#comedy Middle eastern Partisan group Complaints about subtitles #comedy #thecane - YouTube

  

On paper, it is simple enough: the world’s biggest football tournament arrives in Canada, shared across three nations, promising accessibility, global unity, and civic pride. In practice, it increasingly resembles something rather different — a carefully tiered system of access in which the experience of “being there” depends less on passion for the game than on one’s willingness to absorb what can only be described as escalating financial astonishment.

Let us begin with the official structure, because it is here that the story starts to fracture.

When FIFA first opened ticket sales, it introduced a tiered pricing system that already placed the event far outside the reach of the casual supporter. Category 4 tickets — the supposed entry point — were priced at roughly $1,300 CAD. Category 3, 2, and 1 climbed steadily from there, with most mid-tier seats falling somewhere between $1,500 and $2,500 CAD, while premium Category 1 seats reached approximately $3,000 CAD.

Even at this stage, the language of “global accessibility” began to feel slightly strained.

But the structure did not stop there.

FIFA later introduced a new classification — almost as an afterthought, though with rather significant consequences — called “Front Category 1.” These were positioned as the best seats in the stadium: front-row, prime sightlines, the kind of vantage point one would assume had already been included in the highest tier. They were not. Instead, they were priced at at least double Category 1, meaning $6,000 CAD and upward for a single match.

At this point, one begins to suspect that “category” is no longer a description of seating, but of social permission.

Then comes the matter of allocation. Fans were not always buying specific seats, but rather zones within stadiums — broad regions in which their eventual position would be determined later. In theory, this is efficient. In practice, it produces a peculiar kind of post-purchase anxiety: paying premium prices only to discover that one’s “Category 1” experience might involve corners, obstructions, or placements far removed from the imagined prestige of the purchase.

And then, almost inevitably, came revision.

After initial sales, FIFA began releasing additional “last-minute” ticket batches across all 104 matches, including fixtures that had previously been described as nearing capacity. This included high-profile games and so-called “flagship” matches, undermining the earlier sense that availability was genuinely scarce.

This is where the language becomes interesting. “Last-minute release” sounds like responsiveness. “Additional inventory” sounds like logistics. But to many fans, it felt like something closer to retroactive supply adjustment — an attempt to reconcile pricing ambition with actual demand.

The reaction, predictably, was not enthusiasm.

Supporters who had already purchased tickets in earlier rounds expressed frustration at what they saw as shifting rules. Some had paid top-tier prices under the assumption of scarcity, only to see new waves of tickets appear later. Others pointed out that if seats were still being released at scale, earlier pricing may have been calibrated more toward projection than reality.

The criticism was sharpened further by FIFA’s adoption of dynamic pricing, a system in which costs fluctuate based on demand. In principle, this mirrors airlines or concerts. In practice, it introduces volatility into what many still consider a civic or cultural event. Prices rise, shift, and segment in ways that make the final cost of attendance less predictable than ever.

The resale market completes the picture.

Tickets that originally cost $1,300 CAD in Category 4 have appeared on secondary platforms for significantly more. Mid-tier tickets in the $1,600–$2,000 CAD range have become common starting points for resale listings. Category 1 seats, originally around $3,000 CAD, have reportedly been listed for as much as $62,000 CAD in extreme cases.

At this point, we are no longer discussing pricing. We are discussing altitude.

All of this sits beneath the administrative umbrella of FIFA and its president, Gianni Infantino, who has overseen an expanded tournament structure featuring 48 teams and three host nations. The intention, at least rhetorically, is inclusion: more nations, more matches, more access. Yet the lived experience of ticket acquisition suggests a different reality — one in which expansion has been accompanied not by democratization, but by segmentation.

And so we return to Toronto.

What does it mean to host a “global game” in a city where ordinary fans increasingly find themselves priced out at the point of entry? What does it mean to speak of civic pride when attendance is stratified into financial tiers that escalate from the expensive to the prohibitive?

There is, of course, a technical defense available. Markets respond to demand. Premium experiences cost premium money. Not every seat can be cheap. All of this is true in a narrow sense, and irrelevant in a larger one.

