#code:390 | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

slowmissiles · 1 year

Photo

Back in a former life, I had an addiction that I loved beyond sanity. Here’s the story of it. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 pt1 2009 pt2 2009 Redux

This is the final spec list for my glorious, insane Brutal Truth.

Nissan Skyline BCNR33 GT-R (Type 2) manufactured in April 1996. JDM non V-Spec vehicle retailed through Osaka Nissan Prince in May/June 1996. Imported to the UK in June 1997. Remained in original JDM spec without speedometer conversion until August 2002. Only the steering wheel & white dial sets were fitted in Japan.

Nismo RB26N1 bare engine: [N1 water pump (improved flow & less cavitation)/Reinforced cylinder block head bolt boss/Increased sump capacity (6L 20w60)/1.2mm oil restrictor]

N1 head with 0.5mm overbore (2598cc)

Cryogenically hardened N1 crankshaft

Wossner forged & cryogenically hardened pistons

Abbey Motorsport reinforced & cryogenically hardened con-rods

ACL Race Series conrod & crankshaft bearings

Tomei sump baffle kit

Tomei high flow (larger drive gears) oil pump

HKS 1.2mm metal head gasket

Tomei Procam Spec 2 cam kit (270 degree inlet & outlet with 10.25mm lift)

HKS V-Cam System Step 1 Type B (variable 248-278 degree inlet; replaces Procam inlet camshaft)

HKS vernier cam pulleys

HKS kevlar reinforced timing belt

Trust metal intake & throttle gaskets

HKS front pipe & decat gaskets

GReddy Iridium 08 Racing sparkplugs

Mocal 19-row oil cooler & Abbey Motorsport remote oil filter assembly

Abbey Motorsport catch tank & washer reservoir with SFS breather hoses

Abbey Motorsport Pro Alloy large radiator

Tomei fuel pump, fuel regulator & 600cc injectors

A’PEXi Power Intake induction kit

A’PEXi GT Spec intercooler (237x610x136mm) & hard pipe kit

HKS GT-SS turbos

HKS twin AFM delete kit

Tomei turbo elbows

HKS downpipes

HKS Silent Hi-Power exhaust

Abbey Motorsport 80mm decat pipe

Mine’s VX-ROM

HKS F-Con V Pro

HKS EVC 6 boost controller (1.6 bar)

AEM wideband lambda sensor

Splitfire DI Super Direct Ignition System

HKS Circle Earth kit

HKS GD Max twin-plate clutch (with lightened flywheel)

Abbey Motorsport rebuilt transfer box

Abbey Motorsport rebuilt gearbox with cryogenically hardened gear set, modified Nissan synchromesh upgrade and OS Giken strengthening plate

Abbey Motorsport rebuilt rear diff

Nismo gearbox mounts

Nismo Solid Shift gear stick (10% short shift)

Omex Shift Light Sequential

Sunsei SE-135 solar panel trickle charger mounted on a custom aluminium riser between the rear parcel shelf speaker enclosures.

Team Dynamics Equinox alloys 19x9.5, ET+15 in silver with polished stainless steel rim.

Falken FK452 265/30/19 Y-rated tyres

Cusco brake master cylinder brace

Cusco rear steering delete kit

Cusco front & rear upper suspension links

AST Sport Line 1 full suspension kit with UK spring setup

Nismo stainless steel braided brake hoses

StopTech 355mm rotor 4 pot caliper front brake kit

StopTech 355mm rotor 2 pot caliper rear brake kit with Abbey Motorsport modified pad retainers

Ferodo DS2500 brake pads front & rear

Bomex AD-390 front splitter

Nismo R34 smoked front indicators in custom aluminium mounting plates finished in crackle black

Nissan Xenon headlamp units

Border Racing Aero Fenders (vented front wings) with silver GT emblems from a R32 Skyline

Nismo smoked side repeaters

Top Mix one-off FRP twin blade rear spoiler on custom aluminium mounting plates

Entire exterior resprayed in BMW black (code 086) base and lacquer

Nissan Motorsport International carbon fibre B-pillar plates

PIAA carbon effect silicon wipers, front pair with spoilers, rear without

Nismo white face dial sets (dashboard & centre console) in carbon fibre panels

AEM AFR gauge mount replaces the lighter socket

HKS EVC display mounted on custom carbon fibre plate replacing the ashtray

Lighter socket relocated to the fog light switch panel

Nissan Momo steering wheel (with airbag)

