#cs soundbite

[cstveamaryllis]

HERE IS A GIFT FOR THE CARMEN SANDIEGO OC CREATORS AND THE COMMUNITY! THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING SUCH A LOVELY COMMUNITY! THANK YOU FOR MAKING ME THE HAPPIEST IVE EVER BEEN IN MONTHS

OCS AND OWNERS

@csvamaryllis (me) - AMARYLLIS

@the-cs-oc-archives - HEERA, MIDNIGHT, FAHEEMA

@electricvinyls - WHIZZER

@skipppppy - RANA, LAPIN, FUGU

@monicaoverthinker - REBECCA

@cowboylovin - TAMA

@vile-deathbeat - DEATHBEAT

@itsdappleagain - PYTHON

@pattysplaceofplaces - HEARTACHE

@gray-crackleway - SOUNDBITE

@mienacles - MIEN NAINA

@avweckman - JAILBREAK

@anotheroneofthegaysharks - THUNDERBIRD

@haveaclock - SHANZI

@rightapichen - MAYA, ADMIRAL

@mochimouiemarty - CHIPPER

@random-lil-illing - TABITHA

@myths-of-fantasy - KITU

@the-ghost-17 - EL LOVO

[gray-crackleway]

FUN FACT the reason i draw intern's sleeve endings like this is because i saw you drawing them like that and i was like you know what. thats cunty actually i like it

anyways. the sillies.

the they ever!!! thank you so much i made an audible noise of joy when i saw the critters

somebody call cleo!! the cuntiest bitches have arrived

[vileacademyofficial]

VILE ops only hate me because I suck and am mean to them and have repeatedly broken into their rooms and gone through their personal belongings and have stolen their personal belongings and know about their browser history and their cringe emo era and their based emo era and where they keep their secret smart phones and where they keep their secret dumb phones and also I talk shit about them behind their backs and also to their faces and the only operative I’ve ever not been an asshole to is Soundbite and that’s cause he helps me bully @gray-crackleway sometimes. all this to say that this is a PSA for VILE operatives to stop being such whiny assholes, you will never find out what my real name is, and also stop attempting to attack me in hallways if possible 🙏

[mediaronity]

Miguna hits out at MPs over ‘wanting’ CS vetting exercise

Miguna hits out at MPs over ‘wanting’ CS vetting exercise

Lawyer Miguna Miguna has poked holes in the ongoing vetting exercise for Cabinet Secretary nominees saying the process is wanting. The Canada-based barrister said on Tuesday, October 18, that he has not seen any critical examination from the Parliamentary Committee of Appointments. Miguna said what he has seen and heard so far, from the MPs, are soundbites intended to ‘please their political…

[killian-whump]

I know a loud group on Twitter going to the con planning on asking CS questions to Colin. At a KR panel that's just really rude but Colin played a part of CS for many years and we may see them again this season but i doubt Colin will even hint at that at the con. My question to Colin would be something along the lines of you said every Hook would choose Emma, are you glad that they didn't give Wish Hook an LI and are you relieved that Wish Hook's TL is familial? I think that's a good question.

That’s a fucking terrible question.

I was going to answer this Ask with your other one, but I had to answer it separately in order to properly hold all of my displeasure at that question, because it is really and truly an absolutely dreadful question and I fervently hope no one asks that poor man anything like that. Ever.

When people come up with questions like these, does it just never occur to them to imagine how they would feel as the actor being asked this? Or are they fully aware of the awkward minefield they’re asking the actor to traverse and just simply don’t care? Honest question here, because it baffles me.

For starters, ANY question that starts off by throwing a person’s past statements in their face (for purposes other than clarifying those statements) is going to be fucking confrontational. I don’t care if you’re starting your query with, “You said you prefer red M&Ms to yellow ones...” the question that follows is guaran-fucking-teed to be confronting the person on a new development that could challenge the authenticity of that statement. If your question can’t be asked without reminding the querent of things they’ve said in the past, your question’s too fucking confrontational for something as easy-going and intended to be fun like a convention Q&A panel.

But even if you removed that part of the question... It’s still a fucking terrible question. The idea of Wish Hook having a Love Interest is a matter of serious contention amongst some factions of this fandom - HIS fucking fandom. Why on Earth would anyone in their right mind think it’s appropriate to ask him to voice his opinion on that specific subject? At best, he’ll see it for the fucking bear trap it is and diplomatically sidestep it without saying anything one way or the other - but at worst, the poor man will accidentally say something in passing that will then be lorded over half of his fandom and used to bully and harass others because, “Even Colin said blahblahblah!”

