitter threads are gone because the users were were suspended, or had deleted their accounts voluntarily. Others had deleted old tweets. There was no archive. I have often seen links accompanied by "Here's a thread where $AUTHOR lists all his writing on $TOPIC". I wonder if the sites are still there, and only the tweets are gone.

A lot of "games studies" around 2010 happened on blogs, not in journals. Games studies was online-first, HTML-first, with trackbacks, tags, RSS and comment sections. The work that was published in PDF form in journals and conference proceedings is still there. The blogs are gone. The comment sections are gone. Kill screen daily is gone.

I followed a link from critical-distance.com to a blog post. That blog is gone. The domain is for sale. In the Wayback Machine, I found the link. It pointed to the comment section of another blog. The other blog has removed its comment sections and excluded itself from the Wayback Machine.

I wonder if games stuff is uniquely lost. Many links to game reviews at big sites lead to "page not found", but when I search the game's name, I can find the review from back in 2004. The content is still there, the content management systems have been changed multiple times.

At least my favourite tumblr about game design has been saved in the Wayback Machine: Game Design Tips.

To make my point I could list more sites, more links, 404 but archived, or completely lost, but when I look at small sites, personal sites, blogs, or even forums, I wonder if this is just confirmation bias. There must be all this other content, all these other blogs and personal sites. I don't know about tutorials for knitting, travel blogs, stamp collecting, or recipe blogs. I usually save a print version of recipes to my Download folder.

Another big community is fan fiction. They are like modding, but for books, I think. I don't know if a lot of fan fiction is lost to bit rot and link rot either. What is on AO3 will probably endure, but a lot might have gone missing when communities fandom moved from livejournal to tumblr to twitter, or when blogs moved from Wordpress to Medium to Substack.

I have identified some risk factors:

Personal home pages made from static HTML can stay up for while if the owner meticulously catalogues and links to all their writing on other sites, and if the site covers a variety of interests and topics.

Personal blogs or content management systems are likely to lose content in a software upgrade or migration to a different host.

Writing is more likely to me lost when it's for-pay writing for a smaller for-profit outlet.

A cause for sudden "mass extinction" of content is the move between social networks, or the death of a whole platform. Links to MySpace, Google+, Diaspora, and LiveJournal give me mostly or entirely 404 pages.

In the gaming space, career changes or business closures often mean old content gets deleted. If an indie game is wildly successful, the intellectual property might ge acquired. If it flops, the domain will lapse. When development is finished, maybe the devlog is deleted. When somebody reviews games at first on Steam, then on a blog, and then for a big gaming mag, the Steam reviews might stay up, but the personal site is much more likely to get cleaned up. The same goes for blogging in general, and academia. The most stable kind of content is after hours hobbyist writing by somebody who has a stable and high-paying job outside of media, academia, or journalism.

The biggest risk factor for targeted deletion is controversy. Controversial, highly-discussed and disseminated posts are more likely to be deleted than purely informative ones, and their deletion is more likely to be noticed. If somebody starts a discussion, and then later there are hundreds of links all pointing back to the start, the deletion will hurt more and be more noticeable. The most at-risk posts are those that are supposed to be controversial within a small group, but go viral outside it, or the posts that are controversial within a small group, but then the author says something about politics that draws the attention of the Internet at large to their other writings.

The second biggest risk factor for deletion is probably usefulness combined with hosting costs. This could also be the streetlight effect at work, like in the paragraph above, but the more traffic something gets, the higher the hosting costs. Certain types of content are either hard to monetise, and cost a lot of money, or they can be monetised, so the free version is deliberately deleted.

The more tech-savvy users are, the more likely they are to link between different sites, abandon a blogging platform or social network for the next thing, try to consolidate their writings by deleting their old stuff and setting up their own site, only to let the domain lapse. The more tech-savvy users are, the more likely they are to mess with the HTML of their templates or try out different blogging software.

If content is spread between multiple sites, or if links link to social network posts that link to blog post with a comment that links to a reddit comment that links to a geocities page, any link could break. If content is consolidated in a forum, maybe Archive team could save all of it with some advance notice.

All this could mean that indie games/game design theory/pixel art resources are uniquely lost, and games studies/theory of games criticism/literary criticism applied to games are especially affected by link rot. The semi-professional, semi-hobbyist indie dev, the writer straddling the line between academic and reviewer, they seem the most affected. Artists who start out just doodling and posting their work, who then get hired to work on a game, their posts are deleted. GameFAQs stay online, Steam reviews stay online, but dev logs, forums and blog comment sections are lost.

Or maybe it's only confirmation bias. If I was into restoring old cars, or knitting, or collecting stamps, or any other thing I'd think that particular community is uniquely affected by link rot, and I'd have the bookmarks to prove it.

Figuring this out is important if we want to make predictions about the future of the small web, and about the viability of different efforts to get more people to contribute. We can't figure it out now, because we can't measure the ground truth of web sites that are already gone. Right now, the small web is mostly about the small web, not about stamp collecting or knitting. If we really manage to revitalise the small web, will it be like the small web of today except bigger, the web-1.0 of old, or will certain topics and communities be lost again?