Dressycar Nismo harness pads

Redline Automotive leather gearstick & handbrake gaiters

Abbey Motorsport carbon fibre door sill trims

Carbon fibre boot sill trim

Inlet plenum and sundry induction pipework finished in powder grey

Trust clear cam pulley cover

HKS Kansai Service carbon fibre spark plug cover

Right hand cam cover finished in crackle black

Nismo radiator & washer reservoir caps

HKS Kansai Service front strut brace finished in high gloss black

GReddy aluminium slam panel finished in crackle black

Tein bonnet dampers with black sleeves

Custom made one-off Cobra Misano Lux front seats: [Alcantara (colour code 9189) outers/Alcantara (colour code 9182) centre panels/One-piece carbon fibre backs/Sidewinder bases on custom subframes adapted by Abbey Motorsport/Cobra logo in silver thread on the headpads/GT-R logo beneath the grommets on seat backs]

JVC KD-AVX2 multi-media DVD/CD receiver with built-in 3.5” widescreen monitor

2x JL Audio Evolution VR600-CXi 6” speakers (front)

2x JL Audio Evolution TR650-CXi 6.5” speakers (rear)

Multiple and interlaced Thatcham rated security systems.

500 bhp. 520 ft/lb.

Ludicrously, hilariously, unbelievably fast.

Hope you enjoyed this little trip down memory lane with me. Cheers! JM.

(Photo by N. Liassides.)

#r33 #bcnr33 #skyline #gt-r #nissan skyline #Abbey Motorsport #HKS #Bomex #Tomei #A'PEXi #GReddy #Nismo #RB26N1 #Mocal #Team Dynamics

12 notes · View notes

emeraldhxh879 · 1 year

Text

Fake Anime Screenshot

Just finished with my 12th fake screenshot, since I converted this on paper when i drew my OCs Kanako, Yui and Naomi. Anyways i'm getting inspired of DITF scene, since I drew this recently and it took 2 days of getting this drawing finished because i was busy with school and everything. It seems like Kanako is talking with the leader of the Neon Team Organization, but everyone on the squad has the same uniform except the lines for the male and female uniform clothing. Tbh i'm getting inspired from Miku Darling code 390 from DITF since i created my other OC Naomi who is a part of the Neon Team.

if i'm honest i'm getting inspired by code:000 aka Kentaro Yabuki with my own art style, including Studio A-1 Pictures.

Kanako Hayashi the Hedgehog, Yui Tachibana the Hedgehog and Naomi Yabuki the Cat belongs to EmeraldHXH879

#art #artwork #doodle #drawing #sonic fan character #sonic fc #sonic oc #sonic original character #sonic #sonic the hedgehog #fake anime screenshot #anime #fake anime screencap #anime art #illustration art

8 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 1 year

Text

On January 4, the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC) fined Meta €390 million ($414 million) for violating Europe’s privacy law, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), and directed the company to bring its data processing operations into compliance within 3 months. Shortly thereafter, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), which consists of all the European data protection authorities, released the text of its binding decision that dictated the Irish DPC’s ruling. The key finding is that Meta cannot rely upon its contract with users as providing a sufficient legal basis for processing user data for personalized ads. If upheld on appeal, this decision might require social media companies and other online businesses to significantly revise their data-focused advertising business model in the name of protecting privacy.

I want to discuss the EDPB’s decision in two parts. In this post, I will first analyze its legal basis and assess its likely business implications. In the next part, I will consider whether this decision holds some lessons for policymakers as they seek to revise U.S. laws to protect privacy more adequately.

The European Privacy Approach

The European Union’s GDPR became effective in 2018. It requires companies to have a legal basis for data processing, the European term of art for collecting and using personal information. “Processing shall be lawful,” says Article 6 of GDPR, “only if and to the extent that at least one of the following applies,” and includes a list of legal bases for data processing.