Because the underlying question is not whether tickets cost money. It is whether the structure of pricing still bears any meaningful relationship to the idea of a shared public event.

If football is becoming a hierarchy of access codes, dynamic pricing curves, and post hoc ticket releases, then what is being staged is no longer simply a tournament. It is a filtering mechanism. A system that determines not just who watches, but who is meant to.

And Toronto, for all its openness and self-image as a welcoming global city, becomes in this arrangement not a home for the world game, but a showroom for its segmentation.

One is left, finally, with a rather uncomfortable thought: that the most universal sport in the world is being reorganized into something rather less universal in practice — an experience still spoken of in the language of the public, but increasingly delivered in the logic of exclusivity.

Or, to put it less gently, the game remains global.

It is just no longer clear that the seats are.

 

              TRINITY PARK ANJULIE DISCUSSION

Anjulie at Trinity Park

There is a way to write about pop music as if it is already happening on a screen that never turns off. Not history. Not biography. Just repetition, shimmer, branding, memory, and sound looping back into itself like a commercial that forgot what it was selling.

Anjulie appears in that space like a signal cut from the early digital air of the late 2000s—when pop music was still trying to decide if it wanted to be human or software. She arrives not as a single “voice” in the old sense, but as a series of frames: club lights, MySpace-era glow, neon hooks, the feeling of hearing a song in a car at night and not knowing if it is sadness or advertising.

She is Canadian, yes, but geography in pop is mostly texture. What matters more is frequency. Her early work slides into the electro-pop ecosystem at a moment when everything is flattening into high-gloss surfaces: synths, hooks, repetition. “Boom” is not just a song title, it is an event. A pop object that announces itself like a billboard that learned how to dance. The voice inside it is light but edged, like something smiling while being watched.

 “Love Songs” becomes less a track and more a category of feeling packaged into a clean, playable loop. “Brand New Bitch” is not just a declaration; it is typography in motion, identity as a slogan that keeps reprinting itself in different colours.

The surface becomes the subject. The subject becomes the surface. There is no “behind the music” because the music is already in front of everything, like a screen.

She moves through the 2010s not as a traditional album-to-album narrative arc, but like a series of installations. Each song is a room. Each hook is a neon object placed carefully in the center so that you don’t have to walk anywhere else. “Headphones” feels like isolation made audible—private sound in a public world, the listener disappearing into their own echo. “Rain” slows the palette down, but even sadness is polished, glossy, consumable. Emotional content becomes design.

Collaboration is AnJulie. No single image belongs to one hand. In Anjulie’s case, the pop ecosystem itself is the collaborator: producers, DJs, sync placements, streaming algorithms, television editors choosing the exact 12 seconds of her voice that will repeat under a montage of someone running through a city at night. The artist becomes both source and material.

Anjulie’s work spreads less like a narrative and more like ink in water. You don’t track it linearly. You notice it appearing in places you didn’t expect: a show, a playlist, a background track in a memory you didn’t realize had music attached to it.

The voice itself is important because it refuses to over-explain. It does not insist on autobiography in the traditional singer-songwriter sense. Instead, it performs identity as modulation. Sometimes assertive, sometimes distant, sometimes ironic, sometimes vulnerable, but always slightly detached—as if the emotion is being broadcast and observed at the same time.

The removal of moral hierarchy from expression. A love song is not more important than a brand song. A breakup anthem is not more “real” than a dance hook. Everything becomes equal under repetition. Everything becomes pop.

By the time you arrive at the later phase of her work, the idea of “hits” itself feels like a design flaw in the language. A hit implies a peak, a moment of impact. But Anjulie’s catalogue behaves more like a continuous surface. Not peaks, but waves. Not arrival, but recurrence. Songs that keep returning in different contexts, like they were never fully released—just gradually leaked into culture.

Even recognition in the formal sense—awards, nominations, industry acknowledgment—feels in this framing less like achievement and more like additional layers of print. Another version of the image. Another press run. Another copy of the same face in a slightly different color palette.