[sunflarie]

happy valentine's day! (ꈍᴗꈍ)♡ my dear friend @orpheurdice tagged me to answer!

last song: feather by little dragon. i made a playlist with my favorite songs from this month (with songs that i've never listened to before) and this one is SOOOOO beautiful.

last book: the people's hospital by dr. ricardo nuila. i want to challenge myself to read more non-fiction and i picked this one because a) it explains the complexities and disparities of american healthcare and how the system is harmful and b) delves into the importance of empathy over profit when practicing medicine (especially at public institutions). it is a little lengthy but i love learning about the intersection of health and social justice.

last movie: (currently watching) the girl with the dragon tattoo (2011) it's a noir/thriller/crime movie set in sweden during the winter so you know what that means.....they better give me blood in the snow scenes come on nowwwww.

last show: sweetpea! i love you ella purnell. i love your big eyes. and i love the main character SO MUCH. she is me i am her.

last thing i looked up: maybelline tubing mascara. going on a target run in a bit #securingthebag.

sweet/savory/spicy: sweet. always.

relationship status: getting over a situationship. november and december were quite tough but i'm on the other side :)))

looking forward to: becoming more eloquent (learning how to speak more intelligently, so to say, lmao), keeping good energy for the rest of the year and living for myself and my purpose. being gentle with myself while maintaining discipline. hanging out with my friends and going on weekly study dates with them. networking and being more active at my uni.

current obsessions: watching disturbing movie reviews on youtube, 90's trip hop, american gothic everything (next book i'll read is set in rural appalachia with tons of folk horror and rot/moss imagery) my khaki flared pants and baby pink scarf, ancient egypt, uggs mini boots, cookie butter lattes, the smell of the foam i use for my curly hair, the poem "radio" by andrea gibson. pink lilies. swans. 🩰🦢

tagging @afflictions @gothicpoets @seazoa @goyangi @wujuonline @uncertainlys

[chrisairgames]

Outer Rim Marches, #0.1

In January, I started a westmarches campaign for Mothership RPG. This is the first post in a series of play reports and mini-reviews I intend to share of the campaign-in-progress.

Let's call this post "Zero Session #1," in a series of Zero Session posts, where I'll get into the how/why of organizing and running this campaign.

Why? Well, I own a ton of Mothership modules. I've been playing and writing for Mothership RPG for over two years, yet most of my sessions became playtests and that "work-only" connection to the game was burning me out.

So, I decided to build a sandbox campaign around the physical MoSh games I have in hand, and to find folk to play at an open table.

For now, ok, sure, it's more of an open table sandbox for interconnected one-shots than a "true" westmarches game, especially since the game has only one GM (me, but I'm hoping to open that up soon). But Outer Rim Marches sounds cool, eh?

Initial Forward Operating Base (F.O.B.)

The PCs arrived at Sater's Redemption. They work for The Company, who hired them to represent their new presence amid a mess of other factions, and leases a ship, The Orpheus, to the Crew.

(We decided the official corporation name of The Company that owns their ship will be revealed in play. That hasn't happened yet, eight sessions later. I love hanging this important piece of worldbuilding in the balance for when it can have a bigger narrative impact. Not knowing wtf is going to happen is one of my favorite parts of running ttrpgs.)

The Crew's job: explore the Outer Rim to establish footholds in new trading hubs (F.O.B.s), discover novel exploitable resources (artifacts), capture profitable exobiological lifeforms, and spread the influence of The Company.

The above graphic might be familiar to folk who follow my substack, the 5 Million Worlds Rokaner Report. Each month, I release a free sci-fi adventure setting, and this station was the featured world in the April edition. A taste of things to come.

Game Organization

When I set out to recruit players, the first important bit was setting a firm, regular playtime. When people reached out, I sent them the Consent in Gaming fillable PDF to get an idea of collective Lines/Veils. Once I got that back, I sent a google survey to gauge interest in modules and game commitment to split folks into ping-able groups.

The playtime is working out well. We had one three week break, I was out sick one time, and only once did we have not have enough folk to play. Ten sessions out of a possible fifteen since January!

I kinda fucked up the module-interest part of the survey though. I listed module names, and without content tags this was pretty useless for the players (outside the BIG names, like Hull Breach). I intend to redo this survey soon, and I'll share a copy here when I do!

The player commitment bit was super helpful, at least. Since I run games on Discord, I split players into three groups: the Command crew who vote on which job to take, the mainline players are the Crew I ping each week to advertise the game (I make an "Event" in Discord), and and a final Cryo group to call on when games don't fill up right away.

This has worked super well for me, even when I drop the ball on giving the players the Event ping in advance.

The Sector Map

I built this hexmap using Sectors Without Number, which is a sector generator for Stars Without Number. I opted for this against the recommendations of Mothership's Warden's Operation Manual because in a westmarches campaign, from what I've understood, the world is meant to be established once the game begins. I think this is especially important should other GMs and player groups begin playing in this world.

To be blunt, I found using this is kind of annoying. There's a lot of irrelevant SWN info to delete, TONS of systems to hide individually, and it's pretty intensive to integrate module info into the systems.

