#only people who actually want to make a solid argument are allowed here. aka the boys

[wibble-wobbegong]

my hottest take is that I literally Do Not care how disconnected the wheeler family is, there’s no reason for nancy to literally see mike in danger in her vision and not only not tell him but not even have a proper reunion with him. literally didn’t even speak to him. mike, who is almost always closest to the center of the danger. the one who’s most likely to actually fall into the danger nancy saw. absolutely zero reason to be that emotionally detached to the point where your brother goes missing for a week and the most horrifying man on the planet shows you a vision that starts coming true and you watch him be put in danger and then just. Don’t even acknowledge him. in fact the only comment you have towards him is about how messy his room is. Girl what is wrong with you

[tarhalindur]

Rebellion’s Biggest Outstanding Question

(Big fat PMMM+Rebellion spoilers under the cut, natch:)

Homura, at the end of Rebellion, believes that she is rebelling against Madoka’s will.  But is she actually doing so?  Or is she acting in accordance with it?

Let me explain.

I’ll start with the point I’m sold on either way (and have commented on at least twice before, including my explanation of Madoka’s other big mistake): Rebellion is directly downstream of Madoka making a single mistake immediately after her ascension in episode 12, a moment when she could not afford to make any mistake at all.  Much like Madoka’s other big mistake in episode 10, this one is not obvious on the surface and only becomes clear when looking at the events through a symbolic lens.

Specifically, a Buddhist symbolic lens.

I’ll leave the full explanation there to this post, which lays out the Buddhist influence on base PMMM’s themes and imagery and on Madokami’s ascension better than I could.  (Although its author is missing a few points.  First, the shot of Madoka expanding to galaxy size is DIRECTLY out of ego death symbolism.  Which makes sense, because there’s enough accounts to suggest that regardless of whether or not it has any deeper meaning beyond brain chemistry the people who’ve had it are describing a single class of subjective experience, and “one’s consciousness expanding to the size of the galaxy” seems to be a common feature of it - I’ve read at least one account of that kind of experience from, of all people, a random Protestant minister who claims to have had such an experience on a vision trip to the Amazon and only later realized that there was precedent for that kind of experience in Buddhist traditions, and he mentions that exact expansion as part of what he went through.  Second, the flower on Madoka’s bow is a rose, not a willow... which makes sense, because “Guanyin/Kannon and the Virgin Mary are two aspects of the same goddess” has been a theory in certain parts for at least a century, and the rose has a traditional association with the latter goddess - there’s a reason they call it the rosary, after all.  (I’ve seen speculation out of a few polytheist/less orthodox Christian circles I keep tabs on that Pistis Sophia is yet another aspect of the same goddess, too...)  Third, note all the mandala symbolism floating around - most obviously Walpurgisnacht’s appearance and Kyubey’s exposition in episode 11.)

And that influence is important here, because part of the process of the escape from samsara is the breaking of all karmic ties to the world.

Except... Madoka does not do this.  She leaves one karmic tie behind.

This one, to be precise:

Now, in theory it’s possible that the tainted miracle of Homura remembering Madoka has another root.  But I have my doubts, and the biggest piece of evidence there is the OST: the track that plays when Homura meets Junko in the finale and offers to give up the ribbons is named Taenia Memoriae, aka “the ribbon of memories”.  HMM,

(That Junko scene is in this regards the single most enigmatic scene of the main series finale to me.  My instinct is that it’s drawing off of Christian mythos again, either canonical or Gnostic, but I can’t quite place what piece; I kind of want to compare it specifically to the Denial of Peter.)

Now, there’s two other pieces here that are worth noting.

1) While Homulilly is described as the Nutcracker Witch in Rebellion, Homulilly’s name and Witch card are first revealed in the PSP game, and there she goes by a rather different epithet: Witch of the Mortal World, nature is karma.  Which is rather on the nose (the Mortal World [shigan] being another term for samsara), but then that’s probably by design - main series PMMM is not subtle at all when it wants to make a point.  And it is this epithet, not the Nutcracker Witch, that the Doppel versions of Homulilly in MagiReco draw off of, which suggests the staff considered it important.  (There’s a second distinction in the latter, because Moemura’s version of the Doppel implies that Homulilly’s nature was originally slightly different again - Witch of the Mortal World, nature is closed circuits - but I think for our purposes here this is a difference without true distinction, much like the Witch of the Near Shore pun for swimsuit!Moemura’s version of Homulilly.)  And there’s echoes of this even in Rebellion: the Clara Dolls are of course referred to as the Children of the Mortal World, plus of course the obvious “Homulilly’s Rebellion barrier as the Mortal World” take.  (Which, hmm.  Hello second-order symbolism - Homura failing to “break out of the egg” as failure to escape the cycle of samsara.)

2) The red ribbons of course suggest a very specific form of karmic tie - the Red String of Fate.  And you can be very, very sure that the staff intended that, too.  To drag a certain piece of key animation back out from storage:

While it’s hard to tell at this size, it sure looks to my eyes like the two ends are specifically tied around the girls’ pinkies.  You know, exactly where the proverbial Red String is said to be tied.

Or, to put it another way: AI YO.

Everything in Rebellion is downstream of this.

But all this is prologue.  Now that we have established the mistake, we can address the actual outstanding question: Did Madoka intend to make that mistake?  People have noted the applicability of Junko’s comments about intentionally making a big mistake when backed into a corner to Homura’s actions in Rebellion; do they also apply to the action Madoka took that led to that?

I am not sure.  Both cases are consistent, and I’d put about even odds either way.  But it’s the affirmative case I want to lay out here, to show that it does in fact exist:

- Let’s start with the one point someone else might bring up that I don’t really weight: Madoka’s final conversation with Homura in the flower bed.  This one, I think, can mostly be discarded.  We have word from both Kyubey and Sayaka that Madoka does not have her memories here; I can’t see both of them lying here.  (Also remember that Kyubey seems to have restriction that is sometimes said to apply to demons, at least under certain circumstances: he cannot directly tell a lie.  This is of course a very different thing from having to tell the truth, as episode 9 alone is enough to attest, but in this specific case it’s a boost to his credibility.)  If there’s an actual argument here, it’s a second-order one; it is possible, especially given her divine abilities, that Madokami was running a Xanatos Gambit and counting on her amnesiac projection to unwittingly relay her true feelings.  (In which case I would have to grab a certain infamous line from another well-known anime: “Just as planned”.)

- That one shot of Madokami’s gloved, scarred arm reaching down through the window to touch Homura.  Operative word scarred.  (And honestly, looking at one of the subs for that scene again Madoka’s comments there look potentially consistent with her actually supporting of or at least accepting Homura becoming a demon...)

- Mata Ashita, specifically the lyrics thereof.  With the perspective of the full series, Madoka’s character song is fairly clearly from the perspective of Madokami, and it’s suggestive that she is not entirely happy with the results of her wish and ascension.

- The fact that Rebellion happened at all.  There’s a complaint that I’ve seen regarding the mechanics of the Incubators’ plot in Rebellion: logically, by the wording of Madoka’s final wish the Incubators’ plan to use the Isolation Field to block the Law of Cycles should not work, since part of Madoka’s wish was to rewrite any rule or law that would prevent her from destroying Witches with her own hands, including the one the Incubators set up with their Isolation Field - doubly so if you take Madokami’s statement can see every world that ever existed or could ever exist and apply it to the Sealed Reality the experiment generates.  Except... there is one way that argument fails, regardless of anything else: namely, if Madoka saw what the Incubators were doing and intentionally allowed their experiment to proceed.  And at this point there is precedent for her doing something very similar; AIUI in her Magical Girl Story in MagiReco Madokami does something very similar wrt the MagiReco timeline, deliberately declining to destroy it despite its continued existence conflicting with the Law of Cycles.

(- Magia.  This point of argument I’m not convinced of either, but let’s lay it out.  (Honestly, even if I’m right I’m not sure how much of this was consciously intended, but creations can have a life of their own - especially creations where fucking natural disasters delay them so that they’re released on the most appropriate day possible!)  There’s two pieces to this, one I’m more sure of than the other:

1) The visuals.  Here’s the spot where I feel most solid about interpreting Magia: the ED visuals are clearly a reference to Madokami’s ascension.  (The show loves hiding that sort of foreshadowing in plain sight, why would you be surprised?)  Note the second half particularly, both Madoka’s hair lengthening and the starfield she’s running past.  (I think the order of the four other girls in the first half is probably how long they held out without Witching out.)  That leaves two issues, one more obvious to Western audiences and one less so.  First, that enigmatic and ominous shot of Madoka in fetal position (appropriate - her request in 10 and then her wish in 12 can be rephrased as “don’t let me grow up”) in the eye of Mephisto.  Second, there’s a point I’ve seen raised in analyses of Connect: in Japanese cinematography, motion from right to left indicates a correct course (unlike its Western equivalent, where the opposite applies)... and for the entirety of Magia Madoka is moving left-to-right.

2) The lyrics.  This is the part I’m less sold on, but once again let’s lay out the affirmative.  My line here derives from a hunch: Connect is famously from Homura’s perspective despite appearing to be from Madoka’s, perhaps the inverse is also true?  I’m still not sure there, but especially if you’re considering the TV version it can work... provided the lyrics are specifically from Madokami’s perspective again.  Grabbing the wiki version of the translation: “The light of love lit within your eyes will transcend time” sure fits better if we’re talking about Homura rather than about Madoka, likewise “with this power that can break even darkness” sure sounds like a better fit for Madokami to me.  And in that case the most interesting stanza is the second: “Swallow down your hesitation.  What is it that you wish for?  With the direction of this greedy admiration, will there be a short-lived tomorrow?”  The former two lines  are quite consistent with Homura’s decision in Rebellion (and I note the visual of Homura biting down on her Soul Gem to break it!), and “tomorrow” is consistently a reference to the possibility of Homura and Madoka meeting again in other PMMM songs (Mata Ashita again, Colorful, Connect full version) - which is realized courtesy of a greedy admiration, no less.  So.  Magia’s full version might count, too - there’s lines there that are harder to square from a Madokami perspective (”if I can move forward without hesitation then it’s fine if my heart gets broken” especially), but “Someday, for the sake of someone else, you too will wish for great power; on the night love captures your heart, unknown words will be born” fits Homura’s fall better than Madoka’s wish, I think.)

- If Madoka’s mistake in 12 is intentional then it more closely mirrors her (unintentional) mistake in 10: she’s implicitly asking Homura to once again do something she can’t and stop her from/alleviate the effects of her making a mistake.

- At a Doylist level, if they go for a proper happy end (either in Walpurgis no Kaiten or in a hypothetical sequel to the same) I’m not sure there’s any way they can get there without using this interpretation.  (In general, the two outcomes that make the most sense to me are “Akuhomu becomes the core of Walpurgisnacht, cue ending scene with Moemura making her wish” (the Logic Error ending, consistent with the Eternal Return of the Self; cue MagiReco as the way out) or an ending based on the answer to this question being yes - the easy version being a movie of everyone except Homura fighting to let Madoka rejoin the Law of Cycles only for her to surprise everyone with some sort of ending based on “actually, I was counting on her to do this from the start”.)

[soundwavereporting]

*insert catchy text post title here*

So! WFC Siege thoughts, now that I’m home from work and slightly more awake.