The key bases are fulfillment of a contract, consent, and legitimate interest. Under fulfillment of a contract, processing is lawful only if it is “necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract.” Under consent, processing is lawful only if “the data subject has given consent to the processing of his or her personal data for one or more specific purposes.” Under legitimate interest, processing is lawful only if it is “necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by a third party…”

The interpretation of these key legal terms of contractual necessity, consent, and legitimate interest is complex and contested. But for the purpose of understanding the broad outlines of the EDPB’s decision, the uses of the different legal bases can be simplified as follows.

Contractual necessity

Contractual necessity applies when the company needs personal information to fulfill a contract that they have made with you to provide service. An online retail stores clearly needs users’ contact details in order to send the items they have purchased. The store can rely on contractual necessity in this case as the basis for collecting and using this information.

Consent

Consent is the legal basis to use if a company wants to process personal information that is not needed to provide service to the customer. If a company wants to collect users’ zip codes at the point of sale, it must ask the customers’ permission and tell them why it wants the information (understanding the company’s customer base for instance, or direct marketing). If the customers refuse, the company must still sell them what they want to buy. If the customers provide the store with their zip codes in these circumstances, they have consented, and the company can claim that as its legal basis for collecting the information.

Legitimate interest

Legitimate interest applies when neither of the other two apply. If a company wants to collect and use user information for direct marketing but has not obtained consent and does not need the information to provide a service, it can nevertheless obtain it and use it if it can show that it has a real business need for the information, an urgent need that overrides any interest the consumers have in protecting their privacy. The comment on legitimate interest in GDPR Recital 47 says that fraud prevention and direct marketing could be justified under legitimate interest. Neither consent nor contractual necessity would be required for data use justified under legitimate interest.

Further, Article 21 of GDPR limits the use of legitimate interest as a basis for direct marketing. This article provides users with an absolute right to object to direct marketing. A company can assert its legitimate interest as a basis for direct marketing, but as soon as a user objects it must honor this request to stop direct marketing. This right to object overrides any claim of business interest.

The European Data Protection Board’s Meta Decision

The Irish Data Protection Commission’s (DPC) January 4, 2023 announcement was the product of a complex process. Meta claimed to the Irish DPC that its legal basis for processing user data for personalized social media services and for advertising purposes was contractual necessity. The Irish DPC essentially agreed, but its decision was challenged by other European data protection authorities, which triggered a process of negotiation to seek a resolution of that dispute. The dispute resolution procedure failed and, pursuant to procedures set out in the GDPR, the issue was referred to the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), a body that consists of all the European Union’s data protection authorities. The EDPB is authorized to issue binding decisions to ensure that the national data protection authorities apply the provisions of the GDPR in a correct and consistent manner.

On December 9, 2022, the EDPB announced that it had “settled” the question of whether or not the processing of personal data for the performance of a contract is a suitable legal basis for social media behavioral advertising. In conformity with that binding decision, the Irish DPC announced in January, that it was reversing itself and rejecting contractual necessity as the basis for Meta’s processing of personal data for advertising purposes. While this decision is formally one made by the Irish DPC, it effectively was determined by the collective body of European data protection commissioners. A few days later on January 11, the Irish DPC released the text of its decision, and the following day the EDPB released the text of its binding decision that had dictated the Irish DPC’s ruling.

The EDPB ruling is the key one for understanding the basis of this decision. It finds in the record it reviewed in coming to its decision information that reveals “the complexity, massive scale and intrusiveness of the behavioural advertising practice that Meta IE conducts…” (Par 96). This indicates immediately its suspicion of Meta’s data practices, revealing that it will need substantial evidence to indicate that this “massive” collection of data for personalized ads is needed to provide social media service.

On the basis of the “objectives” and “normative context” of GDPR and of earlier European court decisions the EDPB concludes that GDPR “treats personal data as a fundamental right inherent to a data subject and his/her dignity, and not as a commodity data subjects can trade away through a contract.” (Par. 100, 101). This reassertion of the fundamental premise of European privacy law that privacy is prior to business interests is a guiding principle of the decision.

The EDPB recognizes that while data subjects cannot arbitrarily trade away their privacy, they are permitted under GDPR Article 6 to provide personal information needed to obtain a service. So, the EDPB turns to the question of “whether behavioural advertising is objectively necessary for Meta” to provide its service. (Par. 111). If it is, then Meta may claim contractual necessity; if it is not, then Meta may not.

