Wednesday, 6 May 2026
COKE DRINK OF THE GODS
Friday, 24 April 2026
Austin Russell: China’s Newest Useful Idiot? The Billionaire Who Bought Forbes with Foreign Pocket Change
So, Austin Russell, the self-proclaimed wunderkind behind Luminar Technologies, a company that makes lasers for cars that don’t drive themselves properly, just became the proud owner of Forbes. Yes, Forbes — the magazine most famous for putting every attention-seeking billionaire on a “rich list” like it’s an achievement, not a global indictment.
The Setup: Nothing to See Here, Just Foreign Money
Let’s be clear — Austin didn’t buy Forbes out of his own piggy bank alone. No, the $800 million deal came laced with foreign funding.
- His partners? The Sun Group (India-based) — whose Vice Chairman had former ties to Russian government advisory roles, which in spy-speak is code for “drinks vodka with spies.”
- Also onboard: GSV Ventures, a Silicon Valley fund — because no shady deal is complete without the blessing of people who invest in ed-tech scams.
- The previous owner? Integrated Whale Media, a Hong Kong-based group with long-standing Chinese links, who held the keys to Forbes for nearly a decade.
So, we’ve gone from Beijing to Bangalore to Austin, who swears he’s just passionate about “media integrity.” Yes, because nothing says journalistic integrity like needing foreign money to buy the most American business magazine in history.
The CFIUS Problem
The deal is now under scrutiny from CFIUS — the U.S. government’s official “Are-you-sure-this-isn’t-a-hostile-takeover?” committee. Their main concern? That foreign governments could influence U.S. media narratives — you know, like when Forbes mysteriously got much softer on China while under Integrated Whale’s ownership. What a coincidence.
Russell claims this is all just “entrepreneurial ambition”, but you have to wonder:
- Is it ambition, or is it being the world’s richest useful idiot?
- Or worse, is it just business as usual in a country where billionaires can buy institutions like they’re picking up groceries?
Austin’s Defense
Russell insists he’s running the show solo.
- $10 million came from his own pocket.
- The other $790 million? Ah yes, foreign consortiums. Because every red-blooded American billionaire looks for investment from companies with Russian political ties when buying a U.S. media outlet.
Let’s Not Forget
Russell is a 29-year-old lidar nerd, not exactly the guy you expect to understand geopolitical power plays. But that’s what makes it so believable — because the best agents aren’t moustache-twirling villains. They’re young, well-meaning Silicon Valley types who accidentally give China and Russia soft influence because, hey, the terms sheet looked good.
And the Content?
Under Chinese-linked ownership, Forbes had already started softening on China. Articles critical of Chinese business practices became rare. Could this new ownership simply continue the trend?
After all, if you can’t beat America militarily, you may as well make sure their business press sounds like the “Visit Beijing” tourism board.
The Punchline
Is Austin Russell a Chinese agent? Probably not — but he’s ticking every box for the audition.
- Young? ✔
- Naïve? ✔
- Willing to take money from anyone offering it? ✔
- About to control an influential media platform with foreign-funded backing? ✔✔✔
As they say, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and buys Forbes with foreign money — maybe it’s time to check if the duck speaks Mandarin
Wednesday, 22 April 2026
FIFA BLOWS TORONTO FOR CHEAP TRICKS
There is something almost theatrical in its contradiction about the way the 2026 FIFA World Cup is being prepared for Toronto.
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.
norm in Toronto."
- Edmund Scholz
Monday, 20 April 2026
Networking For Toronto Music Newbies
Vampr vs SoundBetter: The Two-Stage Music Industry Filter Nobody Talks About
Music by Peter Randel, Ember Swift and Doc Scholz
Photos by #江戸門戸
Vampr vs SoundBetter: The Two-Stage Music Industry Filter Nobody Talks About
The modern music industry doesn’t reject most people at the “talent” stage.
It rejects them at the access stage.
That’s what platforms like Vampr and SoundBetter really reveal—not opportunity, but the two-tier system underneath music today:
A chaotic social feed of aspiring musicians
A gated marketplace of professionals who already survived the chaos
And most people never move from one to the other.