Under a cut because spoilers (obviously) and because I rambled:

Soundwave (which is my usual metric for judging anything tf) is pretty much what I expected him to be, which is...not much. lmao. I’d half expected him to sound like autotuned Hazbin Hotel Alastor, so having the flat voice was almost a shock, but honestly it kinda fits his not having a personality, except for that one line and him once again getting the brain cell of the Decepticons. But honestly, rarely does Soundwave have an explicit personality that doesn’t require digging into supplemental material and rewatching/rereading the media to find a few snippets of characterization from which to spin a whole character, so really it’s nothing new. No. I’m not bitter at all. Do I sound bitter? Also. I want to know what happened to him. Did he get blown away by the Ark’s engines????

However

I am SO INTRIGUED by the tiny hints given about Soundblaster...why was he made...what does Soundwave think of him? I don’t care about the war anymore. I just want a whole show about Soundblaster. I want a novel. I want a whole series. PLEASE Hasbro. PLEASE.

IRT the actual conflict between Autobots and Decepticoons......I’m gonna admit I breathed a sigh of relief when there was some actual effort into making the conflict actually dimensional, rather than ‘good Autobots vs evil Decepticons’. Maybe I’m still burned by the tfp discourse but it was so, so nice to see the nods to Functionism, to the class differences between Autobots and Decepticons, etc. And Impactor/Mirage’s argument, with Impactor practically quoting Towards Peace? *chef’s kiss* (and Ratchpactor...good)

However, the fact that the writers couldn’t decide whether to make it a war of ideals (nice) or a war of different races (not nice) left me wanting...I would’ve liked someone to give a full backstory on the OP/Megs/Mags thing, as well as a coherent explanation of...the actual central conflict. Was it initially an ‘us [op/mags/megs/alpha trion] vs them [wfc equivalent functionists]’ that ended with megs going too far, splintering the initial ‘good guys’? Was it something else entirely? As it stands, the conflict feels like it was written by someone who was forced to read the entire IDW1 comic run in a couple days.

The whole macguffin allspark/reprogramming plot is a whole other post (as is the depiction of the female characters) so I don’t want to get into it, but I do want to talk about Optimus, and Magnus, and their honor (aka pride). I love me some moral conflicts but Mangoes....if you can literally end the war by shooting someone in the back, is it not worth it to sacrifice your honor in order to save the lives of your friends, the people you love, and also allow them to keep their ‘‘‘honor’’’?

I know the conflict was probably supposed to be interpreted in a different way, but I can only see it as:

“is your personal sense of honor really worth the lives of your friends. the survival of the species you are so determined to save. (yes)”

(this is why I’d make an absolutely TERRIBLE autobot.)

Also. Optimus blatantly disregarding the (very valid) concerns of his lieutenants because......he loves his friends and has faith and hope...and everyone raises a stink for half a minute and then goes along with him anyway? I understand that he’s not the military leader, but he made patently terrible decisions throughout the entire show.

The decisions worked out, because he’s Optimus and he’s a good guy, but honestly, it might benefit you to take a few minutes to ponder the potential fallout of your actions before putting your plan into place. I don’t think Megatron should be the one telling you to consider the consequences of your actions because you disregarded your lieutenants telling you the exact same thing.

Just saying.

Finally, it’s a first for me, but Bumblebee was a whole #mood, at least until he got the macguffin Alpha Trion protocols and suddenly became all about the Autobots :/

tl;dr I’d give it a solid 6/10. I’m definitely gonna rewatch it again, if only for the Soundwave (and Soundblaster!) parts. I’d love it if the sequel series focused on the people left on Cybertron, but I have a feeling that’s....probably not gonna happen, since. Earth. Eugh. I also really want an actual, thoughtful exploration of the moral differences/reasonings between Autobots and Decepticons, so if anyone has those kinds of fics to rec, hmu. It also means that I’m more determined than ever to finish some of my current WIPs so I can write a fic that attempts to do just that.

Anyway. This got long. If y’all want to chat about the show, I’ll be on for a while, either here or on discord.

ETA: ASTROTRAIN!  I want more Astrotrain asap! He is so huge and looked absolutely terrifying when compared to tiny Prowl. Why did he only get like three seconds of screentime, smh

[amazildoessomethingstupid]

Chapter 91: Dial Tone

Y’know kids, forcibly shitting on these chapters so violently has really done a number on my bowels.   I think I should take it easy a little, luckily it seems Taeshi heard my cries (in the past, somehow) because this chapter just feels like it was aimed at my heart.  And not in the way she normally aims at my heart to fucking drive a stake into it, but I digress.  The chapter starts with Mike going to school and...

Yeah I’m with you Mike, I can’t believe summer’s over either.  I mean what was that?  Two chapters?  It weirded me out that it was already July when Golden Hour came around, and now it’s August!  I guess nothing else of interest happened.  Anyway they go into school, and...

Oh shit, why did no one tell me?!  It’s her!  I can’t believe it took 3 years, but she’s finally back!  Damn it I was supposed to take it easy!  I can’t get into Lucy’s new behavior, it might destroy m-

Oh, false alarm this is clearly a dream.  

A...very..weird...dream...

THE LEVEL OF CONCERN IS ELEVATING. 

OH THANK GOD!  We’re safe.

Wait...what?

OH SHIT BOYS IT’S VOLUME 1 STYLE!  WE’RE TAKING A RIDE DOWN MEMORY LANE AND EVERYONE’S INVITED!  AND GUESS WHAT? 

I actually like this part!  These callbacks are great and their implications are not lost on me! So allow me to splurge about something I like for once, and something that I actually do understand.  

This could very easily be seen as fan service, and hell my reaction to this should be proof that it probably is.  But if I’ve learned anything from Two Kinds, it’s that there’s two kinds of fan service that work for a story like this.  fan service that doesn’t effect anything, and is just there if you want it but doesn’t detract from anything, or fan service that actually drives a point home.  And credit where credit is due, Taeshi put fine use for this scene.  The volume 1 style isn’t just meant to be a visual callback, but also to create a mental connection between what’s being said and done in this current scene, and comparing it to the past.  

But before we go into the writing of the scene, let’s play a game of SPOT THAT VOLUME!

first one mid-Volume 1 Mike aka Naked Mike.  very short lived, but an alright Mike.

Second is Acapulco Mike, jaded and angry, aka Liquid Mike he is the source of all Mike’s problems.

Third is clearly early volume 1 Mike, aka Solidus Mike.  a fine man.  caring, likable, he put up with a lot of shit but he was always capable of throwing it back at them.

first is clearly Christmas Mike aka Raiden (Mike).  His time was short-lived, and he yelled at a little bird.  

second is freshman/sophomore Mike clearly pre- Just Beautiful  He is the Solid Mike.

And finally we go back to current Mike aka Punished Mike.

Lucy is a lot harder to pin point, because I can’t just go off of the scarf anymore.  The details on Lucy are more about style, a big give away though, is the eyes and face fins.  

First one is a bit of a trick Lucy.  Because the eyes and lack of face fins is Volume 1, but the proportions and body is more reminiscent of far later chapters.  

Second one is mid-Volume 1 Lucy, specifically it reminds me of Unmerry Melodies Lucy.

a fine Lucy, a happy Lucy, a carefree Lucy.

Third is early Volume 1 Lucy clearly, not even a challenge.

1st one is kinda hard, I’d have to say Late volume 1 for lack of face fins.

2nd one is volume 2 Lucy, her face fins are still stubby and haven’t grown out as much 

Example: Wonderland

3rd was hard to pin point to since the proportions look new and Lucy has been out of the picture since Volume 4, before they got that big of a head, but I found her! 

It’s volume 5 Lucy!  That’s what my choice and I’m sticking to it.  Odd since that was only a flashback from Augustus, but I’ll take it

And honorable mention to Volume 1 style paneling. It’s a nice touch.  

Anyway let’s see what they’re actually saying.

a lot of it is just arguments we’ve heard before, but this time it’s a self-reflection.  These things are maybe just what he tells himself to excuse what he did to Lucy.  

and while this may be a dream sequence this shows that it’s not pointless, we’re seeing more context to how Mike feels about the flowers he received in Class of 2008.  The doubts he has with his relationship with Sandy is interesting.  I’d say how kind of annoying it is that this is what one of the biggest relationships that has persisted in this comic has come to, but I can’t get mad.

Except that now we’re back at this again.

Look I know what I said about liking Fan service, but...

NOT THIS KIND OF FAN SERVICE

HALT!  I HAVE A GUN AND I’M NOT AFRAID TO KILL MYSELF WITH IT!

OH THANK GOD IT’S #NOTMYSANDY! 

Oh hey and we’re back to the early Volume 1 panel structure!  Although the style is still pretty much the same...Except Mike still has the pre-Just Beautiful scarf...

I feel like I gotta get into the artsy mind set to understand why he has Tess’ scarf instead of Sandy’s in this part, but... ehhh.  Let’s focus on the writing in this scene, first of all the whole “mike cheating” part.  Which kind of makes sense for the Volume 1 style given that that part of Mike’s problems only really came up during Volume 1.  I’d give shit about it being such an old plot point that’s being brought up now, but the fact that we have these volume 1 visuals helps to refresh the mind and make us remember that.  It’s a very effective way of artistically preparing the reader, and I appreciate that. 

The rest of this page feels so culty, and it really shows just how far gone Mike has gone with his relationship with Sandy.  It’s like he’s a zealot and begging to his god for mercy, but sadly...

his prayers go unanswered.  He is worshiping a...

False Idol

Oh come on! You know I had to make that joke!  

Anyway, this leads to Mike pleading for Sandy to listen, but she simply Magnetos outta there leading to Mike finding himself drowning, and there’s some neat imagery. specifically, here 

Did you catch it?  Cause I did!  IT’S MOTHER FUCKIN’ TROUBLED WATERS!  Except from Mike’s perspective, because Lucy was the one who dived in first to save Mike!  I’m glad it’s here, I feel like the people who hate on Lucy seem to forget bits like this.  And then we see another version of Lucy 

Hmmmm I know that bandaged Lucy is a reference to something, I want to say confrontation because I don’t know of any other where Lucy got physically hurt like this.  But enough about references and callbacks, they’re talking and we see Mike facing his inner demons, and I actually kinda like this.  

We finally get to see Mike getting eaten up by his  feelings about Lucy, and how he sees himself as responsible for it.  It’s a good scene, it was necessary for this character (I wish it would’ve come in earlier, but y’know better late than never I guess).  More than that, we get reminded that Mike really does care about Lucy, and didn’t want to hurt her, it’s melodramatic with the blood, but it’s a dream so it’s alright.  Although this bit is pretty hokey 

Look man, this is the most fun I’ve had reading a chapter, let me have this one.  Come on.  I can’t laugh too much because we swiftly switch back from fun times to 

Well...that’s...

And Sandy is not helping! Sh-...wait...that looks familiar.

Wait...

Nah...nah...Taeshi wouldn’t be that pretentious.   I don’t know if she was going for that, but I know what I’m going for! 

THEN PERISH

Anyway, we get more of Mike’s self-loathing and how he feels about himself in his relationship in the form of Sandy roasting the guy.  Then she points to Lucy for some reason that I’m not gonna dig too deep for 

I can’t believe Lucy’s fucking dead!  err AGAIN!  I think that might be her dress from the play.  And I’m not sure what she’s implying here.  Does sandy see herself as responsible for killing Lucy? (I mean, for triggering December I guess that would be the case)  Does Mike think that?  I’m not sure, but in either case.

One night and one more time~

EVEN THOUGH THEY WEREN’T SO GREAT!

HE TASTES LIKE YOU!

ONLY SWEETE-BLJGJLKHSKLF

“So this is how Lucy felt during Wonderland”  Anyway, Mike cries and looks for solace in trying to call Sandy but she isn’t picking up making him fed up and going back to sleep.  This leads to a similar scene except this isn’t a dream 

It’s a flashback!  And again, I give props to Taeshi because I really like this scene. 

