#Siphon App

[marketingprofitmedia]

AI Profit Siphon Review – Get Unlimited Free Buyer Traffic

Welcome to my AI Profit Siphon Review, This is a genuine user-based AI Profit Siphon review, in which I will discuss the features, upgrades, price, demo, and bonuses, how AI Profit Siphon can benefit you, and my own personal opinion. This AI Guarantee Daily Payments Into Our Account 1-Click AI “No Selling System” Allows Us To Siphon $47.00 Payments Every time We Share A Special Link On This Secret Platform!

Are you ready to embark on an exciting journey where AI powers your way to consistent profits? We have something remarkable to share with you. Our revolutionary AI-powered system has created a “looping” profit glitch that generates $29.99 payments over and over again. In today’s email, we want to reveal an extraordinary opportunity that arises from a $5 billion dollar loophole. This loophole is the key to unlocking immense potential for you to exploit and create sustainable profits. With just 2 minutes of your time each day and zero upfront cost, you can harness this loophole to your advantage and start seeing incredible returns. Don’t let this chance slip away!

What Is AI Profit Siphon?

AI Profit Siphon is a program marketed by Jason Fulton that promises to be a fully automated system for generating online profits through the power of artificial intelligence (AI). However, the specifics of this AI and its profit-generating methods remain shrouded in secrecy.

The program claims to be a “set-and-forget” solution, requiring minimal user input and generating effortless income. It’s advertised as beginner-friendly and provides a “done-for-you system” with all the necessary tools for immediate earnings. However, several red flags raise concerns about AI Profit Siphon’s legitimacy, including unrealistic income claims, a lack of transparency about the system’s operation, and a potential focus on affiliate marketing, which requires significant effort for success.

AI Profit Siphon Review: Overview

Creator: Jason Fulton

Product: AI Profit Siphon

Launch Date: 2024-Jul-11

Time Of Launch: 9:00 EDT

Front-End Price: $17 (One-time payment)

Official Website: Click Here To Access

Niche: Tools And Software

Support: Effective Response

Discount: Get The Best Discount Right Here!

Recommended: Highly Recommended

Bonuses: YES, Huge Bonuses

Skill Level Required: All Levels

Refund: YES, 60 Days Money-Back Guarantee

>>> Click Here to Visit AI Profit Siphon and Get Access Now >>

AI Profit Siphon Review: Key Features

Once the Profit Siphon feature is activated, we experience an unending stream of $47 payments repeatedly.

We effortlessly receive continuous $47.00 payments even while we sleep.

With just a single click, we get paid without any effort We can repeat the process whenever we require quick cash.

We continue to receive payments, even if no one makes a purchase.

No need for any traffic, yet we still earn money by sharing!

Within a span of 12 hours, we generate profits (Yes, it’s true!)

No need for a social following.

There are no additional fees involved; we generate profits seemingly out of thin air.

We offer a 60-day money-back guarantee

AI Profit Siphon Review: How Does It Work?

Your Turn -You’re Just 3 Clicks Away From Getting PAID $47.00 Everytime You Share A Link

Click #1: Get AI Profit Siphon Today

Click Any of Buy Button on This Page to Get AI Profit Siphon (Hurry, We Will Be Pulling This Offer Down Soon to Avoid Saturation)

Click #2: Activate it

Turn On the AI Profit Siphon Monetization from Your Computer or Phone (Easy as Flipping On A Light Switch.)

Click #3: Profit

We’re Receiving $47+ Payments Everytime We Share A “Special Link” To This Secret Platform. (Get Paid Directly to Your Bank Account or PayPal Account)

AI Profit Siphon Review: Can Do For You

100% of our beta-testers made money on their first try with AI Profit Siphon.

Fool-proof system designed so anyone can use it no matter what their experience.

Price is RISING as soon as the timer hits zero — Why wait and pay more?

We’re closing the doors at any moment to help prevent saturation.

Get paid whenever someone reads on their phone without you writing anything.

No technical experience is needed whatsoever.

No hidden fees or mandatory purchases. You get everything inside.

Finally get the system that will set you free.

Never worry about your financial situation ever again.

Get exclusive bonuses worth over $3,495.34 to help you kickstart your journey.

We removed all the risk with our 60 days money-back guarantee.

Get paid if you fail with AI Profit Siphon

Users Say About AI Profit Siphon

>>> Click Here to Visit AI Profit Siphon and Get Access Now >>

AI Profit Siphon Review: Who Should Use It?

Teenagers

College Students

People In Their 20s

Housewives

Stay At Home Dads

Busy People

The Family Man

Old Age Pensioners

AI Profit Siphon Review: Why You Buy AI Profit Siphon?

There are very few reasons to recommend buying AI Profit Siphon. It thrives on the appeal of effortless income, but with its lack of transparency about how it works and potentially unrealistic claims, there’s a high chance it won’t deliver on its promises. If you value clear information and a realistic path to online income, AI Profit Siphon is not a good investment. There are better alternatives that require effort and skill development but offer a more sustainable approach to making money online.

AI Profit Siphon Review: Is AI Profit Siphon Right for You?

AI Profit Siphon is unlikely to be a good fit, especially if you value transparency and realistic income expectations. The lack of details about how the program works and the potential for inflated income claims suggest it might not deliver as promised. If you’re looking for a legitimate way to make money online that aligns with effort and skill development, AI Profit Siphon is probably not the answer.

AI Profit Siphon Review: OTO’s And Pricing

Front End Price: AI Profit Siphon ($17)

OTO 1: AI Profit Siphon + $125 Per Siphon Boost ($24)

OTO 2: AI Profit Siphon Affiliate Cashout Profits ($97)

OTO 3: AI Profit Siphon Automation ($47)

OTO 4: AI Profit Siphon Cashing In Rights ($97)

OTO 5: AI Profit Siphon Conversion Mastery ($47)

OTO 6: AI Profit Siphon DFY Buyer Traffic ($147)

OTO 7: AI Profit Siphon Done For You ($297)

OTO 8: AI Profit Siphon MEGA Bundle V2.0 ($77)

OTO 9: AI Profit Siphon Quick Cash Magnet ($77)

OTO 10: AI Profit Siphon Unlimited ($47)

>>> Click Here to Visit AI Profit Siphon and Get Access Now >>

My Own Customized Incredible Bonus Bundle

***How To Claim These Bonuses***

Step #1:

Complete your purchase of the AI Profit Siphon: My Special Unique Bonus Bundle will be visible on your access page as an Affiliate Bonus Button on WarriorPlus immediately after purchase. And before ending my honest AI Profit Siphon Review, I told you that I would give you my very own unique PFTSES formula for Free.

Step #2:

Send the proof of purchase to my e-mail “maketingprofitmedia@gmail.com” (Then I’ll manually Deliver it for you in 24 HOURS).

AI Profit Siphon Free Bonuses

Bonus #1: Do You Have What It Takes? $2K Per Day LIVE Invite (VALUE: $1,997)

Bonus #2: A.I Profit Siphon Accelerator — $1M A Year Blueprint (VALUE: $197)

Bonus #3: Recurring 30-Second FREE Commissions (VALUE: $297)

Bonus #4: Super License Rights To 3 Of Our BEST, Most Profitable Offers (VALUE: $997)

Bonus #5: 90% Discount Coupon (VALUE: $997)

AI Profit Siphon Review: Money Back Guarantee

We Will Pay You To Fail With AI Profit Siphon Our 60 Days Ironclad Money Back Guarantee.

I hope you understand how much we believe in AI Profit Syphon. And if you don’t, we’re going to boost the ante. Look, purchase AI Profit Syphon right now. Use all of its features, and if you don’t believe it’s worth the money, please contact us. Send us a note. Not only will we return your whole payment, but we will also give you $300 out of our own money. Are you OK with us apologizing for wasting your time?