In short, listen to Sean McCoy's advice in the Warden's Operation Manual if you're starting your own Mothership game and don't fucking do this, haha.

And to be honest, I'm not sold on this even being useful as a sandbox tool intended to be shared with other GMs, even. The verdict is still out. To be continued in another Zero Session post down the line.

ANYWAY! This map looks empty, but that's because it's the player-facing starcharts the Company gave them. PCs need to buy hyperspace route maps at various hubs to explore beyond these bounds. So the star and hyperlane layers hold loads of hidden info.

Feel free to poke around the current state of the sector.

And I do like the shift from a web to hexmap. Little swirls of points get me all crossed up. The Jump-drive distances in Mothership are amenable to using hexes, and tracking distance (i.e. time passed) is straightforward.

ORM Campaign Sneak Peek

Mothership space travel takes a long-ass time, in case you didn't know. To date, we've played nine adventures over ten sessions, and over two years have passed in the campaign world.

The players skipped over a lot of systems to go to Hardlight, which they've recently learned is on the edge of the Public Sector (from Hull Breach). Gonna be some interesting sessions coming up.

The next Outer Rim Marches post will be the official ORM#1, in which the players board the lauded Year of the Rat.

[mywitchyblog]

Should I go to Etsy ?

Alright, here’s the real tea. Should I go full Etsy witch and set up shop for my tarot readings? Or am I better off keeping things as they are—intimate, personal, and powered by vibes (and, let’s be real, y’all’s support)? I need your opinions, because this decision is giving “Mercury retrograde indecisiveness.”

So here’s the situation. I’ve been offering tarot readings for a while now. If you’ve booked with me, you know the deal: my spreads are designed for shifters, seekers, and anyone trying to untangle their life (or their journey to a Desired Reality). My readings aren’t fluff—they’re honest, intuitive, and grounded in connection. Right now, you choose a spread, donate through my Ko-Fi, and I channel your energy into a reading that actually resonates.

It’s a system that works. But... would it work better on Etsy? That’s the question.

The Etsy Allure

I mean, let’s be real. Etsy is the place people go when they’re looking for metaphysical services. It’s already packed with folks shopping for tarot readings, shifting tools, and everything spiritual. Having a shop there could bring me more visibility—no more relying on reblogs, word of mouth, or people randomly stumbling onto my Tumblr posts. Instead, I’d be right there in the marketplace, where people are already in the mindset to buy what I’m offering.

And then there’s the professionalism factor. Etsy has a certain polish to it. A storefront there might make my readings feel more “official,” like I’m running a legit business instead of just vibing in my little internet corner. That could attract new clients who might not have trusted a DM-based operation. Plus, Etsy’s tools—automated receipts, order tracking, reviews—are kind of appealing. They’d streamline things and save me some mental bandwidth.

But here’s the thing: it costs $14 to even open an Etsy shop. Fourteen bucks. That might not sound like a lot, but for me, a broke college student whose financial situation is as real as Bigfoot sightings, it’s a hurdle. I literally don’t have that right now. If I want to make this leap, I’d need to sell a reading just to afford the entry fee. Like... anyone want to sponsor my little tarot empire? Buy a reading and help me get this shop off the ground?

The Not-So-Glamorous Side of Etsy

Of course, it’s not all sunshine and crystals. Etsy takes a lot of fees. There’s a listing fee for every service you post, transaction fees for every sale, and advertising fees if you want to promote your shop. Those costs add up, and they could eat into the already small profits I’m making.

And then there’s the energy of it all. I love that my current system feels personal. When you book a reading, it’s a one-on-one connection. I get to learn about your journey, your struggles, and your hopes. It’s intimate. Would Etsy keep that vibe intact, or would it make things feel... transactional? Like, would it still feel magical, or would it start feeling like I’m just running another side hustle in the gig economy?

Also, let’s not ignore the fact that Etsy has a lot of gimmicky energy in its metaphysical section. For every genuine reader, there’s someone selling $5 “instant soulmate spells” or “manifest money overnight” nonsense. Do I really want to throw myself into a pool with that energy? Would it cheapen my work to be associated with that kind of marketplace?

Practical Concerns

The other big question is: would I even want the potential flood of clients Etsy could bring? Tarot readings take time, focus, and energy. They’re not something I can rush. If the Etsy algorithm decides to favor me (unlikely, but let’s dream big), would I get overwhelmed? Would I burn out trying to keep up with demand? I’m already balancing college, life, and this side hustle. Would scaling up make me miserable? Because if there’s one thing I know, it’s that I’m not willing to compromise the quality of my readings just to churn out more orders.

Where Do You Come In?

This is where I need you—my community, my people. You’ve supported me so far, trusted me with your energy, and helped me grow into the reader I am today. So I’m asking: what do you think? Is Etsy the right move? Would it help me reach more people who need my work, or would it just complicate things? Have you ever bought a tarot reading on Etsy? Did it feel magical, or did it feel like you were just adding something to your cart?