We get to see more of Mike and Lucy’s relationship, reminding those who may have forgotten, that there was more to their relationship than just Lucy being a bitch to Mike.  Mike used Lucy himself as a shoulder to cry on, just the same as how she did him.  It shows the hypocrisy of the character, that I feel some people seem to forget too easily.  

It’s a nice scene, and we see how Mike used Lucy, but took his anger out on her.  VALIDATING A LOT OF PEOPLE’S (myself included of course) COMPLAINTS WITH DECEMBER!  Again I really wish this had come sooner to when Lucy got hospitalized, I think a lot of people needed this.  But like I said, better late than never.  And we end on mah boy, Bee’s favorite page!

imagine waiting 2 days for this page...

ANYWAY THAT WAS DIAL TONE!  And I think it was pretty good! 

I liked that they finally gave some proper introspection for Mike’s character, to make him less of an unforgivable little shit.  The callbacks, and references were very well executed, and overall I give it a 9/10!  I’m glad that Taeshi isn’t just ignoring Volume 1 and instead bringing that to the front and using it to explain the characters.

Yeah, that’s right I can be positive about BCB.  I am knocking a point though, because seeing a broken false image of Lucy seducing and tempting Mike just makes my skin crawl... I don’t have a problem with these characters in lewd shit outside of the comic, but the characters within comic, with their own fucked up mindsets, doing the lewd just feels so wrong...

Except Rachel of course. 

cuz slut pup is best pup, and I’ll see you guys on the next one!

[serenagaywaterford]

1) "Is violent mob revenge the answer? (I honestly can’t make that determination.) Is violence sometimes the answer? Is war the only answer with totalitarian regimes?" Those are the kind of questions I had in mind actually. Obviously, I wouldn't expect any answers (bc those are up to the audience, not the series), but it would be interesting if they went there. Of course, these questions would fly over some people's heads (like you said), bc honestly? Said people approach THT like it's a

2) Disney-esque (/superhero) series (nothing wrong with them), where the totally good guys get to punch and kill the totally evil guys in the end, uwu. (If I'm being too much of a dick, just tell me and I'll tone it down a notch, lol.) Anyway, mob mentality aside, history proves that such regimes fall and rise the same way they have been created. Aka "Those who arrive with blood, fall with blood." Doesn't mean that we have to like it. I've mentioned before that I detest violence and I especially

3) believe that it has NO place in politics. I've been called naive for this, so there's that. Weirdly enough, I'm also the kind of person who thinks that equating ALL forms of violence is quite dangerous given that: i) threats/regimes like Gilead are inherently genocidal in their ambitions, ii) the scale of violence is not always the same, iii) every country (democratic or not) has its army and police and most people consider this kind of (controlled) violence perfectly valid, iv) there's

4) self-defense. Where I'm going with this? If a pro-Gilead person is threatened by an anti-Gilead one, the former has a choice: they can ask for a democratic trial (bc it's too late to apologize). Most likely, civilized/democratic people will listen to reason. (Well, unless we're talking about mobs... THEN, things get quite disturbing.) But if a person belongs to a group/minority targeted by Gilead, there's nothing they can do that will make pro-Gilead people happy... except die or get raped

5) for life. Anyway, I really could go on and on about this subject, but I think I'll stop here, bc it's quite complex. /// I was thinking about what you said concerning Fred and Serena's pre-Gilead relationship, and you know what? You're right. Their relationship would have fallen apart at some point, Gilead notwithstanding or not. Fred is two-faced and he sure af played us in S1. (Ngl, I used to think he was the lesser of the two evils.) But one doesn't become such an antipathetic monster at

6) a flip of the dime. The nasty parts were always there, but he concealed/controlled them. Maybe bc said parts wouldn't exactly make him endearing to others? Anyhow, your interpretation makes him quite the interesting antagonist/villain, so I'm rolling with it, lol.

---------

OMG. I think I’m in love with you?  PLEASE NEVER STOP BEING YOU. I don’t think you’re being a dick at all. I love it. Cos sometimes we just gotta call the BS like we see it?

“Of course, these questions would fly over some people's heads (like you said), bc honestly? Said people approach THT like it's a Disney-esque (/superhero) series (nothing wrong with them), where the totally good guys get to punch and kill the totally evil guys in the end, uwu.”

This is such a huge point. Cos I think there’s a very common trend of THT attempting to approach issues from various angles and try to show the complexity of it but then it going WHOOSH over so many viewers’ heads. Which never makes sense to me cos like, what’s the point in watching THT if you’re not considering it on multiple levels and trying to explore the issues? I don’t wanna point the blame in the general directions of particular shippers but I can’t help it, perhaps cos they’re just the most vocal in fandom, but it seems that the Disney-eqsque superhero tale is what they want, complete with EPIC HETERO ROMANCE!!! throughout. I’d say at least 50% of the responses are about Mr. Nicky (It goes up to 75-80% if we are actually shown his face). (And their concern is focused on the male romantic lead... YAWN.)

I would absolutely love THT to take the path of questioning mob mentality and the cycle of violence/victimization, etc. But it may be too much for even Hulu to want to tackle considering how black and white viewers seem to think. They are trying so HARD to present characters as shades of grey (Serena, being the main example. But June, Emily, Luke, Nick, etc. also) but instead of placing them along a spectrum it’s either DIE EVIL SCUM! or AMAZING CINNAMON ROLL CAN DO NO WRONG! I think the only one they complain about is June cos she’s not AS perfect as they’d like her to be. She makes some dumbass fucking decisions for sure. Sometimes I like that about her, especially how pre-Gilead June was not a super great person. She was just sorta... normal. (Other times I’m like, “JUNE YOU IDIOT WTF?!” lol but that’s fun too I guess.) If I made a scale myself, I’d probably put June fairly close to the centre, rather than on the far “good” end.

I always wondered this:

If June hadn’t been deemed a “fallen woman” and thus been allowed to stay as an Econowife, with Luke and Hannah, would she have done anything? Would she be as inspired to rebel and resist as she is? I’m not trying to shit on June at all, but I feel like it’s a question I’m curious about. A lot of people say they would be big heroes, but when really faced with the reality of living a sort of shitty life or risking that for an uncertain thing/death, most just choose to go along with it and hope it ends (especially hope that SOMEBODY else takes the risk to end it). Even good people. What do you think? 

(Aside: June being called a fallen woman is SUCH bullshit. She wasn’t cheating on anybody! LUKE was unfaithful, not her! Which is why I thought perhaps they missed a chance to address race. It could have influence on what Gilead deems “holy” marriages, and those they see as “sinful”. And a (even subtly) racist fascist state, would deffo see mixed marriage as a terrible thing. “Let’s get the fertile white woman knocked up with some white babies; no more of this mixed race babies!” Again, as we talked about before, it would limit Hannah’s storyline ofc, but I guess it wouldn’t HAVE to. She could be in a “lesser” household, instead of the rich fancy one she is.)

Sorry, those were some unplanned side rants!

I love how you described all the politics of that. It really is a fascinating thing to consider, especially how to deal with Gilead, both on an international scale, and just on smaller scales. War? Seems inevitable honestly. And clearly, Gilead is STILL fighting wars all over the continent. I honestly... you’re so right. It’s very complex and I’m not sure how detailed THT will go with that. They seem to be keeping things quite... superficial. They reference things every so often but there’s nothing solid to latch onto. It often reminds me of the Underpants Gnomes from South Park. 

phase 1: blow up congress

phase 2: ???

phase 3: establish fully-functional military fascist handmaid regime over entire continental US.

....so how to bring down Gilead then??? 

phase 1: burn down 3 house + angry handmaid steal babby back then let babby go to canada!!

phase 2: ???

phase 3: overthrow massive fascist military regime!!!!

So, we’ll see how they do it. I doubt we’re really going to get a lot of details about how everything works and maybe it’s just better that way cos it seems like the more they try to explain how Gilead stays working, it makes even less sense. And also, as much as this stuff is interesting, I really don’t wanna watch THT turn into like Zero Dark Thirty or some shit. It’s strongest when focused on the women’s experiences specifically.

“Fred is two-faced and he sure af played us in S1. (Ngl, I used to think he was the lesser of the two evils.)“

Same! It wasn’t until S2 that I started going “hmm” about Fred. I thought he wasn’t as evil as her. And when you go back and watch S1 knowing what he’s done in S2, tehre are hints and I got a weird vibe. Like... I dunno. I was randomly just rewatching that 2x11 scene where Fred and Serena are at the house and Fred is just so.... Yikes. His motives are so clear. And I tried to find examples of Fred’s humanity. I do believe we get glimpses of Serena’s, and she has capacity for kindness--in very specific circumstances but I couldn’t find a single scene of Fred where he does anything selfless, or without expecting some sort of gross sexual favour/ego stroke in return, or even kind. It’s all for his own gratification. And I am 1000% convinced he has some sort of pregnancy fetish. It doesn’t seem like he gives a shit about the actual baby, esp once its born. He’s more interested in June’s bodily changes (not the actual baby) when she’s pregnant, and her lactation afterwards. And I may not know much about the world of fetishes but I do know that’s not exactly a rare one for men. 

I think an argument against me would be the car convo about creating the Ceremony cos Fred kind of just went along with it and was on the fence. But then I think... it’s not that he was against it at all. He just didn’t think women would like it. It was never, “Nah, mate, that’s a step too far.” It was more like, “Cool idea, bros. But let’s rebrand it okay?” I mean, in the flashbacks, he did seem very proud of her, enamored, like you said. But part of me just can’t shake that, okay fair play that he probably did honestly love/respect her in some ways, but he also saw it as, “Yes, this plan is going just the way I want it!” I don’t feel like power corrupts THAT much, that quickly that he’d go from perfect husband and lovingly gazing at his amazing wife to demeaning, repeatedly cheating on her, and beating the living shit out of her (and raping her) in a few years. Then again, extreme situations can make people change quite abruptly. Who knows.

I dunno. Maybe I just hate him and dont’ wanna give him any credit for being a human being in any way whatsoever lol. 

[amorremanet]

top 5 movies? and why? no no TOP FIVE BOOKS

oh gosh, both of these are hard and my answers for them are probably so boring (they also come with the, “this is just how I feel right now because ugh, I am the worst at picking any all-time faves for broad categories”) — but!!

top “five” movies:

The Prince of Egypt — has some of the most beautiful art that I’ve ever seen, anywhere, and music that sticks with you, and it really shows the human drama and human stakes of such a classic story in ways that a lot of adaptations of Biblical mythology are afraid to do

Deadpool — because I’m garbage, the characters are great, the script is pretty good, and the movie makes me laugh. It’s not really a deconstruction (in the way that some people make it out to be, by way of justifying why they like it), and it’s not super-intellectual, and in a lot of ways, it’s like a giant #SorryNotSorry that makes fun of superhero movie tropes while continuing to use them (and there are some subtle ways it plays with some of said tropes and twists them around, but it largely doesn’t) — but it’s fun

But I’m A Cheerleader — is far from perfect, and I maintain that it’s actually much more depressing than the ending leads us to believe (I mean, Meghan/Graham and Dolph/Clayton get together and escape from True Directions and homophobic parents, and Meghan’s Mom and Dad at least try to do better by their daughter, but things don’t work out that well for anybody else), but it’ll always have a special place in my heart because it was one of the only lesbian movies that I had access to as a little gay baby

Female Trouble — I wouldn’t say that it’s the best thing that John Waters has ever done, just the one that I personally like the best, and I’ll admit that it’s probably an acquired taste…… but I love how it takes on celebrity culture in the story Dawn Davenport, and it gave us great lines like, “The world of heterosexual is a sick and boring life” and, “I wouldn’t suck your lousy dick if I was suffocating and there was oxygen in your balls!” It also has a special place in my heart as one of my favorite, “gay AND weird” movies

—which probably makes sense, given that it was written and directed by the trash king of being gay and weird

……like, seriously. My (best friend who I call my) brother once asked me, “So is John Waters gay or is he just really weird?” and the only thing I could think of to say to that was, “Yes, both.”

the “Three Flavours Cornetto” trilogy — which is totally cheating, to put three in here, but I couldn’t pick between them. I do think that Hot Fuzz and The World’s End are more fully actualized than Shaun of the Dead, but I love all of them, and the reason is pretty much just, “Because they’re good mixes of being hilarious and making me FEEL things” (……less so in The World’s End, for several reasons; it’s a lot heavier on the feels, to the point that you sometimes feel bad for laughing at the jokes, but still)

and books:

Good Omens (Terry Pratchett & Neil Gaiman) — This book was my introduction to both PTerry and GNeil, after I found a cheap copy in an airport bookstore when I was about twelve and immediately fell in love. It’s funny, the characters are vibrant and engaging, and it played right into my love of screwing around with Biblical mythology.