>>> Click Here to Visit AI Profit Siphon and Get Access Now >>

AI Profit Siphon Review: Pros and Cons

Advantages of AI Profit Siphon

High accuracy in predictions

Time-saving automation

User-friendly interface

Excellent customer support

Customization options

Potential Drawbacks

Initial learning curve

Subscription costs

Dependency on accurate data

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s)

Q. Do I need any experience to get started?

None, all you need is just an internet connection. And you’re good to go

Q. Is there any monthly cost?

Depends, if you act now, NONE. But if you wait, you might end up paying $997/mo It’s up to you.

Q. How long does it take to make money?

Our average member made their first sale the same day they got access to AI Profit Siphon

Q. Do I need to purchase anything else for it to work?

Nop, AI Profit Siphon is the complete thing. You get everything you need to make it work. Nothing is left behind.

Q. What if I failed?

While that is unlikely, we removed all the risk for you. If you tried AI Profit Siphon and failed, we will refund you every cent you paid and send you $300 on top of that just to apologize for wasting your time.

Q. How can I get started?

Awesome, I like your excitement, all you have to do is click any of the buy buttons on the page, and secure your copy of AI Profit Siphon at a one-time fee.

AI Profit Siphon Review: My Recommendation

AI Profit Siphon appears to be another program preying on the desire for effortless online income. With its lack of transparency, dubious claims, and potential hidden costs, it’s advisable to exercise caution before investing. If you’re serious about making money online, consider exploring the more established and legitimate alternatives mentioned above. Remember, sustainable online income typically requires effort, skill development, and a strategic approach.

>>> Click Here to Visit AI Profit Siphon and Get Access Now >>

Check Out My Previous Reviews: Quillaio Review, SmartLink AI Review, MailDaddy Review, PromptSiteZ Review, AILogo Studio Review, MetAI Review, AI Fame Catalyst Review, Halo App Review, SiteClone AI Review.

Thank for reading my AI Profit Siphon Review till the end. Hope it will help you to make purchase decision perfectly.

Disclaimer: While this AI Profit Siphon review strives for accuracy and fairness, it is based on publicly available information and user reviews. It is recommended to conduct thorough research, including seeking out independent sources, before making any purchasing decisions.

Note: This is a paid software, however the one-time fee is $17.

[thesistersarcheron]

I think Tumblr is setting us up for a torrid forbidden romance ❤️‍🔥 Just look!

@thesistersarcheron I tried to send this to you yesterday but Tumblr thwarted me

[nyancrimew]

hey, remember when i mentioned some of my past shenanigans in the stalkerware area? well, the article finally doesn't deadname me anymore so i can share it again

this story rly did start in 2020

[akaessi]

Duolingo's annoying and outlandish marketing scheme is supposed to distract you from the fact that they are routinely utilizing AI to structure/moderate/and otherwise create language lessons.

For years, language experts and learners have been requesting that the app include languages such as Icelandic and other languages with relatively low populations of native speakers. additionally, while Duolingo has been credited with "playing a key role in preserving indigenous languages," they have yet to fulfill their promises of adding additional at-risk languages. Specifically,  Yucatec and K’iche, which the app faced "setbacks for." Even worse, in my opinion, is the fact that they are utilizing AI to create language courses in Navajo and Hawaiian.

The ethics of using AI to model and create indigenous languages cannot be ignored. What are their systems siphoning from? Language revitalization without a community being involved and credited is language theft and colonization. (I can't even get into the environmental impact of AI).

Instead of working with more language experts, hiring linguists, and spending more on their language programs, more and more money is being poured into their marketing. While they have a heavy team of computational and theoretical linguists, there seem to be fewer and fewer language experts and social linguists involved.

Their research section has not had a publication listed since 2021. Another research site Duolingo hosts on the efficacy of Duolingo has publications as recently as 2024, but only a total of 5 publications (2021-2024) listed were peer-reviewed and only 2 additional publications were independent research reports (2022 & 2023). The remaining 9 publications were Duolingo internal research reports. So, while a major marketing feature of the app is the "science backed, researched based, approach" there is much to be desired from their research setting. Additionally, the manner on how they personally determine efficacy in their own reports, as written in this blog post, has an insufficient dataset.

And while they openly share their datasets derived from Duolingo users, there are no clear bibliographies for individual language courses. What datasets are their curriculum creators using? And what curriculum creators do they even have left considering their massive layoffs of their translations team (10%) and the remaining translators being tasked with editing AI content?

Duo can be run over by a goddamn cybertruck but god forbid the app actually spend any money on the language programs you're playing with.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Meatspace twiddling

I'm on tour with my new, nationally bestselling novel The Bezzle! Catch me next weekend (Mar 30/31) in ANAHEIM at WONDERCON, then in Boston with Randall "XKCD" Munroe (Apr 11), then Providence (Apr 12), and beyond!

"Enshittification" isn't just a way of describing the symptoms of platform decay: it's also a theory of the mechanism of decay – the means by which platforms get shittier and shittier until they are a giant pile of shit.

I call that mechanism "twiddling": this is the ability of digital services to alter their business-logic – the prices they charge, the payouts they offer, the particulars of the deal – from instant to instant, for each user, continuously:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/19/twiddler/

Contrary to Big Tech's own boasting about its operations, the tricks that tech firms play to siphon value away from business customers and end-users aren't very sophisticated. They're crude gimmicks, like offering a higher per-hour wage to Uber drivers whom the algorithm judges to be picky about which rides they'll clock in for, and then lowering the wage by small increments as a way of lulling the driver into gradually accepting a permanent lower rate:

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

This is a simple trick. The difference is that tech platforms like Uber can play it over and over, and very quickly. There's plenty of wage-stealing scumbag bosses who'd have loved to have shaved pennies off their workers' paychecks, then added a few cents back in if a worker cried foul, then started shaving the pennies again. The thing that stopped those bosses was the bottleneck of payroll clerks, who couldn't make the changes fast enough.

Uber plays crude tricks – like claiming that a driver isn't an employee because the control is mediated through an app – and then piles more crude tricks on top – this algorithmic wage discrimination gambit.

Have you ever watched a shell-game performed very slowly?

https://www.masterclass.com/articles/how-to-do-penn-tellers-famous-cups-and-balls-trick-in-12-steps

It's a series of very simple gimmicks, performed very quickly and smoothly. Computers are very quick and very smooth. The quickness of the hand deceives the eye: do crude tricks with superhuman speed and they'll seem sophisticated.

The one bright spot in the Great Enshittening that we're living through is that many firms are not sufficiently digitized to to these crude tricks very quickly. Take grocery stores: they can get up to a lot of the same tricks as Amazon – for example, they can charge suppliers for placement on the most prominent, easiest-to-reach shelves, reorganizing your shopping based on which companies pay the biggest bribes, rather than offering the best products and prices.

But Amazon takes this to a whole different level – beyond simply organizing their product pages based on payola, they do this for search. You ask Amazon, "What's your cheapest batteries?" and it lies to you. If you click the first link in a search-results page, you'll pay 29% more than you would if you got the best product – a product that is, on average, 17 places down on the results page. Amazon makes $38b/year taking bribes to lie to you:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/11/06/attention-rents/#consumer-welfare-queens

Amazon can do more than that. Thanks to its digital nature, it can continuously reprice its offerings – indeed, it can simply make up each price displayed on every product at the instant you look at it – based on its surveillance data about you, estimating your willingness to pay. For sellers, Amazon can continuously re-weight the likelihood that a given product will be shown to a customer based on the seller's willingness to discount their products, even to the point where they go out of business:

https://www.businessinsider.com/sadistic-amazon-treated-book-sellers-the-way-a-cheetah-would-pursue-a-sickly-gazelle-2013-10

Twiddling, in other words, lets digital services honeycomb their servers with sneaky wormholes that let them siphon value away from one kind of platform user and give it to another (as when Apple silently began spying on Iphone owners to create profiles for advertisers), or to themselves.

But hard-goods businesses struggle to do this kind of twiddling. Not for lack of desire – but for lack of capacity. Jeff Bezos, owner of Amazon Fresh – an online grocery store – can change prices and layout millions of times per day, at effectively zero cost. Jeff Bezos, owner of Whole Foods – a brick-and-mortar grocer – needs a army of teenagers on rollerskates with pricing guns to achieve a fraction of this agility.