EDPB then argues that personalized advertising is not needed to provide social media services. It asserts that if “there are realistic, less intrusive alternatives, the processing is not “necessary”. (par. 120). It considers that there are such alternatives including “contextual advertising based on geography, language and content, which do not involve intrusive measures such as profiling and tracking of users.” (Par. 121). Meta has found it useful for it business purposes to generate revenue through personalized ads. But that is not contractual necessity, since there are realistic alternative funding mechanisms. EDPB concludes that personalized advertising “is useful but not objectively necessary for performing the contractual service, even if it is necessary for the controller’s other business purposes.” (Par. 121).

EDPB also argues that processing for the purposes of personalized adverting cannot be necessary to provide social media services in light of the data subject’s “absolute right” to object to data processing for purposes of direct marketing under Article 21 of GDPR. Data processing for the purposes of personalized ads “cannot be necessary to perform a contract if a subject has the possibility to opt out from it at any time, and without providing any reason.” (Par 122).

EDPB notes that an important consideration in its rejection of Meta’s contractual necessity justification is that “the main purpose for which users use Facebook and accept the Facebook Terms of Service is to communicate with others, not to receive personalised advertisements.” (Par 124)

Next Steps

The consensus among analysts is that for the immediate future Meta will be able to continue to fund its operations through personalized ads. Matt Perault at New Street Research, for instances, considers that the EDPB judgment “won’t affect its ads business in the short run.” Meta’s reaction to the decision bears out this analysis. In a company-issued blog post, Meta says it thinks its legal justification of contractual necessity “respects” GDPR and complains about the lack of “regulatory clarity” on the issue. The company said it would appeal both the ruling and the size of the fines, noting that the European courts may yet reach “a different conclusion altogether.” Presumably, it would also ask a court to stay the implementation of the ruling during the pendency of the appeal, which would allow its personalized ad business to continue uninterrupted, potentially for years.

Even if Meta fails to obtain a stay, it is open to the company to revise its legal basis and to present an alternative justification for its data processing. This could be consent, but Meta seems uninterested in pursuing this option. In the same blog post, it says that the EDPB decision does not “mandate the use of Consent” as a legal basis for its data processing. It rejects the idea that it can no longer offer personalized ads unless each user’s agreement has been obtained. And it holds out the prospect of “another available legal basis under GDPR” for personalized advertising.

But the only plausible alternative legal basis other than consent or contractual necessity would be legitimate interest. Legitimate interest is a complex legal basis that would require Meta to show its legitimate interest in personalized advertising overrides “the interests or fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection of personal data.” If Meta pursues that route, it could submit a justification to the Irish DPC based on legitimate interest and try to satisfy the heavy burden involved in defending that legal basis.

The Irish DPC order says that Meta must “bring its processing operations into compliance with GDPR” within three months. Meta could argue, however, that it had complied with the ruling by providing this alternative legal basis of legitimate interest and should be allowed to provide personalized ads until the Irish DPC has had a chance to evaluate this new claim, which could take months or years. The Irish DPC may very well accept this argument, which would provide a significant delay in any operational changes. It is worth remembering that the objection to Meta’s contractual necessity justification was filed four years ago and will likely continue several more years with appeals.

In the longer term, however, Meta faces a seemingly insuperable hurdle in maintaining its personalized ad business in its current form, even if it succeeds in its legitimate interest justification. This is because Article 21 of GDPR provides an absolute right for users to object to the processing of their personal information for direct marketing, which would include personalized ads on social media. Even if Meta successfully invokes legitimate interest to justify the use of personal information for personalized ads, it must still honor this absolute right for users to object.

Will Meta change its existing ad model to comply?

Observing this right to object is likely to mean that Meta would have to offer its users the alternative of receiving the personalized social media services without also receiving personalized ads. Providing users with a choice, however, is extraordinarily risky for Meta’s personalized ad business. When Apple gave its app store users a yes or no choice on whether they wanted apps to track them for purposes of serving ads, 96% of U.S. citizens rejected personalized ad tracking. It is for this reason that analysts are concerned that in the long run Meta’s personalized ad model is in trouble. Dan Ives, an analyst at Wedbush Securities, for instance, thinks that the ruling could put “5 to 7 percent of Meta’s overall advertising revenue at risk.”