I’m periodically tempted to list different books for both of those men (with PTerry’s probably being one of the Granny Weatherwax books, or Faust Eric, and GNeil’s being either American Gods or one of his Sandman books — because yeah, he’s done other good stuff, but I’m more sentimentally attached to AG and Sandman. Also, Preludes and Nocturnes has some of the only non-movie or TV horror that has genuinely terrified me, so)

—buuuut then I never do, because Good Omens was my first book from either of them, and remains my sentimental fave, even though I admit that they’ve both written other books that are, “better” or, “stronger,” or whatever

Dry (Augusten Burroughs) — There’s a lot of fair criticism to be made of Augusten Burroughs, and he’s been one of the writers at the center of the debates about truthfulness or lack thereof in popular memoirs (like, how much an author is allowed to condense things before it stops counting as a, “real story,” and how an author remembers things happening vs. how other people remember them), but Dry nevertheless means a lot to me.

Like, I enjoyed Running with Scissors and his novel, Sellevision (which were the other Big Deals in his collected works, at the time I originally read Dry), but Dry fucked me up a LOT when I first read it. It has continued to fuck me up ever since.

There are passages in this book that I can’t even be jealous of, as another writer, because they’re so good that they skip right the fuck past, “I’m angry and jealous that I didn’t write this myself” and into, “Holy shit, THIS is why I write, the ability to do THIS KIND OF THING EXACTLY with words, I need to go write something right now”

Also, it means a lot to me for sentimental, “I read this book for the first time when I was in high school, and it made me feel less lonely and sad and scared” reasons

Dynamic Characters (Nancy Kress) — This is by no means the be-all and end-all of, “how to writer better” books, but it’s a personal favorite of mine, for two reasons: 1. there are some things that Kress doesn’t cover about creating characters and doing better by them in your writing, but she’s still pretty comprehensive and offers some solid illustrative examples, multiple perspectives on this part of writing (not as many as she could, but to be fair, she only has so many pages to work with), and a good mix of “tough love” advice and gentler, more reassuring advice;

and 2. …it was the first, “how to writer better” book that I ever got my hands on. I picked it out specifically because I’d posted a completely ridiculous crack fic that was a crossover between Harry Potter and Sailor Moon, with a first-person protagonist narrator who was a hot nonsense self-insert power fantasy Mary Sue with no flaws and no nuance because, hey, I was 11.

And someone actually commented to go, “Hey, look, you have talent, but you could do better and one place to start is maybe with learning to build better realized characters” — so I picked out the Nancy Kress book and it seems like a really silly thing to call a turning point? But it was big a turning point for me

Death, Disability, and the Superhero: The Silver Age and Beyond (José Alaniz) — okay, time for me to be a loser and cite an academic book. I’m also probably a cheating loser, since I just read this book for the first time recently…… but with that said? I’ve read a LOT of critical treatments of the superhero genre, some pretty good, others pretty bad (for example, I remain Perpetually Tired of Slavoj Žižek’s heavy metal Communist, Bane in Leather Pants bullshit reading of The Dark Knight Returns), and most of it somewhere in the middle

—but there’s this trend among people who write critically about superhero junk, whether they’re academics of not, wherein we act like we have to act like superhero comics are The Most Progressive Ever and oversell their sociopolitical impact in order to make them look like ~*True Art*~ That Must Be Taken Seriously (—and like, I’m not saying that they have NO impact on people at all, because that’s objectively false. But you also can’t try to claim that Superman, Wonder Woman, and Captain America comics are why the Allies won World War II)

(this is a pointless aside to note that I deliberately left the Goddamn Batman off that list, because while Supes, Diana, and Steve were all off punching Nazis, Golden Age Bruce and white boy!Dick were running around on the home-front, rounding up Japanese Americans and putting them in internment camps. So… y’know. There’s that.)

……or we have to take legitimate criticisms of problems in the superhero genre, both historical and current, and use them to go, “Therefore, the entire genre is pointless garbage that has no redeeming qualities at all and could never ever EVER be used to tell any stories that are worth telling, and frankly, you are all terrible, horrible people for enjoying it, how very dare you enjoy that X-Men movie or that Red Hood And The Outlaws comic, you’re basically a fascist now”

—which is hilarious, to me, because the people who write that sort of criticism almost always cite Fredric Wertham’s book, The Seduction of the Innocent (aka: the book that led to so much moral outrage over the allegedly very gay and fascistic, child-corrupting content of comicbooks that the Comics Code Authority was created), and they always go, “Well, obviously Wertham was OTT and totally full of shit, buuuut…… *argument that would not have been out of place in his book*”

So, one of the big reasons I loved Professor Alaniz’s book is that is does neither of these things. It offers some incisive, and occasionally kinda damning, critique of the superhero genre and its handling of disability and mortality, but he does so from a place of love and enjoyment, and never pretends to hate the genre, nor argues for throwing the whole thing out because it has problems.

Like, his underlying mindset is very much, “Yes, the superhero genre has a LOT of problems, but people could, in theory, fix them and try to get closer to realizing the full potential of what these characters and stories can do” — while never skimping on a detailed analysis of the trends and case studies that he presents.

Sometimes, I think he’s kinda reaching (and I, personally, never want to hear anything about Doctor Doom’s Oedipus complex ever again so long as I live, though it was validating to hear that my theatre kids AU version of him — who is a ridiculous mess, obsessed with taking selfies, and perpetually acting like he totally gets everything while missing some crucial detail, which is how he ends up thinking that Loki is dating Tony Stank [a suggestion that makes both of them want to puke] — is actually a valid interpretation of his character, based on some parts of canon)

Overall, though, my biggest problem with Professor Alaniz’s book is that he can be kind of a hipster and it can get a little bit annoying. Not enough to ruin the whole book, but enough that it does stand out.

Like, his chapter on Daredevil specifically analyzes an infamous Silver Age story that basically everyone hated — the one where Matt Murdock tells Karen and Foggy that he isn’t the Devil of Hell’s Kitchen, but he has some heretofore unknown identical twin brother named Mike, who is not blind but *IS* actually that aforementioned costumed hero, and carries on a charade of pretending to be his nonexistent twin brother — and okay, we get some pretty neat discussion of how passing can work or might not with disabled people

…but you can still walk away feeling like his biggest reason for analyzing that story arc was less about its value to any part of his discussion, and more about going, “Other Daredevil stories are too mainstream, I care most about this one that was so infamously ridiculous that people have said even soap operas wouldn’t have done this plot”

Likewise, I’m not saying that there aren’t very fair criticisms to be made of the X-Men and how their stories handle disability in particular… but at some points in his chapter on the Silver Age Doom Patrol comics, Professor Alaniz seems to be less, “using the pre-Claremont Silver Age X-Men stories as an illustrative foil to the Doom Patrol, especially with regard to how Charles’s paraplegia is treated vs. how The Chief’s paraplegia is treated” and more, “using this discussion as a free excuse to bash on the X-Men for being popular”

To his credit, Professor Alaniz does kinda discuss some of the ways that the X-Men’s popularity might have been affected by the fact that things like their ableist handling of Charles make them feel, “safer” and, “less sociopolitically threatening” than he makes the Doom Patrol out to be (with a pretty convincing argument, actually)

He just doesn’t do it enough for me to feel like his “criticism” of the X-Men isn’t at least partially grounded in going, “Well, it’s popular, therefore it sucks” (—as opposed to my approach to them, which is, “It’s popular, and has a mixed bag of things that it does well vs. things it does that suck, but it does not suck BECAUSE it is popular”)

Anyway, good book, and it’s written in a refreshingly accessible way (it’s still an academic book and harder to get into than, say, Good Omens, but Professor Alaniz doesn’t make a lot of the more common mistakes that leave a lot of academic writing effectively incomprehensible)

and last but not least…… Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire (we all know who wrote this, okay, come on) — because I’d be lying if I didn’t include at least one HP book on this list, considering how important those books and that fandom have been to the course of my life and to my development as a writer, and it was either gonna be this one or POA, but this one won over the other because I’m garbage

[craigslisthorses]

@quarterlypony  I saw this and wanted to share it with some actual facts from veterinarians who disagree with horses being ridden at 2. This might get long, depending on how far I go.. Also for my followers who don’t know much about how bad it is to ride a young horse, this is for you too!

Some of these articles may have different opinions on when a horse matures, but all go in depth on skeletal development. I’m going to go ahead and say I looked everywhere for a solid argument on why it was bad to start horses older and I found none whatsoever, the only things I could find were how younger horses were more adapted to riding because they were forced to remodel their bones to adapt to the workload. No articles I found said anything about higher risk of injuries on an older horse, or the cons of it. Just younger horses.

When is a Horse Skeletally Mature?

“There is no such thing as an ‘early maturing’ or ‘slow maturing’ breed of horse. Let me repeat that: no horse on earth, of any breed, at any time, is or has ever been mature before the age of six (plus or minus six months). So, for example, the Quarter Horse is not an “early maturing” breed – and neither is the Arabian a “slow maturing” breed. As far as their skeletons go, they are the same. This information comes, I know, as a shock to many people who think starting their colt or filly under saddle at age two is what they ought to be doing. This begs discussion of (1) what I mean by “mature” and (2) what I mean by “starting”.

“The longer you wait, the safer you’ll be. Owners and trainers need to realize there’s a definite, easy-to-remember schedule of fusion – and then make their decision as to when to ride the horse based on that rather than on the external appearance of the horse. For there are some breeds of horse – the Quarter Horse is the premier among these – which have been bred in such a manner as to look mature long before they actually are mature. This puts these horses in jeopardy from people who are either ignorant of the closure schedule, or more interested in their own schedule (for futurities or other competition) than they are in the welfare of the animal.”