And then there is the strange softness underneath all the gloss. Repetition does not erase feeling—it just distributes it. Anjulie’s music carries that distributed emotional field: empowerment, longing, distance, irony, warmth. None of it fixed. All of it circulating.

If you zoom out far enough, she becomes less a person in a conventional biography and more a set of recurring cultural signals: hooks that reappear, phrases that stick, moods that get reactivated when a track starts playing somewhere you didn’t expect.

Nothing ends, it only gets replayed.

Anjulie does not resolve into a “greatest hits” list in this space. She becomes something closer to a looping exhibit—songs as objects, voice as print, identity as repetition that never fully settles. The music does not conclude. It just restarts softly in another room, on another device, under another life that thinks it is separate from the sound but isn’t.

Appendix: Selected Career Achievements — Anjulie

Released debut studio album Anjulie on August 4, 2009, under Hear Music/Universal Republic, marking her formal entry into the major-label pop system at the tail end of the MySpace-to-streaming transition era

Released breakout single “Boom” in 2009, which reached Billboard chart placement in the U.S. dance/electronic space and became one of her most recognizable early tracks across radio and club rotation

Released “Love Songs” in 2010, which charted on Billboard’s Hot Dance Club Songs chart and expanded her presence in U.S. dance-pop circulation

Released “Brand New Bitch” in 2011, which also entered Billboard’s dance chart ecosystem and became a recurring sync/club track in the early 2010s pop cycle

Released “Headphones” in 2012, further consolidating her electro-pop identity during the peak streaming transition period, with sustained use in media placements and curated playlists

Accumulated tens of millions of streams across major platforms for core catalogue tracks such as “Boom,” “Love Songs,” and “Brand New Bitch,” with long-tail streaming continuing years after initial release rather than concentrated peak-era consumption

Maintained ongoing independent release activity through the 2010s and 2020s, including EPs and standalone singles outside a traditional album-only cycle, reflecting post-album industry distribution patterns

Her catalogue has been licensed across television, advertising, and digital media, contributing to recurring synchronization revenue streams typical of mid-tier pop catalogues with strong licensing value rather than one-time blockbuster chart dominance

Performed live across North American club circuits and festival-adjacent venues throughout the 2010s, operating within a touring model aligned with electronic-pop and DJ-supported performance formats rather than stadium-scale touring structures

Sustained industry presence across songwriting and collaborative production networks, contributing to pop-writing ecosystems in Canada and the U.S., particularly in LA and Toronto-based pop production circles

Full CIRCLE

 

There is a temptation, especially in retrospect, to believe that cultural life forms a kind of elegant chain—each link leading logically to the next, as though meaning were something carefully engineered rather than accidentally stumbled into while holding a camera.

Your first real encounter with that world came through photographing Jayde Nicole, a figure suspended in one of those late-era media ecosystems where reality television, fashion imagery, and celebrity branding all blur into a single circulating surface. She wasn’t so much “a subject” as a node—someone briefly illuminated by a machine that is always looking for something attractive to reflect itself back at an audience.

That machine, of course, has its cathedral, and it was called The Hills. A show so carefully unbothered by reality that it accidentally invented a new genre: emotionally air-conditioned life. Nothing sweated, nothing stuttered, everything arrived pre-composed, like a sentence written after the conclusion of its own argument.

And yet somewhere in that same atmospheric layer of pop culture drifted Anjulie, who turns out to be the most interesting kind of anomaly: someone who actually writes the music that all those glossy scenes pretend to generate on their own.

Her songs didn’t just sit in the background of that era—they understood the background. Tracks like “Boom” and “Rain” carried the strange distinction of being both commercially polished and emotionally alert, which is a rarer combination than it should be. She’s one of those artists who can pass through the machinery of television placement and radio rotation without being flattened by it. In fact, she improves the room.

So the chain goes: fashion photograph → reality television glow → pop-cultural diffusion → Anjulie in a park, speaking like someone who has survived being turned into atmosphere and returned intact.

And that is where the joke quietly reverses itself.

