#Marketing Claims Analysis

[blaksheepcreative]

🔥 Ooohhhweee, this one might sting! 🐝 Are your bold marketing claims really hitting the mark, or are they just missing the bullseye? 🎯 We're unpacking the pitfalls of claiming to be the "Nation's #1" when it might not resonate with your local crowd. Dive into our latest piece where we reveal the true power of authentic and targeted marketing strategies. 🎩✨ Don't get caught in the overconfidence trap - read on to make sure your brand stands out for all the right reasons! #MarketingTips #SEOStrategy #LocalSEO #BrandGrowth 👉 https://blaksheepcreative.com/digital-marketing/overconfidence-in-marketing-claims/

[fatliberation]

they have a point though. you wouldn't need everyone to accommodate you if you just lost weight, but you're too lazy to stick to a healthy diet and exercise. it's that simple. I'd like to see you back up your claims, but you have no proof. you have got to stop lying to yourselves and face the facts

Must I go through this again? Fine. FINE. You guys are working my nerves today. You want to talk about facing the facts? Let's face the fucking facts.

In 2022, the US market cap of the weight loss industry was $75 billion [1, 3]. In 2021, the global market cap of the weight loss industry was estimated at $224.27 billion [2]. 

In 2020, the market shrunk by about 25%, but rebounded and then some since then [1, 3] By 2030, the global weight loss industry is expected to be valued at $405.4 billion [2]. If diets really worked, this industry would fall overnight. 

1. LaRosa, J. March 10, 2022. "U.S. Weight Loss Market Shrinks by 25% in 2020 with Pandemic, but Rebounds in 2021." Market Research Blog. 2. Staff. February 09, 2023. "[Latest] Global Weight Loss and Weight Management Market Size/Share Worth." Facts and Factors Research. 3. LaRosa, J. March 27, 2023. "U.S. Weight Loss Market Partially Recovers from the Pandemic." Market Research Blog.

Over 50 years of research conclusively demonstrates that virtually everyone who intentionally loses weight by manipulating their eating and exercise habits will regain the weight they lost within 3-5 years. And 75% will actually regain more weight than they lost [4].

4. Mann, T., Tomiyama, A.J., Westling, E., Lew, A.M., Samuels, B., Chatman, J. (2007). "Medicare’s Search For Effective Obesity Treatments: Diets Are Not The Answer." The American Psychologist, 62, 220-233. U.S. National Library of Medicine, Apr. 2007.

The annual odds of a fat person attaining a so-called “normal” weight and maintaining that for 5 years is approximately 1 in 1000 [5].

5. Fildes, A., Charlton, J., Rudisill, C., Littlejohns, P., Prevost, A.T., & Gulliford, M.C. (2015). “Probability of an Obese Person Attaining Normal Body Weight: Cohort Study Using Electronic Health Records.” American Journal of Public Health, July 16, 2015: e1–e6.

Doctors became so desperate that they resorted to amputating parts of the digestive tract (bariatric surgery) in the hopes that it might finally result in long-term weight-loss. Except that doesn’t work either. [6] And it turns out it causes death [7],  addiction [8], malnutrition [9], and suicide [7].

6. Magro, Daniéla Oliviera, et al. “Long-Term Weight Regain after Gastric Bypass: A 5-Year Prospective Study - Obesity Surgery.” SpringerLink, 8 Apr. 2008. 7. Omalu, Bennet I, et al. “Death Rates and Causes of Death After Bariatric Surgery for Pennsylvania Residents, 1995 to 2004.” Jama Network, 1 Oct. 2007.  8. King, Wendy C., et al. “Prevalence of Alcohol Use Disorders Before and After Bariatric Surgery.” Jama Network, 20 June 2012.  9. Gletsu-Miller, Nana, and Breanne N. Wright. “Mineral Malnutrition Following Bariatric Surgery.” Advances In Nutrition: An International Review Journal, Sept. 2013.

Evidence suggests that repeatedly losing and gaining weight is linked to cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes and altered immune function [10].

10. Tomiyama, A Janet, et al. “Long‐term Effects of Dieting: Is Weight Loss Related to Health?” Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6 July 2017.

Prescribed weight loss is the leading predictor of eating disorders [11].

11. Patton, GC, et al. “Onset of Adolescent Eating Disorders: Population Based Cohort Study over 3 Years.” BMJ (Clinical Research Ed.), 20 Mar. 1999.

The idea that “obesity” is unhealthy and can cause or exacerbate illnesses is a biased misrepresentation of the scientific literature that is informed more by bigotry than credible science [12]. 

12. Medvedyuk, Stella, et al. “Ideology, Obesity and the Social Determinants of Health: A Critical Analysis of the Obesity and Health Relationship” Taylor & Francis Online, 7 June 2017.

“Obesity” has no proven causative role in the onset of any chronic condition [13, 14] and its appearance may be a protective response to the onset of numerous chronic conditions generated from currently unknown causes [15, 16, 17, 18].

13. Kahn, BB, and JS Flier. “Obesity and Insulin Resistance.” The Journal of Clinical Investigation, Aug. 2000. 14. Cofield, Stacey S, et al. “Use of Causal Language in Observational Studies of Obesity and Nutrition.” Obesity Facts, 3 Dec. 2010.  15. Lavie, Carl J, et al. “Obesity and Cardiovascular Disease: Risk Factor, Paradox, and Impact of Weight Loss.” Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 26 May 2009.  16. Uretsky, Seth, et al. “Obesity Paradox in Patients with Hypertension and Coronary Artery Disease.” The American Journal of Medicine, Oct. 2007.  17. Mullen, John T, et al. “The Obesity Paradox: Body Mass Index and Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Nonbariatric General Surgery.” Annals of Surgery, July 2005. 18. Tseng, Chin-Hsiao. “Obesity Paradox: Differential Effects on Cancer and Noncancer Mortality in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus.” Atherosclerosis, Jan. 2013.

Fatness was associated with only 1/3 the associated deaths that previous research estimated and being “overweight” conferred no increased risk at all, and may even be a protective factor against all-causes mortality relative to lower weight categories [19].

19. Flegal, Katherine M. “The Obesity Wars and the Education of a Researcher: A Personal Account.” Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, 15 June 2021.

Studies have observed that about 30% of so-called “normal weight” people are “unhealthy” whereas about 50% of so-called “overweight” people are “healthy”. Thus, using the BMI as an indicator of health results in the misclassification of some 75 million people in the United States alone [20]. 

20. Rey-López, JP, et al. “The Prevalence of Metabolically Healthy Obesity: A Systematic Review and Critical Evaluation of the Definitions Used.” Obesity Reviews : An Official Journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity, 15 Oct. 2014.

While epidemiologists use BMI to calculate national obesity rates (nearly 35% for adults and 18% for kids), the distinctions can be arbitrary. In 1998, the National Institutes of Health lowered the overweight threshold from 27.8 to 25—branding roughly 29 million Americans as fat overnight—to match international guidelines. But critics noted that those guidelines were drafted in part by the International Obesity Task Force, whose two principal funders were companies making weight loss drugs [21].

21. Butler, Kiera. “Why BMI Is a Big Fat Scam.” Mother Jones, 25 Aug. 2014. 

Body size is largely determined by genetics [22].

22. Wardle, J. Carnell, C. Haworth, R. Plomin. “Evidence for a strong genetic influence on childhood adiposity despite the force of the obesogenic environment” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition Vol. 87, No. 2, Pages 398-404, February 2008.

Healthy lifestyle habits are associated with a significant decrease in mortality regardless of baseline body mass index [23].  

23. Matheson, Eric M, et al. “Healthy Lifestyle Habits and Mortality in Overweight and Obese Individuals.” Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine : JABFM, U.S. National Library of Medicine, 25 Feb. 2012.

Weight stigma itself is deadly. Research shows that weight-based discrimination increases risk of death by 60% [24].

24. Sutin, Angela R., et al. “Weight Discrimination and Risk of Mortality .” Association for Psychological Science, 25 Sept. 2015.

Fat stigma in the medical establishment [25] and society at large arguably [26] kills more fat people than fat does [27, 28, 29].