The Schedule of Growth-Plate Conversion to Bone

Short pastern – top and bottom between birth and 6 months. Long pastern – top and bottom between 6 months and one year. Cannon bone – top and bottom between 8 months and 1.5 years Small bones of the knee – top and bottom of each, between 1.5 and 2.5 years Bottom of radius-ulna – between 2 and 2.5 years Weight-bearing portion of glenoid notch at top of radius – between 2.5 and 3 years Humerus – top and bottom, between 3 and 3.5 years Scapula – glenoid or bottom (weight-bearing) portion – between 3.5 and 4 years Hindlimb – lower portions same as forelimb Hock – this joint is “late” for as low down as it is; growth plates on the tibial and fibular tarsals don’t fuse until the animal is four (so the hocks are a known “weak point” – even the 18th-century literature warns against driving young horses in plow or other deep or sticky footing, or jumping them up into a heavy load, for danger of spraining their hocks). Tibia – top and bottom, between 3 and 3.5 years Femur – bottom, between 3 and 3.5 years; neck, between 2.5 and 3 years; major and 3rd trochanters, between 2.5 and 3 years Pelvis – growth plates on the points of hip, peak of croup (tubera sacrale), and points of buttock (tuber ischii), between 3 and 4 years.

Lots of other interesting stuff from DOCTOR Deb Bennett in this article 

The potential consequences of starting a horse under saddle too young. “Today, more and more, the big money futurities for performance horses are for three-year-olds, so in order to be competitive, these horses MUST be started as two-year-olds, and sometimes even when they are long-yearlings (18-24 months old). Because of this, many of these horses end up with bowed tendons, Navicular Syndrome, bone spavins, bone chips, stifle injuries, blown-out hocks, hairline fractures, arthritis, severe back problems, sprained necks and a myriad of other problems and conditions associated with stress and strain to young, developing bodies. Many horses will end up with debilitating problems at only four or five-years-old and already receiving anti-inflammatory medications and/or painkillers on a daily basis in their feed, or in the form of injections. Some older horses, in their teens, will develop problems that can be traced directly back to being started too young and too hard. It will take 10 or so years for the stresses they experienced when younger to appear as problematic

Even at two and a half years old a horse is still just a teenager. He’s not physically mature, nor will he be completely mature, until he’s at least six. In spite of what many in the horse industry believe, all horses regardless of breed mature skeletally at the same rate. Even the most conscientious of horse owner concentrate their concern on a horse’s developing legs, but growth plates are not just in a horse’s knee. There is a growth plate on either end of every bone starting behind the skull, and continuing throughout the remaining skeletal areas. In the case of some bones like the pelvis there are multiple growth plates. Taking the age of final maturity which ranges between 4 – 6 years of age into consideration, as well as the rate of bone fusion in the growth plates, ideally a horse shouldn’t be ridden and worked regularly until the minimal age of four. “

The Significance of Too Much Too Soon.

When trying to explain the justification and common sense of waiting until at least 3 years of age to introduce a horse to light work under saddle and incrementally increasing that workload over the next year to a competitive/ performance level by age four, I am almost always inevitably confronted with an impatient disapproving owners condescending response in notifying me that race horses have been started early for centuries and are already often competing at age two. 

All above information came from here 

Musculo-skeletal unsoundness, particularly related to bone failure and joint injury in racing, equestrian and other athletic horses, can be linked to overloading of bone structures relative to the body weight of the horse, the age at which the young horse is first worked, the speed of exercise and degree by which the bone and joint structures are able to adapt over time to additional body weight and loading forces (Ireland, 1998; Davies, 2001). After each period of exercise, even in growing horses, the bones remodel or react to increase strength, circumference and mineral density (collectively called bone mass) while internal trabecular structures adapt to withstand the increased loading forces. This is a relatively slow process, which can take up to four months to complete in a progressive remodeling process in the young horse exercising during the growth phase or in athletic training before maturity (Lawrence, 2003b).

Bone adaptation to exercise One of the earliest studies in America on Thoroughbred and Quarterhorse weanlings concluded that bone strengthens by increasing its mineral density, principally by depositing calcium within bones (Raub et al., 1989). These researchers found that over an 111-day period the cannon bones of weanlings exercised by trotting, initially over 400 meters and increasing to over 4 km per day, accumulated 25% more bone calcium than weanlings that had been stalled overnight and turned out into pens during the day. Numerous other studies, cited by Jeffcott (2001), Firth (2003a) and Lawrence (2003b) in a review of osteochondrosis and response to exercise in horses, have reported similar adaptive responses in foals and weanlings up to five months of age, with a lower bone density in the cortical shaft and subchondral bone mass in non-exercised compared to exercised young horses. After six months of identical exercise, the young horses in the original non-exercised group remodeled the bone, in this case the stifle joint, to establish an equal mineral density and cross-sectional area (Lawrence, 2003b).

(NOTE= Exercise =/= riding, as stated the horses can be lunged or exercised in hand)

It is important that young growing horses have access to free paddock exercise to encourage the formation of sound cartilage and subchondral bone, while over-exercise and excessive weight loading in heavy weight young horses can result in damage to the developing joint cartilage and subchondral bone in joints (Firth, 2003a). Jeffcott (2001) and Firth (2003a) concluded that the effects of high energy:nutrient ratios, confinement to small yards and over-exercise or lack of adequate exercise, high weight loading and inadequate trace minerals and calcium balance, all adversely influence the cartilage development, bone mineralisation and maturation of the skeleton in the formative years of a horse’s life.

Avoid tight circle tracks Do not gallop young horses around tight, compacted curves or end circles on the track too early in their training preparation. Gallop only up straights initially, then work progressively faster into corners and around end circles to allow adaptation to the centrifugal sideways strain forces, starting after 6-8 weeks of training. Avoid sudden introduction to fast work and limit speed of galloping around unbanked, relatively tight bends initially, especially on dry, compacted tracks. (AKA don’t barrel race 2 year olds!)

Conclusion

The soundness of the skeletal structure in growing and exercising horses is largely dependent on providing an adequate diet with a balanced intake of bone and joint structural nutrients during the formative years of a horse’s life. Controlled exercise will assist in the skeletal development and allow remodeling in response to loading in both growing and exercising horses. Care when formulating feeds, premixes and supplements to ensure optimum bioavailability and stability of skeletal nutrients is essential to maintain long term athletic soundness in all classes of horses.

Came from this article 

References

Bailey, C.J. 1998. Wastage in the Australian thoroughbred racing industry. RIRDC Research Paper No. 98/52. Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra, Australia pp. 16–17. Baker, L.A. 2002. The effect of inorganic and organic forms of copper and zinc on mineral digestibility and retention in yearling geldings in training. In: Nutritional Biotechnology in the Feed and Food Industries, Proc. of Alltech 18th Annual Symposium. Nottingham University Press, UK pp. 332-338. Boemo, C.M. 1998. Injuries of the metacarpus and metatarsus. In: Canine Sports Medicine and Surgery. (Bloomberg, Dee and Taylor, eds). Saunders. pp 150–157. Boston, R.C. and D.M. Nunamaker. 2000. Gait and speed as exercise components of risk factors associated with onset of fatigue injury of the third metacarpal bone in two year old thoroughbred racehorses. American J. Vet. Res. 61: 6102-604. Davies, H.M.S. 2001. The relationship between surface strain and measurements of bone quality, quantity and shape. Proc. 4th Int. Workshop. Anim. Locomotion (1WAL2000) Vienna 22-28 May, 2001. Equine Vet. J. 33:16–20. Davies, H.M.S. 2003. The prediction and prevention of musculoskeletal injury using radiographic measurement of bone shape in thoroughbred racehorses during training. Aust. Equine Veterinarian 22(2):76-80. Davies, H.M.S. and R.N. McCarthy. 1994. Strain in the yearling equine metacarpus during locomotion. Equine Vet. J. 17:25. Dunnet, C.E. 2003. Antioxidants in physiology and nutrition of exercising horses. In: Nutritional Biotechnology in the Feed and Food Industries, Proc. of Alltech 19th Annual Symposium. Nottingham University Press, UK pp. 344. Firth, E.C. 2003a. Recent advances in osteochondrosis research. In: Proc. 2003 Equine Nutrition Conference. Growth and Development of the Equine Skeleton. Kentucky Equine Research, Sydney, Australia pp. 95-101. Firth, E.C. 2003b. Methods of assessing bone growth and development in young horses. In: Proc. 2003 Equine Nutrition Conference. Growth and Development of the Equine Skeleton. Kentucky Equine Research, Sydney, Australia pp. 175-190. Ireland, B.W. 1998. Race track biomechanics and design. In: Canine Sports Medicine and Surgery. (Bloomberg, Dee and Taylor, eds). W.B. Saunders pp. 391–396. Jeffcott, L. 2001. Osteochondrosis in young horses – a major industry problem. International Horse Industry Symposium Proc 342 Post. Grad. Foundation In Vet. Science, University of Sydney, 4-6 July 2001, Sydney pp. 325-334. Kohnke, J.R., 2002. Integration of nutrition and health: implications for equine performance. In: Nutritional Biotechnology in the Feed and Food Industries, Proc. of Alltech 18th Annual Symposium. Nottingham University Press, UK pp. 343-349. Lawrence, L.A. 2003a. Principals of bone development in horses. In: Proc. 2003 Equine Nutrition Conference. Growth and Development of the Equine Skeleton. Kentucky Equine Research, Sydney, Australia pp. 69-73. Lawrence, L.A. 2003b. Effects of exercise and training on skeletal development in horses. In: Proc. 2003 Equine Nutrition Conference. Growth and Development of the Equine Skeleton. Kentucky Equine Research, Sydney, Australia pp. 210-217. Nunamaker, D.M., C.M. Butterweck and M.T. Provost. 1990. Fatigue fractures in thoroughbred racehorses. Relationship with age, peak bone strain and training. J. Orthopedic Res. 8:604-605. Raub, R.H., S.G. Jackson and J.P. Baker. 1989. The effect of exercise on bone growth and development in weanling horses. J. Anim. Sci. 67:2508.

[gabrielcollignon]

A flaw-by-flaw guide to Facebook’s new GDPR privacy changes

A flaw-by-flaw guide to Facebook’s new GDPR privacy changes

Facebook is about to start pushing European users to speed through giving consent for its new GDPR privacy law compliance changes. It will ask people to review how Facebook applies data from web to target them with ads, and surface the sensitive profile info they share. Facebook will also allow European and Canadian users to turn on facial recognition after six years of the feature being blocked there. But with a design that encourages rapidly hitting the “Agree” button, a lack of granular controls, a laughably cheatable parental consent request for teens, and an aesthetic overhaul of Download Your Information that doesn’t make it any easier to switch social networks, Facebook shows it’s still hungry for your data.

The new privacy change and terms of service consent flow will appear starting this week to European users, though they’ll be able to dismiss it for now, though the May 25th GDPR compliance deadline Facebook vowed to uphold in Europe is looming. Meanwhile, Facebook says it will roll out the changes and consent flow globally over the coming weeks and months with some slight regional differences. And finally, all teens worldwide that share sensitive info will have to go through the weak new parental consent flow.

Facebook brought a group of reporters to the new Building 23 at its Menlo Park headquarters to preview the changes today. But feedback was heavily critical as journalists grilled Facebook’s deputy chief privacy officer Rob Sherman. Questions centered around how Facebook makes accepting the updates much easier than reviewing or changing them, but Sherman stuck to talking points about how important it was to give users choice and information.

“Trust is really important and it’s clear that we have a lot of work to do to regain the trust of people on our service” he said, giving us deja vu about Mark Zuckerberg’s testimonies before congress. “We know that people won’t be comfortable using facebook if they don’t feel that their information is protected.”

Trouble At Each Step Of Facebook’s Privacy Consent Flow

There are a ton of small changes so we’ll lay out each with our criticisms.

Facebook’s consent flow starts well enough with the screen above offering a solid overview of why it’s making changes for GDPR and what you’ll be reviewing. But with just an ‘X’ up top to back out, it’s already training users to speed through by hitting that big blue button at the bottom.