Because all the supposed glamour of the earlier links—the curated personalities, the manufactured intimacy, the soft-focus drama of being “seen”—turns out to be far less vivid than a single real conversation with someone like Anjulie. The machine can broadcast her voice, but it cannot quite explain why it feels more precise in person.

The final irony is that you don’t move from reality to illusion along this chain. You move, instead, from illusion toward something unexpectedly grounded. And standing there in the park, camera or no camera, it becomes hard to avoid the suspicion that the most “real” figure in the entire sequence is the one who was making the soundtrack all along.

 

 

 

 

CITIZENCANADA,Social Media,Zeitgeist,Wonder,VIP,ブリトニースピアーズ,

 

https://zeitgeistpublishing.blogspot.com/2026/06/full-circle-there-is-temptation.html 

 

Highlighted Replies Plur1bus

 Highlighted Replies

Plur1bus is pacification PRIOR to invasion. They can't kill, or develop tech, they clean up their own dead, they shut down when faced with violence...If a malevolent species where to show up it'd be the end for humanity.

145

Highlighted reply

@greatguyaaa

1 month ago

Highlighted reply

@greatguyaaa
1 month ago
@sushmag4297 The possibility of Pluribus being a weapon aimed specifically at humanity is very unlikely. It would take around 600 years to reach us, and to target Earth specifically, it would need some form of probe to arrive first, gather information, and then transmit that data back.

It’s more likely that either all intelligent life in the universe shares traits that trigger it, or it isn’t species-specific at all. It may instead respond to intelligence in general, or possibly activate in response to technological development beyond a certain threshold.

 @sushmag4297  The possible of the Pluribus weapon is only very humanity. That's unlikely since it takes 600 years for it to get there, and to get the information for it to target humanity, it would need some probe to get to Earth and then send information back. maybeEverybody is human in the universe, which is possible, or the weapon attacks any intelligent creature, maybe it triggers for technology.

The Star-Studded Tapestry of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood: Cameos, Legacy, and Fleeting Fame

The Star-Studded Tapestry of Once Upon a Time in Hollywood: Cameos, Legacy, and Fleeting Fame

Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is more than a cinematic homage to the waning days of 1960s Los Angeles; it is a kaleidoscopic tableau (mosaic, panorama) of Hollywood’s glittering denizens, both contemporary and legendary. While the film’s narrative orbits the travails of fading television star Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his enigmatic stunt double Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), the true spectacle often lies in its stellar cameos and the meticulous resurrection of Hollywood history through its legacy portrayals.

Prestige Cameos: Household Names in Fleeting Roles

Tarantino’s audacity lies in his ability to imbue brief screen appearances (ephemeral performances, transient presences) with gravity. Actors of considerable renown populate single sequences, leaving an indelible impression despite their brevity (conciseness, transience) on screen. Among these:

• Al Pacino, whose portrayal of agent Marvin Schwarzs, though fleeting, signals the weight of Hollywood’s inner workings.

• Bruce Dern, embodying George Spahn, the nearly-blind rancher, offers a spectral presence that bridges fiction and nostalgia.

• Luke Perry, in his final cinematic bow as Wayne Maunder, provides a poignant coda to both his career and the era he evokes.

• Michael Madsen, as Sheriff Hackett, and Kurt Russell, dual-purposed as stunt coordinator Randy and the film’s narrator, demonstrate Tarantino’s clever interweaving of modern celebrity gravitas with meta-narrative functions.

• Zoë Bell, though more renowned for her stunt prowess than star wattage, embodies Janet, whose terse interactions with Cliff reveal Tarantino’s penchant for subtextual character economy.

Legacy Cameos: Reanimating the Icons of 1960s Hollywood

Perhaps more compelling are the legacy cameos, where actors inhabit the personas of actual 1960s luminaries, a process Tarantino treats with meticulous reverence:

• Damian Lewis channels the cool charisma of Steve McQueen at the Playboy Mansion, an instance of iconic embodiment that transcends mere mimicry.

• Nicholas Hammond as Sam Wanamaker, Rafal Zawierucha as Roman Polanski, and Rumer Willis as Joanna Pettet, alongside Dreama Walker, Costa Ronin, and Samantha Robinson, collectively reconstitute a bygone Hollywood milieu, lending the narrative a textured verisimilitude.