25. Puhl, Rebecca, and Kelly D. Bronwell. “Bias, Discrimination, and Obesity.” Obesity Research, 6 Sept. 2012. 26. Engber, Daniel. “Glutton Intolerance: What If a War on Obesity Only Makes the Problem Worse?” Slate, 5 Oct. 2009.  27. Teachman, B. A., Gapinski, K. D., Brownell, K. D., Rawlins, M., & Jeyaram, S. (2003). Demonstrations of implicit anti-fat bias: The impact of providing causal information and evoking empathy. Health Psychology, 22(1), 68–78. 28. Chastain, Ragen. “So My Doctor Tried to Kill Me.” Dances With Fat, 15 Dec. 2009. 29. Sutin, Angelina R, Yannick Stephan, and Antonio Terraciano. “Weight Discrimination and Risk of Mortality.” Psychological Science, 26 Nov. 2015.

There's my "proof." Where is yours?

[genericpuff]

All That Glitters is Not Feminism - An Analysis of LO's Brand of "Feminism" and What Remains of its Fanbase (The Twist)

Alright y'all, I've been waiting a hot minute to talk about this because I wanted to see how it fully panned out before saying anything about it. And it's not even specifically about LO, but I do think it's very adjacent to it in a way that I'm sure you'll be shocked to hear. Much of it speaks to how we prop up white writers even at the expense of POC.

This is 'the twist' attached to my first post that I made just a couple hours ago that concerns an entirely other topic but I feel ties into this subject very well.

If you haven't heard, there's this author who recently fucked around in the Del Rey publishing scene.

Her name is Cait Corrain.

In the original tweet calling this person out, names were not dropped, but it was made very clear that what Cait did was unacceptable behavior.

You can read the entire thread that started it all from Xiran here:

There's also a GREAT recap thread from one of the affected authors, Bethany Baptiste:

I want to make it clear that Cait Corrain isn't just a debut author.

Cait Corrain is - or now, was (foreshadowing is a literary device that-) - a debut author who had an agent, a publishing deal with Del Rey (an imprint of Random House which is a MAJOR publisher) and even an upcoming Illumicrate deal - meaning, her book was going to be packaged in a monthly loot crate subscription shipped directly to people's doors, quite possibly one of the best marketing deals a debut author could ever get, usually unheard of in this industry. All the pre-reviews were strong and positive.

Cait's book was literally set up for success. All she had to do was sit back, relax, and watch the fruits of her labors roll in. She had written the book. It was ready for release. The hard part was technically over.

But I guess the racism brainrot got to her because as it turns out, since April - for EIGHT MONTHS - she's been making alternate accounts on GoodReads to review bomb the indie and debut works of her friends and peers, most of whom were POC and did not have the same opportunities set up for them as she did. There are loads of receipts to back this up that you can find in those above threads ^^^

To say that this is appalling is an understatement. This was an intentional and deliberate act of racism by a white queer writer who claimed to be "jealous" - of what, I can't imagine - so much so that she deliberately sabotaged her peers, people who had supported her and her book.

And then when she got caught? She doubled down on it and claimed it was a "friend", also an alternate account she made up.

The exchange between her and this made-up person is actually the funniest shit out of this entire thing, it's so poorly written and as soon as people noticed the time stamps were out of order, that was when it truly cemented her newfound clown status.

"oooooh he's standing right behind me, isn't he?" energy right here LMAO

yes keep expositing cait, that's really selling the "this is a genuine conversation that really happened with a real person" bit 🤡

Anyways, it became abundantly clear that Cait was just going to continue to dig her heels in over something she caused.

This has been a hot topic in the UnpopularLO Discord, not just because of how crazy of a situation it is that we had to talk about it - and we have people within the community who work in the literature and media sector - but because we noticed one very telling thing in the list of series that she had review bombed in her very own personal act of wrath.

You see, Cait made one fundamental mistake that led to her undoing - she didn't just review bomb the works of her peers, she positively reviewed her own book and others.

What's her book about though?

It's an Ariadne x Dionysus retelling set in space.

It's literally another "modern retelling" of Greek myth.

And wouldn't you know it, guess who else created a modern retelling of Greek myth that she included in her positive review raiding while she was sabotaging the work of her actual peers?

Now, I think it goes without saying that what I'm about to say should be taken with MOUNTAINS of salt, I'm sure a lot of you are reading the headline and going, "Ugh, really? You're gonna make this about LO? Could you give it a rest already???"

I need you to understand, with the current state of Rachel's fanbase and 'modern' Greek myth literature as a whole, at this point Lore Olympus - and the works that are literally inspired by it such as A Touch of Darkness - has basically become the shopping cart litmus test of basic decency. It's like when someone says they like Harry Potter - you can't take it automatically at good faith anymore, because there isn't a whole lot separating someone who simply liked Harry Potter as a kid and still rewatches the movies from time to time from someone who fully supports the politics and agenda of J.K. Rowling. No, not everyone who still watches the movies or reads the books fondly is a TERF by default, but it's justifiably a reason for suspicion when the consequences are often too dire to risk.

There's this thing that's been happening in the LO fanbase that I frankly saw coming, but has really recently started to hit its peak. It's what I call the "Kanye Effect", where the comic has become so absurd and backwards in its misogyny and white feminism that the only people who seem to be left supporting LO are the people who are legitimate white feminists and misogynists - because all the normal level-headed people fell off the comic ages ago (or transitioned into the critical side of the community).

I mentioned it in my last post, but it bears repeating - Rachel's fanbase has literally been shipping Hera, a victim of abuse, with her abuser, Kronos. I'm really hoping a lot of them realize how fucked up that is now that Hera herself has called it what it is - abuse - within the comic, but I also can't count on the LO fanbase picking up on that or even noticing it with how quickly people swipe through it each week, it's very apparent at this point that most of LO's readers don't know how to chew their food and don't pay attention when Persephone and Hades aren't onscreen.

But I'm digressing. Or am I? We're talking about Crown of Starlight after all. The debut Dionysus x Ariadne sci-fi/fantasy romance that was quite literally advertised using Lore Olympus as its baseline-

This. This is what the ongoing cultural erasure and white feminist uwu-fication of Greek myth is doing to the literary zeitgeist surrounding Greek myth as a whole. This is why we criticize Lore Olympus and works like it that are created by disingenuous people who only seek to use the assets of Greek myth material as a way to shoot themselves up into fame and stardom. This is why we demand better standards in the literature and webcomic industry, so that people like Rachel and Cait can't use their privileges to quite literally erase the source material that they used to make themselves famous in the first place.

If anything, Cait's actions didn't just affect the people she negatively review bombed, or the people she was affiliated with, but also the people she positively reviewed. While I don't support what Rachel creates, she wasn't the only one who Cait went out of her way to review positively from her alt accounts, there were many others as evident in the Google Doc - but all this really does is tarnish the legitimacy of these books and their ratings by artificially jacking up their numbers that are advertised to others.

Making Greek myth fanfiction or fun creative retellings was never the problem, but it's now being sabotaged alongside so many other genres and mediums by toxic white individuals who can't even keep themselves from committing hate crimes, let alone create something purely for entertainment that's transparent in its illegitimacy, lest it destroy the illusion that these people are qualified to speak over those whose voices are being stifled, often by these very same people. Many of these writers get caught and are still allowed to continue what they're doing - that was certainly what we feared with Cait.

Until today.

It was revealed today that Cait's book will no longer be featured in the Illumicrate May 2024 box.

Del Rey has dropped Crown of Starlight from their publishing schedule.

Daphne Press will be hopefully following suit.

And, most telling of all, Cait's own agent has severed ties with her.

For anyone not familiar with the inner workings of the publishing industry, Cait has essentially been blacklisted. Without an agent or a publishing house, she'll have to entirely rely on her own resources through self-publishing. Unless she manages to sneak her way back in under an alias (which I wouldn't put it past her to try) she no longer has access to the mainstream publishing industry that was already guaranteed for her before she let her 'jealousy' get the better of her.

Her career was already made for her. She had a red carpet laid out for her debut. Her book was getting good pre-reviews and she had quite literally nothing keeping her from her success. The best thing she could have done was nothing. Somewhere in her head, she made up a threat that didn't exist, and sealed her fate in acting on it, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think in these situations such as with Cait Corrain, Rachel Smythe, and - also recently and relevant - James Somerton, we need to become increasingly aware of how white voices are still overpowering POC voices, not just in their actions, but in the opportunities they're given over others which they then use to further stifle the voices of those they feel "threatened" by or feel entitled to speak over. While neither James nor Rachel have used sock puppet accounts to "take out the competition" (at least as far as we know lmao) James did quite literally steal the words and voices of queer writers who were deserving of their time in the spotlight, and Rachel's work is being quoted as "rewriting Greek myth" as if its blatant gentrification and appropriation should be marketed as some sort of positive.