And if you’re a reader yourself, spill the tea. Do you have an Etsy shop? Is it worth it, or do you regret it? What’s the reality of running a spiritual business on that platform?

Oh, and one last thing: if you do think I should open an Etsy shop but feel like I’m being held back by that $14 fee (spoiler: I am), here’s your chance to make it happen. If even one of you books a reading with me, I could use that money to finally set up my shop. So, if you’ve been on the fence about getting a reading, now’s the perfect time. Not only will you get some cosmic guidance, but you’ll also be helping me take this next big step. Win-win, right?

Anyway, let me know your thoughts. I’m all ears, and I really do value your input. Should I take the Etsy leap, or am I better off keeping things right here, cozy and low-key? Let’s chat.

[whataboutsimple]

||Complex AU||

Towns Edition.

Version: BoomTown.

BoomTown is actually more functional town than you can think. There are rules and laws, that keeps people from dying or killing, robbing or commiting complete arson. You can't just hold a whole town of hyperactive people without having at least some rules.

So let's review them a little bit, shall we?

First of all, it's not a complete chaos. There are people like healers, builder, guards, who help organize the whole "process" of griefing.

Strict rules for a colour system: each citizen carries with them a green bracelet and a red flag. Green bracelet means they are good to go and are participating in the game, but if the person holds the red flag, he immediately stops being a target for other greifers.

There are a lot of "emergency buttons" all over the city, so if you hold a red flag and you're injured, you can press an emergency buttons and healers will come to you. In case you're too far away from it, usually other greifers call for help.

There are two parts of BoomTown: greifing part and resting part. Greifing part is surrounded by a cobblestone-obsidian wall, so that no destruction will went over it. The resting part surrounded just by cobblestone wall to prevent mobs from interfering and to keep them safe from sand storms.

The "rest" part is not as big as griefing and us created purely for greifers to relax and take some time for healing. It's covered with glass dome, and is planted with lots of trees. Usually in this very part live all the healers, builders and guards. This very part is also connected with world post system, has some function shops and banks, and even some villagers like cartographers or smiths!

There's a "two weeks" law, during which the griefing part is closed for reconstruction and all the greifers are sent to the resting part. Meanwhile the builders are doing their best to rebuild everything, adding new details, secret passageways and ect. Usually young builders from schools and colleges are sent to BoomTown to train their "fast-building" skills.

The guards also keeps an eye everywhere, in case someone will try to kill someone using the freedom of griefing part. Sure there are s lot of accidents with TNT and stuff, but there's less of them than you can think. And if the actual killing is happening like from sword or potion, than griefing part stops working until the case will be solved.

To become a citizen of BoomTown, you actually need to do a log of paper work and prove that you're psychically strong enough to keep up with other griefers.

The tourists, however, can watch the show from special towers, of course with guards keeping them save.

To keep economy in a shape, all the griefers usually do 50/50 of griefing and working. Mining under the sand is actually quite profitable since it's the place where less people was due to the sand, they also sell the sand itself, glass, colourful glass, green dye and BoomTown counts as the town, who sends most mobs loot since there are a lot of mobs in the desert.

That's it, at least for now.

[handsome-jacks-toy]

Hindsight

"You know Rhysie? I'm so friggin glad you talked me out of that endoskeleton plan."

Jack stands up from his desk, one of two now in the large office, and walks over to Rhys.

"I mean, look at us! I have a new body. You're Co-CEO of Hyperion. And quarterly profits are through the friggin roof baby!"

Rhys chuckles at that. "Yeah Jack, not airlocking half the R&D department every month will do that."

Jack throws his head back and groans. The kid has a point, but it doesn't mean he has to like it.

"Yeah well, I still say the numbskulls had it coming."

~~~

"Aaaand that'll do it."

Jack closes the Hatch on Rhys' arm and gives it a pat for good measure. The kid lifts his arm, inspecting it this way and that.

"What, ya don't trust my handywork cupcake?"

Rhys tilts his head at him. "Nah, it's not that. I'm just, kinda surprised you know how to fix it? I know you're more of a programmer than an engineer."

Jack can't help but laugh at that one.

"Did you forget I used to be code living in your cybernetics pumpkin? The first thing I did when I got access to Hyperion systems was learn how to repair you. Couldn't have you breaking down on me."

"Helps that you got the top of the line stuff too. Holographic palm interface. Echoeye with AR overlay. 200 year internal power supply. The works. Must have cost you a pretty penny."

Rhys slips his shirt back on as he nods, "Yeah, it definitely wasn't cheap. Cost my entire yearly bonus. I was eating instant noodles for months." He shudders at the phantom taste of noodle before looking Jack in the eye.

"It was worth it though. Without it I never would have met you."

~~~

"Hey cupcake, do you remember the time you first trusted me? When you let me into your subsystems?"

Rhys pauses from reviewing the contract and looks over at him. "Yeah, how could I ever forget? It's still the most terrifying, yet exhilarating, thing I've ever done."

"More terrifying than facing down a hoard of bandits and psychos in a race to the death?"