The alternative to a social media service paid for by personalized ads might well become an increasingly important part of Meta’s business model. The company could seek to fund this alternative through contextual ads alone. But it could also offer users an alternative of paying a fee to receive a personalized social media service free of targeted ads, a model that is widely followed in other services such as streaming music. Whether the fee could be set so high ($100 a month, for instance) that as a practical matter it forced users to accept personalized ads would be a question for the Irish DPC to address when it approves or rejects Meta’s proposal for coming into compliance with GDPR. Assessing the commercial necessity of Meta’s rates would force the agency into the new and uncomfortable position of economic regulator supervising the rates that Meta could charge its users.

Despite the potentially far-reaching nature of the ruling for Meta’s personalized ad business, it is also worth remembering that it might not mean that the company will collect any less personal information or no longer construct detailed profiles of its users. The ruling simply says that Meta cannot collect information or construct profiles for the purpose of serving personalized ads under its contractual necessity basis. The ruling seems to allow Meta to continue to collect and use personal information on the basis of its terms of service for the purpose of providing personalized social media services. So, users who accept Meta’s terms of service will still be allowing the company to collect and analyze information derived from their use of the social media platform for the purpose of ranking, prioritizing, and recommending material posted by other users. Nothing in the decision appears to mean that Meta will have to stop offering algorithmically driven social media service. It would not, for example, be required to provide a chronological feed as one or the only alternative for its users. The ruling imposes no limitation on algorithmic amplification based on personal information.

Moreover, the ruling does not say that Facebook or Instagram must be ad-free. The ads that appear on these services that many find to be annoying and intrusive will likely continue and might even increase. But now these ads would not be personalized. They would be static ads that would be shown indifferently to all users or targeted contextually to all users in a certain location or who speak a given language. Even a fee-based service might contain these non-personal ads.

Conclusion

Privacy advocates might then wonder what they have concretely gained from this apparent victory. Social media surveillance likely will not diminish, nor will the bombardment of users by distracting and confusing commercial advertising. Still, an important precedent has been set, one that vindicates the primacy of privacy rights. The decision delivers a message to all social media companies and other digital companies that they must respect the privacy interests of their users first. Their commercial interests are secondary. To paraphrase the great philosopher of human rights, Immanuel Kant, businesses must first be certain that they are respecting people’s fundamental rights, including their privacy rights. Only then are they entitled to look around for ways to satisfy their economic interests.

In a forthcoming blog, I will look at whether U.S. policymakers should reimagine for the U.S. context the European privacy requirement to demonstrate a legal basis for personal data use and if so, what the implications might be for the data practices of social media companies and other digital companies in the U.S.

9 notes · View notes

v-eight-lover · 1 year

Photo

'68 AMX Go Pack, X-code 390, auto

166 notes · View notes

la-pheacienne · 1 year

Text

I posted 979 times in 2022

That's 979 more posts than 2021!

212 posts created (22%)

767 posts reblogged (78%)

Blogs I reblogged the most:

@lipsticksontheglass

@ladyalianora

@alethiaii

@theblackqveen

@ladygreene13

I tagged 821 of my posts in 2022

Only 16% of my posts had no tags

#hotd - 390 posts

#house of the dragon - 205 posts

#anonymous - 128 posts

#rhaenyra targaryen - 103 posts

#daemon targaryen - 93 posts

#daemyra - 79 posts

#bcs - 48 posts

#alicent hightower - 46 posts

#hotd clownery - 33 posts

#bbc merlin - 27 posts

Longest Tag: 139 characters

#i discovered how to do hyperlinks like 3 days ago and i'm obsessed from now on i will put one in every single one of my posts because i can

My Top Posts in 2022:

The 💖💖"where is duty where is sacrifice"💖💖 line being tossed around as the ultimate motto/inspiration of green stans is genuinely the most pathetic thing that happened to this fandom and an undeniable proof of most people's Americans's functional illiteracy.

You are literally preaching for institutionalising internalised misogyny, and sounding like that disgusting woman from the Handmaid's tale I don't even remember her name cause I don't watch the show that held the female protagonist so that her own husband can rape her.