It's all too common for these deeply-rooted prejudices to rear their ugly heads and for the people who carry them to act out in this way while justifying it as "jealousy" or "a mistake". This isn't jealousy. This isn't a mistake. This isn't someone "starting drama". This is genuine, targeted hate, with the intention of snuffing out the voices of others who should be empowered, not silenced.

All that time and effort, and for what? Racism and petty jealousy? It just goes to show, it doesn't matter how many opportunities you're given, how high up on the ladder you already are - it won't fix the deeply-rooted insecurity and racial pettiness that spurs people on to do such horrible things.

I've spent enough of my time and words today talking about Cait, and James, and Rachel. So to end this off, I want to join in with all the others who have highlighted the books that were review-bombed by Cait, and help in uplifting them so they can have successful debuts. I'll be pre-ordering a few of them, so I'll be happy to make dedicated posts for them in the future after they release. Please consider purchasing them for yourself if you want some new reading material <3

The Poisons We Drink by Bethany Baptiste:

So Let Them Burn by Kamilah Cole:

To Gaze Upon Wicked Gods by Molly X Chang:

Mistress of Lies by K.M. Enright

Voyage of the Damned by Frances White:

(I'm sure there are plenty others so if I missed any here, please let me know so I can add them here and check out their books!)

If there's any silver lining to this, I hope that it makes people aware of the media they consume and who it's being created by. I hope it makes people more willing to seek out the books that aren't getting the same opportunities as Cait Corrain and Rachel Smythe. I hope it's a wake-up call to the industry that matters like this need to be taken seriously and that POC writers are still being silenced under their own noses. And most of all, I hope it's a reminder that we shouldn't even need at this point that this behavior is not okay, no matter what level a person climbs to - that just because someone is part of one minority doesn't mean they're not capable of sabotaging another. It sucks that that has to be said, it sucks that despite these groups being so intersectional there are still people within them who submit to their deeply-rooted insecurities and find ways to feel threatened that they use to justify hateful behavior.

Having a platform is a privilege. It should never be weaponized against your own peers or those who you simply feel "threatened" by for no reason beyond your own imposter syndrome or doubts or internal struggles. Because as much as you may feel like you've earned where you are, that never gives you the right to weaponize your opportunities against others who were never given those same opportunities in the first place. "Feminism" is not using your power to crush "other women". "Progressiveness" is not exclusive to the progress that only benefits you.

I wish only the best to those who were affected by the actions of Cait Corrain. You deserve to be heard and seen and appreciated for the work you do and the abuse you've had to tolerate. I look forward to your debuts in 2024 <3

[probablyasocialecologist]

Big tech has made some big claims about greenhouse gas emissions in recent years. But as the rise of artificial intelligence creates ever bigger energy demands, it’s getting hard for the industry to hide the true costs of the data centers powering the tech revolution. According to a Guardian analysis, from 2020 to 2022 the real emissions from the “in-house” or company-owned data centers of Google, Microsoft, Meta and Apple are likely about 662% – or 7.62 times – higher than officially reported.

[...]

Even though big tech hides these emissions, they are due to keep rising. Data centers’ electricity demand is projected to double by 2030 due to the additional load that artificial intelligence poses, according to the Electric Power Research Institute. Google and Microsoft both blamed AI for their recent upticks in market-based emissions.

[...]

Whether today’s power grids can withstand the growing energy demands of AI is uncertain. One industry leader – Marc Ganzi, the CEO of DigitalBridge, a private equity firm that owns two of the world’s largest third-party data center operators – has gone as far as to say that the data center sector may run out of power within the next two years.

15 September 2024

[rjzimmerman]

Excerpt from this story from the New York Times:

At first glance, Dave Langston’s predicament seems similar to headaches facing homeowners in coastal states vulnerable to catastrophic hurricanes: As disasters have become more frequent and severe, his insurance company has been losing money. Then, it canceled his coverage and left the state.

But Mr. Langston lives in Iowa.

Relatively consistent weather once made Iowa a good bet for insurance companies. But now, as a warming planet makes events like hail and wind storms worse, insurers are fleeing.

Mr. Langston spent months trying to find another company to insure the townhouses, on a quiet cul-de-sac at the edge of Cedar Rapids, that belong to members of his homeowners association. Without coverage, “if we were to have damage that hit all 17 units, we’re looking at bankruptcy for all of us,” he said.

The insurance turmoil caused by climate change — which had been concentrated in Florida, California and Louisiana — is fast becoming a contagion, spreading to states like Iowa, Arkansas, Ohio, Utah and Washington. Even in the Northeast, where homeowners insurance was still generally profitable last year, the trends are worsening.

In 2023, insurers lost money on homeowners coverage in 18 states, more than a third of the country, according to a New York Times analysis of newly available financial data. That’s up from 12 states five years ago, and eight states in 2013. The result is that insurance companies are raising premiums by as much as 50 percent or more, cutting back on coverage or leaving entire states altogether. Nationally, over the last decade, insurers paid out more in claims than they received in premiums, according to the ratings firm Moody’s, and those losses are increasing.

The growing tumult is affecting people whose homes have never been damaged and who have dutifully paid their premiums, year after year. Cancellation notices have left them scrambling to find coverage to protect what is often their single biggest investment. As a last resort, many are ending up in high-risk insurance pools created by states that are backed by the public and offer less coverage than standard policies. By and large, state regulators lack strategies to restore stability to the market.

Insurers are still turning a profit from other lines of business, like commercial and life insurance policies. But many are dropping homeowners coverage because of losses.

Tracking the shifting insurance market is complicated by the fact it is not regulated by the federal government; attempts by the Treasury Department to simply gather data have been rebuffed by some state regulators. 

The turmoil in insurance markets is a flashing red light for an American economy that is built on real property. Without insurance, banks won’t issue a mortgage; without a mortgage, most people can’t buy a home. With fewer buyers, real estate values are likely to decline, along with property tax revenues, leaving communities with less money for schools, police and other basic services.

And without sufficient insurance, people struggle to rebuild after disasters. Last year, storms, wildfires and other disasters pushed 2.5 million American adults out of their homes, according to census data, including at least 830,000 people who were displaced for six months or longer.

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

Salaried employees who work long hours for low pay aren’t finding much sympathy among Republicans on Capitol Hill.

GOP lawmakers filed a resolution in Congress on Wednesday that would block the Labor Department from extending overtime protections to millions of salaried workers, a key workplace reform pursued by President Joe Biden.

Under federal law, only certain workers have a right to time-and-a-half pay when they work more than 40 hours in a week. Currently, salaried workers must earn less than $35,568 per year to be automatically entitled to the overtime pay.

A new rule from the Labor Department, finalized in April, would raise that salary threshold to $58,656 per year, bringing an estimated 4 million additional workers under the law’s protection. Employers would then have to pay those workers a premium when they work additional hours, whereas now they don’t have to pay them anything at all for that time.

But the GOP lawmakers have filed what’s known as a “resolution of disapproval” under the Congressional Review Act, which, if passed and signed into law, would nullify the reform.

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) sponsored the resolution in the GOP-controlled House. Forty Republican colleagues have joined him as co-sponsors as of Friday. No Democrats have signed on to the legislation.

GOP Sen. Mike Braun (Ind.) is leading the companion legislation in the Senate, where Democrats hold a threadbare majority.

Republicans have used the Congressional Review Act to kill progressive reforms before, most notably at the end of Barack Obama’s presidency.

This particular effort has slim chances of succeeding, since the legislation would face a Biden veto threat if it managed to pass both chambers. And regardless of the maneuvers in Washington, Biden’s overtime reforms face the possibility of being blocked in federal court. But the resolution still helps show where both parties stand on a key economic issue — worker pay — in an election year.

Business groups have come out strongly against Biden’s overtime rule and have opposed similar reforms for years, claiming they would force employers to cut jobs. But giving more employees overtime protections is popular among voters, much like the idea of raising the minimum wage.

The Labor Department estimates the reform would transfer $1.5 billion a year from employers to employees in the form of higher wages. The benefits would go disproportionately to workers who are women and people of color, according to an analysis from the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank.

But Walberg called the overtime changes “burdensome” in a statement and claimed it would lead to inflation.

“Small businesses, nonprofits, and colleges across America will now be looking at bottom lines, and then make the tough decisions to lay off valuable staff or force salaried workers into hourly positions,” he said.

Braun argued that overtime decisions should be left to the bosses. “If the free market sets the price of labor, opportunity and prosperity are the result,” he said.