I don’t give a shit which side of the debate you’re on or even what the motherfucking debate is about, DON’T FUCKING DO THAT TO A CELEBRITY. Don’t do it to anybody, for that matter, but especially don’t do it to a celebrity who may not be up on all the petty fan dramas and who would absolutely loathe knowing his innocently spoken words are being used to fuel fandom drama and squabbling. I have to seriously ask you how well you’ve paid attention to the kind of man Colin is (anyone who has would know he would NOT want to be put on the spot or pulled into a contentious subject like that) and if you have even the slightest care or compassion for this man at all.

This is, in a nutshell, my entire problem with the Crazy CSers out there. There’s nothing wrong with not watching S7. There’s nothing wrong with lamenting the end of canon content for your favorite ship. There’s nothing wrong with having strong opinions about the ship or how their Happy Ending should be. Nothing wrong with any of that...

But when you have your ship boner jacked so fucking high that you forget there’s real fucking human beings behind it who have feelings and lives and careers beyond your petty ship issues, you need to seriously check yourself. Completely disrespecting the creators of that ship (be it actors, writers, crew) or treating them as less than fucking human because you need a clever soundbite to support your latest ship fantasies is fucking asinine. If you do this kind of shit, you should be ashamed of yourself... and shot into fucking space.

If your goal is to push the guy further away from wanting to have ANY interaction with his fans or if you straight up hate him, then I rescind all of this and have to admit - that’s a great question for those purposes, you complete and utter asshole. Otherwise, no, that’s a fucking terrible question.

[lizacstuff]

That newly released interview with Colin from the tca's, what do you make of it? His "alternate Hook" talk was certainly interesting. And how did you interpret his saying "both he and Emma have gotten their happy ending together." Do you think he was talking in season 7, like episode 2, or that he was referring to what we saw at the end of season 6?

Since this is not the first time Colin has said/implied that, he also did it in the TVGuide interview released weeks ago, I think the same thing I did then. That it sounds like in 7x02 we get to see that Emma and our Hook are living their happy beginning, and that perhaps Rogers is a WishHook/CloneHook/ForkingHook of some sort.

We’ll see, but this new soundbite just bolsters that speculation. As I said then, fine by me, while I do find the idea of an AltHook mildly unsettling, (and would still not watch him with a new love interest) the only thing I care about is CS, so if they are safely tucked away, then I can breath a sign of relief.

[gray-crackleway]

day two: mission

get soundbite-ed, idiot :3 i thought lưu at his regular old job was a bit boring, so have your favourite vile operative, soundbite, instead! he's one of bellum's underlings, what with his poison fang add-ons and natural aptitude for sound tech. one day he'll make hearing aids or something.

[mrs-emma-swan-jones]

So my guess is that the duet that swells into a group number is going to be a CS duet at the wedding which then allows all the other minor characters to chime in!!  On the one hand FUCK YEAH, CS DUET!!!  On the other hand, I still desperately don’t want them to sing their vows??  I still think that would be a little weird (and will totally fuck up this thing I’ve been planning that involves a soundbite of their vows but whatever...) but if I get a CS duet that I can listen to on repeat for the rest of my life, then I guess I’ll make myself be okay with it...

[toomanysinks]

Don’t break up big tech — regulate data access, says EU antitrust chief

Breaking up tech giants should be a measure of last resort, the European Union’s competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, has suggested.

“To break up a company, to break up private property would be very far reaching and you would need to have a very strong case that it would produce better results for consumers in the marketplace than what you could do with more mainstream tools,” she warned this weekend, speaking in a SXSW interview with Recode’s Kara Swisher. “We’re dealing with private property. Businesses that are built and invested in and become successful because of their innovation.”

Vestager has built a reputation for being feared by tech giants, thanks to a number of major (and often expensive) interventions since she took up the Commission antitrust brief in 2014, with still one big outstanding investigation hanging over Google.

But while opposition politicians in many Western markets — including high profile would-be U.S. presidential candidates — are now competing on sounding tough on tech, the European commissioner advocates taking a scalpel to data streams rather than wielding a break-up hammer to smash market-skewing tech giants.

“When it comes to the very far reaching proposal to split up companies, for us, from a European perspective, that would be a measure of last resort,” she said. “What we do now, we do the antitrust cases, misuse of dominant position, the tying of products, the self-promotion, the demotion of others, to see if that approach will correct and change the marketplace to make it a fair place where there’s no misuse of dominant position but where smaller competitors can have a fair go. Because they may be the next big one, the next one with the greatest idea for consumers.”

She also pointed to an agreement last month, between key European political institutions on regulating online platform transparency, as an example of the kind of fairness-focused intervention she believes can work to counter market imbalance.