So hard-goods businesses are somewhat enshittification-resistant. It's not that their owners are more interested in the welfare of their customers, workers and suppliers – they merely lack the capacity to continuously rejigger the way their business runs.

Well, about that.

Grocers have been experimenting with "electronic shelf labels" in order to do "dynamic pricing" – that means that prices change quickly, in response to circumstances:

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/06/1197958433/dynamic-pricing-grocery-supermarkets

This doesn't have to be bad! As @planetmoney points out, it's a little weird that grocers don't discount milk whose sell-by date is drawing near. That milk is worth less to shoppers, because they have to use it more quickly lest it expire. Instead of marking down the price of perishable goods – day-old lettuce, yesterday's bread, etc – grocers put them on the shelves next to fresher, more valuable products, leading to billions of dollars' worth of food-waste and and unimaginable quantities of methane-producing, planet-cooking landfill.

In Norway, ESLs are pretty well established and – at least according to Planet Money's reporting – they are used exclusively to offer discounts in order to reduce waste. They make everyone better off.

But towards the end of the story, they note that Norway's grocery sector – which alters prices up to 2,000 times per day – has been accused of using ESLs to rig prices, hiking them and blaming them on pandemic supply-chain problems and loose monetary policy. Greedflation, in other words.

Greedflation is rampant in the grocery sector, all around the world. Remember when the price of eggs doubled and they blamed in on bird-flu, even as the CEO of the one company that owns every egg brand you've ever heard of boasted about how he could hike prices and suckers would just pay it?

https://pluralistic.net/2023/01/23/cant-make-an-omelet/#keep-calm-and-crack-on

In Canada, grocers rigged the price of bread, the most Les-Mis-ass form of corporate crime you can imagine (do you want guillotines, Galen Weston? Because this is how you get guillotines):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_price-fixing_in_Canada

EU grocers – another highly concentrated industry – also collude to rig prices:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/17/how-to-think-about-scraping/

Which is all to say that while these companies don't have to use the twiddling capabilities that come with ESLs to enshittify their stores, we'd be pretty fucking naive to assume that they won't.

And here's the bad news: US grocers like Whole Foods (owned by Amazon, the company that wrote the enshittification playbook) are already experimenting with ESLs. So is Alberstons/Safeway, the massive, inbred conglomerate that has already demonstrated its passion for using twiddling to fuck over their workers:

https://knock-la.com/vons-fires-delivery-drivers-prop-22-e899ee24ffd0/

Economists love "price discrimination" – where prices change based on circumstance, trying to match the perfect price with the perfect customer. On paper, that sounds plausible: if I need a quart of milk for a recipe I'm making tonight and I get a 50% discount on some about-to-expire 2%, then everyone's better off. I get a discount and the grocer gets some money for milk they'd have to throw away at the end of the day.

But these elegant, self-licking ice-cream cones only emerge if the corporation offering the deal is constrained. Perhaps they're constrained by competition – the fear that you'll go elsewhere. Or perhaps they're constrained by regulation – the fear that they'll be punished if they use twiddling-tech to cheat you.

The grocery sector, dominated by a cartel of massive companies that routinely collude to rip us off, is not constrained by competition. And for years, regulators let them get away with ripping us off (though finally that might be changing):

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/21/us/politics/grocery-prices-pandemic-ftc.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ek0.t2Pr.g4n2usbxEcoa

For neoclassical economists, the answer to all this is "caveat emptor" – let the buyer beware. If you want to make sure that ESLs are only used to offer you discounts and not to gouge prices, all you need to do is note the price of everything you buy, every time you buy it, and triple-check it every time you go back to the grocery store. Just be eternally vigilant!

Thing is, the one thing computers are much better at than humans is vigilance. With ESLs and other twiddling mechanisms, you're a fish on a hook, and the seller is tireless in giving you a little more slack, then a little less, until you finally drop your guard.

Economists desperately want these elegant models to work, but "efficient market hypothesis" is a brain-worm that always turns into apologetics for fraud. Dynamic markets sound like a good idea, but they are catnip for cheaters. "Just be eternally vigilant" is miserable advice, and no way to live your life:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/02/24/passive-income/#swiss-cheese-security

In his brilliant novel Spook Country, @GreatDismal describes augmented reality as "cyberspace everting" – that is, turning inside-out:

https://memex.craphound.com/2007/07/31/william-gibsons-spook-country/

The extrusion of twiddling technology from digital platforms into the physical world isn't cyberspace everting so much as it is cyberspace prolapsing.

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

https://pluralistic.net/2024/03/26/glitchbread/#electronic-shelf-tags

[mariacallous]

The other day, I flew to New York, an event that normally occasions an elation only briefly dampened by the humming trepidation of flight anxiety. Flying scares me, it’s true, not that my Instagram profile or frequent-flier status show it. Recent events, though, have ratcheted that worry to something more acute. On January 29th, American Airlines Flight 5342 crashed into the Potomac River in D.C., after colliding with a military helicopter, marking the deadliest airline accident in the U.S. since 2009. Two days later, a medevac flight operated by Jet Rescue Air Ambulance nose-dived into a Philadelphia neighborhood. These tragedies, whose causes are under investigation, followed decades of deregulation of the airline industry, and understaffing of air-traffic control sufficient to give even fearless fliers pause. Our reinaugurated President, meanwhile, was scything the payrolls of federal agencies, including the Federal Aviation Administration. As I brushed my teeth the day before the flight, my dread coalesced into the shape of a meme: Does anyone know if we have airline safety tomorrow?

The meme, in its original form, features an image of a bandanna-clad boy taking a serious-faced mirror selfie, given voice in screaming font that asks, “DOES ANYONE KNOW IF WE HAVE TO BRING OUR BACKPACKS TO THE FIELD TRIP TOMORROW.” With some slapdash editing—slapdashery is part of the charm—others have turned the child’s straightforward query into a template for expressing a memeable malaise, for example, “DOES ANYONE KNOW IF WE HAVE January TOMORROW,” posted during the doldrums of that seemingly interminable month; or, perhaps, alluding to the current Administration, “DOES ANYONE KNOW IF WE HAVE federal government TOMORROW.” Presented without the expected interrogative mark, these questions suggest a tossed-off despondency, retaining the anxiety of the child who seems unprepared for tomorrow’s excursion. The meme’s humor lies in its shallow expressions of deep feeling: existential problems otherwise worthy of metaphysics or high literature here flung out as low-res Internet flatulence.

I doubt anything bad would have happened had I posted my little joke; a few likes, that precious currency of attention, may even have come my way for the trouble. At worst, friends who saw the post might have clucked at my show of poor taste in the face of tragedy and then moved on with their lives. Nevertheless, I didn’t post it. The line felt dumb and flaccid, derivative in an irritating rather than with-it sense, and lacking the transgression found in good gallows humor. What productively blackens such humor is its embrace of dire circumstance, the way it holds terror to its bosom like an old friend. This was not that, nor is much of sociable humor these days, however much it may purport to highlight our frightening moment. Cheaper laughs run rampant, invoking and evacuating seriousness in one limp gesture, smothering any thought or feeling at risk of requiring fortitude. Irreverent is not the word. This strain of humor is not too cool for school; it’s desperate. It says, LOL that’s crazy, emphasis on the LOL, before moving along.

This posture of unseriousness pervades institutional and individual channels alike. It’s Duolingo, the language-learning app, siphoning cachet from the statutory-rape allegation against Drake teased on Kendrick Lamar’s Record of the Year by inviting users to “learn how to play A minor in our music course.” (Drake denies engaging in underage sex.) It’s the State of New York, responding to President Trump’s elimination of congestion pricing with a cutesy message on its official X handle: “beep beep babes we’re taking you to court 🫶.” It’s the countless jokes leaning into the President’s screwy supposition (which one, you ask?) that D.E.I. was to blame for planes falling from the sky. It’s the chatty true-crime podcast “My Favorite Murder” cultivating fans who call themselves “murderinos.” The proper first response to anything is laughter, it seems; nothing impugns one’s taste quite so completely as being told one is “taking it too seriously.” A critic, professional or otherwise, found too solemn in her critique just doesn’t get it. Jokes are safer, forestalling opinion—and thereby contention—by forgoing one. And this attitude rather suits the powers that be in media and entertainment, for whom attention of any kind suffices. (How much of what appears on, say, Netflix is a joke?)