Overtime protections in the U.S. stretch back to the Great Depression, when the right to time-and-a-half pay was first enshrined in law. The idea was to prevent employers from overworking their employees, and to spread more work around during a time of high unemployment. If a company would have to pay a premium to work someone overtime, the thinking went, then the employer might choose to hire another worker to cover the additional hours.

But the law has gone long stretches without being updated, and so fewer employees as a share of the broader workforce now enjoy overtime rights compared with decades ago.

The Labor Department said when it announced the proposed reforms that it was trying to rectify “outdated and out-of-sync rules” that leave many low-paid salaried employees — retail store managers in particular — working lots of extra hours with nothing to show for it.

[carriesthewind]

Yeah so anyway, I'm making my response to this fucking garbage its own separate post in case people want to reblog it without having to reblog a scare-mongering lie.

This video pisses me the fuck off whenever I see it, and today I'm not in the mood to just scroll past.

Wow! Am I being lead to panic by scaremongering algorithm fodder completely unsupported by real evidence?! test:

The reason you think something exists is just what you're being told by a nefarious *them*, there is actually a conspiracy behind it!

I, an ordinary person with no expertise who critically examines the world around me, have uncovered this conspiracy.

"That's what they're telling you." (put the emphasis wherever appropriate for the conspiracy of your choice - in this case, it's on *telling*)

This new tech thing is actually a bad idea and the old school method was better - which clearly proves there must be a secret conspiracy, because why allow the possibility of incompetence and investor tech-hype when you can instead assume a highly-competent evil conspiracy?

I will now tell you my conspiracy theory while scrolling rapidly through a document without pausing or allowing you to actually read any of it. This allows me to look like I have proven my claims while doing nothing of the sort. Because do you really think someone could do that? Quickly flash a document on screen and just lie about what it says?

But Owl! This is real! A user upthread found the patent and it *does* prove it!

Yeah. I read the linked patent. Did you?

Let's quote the "real purpose" hidden in the patent, as claimed out in the video:

"The real purpose of these screens is to use the little camera at the top right here to scan your face and use AI facial expression analysis to judge whether or not you like the packaging designs of the product you're looking for."

This is complete made up horseshit.

First, let's look where the reblogger directs us, to column #4 on page 17:

"Preferably, each retail product container further comprises customer-detecting hardware, such as one or more proximity sensors (such as heat maps) , cameras, facial sensors or scanners, and eye-sensors (i.e., iris-tracking sensors). Assuming cameras are employed, preferably cameras are mounted on doors of the retail product containers. Preferably, the cameras have a depth of field of view of twenty feet or more, and have a range of field of view of 170 degrees with preferably 150 degree of facial recognition ability. Preferably, software is employed in association with the cameras to monitor shopper interactions, serve up relevant advertisement content on the displays, and track advertisement engagement in - store." (emphasis added and references to figures removed for readability)

That is the extent of the "nonconsensual data collection."

Now, to be fair, there is some stuff on page 18 and 19 which kinda-sorta-maybe has at least some relation to the claim in the video:

"Preferably, the controller/data collector is configured such that as a shopper stands or lingers in front of a given retail product container, the display associated with the retail product container changes yet again. At this point, preferably the controller/data collector has been able to use the customer-detecting hardware to effectively learn more about that particular customer, such as gender, age, mood, etc. The controller / data collector is configured to take what has been detected about the customer to determine which advertisement and other information to present to that particular customer on the display associated with the retail product container in front of which the customer is standing. By tracking shopper data in parallel with which advertising content is being served on all displays within the viewing range of the shopper, the retailer and the brands are better served, providing new analytics. As such, the system provides advertising, influence opportunities at the moment of purchasing decision, optimizing marketing spend and generating new revenue streams....

"Additionally, preferably all inputs collected by the IOT devices will be analyzed locally as well as remotely (via cloud) to provide the feedback inputs for the system to push more relevant/targeted content, tailored for the consumer. The analytics are preferably conducted anonymously, images captured by cameras are preferably processed to collect statistics on consumer demographic characteristics: (such as age and gender). This data is preferably subsequently analyzed for additional statistics for the retailers that are valuable for in-store merchandise layout design and smart merchandizing, including the ability to track the shoppers “traffic” areas, known as “heat maps”, areas were [sic] customers would concentrate more and spend more time exploring, etc." (emphasis added and references to figures removed for readability) (And note the repeated emphasis on preferably - they don't have a patent to do any of this.)

Which, like, not great! I fucking hate the idea of shit like this! But there is literally nothing here about monitoring your expressions to sell the data about how you react to packaging!

This isn't a nefarious plan hidden in the patent. It's tech bros adding on totally sick ideas about how they can sell this shit to walgreens. (Because to be clear, I'm sure walgreens's corporate office would love to collect and sell this kind of information. But just because they would, doesn't mean they can or are. And this patent sure as hell doesn't prove it.)

Because let me be clear: the image capture of consumers is so irrelevant to the product that it literally isn't even included in the claims section of the patent.

Because the patent is quite explicit and detailed about the idea they are selling big retails stores on - this is a better, new, innovative, tech-driven way to "provide an innovative advertising solution"! (The words "AI," "intelligent," and "machine learning" are deployed liberally, but in the same way that "blockchain" was a few years ago. It's advertising tech hype.)

I want to make it clear - the OP in the video is straight up lying to you. Whether for fun or profit or just attention, I don't know and I don't care. If you shared this, you probably should have know better, but everyone makes mistakes. OP, on the other hand, is just a fucking liar.

But Owl! What about "the senators looking into this"?

I don't know how to tell you this, but thing linked about is a press release by a politician's office. That doesn't mean it's not true, but it's not evidence on it's own. Like, the letter linked in the link included links to sources, but is not itself evidence (ooh, layers of links to actually get to a source, my favorite)(actually my computer wouldn't even goddam open the links to the source, I had to independently search for it).

Anyway, the letter to Kroger linked in the press release by the senators contains a single sentence and a single link relevant to the claim here (linked for your convenience because it sure as hell wasn't for mine). Unfortunately, this article is itself based on a goddam press release (That isn't linked! Again, you're welcome.)

And when we finally get to the underlying fucking source. "In addition to transforming the customer experience and enhancing productivity for associates, the EDGE Shelf will enable Kroger to generate new revenue by selling digital advertising space to consumer packaged goods (CPGs) brands. Using video analytics, personalized offers and advertisements can be presented based on customer demographics." So it's purporting to something *kind of* like the claim in the video, but an entirely different format completely unrelated to the thing the video is scaremongering about.

Now Kroger did actually start using the advertising screens in 2023. And you can believe what you want about the data privacy claims and the claims about not using video, just sensors (which remember is entirely consistent with the patent). But remember: being skeptical of a company's claims is fine and good! It does not mean you have proven they are lying, and it especially does not prove you have claimed they are doing something extremely specific! And most of the articles, and the letter from the senators, are (much more reasonably) concerned about so-called "dynamic" or surge pricing. (Which is not related to the screens.)

Like goddamn. Aren't there enough real problems with surveillance and price-gorging to be concerned about without having to make up fake ones? Hell, why can't we at least be concerned with the real problems with those dumb screens, which is that the a) make shopping harder and b) catch fire?

[aadamkempfitness]

HeroFX Review: A Comprehensive Look at the Alleged Forex Scam

In the vast and often volatile world of forex trading, the presence of unscrupulous brokers is a constant threat to both novice and seasoned traders. HeroFX, a broker that has recently come under scrutiny, is the subject of many discussions and concerns. This review delves into the various aspects of HeroFX to determine whether it is a legitimate broker or a potential scam.

Background and Overview

HeroFX claims to offer a comprehensive trading platform with a wide range of assets, including forex, commodities, indices, and cryptocurrencies. Promising competitive spreads, high leverage, and a user-friendly interface, HeroFX aims to attract traders looking for a reliable trading experience.

Regulation and Licensing

One of the primary red flags for any forex broker is the lack of proper regulation and licensing. HeroFX is reportedly not registered with any reputable financial regulatory authority. This absence of regulation means that traders are not protected by any governing body, increasing the risk of fraudulent activities and loss of funds.

Trading Platform and Tools

HeroFX offers its own proprietary trading platform, which is marketed as intuitive and feature-rich. While the platform appears to be functional, there have been numerous complaints about its reliability and execution speed. Some users have reported significant delays in order execution, leading to potential losses.

The broker also provides various tools and resources for traders, such as educational materials, market analysis, and trading signals. However, the quality and accuracy of these resources are questionable, with many users alleging that the information provided is often outdated or misleading.