• Mike Moh’s audacious reimagining of Bruce Lee in the backlot duel with Cliff Booth provokes both admiration and controversy, encapsulating Tarantino’s dialectic between homage and invention.

Interweaving Major Roles with Ephemeral Presence

The genius of Tarantino’s casting extends beyond the obvious leads. While DiCaprio, Pitt, and Margot Robbie dominate the narrative orbit, the constellation of supporting stars and legacy figures creates a universe teeming with authenticity. Each blink-and-miss cameo functions as a prism, reflecting not only the era’s star power but the cultural memory of Hollywood itself. Even seemingly minor appearances — like those of Damian Lewis or Luke Perry — resonate through the audience’s preexisting knowledge, enhancing narrative depth via extradiegetic resonance.

Conclusion: A Cinematic Pantheon of Stars

Ultimately, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood exemplifies Tarantino’s meticulous orchestration (arrangement, curation) of Hollywood’s mythos. The film is a veritable cavalcade (procession, parade) of cinematic figures — past and present — whose brief appearances oscillate between narrative utility and historical homage. Through prestige cameos and legacy portrayals alike, Tarantino crafts a filmic palimpsest, wherein the ghosts of Hollywood’s past intermingle with contemporary luminaries, producing a layered, almost mythopoetic (legendary, epic) reflection on fame, mortality, and the ephemeral nature of stardom itself.

For cinephiles and casual viewers alike, the film rewards attention not only to the narrative arcs but to the intricate lattice of cameo performances, each moment a whisper of Hollywood’s sprawling, luminous history.

---

One of Ed Scholz earlier films

 Films and steaming in Toronto One per Year

1. 001 – Between Strangers

   • Directed by Edoardo Ponti, this film features scenes shot at Edwards Gardens and the R.C. Harris Water Treatment Plant. Beach Metro Community News

2. 2002 – Honey

   • While not directly filmed at Edwards Gardens, this film features scenes shot at various locations in Toronto, showcasing the city's diverse landscapes. IMDb

3. 2003 – The Time Traveler's Wife

   • This romantic science fiction film includes scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, including Edwards Gardens.

4. 2004 – Mean Girls

   • This popular teen comedy includes scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, contributing to the city's cinematic appeal. hotels

5. 2005 – The Sentinel

   • This action thriller features scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, highlighting the city's urban landscape.

6. 2006 – The Incredible Hulk

   • This superhero film includes scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, showcasing the city's architecture and streets. Facebook

7. 2007 – Resident Evil: Apocalypse

   • This science fiction horror film features scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, utilizing the city's diverse settings.

8. 2008 – The Incredible Hulk

   • This film includes scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, showcasing the city's urban environment.

9. 2009 – Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

   • This cult classic includes scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, highlighting the city's vibrant culture.

10. 2010 – Red

    • This action-comedy includes scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, utilizing the city's architecture.

11. 2011 – The Vow

    • This romantic drama includes scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, showcasing the city's charm.

12. 2012 – Looper

    • This science fiction film includes scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, utilizing the city's diverse settings.

13. 2013 – The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones

    • This fantasy film includes scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, showcasing the city's architecture.

14. 2014 – The Amazing Spider-Man 2

    • This superhero film includes scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, highlighting the city's urban landscape.

15. 2015 – Suicide Squad

    • This superhero film includes scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, showcasing the city's architecture.

16. 2016 – The Handmaid's Tale (TV Series)

    • This acclaimed TV series includes scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, utilizing the city's diverse settings.

17. 2017 – It

    • This horror film includes scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, showcasing the city's architecture.

18. 2018 – The Umbrella Academy (TV Series)

    • This popular TV series includes scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, highlighting the city's vibrant culture.

19. 2019 – Joker

    • This critically acclaimed film includes scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, showcasing the city's urban environment.

20. 2020 – The Queen's Gambit (TV Series)

    • This award-winning TV series includes scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, utilizing the city's diverse settings.