The bread and butter work regulators should be focused on where big tech is concerned are things like digital sector enquiries and hearings to examine how markets are operating in detail, she suggested — using careful scrutiny to inform and shape intelligent, data-led interventions.

Albeit ‘break up Google’ clearly makes for a punchier political soundbite.

Vestager is, however, in the final months of her term as antitrust chief — with the Commission due to turn over this year. Her time at the antitrust helm will end on November 1, she confirmed. (Though she remains, at least tentatively, on a shortlist of candidates who could be appointed the next European Commission president.)

The commissioner has spoken up before about regulating access to data as a more interesting option for controlling digital giants vs breaking them up.

And some European regulators appear to be moving in that direction already. Such the German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) which last month announced a decision against Facebook which aims to limit how it can use data from its own services. The FCO’s move has been couched as akin to an internal break up of the company, at the data level, without the tech giant having to be forced to separate and sell off business units like Instagram and WhatsApp.

It’s perhaps not surprising, therefore, that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg announced a massive plan to merge all three services at the technical level just last week — billing the switch to encrypted content but merged metadata as a ‘pro-privacy’ move, while clearly also intending to restructure his empire in a way that works against regulatory interventions that separate and control internal data flows at the product level.

*LOL* So @facebook merges all the data from #Instagram, #WhatsApp and #Facebook, while only encrypting the content data (not the meta data) of Facebook messages and sells the package as a #privacy move – a PR masterpiece and the media falls for it..

— Max Schrems (@maxschrems) March 7, 2019

The Competition Commission does not have a formal probe of Facebook or the social media sector open at this point but Vestager said her department does have its eye on how social media giants are using data.

“We’re sort of hoovering over social media, Facebook — how data’s being used in that respect,” she said, also flagging the preliminary work it’s doing looking into Amazon’s use of merchant data. (Also still not yet a formal probe.)

“The good thing is now the debate is really sort of taking off,” she added, of competition regulation generally. “When I’ve been visiting and speaking with people on The Hill previously, I’ve sensed a new sort of interest and curiosity as to what can competition achieve for you in a society. Because if you have fair competition then you have markets serving the citizen in our role as consumer and not the other way around.”

Asked whether she’s personally convinced by Facebook’s sudden ‘appreciation’ of privacy Vestager said if the announcement signifies a genuine change of philosophy and direction which leads to shifts in its business practices it would be good news for consumers.

Though she said she’s not simply taking Zuckerberg at his word at this point. “It may be a little far-reaching to assume the best,” she said politely when pushed by Swisher on whether she believed a sincere pivot is possible from a company with such a long privacy-hostile history.

Big tech, small tax

The interview also delved into the issue of big tech and the tiny amounts it pays in tax.

Reforming the global tax system so digital businesses pay a fair share vs traditional businesses is now “urgent” work to do, said Vestager — highlighting how the lack of a consensus position among EU Member States is pushing some countries to move forward with their own measures, given resistance to Commission proposals from other corners of the bloc.

France‘s push for a tax on tech giants this year is “absolutely necessary but very unfortunate”, Vestager said.

“When you do numbers that can be compared we see that digital businesses they would pay on average nine per cent [in taxes] where traditional businesses on average pay 23 per cent,” she continued. “Yet they’re in the same market for capital, for skilled employees, sometimes competing for the same customers. So obviously this is not fair.”

The Commission’s hope is that individual “pushes” from Member States frustrated by the current tax imbalance will generate momentum for “a European-wide way of doing things” — and therefore that any fragmentation of tax policies across the bloc will be short-lived.

She also she Europe is keen for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to “push forward for this” too, remarking: “Because we sense in the OECD that a number of places in the world take an interest also in the U.S. side of things.”

Is the better way to reset inequalities related to big tech and society achieved via reforming the tax system or are regulators doomed to have to keep fining them “into the next century”, wondered Swisher.

“You get a fine when you do something illegal. You pay your taxes to contribute to society where you do your business. These are two different things and we definitely need both,” responded Vestager. “But we cannot have a situation where some businesses do not contribute and the majority of businesses they do. Because it’s simply not fair in the marketplace or fair towards citizens if this continues.”

She also made short shrift of the favored big tech lobbyist line — to loudly claim privacy regulation helps big guys because it’s easier for them to fund compliance — by pointing out that Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation has “different brackets” and does not simply clobber big and small alike with the same requirements.

Of course small businesses “don’t have the same obligations as Google”, said Vestager.

“I’d say if they find it easy, I’d say they can do better,” she added, raising the much complained about consumer rights issue of consent vs inscrutable T&Cs.

“Because I still find that it’s quite tricky to understand what it is that you accept when you accept your terms and conditions. And I think it would be great if we as citizens could really say ‘oh this is what I am signing up to and I’m perfectly happy with that’.”