Customer Support

Effective customer support is crucial for any forex broker, especially when dealing with complex financial transactions. HeroFX has received mixed reviews in this area. While some traders have reported satisfactory interactions with the support team, many others have experienced long wait times, unhelpful responses, and unresolved issues. This inconsistency in customer service further undermines the broker's credibility.

Withdrawal and Deposit Issues

One of the most significant concerns surrounding HeroFX is the difficulty many traders face when trying to withdraw their funds. Numerous complaints highlight delayed withdrawals, with some users claiming they never received their money. This pattern of behavior is often indicative of a scam broker, as legitimate brokers prioritize transparent and efficient fund transfers.

Additionally, the deposit process has also raised suspicions. HeroFX allegedly encourages large initial deposits and offers enticing bonuses that come with restrictive terms and conditions, making it challenging for traders to access their funds.

User Reviews and Complaints

A cursory glance at various online forums and review sites reveals a plethora of negative feedback from traders who have used HeroFX. Common grievances include:

Unresponsive or hostile customer service.

Manipulated trading conditions leading to unexpected losses.

Inability to withdraw funds.

Suspiciously positive reviews that appear fabricated.

These recurring themes paint a concerning picture of HeroFX and suggest a pattern of unethical practices.

Conclusion

In conclusion, while HeroFX presents itself as a reputable forex broker with attractive features, the overwhelming evidence points to the contrary. The lack of regulation, persistent withdrawal issues, and numerous negative user reviews all indicate that HeroFX may not be a trustworthy broker. Traders are advised to exercise extreme caution and conduct thorough research before engaging with this broker. In the unpredictable world of forex trading, it is always better to err on the side of caution and choose a broker with a proven track record of reliability and transparency.

For more check out this article: Herofx-review

[my-mt-heart]

Day 2 of "what the hell is going on with TBOC's promo," which is kind of a rhetorical question because I'm pretty sure we're witnessing a duel between two opposing marketing strategies again. I wish AMC would just put their foot down already and tell the dudes trying to ruin everything for Melissa and the fans to sit in the corner and stfu because the whiplash is not serving anyone, especially not two weeks before the premiere. Let's look at these bios...

Carol’s bio really does capture the true nature of what Daryl means to her and it gives her a strong emotional drive for her journey in S2. I think it also could've touched on her dealing with the trauma of losing Sophia all those years ago to round out her arc, although I'd argue that even that isn't separate from finding Daryl seeing as though that loss "ignited" their "unbreakable bond" in the first place. In any case, I like Carol's bio a lot and I have no doubt Melissa's performances throughout the season will bring it to life. Whether or not Zabel's writing can live up to it is a post for another day (Notice that the word "friend" did not come up once? That's how you know Zabel didn't get final approval on this one). Here's the thing about soulmates, though. If one feels that deeply connected, the other should too. If one of their stories gets damaged, the other's does too and that's what's bothering me right now. We should see their soulmatism reflected in Daryl's story as well, but we don't and without that mirroring, both his and Carol's journeys just feel sad.

Long before the promo circuit for TBOC started, I was worried that we wouldn't get to see Daryl fighting to get home to Carol (specifically), catch glimpses of him missing/thinking about her (specifically), or feel that spiritual connection that Carol does and this bio does absolutely nothing to alleviate my worries. This makes it sound like Daryl is going to be solely focused on whatever is going on in France until Carol arrives and even then, I worry about how he'll interact with her (thanks again for your unthoughtful analysis on that, Zabel). Similar to how Daryl has been taken hostage by the French characters, albeit through gaslighting, it feels like he has also been taken hostage by Zabel, Nicotero, and other men in charge who desperately want to use him as a stand-in for the generic, emotionally unavailable action hero that male viewers are supposed to identify with and/or aspire to. They won't let him be the character many of us were drawn to in the flagship show: the unconventional hero who's loyal to his family and falls in love "forever" with one woman (Carol). Like I said yesterday, "loyal" Daryl is the only Daryl I recognize and the only Daryl I want to watch, so it needs to be explicitly clear where Daryl's heart lies. We need to see that Carol is his first and only choice and we also need to see that Daryl has no romantic interest in Isabelle. That's the other problem...

Without Daryl's and Carol's bios mirroring each other as they should, Carol and Isabelle get framed as opponents in a quest for Daryl's heart, which is completely unnecessary, gross, and straight out of the "book of TV tricks" Zabel claims not to use. Daryl and Carol have 11 seasons of chemistry to capitalize on. Caryl's romance is the only one that's been earned, the only one I'm invested in, and the only one that needs payoff. Clemence is an extremely talented actress whose portrayal of a nun could've added something really fresh to the story, but having her catch "feelings" for Daryl after knowing him only a few months and question her long-standing faith of over a decade not only paints her as a weak woman whose weak principles are no match for a man's charm(?), but also glosses over the string of lies and emotionally manipulative plays she made against Daryl in S1. Isabelle's character has become nothing more than Zabel's and Nicotero's seriously problematic projections of what defines a woman, and I don't want it. It's an insult to Clemence, to Caryl's bond, to Daryl's history of childhood abuse, and to fans who have also suffered through CA or DV. So believe it or not, retconning her as a "former" nun all of a sudden does absolutely nothing to make this forced romance less abhorrent, AMC.

If the last couple of days have proved anything, it's that Daryl's and Carol's show needs a female showrunner who understands how to write not only complex female characters like Carol (and like Isabelle could have been), but complex male characters who don’t fit the dudebros’ definition of what makes him masculine or heroic. That's what Caryl, Melissa, and the fans deserve. They deserve a successful show and promo that gets everyone excited instead of confused and anxious. I enjoyed the clip of McReedus discussing the scene where Carol flirts with Daryl on top of the bus in S3, I liked hearing them confirm that Daryl's reaction was due to trauma and not lack of desire. I wish AMC would let them do the heavy lifting instead of trying to placate three EPs who keep self-sabotaging (seriously, you don't need all of them hogging the mic and spewing nonsense at Palyfest/NYCC). I don't appreciate being given consolation prizes (today's video, Carol's bio, yesterday's poster) after being kicked in the teeth. It says a lot about what I can expect from the season, which isn't very encouraging. It just means AMC is still trying to make everyone happy and will end up making no one happy and potentially ruining two iconic characters in the process.

[notyouraryang0dd3ss]

One thing that I personally find super frustrating about Taylor Swift is the way she plays into the myth of the "lone genius" artist. Without collaboration, nothing gets done; or, if it does, it's typically of low or inconsistent quality. And this is true in pretty much ANY field or discipline you can think of: scientific research, advocacy work, etc. The fact that Taylor considers herself above that and persists in selling the myth of her "lone genius" to fans honestly feels malevolent and arrogant to me.

It's truly ridiculous, at the end of the day, that people call her a "poet" and "genius songwriter" for doing everything on her own. I think it really showcases how little she understands when it comes to poetry as an art form. Most legendary writers and poets have multiple people look over their work and go through many stages of the editing process. One of the purposes of art is to communicate, and it's honestly hard to tell sometimes if what you've written has meaning and communicates well outside of your own brain. Peer review is ESSENTIAL for writers.

I think it's also very telling that she considers herself a legendary poet and actively plays into that mythology by circulating the fact that she's distantly related to Emily Dickinson. As someone who has loved and studied literature for many years, I can honestly say that Taylor Swift's closest comparative when it comes to writing is Rupi Kaur. Pinterest poetry, and nothing more. And she has the arrogance to compare herself to one of the most important poets in American literary canon!

I'm reminded of something I heard Hozier say a little while back (I'm forgetting now which interview) about people praising his lyricism as poetry. He essentially called those claims an insult to poetry, stating that there are structural rules in music (rhyme scheme, beat, etc.) that he adheres to that poets don't have to, and that poets can be much more experimental and revolutionary in form (at least when it comes to the written word vs. the sung word). Only someone who genuinely loves poetry would say something like this; plus, it shows that he thinks about the different impacts that form can have on art the messages it communicates. And this, coming from one of the best singer/songwriters currently working!

TS and Hozier aren't writing in the same genre, but I do think it's interesting to compare them as artists in their respective approaches to lyricism. When it comes to Taylor, I think she cares more about the aesthetic of poetry as an art form than the actual art itself. Her writing doesn't actively interact with the literary canon that inspired it, like Hozier's does (or other great lyricists, like Kendrick/Florence/Mitski/Elton). Her writing feels very hollow and devoid of meaning to me.

i just want to say your ask and analysis was so well written 😭 thank you for sending this in!

Completely agree that Swift's solo songwriting genius is a myth. Only 2/16 songs from TTPD were solely credited to her...which means 12.5% of the album is solely her own writing. That is not a songwriting genius. That's just a songwriter. She already knows her fans are completely sold and convinced on her songwriting genius so of course she would drag out her ancestry.com results and up-play her relation to Emily Dickinson to help sell the aesthetic of the album. Everything for her is another marketing strategy. She has no respect for poetry, let alone writing as a craft itself. If you view her behavior through the lens of another writer, it's absolutely abhorrent, but if you view it through the lens of another capitalist, it's absolute genius.

I love your Hozier comparison because Hozier is only 4 months younger than Taylor yet the quality of their lyricism are oceans apart. Hozier has proven himself to be a talented writer time and time again throughout the course of his career, and the best songwriters often know and understand the power of other writing mediums. (BTW I know what Hozier interview you’re talking about! Here it is :))

What makes a great writer is knowing the canon, and knowing other writing mediums very well. It's why the greatest songwriters incorporate canon not only of their own genre and medium but of other texts as well (I'm biased because I listened to Kate Bush's Wuthering Heights today and I know its an adaptation but still its relevant here). Intextuality is the foundation of a great work, and Taylor's work has none.

As the other anon(s) have pointed out, Taylor no longer makes music as art. She makes music for money. I don't think any artist who likes what they do or cares about what they produce would put out an album like that, with lyrics like that, and its content. At least Rupi Kaur's writing impacted poetry in bringing it into the mainstream; I don't exactly understand what ttpd could offer as a text or in pop culture.

TLDR: hozier makes music for people who eat it from the back and then handfeed you grapes afterwards. taylor swift makes music for white girls entering their first day of 7th grade send tweet

[souryogurt64]

srry if the answer to this is just like "the fobbi hates women and anything remotely negative abt pete" but why do u think they took down the secondhand copies of Gray and the cover on amazon and sources u used after your essay? ur essay was so flattering to gray? its just so weird sorry im not good at critical thinking ngl

I DONT KNOW that’s why it’s so weird!!! It was such a weird and extreme and offputting thing to do. I cant even think of any specific thing I said that could trigger that reaction because it is SO bizarre. If I had to guess it would be because the subject matter is so terrible, even in ways I dont address in my essay, and I make a very compelling case it is fact based. Or just the emotional reaction to it was very visceral.

Also, its not just that the cover art and secondhand copies randomly disappeared right after my essay so I assume it must be because of me. There is other strong circumstantial evidence to indicate the stuff with the book occurred that I would prefer not to talk about.

Given the extremity of this incident, and how outrageous it is to remove the cover art and secondhand copies, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that other sources linked in my essays that got taken down around the same time were related to this. It’s not just that the occasional article or YouTube video disappears. It was a ton of stuff along with other bizarre and inexplicable coincidences in a short window of time.

Like yeah, some videos got taken down like the only interview where he talks about his book. But it was stuff way more involved than that too. Like someone filled out a 2 page form on the Vimeo website with a name address and phone number claiming they were the direct copyright holder to get a fancam of Goodnight Moon I made in 11th grade taken down after I linked to my Vimeo account in the bibliography of a video essay.

Someone in Chicago who did not frequently visit my blog with that device spent 3 days going through 1,270+ pages of my blog searching dozens of term combinations looking to see if I’ve ever posted about Pete’s mother. In addition to the suspect location, this is a massive anomaly both in terms of activity on my blog, as well as stuff the fandom cares about.

Brendon Urie’s dumb lawsuit was taken out of the LA court portal after I referenced it in my Brent Wilson essay. An article about Kenny Harris’ sexual misconduct allegations was removed after that essay too. Several different copies of screenshots of Tweets from Ian and Breezy complaining about Brendon were taken down after the publication of that essay. After Pete’s friend posted another essay I wrote on his Instagram story, scans I linked in it disappeared and the band started selling an edited copy with that quote removed a few months later. Etc. The MTV website was extremely broken so it’s possible these were coincidental, but a number of suspicious articles and videos were regularly disappearing too.

ALSO. I wrote a 50 page essay about SWMRS/Burger that was extremely negative towards many bands and reached way higher visibility, and absolutely nothing happened with that and no sources were taken down. Same with a 20 page MCR lyrical analysis essay. If these things happened randomly all the time, it would’ve happened with the sources linked in those essays too.

All of these things, in combination with the strong circumstantial evidence surrounding his book getting half-pulled off the market after of my essay, were not all a string of random unrelated coincidences and I secretly have undiagnosed schizophrenia or whatever.

When you consider the *objective facts* of this situation, such as Pete’s friend posting about my essay on social media around the time this stuff occurred, it is way more likely the essays made it onto his radar and like The FOB Surveillance State (jk) did not approve or whatever. Some of these things may be coincidences, but taking all of the evidence into account, it becomes unlikely that this is all random and I’m crazy.

Also, it’s not like him finding these just randomly happened. I made it happen. It’s really embarrassing to say this, it feels very childish now, and IDK what the point of this was, but starting when I was a literal teenager I put a lot of work and made a lot of purposeful decisions over a period of years to get the bandom essays noticed. This included interviewing several artists he and his friends signed or followed on social media, putting several people who are not famous in the essays, fostering cats for his friend and applying to work there, et cetera. All of this was genuine, but it was also intentional.

Other people (such as UNEMPLOYED Brand New fans) have been able to do the same thing and leverage amateur projects like this to interview the band or write a book or whatever.

And like whatever, if I’m a shitty talentless writer and am just not picked that’s fine. But also like, I don’t want to continue liking these bands when I have plenty of reason to believe their management or whatever are going through my essays to take down sources and also try to “takesies backsies” Pete’s stupid book about calling his ex a bitch and degrading all the women he’s slept with because of my very positive and respectful fanwork about it.

Especially when they’re also handing out book deals and interviews like candy to untalented unemployed dudes with insane passion projects that “just so happen” to talk about how Brand New are victims of cancel culture and Hayley Williams is a misandrist bitch and Pete Wentz threw the first brick at feminist Stonewall. Like it’s just not something that makes me happy anymore and I’m embarrassed and disgusted I ever thought it was cool.

TRIPLE ESPECIALLY when they are also aggressively pushing gross creepy daddy kink music and claiming it’s because they support women’s free speech. And going through Twitter indirects to call anyone who has a problem with it sexist because you should “let women say what they want.” But not me clearly!!! Not female fans who engage intelligently with the culture and history. Thats for the grown-up anti-cancel-culture dudes only. The only free speech for female fans is “daddy spit on my pussy!!”

Also everyone wants to like Destroy Me With Facts And Logic or whatever and tell me it’s okay and not wrong and I’m being irrational and crazy and argue if it is Morally Acceptable for an artist to do this. but like. If you were in my position. Even everything else aside, just the position of putting so much effort and care into a very positive and respectful fanwork and then you have reason to believe the creator somehow found your essay and attempted to remove the book from circulation afterwards. Like would you want to keep being a fan? Do you think they want you to be a fan? NO!!

Then if you tried to be like “Hey it really bothered me on a personal level I think this happened” and their insane fans started camping out in your inbox calling you “schizophrenic” “a bitch” “racist” “delusional” etc over it for months. Would you keep enjoying the band. NO!! Probably not. Especially when the band’s entourage encourages this type of behavior by putting individual fans who talk about misogyny on blast so they will get cyberbullied.

Like this entire thing started because I made a joke text post about “Dictator Wentz” 3 months ago and a specific clique of deranged FOB fans (coincidentally, right around when the bands entourage started encouraging fans to cyberbully people who discuss their history of misogyny) started camping out on my blog to complain and call me a pathetic schizo bitch every time I posted about ANYTHING. Like it’s really really embarrassing to live life knowing that PW reacted so badly to my essay specifically.

I didnt talk about how I felt or what I suspected happened for a long time because I was scared of someone specific seeing it or other fans getting mad and calling me crazy (WHICH HAPPENED). But like I dont like pretending either and these feelings didnt go away and eventually when the band stopped being as active I felt ready to post about it.

And I cant even joke harmlessly about it without gaggles of his weird fans being like “Ummmm you’re a bitch and targeting the only POC in music…. unless you have schizophrenia that seems sus!!!” like WHAT???? does that have to do with anything I said. And also literally WHOOOO CARES. Anyway I am trying to move on with my life now

[kharonion]

A'right, strap in because I'm coming in here with a potentially 🔥 hot take 🔥

Kerry Eurodyne's change in design between past and present—entirely purposeful.