21. 2021 – The Boys (TV Series)

    • This popular TV series includes scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, showcasing the city's architecture.

22. 2022 – Stranger Things (TV Series)

    • This hit TV series includes scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, highlighting the city's vibrant culture.

23. 2023 – Gen V (TV Series)

    • This spin-off of The Boys includes scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, showcasing the city's diverse settings.

24. 2024 – The Flash

    • This superhero film includes scenes filmed at various locations in Toronto, utilizing the city's urban landscape.

25. 2025 – Netflix Thriller (Untitled)

    • This upcoming Netflix thriller is reported to be filming at various locations in Toronto, including Edwards Gardens. Tripadvisor

 

The show The Last of Us got me wondering: Is fungi intelligent? How can a non-intelligent life form take control of an intelligent one, even if its intelligence is low?

How the Zombie Ant Fungus Works

The Ophiocordyceps fungus doesn’t give precise step-by-step movement commands like a remote control. Instead, it hijacks the ant’s nervous and muscular systems, subtly manipulating behavior while allowing the ant to appear mostly normal—until the final “climb-and-bite” stage.

How It Moves Without Being Detected:

• Preserved Locomotion – The fungus doesn’t fully disrupt motor functions; the ant continues walking in a mostly natural way, reducing suspicion from nestmates.

• Stealth Mode – Infected ants avoid erratic movements, making it less likely that others will detect and remove them before the fungus matures.

• Neural Hijacking, Not Brain Control – The fungus primarily affects muscles, not higher brain functions, allowing the ant to navigate obstacles as if making its own choices.

• Environmental Triggers – The fungus synchronizes its control based on temperature, humidity, and light, guiding the ant to an optimal location for fungal growth and spore dispersal.

Rather than issuing direct commands, the fungus subtly exploits the ant’s instincts while using biochemical control.

Infection Timeline (From Spore to Death)

1. Spore Attachment (0–2 Days) – Fungal spores land on an ant, penetrate its exoskeleton, and begin spreading inside.

2. Growth & Manipulation (4–10 Days) – The fungus spreads through the ant’s body, hijacking muscles and subtly altering behavior.

3. The Death March (10–14 Days) – The ant leaves its colony, climbs vegetation, and locks its jaws in place (the "death grip").

4. Death & Fungal Emergence (15–25 Days) – The fungus kills the ant, then a stalk grows out of its head, releasing spores to infect others.

Can Ants Resist the Infection?

Yes, but resistance depends on several factors:

• Social Hygiene – Healthy ants recognize infected nestmates and remove or kill them before the fungus spreads.

• Self-Removal – Some infected ants instinctively leave the colony earlier, possibly as a defense mechanism.

• Colony Relocation – Some ant colonies have been observed moving away from high-infection zones.

• Immune Response – If an ant’s immune system is strong enough, it might fight off the fungus before it takes hold.

Despite these defenses, Ophiocordyceps is incredibly effective, and infected ants rarely survive once spores take root inside them.

Intelligence or Evolutionary Mastery?

Fungi don’t possess intelligence in the way animals do, but they exhibit highly evolved problem-solving capabilities. For example, fungal mycelial networks can navigate mazes for food sources, demonstrating an almost algorithmic efficiency.

In the case of Ophiocordyceps, its ability to time behavioral manipulation for optimal spore dispersal is an evolutionary adaptation rather than real-time intelligence. The fungus doesn’t “think”—it has simply evolved chemical strategies to exploit ant behavior in ways that appear calculated.

Fiction vs. Reality

In The Last of Us, the concept of Cordyceps infecting humans is an exaggerated, fictional take on real fungal behavior. In reality:

• Ophiocordyceps is highly specialized for ants and wouldn’t survive in human bodies due to temperature differences and stronger immune systems.

• Human fungal infections exist (e.g., Candida, Aspergillus), but they don’t exhibit behavior-controlling abilities like Cordyceps.

The show’s premise is an engaging horror twist on real science, but actual fungi rely on biochemical mastery rather than intelligence to manipulate their hosts.