Though she admitted there’s still a way to go for European privacy rights to be fully functioning as intended — arguing it’s still too hard for individual consumers to exercise the rights they have in law.

“I know I own my data but I really do not know how to exercise that ownership,” she said. “How to allow for more people to have access to my data if I want to enable innovation, new market participants coming in. If that was done in large scale you could have an innovative input into the marketplace and we’re definitely not there yet,” she said.

Asked about the idea of taxing data flows as another possible means of clipping the wings of big tech Vestager pointed to early signs of an intermediate market spinning up in Europe to help individual extract value from what corporate entities are doing with their information. So not literally a tax on data flows but a way for consumers to claw back some of the value that’s being stripped from them.

“It’s still nascent in Europe but since now we have the rights that establishes your ownership of your data we see there is a beginning market development of intermediaries saying should I enable you yourself to monetize your data, so it’s not just the giants who monetize your data. So that maybe you get a sum every month reflecting how your data has been passed on,” she said. “That is one opportunity.”

She also said the Commission is looking at how to make sure “huge amounts of data will not be a barrier to entry in a marketplace” — or present a barrier to innovation for newcomers. The latter being key given how tech giants’ massive data pools are translating into a meaty advantage in AI R&D.

In another interesting exchange, Vestager suggested the convenience of voice interfaces presents an acute competition challenge — given how the tech could naturally concentrate market power via preferring quick-fire Q&A style interactions which don’t support offering lots of choice options.

“One of the things that is really mindboggling for us is how to have choice if you have voice,” she said, arguing that voice assistance dynamic doesn’t lend itself to multiple suggestions being offered every time a user asks a question. “So how to have competition when you have voice search?.. How would this change the marketplace and how would we deal with such a market? So this is what we’re trying to figure out.”

Again she suggested regulators are thinking about how data flows behind the scenes as a potential route to remedying interfaces that work against choice.

“We’re trying to figure out how access to data will change the marketplace,” she added. “Can you give a different access to data because the one who holds the data, also holds the resources for innovation. And we cannot rely on the big guys to be the innovative ones.”

Asked for her worst case scenario for tech 10 years hence, she said it would be to have “all of the technology but none of the societal positive oversight and direction”.

On the flip side, the best case would be for legislators to be “willing to take sufficient steps in taxation and in regulating access to data and fairness in the marketplace”.

“We would also need to see technology develop to have new players,” she emphasized. “Because we still need to see what will happen with quantum computing, what will happen with blockchain, what other uses are there for all if that new technology. Because I still think that it holds a lot of promise. But only if our democracy will give it direction. Then you will have a positive outcome.”

source https://techcrunch.com/2019/03/11/dont-break-up-big-tech-regulate-data-access-says-eu-antitrust-chief/

[fmservers]

Don’t break up big tech — regulate data access, says EU antitrust chief

Breaking up tech giants should be a measure of last resort, the European Union’s competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager, has suggested.

“To break up a company, to break up private property would be very far reaching and you would need to have a very strong case that it would produce better results for consumers in the marketplace than what you could do with more mainstream tools,” she warned this weekend, speaking in a SXSW interview with Recode’s Kara Swisher. “We’re dealing with private property. Businesses that are built and invested in and become successful because of their innovation.”

Vestager has built a reputation for being feared by tech giants, thanks to a number of major (and often expensive) interventions since she took up the Commission antitrust brief in 2014, with still one big outstanding investigation hanging over Google.

But while opposition politicians in many Western markets — including high profile would-be U.S. presidential candidates — are now competing on sounding tough on tech, the European commissioner advocates taking a scalpel to data streams rather than wielding a break-up hammer to smash market-skewing tech giants.

“When it comes to the very far reaching proposal to split up companies, for us, from a European perspective, that would be a measure of last resort,” she said. “What we do now, we do the antitrust cases, misuse of dominant position, the tying of products, the self-promotion, the demotion of others, to see if that approach will correct and change the marketplace to make it a fair place where there’s no misuse of dominant position but where smaller competitors can have a fair go. Because they may be the next big one, the next one with the greatest idea for consumers.”

She also pointed to an agreement last month, between key European political institutions on regulating online platform transparency, as an example of the kind of fairness-focused intervention she believes can work to counter market imbalance.

The bread and butter work regulators should be focused on where big tech is concerned are things like digital sector enquiries and hearings to examine how markets are operating in detail, she suggested — using careful scrutiny to inform and shape intelligent, data-led interventions.

Albeit ‘break up Google’ clearly makes for a punchier political soundbite.