It's not coincidence. It's not to placate the audience. It's not to make him more attractive, more 'romanceable'.

I wanted to write this miniature analysis because frankly, I'm sick and tired of seeing people harp on CDPR for this. I'm tired of seeing people write this off as something they didn't put thought into, claiming that they were being so artificial about this.

Kerry is a musician—a rockstar, to be precise. He’s in the trenches of one of the most cutthroat industries out there, has been for decades. Forced to adapt and change, most of the time against his own volition or desires—because he must make profit not just for himself, but also his label. And it’s a relative consensus that a certain L.B. Kovachek was the most notable apex of Kerry’s change.

We don't get much detail about the time between Samurai's disbandment and 2077, but I think it's reasonable to assume the bulk of this transformation came to fruition when Kerry started going solo. Change the hair, eyes, and hell, even the skin tone (changing it a bit, adding freckles).

What would be the goal of that, though? Simple. Make him a pretty boy, the sort that will get people fighting for the front row just to swoon at him, that will make his albums sell just by plastering his face on their covers.

Make Kerry marketable.

I know it's hard, but put yourself in the shoes of a slimy record label manager for a second as you look between these two images. Which one screams rockstar the most? Which one better encompasses that rough-and-tumble, 'sex, drugs, rock 'n roll' vibe that sells?

And maybe you are sat there wondering: Well, why would Kerry allow that to happen, then? Why wouldn't he fight against it?

Because he wants to change things. After the death of Johnny, especially. He wants his own identity—in so many ways. Developing himself into what would become Eurodyne is the perfect catalyst for that. So, he leaps at it, like a fish to a lure.

So comes Kerry as we know him now, complete with cyberware that monetarily benefits his career (i.e. ear and throat, most notably). Yes, he looks drastically different. And that is the point.

He isn't that same naive man back in the days of living in Johnny's shadow. No, now, Kerry is Kerry. Kerry fuckin' Eurodyne, with an axe, attitude, and audience.

And that is the point.

Does his new appearance make him more conventionally attractive? Sure. Is that entirely because of some meta bullshit so the studio can wrangle people into his romance path? Fuck no. Give CDPR the credit they more than deserve; no way this was coincidental.

[transmutationisms]

have u read bullshit jobs by david graeber? the book or the article i think they make mostly the same point

yeah i think he's overreliant on a historical argument that is fundamentally idealist and specifically he frequently attributes economic developments to the bad terrible horrible weberian conception of the 'protestant work ethic' or to a really rudimentary analysis of managerial psychology as depending on the creation of underlings. it's just mystifying what is actually very straightforwardly a basic result of capitalism, the creation of and reliance on profit-generating markets and positions regardless of underlying use-value or social worth. also i think he's wrong about some of the jobs he claims are socially useless, eg receptionists and administrative assistants and such are only as useless as the firm overall imo; the work structurally is often p load-bearing.

fundamentally though the real issue is revealed by the fact that he proposes UBI as a solution; this is only possible because ofc this entire framework is blatantly only applicable to an imperial core exploiting the labour of the rest of the world and concerned to distribute the fruits of this arrangement more equally internally without challenging the conditions that make such wealth possible in the first place. fatally liberal analysis at heart.

[hapalopus]

I finished Clan of the Cave Bear and I've concluded that, if you're mad about the misogyny in the book, you didn't read the book.

The book was written during the late 1970s and born out of the author's frustrations with having hit the glass ceiling in her male-dominated career. It was also written at a time where no-fault divorce had existed in the US for less than a decade and was still only a thing in very few states. You cannot understand the book without knowing this. The book is 100% affected by these circumstances - rampant misogyny on the job market and 'marriage' essentially being a one-way trip.

The book is also not historical fiction, as it's often claimed to be. It's fantasy. There are multiple scenes that include telepathy, precognition, and spiritual journeys, and the Clan's spirits are strongly implied to be real and able to affect the world in very physical ways. It's soft fantasy, but it fits in so much better into the fantasy genre than the historical fiction genre.

It's a fantastical novel about the meeting of two species with the same ancestor - the Clan species, who have strictly defined biological roles and function via hereditary memory and instinct, and the Other species, who have no biologically determined roles or hereditary memories, but who are able to imagine abstract concepts and break rules.

Ayla is an Other girl raised by Clan people. Clan people enjoy their strict social roles - to put it simply, men hunt and women gather -, but it's hinted at several times in the book that this is not a sustainable way of life, and that the Clan branch of the tree of life is a dead end. Near the end of the book it's outright stated that they will not survive the ice age. There is no need for subtext: The text condemns the idea of biological gender roles, word for word.

And the way Ayla rises up against these gender roles, and the way the Clan people respond to her, further underlines this.

Ayla tries to play the Clan's game. She holds her tongue like a good woman should. She never speaks to a man unless given permission. She gets into position when the men need release. All in a desperate bid to survive in their doomed society. And it nearly kills he to try and play the role of a Good Woman. It makes her so depressed she stops eating. You know what saves her? Breaking the rules and taking up a man's role, against the Clan's wishes. She takes up hunting, and her passion for the sport keeps her going. The Clan people curse her with death for her transgression, but she survives the Death Curse because of the 'manly' skills she taught herself.

The text states over and over again that gender roles and expectations are bad, and that rebelling against them is good.

The Clan is doomed, in large part, because they define men and women by these ridiculously strict gender roles - going down that evolutionary path (as revealed in Ayla's hunting ceremony, where they call upon the ancient forgotten female spirits that the Clan left behind in favor of exclusive following male spirits) was the cause of their downfall. The Clan has such strict gender roles that they don't even know what to do with a woman who breaks the roles and instead decide that she is simultaneously neither and both sexes at once:

"Woman" in Clan society is exclusively defined by the roles a person plays, but a woman of the Others does not have biologically defined gender roles and, as a result, is not wholly or exclusively a woman.

The satire of 70s USAmerican gender roles is right there and if you can't see it, you need to practice your literary analysis skills.

[summerlinenss]

out of curiosity, if Max doesn’t release its metrics, then what metrics are you actually using to make these statements about the show’s popularity? what does “it’s currently in the 99.7th percentile of the comedy genre, meaning it’s in higher demand than 99.7% of all comedy series in the u.s.” even mean? How are you measuring what’s “in demand” - by who? Where? It’s bold to claim that this show was wildly popular (despite the fact that I never hear about it outside of tumblr, tho that’s a personal anecdote) but cancelled just for being queer, so I would be really interested to know where you’re getting all these numbers from. Thanks!

hey anon! first of all i am so sorry for the delayed response. i started typing something up and then i got distracted with something else and totally forgot about this in my drafts.

sure, i have no problem citing sources. i probably should’ve linked some in my original post, that’s absolutely fair.

this ended up way longer than i planned so bear with me, but a quick overview of what i’ll be going over:

1) what are the stats/where did they come from?

2) how is the show so popular?

3) was it really cancelled for being queer?

(also just a disclaimer that this will contain spoilers for the show)

1) first, the numbers

you’re right that hbo doesn’t release metrics to the public. in fact, ceo casey bloys tried to justify the cancellation to the hollywood reporter by saying “the numbers weren’t there,” despite refusing to say what exactly those numbers were or where they came from.

however, there are websites dedicated to researching/analyzing the data of different media. one of those is parrot analytics, who focus on industry insights like audience demand, competitive analysis, and content valuations. they’re trusted as a reliable source by forbes, the new york times, reuters, the wall street journal, and more.

this is what we can learn from them about our flag means death from a basic google search (note that all of this data is relevant to the last 30 days as of january 26 2024):

audience demand for our flag means death is now 33.6x greater than the average tv series in the united states. as explained in the “about demand distribution” section, this means it’s one of only 0.2% of all u.s. shows to fall in the “exceptional” performance range compared to the “average” demand benchmark of 64.1%.

the change in demand for ofmd in the u.s. has increased by 7.5% compared to the average tv series.

ofmd now actually ranks at the 99.8th percentile in the comedy genre in the u.s. i’m not a math person, but in basic terms, this is like a scale of measuring and comparing performances to create an average score. essentially, ofmd is performing at the very top of all comedy series in the u.s.

ofmd has 100% home market travelability. as it says above, the market of origin is always 100%, so in fairness i included the graph of international markets for comparison. some of these aren't super high, however (as explained by parrot analytics themselves) one of the key issues with the international market is accessibility to content, which has been an ongoing struggle for international fans. many people (i guess fittingly) have resorted to pirating ofmd because they don’t have access to max or affiliate streaming services in their country.

