#developing act

[eseomo]

📍 Johnny Rockets 🚀

📍 Smoke 💨 & Mirrors 🪞

Seo Live at Padà 🪴

[jjkyaoi]

by the way. people are allowed to complain about this season feeling rushed. i don’t know when it became a thing in this fandom to completely jump people who have valid complaints like YES arcane is a fantastically produced and beautifully animated show and nobody will be able to top it but they did start things with some characters only for it to never go anywhere so it can all be wrapped up in three episodes 😭

[ilions-end]

ahh elizabeth vandiver's lectures pointing out a heartbreaking moment in the odyssey i wasn't even aware of:

telemachus addresses eumaeus the swineherd as atta (ἄττα). in my fagles edition it's translated as "old friend", but as vandiver points out, atta has two meanings: it can be used as a familiar-but-respectful form of address to an older man (which is how telemachus uses it), but significantly it's also baby-talk for "father", parallel to papa/dada. it's what telemachus WOULD have called odysseus growing up, but now telemachus refers to him as xenos, a visiting stranger/foreigner.

like imagine. odysseus is in disguise as a beggar, it's the first time he's seen his son since infancy, and one of the first things he hears telemachus say, to another man, is "daddy, who is this stranger?"

[drenched-in-sunlight]

mom vs dad incantation class

(also no thought… just Marika with her little daughters)

[moghedien]

I love that Shadowheart/Durge are just the fucked up verison of Isobel and Aylin and it’s like extra obvious if both Shadowheart and Durge are trying to redeem themselves

I’m just imagining Shadowheart with her hair freshly dyed to look like Isobel’s like “I am also dating the child of a god 😌” and Durge just over there like

[ronanlynchusurper]

i don’t think we talk enough about declan being equally as down bad and ‘all or nothing’ with romance as ronan is. like yes ronan said he would start wars and burn cities for adam’s true smile, begged god for adam after he first saw him and fortuitously had all his objects of worship were in one downtown block etc but ronan had known adam atleast 18 months at this stage. whereas declan really risked it all to get tyrian purple overnight for a first date gift after ONE conversation…the man was discussing their marriage as a ‘when’ not an ‘if’ before we even saw them kiss like what’s his excuse lmaoo

[oddberryshortcake]

Sebek being able to find the good in people even when they don't act nice 😭😭

[kwillow]

Now your outside matches your inside.

[sunshades]

sorry #posting again but it's been on my mind cuz i once again saw a post and i just. really really hate the way this bit is so often taken out of context to make her out to be dismissing and belittling him just cuz she felt like it, because a lot of the story does hinge on the fact that this was in fact a reasonable worry

heathcliff of course has reasons to take it personally, but the context of the entire canto tells you why this was a problem to begin with. we also see it during the rest of the game, cuz he mellows out as the cantos go, but we can't forget at the start he was out there killing his coworkers. then in canto vi we get more about it. nelly starts here jokingly:

but by the end she's very serious about it:

the cycles of abuse is ofc one of the main themes in the canto, like in the book where heathcliff assumes for the second generation the role of their own hindley; in game he's growing both in the shadows of hindley and of his other mirror selves. but it can't really be ignored that the problem WAS there and he was shaping up to be just like them (a person used to violence to the point even someone as close to him as the woman who raised him had reason to believe he might hurt her!) and that catherine is discussing it in the hopes of figuring out a way to give him a place to heal and grow out of that absolute hell that was growing up in the heights. it just feels really weird to always discuss that part as if catherine was being cruel for no reason, when heathcliff himself admits that he left because he feared he'd murder her

instead by the time of the canto, while hindley, linton and nelly all comment on him not having changed, he continously chooses to be the better man, avoiding unnecessary fighting, lending a hand to people in danger, and ofc standing strong against the erlking's provocations and attempt to turn our heathcliff into another just like him, to continue the same cycle.

BUT it's important that back then he was a person who wouldn't have done that, a person who would have hurt his loved ones, and that what he had in mind was taking revenge on them- because he grew past that in the course of the story, then that character development is much more meaningful. and that's also why it's so important to all the people around him, who had seen him start to go down that same path as hindley, to become the worst version of himself--

because in the end he didn't become like that! he did change and become that better person, and they noticed!

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Shifting $677m from the banks to the people, every year, forever

I'll be in TUCSON, AZ from November 8-10: I'm the GUEST OF HONOR at the TUSCON SCIENCE FICTION CONVENTION.

"Switching costs" are one of the great underappreciated evils in our world: the more it costs you to change from one product or service to another, the worse the vendor, provider, or service you're using today can treat you without risking your business.