"Oh for sure. I didn't really have a choice. I could watch my friends die, or trust you. And let's be fair, your reputation preceded you. I mean, when you woke up, the first thing you tried to do was strangle me."

Jack couldn't help but grimace at the reminder. He'd never admit it out loud, but there was a lot he regretted about how he'd treated the kid in the early days.

"So why do you ask anyway?

Jack looked back down at the contract he was writing. "Just thinking about how far we've come, you and I. And this business deal were working on feels like that moment. For me it was pure exhilaration. It was then I knew that we could do anything, and I mean anything, if we worked together. We make an amazing team pumpkin."

Jack looked up to see the fond little smile the kid had. He was directing those at him more and more these days.

Jack clapped his hands together. "Alright, no more sappy shit or I'm gonna get a rash. Back to cracking skulls and writing loopholes."

"We're not cracking any skulls Jack."

"Hey, a man can dream can't he?"

~~~

"Wake up Jack. It's time to get up. Today's the big day!"

Jack rolled over and cracked an eye open. Ugh, he'd fallen asleep with the mask on again. Sometimes he wished he hadn't opted for it on his new body, but he just didn't feel like himself without it. The man before the mask was dead and gone, and he wasn't coming back. He was Handsome Jack now.

Rhys snapped him out of his introspection with a small shake to his shoulder. "Jack, come on. You gotta get up. The meeting's in an hour."

Right, the meeting. The most important one of his life. Jack was definitely awake now. As he sat up he realized he could smell greasy goodness wafting in from the kitchen.

Food was one thing he never took for granted anymore. Go for as long as he did without a sense of taste or smell, and you really learn to appreciate the little things.

He padded into the dining room and Rhysie turned and smiled at him.

"I know you were up late working on last minute revisions, so I made you breakfast. I hope bacon and eggs are alright. There's a pot of coffee brewing too."

Jack sat at the table and took it all in. Sometimes he couldn't believe this was his life. He never thought he'd be so domestic again.

"You're a godsend cupcake, you know that? I could just kiss you."

Rhys froze as he was plating the food, before setting it in front of Jack with a smile.

"I'm glad you like it. Now hurry up, we have a busy day"

Jack dug in gleefully. It was the best thing he'd ever tasted.

~~

"Looks like everything's in order. Pleasure doing business with you gentlemen. We'll talk again soon."

Rhysie turned towards him as the holo-call ended, business facade broken. The kid was downright giddy. It was contagious if he was being honest.

"We did it Jack! We really did it! I can't believe it!"

He thought the kid was gonna faint he was so hyped up. Instead he did something Jack never expected. He reached up, grapped his lapels, and pulled him foreward into a kiss.

Jack froze in shock, before melting into it. This was better than anything he'd ever imagined. Rhysie was a surprisingly good kisser. Finally they ran out of breath and pulled away.

"I can't tell you how long I've wanted to do that. Now just felt like the right time. We made this deal together Jack. Can you believe it? Hyperion is now the biggest company in the univer-

*CRASH*

Jack's eye flew left and right, searching for the source of the noise. He couldn't see anything though, and the mic wasn't picking up anything else. It must have just been more wreckage from Helios setting.

Jack hadn't seen another living soul since the crash. It'd been years, and he didn't want to think about how many more it could be.

That daydream was nice though. He wished it hadn't ended there. But he could always start over again. Wasn't like he had much else to do.

He flexed the arm again, trying to reach the eye, but it was a futile effort. Just like every other time. He couldn't help but look again at the scattered remains around him. The eye had long since rotted and fell to the ground. The bones were all he could really see. Everyday, reminded of his greatest mistake.

"God, I miss you Rhys..."

[mediazone786]

Squid Game season two review – TV that will make you uncomfortably bloodthirsty indeed

One of Hollywood’s many bad habits is the bloat caused by splitting a story in half in a bid to double the profits (cough, cough, Dune and Wicked). Squid Game was always a perfect one-series story. Gambling addict Seong Gi-hun (Lee Jung-jae) became Player 456, a desperate man who attempts to pay off his debts by taking part in a twisted underground fight-to-the-death competition. He beats the odds by surviving every one of its potentially fatal playground games. When it first appeared, it was horrifying, it was thrilling, and its satirical edge – which examined capitalism and class in South Korea – was clever and acidic. The world took to it in vast numbers.

That it became one of Netflix’s most successful, and therefore most profitable, series of all time placed it in a creative bind. Inevitably, it was renewed for a second and then third series, but even before that, its satirical edge was stress-tested by Squid Game: The Challenge, a real gameshow spinoff. That was far more entertaining than it had any right to be, but its win-big mentality did rather undermine the point of the original, which took aim at the inherent unfairness of an exploitative economic system.

But that was a diversion, and its many millions of viewers will be keen to see if Squid Game can recapture its magic, even with a return that seems unnecessary at least in narrative terms. For the first three of these seven new episodes, it struggles to find its purpose. It is three years after Gi-hun walked away with the money, and he is hellbent on seeking revenge on the super-rich puppet-masters who engineered its deadly spectacle. He is chasing shadows, using some of his vast cash reserves (or “blood money”) to fund a mercenary army. He joins forces with the former detective Hwang Jun-ho, who is still trying to find his brother, to look for the Salesman, the man in the suit who asks strangers to play ddakji with him before recruiting them as players. Months pass, and the dead ends mount.