Vampr — “It’s networking, but without the power structure”
Vampr sells itself as empowerment: meet musicians, collaborate, build your career.
In reality, it’s closer to a collapsed industry mixer with no gatekeepers and no standards.
One user puts it bluntly:
“It helps me connect with people… but it’s still difficult to actually turn that into real work.”
That’s the real pattern. Vampr creates contact, not consequence.
What it actually is
A swipe-based talent pool
Mostly early-stage or hobby-level musicians
Endless “maybe we should collab” conversations
Very little follow-through
It mimics networking without replicating what made networking powerful in the first place: scarcity, reputation, and accountability.
The uncomfortable truth
Vampr is not a career tool. It’s a hope simulator.
You feel productive because:
you matched with someone
you exchanged messages
you shared a demo
But nothing is enforced:
no deadlines
no contracts
no real stakes
So most collaborations die in the same place:
“yo this is sick we should do something”
And then nothing happens.
Pros
Easy entry point
Low friction discovery
Useful for experimentation
Good for isolating creative energy
Cons
Almost no accountability
Extremely uneven quality
Conversation-heavy, output-light
Rewards attention, not completion
SoundBetter — “Where the industry charges you for skipping the struggle”
SoundBetter is the opposite world: polished, structured, and monetized.
It’s where musicians go when they’ve realized something uncomfortable:
talent doesn’t matter if your mix sounds like a phone recording
One user describes it like this:
“I had no access to professionals until I found SoundBetter.”
That’s the real pitch: access to people who already made it through the system.
But here’s the part nobody says out loud:
SoundBetter is not collaboration. It’s outsourcing.
What it actually is
A freelance marketplace for audio labor
Mixing, mastering, production, session work
Tiered pricing based on perceived credibility
Reputation-based hiring system
In other words:
the music industry, but with the gate removed and replaced with a price tag
The uncomfortable truth
SoundBetter doesn’t fix inequality in music.
It prices it.
If you have money:
you get professional sound
you bypass years of trial and error
you skip technical development
If you don’t:
you stay in Vampr-land
or YouTube tutorial purgatory
or endless self-mixing cycles
So the “democratization” story is only half true.
What actually happened is:
the gate didn’t disappear—it became a checkout page
Pros
High-quality professionals
Clear deliverables
Real industry experience available on demand
Reliable workflow and structure
Cons
Expensive for emerging artists
Creative decisions shift to hired experts
Reduces learning-by-doing
Turns music into service procurement
The real system nobody admits
These platforms are not competitors.
They are filters in sequence:
Stage 1: Vampr (noise phase)
Everyone is:
networking
experimenting
“working on something”
not finishing anything
Stage 2: SoundBetter (compression phase)
Only a few remain:
people with budget
people with clarity
people with finished material worth fixing
Everything else gets stuck in between.
What this actually means for musicians
The industry didn’t become more open.
It became more segmented:
Vampr = infinite possibility with no structure
SoundBetter = structure with a paywall
And the brutal reality is this:
Most musicians don’t fail because they lack talent.
They fail because they never leave the networking layer.
They stay in:
conversations
demos
“we should collab”
unfinished projects
While a smaller group moves into:
paid production
finished releases
professional output
distribution-ready work
Final verdict
Vampr is where music starts when nobody is watching.
SoundBetter is where music goes when it starts costing money to keep going.
And the gap between them is where most careers quietly disappear.