LOL that’s crazy once felt apt as a response to our media environment, a quasi-absurdist means of palliating a 24/7 onslaught of slickly mediated information. But it shows its wear. I have to thank Ethel Cain for noticing. Last fall, the singer-songwriter posted to Tumblr that she felt “constantly bombarded by jokes,” adding, “listen, i LOVE to laugh and i love funny shit but like. we are in an irony epidemic. there is such a loss of sincerity and everything has to be a joke at all times.” Though the post was soon deleted, screenshots found a wider audience among people, myself included, who agreed with her read on our current climate. Our unfunny times are nonetheless rife with laughter, and it’s a laughter that seldom offers relief. When did everything—everything—become ha ha ha? What kind of laugh is this?

Comedy and tragedy have been involved in a long and fruitful two-hander; a faith that the best of one leaves room for the other undergirds the rhapsodies of Shakespeare and “The Bear” alike. The twin pillars of the American comedic sensibility, Black people and Jews, burlesqued their people’s conditions to hysterical effect throughout the past century, metabolizing the times as they went. When Lenny Bruce threatened to piss and Richard Pryor opened his ass, they served up the very shit from which postwar America sought escape in the cleansing assimilation of the suburbs—“a flight from industry and business and money and filth,” as the literary critic John Limon has put it, as well as “a flight from the power of jokes” and all their lowly associations. But people were laughing at what the standups had to say, long and loud and among fellow audience members who were (at least according to America) different from one another. Limon, who is credited with composing the first serious study of standup as an art form, is as fascinated by this collective laughter as he is by the comedy itself. The comedian curls the viewer into the drama of his own debasement, Limon theorized, and the relationship is christened, if the joke works, with a laughter that amalgamates the many into one. This became the hope, and the promise, of comedy as standup exploded in popularity in the latter half of the twentieth century, its cadences absorbed into other realms of American entertainment, from late night to the sitcom. “This eventuality—the comedification of America,” Limon writes, “is the most astounding fact about the American sensibility from 1960 to 2000.”

Limon was writing, incidentally, just a year before the nation would profess to have its sense of humor upended. On September 11, 2001, the Twin Towers came down and broke our funny bone, or so it was said. Comedy made a brief retreat from national life; late-night and comedy institutions such as The Onion went dark. The vacuum was filled with eulogies to irony and cynicism. The thought was that the U.S. had been irrevocably jolted out of a late-twentieth-century posture, an irreverence fomented by an age that understood irony “not only as a sneering overused pose of detachment,” as the literary critic Michiko Kakutani put in a piece for the Times, “but also as a potent weapon for delineating a fractured and frightening world.” Yet any viewer of the nineties film “Reality Bites,” with its scene in which Ethan Hawke coolly recites the definition of irony, knew how available and thus threadbare the term had already become. In an essay from 1993, David Foster Wallace had ascribed the “trendy sardonic exhaustion” among his peers to the increasing sophistication of television. Writers strove to position themselves as more cynical than the idiot box that knew itself to be an idiot box. The effect was “not liberating but enfeebling,” Wallace wrote. Even before 9/11 was said to have killed it, irony was no longer confrontational in its address. It pointed out everything while standing neither for nor against anything in particular. It said, as Wallace ventriloquized, “How very banal to ask what I mean.”

When humor returned to the mainstream post-9/11, it was not irreverent or edgy but grating, jingoistic, and racist, complementing the nation’s earnest reclamation of its tragedy to promulgate American values, which is to say war. “I’m here to give you permission to laugh,” Rudy Giuliani, the so-called Mayor of America, said at a charity event a month after the attack. “If you don’t, I’ll have you arrested.” Har har. America needed to laugh. Laughter was proof of coping, of winning. Laughter was American. It is telling that when “South Park” returned to air, after a hiatus, the show, previously impudent toward the establishment, now joined the rest of media in mocking Arabs and Muslims, and ended the episode on an earnest cheer: “Go America!” The thought was that to meet something with a laugh was the same thing as defanging it, a fearful humor inflated with American self-importance.

As media outlets wrung their hands over the utility of humor after tragedy, though, a burgeoning Internet culture lent no such consideration. Indeed, the digital world persisted as an all-hours laugh factory, with 9/11 providing “an impetus to a new genre,” as the sociologist Giselinde Kuipers wrote, of “cut-and-paste Internet jokes that were shared and spread around the world through e-mail, newsgroups, and Web sites.” Slipshod, crass, and sick, these jokes, dialling in from abroad and at home, were distinct from the humor that had followed other U.S. catastrophes. Their authors didn’t seem touched by the events they digested. The person who created an image of Teletubbies jumping to their deaths from the World Trade Center, evoking Richard Drew’s harrowing 9/11 photograph “The Falling Man,” wasn’t doing so through tears, presumably, nor was anyone who passed the image along. The jokes that proliferated did not seem to be working through a singular grief. Nor were they “difficult and painful, and productive,” as Wallace lauded the “rebellious irony” of postwar fiction that exposed bureaucratic hypocrisies.

No, humor of this sort, as it flourished online, was juvenile and unfeeling. It was smug, resembling the latter-day irony that Wallace associated with TV. So it makes perfect sense that it would be further propagated by the next big thing in telecommunications, the social Internet, where nobody had to be who they said they were, let alone own what they said. Maybe you meant it, maybe you didn’t. Everyone was trying stuff out—a good thing, in life and in comedy, but any speech can get rotten, especially speech one never has to claim. The Internet—that is, the Internet as carved up by billionaires—didn’t invent shock-jocking; it only gave it a better alibi than it had on the radio. Online, jokey provocations feigned a detachment from real life. If friends were calling each other “mein Führer,” it did not make them Nazis. That was just their sense of humor, a dose of online irony poisoning. A decade ago, one such friend, a firefighter trainee named Dirk Denkhaus, set fire to a refugee group home in Altena, Germany. On his phone were racist memes and xenophobic articles and the phrase “mein Führer” used among pals. His lawyer, as reported by the Times, argued that Denkhaus had otherwise displayed no prior anti-refugee sentiment: “It was only online that he’d dabbled in hate.” The irony-poisoned spew the most darndest and heinous things not out of conviction—or so we’re meant to assume—but just for funsies, until evidence shows otherwise.

The diagnosis of online irony poisoning tends to understate the extent to which social media’s rightward drift regulates so much else in life, establishing the terms and the tenor by which we enter that bustling intersection called discourse. The comedification of America has become the memeification of America. Take, for instance, the ultimate Internet troll, Elon Musk, appearing a few years ago as a host of “Saturday Night Live,” a coup that seems quaint, in retrospect, now that Musk is leading Trump’s gutting of the federal government as the head of an agency that he renamed after a meme. The puerile hasn’t confabbed with the establishment so much as replaced it, with the latter’s permission. Jokes mingle with cruel and lethal austerity measures. At the podium during a rally held after the Presidential Inauguration, Musk raised a stiff right arm in what looked like a Nazi salute yet it was laughed off by the Anti-Defamation League as just an “awkward gesture.” This month, Musk briefly changed his profile name on X, the social platform he owns, to Harry Bōlz, a brilliant display of homophonic potty humor that prompted a surge in an obscure cryptocurrency by the same name. This is where America lives and what America does. Nothing is funny, but everything is. And therein lies a sense of impotence, because our ability to discern the consequential ghoulishness of this nation’s policies–LOL that’s crazy!–doesn’t in and of itself constitute resistance. Those who feel they can’t do, laugh.