Businesses set out to keep switching costs as high as possible. Literally. Mark Zuckerberg's capos send him memos chortling about how Facebook's new photos feature will punish anyone who leaves for a rival service with the loss of all their family photos – meaning Zuck can torment those users for profit and they'll still stick around so long as the abuse is less bad than the loss of all their cherished memories:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/facebooks-secret-war-switching-costs

It's often hard to quantify switching costs. We can tell when they're high, say, if your landlord ties your internet service to your lease (splitting the profits with a shitty ISP that overcharges and underdelivers), the switching cost of getting a new internet provider is the cost of moving house. We can tell when they're low, too: you can switch from one podcatcher program to another just by exporting your list of subscriptions from the old one and importing it into the new one:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/10/16/keep-it-really-simple-stupid/#read-receipts-are-you-kidding-me-seriously-fuck-that-noise

But sometimes, economists can get a rough idea of the dollar value of high switching costs. For example, a group of economists working for the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau calculated that the hassle of changing banks is costing Americans at least $677m per year (see page 526):

https://files.consumerfinance.gov/f/documents/cfpb_personal-financial-data-rights-final-rule_2024-10.pdf

The CFPB economists used a very conservative methodology, so the number is likely higher, but let's stick with that figure for now. The switching costs of changing banks – determining which bank has the best deal for you, then transfering over your account histories, cards, payees, and automated bill payments – are costing everyday Americans more than half a billion dollars, every year.

Now, the CFPB wasn't gathering this data just to make you mad. They wanted to do something about all this money – to find a way to lower switching costs, and, in so doing, transfer all that money from bank shareholders and executives to the American public.

And that's just what they did. A newly finalized Personal Financial Data Rights rule will allow you to authorize third parties – other banks, comparison shopping sites, brokers, anyone who offers you a better deal, or help you find one – to request your account data from your bank. Your bank will be required to provide that data.

I loved this rule when they first proposed it:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/06/10/getting-things-done/#deliverism

And I like the final rule even better. They've really nailed this one, even down to the fine-grained details where interop wonks like me get very deep into the weeds. For example, a thorny problem with interop rules like this one is "who gets to decide how the interoperability works?" Where will the data-formats come from? How will we know they're fit for purpose?

This is a super-hard problem. If we put the monopolies whose power we're trying to undermine in charge of this, they can easily cheat by delivering data in uselessly obfuscated formats. For example, when I used California's privacy law to force Mailchimp to provide list of all the mailing lists I've been signed up for without my permission, they sent me thousands of folders containing more than 5,900 spreadsheets listing their internal serial numbers for the lists I'm on, with no way to find out what these lists are called or how to get off of them:

https://pluralistic.net/2024/07/22/degoogled/#kafka-as-a-service

So if we're not going to let the companies decide on data formats, who should be in charge of this? One possibility is to require the use of a standard, but again, which standard? We can ask a standards body to make a new standard, which they're often very good at, but not when the stakes are high like this. Standards bodies are very weak institutions that large companies are very good at capturing:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/30/weak-institutions/

Here's how the CFPB solved this: they listed out the characteristics of a good standards body, listed out the data types that the standard would have to encompass, and then told banks that so long as they used a standard from a good standards body that covered all the data-types, they'd be in the clear.

Once the rule is in effect, you'll be able to go to a comparison shopping site and authorize it to go to your bank for your transaction history, and then tell you which bank – out of all the banks in America – will pay you the most for your deposits and charge you the least for your debts. Then, after you open a new account, you can authorize the new bank to go back to your old bank and get all your data: payees, scheduled payments, payment history, all of it. Switching banks will be as easy as switching mobile phone carriers – just a few clicks and a few minutes' work to get your old number working on a phone with a new provider.

This will save Americans at least $677 million, every year. Which is to say, it will cost the banks at least $670 million every year.

Naturally, America's largest banks are suing to block the rule:

https://www.americanbanker.com/news/cfpbs-open-banking-rule-faces-suit-from-bank-policy-institute

Of course, the banks claim that they're only suing to protect you, and the $677m annual transfer from their investors to the public has nothing to do with it. The banks claim to be worried about bank-fraud, which is a real thing that we should be worried about. They say that an interoperability rule could make it easier for scammers to get at your data and even transfer your account to a sleazy fly-by-night operation without your consent. This is also true!

It is obviously true that a bad interop rule would be bad. But it doesn't follow that every interop rule is bad, or that it's impossible to make a good one. The CFPB has made a very good one.

For starters, you can't just authorize anyone to get your data. Eligible third parties have to meet stringent criteria and vetting. These third parties are only allowed to ask for the narrowest slice of your data needed to perform the task you've set for them. They aren't allowed to use that data for anything else, and as soon as they've finished, they must delete your data. You can also revoke their access to your data at any time, for any reason, with one click – none of this "call a customer service rep and wait on hold" nonsense.

