#surest predict

[healthcareblog12]

Surepredictz Football Prediction website

Are you a football fanatic who craves that winning edge? Have you stumbled upon Surepredictz, the surest and most precise football prediction site, and constantly wondered if it's the key to consistent football betting victories? This analysis dives deep into Surepredictz, exploring its features, effectiveness, and the wider world of football prediction websites. We'll also unveil the truth about achieving daily wins – a concept that requires a strategic approach, not just blind faith in predictions.

The main aim of sports betting is to generate consistent income but to do so, one must properly predict the outcome of the game in their favor; otherwise, the wager is useless. People cannot easily place blind bets on sporting events. Soccer predictions are a science, and any serious fan of the game or seasoned expert is aware that certain factors must be taken into account to optimize their chances of winning bets.

surest prediction sites

[barrenclan]

The wasting disease is caused by a prion, and prions can stay in the environment for a looooong time, even decades! And the surest form of contagion is ingestion. So if Deepdark ate the crow that was hanging around Rosie he is sure to get the disease and get rekt lmao. Karma comes for everyone. However he is in a comic about the cycle of violence and abuse, so I wonder if that means that defiance is going to dissolve after his demise. The wasting disease is long to contract and even longer to suffer, so either Deepdark is going to iron fist the group to total annhihilation or the group is going to tear itself apart from the inside out from infighting and fragment itself after his death ("dude our glorious leader is not right in the head anymore" "how fucking dare you" *mauls them*).

Or! Secret third option! Deepdark starts to become more and more paranoid and slaughter the whole defiance, murder suicide style

Someone actually has already predicted Deepdark's death with perfect precision, and it's extremely funny where it comes from. These are certainly true things about CWD though! I am a biology major who's done research in diseases, if that makes a difference to your theories... hm...

I only do coincidences when I'm stupid.

[ball-of-butter]

youre like the only account i look at on here for red queen content (specifically maven) so please go full psychological analysis on maven please. i love your posts they itch my brain perfectly

omygosh anon 🤭 tyyyy tyyyy

theres so much to say about maven and its kinda crazy considering he doesn’t get that much actual page time. so keep in mind that many people could have different interpretations of his character, since he is quite elusive. and i may or may notttt be biassed idk.

the first thing i believe: he's a character that, for all his supposed motivations, had no ambition or dream of his own. he was a complete vessel of his mother’s spite, so he makes for a pretty interesting paradox. mare was haunted by a ‘false’ maven that didn't exist (debatable). cal was haunted by an ‘erased’ maven that used to exist. what is maven haunted by? everything and everyone? he’s a ghost himself, he’s the one who usually did the haunting, but even when you get his POV in the books, there’s a tragedy in the negative space you find. there are clear holes in his psyche that he also subconsciously attempts to fill (his memories always fight to bubble to the surface, but they invoke feelings he can’t feel anymore) and never can. despite how pissed off he is at everyone and everything, he so very clearly yearns for love and approval, to the point where he is absolutely delusional about it. there he was, shocked that mare would reject him after he imprisoned and betrayed her and the scarlet guard. here’s him outraged that anabel lerolan would side with cal after he plotted her son’s murder.

elara basically sculpted a monster, and i don’t think that can be debated since its pretty clearly stated in text. even maven knew what she took from him and the extent of the abuse— but he didn't care because she gave him the love he craved. she couldn’t fill it all, if maven’s obsession with mare was anything to go by. i do think elara genuinely loved and adored him, but i don’t know if i would use the word ‘enabler’ for her because it seems too soft a word. maven is elara. elara dies and maven can’t survive on his own for long without her. he was her iron fist in a way, but neither had much interest in norta as a country like most scheming for the throne usually do– which i find so interesting. it wasn’t political, only personal.

now then there lies the debate of choice— some maven fans are completely comfortable heaping all of the blame onto elara and calling it a day. but i think even elara was failed in a similar way maven was. red queen is cool because it shows how evil is encouraged and nurtured in oppressive societies, how certain individuals even in privileged positions will be abused and neglected, how vices are taught to be hidden rather than treated and how violence is perpetuated as the surest, most permanent decree. every character is affected by this system in some way, and i could talk about it for years but i’ll save you the time. my point is that this would apply to maven, but that doesn’t make him void of choice. it’s sort of predictable that he would make the terrible choices he did in the series considering he never had the chance to escape what predestined narrative was already planned for him, but no one was physically forcing him to burn his initial into mare. no one was physically forcing him to try slaughter a whole race of people. no one physically forced him to blow up naercey, or taunt cal after forcing him to murder his dad, or psychologically torture mare when he kept her as prisoner. yes, there’s nuance but maven is also much too comfortable with being a terrible person, because thats what ultimately earns him love, respect and approval.

i don’t think maven could’ve been saved, not because 'the damage was too bad,' but because he had no desire to be saved, and no one but cal had wanted to put in the effort to save him. i always find it interesting how cal secretly resented mare for killing maven, even though it was such a longtime coming, and he would never voice it because considering all maven had done to her, she had more than the right. but i don’t want to yap so much about maven’s relationship with cal because i’ll be here forever. nor do i want to talk too much about his relationship with mare. i'll only say that when i was talking about his death scene i did mention how much of an impact both of them had on each other, how maven was so scary to mare because he was a viable twisted path that represented the worst of her. i think mare could’ve been (my biassed interpretation) a path for him too, but he was so far gone by the second book and especially after elara’s death that he never considered it (would’ve been too late for him then anyway). i have some thoughts on the chances of maven rehabilitating if he had the tools and will to. some thoughts. they won’t go here though.

lastly i just want to link this post which had super interesting additions by @lucy-the-cat that delves into maven from a psychological perspective. its sooooo well written and i still think about it to this day.

last thing i wanna do is glaze a bit so im just gonna 😭 its refreshing to see this sort of villain be portrayed as an mmc who isn’t attractively suave and super misunderstood and depressed and supremely intelligent for what he does– maven is intelligent and sad, but he's presented as a floundering, insecure, delusional brat that the fmc understands entirely. something so refreshing in how he can only either be hated, and at best, pitied.

[ericdeggans]

My List of the Best TV in 2023: An Abundance of Quality Even in Adversity

What’s the surest proof that there truly is too much television available these days?

The fact that, even though 2023 featured historic performers and writers strikes in Hollywood which crippled film and TV production for months, there was still enough great series and projects to fill an entire notebook page.

Way too many, in fact, for me to cover in my small part of NPR’s awesome annual listing of the best TV and film of the year, compiled among six different critics. It’s one reason the strikes went on so long in the first place – for fans of great TV, it didn’t really seem like much changed, as streaming services kept dropping cool stuff, thanks to their long production lead times.

Ironically, viewers may notice the strikes’ impact more next year – in part, because a lot of cool TV shows left us in 2023 (pour one out for Barry, The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, The Crown, Reservation Dogs, Succession, and, possibly, Ted Lasso) and also because the streamers will spend some time rebuilding lineups which got depleted.

Here, where I have a lot more room is my highly subjective and surprisingly long list of the Best TV of 2024:

TOP PICK - Succession – A show which perfectly captured how the dysfunctions of wealthy families can impact the world delivered a note-perfect finale that surprised – though I did predict Tom would win out – and yet felt completely inevitable. All while the world was second-guessing and writing their own endings. Masterful.