Vestager is, however, in the final months of her term as antitrust chief — with the Commission due to turn over this year. Her time at the antitrust helm will end on November 1, she confirmed. (Though she remains, at least tentatively, on a shortlist of candidates who could be appointed the next European Commission president.)

The commissioner has spoken up before about regulating access to data as a more interesting option for controlling digital giants vs breaking them up.

And some European regulators appear to be moving in that direction already. Such the German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) which last month announced a decision against Facebook which aims to limit how it can use data from its own services. The FCO’s move has been couched as akin to an internal break up of the company, at the data level, without the tech giant having to be forced to separate and sell off business units like Instagram and WhatsApp.

It’s perhaps not surprising, therefore, that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg announced a massive plan to merge all three services at the technical level just last week — billing the switch to encrypted content but merged metadata as a ‘pro-privacy’ move, while clearly also intending to restructure his empire in a way that works against regulatory interventions that separate and control internal data flows at the product level.

*LOL* So @facebook merges all the data from #Instagram, #WhatsApp and #Facebook, while only encrypting the content data (not the meta data) of Facebook messages and sells the package as a #privacy move – a PR masterpiece and the media falls for it..

— Max Schrems (@maxschrems) March 7, 2019

The Competition Commission does not have a formal probe of Facebook or the social media sector open at this point but Vestager said her department does have its eye on how social media giants are using data.

“We’re sort of hoovering over social media, Facebook — how data’s being used in that respect,” she said, also flagging the preliminary work it’s doing looking into Amazon’s use of merchant data. (Also still not yet a formal probe.)

“The good thing is now the debate is really sort of taking off,” she added, of competition regulation generally. “When I’ve been visiting and speaking with people on The Hill previously, I’ve sensed a new sort of interest and curiosity as to what can competition achieve for you in a society. Because if you have fair competition then you have markets serving the citizen in our role as consumer and not the other way around.”

Asked whether she’s personally convinced by Facebook’s sudden ‘appreciation’ of privacy Vestager said if the announcement signifies a genuine change of philosophy and direction which leads to shifts in its business practices it would be good news for consumers.

Though she said she’s not simply taking Zuckerberg at his word at this point. “It may be a little far-reaching to assume the best,” she said politely when pushed by Swisher on whether she believed a sincere pivot is possible from a company with such a long privacy-hostile history.

Big tech, small tax

The interview also delved into the issue of big tech and the tiny amounts it pays in tax.

Reforming the global tax system so digital businesses pay a fair share vs traditional businesses is now “urgent” work to do, said Vestager — highlighting how the lack of a consensus position among EU Member States is pushing some countries to move forward with their own measures, given resistance to Commission proposals from other corners of the bloc.

France‘s push for a tax on tech giants this year is “absolutely necessary but very unfortunate”, Vestager said.

“When you do numbers that can be compared we see that digital businesses they would pay on average nine per cent [in taxes] where traditional businesses on average pay 23 per cent,” she continued. “Yet they’re in the same market for capital, for skilled employees, sometimes competing for the same customers. So obviously this is not fair.”

The Commission’s hope is that individual “pushes” from Member States frustrated by the current tax imbalance will generate momentum for “a European-wide way of doing things” — and therefore that any fragmentation of tax policies across the bloc will be short-lived.

She also she Europe is keen for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to “push forward for this” too, remarking: “Because we sense in the OECD that a number of places in the world take an interest also in the U.S. side of things.”

Is the better way to reset inequalities related to big tech and society achieved via reforming the tax system or are regulators doomed to have to keep fining them “into the next century”, wondered Swisher.

“You get a fine when you do something illegal. You pay your taxes to contribute to society where you do your business. These are two different things and we definitely need both,” responded Vestager. “But we cannot have a situation where some businesses do not contribute and the majority of businesses they do. Because it’s simply not fair in the marketplace or fair towards citizens if this continues.”

She also made short shrift of the favored big tech lobbyist line — to loudly claim privacy regulation helps big guys because it’s easier for them to fund compliance — by pointing out that Europe’s General Data Protection Regulation has “different brackets” and does not simply clobber big and small alike with the same requirements.

Of course small businesses “don’t have the same obligations as Google”, said Vestager.

“I’d say if they find it easy, I’d say they can do better,” she added, raising the much complained about consumer rights issue of consent vs inscrutable T&Cs.

“Because I still find that it’s quite tricky to understand what it is that you accept when you accept your terms and conditions. And I think it would be great if we as citizens could really say ‘oh this is what I am signing up to and I’m perfectly happy with that’.”

Though she admitted there’s still a way to go for European privacy rights to be fully functioning as intended — arguing it’s still too hard for individual consumers to exercise the rights they have in law.