—

Sensitive Info

First up is control of your sensitive profile information, specifically your sexual preference, religious views, and political views. As you’ll see at each step, you can hit the pretty blue “Accept And Continue” button regardless of whether you’ve scrolled through the information. If you hit the ugly grey “Manage Settings” button, you have to go through an interstitial where Facebook makes it’s argument trying to deter you from removing the info before letting you make and save your choice. It feels obviously designed to get users to breeze through it by offering no resistance to continue, but friction if you want to make changes.

Facebook doesn’t let advertisers target you based on this sensitive info, which is good. The only exception is that in the US, political views alongside political Pages and Events you interact with impact your overarching personality categories that can be targeted with ads. You can opt out of being targeted by those too. But your only option here is either to remove any info you’ve shared in these categories so friends can’t see it, or allow Facebook to use it to personalize the site. There’s no option to keep this stuff on your profile but not let Facebook use it.

—

Facial Recognition

Facebook is bringing facial recognition back to Europe and Canada. The Irish Data Protection commissioner who oversees the EU banned it there in 2012. Users in these countries will get a chance to turn it on, which is the default if they speed through. It’s a useful feature that can make sure people know about the photos of them floating around. But here the lack of granularity is concerning. Users might want to see warnings about possible impersonators using their face in their profile pics, but not be suggested as someone to tag in their friends’ photos. Unfortunately, it’s all or nothing. While Facebook is right to make it simple to turn on or off completely, granular controls that unfold for those that want them would be much more empowering.

[Update: This article has been update to reflect that Facebook indeed can offer facial recognition in Europe and Canada.]

—

Data Collection Across The Web

A major concern that’s arisen in the wake of Zuckerberg’s testimonies is how Facebook uses data collected about you from around the web to target users with ads and optimize its service. While Sherman echoed Zuckerberg in saying that users tell the company they prefer relevant ads, and that this data can help thwart hackers and scrapers, many users are unsettled by the offsite collection practices. Here, Facebook lets you block it from targeting you with ads based on data about your browsing behavior on sites that show its Like and share buttons, conversion Pixel, or Audience Network ads. The issue is that there’s no way to stop Facebook from using that data from personalizing your News Feed or optimizing other parts of its service.

—

New Terms Of Service

Facebook recently rewrote its Terms Of Service and Data Use Policy to be more explicit and easy to read. It didn’t make any significant changes other than noting the policy now applies to its subsidiaries like Instagram and Messenger. [Correction: But WhatsApp and Oculus have their own data policies.] That’s all clearly explained here, which is nice.

But the fact that the button to reject the new Terms Of Service isn’t even a button, it’s a tiny ‘see your options’ hyperlink shows how badly Facebook wants to avoid you closing your account. When Facebook’s product designer for the GDPR flow was asked if she thought this hyperlink was the best way to present the alternative to the big ‘I Accept’ button, she disingenuously said yes, eliciting scoffs from the room of reporters. It seems obvious that Facebook is trying to minimize the visibility of the path to account deletion rather than making it an obvious course of action if you don’t agree to its terms.

I requested Facebook actually show us what was on the other side of that tiny ‘see my options’ link and this is what we got. First, Facebook doesn’t mention its temporary deactivation option, just the scary permanent delete option. Facebook recommends downloading your data before deleting your account, which you should. But the fact that you’ll have to wait (often a few hours) before you can download your data could push users to delay deletion and perhaps never resume. And only if you keep scrolling do you get to another tiny “I’m ready to delete my account” hyperlink instead of a real button.

—

Parental Consent

GDPR also implements new regulation about how teens are treated, specifically users between the ages of 13 (the minimum age required to sign up for Facebook) and 15. If users in this age range have shared their religious views, political views, or sexual preference, Facebook requires them to either remove it or get parental consent to keep it. They also need permission to be targeted with ads based on data from Facebook’s partners. Without that permission, they’ll see a less personalized version of Facebook. But the system for attaining and verifying that parental consent is a joke.

Users merely select one of their Facebook friends or enter an email address, and that person is asked to give consent for their ‘child’ to share sensitive info. But Facebook blindly trusts that they’ve actually selected their parent or guardian, even though it has a feature for users to designate who their family is, and the kid could put anyone in the email field, including an alternate address they control. Sherman says Facebook is “not seeking to collect additional information” to verify parental consent, so it seems Facebook is happy to let teens easily bypass the checkup.

—

Privacy Shortcuts

To keep all users abreast of their privacy settings, Facebook has redesigned its Privacy Shortcuts in a colorful format that sticks out from the rest of the site. No complaints here.

—

Download Your Information

Facebook has completely redesigned its Download Your Information tool after keeping it basically the same for the past 8 years. You can now view your content and data in different categories without downloading it, which alongside the new privacy shortcuts is perhaps the only unequivocally positive and unproblematic change amidst today’s announcements.

And Facebook now lets you select certain categories of data, date ranges, JSON or HTML format, and image quality to download. That could make it quicker and easier if you just need a copy of a certain type of content but don’t need to export all your photos and videos for example. Thankfully, Facebook says you’ll now be able to download your media in a higher resolution than the old tool allowed.

But the big problem here was the subject of my feature piece this week about Facebook’s lack of data portability. The Download Your Information tool is supposed to let you take your data and go to a different social network. But it only exports your social graph aka your friends as a text list of names. There are no links, usernames, or other unique identifiers unless friends opt into let you export their email or phone number (only 4% of my friends do), so good luck finding the right John Smith on another app. The new version of Download Your Information exports the same old list of names, rather than offering any interoperable format that would let you find your friends elsewhere.

A Higher Standard

Overall, it seems like Facebook is complying with the letter of GDPR law, but with questionable spirit. Sure, privacy is boring to a lot of people. Too little info and they feel confused and scared. Too many choices and screens and they feel overwhelmed and annoyed. Facebook struck the right balance in some places here. But the subtly pushy designs seem intended to steer people away from changing their defaults in ways that could hamper Facebook’s mission and business.

Making the choices equal in visible weight, rather than burying the ways to make changes in grayed-out buttons and tiny links, would have been more fair. And it would have shown that Facebook has faith in the value it provides, such that users would stick around and leave features enabled if they truly wanted to.

When questioned about this, Sherman pointed the finger at other tech companies, saying he thought Facebook was more upfront with users. Asked to clarify if he thought Facebook’s approach was “better”, he said “I think that’s right”. But Facebook isn’t being judged by the industry standard because it’s not a standard company. It’s built its purpose and its business on top of our private data, and touted itself as a boon to the world. But when asked to clear a higher bar for privacy, Facebook delved into design tricks to keep from losing our data.

[sheminecrafts]

A flaw-by-flaw guide to Facebook’s new GDPR privacy changes

Facebook is about to start pushing European users to speed through giving consent for its new GDPR privacy law compliance changes. They ask users review how Facebook uses data around the web to target you with ads, sensitive profile info they share, and facial recognition But with a design the encourages rapidly hitting the “Agree” button, a lack of granular controls, a laughably cheatable parental consent request for teens, and an aesthetic overhaul of Download Your Information that doesn’t make it any easier to switch social networks, Facebook shows it’s still hungry for your data.

The new privacy change and terms of service consent flow will appear starting this week to European users, though they’ll be able to dismiss it for now, at least until the May 25th GDPR compliance deadline Facebook vowed to uphold in Europe. Meanwhile, Facebook says it will roll out the changes and consent flow globally over the coming weeks and months, though with some slight regional differences. And finally, all teens worldwide that share sensitive info will have to go through the weak new parental consent flow.

Facebook brought a group of reporters to the new Building 23 at its Menlo Park headquarters to preview the changes. But feedback was heavily critical as journalists grilled Facebook’s deput chief privacy officer Rob Sherman. Questions centered around how Facebook makes accepting the updates much easier than review or changing them, but Sherman stuck to talking points about how important it was to give users choice and information.

“Trust is really important and it’s clear that we have a lot of work to do to regain the trust of people on our service” he said, giving us deja vu about Mark Zuckerberg’s testimonies before congress. “We know that people won’t becomfortable using facebook if they don’t feel that their information is protected.”

Trouble At Each Step Of Facebook’s Privacy Consent Flow

There are a ton of small changes so we’ll lay out each with our criticisms.

Facebook’s consent flow starts well enough with the screen above offering a solid overview of why it’s making changes for GDPR and what you’ll be reviewing. But with just an ‘X’ up top to back out, it’s already training users to speed through by hitting that big blue button at the bottom.

—

Sensitive Info

First up is control of your sensitive profile information, specifically your sexual preference, religious views, and political views. As you’ll see at each step, you can either hit the pretty blue “Accept And Continue” button regardless of whether you’ve scrolled through the information. But if you hit the ugly grey “Manage Settings” button, you have to go through an interstitial where Facebook makes it’s argument trying to deter you from moving the info before letting you make and save your choice. It feels obviously designed to get users to breeze through it by offering no resistance to continue, but friction if you want to make changes.

Facebook doesn’t let advertisers target you based on this sensitive info, which is good. The only exception is that in the US, political views alongside political Pages and Events you interact with inform your overarching personality categories that can be targeted with ads. But your only option here is either to remove any info you’ve shared in these categories so friends can’t see it, or allow Facebook to use it to personalize the site. There’s no option to keep this stuff on your profile but not let Facebook use it.

—

Facial Recognition

The Face Recognition step won’t actually give users in the European Union a choice, as the government has banned the feature. But everyone else will get to choose whether to leave their existing setting, which defaults to on, or turn off the feature. Here the lack of granularity is concerning. Users might want to see warnings about possible impersonators using their face in their profile pics, but not be suggested as someone to tag in their friends’ photos. Unfortunately, it’s all or nothing. While Facebook is right to make it simple to turn on or off completely, granular controls that unfold for those that want them would be much more empowering.

—

Data Collection Across The Web

A major concern that’s arisen in the wake of Zuckerberg’s testimonies is how Facebook uses data collected about you from around the web to target users with ads and optimize its service. While Facebook deputer chief privacy officer Rob Sherman echoed Zuckerberg in saying that users tell the company they prefer relevant ads, and that this data can help thwart hackers and scrapers, many users are unsettled by the offsite collection practices. Here, Facebook lets you block it from targeting you wih ads based on data about your browsing behavior on sites that show its Like and share buttons, conversion Pixel, or Audience Network ads. Here the issue is that there’s no way to stop Facebook from using that data from personalizing your News Feed or optimizing other parts of its service.

—

New Terms Of Service

Facebook recently rewrote its Terms Of Service and Data Use Policy to be more explicit and easy to read. It didn’t make any significant changes other than noting the policy now applies to its subsidiaries like Instagram, WhatsApp, and Oculus. That’s all clearly explained here, which is nice. But the fact that the button to reject the new Terms Of Service isn’t even a button, it’s a tiny ‘see your options’ hyperlink shows how badly Facebook wants to avoid you closing your account. When Facebook’s product designer for the GDPR flow was asked if she thought this hyperlink was the best way to present the alternative to the big ‘I Accept’ button, she disingenuously said yes, eliciting scoffs from the room of reporters. It seems obvious that Facebook is trying to minimize the visibility of the path to account deletion rather than making it an obvious course of action if you don’t agree to its terms.

I requested Facebook actually show us what was on the other side of the that tine ‘see my options’ link and this is what we got. First, Facebook doesn’t mention its temporary deactivation option, just the scary permanent delete option. Facebook recommends downloading your data before deleting your account, which you should. But the fact that you’ll have to wait (often a few hours) before you can download your data could push users to delay deletion and perhaps never resume. And only if you keep scrolling do you get to another tiny “I’m ready to delete my account” hyperlink instead of a real button.