The Last of Us – Who knew reinventing the zombie apocalypse story was simple as coming up with a new cause – fungus, eww! – and the willingness to hand big chunks of the story over to compelling, fully drawn supporting characters. Doesn’t hurt to have ultimate zaddy Pedro Pascal and precocious acting genius Bella Ramsey on the case, either.

The Bear - Speaking of compelling supporting characters…this show’s second season sparkled by giving the other employees in Carmy’s greasy spoon-becoming-a-great-restaurant lots of narrative room. But it took flight with unexpected, brilliant cameos from Jon Bernthal, Olivia Colman, Oliver Platt, Bob Odenkirk, Sarah Paulson, and the legendary Jamie Lee Curtis.

Reservation Dogs – Proof of the amazing, authentic, original stories which come from letting indigenous people tells their own stories, smashing together a crushing realism with the sense that a jarring visit from the spirit world is always around the next corner.

Fargo – Not sure I love the ultimate message on the healing power of suburban, white, upper middle class Midwestern family life (or what happens to the one major Black character). But crackling performances from Juno Temple, Jon Hamm, Jennifer Jason leigh and Dave Foley make this year’s installment the best version in many years.

Shrinking – An emotional and truly funny comedy that reminds us how hilarious Harrison Ford and Jessica Williams can be while not making us spend too much time on Jason Segel’s angsty privileged white guy shtick.

Star Trek: Strange New Worlds – The TV series which scored the most by taking the boldest swings, leaning into Trek’s original heritage as an adventure-of-the-week which told the most ambitious stories on the small screen.

(The dancing, dubstepping, boy band-style Klingons on Strange New Worlds powered my favorite TV scene of the year.)

Star Trek: Picard – Yeah, I put TWO Trek series here, because everyone else in critic-land seems to be sleeping on the fact that they made more than one excellent season of a new Trek series filled with nods to what came before, including this show, which reunited the Next Generation cast in a storyline basically about old people saving the universe from young, clueless, mind-controlled pawns.

Barry – Wasn’t thrilled about how grim this series’ finale eventually became. But respected the fact that co-creator/star Bill Hader never shied away from the fact that the show was going to be his laboratory for all the directing and storytelling tricks he ever wanted to try, and a dark comedy about a hitman-turned-actor has to be seriously dark to mean something.

Beef – A road rage incident becomes a crackling, entertaining look at everything from Asian family culture to Elon Musk-level mogul dysfunction while also proving my girl Ali Wong can act her ass off.

Still: A Michael J. Fox Story – While other celebrities are executive producing documentaries to show how legendarily cool they are, Fox helped create an up close look at his struggle with Parkinson’s disease which show how hard it is to put on socks and take a walk on a new York street without crashing to the ground right in front of a concerned fan.

Only Murders in the Building – A comedy about over-privileged crime podcasters in an Upper West side apartment building should not stay entertaining over three seasons. But this show pulls it off, tossing in against-the-grain cameos by Paul Rudd and Meryl Streep that provide the best icing on a very fine cake.

Slow Horses – This show about a department filled with failed British intelligence agents not only subverts the spy genre, it subverts the satires which originally subverted classic spy dramas, like Get Smart. Topped by mesmerizing performances from Gary Oldman and Kristin Scott Thomas, I would have subtitled this one, Get Smarter.

Happy Valley - This series about an experienced, ball-busting divorced single mom of a police sergeant in a mid-size town in Britain notched an underappreciated series finale featuring the amazing Sarah Lancashire as Catharine Cawood, finally confronting the man she blamed for her daughter’s suicide and her grandson’s emotional turmoil.

BS High – A great documentary often tells a story which keeps going deeper and better, like a descent into a spellbinding madness. This film achieved that by giving center stage to master manipulator/football coach Roy Johnson, who got ESPN to air a game featuring his Bishop Sycamore High School team; the film contends their crushing loss eventually exposed that the school didn’t really exist.

I’m a Virgo – Creator and activist Boots Riley made an urban parable where Black excellence became superpowers and the world’s exploitive class came for a 13-foot-tall Black teen played by the always compelling Jharrel Jerome. Always inspiring to see how Boots turns mainstream media’s tropes and expectations against itself.

[imperatorcaesaraugustus]

it's Thought D. what's Thought D? Thoughts on HotD. season 2 episode 5 of house of the dragon. what did i think? if you keep reading, you'll find out

parading the dragon's head through the street really doesn't send the message you think it's going to send. but we'll have to wait for the Shepherd to demonstrate that, i think (i won't explain further, if you didn't read the book you'll just have to wait)

surely they could have gotten Aegon to the Red Keep by some means other than sticking him in the procession behind Melys' head

they're really not being shy about showing Aegon's wounds, are they?

kind of odd for Daemon to threaten to kill the Brackens and then not do it. everyone knows you don't make a threat you're unwilling to actually follow through

Rhaenyra, you simply must get a better small council

i like the fact that we're getting a decent amount of Baela - Jace interaction. their relationship is never really described at all in the book

i also appreciate that Jace is doing things

who could have predicted that the Freys would be ambitious and opportunistic? a plot twist for the ages

the leopards are eating Alicent's face

Hugh's hair stands out in the crowd shots like he's a goddamn anime protagonist and i'm here for it

i wouldn't have guessed that Aemma Arryn would start showing up in Daemon's visions. but if the visions are anything to go by, it looks like Daemon does his duty so good on him for that

Lady Jeyne, i look forward to barely seeing you until after the war has already ended

why is Daemon chopping wood? why is he doing that himself?

i get that Harrenhal is too understaffed to be anything but pretty casual when it comes to etiquette, but why is Alys allowed to interact with the king consort like that?

yes, Rhaenyra, get that man out of there!

Rhaenyra has made the unfortunate mistake of hoping to emulate Visenya. what she doesn't yet realize is that hoping to emulate Visenya in any way is the quickest and surest way to get all of history to conspire against you (see: Maegor, Rhaena, Rhaenys, Daemon, Rhaenyra)

i think Jace and Rhaenyra may be overstating the breadth of the Targaryen lineage a bit. they haven't really been in Westeros for that long at this point (the distance between Rhaenyra and Aegon the Conqueror is 5 generations). combine that with their tendency to marry within the family and i don't actually think there are that many houses with Targaryen blood at this point

that being said, i'm curious to see how they pivot the idea introduced here - tracking down legitimate Targaryen descendants in other houses - into the one from the books which they've been seeding (haha) with the introduction of characters like Hugh, Ulf, and Alyn - searching for illegitimate Targaryen descendants

really enjoyed this episode, been mostly enjoying this season, looking forward to next week

[chloe-caulfield94]

A Letter to My Teacher - a LiS fan poem

He filled her heart with metal

I filled her heart with love

You filled her mind with metal

I filled her mind with hope

I think I’m beginning

to see a pattern

Those who are cruel

have solely metal

in their souls

and they fail

to comprehend

that different materials

can and should be used

to make a person whole

You both set out to discover

true art

and quite predictably

true art for you

is the moment a person

becomes broken by evil

inflicted upon them

Your mission was

a folly from the start

Nothing from the outside

can ever defile a person

You’d think that

such well-read gentlemen

as the two of you

would know that simple fact

So no matter what torment

you unleashed upon

your models

no picture you took

depicted what you lusted for

The only way to be broken by evil

is to willingly inflict it upon others

It’s no wonder you would’ve chosen

my selfie to win the contest

The concept intrigued you

On some level you knew

that the surest way for you to see

a person broken by evil

was to stand in front of a mirror

Now he rests

in the same cold and damp dirt

he sent someone who'd always thought him a friend to

And you, so convinced of your uniqueness

were reduced to a tabloid headline

the wrinkled newspaper page

your only reward and the only picture

decorating your concrete cage

Fitting ends to careers

doomed from the start

Doomed, because

those who are cruel

can never create art

After all, it requires

a heart

[elpsycongruent]

the surest sign of global warming that I've ever seen: the groundhog actually predicted an early spring???