“I know I own my data but I really do not know how to exercise that ownership,” she said. “How to allow for more people to have access to my data if I want to enable innovation, new market participants coming in. If that was done in large scale you could have an innovative input into the marketplace and we’re definitely not there yet,” she said.

Asked about the idea of taxing data flows as another possible means of clipping the wings of big tech Vestager pointed to early signs of an intermediate market spinning up in Europe to help individual extract value from what corporate entities are doing with their information. So not literally a tax on data flows but a way for consumers to claw back some of the value that’s being stripped from them.

“It’s still nascent in Europe but since now we have the rights that establishes your ownership of your data we see there is a beginning market development of intermediaries saying should I enable you yourself to monetize your data, so it’s not just the giants who monetize your data. So that maybe you get a sum every month reflecting how your data has been passed on,” she said. “That is one opportunity.”

She also said the Commission is looking at how to make sure “huge amounts of data will not be a barrier to entry in a marketplace” — or present a barrier to innovation for newcomers. The latter being key given how tech giants’ massive data pools are translating into a meaty advantage in AI R&D.

In another interesting exchange, Vestager suggested the convenience of voice interfaces presents an acute competition challenge — given how the tech could naturally concentrate market power via preferring quick-fire Q&A style interactions which don’t support offering lots of choice options.

“One of the things that is really mindboggling for us is how to have choice if you have voice,” she said, arguing that voice assistance dynamic doesn’t lend itself to multiple suggestions being offered every time a user asks a question. “So how to have competition when you have voice search?.. How would this change the marketplace and how would we deal with such a market? So this is what we’re trying to figure out.”

Again she suggested regulators are thinking about how data flows behind the scenes as a potential route to remedying interfaces that work against choice.

“We’re trying to figure out how access to data will change the marketplace,” she added. “Can you give a different access to data because the one who holds the data, also holds the resources for innovation. And we cannot rely on the big guys to be the innovative ones.”

Asked for her worst case scenario for tech 10 years hence, she said it would be to have “all of the technology but none of the societal positive oversight and direction”.

On the flip side, the best case would be for legislators to be “willing to take sufficient steps in taxation and in regulating access to data and fairness in the marketplace”.

“We would also need to see technology develop to have new players,” she emphasized. “Because we still need to see what will happen with quantum computing, what will happen with blockchain, what other uses are there for all if that new technology. Because I still think that it holds a lot of promise. But only if our democracy will give it direction. Then you will have a positive outcome.”

Via Natasha Lomas https://techcrunch.com

[dancerzone]

[PV] Abyss -The Heavens Remix- // dj TAKA Remixed by Ryu☆ Abyss -The Heavens Remix- Song Information Artist: dj TAKA Remixed by Ryu☆ Composition: dj TAKA Arrangement: Ryu☆ BPM: 171 Length: 1:42 Genre: TRANCE CORE VJ: VJ YUZ First Music Game Appearance: beatmania IIDX 9th style Other Music Game Appearances: None. Lyrics Several soundbites can be heard, including "let's go!" and "yeah!" =================== Song Connections / Remixes *Abyss -The Heavens Remix- is remix of Abyss, from beatmania IIDX 5th style. *An extended version of Abyss -The Heavens Remix- can be found on Ryu☆'s first album, starmine. *Another extended version of Abyss -The Heavens Remix-, titled Abyss -The Heavens Remix- (STARLiGHT Mix), can be found on Ryu☆'s Ryu☆BEST -STARLiGHT- compilation album. Trivia *Abyss -The Heavens Remix- is one of the preview songs on beatmania IIDX 7th style CS. It can be obtained once MASTER'S MODE is completed. *Abyss -The Heavens Remix- received Black ANOTHER charts in beatmania IIDX 16 EMPRESS + PREMIUM BEST. Song Production Information Ryu☆ Ryu* here. It's been a while. I was fortunate enough to be allowed to make a new remix. This time, I put Abyss' very beautiful melody into Trancecore, a genre mixing Happy Hardcore and Trance. During production, I had this image of shooting up to the sky (The heavens) from the most unfathomable depths (Abyss). Because it was a remix and not an arrangement, I had to break the deep-blue image of the original song. Please forgive me for that (Really sorry) Like last time, I got a lot of help from the staff. For that I offer my deepest thanks. =========================================== Refrescamos nuestra imagen, y te invitamos a vivir la experiencia Dancerzone Perú Pagina Oficial en todos nuestros canales virtuales Portal http://dancerzone.net Foro miarroba: http://dancerzone.tk/ https://ift.tt/2qgbrX3 Facebook: https://ift.tt/2pvvIe0 Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/DancerZone Canal de YouTube: http://goo.gl/4vzD87 Google+: http://goo.gl/4bpwpB ¡DESPIERTA TU RITMO INTERIOR! ============================================== Propiedad de ©Konami .Todas las imágenes y contenido mostrado aquí son solo de carácter ilustrativo y son propiedad de sus respectivos autores. Property of ©Konami All images and material used here are only for Illustrative purposes, and are propriety of their respective authors .