Of course you're gonna tell me oh you're a hypocrite shipping incestous couples and promoting feudal ideology, everything is permitted in the context of the story, right. Everything is permitted. The difference is that it's according to the context of the story that Alicent and her clan are the antagonists, something that many people have forgotten and I don't entirely blame you for that because the shitshow is very confusing. Still, according to the context of the story Alicent is a spiteful, vengeful and treasonous conservative freak, who slut-shames, slanders and undermines the heir which directly led to her horrible death, and all of this because she's a woman. So yeah, according to the context of the story, using her ridiculous line as words to live by is really problematic and that's code for fucking disgusting.

I even saw a person saying that they don't blame Alicent for wanting to usurp Rhaenyra because Rhaenyra made it so easy for them. And why is that ? Because she had sex and kids with another man, because of that she made it easy for them so she deserves being eaten by a dragon on the orders of her brother. Because she had sex. This is the level of clownery we're at.

Green stans literally don't realise that the Hightowers' aim was power all along, that their main quality is greed and they used whatever they could to slander and undermine the rightful heir weaponising her gender against her. It was never about her supposed immoral lifestyle, it was always about her fucking vagina and Hightowers' greed and misogyny and that's literally supposed to be the reason why they are the bad guys but people are literally using the very reason they are the bad guys as a means to defend them? Like??????

Honestly I can't block fast enough.

130 notes - Posted December 5, 2022

Ok but the parallel between Cersei absolutely terrorising the shit out of Littlefinger in the "Power is Power" scene and Alicent being sexually abused by Larys in order to get him to do what she wants is just.marvellous.

They are both Queen regents. That literally means they are like one of the 5 most powerful people in all seven kingdoms, not to say the most powerful people in all seven kingdoms after the king himself. They both happen to have a faithful servant/counselor that also happens to be a psychotic murderous piece of shit, no disagreement on that. Both these counselors try to exert power over the Queens but the Queens' reactions are totally not the same. Littlefinger tries to scare Cersei by saying that he knows everything that happens, implying that he can take her down at any moment. Larys terrorises Alicent by executing murder that she didn't order, but in her name, thus blackmailing her. Cersei kindly reminds Littlefinger that he can be the most powerful and unhinged Lord in all Seven Kingdoms but she is still the Queen, on top of that she is fucking insane and she will cut his throat on the spot if he defies her again. Alicent on the other hand has Larys masturbate to her feet so that hopefully he will do as she wishes. Alicent, the Queen regent. That could literally order his execution on the spot. He is a simple disabled Lord and she is the Queen and she needs to give him sexual favours so that he obeys her? What she could have done is negotiate, and blackmail back, in a power move that is worthy of real Queen regents in history who had political wit and ruthlessness and ambition. A power move that is worthy or book!Alicent herself. Imagine the dialogue and the character development that scene could have given us. But nope, wasn't meant to be. What we got instead is a disabled person being creepy and abusive and Alicent being a victim yet again.

And you are still wondering why this isn't an engaging character? You are still wondering why the general audience doesn't give a fuck about her?

140 notes - Posted November 9, 2022

My two cents on episode 7 because I just watched it.

It was an amazing episode. I will even argue that it was the best episode so far. So many things happening, nothing felt rushed. The funeral after party was GOLD. So many dynamics being explored between all the characters, so many feelings expressed just by angry stares, longing glances and half spoken innuendos. Like a pot slowly boiling and ready to explode. The fight between the children was perfect, the fight between Alicent Rhaenyra and Viserys later on was easily the best scene in HotD until now. I am team Black until the very end and I love Rhaenyra with all my heart but I FELT Alicent in this episode and THIS is great writing. I absolutely loved that Alicent regretted her actions afterwards, I also loved how she expected her father to be pissed and judgemental, and he was judgemental but at the same time appreciative, like? That's some great, multilayered dialogue there, people. The way Daemyra schemed and plotted their wedding and Laenor's escape was GoT season 1 material. Epic plot-twist.

Let's talk about Daemyra. I went over many posts here about the couple, and I admit that I am genuinely confused. I will address some of the complaints I saw: Matt and Emma don't have chemistry. Emma wasn't into it. Daemon wasn't into it, he was blank and passive and indifferent. The sex scene was short and we didn't see oral sex and different positions, orgasms, eye contact, whatever. The dialogue before was also lukewarm because Daemon didn't confess his undying love for his niece on one knee. We still don't know Daemon's motives because he doesn't speak. He didn't show enthousiasm after the mariage proposal. Etc etc etc.