[memorystormsanctuary]

Day 4~ Alternate Universe

Even in a world where everything changes, some things stay the same. For today’s @khoc-week prompt of Alternative Universes there were plenty of places to go. After all, the prompt opens up almost anything. And for Y I’ve always had a few alternative paths for her to take. So I will be taking advantage of this prompt and exploring Y going down a darker path following the loss of her heart.

In this timeline, once Y lost her heart and became a Heartless, she became truly heartless. With the loss of her friends weighing on her, and anger at Xehanort and many others, she becomes a problem for pretty much everyone. She acts as an antagonist the Destiny Trio must face before they can begin their fight against Xehanort. She has no problems dragging worlds into the darkness if it suits her mood and commands the Heartless beneath her to destroy everything. All she seems to want is to watch the world burn. But with all the changes to her, there are some things that stay the same.

It was boring, waiting for them to come to her. She sat lounged on the tall chair; throne more like, but she wasn’t particular about what it was called. Her head hung over one arm, her legs over the other arm kicking idly. They were almost here, at least in the fortress she had claimed for her own. So what was taking them so long? She had even called back most of the Heartless. There couldn’t be much standing in their way.

The doors to the room swung open, as if reading her mind. She turned her head to the door hardly moving otherwise.

“We’re here to stop—you,” the brown-haired boy said, his voice failing as he looked around the room. As his attention came to rest on Y, she let a grin spread across her face. “Huh?”

“Hm, I’ll give you a B, for performance,” Y said, spinning herself to sit properly in the throne. One leg crossed over the other as she propped her arms on either side of her. “You started strong but kinda lost heart in it after a moment.” Sora only stared at her blankly, a look mirrored in the confusion on his two companions faces. Y couldn’t help the chuckle that escaped her.

“This is where the Heartless leader is supposed to be,” Sora said slowly.

“You’re just a little girl?” Kairi said, seeming to be of the same thought as Sora.

“A tragedy, isn’t it?” Y said. “I lost my heart when I was 14. Haven’t really aged much, since most of my time has been here, in the realm of Darkness. So now your Heartless leader is just a little girl.” There was a moment of pause as the trio seemed to come to terms with that. Eventually Sora raised his keyblade taking what Y assumed was his fighting stance.

“Well, it doesn’t matter, we have to stop you,” Sora said.

“Nice try, but you won’t get far,” Y said, smiling brightly. She could see the way their thoughts raced, trying to make their understanding match what they saw in front of them. After all, she was far from the other villains they had fought. It was an area of pride for her.

She got to her feet with a little jump, still smiling as she looked down on them from above. Three against one. And all keyblade wielders. Sora was at the front, so he would probably be the head of all their attacks. Kairi was a step back from the boys, her footing unsure as she held her keyblade. Riku seemed the surest in his footing, his keyblade raised beside him; though his wrist seemed a little low for the stance he was taking.

Sora rushed up the stairs, leading the charge just as Y predicted he would. She quickly jumped aside, down the stairs to be on even footing with the other two. She grinned as she brought her hand up and pointed it towards Kairi.

“Firaga,” Y said. The blast of fire was probably larger than it needed to be. Kairi barely brought up her keyblade in time to defend herself. A mental note was made as Y side stepped another attack from Sora. Riku had run to Kairi’s aid, keeping her on her feet. Y twisted out of the way of Sora’s slashes, each one following the same pattern. With a twirl she pointed at Sora.

“Light!"

Holding in her laugh at his blank facial expression as the beams of light left her hand was almost impossible. His friends called his name, just in time for him to block the magic and skid back from Y again. She tutted as she brushed her hair over her shoulder.

“Don’t lose focus,” Y chided, wagging her finger. “I don’t want you guys breaking before the game really starts.”

Riku came at her next. She swerved out of the way of his hit, holding out her hand to call her weapon to her.

The harsh clang of a keyblade meeting another echoed through the room.

Y twisted her wrist effortlessly, removing Riku’s key from his hand at least for a moment. This time she couldn’t hold in her laugh at their shocked expressions.

“How can you have a keyblade!?” Sora demanded.

“Same way you do, someone passed it on to me,” Y said, chuckling as she swung her blade. “Well, not quite I guess. I don’t think either of us had a succession ceremony. Riku got his from Terra. And Kairi might have hers because of a little accident when we met. But I don’t know how you got yours, Sora.”

The trio all moved together this time. Y easily stepped out of the way of Kairi’s clumsy hit only to be tossed between Sora and Riku. She hissed as she moved away, holding her key steady with trained precision, something none of them could claim to have. Finding her footing took too long and she was soon trading blows with the three in turn. Each block was accompanied by a hit from the other side. Her teeth grit together.

“Holy,” Y hissed, holding her key up. The bright light that shot down was enough for the trio to all jump away from her. While they blinked away the spots she darted forward, finding Riku on the side. She brought her key down on his wrist holding his key as quickly and with as much force as possible. His sharp cry as he dropped his key once again told her she had accomplished her goal. He would be impaired. At least for a moment.

“I don’t understand, if you’re a user of light why are you fighting us!?” Riku demanded from where he crouched on the ground supporting his wrist. “Do you want to see Xehanort win?”

“Far from it,” Y hissed. The rage was boiling over inside of her now. They dared to say his name. To remind her of his very existence when she was having so much fun. “I’m going to take everything from that monster. His victory he’s worked so hard for. I’m going to take it all from him.”

“How does fighting us accomplish that?” Riku asked.

“He can’t have his war without the pieces,” Y said, laughing as she twirled in place. She turned away from Riku, her eyes focusing on Sora now. “First, I destroy all the guardians. At least the ones he hasn’t destroyed yet. Then I remove the Princesses of Heart from the field.” She smiled as she motioned to Kairi. “You can use your imagination how I’m going to do that. And then I will pick off his vessels one by one. And when it’s just him, I rip out his heart and crush it in my hand. Oh, or I can just attack him from behind. The same way he killed my Master. I’ll make sure I’m the last thing he sees as I rip his dream away from him. I’ll destroy everything left that he cares about.”

“And then what? When there’s nothing?” Riku asked. Y paused for a moment to consider, humming as she tapped her chin.

“Then, whatever I guess. I don’t really care,” she admitted. “I’ll just do whatever I want and see what happens with no protectors of the world order. It might be interesting. After all, order is boring. I’d rather see chaos.”

[ao3feed-jupeter]

Hopelessly, Hopefully

by of_swords_and_princes, Scarlet_Trust

“What’s the surest way to get Juno Steel to come to your place?” Nureyev said with a grifter’s confidence. After all, it hardly mattered that he himself hadn’t been certain of Juno’s arrival until this exact moment. It had been his greatest gamble to date, one he was glad he had taken now that Juno was standing before him. “A death threat, wasn’t it? Well dear detective, you never specified whose life had to be on the line.”

