Showing posts with label watchlist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label watchlist. Show all posts

Wednesday, 6 May 2026

COKE DRINK OF THE GODS


COKE DRINK OF THE GODS


There are evenings when one wants a small ceremony without admitting it—a table wiped but not polished, a plate that is warm in the hands, and a drink that arrives cold enough to persuade the tongue to begin again. I have known such evenings with wine, and with water drawn from a good well, and, not least, with Coca-Cola, which—despite its commonness—has a curious gift for making a meal feel chosen. I do not mean that it is noble. I mean that it is useful in the way a well-made key is useful: it opens something that might otherwise stay shut. One learns this first with a hamburger, eaten perhaps too quickly, standing or half-sitting, when hunger has already begun to argue. 


The meat is hot and obliging; the bread, a little sweet; the whole of it a soft insistence. Then the drink—sharp, faintly bitter beneath its sugar, and restless with its bubbles—passes over the tongue and undoes the heaviness just enough that the next bite is not a continuation but a beginning. It is a small mercy, but I have come to respect small mercies. 


 With pizza—especially the kind that glistens in a way that would shame a more delicate dish—there is a different sort of conversation. Oil gathers; cheese persuades; the palate, if left alone, grows dull and agreeable. Here the drink behaves almost impertinently. It interrupts. It lifts the film of richness, pricks the tongue, and leaves behind a trace of bitterness so that the sweetness does not become childish. One is brought back to attention, which is, after all, the beginning of appetite.


 Fried chicken asks for something else again. It is proud of its crust, which shatters if you are lucky, and shelters a tenderness that feels earned. The drink does not compete with this; it keeps the stage clear. A sip between bites carries away the oil that would otherwise quiet the crackle, and the sugar, modestly handled, flatters the browned edges where the heat has done its best work. I have eaten such a pairing at a kitchen table with a window open, and found it as sufficient as any feast. There are foods that are almost too simple to discuss—French fries, for instance, which are salt and heat and a kind of childish joy. Yet even here, the pairing reveals a pattern worth keeping. Salt brightens sweetness; sweetness rounds salt; and a little acid prevents both from becoming tiresome. It is not a grand theory, only a small truth, but small truths are the ones we use most often. 



 Barbecue, with its smoke and its sauces that cannot decide whether to be sharp or kind, seems at first to resist a sweet companion. And yet, taken together, the effect is not excess but depth. The drink’s acidity finds the seams of fat and opens them; its faint bitterness steadies the sugar already present; and what might have been cloying becomes, instead, a longer story. I have watched people argue this point and then, without noticing, finish both their plate and their glass.


 Sausages—plain, dependable, sometimes a little monotonous—benefit from a touch of unpredictability. Here the bubbles matter most, not for their liveliness alone but for the way they disturb a sameness that can otherwise settle over the meal. A sip introduces edges where there were none, and the palate wakes, which is a kind of gratitude


. Spice, finally, teaches a harsher lesson. There are meals that burn with intention, and the question is not how to extinguish them but how to remain in their company without surrender. Sugar softens the heat just enough; cold steadies it; the quick prickle of carbonation distracts it; and a thread of acid keeps the tongue honest. One does not escape the fire. One learns its shape. If I sound as though I am making too much of a familiar drink, it is because I have come to believe that familiarity is precisely where our most reliable pleasures hide. The elements are plain enough—sweetness, acid, bitterness, air, and cold—but their arrangement matters. 

Together they perform a small housekeeping of the mouth: they clear, they sharpen, they begin again. I have known people who would rather be told whether something is “good.” I have never found that question very helpful. A better one, and kinder, is to ask what a thing allows us to do. In this case, it allows us to return to our food with a renewed appetite, and, if we are lucky, to notice that we are still hungry in a way that is not only for eating. There is a quiet discipline in choosing such pairings—not to deny oneself, but to make room for attention. And attention, like hunger, is a pleasure that improves with practice. If you were to set the table tonight with this in mind, and place beside your meal a glass that is cold and a little insistent, you might find that the evening lengthens—not in time, but in savor. And that, for most of us, is enough.

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

by Doc Scholx


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.





2026,Economic,fame,FIFA,Propaganda,unpublished,USA,watchlist,ZENO,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23y April TOD
"Politeness costs nothing and benefits everyone – let's make it the
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:

  1. A chaotic social feed of aspiring musicians

  2. 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











Views
27 Oct28 Oct29 Oct30 Oct31 Oct1 Nov2 Nov020406080
Oct 27, 2025, 8:00:00 PM65
Oct 28, 2025, 8:00:00 PM37
Oct 29, 2025, 8:00:00 PM56
Oct 30, 2025, 8:00:00 PM80
Oct 31, 2025, 8:00:00 PM46
Nov 1, 2025, 8:00:00 PM33
Nov 2, 2025, 7:00:00 PM9
326
2

Posts

🎹 The Mystery Pianist of Korea I have a vague but persistent memory from the summer of 2010 , when I was serving as a visiting advisor a...
Posted by GreatguyTV
8
A Fun One | Star Trek Reaction, episode 208, "I, Mudd," with Walter Koen...
Posted by GreatguyTV
8
That’s a sharp and plausible reconstruction of how the Starship Troopers world might work if you read between the lines. Verhoeven never s...
Posted by GreatguyTV
5
🔬 Clinical Trial Successes 1. Immunotherapy Advancements Gilead Sciences and University of Pennsylvania Collaboration : A dual-target...
Posted by GreatguyTV
4
In Gilmore Girls Season 5, Elizabeth Hurley is mentioned in passing during Episode 9, "Emily Says Hello." The reference is part ...
Posted by GreatguyTV
4
Lessons for Roger
Posted by GreatguyTV
4
My Trip With Dark Energy 🪐 In 1991: There was no accepted evidence for cosmic acceleration yet. The term “dark energy” wasn’t in use —...
Posted by GreatguyTV
3
LOGIC , For Students Step 1: Define Propositions Let’s extract the key statements from your text as propositions : P: The Charter of Rig...
Posted by GreatguyTV
3
“Can We Bring Back Catcalling?” Woman Complains Men Won’t Even Flirt Wit...
Posted by GreatguyTV
3
# Title / Media Type Notes / Themes Status Priority Date #1 Starship Troopers Movie / Analysis Societal structure, sci-fi...
Posted by GreatguyTV
3
What is Instagram & How Does It Work? | Instagram Guide Part 1
Posted by GreatguyTV
3
She RAGED at My Sign – And Accidentally DESTROYED Her Own Argument Posted by GreatguyTV 4  This hidden psychology will make people obsess...
Posted by GreatguyTV
3
Cure For Cancer Slow And Risky
Posted by GreatguyTV
3
Summary 2025 of 2022 Sophie Powers, a 17-year-old hyper-punk pop artist, released the music video for her track “See Me!!” on June 30, 20...
Posted by GreatguyTV
3
Understood. Here’s the Reading & Watching Log in narrative form, with your correction that “today” is the current date (2025‑10‑25). N...
Posted by GreatguyTV
3
Artists Commonly Mentioned in “Monarch” Theories These names appear frequently in online discussions, documentaries, and conspiracy circl...
Posted by GreatguyTV
3
Older Unmarried women in China! How High Are Their Standards? Can you me...
Posted by GreatguyTV
2
Nina Agdal: Chaos, Couture, and the Currency of Love
Posted by GreatguyTV
2
The 5 Levels of Industry Plant
Posted by GreatguyTV
2
Hollywood's "Fake" Mid-Atlantic Myth DEBUNKED!
Posted by GreatguyTV