The inverse of falling Teletubbies and deniable Seig heils might look like a sincere attempt to meet the moment. But audiences, even for art-house entertainment, have gone feral with laughter. Two years ago, I went to my favorite movie theatre in Chicago to see Todd Haynes’s “May December,” a film that is funny in the way that melodrama, in its overdrawn intensity, can be. I enjoyed the movie. I laughed. Others did, too. But it did not feel like we were laughing together. The room was too loud, out of proportion with the film. Toward the end, the character played by Charles Melton attempts to confront his wife, played by Julianne Moore, about the fact that their two-decade-long relationship began with statutory rape; he was thirteen and she was thirty-six. “I’m saying, what if I was too young,” he ventures, to which she replies, indignantly, “You seduced me.” There is something farcical in the retort—an older woman playing child to the man she coerced into sex as an actual child. What was comical about the exchange was the very thing that made it disturbing. In the theatre, though, peals of laughter drowned out Melton’s cries and the scene’s devastatingly anticlimactic end. The tragedy was lost to the comedy, rather than being thrown into relief by it.

Not long ago, the same theatre released a statement about an incident that occurred during a showing of David Lynch’s “Blue Velvet”; instead of treating the film’s “darker material”—including a bizarre, voyeuristic rape scene—“with respect,” the theatre said, patrons had been “loudly mocking abuse on the screen.” There have been similar reports of excess laughter among Broadway audiences at “Cabaret,” especially during “If You Could See Her,” the ridiculous duet with a gorilla that ends on the thud of an unfunny joke, a dose of antisemitism that is meant to jerk the audience back into the realities of late-Weimar Berlin. In each case, humor is proper to the unease—one cannot have their expectations (of a publicized scandal; of an American suburb; of a German night club) unsettled without first getting too comfortable. But each of these works asks audiences to attune themselves to on-the-dime shifts in atmosphere, to the psychodramas thrumming beneath the rituals of ordinary life. And, in each case, the audience seemed to only see a joke.

Laughter is both the easiest and the hardest thing to critique—easy because it is a conspicuous target, hard because taking issue with humor can put you in league with a bunch of pearl-clutching losers. The person accusing another of not taking something seriously might herself be too serious, missing a point best apprehended through the shoulder-shaking discomfort of an inappropriate laugh. In December, when the C.E.O. of UnitedHealthcare was gunned down in midtown Manhattan, an outpouring of online tomfoolery unfolded alongside the news story itself. Humorless pundits in the media were aghast at the crime in a way that seemed out of touch with the grand joke that is American health care, through the fault of people such as the man shot dead. “Fortunately the bullets were classified as preexisting,” a user quipped on Reddit; another declared, “Thoughts and prayers are out of network!” To some observers, the incessant joking was the sort of heartless mirth that social media had been running on for decades. But I have to admit that, for me, the laughs were productive. The death of Brian Thompson and the hilarity that followed placed greater focus on health care than did our last Democratic President, who refused to plainly say whether he would veto Medicare for All if it came across his desk. Rather than holding the thing they referenced at arm��s length, these jokes brought ugly truths close.

In a recent lecture on the visual artist Hamishi Farah, the writer Tobi Haslett wondered what role laughter can play when institutions unmask themselves. Farah had been commissioned to create an art work for the Transmediale festival, in Berlin, which then balked at Farah’s submission: a tranquil portrait of Joe Chialo, Germany’s senator for culture and social cohesion, who has, in lockstep with Western cultural institutions, endeavored to ban criticism of Israel from cultural life. The festival’s withdrawal of the painting, presumably out of fear that it was a work of ridicule, was, Haslett wrote, a laughable “irony of ironies” best appreciated in his contemplative, principled read of the situation. Laughter, Haslett went on, remains “a political question, but also an art question, which is to say that it’s a matter of everyday life.” Laughter does not speak for itself. We must ask after it, and when we do we might find that it has things to say. We ask the universe, as one memesmith did, “DOES ANYONE KNOW IF WE HAVE TO maintain our senses of kindness and empathy despite the world constantly trying to destroy the individual and destroy feelings in impersonal society TOMORROW.” We laugh, but the joke’s on us until we answer, resoundingly—with thought and action, with politics—yes.

[1800naveen]

Making that post because I don't give a fuck. I don't bother with hiding your user because fuck your privacy.

I checked your profile and you ship Feysand, that tells me everything I need to know about you. Now, let's look at this paragraph again! The whole thing!

"Starting with meeting with the governors of the palaces and getting them to agree never to serve, shelter, or entertain Keir or ANYONE from the court of nightmares." Did you get that? I hope so.

When Rhysand said anyone, he didn't only mean Keir and his soldiers, he meant anyone who was born from Hewn City. Women, men, children. Anyone who hails from Hewn City will not experience the same comfort as the citizens of Velaris.

The inner circle believes that everyone down there is evil and vile but that can't be true, can't it? If someone like Mor came from there and was a dreamer, that means there are more dreamers. There are innocent women and children who suffer in the court of nightmares but Rhysand and his inner circle leaves them to rot. Mor hasn't done anything for the women and she left centuries ago.

You want to know why I said they would like Jim Crow? It's because of shit like that. People were denied shelter, service, entertainment, get opportunities, etc. That's exactly what Rhysand said about anyone from Hewn City coming into Velaris. They had to deal with Rhysand coming down to Hewn City only to torment them so more in their miserable lives. That little stunt Feysand did in ACOMAF was straight up disgusting. Getting freaky in front of your people? Can you imagine the women seeing that? That Rhysand is acting like this with his lady? They also had to watch Rhysand break Keir's arm for calling Feyre a whore which is well deserved but Rhys doing that but not helping the women who had suffered at the hands of men for many years? Some high lord he is. Here's the racism part I was talking about:

"The Illyrians are pieces of shit," he said too quietly. I opened my mouth and shut it. Shadows gathered around his wings, trailing off him and onto the thick red rug. "They train and train as warriors, and yet when they don't come home, their families make us into villains for sending them to war?" "Their families have lost something irreplaceable," I said carefully. Azriel waved a scared hand, his cobalt Siphons glinting with the movement as his fingers cut through the air. "They're hypocrites." This is from A court of frost and starlight. Azriel is talking like that about the Illyrians even though HE IS A ILLYRIAN. That is internalized racism in my eyes. Because why would talk about your own people like that?

"Get your facts checked." I got my shit checked, I won't be making posts on this app if I DIDN'T have my facts. I have read the series, I wouldn't make posts like this if I didn't read it. Do yourself a favor and block me.

I hate Rhysand, Feysand (as a ship), the inner circle, and I love to talk shit about them. That shit that Rhysand did to Feyre UTM is one of the reasons I hate that bat bastard. "He had me dance until I was sick, and once I was done retching, told me to begin dancing again." ACOTAR, Chapter 39. He never gave her a true apology for what he did to her and that's fucking horrid. He had no reason to do that. That isn't protection, that's abusing a innocent woman. Don't act like he's a good guy when he did all of this to his "Feyre Darling".

Hating this series is awesome, give it a try. And you didn't reply to my comment, how come? I was hoping we would start a argument. I don't need people like YOU in my damn comments. Please do yourself a favor and block me now, save yourself the pain. Try filtering out the anti Rhysand and anti inner circle tags if you don't want to see shit like that. I saw a little post on your blog about seeing a post from a Rhysand and IC hater. I know it's about me, I be lurking at times.

I do hope you see this and I hope you give me a good ol' block!🙂 Either you block me or I block you. Any comment from a pro Rhysand or pro inner circle, I am not taking it seriously. I don't need bitches like YOU around and I'm sure you don't want a bitch like ME around.

READ THE FUCKING TAGS, YOU FUCKTARD. YOU AIN'T WELCOME HERE. WHY WOULD YOU MAKE YOURSELF SUFFER BY READING FROM ANTI FEYSAND OR ANTI IC PEOPLE? IF YOU'RE A FAN OF EITHER, YOU STAY AWAY FROM IT. I want you to know that I compared Rhysand and Feyre to Donald and Melania Trump, called him and the inner circle fascists, and compared him to Bill Cosby!🥰 Here's one, here's another, and the last one!