Words: 2899, Chapters: 2/2, Language: English

Fandoms: The Penumbra Podcast

Rating: Teen And Up Audiences

Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply

Categories: Other

Characters: Juno Steel, Peter Nureyev

Relationships: Peter Nureyev/Juno Steel

Additional Tags: Reunion Fic, s5 prediction, Written pre Vanishing Act, No S5 spoilers, hurt/comort, Emotional Hurt/Comfort, Happy Ending, Nureyev had a plan!, to bad he didn't tell anyone about it, collab with artist, Chapter 2- Comic!

Read on AO3 at https://ift.tt/L5spIa6

[trenderhq]

What is the Surest Way to Win at SoccaBet Ghana?

SoccaBet is a popular sports betting platform in Ghana that offers punters the chance to make money by predicting the outcome of various football matches and other sports events. As with any form of gambling, players are always on the lookout for strategies to increase their chances of winning. While there is no surefire way to guarantee a win in sports betting, several strategies can improve…

[dailyanarchistposts]

B.2.3 How does the ruling class maintain control of the state?

In some systems, it is obvious how economic dominant minorities control the state. In feudalism, for example, the land was owned by the feudal lords who exploited the peasantry directly. Economic and political power were merged into the same set of hands, the landlords. Absolutism saw the monarch bring the feudal lords under his power and the relative decentralised nature of feudalism was replaced by a centralised state.

It was this centralised state system which the raising bourgeoisie took as the model for their state. The King was replaced by a Parliament, which was initially elected on a limited suffrage. In this initial form of capitalist state, it is (again) obvious how the elite maintain control of the state machine. As the vote was based on having a minimum amount of property, the poor were effectively barred from having any (official) say in what the government did. This exclusion was theorised by philosophers like John Locke — the working masses were considered to be an object of state policy rather than part of the body of people (property owners) who nominated the government. In this perspective the state was like a joint-stock company. The owning class were the share-holders who nominated the broad of directors and the mass of the population were the workers who had no say in determining the management personnel and were expected to follow orders.

As would be expected, this system was mightily disliked by the majority who were subjected to it. Such a “classical liberal” regime was rule by an alien, despotic power, lacking popular legitimacy, and utterly unaccountable to the general population. It is quite evident that a government elected on a limited franchise could not be trusted to treat those who owned no real property with equal consideration. It was predictable that the ruling elite would use the state they controlled to further their own interests and to weaken potential resistance to their social, economic and political power. Which is precisely what they did do, while masking their power under the guise of “good governance” and “liberty.” Moreover, limited suffrage, like absolutism, was considered an affront to liberty and individual dignity by many of those subject to it.

Hence the call for universal suffrage and opposition to property qualifications for the franchise. For many radicals (including Marx and Engels) such a system would mean that the working classes would hold “political power” and, consequently, be in a position to end the class system once and for all. Anarchists were not convinced, arguing that “universal suffrage, considered in itself and applied in a society based on economic and social inequality, will be nothing but a swindle and snare for the people” and “the surest way to consolidate under the mantle of liberalism and justice the permanent domination of the people by the owning classes, to the detriment of popular liberty.” Consequently, anarchists denied that it “could be used by the people for the conquest of economic and social equality. It must always and necessarily be an instrument hostile to the people, one which supports the de facto dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.” [Bakunin, Bakunin on Anarchism, p. 224]

Due to popular mass movements form below, the vote was won by the male working classes and, at a later stage, women. While the elite fought long and hard to retain their privileged position they were defeated. Sadly, the history of universal suffrage proven the anarchists right. Even allegedly “democratic” capitalist states are in effect dictatorships of the propertariat. The political history of modern times can be summarised by the rise of capitalist power, the rise, due to popular movements, of (representative) democracy and the continued success of the former to undermine and control the latter.

This is achieved by three main processes which combine to effectively deter democracy. These are the wealth barrier, the bureaucracy barrier and, lastly, the capital barrier. Each will be discussed in turn and all ensure that “representative democracy” remains an “organ of capitalist domination.” [Kropotkin, Words of a Rebel, p. 127]

The wealth barrier is the most obvious. It takes money to run for office. In 1976, the total spent on the US Presidential election was $66.9 million. In 1984, it was $103.6 million and in 1996 it was $239.9 million. At the dawn of the 21st century, these figures had increased yet again. 2000 saw $343.1 spent and 2004, $717.9 million. Most of this money was spent by the two main candidates. In 2000, Republican George Bush spent a massive $185,921,855 while his Democratic rival Al Gore spent only $120,031,205. Four years later, Bush spent $345,259,155 while John Kerry managed a mere $310,033,347.

Other election campaigns are also enormously expensive. In 2000, the average winning candidate for a seat in the US House of Representatives spent $816,000 while the average willing senator spent $7 million. Even local races require significant amounts of fundraising. One candidate for the Illinois House raised over $650,000 while another candidate for the Illinois Supreme Court raised $737,000. In the UK, similarly prohibitive amounts were spent. In the 2001 general election the Labour Party spent a total of £10,945,119, the Tories £12,751,813 and the Liberal Democrats (who came a distant third) just £1,361,377.

To get this sort of money, wealthy contributors need to be found and wooed, in other words promised that that their interests will be actively looked after. While, in theory, it is possible to raise large sums from small contributions in practice this is difficult. To raise $1 million you need to either convince 50 millionaires to give you $20,000 or 20,000 people to fork out $50. Given that for the elite $20,000 is pocket money, it is hardly surprising that politicians aim for winning over the few, not the many. Similarly with corporations and big business. It is far easier and more efficient in time and energy to concentrate on the wealthy few (whether individuals or companies).

It is obvious: whoever pays the piper calls the tune. And in capitalism, this means the wealthy and business. In the US corporate campaign donations and policy paybacks have reached unprecedented proportions. The vast majority of large campaign donations are, not surprisingly, from corporations. Most of the wealthy individuals who give large donations to the candidates are CEOs and corporate board members. And, just to be sure, many companies give to more than one party.

Unsurprisingly, corporations and the rich expect their investments to get a return. This can be seen from George W. Bush’s administration. His election campaigns were beholden to the energy industry (which has backed him since the beginning of his career as Governor of Texas). The disgraced corporation Enron (and its CEO Kenneth Lay) were among Bush’s largest contributors in 2000. Once in power, Bush backed numerous policies favourable to that industry (such as rolling back environmental regulation on a national level as he had done in Texas). His supporters in Wall Street were not surprised that Bush tried to privatise Social Security. Nor were the credit card companies when the Republicans tighten the noose on bankrupt people in 2005. By funding Bush, these corporations ensured that the government furthered their interests rather than the people who voted in the election.