Part of the reason for this reaction IS the incredibly high expectations. Another part is the ridiculous nature of a lot of these expectations. With all due respect for Daemyra's shippers out there (because I am one of them) I think you are confusing this show with Pride and Prejudice. This is not a romance show. This is not a show about the epic love story between Daemon and Rhaenyra. This is also not a romcom. It's a Game of Thrones show. The love story is a part of it, not even the main thing. Yes the dialogue wasn't exactly lovey dovey, yes Daemon didn't start crying when Rhaenyra proposed, he didn't swear eternal love and devotion like Romeo. No, he didn't go down on Rhaenyra in a feminist power move.

I'm sorry, but who fucking cares.

I've said what their dynamic in this episode definitely wasn't, let's see what it actually was. Let's talk specifics.

What I saw with my own eyes, was two broken depressed people coming together again under the least ideal circonstances (hmm the funeral of Daemon's wife hello). I saw a very bitter and hurt Rhaenyra that still longed for Daemon. I saw a depressed Daemon that felt everything is lost to him until Rhaenyra confessed her feelings. I saw a very strong female character pursuing what she wants. I saw tenderness, love, devotion. I don't need romantic words for it, I saw it. It was fucking there. Daemon finally let slip the real reason why he chickened out in the brothel and in the mariage ceremony: wasn't for the throne, wasn't for his own ambitions, but for HER. "I spared you, you were only a child = you didn't understand what you were doing and how much it would cost you, your reputation, your claim to the throne, everything, so I let you be because I cared so much for you". "You have a place in my court if this is what you need" "I need NOTHING", said Daemon the ambitious bastard who only wanted Rhaenyra for the throne. Yeah. That's why he was so hesitant in Rhaenyra's affections, that would CLEARLY benefit him, that's why he was so considerate, and cautious, and afraid and hopeful and tender. Yep, the throne. That was the WHOLE fucking point of Rhaenyra pursuing HIM instead of him pursuing her. To show that he wants HER and not the throne, he wants what's best for her and he wants to make sure that's what SHE wants. He's not trying to seduce her because it would come across as yet another plan to get the throne. His feelings are already clear, Rhaenyra knows it, we know it, we saw how depressed he was and we saw the longing in his glances and the tenderness in his words, we didn't need big rom-com déclarations. So, Daemon's motives aren't clear people? Really? WTF.

The dialogue before the sex scene was impeccable. The most romantic scene in the whole GoT universe. Let's talk about the actual sex scene. Yes it was short. Yes I don't care. Again, this is not a romance movie. The sex scene was extremely cute, appropriate for the CIRCOMSTANCES (FUNERAL HELLO) and the characters position in this particular chapter of the story, Rhaenyra is not a cheerful teen anymore and she gives the deadly victorious possessive look in the end that I personally loved. Yes it was short, but again, it's not an epic romance movie, it's Game of thrones and there are other, more important things to show than oral sex, sorry. Go watch porn.

The only complaint that is valid is the lighting. That was shitty.

162 notes - Posted October 8, 2022

Lol Daemon at his worst is still an absolute mood

279 notes - Posted October 25, 2022

My #1 post of 2022

The "Daemon groomed Rhaenyra" claims are really getting on my nerves. No he didn't.

No he didn't.

The first time they kissed they were adults by MODERN standards and the first time they interacted with a romantic undertone she was of age by medieval standards. The rest of the time he wasn't even in court.

The only reason you losers can't stop bitching about Daemon gRoOmINg Rhaenyra is because Rhaenyra actually wanted to fuck Daemon since forever. If it was a bunch of candidates for her hand in marriage at 13 years old, which was the fucking NORM in the middle ages, you wouldn't give two shits, but because Rhaenyra actually liked Daemon and they actually had a connection, suddenly he's somehow gRoOmINg her and we are romanticising pedophilia-

Shut the fuck up. Seriously just shut up, enough.

300 notes - Posted October 30, 2022

Get your Tumblr 2022 Year in Review →

#tumblr2022 #year in review #my 2022 tumblr year in review #your tumblr year in review

10 notes · View notes