🎵Now when I came out, I told you it was just about Rhysand. Then you had to open your mouth with a motherfucking opinion. Well, this is how we gonna do this; Fuck Feysand (Feyre deserves better), fuck Rhysand, fuck the inner circle as a staff, family, and a motherfucking crew! And if you want to be down with this, then fuck you too!🎵

Be sure to read the tags this time, much love and take care! No but seriously, just block me. Make it better for yourself. I say this with genuine.

Made a post, just for you and your dumbass comment.

[acourtofthought]

I just saw an Elriel post that said all the articles and apps have been soft launching Elriel so that when the time comes, Gwynriels/Eluciens are more prepared/accepting and less likely to go one a threatening/doxxing spree.

I have never seen a single Gwynriel or Elucien ever threaten or threaten to threaten anyone in this fandom, sjm, or anyone connected to her, and the same goes for doxxing.

Now Elriels, on the other hand...

Maybe their convinced that if they win the ship war, we'll all go crazy because they already know that if we win the ship war, that's exactly what they'll do.

My question to those who believe E/riel is being soft launched is this. Why would Sarah J Maas and Bloomsbury elect to soft launch the next ACOTAR book through ScreenRant and EOnline? Why would they not drive all clicks their way? To their websites? To those they partner with? Because that would in turn lead to increased revenue for THEM. Not ScreenRant. Why in the world would they actively choose to leak information to places that aren't all that credible? Why not pair with Today again? With a place that could get them television interviews rather than notorious click bait websites?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Why in the world would I believe a random no name journalist who can't even be bothered to fact check what they're writing over people who personally know Sarah and don't believe E/riel is happening? I'm not saying they know anything for sure but I'll take a personal connection to the author over a journalist who clearly doesn't have any idea what they're talking about when it comes to these books any day. If Bloomsbury were truly going to leak information in order to soft launch E/riel then wouldn't they ensure the articles get the facts right? The last one said Az's aura was blue. You're telling me Sarah's marketing team knowingly pushed for that article to be written while not caring that the journalist doesn't understand what siphons are? If Sarah wanted readers to know who the next book was about she'd announce it, it's as simple as that. She is on record as saying Bloomsbury is going to want to make it a thing and that means when it's time, Bloomsbury will make it a thing because THEY will be the one to reap the benefits of doing so. Not ScreenRant. No EOnline. Not the phone / gadget company who decided to add an article to drive traffic their way. This soft launch argument is bananas because there's nothing to soft launch, Sarah and Bloomsbury don't need to warm up the crowd for Elain to end up with anyone. Just like they didn't need to soft launch Feyre and Rhys to end up together in ACOMAF. They didn't need to soft launch Yrene and Chaol to end up together. I'd go as far as saying Sarah wouldn't even like soft launches because she prefers to drop bombs on the readers. Like when she shocked us with Rhys being Feyre's mate. Or when she wanted to surprise her husband along with the rest of us when she had Bryce land in Prythian. Or when she shocked readers by revealing the Elucien mating bond which was completely out of left field. People have forgotten to think about who they're dealing with in favor of what they want to have happen and that makes all the difference.

[myloveforhergoeson]

aita for stealing my friend's swagger?

hey reddit. i (16m) created an app recently to help learn more about the swaggiest trends in real time. my boss suggested i become more swaggy to help appeal to a wider audience (i'm in a boy band if this information helps). in using it, i believe that while i am gaining the swag desired, i'm also siphoning it from my best friend (17m) and maybe also his life force?

for a bit of context, at our meeting this morning, our boss lined all fou of us up and told us we had issues. one of us (17m, previously mentioned) is too self-centered, another one (17m) lacks direction, i am too much of a nerd, and our frontman (17m) always talks back. so, i thought the solution might be to use my tech knowledge and build an app that helps users better understand how to improve swag levels over time. it took maybe 20 minutes to create and does it's job very well, i started to gain more swag almost instantly. i was dressing better, i know all the swaggiest tunes on the billboard hot 100, and i've come up with cool nicknames for everyone i know. all the people in my apartment building love the new me and i've already made some waves down by the pool. people are literally dancing through the park to hang out with me. it's great, honestly, if not a little exhausting.

the only issue is, my friend, the swaggiest of us all, has slowly began to decline in terms of swag over the last few hours. it started with small things, like tripping over his own feet or a mild cough, but now, he's bedridden and hooked up to a SKG (swagocardiogram of my own design) and his readings are dangerously low. i hate to see him like this (if he knew how pale he was he'd probably kill me tbh) but i'm really enjoying the new me. i'm thinking i'll keep the app for a little while longer, but if he lands himself in the hospital i'll definitely delete it. is that a good plan? or am i an asshole for keeping it downloaded?

[meret118]

This week, we spoke with four federal-government IT professionals—all experienced contractors and civil servants who have built, modified, or maintained the kind of technological infrastructure that Musk’s inexperienced employees at his newly created Department of Government Efficiency are attempting to access. In our conversations, each expert was unequivocal: They are terrified and struggling to articulate the scale of the crisis.

. . .

“This is the largest data breach and the largest IT security breach in our country’s history—at least that’s publicly known,” one contractor who has worked on classified information-security systems at numerous government agencies told us this week. “You can’t un-ring this bell. Once these DOGE guys have access to these data systems, they can ostensibly do with it what they want.”

. . .

Given the scope of what these systems do, key government services might stop working properly, citizens could be harmed, and the damage might be difficult or impossible to undo. As one administrator for a federal agency with deep knowledge about the government’s IT operations told us, “I don’t think the public quite understands the level of danger.”

. . .

These systems are immense, they are complex, and they are critical. A single program run by the FAA to help air-traffic controllers, En Route Automation Modernization, contains nearly 2 million lines of code; an average iPhone app, for comparison, has about 50,000. The Treasury Department disburses trillions of dollars in payments per year.

Many systems and databases in a given agency feed into others, but access to them is restricted. Employees, contractors, civil-service government workers, and political appointees have strict controls on what they can access and limited visibility into the system as a whole. This is by design, as even the most mundane government databases can contain highly sensitive personal information. A security-clearance database such as those used by the Department of Justice or the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, one contractor told us, could include information about a person’s mental-health or sexual history, as well as disclosures about any information that a foreign government could use to blackmail them.

Even if DOGE has not tapped into these particular databases, TheWashington Post reported on Wednesday that the group has accessed sensitive personnel data at OPM. Mother Jones also reported on Wednesday that an effort may be under way to effectively give Musk control over IT for the entire federal government, broadening his access to these agencies.

. . .

With relatively basic “read only” access, Musk’s people could easily find individuals in databases or clone entire servers and transfer that secure information somewhere else. Even if Musk eventually loses access to these systems—owing to a temporary court order such as the one approved yesterday, say—whatever data he siphons now could be his forever.

With a higher level of access—“write access”—a motivated person may be able to put their own code into the system, potentially without any oversight. The possibilities here are staggering. One could alter the data these systems process, or they could change the way the software operates—without any of the testing that would normally accompany changes to a critical system. Still another level of access, administrator privileges, could grant the broad ability to control a system, including hiding evidence of other alterations. “They could change or manipulate treasury data directly in the database with no way for people to audit or capture it,” one contractor told us. “We’d have very little way to know it even happened.”

. . .

Musk’s efforts represent a dramatic shift in the way the government’s business has traditionally been conducted. Previously, security protocols were so strict that a contractor plugging a non-government-issued computer into an ethernet port in a government agency office was considered a major security violation. Contrast that with DOGE’s incursion. CNN reported yesterday that a 23-year-old former SpaceX intern without a background check was given a basic, low tier of access to Department of Energy IT systems, despite objections from department lawyers and information experts. “That these guys, who may not even have clearances, are just pulling up and plugging in their own servers is madness,” one source told us, referring to an allegation that DOGE had connected its own server at OPM. “It’s really hard to find good analogies for how big of a deal this is.” The simple fact that Musk loyalists are in the building with their own computers is the heart of the problem—and helps explain why activities ostensibly authorized by the president are widely viewed as a catastrophic data breach.