This means that as a “consequence of the distribution of resources and decision-making power in the society at large … the political class and the cultural managers typically associate themselves with the sectors that dominate the private economy; they are either drawn directly from those sectors or expect to join them.” [Chomsky, Necessary Illusions, p. 23] This can be seen from George W. Bush’s quip at an elite fund-raising gala during the 2000 Presidential election: “This is an impressive crowd — the haves and the have-mores. Some people call you the elites; I call you my base.” Unsurprisingly:

“In the real world, state policy is largely determined by those groups that command resources, ultimately by virtue of their ownership and management of the private economy or their status as wealthy professionals. The major decision-making positions in the Executive branch of the government are typically filled by representatives of major corporations, banks and investment firms, a few law firms that cater primarily to corporate interests and thus represent the broad interests of owners and managers rather than some parochial interest .. . The Legislative branch is more varied, but overwhelmingly, it is drawn from the business and professional classes.” [Chomsky, On Power and Ideology, pp. 116–7]

That is not the only tie between politics and business. Many politicians also have directorships in companies, interests in companies, shares, land and other forms of property income and so forth. Thus they are less like the majority of constituents they claim to represent and more like the wealthy few. Combine these outside earnings with a high salary (in the UK, MP’s are paid more than twice the national average) and politicians can be among the richest 1% of the population. Thus not only do we have a sharing of common interests the elite, the politicians are part of it. As such, they can hardly be said to be representative of the general public and are in a position of having a vested interest in legislation on property being voted on.

Some defend these second jobs and outside investments by saying that it keeps them in touch with the outside world and, consequently, makes them better politicians. That such an argument is spurious can be seen from the fact that such outside interests never involve working in McDonald’s flipping burgers or working on an assembly line. For some reason, no politician seeks to get a feeling for what life is like for the average person. Yet, in a sense, this argument does have a point. Such jobs and income do keep politicians in touch with the world of the elite rather than that of the masses and, as the task of the state is to protect elite interests, it cannot be denied that this sharing of interests and income with the elite can only aid that task!

Then there is the sad process by which politicians, once they leave politics, get jobs in the corporate hierarchy (particularly with the very companies they had previously claimed to regulate on behalf of the public). This was termed “the revolving door.” Incredibly, this has changed for the worse. Now the highest of government officials arrive directly from the executive offices of powerful corporations. Lobbyists are appointed to the jobs whose occupants they once vied to influence. Those who regulate and those supposed to be regulated have become almost indistinguishable.

Thus politicians and capitalists go hand in hand. Wealth selects them, funds them and gives them jobs and income when in office. Finally, once they finally leave politics, they are often given directorships and other jobs in the business world. Little wonder, then, that the capitalist class maintains control of the state.

That is not all. The wealth barrier operates indirectly to. This takes many forms. The most obvious is in the ability of corporations and the elite to lobby politicians. In the US, there is the pervasive power of Washington’s army of 24,000 registered lobbyists — and the influence of the corporate interests they represent. These lobbyists, whose job it is to convince politicians to vote in certain ways to further the interests of their corporate clients help shape the political agenda even further toward business interests than it already is. This Lobby industry is immense — and exclusively for big business and the elite. Wealth ensures that the equal opportunity to garner resources to share a perspective and influence the political progress is monopolised by the few: “where are the desperately needed countervailing lobbies to represent the interests of average citizens? Where are the millions of dollars acting in their interests? Alas, they are notably absent.” [Joel Bakan, The Corporation, p. 107]

However, it cannot be denied that it is up to the general population to vote for politicians. This is when the indirect impact of wealth kicks in, namely the role of the media and the Public Relations (PR) industry. As we discuss in section D.3, the modern media is dominated by big business and, unsurprisingly, reflects their interests. This means that the media has an important impact on how voters see parties and specific politicians and candidates. A radical party will, at best, be ignored by the capitalist press or, at worse, subject to smears and attacks. This will have a corresponding negative impact on their election prospects and will involve the affected party having to invest substantially more time, energy and resources in countering the negative media coverage. The PR industry has a similar effect, although that has the advantage of not having to bother with appearing to look factual or unbiased. Add to this the impact of elite and corporation funded “think tanks” and the political system is fatally skewed in favour of the capitalist class (also see section D.2).

In a nutshell:

“The business class dominates government through its ability to fund political campaigns, purchase high priced lobbyists and reward former officials with lucrative jobs … [Politicians] have become wholly dependent upon the same corporate dollars to pay for a new professional class of PR consultants, marketeers and social scientists who manage and promote causes and candidates in essentially the same manner that advertising campaigns sell cars, fashions, drugs and other wares.” [John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, Toxic Sludge is Good for You, p. 78]

That is the first barrier, the direct and indirect impact of wealth. This, in itself, is a powerful barrier to deter democracy and, as a consequence, it is usually sufficient in itself. Yet sometimes people see through the media distortions and vote for reformist, even radical, candidates. As we discuss in section J.2.6, anarchists argue that the net effect of running for office is a general de-radicalising of the party involved. Revolutionary parties become reformist, reformist parties end up maintaining capitalism and introducing polities the opposite of which they had promised. So while it is unlikely that a radical party could get elected and remain radical in the process, it is possible. If such a party did get into office, the remaining two barriers kicks in: the bureaucracy barrier and the capital barrier.

The existence of a state bureaucracy is a key feature in ensuring that the state remains the ruling class’s “policeman” and will be discussed in greater detail in section J.2.2 (Why do anarchists reject voting as a means for change?). Suffice to say, the politicians who are elected to office are at a disadvantage as regards the state bureaucracy. The latter is a permanent concentration of power while the former come and go. Consequently, they are in a position to tame any rebel government by means of bureaucratic inertia, distorting and hiding necessary information and pushing its own agenda onto the politicians who are in theory their bosses but in reality dependent on the bureaucracy. And, needless to say, if all else fails the state bureaucracy can play its final hand: the military coup.

This threat has been applied in many countries, most obviously in the developing world (with the aid of Western, usually US, imperialism). The coups in Iran (1953) and Chile (1973) are just two examples of this process. Yet the so-called developed world is not immune to it. The rise of fascism in Italy, Germany, Portugal and Spain can be considered as variations of a military coup (particularly the last one where fascism was imposed by the military). Wealthy business men funded para-military forces to break the back of the labour movement, forces formed by ex-military people. Even the New Deal in America was threatened by such a coup. [Joel Bakan, Op. Cit., pp. 86–95] While such regimes do protect the interests of capital and are, consequently, backed by it, they do hold problems for capitalism. This is because, as with the Absolutism which fostered capitalism in the first place, this kind of government can get ideas above its station This means that a military coup will only be used when the last barrier, the capital barrier, is used and fails.

The capital barrier is obviously related to the wealth barrier insofar as it relates to the power that great wealth produces. However, it is different in how it is applied. The wealth barrier restricts who gets into office, the capital barrier controls whoever does so. The capital barrier, in other words, are the economic forces that can be brought to bear on any government which is acting in ways disliked of by the capitalist class.