As always comment directly at my Substack Instagram etc. for insights from an outsider.
https://scholz01.blogspot.com/2026/04/vampr-vs-soundbetter-two-stage-music.htm
https://pop-the-cherry-say-i.blogspot.com/2026/04/networking-for-toronto-music-newbies.html
Thursday, 5 March 2026
March
-
Breakout Game Convention — Toronto / Sheridan Center — March 2026 recurring; exact 2025 analogs vary, usually early/mid March
-
Similar conventions — e.g., board game expos, tabletop RPG conventions, typically March–April in Ontario (Sheridan, Toronto, or Mississauga) — check regional fan directories for exact dates
May
-
Wentworth Medieval Faire — Ancaster (Ancaster Fairgrounds), ON — May 23–25
-
Country Renaissance Festival — Milton, ON — previously early June; inactive / no 2025 listing
June
-
Black Creek Medieval Faire / events — Black Creek Pioneer Village / Toronto area — June 20–22
-
Headwaters Medieval Faire — Orangeville Fairgrounds, ON — Late June
July
-
Great Lakes Medieval Tournament & Faire — Guelph/Eramosa area — July 11–12
-
Fergus Medieval Faire — Downtown Fergus, ON — July 26
August
-
Ontario Pirate Festival — Guelph / Wellington region — Aug 2–4
-
Michigan Renaissance Festival — Holly, Michigan — Aug 16 – Sept 28
-
Minnesota Renaissance Festival — Shakopee, MN — Aug 16 – Sept 28
-
Pennsylvania Renaissance Faire — Mount Hope Estate, PA — Aug 16 – Oct 26
September
-
Royal Medieval Faire — Waterloo, ON — Sept 20
-
Oxford Renaissance Festival — Thorndale (Oxford County), ON — Sept 26–28
Ongoing / Seasonal
-
Upper Canada Village — Morrisburg, ON — seasonal heritage events ongoing; no standalone medieval festival listed for 2025
Defunct / Inactive / Historical
-
Faery Fest’s Enchanted Ground — Guelph, ON — last active 2016
-
Treasureventure — The Adventure Festival — Rockton, ON — last clearly active 2012–2014
-
Kingdom of Osgoode Medieval Festival — Osgoode Village, ON — last listings ceased ~2019
-
BC Renaissance Festival — Langley, BC — older listings; 2025 presence unconfirmed
Wednesday, 18 February 2026
Pluribus and the Opium Wars
Pluribus and the Opium Wars
https://pop-the-cherry-say-i.blogspot.com/2026/02/pluribus-and-opium-wars.html
The comparison between the virus in Pluribus and the Opium Wars hinges on the difference between formal consent and meaningful consent. In both cases, participation appears voluntary only after autonomy has already been compromised. Opium did not conquer China through armies alone; it hollowed out social, economic, and bodily agency first, making later “choices” artifacts of dependency rather than expressions of will. Likewise, the virus in Pluribus creates conditions where acceptance follows inevitability. Consent after exposure, addiction, or systemic collapse is not ethical consent—it is compliance under constraint.
Both cases rely on moral reframing to sanitize domination. British justifications during the Opium Wars leaned on trade freedom, personal choice, and market inevitability, carefully avoiding responsibility for the engineered addiction itself. In Pluribus, the virus is framed as natural, efficient, even merciful—an external force rather than an authored intervention. This reframing converts deliberate harm into a neutral process, allowing perpetrators (or designers) to claim moral distance while still benefiting from the outcome. Violence disappears rhetorically even as its effects intensify materially.
Crucially, both systems redefine harm in aggregate rather than human terms. The opium economy could be defended statistically—revenue, trade balance, reduced unrest among addicts—while ignoring the collapse of individual lives and institutions. The virus in Pluribus operates on the same logic: suffering is acceptable if the system stabilizes, identity loss is tolerable if conflict declines. What is erased in both cases is agency itself. The society continues to exist, but it no longer possesses the capacity for meaningful ethical choice.
see
https://youtu.be/I2HzMGtq9HM?si=5pwc-4hyVXflTqaB
Sunday, 23 November 2025
P CULTURE
| Oct 27, 2025, 8:00:00 PM | 65 |
| Oct 28, 2025, 8:00:00 PM | 37 |
| Oct 29, 2025, 8:00:00 PM | 56 |
| Oct 30, 2025, 8:00:00 PM | 80 |
| Oct 31, 2025, 8:00:00 PM | 46 |
| Nov 1, 2025, 8:00:00 PM | 33 |
| Nov 2, 2025, 7:00:00 PM | 9 |
Posts