-----

“‘Upgrading’ a system of which you know nothing about is a good way to break it, and breaking air travel is a worst-case scenario with consequences that will ripple out into all aspects of civilian life. It could easily get to a place where you can’t guarantee the safety of flights taking off and landing.” Nevertheless, on Wednesday Musk posted that “the DOGE team will aim to make rapid safety upgrades to the air traffic control system.”

Even if DOGE members are looking to modernize these systems, they may find themselves flummoxed. The government is big and old and complicated. One former official with experience in government IT systems, including at the Treasury, told us that old could mean that the systems were installed in 1962, 1992, or 2012. They might use a combination of software written in different programming languages: a little COBOL in the 1970s, a bit of Java in the 1990s. Knowledge about one system doesn’t give anyone—including Musk’s DOGE workers, some of whom were not even alive for Y2K—the ability to make intricate changes to another.

. . .

Like the FAA employee, the payment-systems expert also fears that the most likely result of DOGE activity on federal systems will be breaking them, especially because of incompetence and lack of proper care. DOGE, he observed, may be prepared to view or hoover up data, but. . . it doesn’t appear to be prepared to carry out savvy and effective alterations to how the system operates.

. . .

But DOGE workers could try anyway. Mainframe computers have a keyboard and display, unlike the cloud-computing servers in data centers. According to the former Treasury IT expert, someone who could get into the room and had credentials for the system could access it and, via the same machine or a networked one, probably also deploy software changes to it. It’s far more likely that they would break, rather than improve, a Treasury disbursement system in so doing, one source told us. “The volume of information they deal with [at the Treasury] is absolutely enormous, well beyond what anyone would deal with at SpaceX,” the source said. Even a small alteration to a part of the system that has to do with the distribution of funds could wreak havoc, preventing those funds from being distributed or distributing them wrongly, for example. “It’s like walking into a nuclear reactor and deciding to handle some plutonium.”

. . .

DOGE is many things—a dismantling of the federal government, a political project to flex power and punish perceived enemies—but it is also the logical end point of a strain of thought that’s become popular in Silicon Valley during the boom times of Big Tech and easy money: that building software and writing code aren’t just dominant skills for the 21st century, but proof of competence in any realm. In a post on X this week, John Shedletsky, a developer and an early employee at the popular gaming platform Roblox, summed up the philosophy nicely: “Silicon Valley built the modern world. Why shouldn’t we run it?”

More at the link.

The coup has already happened, and we lost.

[iamarealkat]

SECOND COURSE - KITCHEN

(or at least the main parts i recognized)

mads mikkelsen and lydia hearst for "euroman", april 2010 by kenneth willardt.

1. GE Monogram 36" Rangetop

First up, the rangetop. Unlike a cooktop, which sets into a pre-cut space in a counter or island, a rangetop overflows the sides and extends beyond the boundaries of the counter with front-facing knobs. This unit in particular is the GE Monogram 36" Rangetop (ZGU366NPSS), with an MSRP of $3400, reversible grates, and six 18,000 BTU power boil burners.

2. 30" GE Monogram Tri-Zone Counter Depth Integrated Refrigerator

Next, a dual installation of 30" GE Monogram Tri-Zone Counter-Depth Integrated Refrigerators (ZIC30GNHIl, shown with optional custom panels for seamless appearance). With an MSRP of $6999 each, these units are made more shallow, known in the industry as counter-depth, to integrate properly with standard cabinetry. Featuring fridge, freezer, and convertible middle-drawer climate zones, this unit has a capacity of 14.09 cu. ft. overall, per unit. It has two separate sealed systems for constant temperature control, and uses the first HFC-Free refrigerant, which has a lower global-warming impact.

3. 30" GE Monogram European Convection Double Wall Oven

A 30" GE Monogram European Convection Double Wall Oven (ZET2SHSS). An MSRP of $5300, with two 5.0 cu. ft. capacity oven cavities. With easy-to-clean all-glass interior door panels, both self-clean and steam-clean options, ten-pass baking elements, and two True European Convection ovens, these units boast convection bake and roast features with closed-door broiling as to not overheat a kitchen, and a built-in temperature probe for perfectly cooked roasts. It also offers a proof mode to assist dough-rising for avid bakers, convection conversion as to not overcook standard recipes, can be monitored remotely with use of a smart phone and GE's WiFi Connect app, and is programmable in both Celsius and Fahrenheit.

4. GE Monogram 240v Built In Oven with Advantium Speedcook Technology

Behold, the GE Monogram 240v Built In Oven with Advantium Speedcook Technology (ZSC2201JSS).

This bad chicken has an MSRP of $3200 and has settings for Speedcook, microwave, convection, and warming. What the hell is Speedcook? It's a combination of microwaves and convection, delivering results up to eight times faster than conventional cooking, and without the need for pre-heating. This thing can reheat, microwave, toast, brown, bake, and gently warm to your heart's content, and has the ability to remember custom recipes.

5. 30" GE Monogram Warming Drawer

Next up, the 30" GE Monogram Warming Drawer (ZW9000SJSS). With an MSRP of $1600, this drawer has a 1.9 cu. ft. capacity, and has variable temperature settings of anything from 75*F to 230*F, and humidity controls from crisp to moist. Gross. It also has a half-rack so you can store more on the inside, and has ball-bearing glides so it pulls out and closes smoothly while making that soothing whoosh noise.

6. 24" GE Monogram Undercabinet Wine Reserve

We also have the 24" GE Monogram Undercabinet Wine Reserve (ZDWR240HBS). With a cool MSRP of $2000, undercabinet wine refrigerators are notoriously tricky because of their front-facing venting needs. If you suffocate refrigerators, even small ones, (like humans) they die.

This fridge features cooling settings suitable to red or white wines, full-extension sliding racks with both horizontal and vertical storage, and has a capacity of 5.5 cu. ft, or 57 bottles.

Hannibal also, apparently, does not believe in dishwashers-panel-ready, drawer-style or otherwise.

What he does believe in? Is coffee, apparently:

7. Royal Paris Vacuum Balancing Coffee Siphon by Royal Coffee Maker

This, dear Fannibals, is a Royal Paris Vacuum Balancing Coffee Siphon, specifically noted by Bryan Fuller to be crafted by Royal Coffee Maker.

Handmade by artisans with affordable materials such as genuine Baccarat Crystal, malachite, copper, obsidian, azurite, and plating of silver and 24k gold, these start at the low, low price of approximately $15,500.

Hannibal's model is the Royal Classic finished in silver, on a Piano Black base. It is, perhaps surprisingly or unsurprisingly, the most tasteful and least ostentatious of all available models.

This brings the approximate total of all Hannibal's kitchen appliances, plus or minus a few of the minor ones, to $45,000.

8. Additionally in his stolen borrowed home in Florence: La Cornue 43" CornuFé Range

In 1908, in the heart of Paris, Albert Dupuy ignited the flame of elite cuisine. It was there that Dupuy premiered the world's first convection oven. At the time, most ovens were mere flat-topped cavities that held racks suspended over a fire. The majority of people simply considered cooking to be heating food to eat. But Dupuy pondered: "What does it really mean to cook?" He developed his oven with a vaulted ceiling to usher heat around the food, rather than trapping it to burn beneath. To enable optimum precision, the oven drew upon the city gas lines that were winding their way to homes and street lamps throughout the City of Light. Dupuy christened the oven La Cornue after the French term cornue - the system for refining the gas that warmed the new creation.

Each range is made by hand and the labor is intensive. Each worker is a specialist, understanding the greater goal.

However they are not just craftsmen, but companions to each range along its journey from inception to crated final product. They are experts in steel, copper and brass, inspired by great design, working as a team to create an inspired tradition.

True excellence can only be achieved when every step in the process is in pursuit of perfection.