We see their power implied when the news report that changes in government, policies and law have been “welcomed by the markets.” As the richest 1% of households in America (about 2 million adults) owned 35% of the stock owned by individuals in 1992 — with the top 10% owning over 81% — we can see that the “opinion” of the markets actually means the power of the richest 1–5% of a countries population (and their finance experts), power derived from their control over investment and production. Given that the bottom 90% of the US population has a smaller share (23%) of all kinds of investable capital that the richest 1/2% (who own 29%), with stock ownership being even more concentrated (the top 5% holding 95% of all shares), its obvious why Doug Henwood argues that stock markets are “a way for the very rich as a class to own an economy’s productive capital stock as a whole,” are a source of “political power” and a way to have influence over government policy. [Wall Street: Class Racket]

The mechanism is simple enough. The ability of capital to disinvest (capital flight) and otherwise adversely impact the economy is a powerful weapon to keep the state as its servant. The companies and the elite can invest at home or abroad, speculate in currency markets and so forth. If a significant number of investors or corporations lose confidence in a government they will simply stop investing at home and move their funds abroad. At home, the general population feel the results as demand drops, layoffs increase and recession kicks in. As Noam Chomsky notes:

“In capitalist democracy, the interests that must be satisfied are those of capitalists; otherwise, there is no investment, no production, no work, no resources to be devoted, however marginally, to the needs of the general population.” [Turning the Tide, p. 233]

This ensures the elite control of government as government policies which private power finds unwelcome will quickly be reversed. The power which “business confidence” has over the political system ensures that democracy is subservient to big business. As summarised by Malatesta:

“Even with universal suffrage — we could well say even more so with universal suffrage — the government remained the bourgeoisie’s servant and gendarme. For were it to be otherwise with the government hinting that it might take up a hostile attitude, or that democracy could ever be anything but a pretence to deceive the people, the bourgeoisie, feeling its interests threatened, would by quick to react, and would use all the influence and force at its disposal, by reason of its wealth, to recall the government to its proper place as the bourgeoisie’s gendarme.” [Anarchy, p. 23]

It is due to these barriers that the state remains an instrument of the capitalist class while being, in theory, a democracy. Thus the state machine remains a tool by which the few can enrich themselves at the expense of the many. This does not mean, of course, that the state is immune to popular pressure. Far from it. As indicated in the last section, direct action by the oppressed can and has forced the state to implement significant reforms. Similarly, the need to defend society against the negative effects of unregulated capitalism can also force through populist measures (particularly when the alternative may be worse than the allowing the reforms, i.e. revolution). The key is that such changes are not the natural function of the state.

So due to their economic assets, the elites whose incomes are derived from them — namely, finance capitalists, industrial capitalists, and landlords — are able to accumulate vast wealth from those whom they exploit. This stratifies society into a hierarchy of economic classes, with a huge disparity of wealth between the small property-owning elite at the top and the non-property-owning majority at the bottom. Then, because it takes enormous wealth to win elections and lobby or bribe legislators, the propertied elite are able to control the political process — and hence the state — through the “power of the purse.” In summary:

“No democracy has freed itself from the rule by the well-to-do anymore than it has freed itself from the division between the ruler and the ruled … at the very least, no democracy has jeopardised the role of business enterprise. Only the wealthy and well off can afford to launch viable campaigns for public office and to assume such positions. Change in government in a democracy is a circulation from one elite group to another.” [Harold Barclay, Op. Cit., p. 47]

In other words, elite control of politics through huge wealth disparities insures the continuation of such disparities and thus the continuation of elite control. In this way the crucial political decisions of those at the top are insulated from significant influence by those at the bottom. Finally, it should be noted that these barriers do not arise accidentally. They flow from the way the state is structured. By effectively disempowering the masses and centralising power into the hands of the few which make up the government, the very nature of the state ensures that it remains under elite control. This is why, from the start, the capitalist class has favoured centralisation. We discuss this in the next two sections.

(For more on the ruling elite and its relation to the state, see C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite [Oxford, 1956]; cf. Ralph Miliband, The State in Capitalist Society [Basic Books, 1969] and Divided Societies [Oxford, 1989]; G. William Domhoff, Who Rules America? [Prentice Hall, 1967]; and Who Rules America Now? A View for the ‘80s [Touchstone, 1983]).<.p>

[writer59january13]

The remnants of August 2024 Hurricane Debbie

Like a humane huntress, she

(the anthropomorphized storm)

brought a spate of cool Autumn like

temperatures and gentle soothing rain here within my neck of the woods

for the last couple of days.

No matter the fall equinox and first day of autumn arrives countless weeks from now on Sunday, September 22, 2024, at 08:44 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time in the Northern Hemisphere synonymous with The Eastern Time Zone a time zone encompassing part or all of 23 states in the eastern part of the United States, parts of eastern Canada, and the state of Quintana Roo in Mexico

the only Mexican state to observe EST. Said geographical area moved from Central Time to Eastern Time after a successful lobbying effort by tourism interests. In 2015, the state of Quintana Roo changed to a new time zone, Zona Sureste (Southeast Zone), and discontinued daylight saving time, being in UTC−05:00 all year. Quintana Roo does not observe daylight saving time.

Though record breaking triple digit temperatures showed no mercy against the sheltering sky, (when humanity

gets bowled over like ten pins

not sparing anyone after fury of coming storm and indiscriminate havoc of mother nature

poised to strike) unleashing brutally hazy, hot, and humid dog days gave

weather weary woebegone wretched earthlings something to complain about and blame the Republicans

no doubt, aforementioned swath of land experienced temporary respite and relief against relentless horrid umpteenth heat wave,

which reprieve and blessing from the blustering, blistering,

and blasting fiery solar blast furnace

summoning gratitude regarding

temporary prized lull heaven sent

buzzfeeding, and nursing biosphere with good n plenti liquid precipitation offering sneak preview when at long last summer two thousand twenty four segues into September days awash with refreshing temperatures and bathing the terrestrial firmament with much welcoming rain. Soon empyrean découpage citadel

will betoken (bespeak) autumnal arrival

as chariot of fire emblazons telltale signature

one humble human doth bid summer adieu. Already an imperceptible merest trace hints of crisp cool mornings and evenings ushering fresh air French kissed yours truly tongue in cheek refreshing air wafts thru longish hair trademark characteristic property aging pencil neck geek attends brief bathroom charge coffee exotic brew jolted kidneys leak urine not kidding water closet doth reek.

Back after I did potty hod dee.

How grand when third season of two thousand and twenty four

visits upon us mortals

Montgomery county, Pennsylvania said geographic real estate sloughs (i.e. sheds) summer dog days

necessitating unshuttered windows

allowing, enabling and providing natural aeration

to circulate thru unit B44 cozy one bedroom apartment.

I will stave off clicking

the central air conditioning unnecessarily,

nor crank up british thermal units

(the amount of heat needed to raise

one pound of water at maximum density through one degree Fahrenheit,

equivalent to 1.055 × 103 joules)

until bone chilling cold arrives,

though hard to believe,

yet invariably come Jack Frost will make his debut

and like clockwork, yours truly will renege and surrender creature comfort, albeit climate controlled temptation similar when global warming quite evident predicated upon Farmers' Almanac prophetic prediction. Though ecology minded quick acclimation to unseasonable hot or cold temperatures

will find me (a contrarian) eating his words

adjusting thermostat dial by way of explanation to remove the chill no matter cranking up heat will invariably aggravate palmar hyperhidrosis

whereas turning on air conditioning

doth thwart excessive sweating of palms

during sweltering triple digit

Ah... remembrance of wood burning stove papa lit,

to dispense chill pervading childhood home

324 Level Road christened "Glen Elm"

within national (local registry)

when Leiper family initially occupied estate

at that time (think early twentieth century)

merely intended as summer getaway.

This time of year finds me

to reminisce and wax poetic

nostalgia more pronounced,

particularly as aspiring wordsmith

orbitz the sun seemingly with greater rapidity

twelve months cycling at light speed

accentuated when flora and fauna

exhibit metaphorical raiment

presaging fall fashion

linkedin with approaching senescence

prompting choleric, generic, and homeric garden variety Homo sapien

to rue his transience upon oblate spheroid.

Gentrification impossible mission

thus thy lovely bones will subsequently

become repurposed into ashes sprinkled

hither and yon to and fro

across elysium fields of happy hunting grounds.

[ai-for-software-testing]

Why Your Technology Business Needs AI-Driven Testing 

Are software glitches and slow testing processes slowing down your technology business? AI for software testing might be the solution you’ve been searching for. 

This cutting-edge approach leverages artificial intelligence (AI) to turbocharge your testing efforts. It's not just about automated testing; it's about transforming the way you ensure the quality of your products. 

In the tech world, quality assurance and testing are absolute imperatives. Guaranteeing seamless software operation across various platforms is essential. It’s the surest way to customer satisfaction and staying ahead of competitors. 

AI is already reshaping the tech industry. It's high time your business harnessed its transformative power too. With AI, you can streamline your operations, slash time-to-market, and boost product reliability. 

This blog explores the synergy between AI for software testing and quality engineering for technology. You’ll discover how these concepts can help your tech business thrive, delivering the quality and speed you need.  

Let's dive in and discover why embracing AI-driven testing is a must for your tech business. 

The challenges of manual and automated testing 

Traditional testing methods have long been the go-to for technology businesses.  

Manual testing refers to humans checking software for bugs and issues. This has advantages but manual testing is time-consuming. It’s also not suitable for continuous testing.  

Automated testing is efficient to set up and maintain. But it’s limited by predefined test scripts. As software changes, these scripts may become obsolete and require manual reprogramming. 

These challenges underscore the need for more efficient and effective testing solutions. AI-enhanced testing emerges as a powerful answer to these longstanding issues. 

Understanding AI-driven testing 

This sophisticated approach uses AI to streamline testing processes. It combines automation, machine learning (ML), and other AI technologies to revolutionize the way software quality is checked. 

AI enhances software testing by learning from past test cases, predicting potential issues, and executing tests at incredible speeds. It can also simulate real-world user interactions and adapt to different platforms. This ensures thorough testing.  

The key components of AI-empowered testing include:  

Test automation 

AI can automate the creation, execution, and maintenance of test cases. AI algorithms can identify test scenarios, generate test scripts, and execute tests across different platforms and configurations. 

Test data generation 

AI can assist in generating realistic and diverse test data, which is essential for comprehensive testing. It can create data that covers various scenarios and edge cases. 

Test prioritization 

AI can analyze code changes, historical data, and test results to prioritize test cases based on the likelihood of finding defects. This helps focus testing efforts on the most critical areas. 

Defect prediction 

AI-driven testing can predict potential defects or areas of high risk in the code. This allows testers to concentrate their efforts where they are most needed. 

Continuous testing 

AI enables continuous testing, where tests are executed automatically whenever code changes are made. This ensures rapid feedback to developers. 

Test maintenance 

AI can automatically update test scripts as the application evolves. This cuts the manual effort required for test script maintenance. 

Natural language processing 

AI can be used for understanding and testing natural language interfaces, such as chatbots or voice-activated systems. 

Benefits of AI-driven testing 

The benefits of AI-empowered testing are huge. They range from improved accuracy and fewer human errors to more consistent test execution. 

AI also results in faster testing cycles, which speeds up the time-to-market for your products. What used to take weeks or even months can now be achieved in a matter of hours or days. 

While implementing AI for software testing may require an initial investment, it often leads to cost savings in the long run. Eventually, you’ll spend less on manual testing interventions and experience fewer issues post-launch. 

What’s more, AI enhances test coverage. It can handle a wide range of scenarios, ensuring that your software functions in various environments. 

Real-world applications 

Many tech companies are already benefiting from AI testing. Facebook employs AI to test new features. And Microsoft uses it to enhance the quality of Windows updates. 

Case studies highlight the impact of testing through AI. Companies report a dramatic drop in the number of post-release bugs and faster product delivery times. 

AI-powered testing can also be tailored to specific industries. This ensures that your testing processes align with the unique requirements of your business. 

Overcoming testing challenges 

Despite its advantages, AI-powered testing does come with challenges. Data security and privacy concerns must be addressed to ensure the safe handling of sensitive information during testing. 

Your team may require new skills and resources to implement AI for testing. Integration with existing testing processes also needs to be managed. 

Implementing AI-driven testing in your business 

To introduce AI testing, start by assessing your current testing processes. Identify areas where AI can make the most impact. 

Choosing the right tools and technologies is crucial. Evaluate AI testing solutions that align with your business needs and integrate with your existing infrastructure. 

Training your team is vital. Ensure they have the necessary knowledge and skills to harness testing through AI. 

ROI of AI-driven testing 

Analyzing the return on investment (ROI) of AI-driven testing involves considering the long-term benefits and competitive advantage it can bring to your business. 

Calculate cost savings and efficiency gains over time. A reduction in manual testing efforts and faster time-to-market can translate into significant financial benefits. 

Risks and considerations 

Be aware of potential challenges in AI-driven testing, including the need for substantial data and resource investments. 

Manage expectations and understand the potential limitations of AI. It’s a powerful tool, but it's not a panacea for all testing challenges. 

Ensure ethical and responsible AI usage by adhering to best practices and regulations when handling user data. Ethical considerations should always be a priority in AI-driven testing. 

Conclusion 

Testing with AI is a game-changer for technology businesses. It enhances efficiency, reduces errors, and accelerates product delivery. As the tech giants have shown, the future of AI-powered testing is promising. It offers a competitive edge and boosts customer satisfaction. 

For technology businesses, now is the time to embrace AI-driven testing. The benefits of improved testing accuracy, faster time-to-market, and long-term cost savings are substantial. Challenges exist, such as data security and skill acquisition. But they are surmountable with careful planning and integration. 

By adopting AI for software testing, you can position your business as a leader in the dynamic tech landscape. Don't miss out on the potential to revolutionize your testing processes and provide top-quality products. Opt for a service provider who specializes in quality engineering for technology. They’ll help you embrace AI-powered testing and secure your place at the forefront of technological innovation. ��

[b2b-services]

Cloud adoption in India has come a long way. From trepidation around security to initial adoption confined to non-critical applications, we have covered a lot of ground in the past decade.

When we speak about cloud, one must bear in mind what kind of application we plan to host as there are typically three kinds. One which helps run the business, then there are those which manage certain aspects of business, and then there are those which support various non-critical functions.

Regarding the first kind, security, latency, and predictability become essential. So, while choosing the right service provider is necessary, the network fabric that delivers these infrastructure services is equally important.

The most common way of connecting to any cloud services is through an internet connection running on a secure network. But when the question comes to mission-critical applications, the connection's security, performance and reliability also need to be looked into. This is where cloud interconnect comes in, a physical connection between an enterprise core network with a cloud interconnect (typically a colocation facility). This is the surest way to receive secure and reliable connectivity for your most critical workloads.

Since most enterprises these days have a Hybrid IT model, exposure to cyber risks is high. Point-to-point connectivity is a more secure approach.

Also, in many industries, latency matters. Thanks to a direct pathway, the latency is reduced in a cloud interconnect.

The present and future of business are based on a hybrid IT environment, but as we have seen in various deployments, it is fraught with complexities. But direct connectivity might be a way enterprises can explore as the systems mature and the cloud becomes more integrated with our technology stack. know more...

[ear-worthy]

Three Words Used To Market Podcasts: Unfiltered, Opinionated, Controversial

When podcast networks want to market their newest interview podcast, they often use these three words: Unfiltered, Opinionated, Controversial. I've lost count of a celebrity that releases an interview podcast where the tagline is "Such and such will have unfiltered conversations with her / his guests."

Or a podcast host is marketed as opinionated and controversial.

Why are these three adjectives used to attract listeners to podcasts? Where has this marketing strategy come from?

This article will explore the origins of the marketability of the concepts of being Unfiltered, Opinionated, and Controversial.

Since podcasting is a relatively new medium, we must look to legacy media such as radio and TV.

Shock jocks, such as Don Imus and Howard Stern, began in the 1980s and gained massive popularity based on a simple yet effective strategy. They had no filter. They could say anything. People tuned in to see what they would say and if it would cross the line. Stern found the line and straddled it. Imus sadly went over the line and disappeared.

There are still morning zoo type radio shows, but their zaniness and unpredictability has become -- well -- predictable.

In today's news landscape, unfiltered, opinionated, and controversial are the three magic words that open the gates for politicians to bask in their tribal lands of socio-political, and too often racial, homogeneity.

Politicians crave media attention and the surest way to attract that attention: Be unfiltered, opinionated, and controversial. Therefore, we have been privy to the rants and ramblings of Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, and Jim Jordan, and a cast of supporting, equally reprehensible characters.

As one political pundit said: "It's the people in Congress who do the hard work of legislating without any fanfare that should be commended. If you don't know their name, they're probably doing a good job."

Moderation, thoughtfulness, introspection, constant reassessment are traits to be bred out of our politicians and media experts. For example, John Dickerson has been on the Slate Political Gabfest for 19 years with Emily Bazelon and David Plotz.

John Dickerson is also the anchor of CBS News Prime Time, CBS News Chief Political Analyst, Senior National Correspondent, and CBS SUNDAY MORNING Contributor. He recently published his third book, and second New York Times Best-Seller The Hardest Job in the World: The American Presidency.

As a political analyst, Dickerson's thermostat runs cool. He investigates before opining. He excels at seeing multiple points of view. He explains the most extreme actions and rhetoric with the sober clarity of a therapist.

Dickerson is not needlessly controversial, although his views can surprise you because of his expansive worldview. He is not opinionated, but he has myriad opinions that are driven by facts and deductive reasoning. He is not unfiltered, because Dickerson is not a Fox News host masquerading as a journalist. He analyzes because his goal is edification, not subordination of any knowledge that does not fit the tribe's mission statement.

Therefore, as consumers of media, we get sports TV and podcast hosts talking at jet-engine decibel levels and concocting any controversy to juice ratings. A baseball player went 0-4 during last night's game.

"Worst player ever. Such a disappointment. Not trying. Could be on drugs. Too old. Too dumb. Just plain twisted."

A star quarterback throws two interceptions during a game.

"He's lost it. Trade him while you can. He's hiding an injury. His girlfriend voted for Biden."

Sports podcasters have whined about the attention that WNBA rookie Caitlin Clark receives for weeks. It's a migratory flock, all settling in at the same waterhole. These sports TV hosts and podcasters use Clark's name and drag it around to boost their ratings, all the while reviling the subject of their rant.

Sports TV host and podcaster PatMcAfee recently called Caitlin Clark of the WNBA a white bitch. Did he mean it? I have no idea. Then he apologized. Did the misogynistic comment and the apology generate ratings for his podcast and show?

Skip Bayless and Stephen A. Smith have pre-written apologies for all the stupid shit they say that gets attention and boosts ratings. As a counterpoint, Slate's Hang Up And Listen is the best sports podcast there is. They achieve that high level of achievement without distraction or hogging the spotlight like a narcissist.

Hosts Joel Anderson, Stefan Fatsis, and Josh Levin excel as quieter, more perceptive versions of Stephen A. Smith and Skip Bayless.

What makes this podcast so remarkable is the show's instinct to make listeners think about the covered topic, instead of telling listeners what the hosts think and demanding that listeners then support the ideological line.

Greg Cosell, a frequent guest on the Ross Tucker Football podcast, is one of the most knowledgeable football journalists in the business. Unlike his father, who never met a controversy he couldn't bring to a boil, Greg Cosell avoids value judgments on football players and assesses only what's on the football game tape. Cosell is a frequent podcast guest because his expertise is in analysis, not off-the-cuff wild-eyed opinions of a football player's talents with no data to support his accusations.

There are now actually 14 podcasts called some version of Unfiltered Conversations. What does that mean? What's a filtered conversation? When the person interviewed actually gives some thought to their words and thoughts before just blurting them out like syntax vomit, and hope that the verbiage doesn't stain any shoes -- or hurt any feelings.

Does an unfiltered conversation mean that the host and guest have not prepared for the podcast interview?

How about being opinionated? Have you ever met someone -- usually a family member you only see at Thanksgiving -- who has an opinion on every facet of life, from what kind of fork should be used for shrimp cocktail to self-avowed expertise in guns, gender dysphoria or contraception? Is that person fun to be around? Why would I want a media version of that person invading my ears and eyes on a regular basis?

Finally, how do we define the word controversial? And why is being controversial so necessary for TV, radio, and podcast ratings? Is being controversial, saying things that aren't true but enticing to believe? Is being controversial to mean being at odds with any accepted belief? A kind of nihilism that asserts that there is no truth, just opinions.

As pop singer Miley Cyrus once said, "People like controversy because that what sells."

It may be that Oliver Wendell Holmes knew best about controversy when he said, "Controversy equalizes fools and wise men in the same way -- and the fools know it."

So people can have their unfiltered celebrities on podcasts saying what crazy shit they think will attract listeners. Or people can listen to hear that absolutely nutty opinion some sports podcasters has about an athlete? Truth is not a prerequisite here. Only attention-seeking like a guided missile. I'll pass on the podcaster who strains to be controversial as if they haven't ingested enough fiber. My advice: Eat the Shredded Wheat. Keep the controversy to yourself.

To me, the best podcasters who are ear worthy aim to educate, not infuriate. The best podcasters do not bath listeners in their own confirmation bias cloaked by angry words and hyperventilated rhetoric. The best podcasters --like John Dickerson -- upset conservatives and progressives because they reveal the contradictions in both political ideologies.

After all, people become wiser together through a healthy clash of viewpoints.

[distilinfo]

UnitedHealthcare Unlocks Major Cost Savings with Innovative Surest Plan

UnitedHealthcare's Surest plan, initially launched as Bind in 2016 and rebranded in 2022, is making significant strides in the healthcare insurance market by eliminating deductibles and offering upfront pricing. A comparative study by Aon showed that Surest has achieved cost savings of over $400 per member per year while improving utilization across various treatments, from migraine and mental health services to diabetes care. This innovative plan simplifies the healthcare experience for members through a user-friendly app and transparent pricing, enhancing overall satisfaction. Looking forward, Surest aims to further personalize benefits and introduce incentives to encourage cost-effective healthcare decisions. These efforts are part of UnitedHealthcare's broader strategy to make healthcare more affordable and predictable for its members. Discover more about the transformative impact of the Surest plan on DistilInfo's HealthPlan.

Read more: https://distilinfo.com/healthplan/unitedhealthcare-finds-cost-savings/

Discover the latest payers’ news updates with a single click. Follow DistilINFO HealthPlan and stay ahead with updates. Join our community today!