—

Parental Consent

GDPR also implements new regulation about how teens are treated, specifically users between the ages of 13 (the minimum age required to sign up for Facebook) and 15. If users in this age range have shared their religious views, political views, or sexual preference, Facebook requires them to either remove it or get parental consent to keep it. But the system for attaining and verifying that parental consent is a joke.

Users merely select one of their Facebook friends or enter an email address, and that person is asked to give consent for their ‘child’ to share sensitive info. But Facebook blindly trusts that they’ve actually selected their parent or guardian, even though it has a feature for users to designate who their family is, and the kid could put anyone in the email field, including an alternate address they control. Sherman says Facebook is “not seeking to collect additional information” to verify parental consent, so it seems Facebook is happy to let teens easily bypass the checkup.

—

Privacy Shortcuts

To keep all users abreast of their privacy settings, Facebook has redesigned its Privacy Shortcuts in a colorful format that sticks out from the rest of the site. No complaints here.

—

Download Your Information

Facebook has completely redesigned its Download Your Information tool after keeping it basically the same for the past 8 years. You can now view your content and data in different categories without downloading it, which alongside the new privacy shortcuts is perhaps the only unequivocally positive and unproblematic change amidst today’s announcements.

And Facebook now lets you select certain categories of data, date ranges, JSON or HTML format, and image quality to download. That could make it quicker and easier if you just need a copy of a certain type of content but don’t need to export all your photos and videos for example. Thankfully, Facebook says you’ll be able to now export your media in a higher resolution than the old tool allowed.

But the big problem here was the subject of my feature piece about Facebook’s lack of data portability. The Download Your Information tool is supposed to let you take your data and go to a different social network. But it only exports your social graph aka your friends as a text list of names. There are no links, usernames, or other unique identifiers unless friends opt into let you export their email or phone number, so good luck finding the right John Smith on another app. The new version of Download Your Information works exactly the same, rather than offering any interoperable format that would let you find your friends elsewhere.

A Higher Standard

Overall, it seems like Facebook is complying with the letter of GDPR law, but with questionable spirit. Sure, privacy is boring to a lot of people. Too little info and they feel confused and scared. Too many choices and screens and they feel overwhelmed and annoyed. Facebook struck the right balance in some places here. But the subtly pushy designs seem intended to push people away from changing their defaults in ways that could hamper Facebook’s mission and business.

Making the choices even in visible weight, rather than burying the ways to make changes in grayed-out buttons and tiny links, would have been more fair. And it would have shown that Facebook has faith in the value it provides, such that users would stick around and leave features enabled if they truly wanted to.

When questioned about this, Sherman pointed the finger at other tech companies, saying he thought Facebook was more upfront with users. Asked to clarify if he thought Facebook’s approach was “better”, he said “I think that’s right”. But Facebook isn’t being judged by the industry standard because it’s not a standard company. It’s built its purpose and its business on top of our private data, and touted itself as a boon to the world. But when asked to clear a higher bar for privacy, Facebook delved into design tricks to keep from losing our data

from iraidajzsmmwtv https://ift.tt/2qG6DLY via IFTTT

[rebeccahpedersen]

New Mortgage Rules: Q&A With Benjamin Sammut

TorontoRealtyBlog

Scheduling conflicts didn’t allow me to pull in broker-to-the-stars, Joe Sammut, for a video today as promised.

But I found the next best thing – his son, Benjamin Sammut, who is almost as good-looking, and with a slightly better beard

Thanks to TRB readers and commenters for a host of solid questions, and great debate points from Friday’s blog that we can explore.

And thanks to Mortgage Architects, Benjamin Sammut, and Joe Sammut, for the following…

  Next week, I promise.

I know many of you (aka only my mother…) want to see the results of what $129.99 worth of lighting and sound equipment can buy on Amazon Prime.

I’m also acutely aware that there’s new phenomenon out there whereby a lot of people don’t read, but will watch a video with the exact same content and subject matter.

So after today’s discussion, and more questions arise – both here on TRB, and in the media and among buyers and sellers, as the impact of the new OSFI regulations are felt, we’ll have topics to explore in a video next week.

Today, I want to get to some of the questions and comments from the last several days.

Several people had emailed almost identical questions, so I apologize (or you’re welcome?) for not getting the shout-out here.

I’ve also included some discussion points from last week’s blog which I think deserve consideration.

  Andrew asks by email:

Q: “Media reports suggest that ‘affordability’ is down 20%.  Can you explain that?”

Ben says:

Some people won’t see their affordability change at all with these new regulatory changes. Meanwhile others can see a decrease of up to 20%.

It all depends on what demographic of homebuyer you fall into as well as who you’re working with (broker, bank, etc) and the solutions they can provide.

    Sydney asks by email:

Q: “There was an article in the Financial Post by Gary Marr that suggested there’s a ‘loophole’ with the OSFI stress-testing, since you can tinker with the amortization period, to increase your affordability.”

Ben says:

There was a loophole in the stress test before that a lot of people were taking advantage of – they were finding other sources to come up with 20% down and avoid the CMHC stress test (gifts from family, private mortgages, etc).

The point of the new OFSI rules, I think, is to close this loophole and any others like it.

    Professional Shanker asks on TRB:

Q: “If you are a move up buyer and are transferring your mortgage to a more expensive house – do you have to re-qualify under the new guidelines?”

Ben says:

This is a great question, and one that doesn’t have an answer yet.

Unfortunately, when OFSI comes out with these regulations, they’re intentionally vague to allow for interpretation from each individual financial institution.

Unfortunately, this usually means fear and confusion for the average Canadian at least for the next few weeks.

I would imagine that if you have any need to change the loan (increase mortgage amount, extend your amortization, break the mortgage and apply for a new charge upon moving, for example), you would have to re-qualify under the new rules.

–

Q: “If you recently purchased and are renewing with the same lender (say a 5 year fixed), then my understanding is that you do not have to qualify under the new guidelines. What happens if you plan to switch lenders – do you have to qualify under the new guidelines?”

Ben says:

Therein lies the rub. If you are renewing with the same lender, you do not need to requalify under new rules. However, if you switch to any new lender, you would need to re-qualify.

For some parts of the buyer sphere (self-employed, new career, maternity leave, etc) this could leave you with only one option – your current lender. T

These changes will systemically take away your competitive advantage and ability to shop for a better rate or product.

–

Q: “If you are currently under a variable rate mortgage and want to lock in, do the new lending standards factor in?”

Ben says:

Another great question that is subject to some ambiguity right now.

I would imagine that you would not need to re-qualify, as you were technically already stress tested to be in a variable mortgage.

–

Q: “Re-financing your mortgage – will the new guidelines have an impact?”

Ben says:

Refinances will be the hardest hit as they almost always fall into the segment of the market impacted by the stress test.

If you are considering pulling equity out of your house, you will want to look into this before the changes come in on Jan 1 because they will directly impact your limit.

    Joel, Kramer and Kyle are debating on TRB:

“People are suggesting this is about ‘cleaning up bad debt.’  If that were the case, wouldn’t the government be going after credit card lending practices?  I’m of the mindset that consumer debt is far worse than mortgage debt.”

Ben says:

I think that attacking mortgages and claiming they are a bad debt is a bit of a strawman argument.

It makes for good headlines and politics but the fact of the matter is, the Canadian economy relies very heavily on the housing market. From realtors, to mortgage brokers, to builders, contractors, and suppliers, Canada’s real estate industry is MASSIVE.

It would be prudent to ensure it is as safe as possible. And while some disagree with HOW the government is regulating the housing market, there’s no doubt that it should be regulated for the sake of our economy.

    Condodweller suggests on TRB:

“Regarding why OSFI did this is neither reason listed above (ie. either an attempt to reign in borrowing among Canadians, or an attempt to cool the market).  They want to protect CMHC from mass defaults.”

Ben says:

The new changes actually have nothing to do with CMHC.

These changes are directly aimed at the part of the market that CMHC does not really play in, the conventional mortgage market (80% loan to value or less).

  David asks via email:

Q: “What will be the role of alternative lenders after January 1st, 2018?  What about credit unions and mono-lines?  Do they fall under the same umbrella as the Big 5 banks?”

Ben says:

There will be an even greater need for these lenders as they serve the population that do not fit under the new guidelines.

Credit unions and private lenders will be able to cater to whomever they choose in this new mortgage climate and will have a competitive edge as more and more people will fall out of the box that banks like to fill. Unfortunately, monoline lenders will still have to follow suit.

*Hint hint* there will be a huge opportunity to private investors looking to invest in private mortgages.

A big thanks to Ben for answering these questions!

Ben’s contact information for those who have other queries on this matter, or any others:

Benjamin Sammut Mortgage Broker (647) 518-4669 bensammut@mortgagegate.ca Mortgage Architects # 12728 

The post New Mortgage Rules: Q&A With Benjamin Sammut appeared first on Toronto Real Estate Property Sales & Investments | Toronto Realty Blog by David Fleming.

Originated from http://ift.tt/2yHJ3no

[sheminecrafts]

A flaw-by-flaw guide to Facebook’s new GDPR privacy changes

Facebook is about to start pushing European users to speed through giving consent for its new GDPR privacy law compliance changes. They ask users review how Facebook uses data around the web to target you with ads, sensitive profile info they share, and facial recognition But with a design the encourages rapidly hitting the “Agree” button, a lack of granular controls, a laughably cheatable parental consent request for teens, and an aesthetic overhaul of Download Your Information that doesn’t make it any easier to switch social networks, Facebook shows it’s still hungry for your data.

The new privacy change and terms of service consent flow will appear starting this week to European users, though they’ll be able to dismiss it for now, at least until the May 25th GDPR compliance deadline Facebook vowed to uphold in Europe. Meanwhile, Facebook says it will roll out the changes and consent flow globally over the coming weeks and months, though with some slight regional differences. And finally, all teens worldwide that share sensitive info will have to go through the weak new parental consent flow.

Facebook brought a group of reporters to the new Building 23 at its Menlo Park headquarters to preview the changes. But feedback was heavily critical as journalists grilled Facebook’s deput chief privacy officer Rob Sherman. Questions centered around how Facebook makes accepting the updates much easier than review or changing them, but Sherman stuck to talking points about how important it was to give users choice and information.

“Trust is really important and it’s clear that we have a lot of work to do to regain the trust of people on our service” he said, giving us deja vu about Mark Zuckerberg’s testimonies before congress. “We know that people won’t becomfortable using facebook if they don’t feel that their information is protected.”

Trouble At Each Step Of Facebook’s Privacy Consent Flow

There are a ton of small changes so we’ll lay out each with our criticisms.

Facebook’s consent flow starts well enough with the screen above offering a solid overview of why it’s making changes for GDPR and what you’ll be reviewing. But with just an ‘X’ up top to back out, it’s already training users to speed through by hitting that big blue button at the bottom.

—

Sensitive Info

First up is control of your sensitive profile information, specifically your sexual preference, religious views, and political views. As you’ll see at each step, you can either hit the pretty blue “Accept And Continue” button regardless of whether you’ve scrolled through the information. But if you hit the ugly grey “Manage Settings” button, you have to go through an interstitial where Facebook makes it’s argument trying to deter you from moving the info before letting you make and save your choice. It feels obviously designed to get users to breeze through it by offering no resistance to continue, but friction if you want to make changes.

Facebook doesn’t let advertisers target you based on this sensitive info, which is good. The only exception is that in the US, political views alongside political Pages and Events you interact with inform your overarching personality categories that can be targeted with ads. But your only option here is either to remove any info you’ve shared in these categories so friends can’t see it, or allow Facebook to use it to personalize the site. There’s no option to keep this stuff on your profile but not let Facebook use it.

—

Facial Recognition

The Face Recognition step won’t actually give users in the European Union a choice, as the government has banned the feature. But everyone else will get to choose whether to leave their existing setting, which defaults to on, or turn off the feature. Here the lack of granularity is concerning. Users might want to see warnings about possible impersonators using their face in their profile pics, but not be suggested as someone to tag in their friends’ photos. Unfortunately, it’s all or nothing. While Facebook is right to make it simple to turn on or off completely, granular controls that unfold for those that want them would be much more empowering.

—

Data Collection Across The Web

A major concern that’s arisen in the wake of Zuckerberg’s testimonies is how Facebook uses data collected about you from around the web to target users with ads and optimize its service. While Facebook deputer chief privacy officer Rob Sherman echoed Zuckerberg in saying that users tell the company they prefer relevant ads, and that this data can help thwart hackers and scrapers, many users are unsettled by the offsite collection practices. Here, Facebook lets you block it from targeting you wih ads based on data about your browsing behavior on sites that show its Like and share buttons, conversion Pixel, or Audience Network ads. Here the issue is that there’s no way to stop Facebook from using that data from personalizing your News Feed or optimizing other parts of its service.

—

New Terms Of Service

Facebook recently rewrote its Terms Of Service and Data Use Policy to be more explicit and easy to read. It didn’t make any significant changes other than noting the policy now applies to its subsidiaries like Instagram, WhatsApp, and Oculus. That’s all clearly explained here, which is nice. But the fact that the button to reject the new Terms Of Service isn’t even a button, it’s a tiny ‘see your options’ hyperlink shows how badly Facebook wants to avoid you closing your account. When Facebook’s product designer for the GDPR flow was asked if she thought this hyperlink was the best way to present the alternative to the big ‘I Accept’ button, she disingenuously said yes, eliciting scoffs from the room of reporters. It seems obvious that Facebook is trying to minimize the visibility of the path to account deletion rather than making it an obvious course of action if you don’t agree to its terms.

I requested Facebook actually show us what was on the other side of the that tine ‘see my options’ link and this is what we got. First, Facebook doesn’t mention its temporary deactivation option, just the scary permanent delete option. Facebook recommends downloading your data before deleting your account, which you should. But the fact that you’ll have to wait (often a few hours) before you can download your data could push users to delay deletion and perhaps never resume. And only if you keep scrolling do you get to another tiny “I’m ready to delete my account” hyperlink instead of a real button.

—

Parental Consent

GDPR also implements new regulation about how teens are treated, specifically users between the ages of 13 (the minimum age required to sign up for Facebook) and 15. If users in this age range have shared their religious views, political views, or sexual preference, Facebook requires them to either remove it or get parental consent to keep it. But the system for attaining and verifying that parental consent is a joke.

Users merely select one of their Facebook friends or enter an email address, and that person is asked to give consent for their ‘child’ to share sensitive info. But Facebook blindly trusts that they’ve actually selected their parent or guardian, even though it has a feature for users to designate who their family is, and the kid could put anyone in the email field, including an alternate address they control. Sherman says Facebook is “not seeking to collect additional information” to verify parental consent, so it seems Facebook is happy to let teens easily bypass the checkup.

—

Privacy Shortcuts

To keep all users abreast of their privacy settings, Facebook has redesigned its Privacy Shortcuts in a colorful format that sticks out from the rest of the site. No complaints here.

—

Download Your Information

Facebook has completely redesigned its Download Your Information tool after keeping it basically the same for the past 8 years. You can now view your content and data in different categories without downloading it, which alongside the new privacy shortcuts is perhaps the only unequivocally positive and unproblematic change amidst today’s announcements.

And Facebook now lets you select certain categories of data, date ranges, JSON or HTML format, and image quality to download. That could make it quicker and easier if you just need a copy of a certain type of content but don’t need to export all your photos and videos for example. Thankfully, Facebook says you’ll be able to now export your media in a higher resolution than the old tool allowed.

But the big problem here was the subject of my feature piece about Facebook’s lack of data portability. The Download Your Information tool is supposed to let you take your data and go to a different social network. But it only exports your social graph aka your friends as a text list of names. There are no links, usernames, or other unique identifiers unless friends opt into let you export their email or phone number, so good luck finding the right John Smith on another app. The new version of Download Your Information works exactly the same, rather than offering any interoperable format that would let you find your friends elsewhere.

A Higher Standard

Overall, it seems like Facebook is complying with the letter of GDPR law, but with questionable spirit. Sure, privacy is boring to a lot of people. Too little info and they feel confused and scared. Too many choices and screens and they feel overwhelmed and annoyed. Facebook struck the right balance in some places here. But the subtly pushy designs seem intended to push people away from changing their defaults in ways that could hamper Facebook’s mission and business.

Making the choices even in visible weight, rather than burying the ways to make changes in grayed-out buttons and tiny links, would have been more fair. And it would have shown that Facebook has faith in the value it provides, such that users would stick around and leave features enabled if they truly wanted to.

When questioned about this, Sherman pointed the finger at other tech companies, saying he thought Facebook was more upfront with users. Asked to clarify if he thought Facebook’s approach was “better”, he said “I think that’s right”. But Facebook isn’t being judged by the industry standard because it’s not a standard company. It’s built its purpose and its business on top of our private data, and touted itself as a boon to the world. But when asked to clear a higher bar for privacy, Facebook delved into design tricks to keep from losing our data

from iraidajzsmmwtv https://ift.tt/2voeF14 via IFTTT

[rebeccahpedersen]

New Mortgage Rules: Q&A With Benjamin Sammut

TorontoRealtyBlog

Scheduling conflicts didn’t allow me to pull in broker-to-the-stars, Joe Sammut, for a video today as promised.

But I found the next best thing – his son, Benjamin Sammut, who is almost as good-looking, and with a slightly better beard

Thanks to TRB readers and commenters for a host of solid questions, and great debate points from Friday’s blog that we can explore.

And thanks to Mortgage Architects, Benjamin Sammut, and Joe Sammut, for the following…

  Next week, I promise.

I know many of you (aka only my mother…) want to see the results of what $129.99 worth of lighting and sound equipment can buy on Amazon Prime.

I’m also acutely aware that there’s new phenomenon out there whereby a lot of people don’t read, but will watch a video with the exact same content and subject matter.

So after today’s discussion, and more questions arise – both here on TRB, and in the media and among buyers and sellers, as the impact of the new OSFI regulations are felt, we’ll have topics to explore in a video next week.

Today, I want to get to some of the questions and comments from the last several days.

Several people had emailed almost identical questions, so I apologize (or you’re welcome?) for not getting the shout-out here.

I’ve also included some discussion points from last week’s blog which I think deserve consideration.

  Andrew asks by email:

Q: “Media reports suggest that ‘affordability’ is down 20%.  Can you explain that?”

Ben says:

Some people won’t see their affordability change at all with these new regulatory changes. Meanwhile others can see a decrease of up to 20%.

It all depends on what demographic of homebuyer you fall into as well as who you’re working with (broker, bank, etc) and the solutions they can provide.

    Sydney asks by email:

Q: “There was an article in the Financial Post by Gary Marr that suggested there’s a ‘loophole’ with the OSFI stress-testing, since you can tinker with the amortization period, to increase your affordability.”

Ben says:

There was a loophole in the stress test before that a lot of people were taking advantage of – they were finding other sources to come up with 20% down and avoid the CMHC stress test (gifts from family, private mortgages, etc).

The point of the new OFSI rules, I think, is to close this loophole and any others like it.

    Professional Shanker asks on TRB:

Q: “If you are a move up buyer and are transferring your mortgage to a more expensive house – do you have to re-qualify under the new guidelines?”

Ben says:

This is a great question, and one that doesn’t have an answer yet.

Unfortunately, when OFSI comes out with these regulations, they’re intentionally vague to allow for interpretation from each individual financial institution.

Unfortunately, this usually means fear and confusion for the average Canadian at least for the next few weeks.

I would imagine that if you have any need to change the loan (increase mortgage amount, extend your amortization, break the mortgage and apply for a new charge upon moving, for example), you would have to re-qualify under the new rules.

–

Q: “If you recently purchased and are renewing with the same lender (say a 5 year fixed), then my understanding is that you do not have to qualify under the new guidelines. What happens if you plan to switch lenders – do you have to qualify under the new guidelines?”

Ben says:

Therein lies the rub. If you are renewing with the same lender, you do not need to requalify under new rules. However, if you switch to any new lender, you would need to re-qualify.

For some parts of the buyer sphere (self-employed, new career, maternity leave, etc) this could leave you with only one option – your current lender. T

These changes will systemically take away your competitive advantage and ability to shop for a better rate or product.

–

Q: “If you are currently under a variable rate mortgage and want to lock in, do the new lending standards factor in?”

Ben says:

Another great question that is subject to some ambiguity right now.

I would imagine that you would not need to re-qualify, as you were technically already stress tested to be in a variable mortgage.

–

Q: “Re-financing your mortgage – will the new guidelines have an impact?”

Ben says:

Refinances will be the hardest hit as they almost always fall into the segment of the market impacted by the stress test.

If you are considering pulling equity out of your house, you will want to look into this before the changes come in on Jan 1 because they will directly impact your limit.

    Joel, Kramer and Kyle are debating on TRB:

“People are suggesting this is about ‘cleaning up bad debt.’  If that were the case, wouldn’t the government be going after credit card lending practices?  I’m of the mindset that consumer debt is far worse than mortgage debt.”

Ben says:

I think that attacking mortgages and claiming they are a bad debt is a bit of a strawman argument.

It makes for good headlines and politics but the fact of the matter is, the Canadian economy relies very heavily on the housing market. From realtors, to mortgage brokers, to builders, contractors, and suppliers, Canada’s real estate industry is MASSIVE.

It would be prudent to ensure it is as safe as possible. And while some disagree with HOW the government is regulating the housing market, there’s no doubt that it should be regulated for the sake of our economy.

    Condodweller suggests on TRB:

“Regarding why OSFI did this is neither reason listed above (ie. either an attempt to reign in borrowing among Canadians, or an attempt to cool the market).  They want to protect CMHC from mass defaults.”

Ben says:

The new changes actually have nothing to do with CMHC.

These changes are directly aimed at the part of the market that CMHC does not really play in, the conventional mortgage market (80% loan to value or less).

  David asks via email:

Q: “What will be the role of alternative lenders after January 1st, 2018?  What about credit unions and mono-lines?  Do they fall under the same umbrella as the Big 5 banks?”

Ben says:

There will be an even greater need for these lenders as they serve the population that do not fit under the new guidelines.

Credit unions and private lenders will be able to cater to whomever they choose in this new mortgage climate and will have a competitive edge as more and more people will fall out of the box that banks like to fill. Unfortunately, monoline lenders will still have to follow suit.

*Hint hint* there will be a huge opportunity to private investors looking to invest in private mortgages.

A big thanks to Ben for answering these questions!

Ben’s contact information for those who have other queries on this matter, or any others:

Benjamin Sammut Mortgage Broker (647) 518-4669 bensammut@mortgagegate.ca Mortgage Architects # 12728 

The post New Mortgage Rules: Q&A With Benjamin Sammut appeared first on Toronto Real Estate Property Sales & Investments | Toronto Realty Blog by David Fleming.

Originated from http://ift.tt/2yHJ3no