The early episodes feel like delaying tactics, and considering that this is Squid Game, it is all rather ordinary. There are chase scenes, car crashes and gun fights. The satirical element has been replaced by a quest for vengeance. It is entertaining enough, but it does lead to an uncomfortably bloodthirsty sensation, of willing everyone to get back to the sports day with a body count. Given that the last episode feels very much like the halfway point in the story, which will continue with a final series next year, this dragging of heels is gratuitous.

It gets better. When Gi-hun finally becomes Player 456 again – and this is revealed in the trailer, which seems to have an understanding of the need for the games and the structure provided by them – it is a welcome kick up the backside. Here, it begins to embrace the familiar, and make enough changes to freshen everything up. It starts to go deeper into the lives of the masked soldiers who enforce the rules. There are new players, and so a whole new cast to either root for or despise. The idea of expensive healthcare, and the conflation of wealth and health, is foregrounded, which is timely. It introduces a mother and her son – as both Squid Game: The Challenge and the last series of The Traitors know, this dynamic is dramatic gold. In other cases, it makes the villains cartoonishly awful. A rapper named Thanos is one of the most irritating characters to appear on TV in recent times.

One of the preoccupations of Squid Game is human nature. As a species, are we fundamentally decent and magnanimous, or are we craven, greedy and selfish? The Salesman reminds us of the theme early on, when he takes two bags of shopping to a park mostly populated by the homeless and others down on their luck. He offers them a choice: bread, or a scratch card? The certainty of a meal, or the possibility of cash? Most take the risk, not knowing the outcome. Gi-hun already knows the outcome of the games, or at least he thinks he does. But whether he can persuade the others what it actually means to play when the odds are stacked against you is another story.

For all of its unevenness, particularly as it is warming up to the proper action, there is one big twist that really works, though whether it is distinct enough from what happens in the first series is unclear. And when you think you know where it is going, it turns away from its trajectory, upping the ante and finding its feet. What a shame it takes so long to get there though. Series three has some cleaning up to do.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Big Tech disrupted disruption

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/2024/02/08/permanent-overlords/#republicans-want-to-defund-the-police

Before "disruption" turned into a punchline, it was a genuinely exciting idea. Using technology, we could connect people to one another and allow them to collaborate, share, and cooperate to make great things happen.

It's easy (and valid) to dismiss the "disruption" of Uber, which "disrupted" taxis and transit by losing $31b worth of Saudi royal money in a bid to collapse the world's rival transportation system, while quietly promising its investors that it would someday have pricing power as a monopoly, and would attain profit through price-gouging and wage-theft.

Uber's disruption story was wreathed in bullshit: lies about the "independence" of its drivers, about the imminence of self-driving taxis, about the impact that replacing buses and subways with millions of circling, empty cars would have on traffic congestion. There were and are plenty of problems with traditional taxis and transit, but Uber magnified these problems, under cover of "disrupting" them away.

But there are other feats of high-tech disruption that were and are genuinely transformative – Wikipedia, GNU/Linux, RSS, and more. These disruptive technologies altered the balance of power between powerful institutions and the businesses, communities and individuals they dominated, in ways that have proven both beneficial and durable.

When we speak of commercial disruption today, we usually mean a tech company disrupting a non-tech company. Tinder disrupts singles bars. Netflix disrupts Blockbuster. Airbnb disrupts Marriott.

But the history of "disruption" features far more examples of tech companies disrupting other tech companies: DEC disrupts IBM. Netscape disrupts Microsoft. Google disrupts Yahoo. Nokia disrupts Kodak, sure – but then Apple disrupts Nokia. It's only natural that the businesses most vulnerable to digital disruption are other digital businesses.

And yet…disruption is nowhere to be seen when it comes to the tech sector itself. Five giant companies have been running the show for more than a decade. A couple of these companies (Apple, Microsoft) are Gen-Xers, having been born in the 70s, then there's a couple of Millennials (Amazon, Google), and that one Gen-Z kid (Facebook). Big Tech shows no sign of being disrupted, despite the continuous enshittification of their core products and services. How can this be? Has Big Tech disrupted disruption itself?

That's the contention of "Coopting Disruption," a new paper from two law profs: Mark Lemley (Stanford) and Matthew Wansley (Yeshiva U):

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4713845

The paper opens with a review of the literature on disruption. Big companies have some major advantages: they've got people and infrastructure they can leverage to bring new products to market more cheaply than startups. They've got existing relationships with suppliers, distributors and customers. People trust them.

Diversified, monopolistic companies are also able to capture "involuntary spillovers": when Google spends money on AI for image recognition, it can improve Google Photos, YouTube, Android, Search, Maps and many other products. A startup with just one product can't capitalize on these spillovers in the same way, so it doesn't have the same incentives to spend big on R&D.

Finally, big companies have access to cheap money. They get better credit terms from lenders, they can float bonds, they can tap the public markets, or just spend their own profits on R&D. They can also afford to take a long view, because they're not tied to VCs whose funds turn over every 5-10 years. Big companies get cheap money, play a long game, pay less to innovate and get more out of innovation.