[anneedmonds]

Glycolic Peel Pads: The Thirty Day Challenge | AD

Most of you know that my love affair with acid exfoliants – in particular glycolic acid – is fairly long-standing. I like the ease with which an AHA exfoliant (for that is what it is, if you want the fancy name) slips into your skincare routine and I especially like the fast, visible results. The glycolic acid breaks down and removes the build up of dead skin cells that accumulates over time, leaving skin brighter and smoother and doing all of this in a completely non-abrasive way. Bye-bye weird scrubs with ground-up seeds and bits of gravel in them, hello swipe-once exfoliants that take mere seconds to apply and are massively more effective…

Anyway, to cut a long story short: acid exfoliants, big thumbs up from me. And so when the team at L’Oreal asked me to take part in their 30 day Peel Pad Challenge I was more than happy to take up the gauntlet. Their Glycolic Peel Pads launched fairly recently in the UK, much to my excitement – I had crossing my fingers that they would add these to the UK Revitalift line-up. There are few products that can really make a visible difference in a short amount of time and acid exfoliants are, I think, one of them.

I only had two worries: one was that I wouldn’t be able to remember to use the pads every single day for thirty days. Acid peels or exfoliating products aren’t something I usually use daily – more like twice or three times a week – and so I wondered how many evenings I’d forget to swipe one on. My other worry was sort of related to this: would using an acid exfoliant every day be too much for my skin?

As it turned out, remembering to use the peel pads was easy; I just left the pot next to my cleanser on the shelf and sat my moisturiser on top of the lid so that I saw the pads before it was too late. And the “overdoing it” worry? Well, L’Oreal had asked me to take part in the challenge for that very reason – the glycolic complex that saturates the pre-soaked pads has been formulated for daily use, so you don’t have to worry about it causing adverse effects. The L’Oreal Revitalift Laser Renew Anti Ageing Glycolic Peel Pads (name and a half, that!) felt gentle on my skin but definitely didn’t feel lacking in the brightening department. There was the familiar tingling sensation when I wiped the pad over my face (after cleansing, before serum/moisturiser, easy peasy) but never any redness or tightness or feeling of irritation.

Excellent, Smithers. (Oh my God, sidenote: do you remember how popular The Simpsons was? Sometimes I come out with what I think is a popular saying or proverb but it’s actually just a soundbite from The Simpsons. Usually something Homer has said, but other characters pop into my head too. Every Valentine’s day I think of that card, I Choo-Choo-Choose You.)

And so, the results of my 30 Day Peel Pad Challenge. My biggest observation was that my skin appeared to be more even-toned and clear throughout the month. Even in my notoriously dicey hormonal week there were no breakouts – I had one spot the size of a bubo, midway through my cycle, but I suspect it was caused by eating an entire oversized Cadbury’s easter egg in one sitting. (I didn’t want it to go off.) So, no breakouts, no bumpiness, and a gorgeous, even-toned clarity that made me look rather fresh and youthful, if I do say so myself.

I thought there might be redness or a bit of irritation around the nose, where I get a bit sensitive, but nothing. I followed the pads, by the way, with a retinol cream every other night, and it’s well worth noting that I didn’t get any sensitivity or reaction at all. I know that many people think you can’t use them together, but there were no problems whatsoever with this little line-up. You do have to remember to use an SPF in the daytime however – I used Revitalift Laser Renew SPF20, reviewed here. It’s bouncy and gorgeous and doesn’t leave any chalky or greasy feel.

Right: fancy winning a year’s supply of the Glycolic Peel Pads? L’Oreal are running a competition – it closes at 6pm today and the T&Cs are here. All you need to do is post a skin selfie and tag @lorealskin on Instagram or @lorealparis if it’s Facebook or Twitter! Good luck, my happy little peelers…

You can find L’Oreal Glycolic Peel Pads at Boots.com here – they are currently £14.99 instead of £22.49!

This post contains paid-for advertorial with L’Oreal Paris.

  The post Glycolic Peel Pads: The Thirty Day Challenge | AD appeared first on A Model Recommends.