What's more, if your bank has any doubts about a request for your data, they are empowered to (temporarily) refuse to provide it, until they confirm with you that everything is on the up-and-up.

I wrote about the lawsuit this week for @eff@mastodon.social's Deeplinks blog:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2024/10/no-matter-what-bank-says-its-your-money-your-data-and-your-choice

In that article, I point out the tedious, obvious ruses of securitywashing and privacywashing, where a company insists that its most abusive, exploitative, invasive conduct can't be challenged because that would expose their customers to security and privacy risks. This is such bullshit.

It's bullshit when printer companies say they can't let you use third party ink – for your own good:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/01/hp-ceo-blocking-third-party-ink-from-printers-fights-viruses/

It's bullshit when car companies say they can't let you use third party mechanics – for your own good:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/03/rip-david-graeber/#rolling-surveillance-platforms

It's bullshit when Apple says they can't let you use third party app stores – for your own good:

https://www.eff.org/document/letter-bruce-schneier-senate-judiciary-regarding-app-store-security

It's bullshit when Facebook says you can't independently monitor the paid disinformation in your feed – for your own good:

https://pluralistic.net/2021/08/05/comprehensive-sex-ed/#quis-custodiet-ipsos-zuck

And it's bullshit when the banks say you can't change to a bank that charges you less, and pays you more – for your own good.

CFPB boss Rohit Chopra is part of a cohort of Biden enforcers who've hit upon a devastatingly effective tactic for fighting corporate power: they read the law and found out what they're allowed to do, and then did it:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/10/23/getting-stuff-done/#praxis

The CFPB was created in 2010 with the passage of the Consumer Financial Protection Act, which specifically empowers the CFPB to make this kind of data-sharing rule. Back when the CFPA was in Congress, the banks howled about this rule, whining that they were being forced to share their data with their competitors.

But your account data isn't your bank's data. It's your data. And the CFPB is gonna let you have it, and they're gonna save you and your fellow Americans at least $677m/year – forever.

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/2024/11/01/bankshot/#personal-financial-data-rights

[gunsatthaphan]

"let's go on a date."

[catmask]

it is insane how normal i am medicated like. you mean this was an option the whole time. what

[sakurabraches]

i don't like when people reduce glinda's decision to stay behind into one simple thing, when there are so many moving parts that contribute to why she didn't go with elphaba

on one hand, she's scared and she hasn't reached the part of her character developement where she's ready to stand up to authority like that. part of her recognizes that staying with the wizard will be personally beneficial, and she's willing to make moral compromises for her own gain

but she's not being entirely selfish, either. she's actually primarily concerned about elphie. glinda recognizes the dangers of rebelling against the wizard like that, and doesn't want elphaba to get hurt. glinda genuinely believes that if elphie stays behind, puts her head down, and plays the game, she'll be able to further her cause more than outright rebellion

part of this belief probably comes from the fact that staying with the wizard is the easier thing to do, but glinda's also still naive about how the system works. she's only ever benefitted from the status quo, so she believes that change can still occur within the system. even while they're literally being chased by the gale force, glinda is like "if you say you're sorry, we can fix this"

and i think her role as glinda the good is complicated, too. like, on one hand, glinda knows the truth about the wizard, so she kind of has to play this role for her own safety. but it's clear she also enjoys the attention and praise she gets by being "glinda the good," which is why she doesn't go find elphaba like fiyero suggests

but i also think glinda believes that she's doing good as "glinda the good." like, she's making people happy and bringing them much needed joy in uncertain times. she's trying to promote kindness and charity. obviously, this ignores the fact that she's complicit in the wizard's rule, but her character development in act ii is her deciding to be truly good and stand up to that system

glinda genuinely wants to be a good person and do good, and her character arc is her learning how to do that

idk this is probably just rambling but i get bothered when ppl reduce glinda's decision to her being selfish or not loving elphie enough. she's way more complicated than that and i think that's what makes her so interesting

[captainjimothy]

introducing ds9 to a friend (yippee) and it turns out i had totally forgotten the plot of past prologue, but um. we all agree that julian's spy kink started when garak shoved him into that changing room, right

[rahquaza]

— macdennis + their unspoken tension during s15

[lunar-wandering]

"yandere evil cycle Clara" this "yandere evil cycle Clara" that, yes i agree, its drawn very well and is very Aesthetic and im so excited to see where this is going but i have a Question-

why is Iruma blushing through most of this chapter-

either Clara's subtly put a charm spell on him (though wouldn't it affect Azz too in that case?) or, he's somehow kinda into this.

i know the first option is more likely but the idea of Iruma thinking the evil cycles are hot is so fucking funny. could you imagine.