But those advantages are swamped by the disadvantages of incumbency, all the various curses of bigness. Take Arrow's "replacement effect": new companies that compete with incumbents drive down the incumbents' prices and tempt their customers away. But an incumbent that buys a disruptive new company can just shut it down, and whittle down its ideas to "sustaining innovation" (small improvements to existing products), killing "disruptive innovation" (major changes that make the existing products obsolete).

Arrow's Replacement Effect also comes into play before a new product even exists. An incumbent that allows a rival to do R&D that would eventually disrupt its product is at risk; but if the incumbent buys this pre-product, R&D-heavy startup, it can turn the research to sustaining innovation and defund any disruptive innovation.

Arrow asks us to look at the innovation question from the point of view of the company as a whole. Clayton Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma" looks at the motivations of individual decision-makers in large, successful companies. These individuals don't want to disrupt their own business, because that will render some part of their own company obsolete (perhaps their own division!). They also don't want to radically change their customers' businesses, because those customers would also face negative effects from disruption.

A startup, by contrast, has no existing successful divisions and no giant customers to safeguard. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain from disruption. Where a large company has no way for individual employees to initiate major changes in corporate strategy, a startup has fewer hops between employees and management. What's more, a startup that rewards an employee's good idea with a stock-grant ties that employee's future finances to the outcome of that idea – while a giant corporation's stock bonuses are only incidentally tied to the ideas of any individual worker.

Big companies are where good ideas go to die. If a big company passes on its employees' cool, disruptive ideas, that's the end of the story for that idea. But even if 100 VCs pass on a startup's cool idea and only one VC funds it, the startup still gets to pursue that idea. In startup land, a good idea gets lots of chances – in a big company, it only gets one.

Given how innately disruptable tech companies are, given how hard it is for big companies to innovate, and given how little innovation we've gotten from Big Tech, how is it that the tech giants haven't been disrupted?

The authors propose a four-step program for the would-be Tech Baron hoping to defend their turf from disruption.

First, gather information about startups that might develop disruptive technologies and steer them away from competing with you, by investing in them or partnering with them.

Second, cut off any would-be competitor's supply of resources they need to develop a disruptive product that challenges your own.

Third, convince the government to pass regulations that big, established companies can comply with but that are business-killing challenges for small competitors.

Finally, buy up any company that resists your steering, succeeds despite your resource war, and escapes the compliance moats of regulation that favors incumbents.

Then: kill those companies.

The authors proceed to show that all four tactics are in play today. Big Tech companies operate their own VC funds, which means they get a look at every promising company in the field, even if they don't want to invest in them. Big Tech companies are also awash in money and their "rival" VCs know it, and so financial VCs and Big Tech collude to fund potential disruptors and then sell them to Big Tech companies as "aqui-hires" that see the disruption neutralized.

On resources, the authors focus on data, and how companies like Facebook have explicit policies of only permitting companies they don't see as potential disruptors to access Facebook data. They reproduce internal Facebook strategy memos that divide potential platform users into "existing competitors, possible future competitors, [or] developers that we have alignment with on business models." These categories allow Facebook to decide which companies are capable of developing disruptive products and which ones aren't. For example, Amazon – which doesn't compete with Facebook – is allowed to access FB data to target shoppers. But Messageme, a startup, was cut off from Facebook as soon as management perceived them as a future rival. Ironically – but unsurprisingly – Facebook spins these policies as pro-privacy, not anti-competitive.

These data policies cast a long shadow. They don't just block existing companies from accessing the data they need to pursue disruptive offerings – they also "send a message" to would-be founders and investors, letting them know that if they try to disrupt a tech giant, they will have their market oxygen cut off before they can draw breath. The only way to build a product that challenges Facebook is as Facebook's partner, under Facebook's direction, with Facebook's veto.

Next, regulation. Starting in 2019, Facebook started publishing full-page newspaper ads calling for regulation. Someone ghost-wrote a Washington Post op-ed under Zuckerberg's byline, arguing the case for more tech regulation. Google, Apple, OpenAI other tech giants have all (selectively) lobbied in favor of many regulations. These rules covered a lot of ground, but they all share a characteristic: complying with them requires huge amounts of money – money that giant tech companies can spare, but potential disruptors lack.

Finally, there's predatory acquisitions. Mark Zuckerberg, working without the benefit of a ghost writer (or in-house counsel to review his statements for actionable intent) has repeatedly confessed to buying companies like Instagram to ensure that they never grow to be competitors. As he told one colleague, "I remember your internal post about how Instagram was our threat and not Google+. You were basically right. The thing about startups though is you can often acquire them.”

All the tech giants are acquisition factories. Every successful Google product, almost without exception, is a product they bought from someone else. By contrast, Google's own internal products typically crash and burn, from G+ to Reader to Google Videos. Apple, meanwhile, buys 90 companies per year – Tim Apple brings home a new company for his shareholders more often than you bring home a bag of groceries for your family. All the Big Tech companies' AI offerings are acquisitions, and Apple has bought more AI companies than any of them.