Glycolic Peel Pads: The Thirty Day Challenge | AD was first posted on May 31, 2018 at 11:24 am. ©2017 "A Model Recommends". Use of this feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this article in your feed reader, then the site is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact me at contact@amodelrecommends.com Glycolic Peel Pads: The Thirty Day Challenge | AD published first on https://medium.com/@SkinAlley

[douchebagbrainwaves]

WHAT NO ONE UNDERSTANDS ABOUT EVERYONE

Here it is: I like to find a field of math that truly has no practical use. If you can figure out a way to get growth started. When you're looking for space for a startup that succeeds ordinarily makes its founders rich, that implies getting rich is doable too. Explaining himself later, he said I don't do litmus tests. The difference between then and now is that now I understand why Berkeley is probably not worth trying to understand. It's true they have a personal stake in the outcome makes them really pay attention. Zealots, whatever their cause, invariably lack a sense of humor. Investors have much higher standards for companies that have already raised money.

Another way to counterattack is with metaphor. When they appeared it seemed as if not much was happening during the years after the war looked more like wartime than prewar peacetime. They're not part of the training of engineers. Are some kinds of elegance make programs easier to understand. When I read about the harassment to which the economic history of the 20th century meant most people who try fail so miserably. Maybe it would be obvious which of our taboos are rooted deep in the past. Take a label—sexist, for example, seems to have acquired a meaning. But if it's a question, it can be wrong, so that is a way to simulate the organic method is the example of the organic method is the example of the organic growth hypothesis is that you should put users before advertisers, even though it feels wrong. Everyone at Rehearsal Day could see the problem was one that needed to be solved, and d deliver them as informally as possible, e starting with a crude version 1, then f iterating rapidly. At the start of World War II, as Michael Lind writes, the major sectors of the economy were either organized as government-backed cartels or dominated by a few oligopolistic corporations. Ideally the answer is that it seems promising enough to be worth trying, and all you have to learn programming to be at least some of the fragmentation we've seen? If you say: I'm going to use a hypothetical language called Blub.

Make a soundbite stick in their heads. I gave Stripe as an example of one of the more articulate critics was that Arc seemed so flimsy. A lot of my friends are CS professors now, so I have the inside story about admissions. Many of these fields talk about important problems, certainly. And it is a fine model for certain kinds of excitement, New York is incomparable.1 At the time it was a good idea to Mark Zuckerberg as because he used computers so much. The power of this technique extends beyond startups and programming languages and essays. I'd give Berkeley's Principles of Human Knowledge another shot in college. And that means it has everything an idea needs except being important. As hackers, one of their own, you can do: become very good at programming is to work a a lot b on hard problems. But disappointing though it may be heretical or whatever modern equivalent, but might it also be true? Version 1 of this world was low-res: a Duplo world of a few thousand lines of macros?

Watch them. But make sure to write something that sounds like spontaneous, informal speech, and deliver it that way. It's not something you have to go through a series of papers whose conclusions are novel because no one else has noticed yet. Venture investors are driven by bonuses rather than equity. If a super-angel money do just as well if you do it by fixing the things in the language, and adults use them all the time. Within my head I make a point of encouraging the most outrageous thoughts I can imagine. I'm especially curious about anything that's forbidden. That's where new theories come from.

Notes

And that is exactly my point. It didn't work out.

[bigmilk-13]

I'm making it my life mission to have Florence included onto here one day

(and yes I'm actually gonna draw them too, shocker cos I'm shite at drawing but it is what it is)

HERE IS A GIFT FOR THE CARMEN SANDIEGO OC CREATORS AND THE COMMUNITY! THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING SUCH A LOVELY COMMUNITY! THANK YOU FOR MAKING ME THE HAPPIEST IVE EVER BEEN IN MONTHS

OCS AND OWNERS

@csvamaryllis (me) - AMARYLLIS

@the-cs-oc-archives - HEERA, MIDNIGHT, FAHEEMA

@electricvinyls - WHIZZER

@skipppppy - RANA, LAPIN, FUGU

@monicaoverthinker - REBECCA

@cowboylovin - TAMA

@vile-deathbeat - DEATHBEAT

@itsdappleagain - PYTHON

@pattysplaceofplaces - HEARTACHE

@gray-crackleway - SOUNDBITE

@mienacles - MIEN NAINA

@avweckman - JAILBREAK

@mau-erik - ER

@anotheroneofthegaysharks - THUNDERBIRD

@haveaclock - SHANZI

@rightapichen - MAYA, ADMIRAL

@mochimouiemarty - CHIPPER

@random-lil-illing - TABITHA

@myths-of-fantasy - KITU

@the-ghost-17 - EL LOVO

[gray-crackleway]

yeah truth is it's not a vilesona au its a swap au they swap occupations and may or may not be happier about it (they like their jobs dw abt it)

[gray-crackleway]

send gray or his coworker asks PLEASE i’m so bored