there are more stats i could have and wanted to go more in-depth into but it would make this even longer than it already is, so i’ll just leave some links you can check out if you’re interested and move on:

• comparison of ofmd's success to shows like ted lasso, euphoria, and peacemaker

• ofmd's placement as #1 most in-demand breakout series in the u.s. for 8 weeks

• ofmd's impressive 94% critics score and 95% audience score on rotten tomatoes

• how ofmd evolved from sleeper hit to a flagship series at max

• a list of ofmd's past and present award nominations/wins

• praise and recognition from news/entertainment sites: the atlantic (2022); the new york times (2023); tv guide (2023); vulture (2023); forbes (2023); the los angeles times (2022); vanity fair (2023)

2) so why haven’t you (or others) really heard of the show outside of tumblr despite all this success? likely because max did a terrible job marketing it.

ofmd first aired on hbo max (pre-merger before it was “max”) in march 2022. the entire season aired over one month, every thursday at 12am pst. season 2 followed a similar release schedule in october 2023.

season 1’s marketing was almost non-existent, pretty much relying on taika waititi’s name being attached. there was one teaser and one full-length trailer, as well as a few clips on youtube of taika and rhys darby answering pirate-themed trivia, all painting the show as a “silly pirate workplace/buddy comedy.” but hbo max didn’t put any real effort in because they didn’t care. david zaslav and the other higher-ups had no faith in the show and expected it to fail.

most people weren’t aware it was actually a romance due to the poor marketing, and although there were many romantically charged scenes between them, many were still wary to believe it wasn’t queerbaiting until ed & stede confessed their feelings and kissed.

showrunner david jenkins has said in interviews that he had no idea how deeply queerbaiting had hurt audiences and impacted their ability to trust what’s on screen without feeling like they’re being ridiculed, despite the fact that he was calling it a love story the whole time. it wasn’t until people realized they weren’t being queerbaited and that it was a funny, sincere show with a compelling plot that word-of-mouth began to spread. by the time the season 1 finale aired, there was a decent-sized fandom that continued to grow as it received more praise.

it was a fight to even get the show renewed for season 2, and david jenkins and the cast have majorly credited that renewal to the unexpected and massive fan response to the show, which basically forced hbo’s hand.

max didn’t bother trying to properly promote the series until season 2, when they begrudgingly accepted that it was one of their most profitable and successful shows. ofmd had huge billboards in times square, downtown los angeles, and on the side of hbo headquarters. they started accurately marketing the show as not just a workplace comedy at sea, but a heartfelt romcom. max began selling long-demanded merch (which became best sellers) and spent money on an FYC campaign.

i will emphasize, whether they liked it or not, they knew ofmd was their new moneymaker (especially with the recent end of succession, which was obviously a cash cow for hbo).

photo credit: @/bookishtheo

3) now if it was that successful, was it really cancelled just for being queer?

i mean, i can’t say that definitively. no one can. there are several potential factors at play that we may never know, and there have been a lot of rumours and speculation (many of which i don’t feel comfortable discussing in case they aren’t true) since the cancellation.

but do i believe the fact that it’s a queer romcom was one of those factors, especially since max has a history of cancelling and scrapping its most diverse projects? absolutely.

first and foremost, i can’t stress enough that this isn’t just a show with a few characters thrown in for token representation. ofmd is built on a diverse, intersectional cast and narratives, including:

• lgbtq+ representation: 5 main couples are explicitly queer (including mlm, wlw, nblm, and nblw relationships). multiple characters are implied to be poly, and there’s a polycule forming in season 2 that was hinted to be developed more in season 3. beyond relationships, it’s confirmed that (similarly to the way wwdits depicts all vampires as being pansexual) all of the pirates are somewhere on the queer spectrum.

• bipoc representation: the majority of the main cast are people of colour. this includes david fane, joel fry, leslie jones, samson kayo, vico ortiz, anapela polataivao, madeleine sami, samba schutte, ruibo qian, and taika waititi, as well as many guest actors (like rachel house, simone kessell, and maaka pohatu) and extras.

• disability representation: multiple characters have physical disabilities, most notably amputated/prosthetic limbs and visual impairment. a lot (actually most) of the characters also deal with mental health issues, particularly coping with severe trauma and suicidal ideation/behaviour.

• the show has been praised for addressing difficult and serious themes like toxic masculinity, colonialism, and self-discovery, all while still managing to be a witty comedy and not come across as “preachy.”

• the diversity also extends off-screen, with a team of directors, writers, and additional crew comprised of numerous bipoc, women, queer people, and trans/non-binary people.

my point isn’t just the quantity of representation, but the quality. they take great care and respect into every marginalized group depicted on-screen. the actors would often be consulted about their characters’ costumes, hair, tattoos, and the kind of language they use. it’s not a world where discrimination magically doesn’t exist, they just have zero tolerance for it. if a character does something homophobic or racist, you can guarantee they’ll quickly (and often violently) be punished.

so okay, sure, it’s got great representation. what does that have to do max cancelling it?

because they’ve been interfering with production from the start.

i already mentioned the marketing issues so i won’t get into that. it was also revealed in interviews with david jenkins after season 2 that hbo cut their budget by 40%, which is why they had to do everything they could to save money. this included letting go of some of the original cast (and even still having episodes where some of them don’t appear at all) and moving the entire production to AoNZ. the budget cuts also meant two less episodes, so they had to rush to fit an entire season’s worth of plot into eight half-hour long episodes.

but one of the biggest frustrations is hbo’s (alleged) censorship of the show. samba schutte revealed that the entire plot of episode 2x06 was completely different in the original script. before it was rewritten as “calypso’s birthday,” the episode took place during lucius & pete’s wedding and focused on the crew getting sick of the sexual tension between ed & stede and trying to get them to hook up (this aligned with lucius & pete getting engaged and ed & stede deciding to take things slow in the previous episode).

vico ortiz and writer jes tom have also commented that many scenes between jim, oluwande, and archie establishing them as a polycule were cut, including one of the three of them emerging from a bedroom in their underwear. jes has mentioned other elements of season 2 that had to be cut out or rewritten, like the implication of other poly dynamics between the crew and more sexually explicit scenarios and jokes.

considering that ofmd is an extremely sex-positive show that isn’t afraid to be raunchy or taboo, it’s clear that either higher-ups at hbo forced them to cut these things out or they had no choice but to cut them out due to tight budget/time restraints.

in addition to this, a recent article citing an “anonymous insider” has alleged that hbo was uncomfortable with and was unsure how to market the “shock violence” in the show (the same network that aired game of thrones), which david jenkins outright called out as being bullshit. ofmd is rated TV-MA and the posters and trailers all show the audience that it contains violent content. there is literally nothing more graphic in ofmd than any other pirate show — it’s probably a lot tamer than most of them, actually.

violence on the show is most frequently used in a comedic context, in the sense that it’s not meant to be seen as scary or taken seriously. the few instances of serious graphic imagery on the show are meant to invoke a mood shift, like ed’s transformation into the kraken or ned low’s murder. it should also be noted that some of the most graphic deaths are reserved for bigots, like ed snapping the neck of a colonizer who was ridiculing stede’s love letter.

it’s also most often used in a sexual context — not sexual violence, but violence as a sexual metaphor. more specifically the act of stabbing as a metaphor for penetration, as seen with both ed & stede and anne & mary. bearing all this in mind, it seems like the real issue here isn’t executives struggling to market explicit violence to a mainstream audience, but rather explicit gay content.

as much as we joke and affectionately call it the “gay pirate show,” ofmd has always been nothing more than an opportunity for rainbow capitalism for hbo (e.g. the fact that they waited three months to announce season 2 just so they could do it on the first day of pride month). like other cancelled queer media, ofmd was a way for hbo executives to show how “inclusive” and “accepting” they are when it was convenient (aka profitable) for them, but they never actually respected the show or us as a community.

it’s impossible to be certain of what the exact reasoning for cancellation was, especially when they won’t give us a clear answer themselves. and maybe it had nothing to do with ofmd being a queer romcom at all. maybe that’s all a horrible coincidence. but for hbo/max to axe a critically acclaimed and beautifully inclusive show that’s successful by every metric, with an extremely devoted fanbase, especially after casey bloys just had the nerve to ask “gay twitter” to hype up the gilded age? it doesn’t exactly put them in the best light regardless.

in summary, i’ll leave you with this editorial, which details how the campaign to save ofmd isn’t just about one show, but a fight to save the future of all queer art.