Big Tech claims to be innovating, but it's really just operationalizing. Any company that threatens to disrupt a tech giant is bought, its products stripped of any really innovative features, and the residue is added to existing products as a "sustaining innovation" – a dot-release feature that has all the innovative disruption of rounding the corners on a new mobile phone.

The authors present three case-studies of tech companies using this four-point strategy to forestall disruption in AI, VR and self-driving cars. I'm not excited about any of these three categories, but it's clear that the tech giants are worried about them, and the authors make a devastating case for these disruptions being disrupted by Big Tech.

What do to about it? If we like (some) disruption, and if Big Tech is enshittifying at speed without facing dethroning-by-disruption, how do we get the dynamism and innovation that gave us the best of tech?

The authors make four suggestions.

First, revive the authorities under existing antitrust law to ban executives from Big Tech companies from serving on the boards of startups. More broadly, kill interlocking boards altogether. Remember, these powers already exist in the lawbooks, so accomplishing this goal means a change in enforcement priorities, not a new act of Congress or rulemaking. What's more, interlocking boards between competing companies are illegal per se, meaning there's no expensive, difficult fact-finding needed to demonstrate that two companies are breaking the law by sharing directors.

Next: create a nondiscrimination policy that requires the largest tech companies that share data with some unaffiliated companies to offer data on the same terms to other companies, except when they are direct competitors. They argue that this rule will keep tech giants from choking off disruptive technologies that make them obsolete (rather than competing with them).

On the subject of regulation and compliance moats, they have less concrete advice. They counsel lawmakers to greet tech giants' demands to be regulated with suspicion, to proceed with caution when they do regulate, and to shape regulation so that it doesn't limit market entry, by keeping in mind the disproportionate burdens regulations put on established giants and small new companies. This is all good advice, but it's more a set of principles than any kind of specific practice, test or procedure.

Finally, they call for increased scrutiny of mergers, including mergers between very large companies and small startups. They argue that existing law (Sec 2 of the Sherman Act and Sec 7 of the Clayton Act) both empower enforcers to block these acquisitions. They admit that the case-law on this is poor, but that just means that enforcers need to start making new case-law.

I like all of these suggestions! We're certainly enjoying a more activist set of regulators, who are more interested in Big Tech, than we've seen in generations.

But they are grossly under-resourced even without giving them additional duties. As Matt Stoller points out, "the DOJ's Antitrust Division has fewer people enforcing anti-monopoly laws in a $24 trillion economy than the Smithsonian Museum has security guards."

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/congressional-republicans-to-defund

What's more, Republicans are trying to slash their budgets even further. The American conservative movement has finally located a police force they're eager to defund: the corporate police who defend us all from predatory monopolies.

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

CC BY 3.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en

[koskela-knights]

About Watery

Thinking about Watery and its decaying state :( The flood has made many places inaccessible, closed shops and buildings everywhere. Weathered and malfunctioning to broken attractions at Coffee World... Many locals become Taken and die or move out, turning the town almost in a ghost town with skeletal houses and constructions.

There might be a certain truth behind Alan's manuscript page on Watery. It wouldn't be far-fetched really, for the town to lose its economic income and status once the lumber mill closed down/maybe wasn't necessary anymore due to an external company's mass production. Plenty of that happens in the real world and it also reminds me of other fictional towns in games I've played.

Possum Springs from Night In The Woods is also a dying town. The mines are no longer needed, people moving out to other cities, the current jobs don't pay well enough. Small & local businesses shutting down or being bought/replaced by big brands, etc. Funnily enough, it also has a Cult. Although their motivations are very different. Instead of protecting the townspeople, it tries to bring PS back to its former mining glory by wrongfully sacrificing people they deem unworthy ("lazy" people) to be in this revived PS.

Multiple locations in Kentucky Route Zero. There are towns neglected and abandoned by big corporations and its inhabitants and people are in debt and fighting to stay at their old homes. There are many ghost stories to be found in that game. Kinda similarly in Watery, glimpses of the past as told through articles and environmental storytelling can be found that also give this feeling of a slightly better past.

Lol, you can even see town decay in Cars, that movie about the sentient cars. Radiator Springs used to be a thriving town, until the new highway made the road through RS obsolete. It was only after McQueen put the town back on the map, did it manage to revive. So yeah, maybe Watery does need a miracle too (and a system that keeps the people from poverty).

But despite the decline, people still try to make the best out of it, even in terrible and gloomy circumstances. I remember there's this Coffee World review page you can find where the author calls the owner/Ilmo a greedy bastard. But if you look at the state of the park and Watery in general, it's kinda understandable? Yeah, some of the prices at the gift shop (as someone pointed out to me) were eh... not cheap lmao. I guess it's a desperate final resort, hoping to keep the money rolling. And I assume the Koskelas aren't super wealthy, they remain down to earth and it seems they put all earned money back into the community anyway. It's not like they're making a big profit from their multiple ventures.