For over 100 years, La Cornue has continued to build upon Albert's initial convection innovation and they've expanded the designs and introduced new styles. As a result, the name La Cornue is supposed to represent a renowned spirit.

Hannibal's version runs about $10,000.

[dreamersinthedaylightinspo]

Saw a post about Rhys being insane for going after Illyrians who worked with Amarantha while he also worked for Amarantha which reminded me very strongly of a bit that I've been casually working on in my notes app because I have Amarantha’s Takeover Rule Brainrot

Loosely connected with my ficverse and featuring entirely OCs but -

The Illyrian had his hands up. He was speaking - the same word over and over -

"Sanctuary. Sanctuary. Sanctuary. Sanctuary."

Martialis kept his hand raised in stay, but did not lower his short sword. "Who are you? Identify yourself at once!"

"Azeneth of Ironcrest," said the Illyrian. His long hair was a tangled nest of black, a few braided pieces around his pallid, terrified face. He was young, Pyrrha realized with a start - no older than she was, if even that. "Sanctuary. I mean you no harm."

"Liar," someone spat, to her left.

Azeneth's eyes widened; his head whipped to the sound, so Pyrrha got a close look at his eyes - the pupils large as saucers, the whites stark, tears pricking at the corners.

"Its the truth! Please - they'll kill me if I don't fight - the High Lord has gone completely mad -"

"And how do we know you were not sent here to spy on us?" asked Martialis calmly.

Azeneth looked pleadingly at the captain. "They will kill me," he repeated. His fear was genuine; he reeked with it. The green siphoning stone on his chest shone ominously as his emotions flared.

"How did you manage to escape?" Martialis continued.

Azeneth wet his lips. His wings twitched and there was a shift, a series of clanging sounds, as the soldiers behind him lifted their spears and poised to throw. At once, he raised his hands higher, demonstrating his surrender.

"The general is missing," said Azeneth. "We believe that he has been killed - and my unit commander raised this concern with the wrong person - he was executed, and while they were all distracted, I ran."

"And the wards? How did you pass through unscathed?"

"There is a hole on the southeastern segment of the city wall," Azeneth confessed at once. "It hasn't been repaired yet, and its high, so only someone with wings can break through. We know all the weaknesses in the wards - I came through that point, and the others will be coming through after me. They are planning to send a small force to the main gate as a distraction while the Illyrians break through the weak spot. Then the rest of the army will follow."

The south wall - the school, Celestine, was there. Pyrrha's blood ran cold, and it was clear that she wasn't the only one. Martialis's expression was grave, and he ordered, "Tell Keeper Darnic to warn his counterparts, and send a message to Otho and the general."

There was a flurry of movement as one of the priestesses broke free from the group and rushed off. Pyrrha did not dare take her eyes from the Illyrian, who was noticeably trembling.

"Thank you for your information," said Martialis. "For your contributions, a quick death."

Azeneth let out a whimper, but before the captain could attack, Lucretia raised her voice.

"You do not dare spill innocent blood in the Mother's sacred hall!"

Martialis spared the old priestess a glare of indignation. "He's an Illyrian spy," he said, as if she were too stupid to have figured it out. "Illyrians are trained to kill from the womb. We cannot let him live."

"How dare you?" Lucretia's voice, though throaty with age, was still powerful. "The Mother loves each of her children and lifts them when they stumble!"

"We don't have time for sermons!"

"You are right," said Lucretia, lifting her chin. "I am merely reminding you - this is *my* temple. I am the Reverend High, by age and by decree. And if this child claims Sanctuary in the arms of the Mother, then I grant it without hesitatation. Those who would tarnish the Mother's sacred hospitality and compassion have no place here."

Martialis colored with fury and shame flashed across his eyes. Pyrrha understood at once what he must be feeling - not only had Lucretia just threatened to upend their war plans and throw Martialis to the literal wolves at the door, but the old woman had a special talent for enforcing discipline. Serapion slacked off on chores and argued with his parents, but he'd always known better than to sass his grandmother. They all did.

"Disarm him!" The captain snapped the order, but it wasn't directed at anyone in particular and nobody moved at first.

Pyrrha raised her spear and relaxed out of her stance. Her feet carried her - one step, two steps, three steps, four steps - until she was within arms length of the Illyrian.

She held out her hand.

Azeneth began pulling black stone knives from his person - long, curved blades strappedno to his chest, and four daggers strapped to his waist, and another, smaller one in his boot. He dropped them all to the floor one by one, letting them clatter and clang against the tiles. The last thing he removed was the leather strap which held the green stone, and this was the only thing he handed to Pyrrha, placing it gently on her palm.

Her fingers closed around it as she took a step backward. It was warm, and seemed to have a faint heartbeat.

"Search him!" Martialis commanded.

Two male soldiers stepped forward and did so, roughly yanking on his leathers and slapping their hands hard against his body. Azeneth winced, but did not protest.

"Clean!"

Azeneth slowly lowered his hands. No one lowered their weapons.

Martialis broke the tension by sheathing his blade, and turning to face the old priestess.

"Where can we keep him?"

Lucretia's mouth pursed and she said, "He is a guest, not a prisoner."

"Be that as it may," said the captain flatly. "We are at war."

Lucretia looked at Pyrrha, who stared back at her blankly. She was still holding the stone out; she realized she was somewhat afraid of it, and then chided herself as she forced her body to stand normally, arms at her sides. Illyrian siphons were powerful, but they were only stones once they'd been removed from their wearers. Azeneth was harmless.

"My grandson could use some help with organizing our medical supply," suggested Lucretia. "Perhaps our guest might be willing to help?"

Azeneth lowered his chin as a few soldiers snickered to see his expression.

Pyrrha said, "Sure. I'll take you to him. This way."

She looked at Azeneth, who eyed her a bit warily, but followed when she walked. She felt every single eye - her peers, the other priestesses - and only paused when she reached Lucretia's position by the doors.

"Keep your eyes open," the old priestess advised.

Pyrrha nodded. That would be wise indeed.

[ayeforscotland]

I am on the latest app that hopes to siphon people from twitter.

If you have Instagram/Threads feel free to drop me a follow. I’m just unhinged posting at the moment as there’s no rules of engagement.

Couple of points:

1. Creating a Threads account ties your Instagram and Threads account together. If you ever delete it then it’ll delete your Instagram account too.

2. There’s no ‘follow only’ feed so you need to block influencers and follow all your friends ASAP to make it remotely enjoyable

3. There’s no desktop version

4. There’s no DM functionality

You: “That sounds terrible, why are you even bothering?”

Me: “The games industry had made the jump which means I kinda have to as well. If we can persuade them to join Tumblr then I’d much prefer it.”

[myautisticpov]

Logitech has apparently updated the app they made me fucking install alongside my mouse (shitty, useless, somehow a different app to the one they made me install for my headphones)

And in the update, they added an AI prompt builder

Which, for some fucking reason, is opening itself when I try to use my dictation software

So I keep trying to dictate into a document and it keeps siphoning it off to send to ChatGPT

(I know, I know, the mouse should work without the software, I had a specific issue with the headphones that I needed the software to troubleshoot, so I haven't gotten rid of either software yet, but this is the last straw)

[otamu-times]

I swear I’m going to stop posting about this, but I think we should slow down and stop spinning conspiracy theories. Let’s gather facts.

The CEO of TikTok stroked Trump’s ego to get the ban lifted. So the result is this post from Trump on truth social. Ego stroked = ban lift

The app and other Bytedance properties are still not available in Apple or Google’s app stores. Meaning TikTok is still in a precarious situation.

Advertising campaigns have been disrupted, which has been documented in a memo from TikTok. Certain ad campaigns have been able to run. Honestly, I think that Meta has just been trying to siphon off users on to their platforms. This whole situation of TikTok not being in the app stores is very good for them. I don’t think Meta bought Bytedance. There will be less users if people cannot download TikTok.

Also, as a reminder Trump is volatile. So even though he said it is okay for TikTok to operate I can see why the app stores are afraid to put it back in their app stores.

Anyways you can find more information here and here: