Opfoss

Opfoss , 9 hours ago to random

There is something I find unnerving in the religious who "display" their faith. It is in numerous monotheistic religions, despite numerous avowals that this may not be the way.

But no, they double down in the guidebook and ignore every chapter which tells you to think, interpret, hope, and that the judgement isn't yours to make.

Double down into force and proselytising despite every verse which states not to do that.

Don't make a show, you might not get into heaven that way, but there they are, full in the flesh of judgement.

Casting stones.

Controlling.

That's not faith, that's coercion. It's performative piety.

Jesus explicitly condemns religious theatre.

Matthew 6:1, 5-6: "Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven... And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others... But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen."

The Quran has a specific term for this: Riya' (doing deeds to be seen). It describes those who pray only for social credit as "unmindful."

These extend to coercive acts which are performed to be seen.

Surah Al-Ma'un (107:4–6): "So woe to those who pray, [but] who are heedless of their prayer, those who make show [of their deeds]."

Surah An-Nisa (4:142): "Indeed, the hypocrites... when they stand for prayer, they stand lazily, showing [themselves] to the people and not remembering Allah except a little."

The Bible (The Instruction to the Twelve):
Jesus instructs the disciples to rely on hospitality, not force. If they are not welcomed, they are not to fight or dominate, but simply leave.

Mark 6:8-11: "He charged them to take nothing for their journey except a staff—no bread, no bag, no money... And if any place will not receive you and they will not listen to you, when you leave, shake off the dust that is on your feet as a testimony against them."

The Quran explicitly strips the Prophet (and thus his followers) of the right to control others.

Surah Al-Ghashiyah (88:21–22): "So remind, [O Muhammad]; you are only a reminder. You are not over them a controller."

Surah Yunus (10:99): "Had your Lord willed, those on earth would have believed - all of them entirely. Then, [O Muhammad], would you compel the people in order that they become believers?"

Religious ritual is worthless if you lack human empathy. Judgment belongs to God; service belongs to humans.

"When I came to you as..." This is the ultimate separation of the religious performers from the truly faithful.

Matthew 25:42-45: "For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in... 'Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'"

John 8:7 (Casting Stones): "Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."

Surah Al-Baqarah (2:177): "Righteousness is not that you turn your faces toward the east or the west, but [true] righteousness is... [one who] gives wealth, in spite of love for it, to relatives, orphans, the needy, the traveller, and those who ask...".

I am an atheist, but for the love of God, think:

1 Thessalonians 5:21: "Test everything; hold fast what is good."

1 John 4:1: "Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God..."

"Afala ta'qilun?" ("Will you not use your reason?")

Surah Al-Anfal (8:22): "Indeed, the worst of living creatures in the sight of Allah are the deaf and dumb who do not use reason."

Surah Al-Baqarah (2:170): "When it is said to them, 'Follow what Allah has revealed,' they say, 'Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing.' Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?"

There is more on this in the Qu'ran too, but:

(2 Corinthians 3:6):

"He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant—not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life."

(Romans 12:2):

"Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is..."

I could go on. But, suffice to say, as a linguist, it's best not to take words entirely literally, but as a general direction.

There are numerous theories which outline why.

But hey, I am a Constructivist theorist with a penchant for Dadaism, shitposting, and an atheist to boot. WTF do I know?

Opfoss , 2 days ago to random

"Nightpishing, deserves a quite night."

Opfoss , 2 days ago to random

My mates and myself are all cantankerous, curmudgeonly arseholes.

We are a lovely bunch of moany sods. Wouldn't have it any other way.

Opfoss , 4 days ago to random

Throws brother under bus for sake of state. This was coming. As soon as Andy was turfed out from being a Royal, and ejected to being a marginally more fancy pleb, it was the writing on the wall.

Andy and Mandy are officially on the naughty step.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqlgv3z79klo

Opfoss , 5 days ago to random

"Said Pedro, hypocritically."

Any notion that Pedro Sánchez represents a genuine leftist or human alternative is political posturing. No figure so frequently praised by the Blairite network—specifically the Tony Blair Institute—holds those convictions. While Sánchez occasionally markets "leftist credentials," he is a dyed-in-the-wool technocrat and a disciple of the Third Way. He is firmly Team Clinton, Blair, and Barak.

When Sánchez speaks, the rhetoric is often disingenuous. He is the Spanish equivalent of Keir Starmer: the puppet out front, masking a deeper alignment with Atlanticism.

The real game is not social democracy, but the securement of defence contracts supported by the private sector, spun off into data products, and used to bolster AI. This is the Military-Industrial-Data Complex, and Sánchez’s administration is a key node in it.

The Artigas Connection: Madrid to Harvard. Sánchez’s former Secretary of State for Digitalization and Artificial Intelligence (2020–2024), Carme Artigas, is the primary operator here. Her appointment as a Senior Fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs in 2024—specifically in the "Tech and Geopolitics" program—places her in the exact same cohort as the US intelligence officials who frequent the institution.

The lineage is clear: Douglas Alexander, David Miliband, Ed Balls, Ehud Barak, and Larry Summers have all passed through either the Belfer Center or the closely linked Mossavar-Rahmani Center (M-RCBG). This synthesis informs the Blairite project, which is effectively Clintonism repackaged—a strategy outlined by American consultants like Greenberg, Carville, and Shrum. It is worth noting that James Carville was retained as a consultant for Palantir around 2011, cementing the link between this political ideology and the surveillance state.

The Trans-Atlantic Conveyor Belt The connection between Artigas, the Belfer Center, and the Anglo-American intelligence network reveals a precise mechanism:

Public Money funds "Innovation" (Defence/AI).

Private Companies develop the tech (often incubated by state-aligned accelerators).

Regulators (like Artigas) write the rules to favour these "trusted" vendors.

The Tech is deployed for consumer data harvesting and state surveillance (Dual-Use).

The UK Parallel: The CyLon Model To understand what Spain is doing, one need only look at the UK. This model was formalised under the Strategic Defence Review and relies on the "privatisation of intelligence." A key example is CyLon, a cyber-security accelerator co-founded by Grace Cassy, a former Foreign Policy advisor to Tony Blair (2004–2006).

CyLon sits at the intersection of GCHQ and Venture Capital. Instead of the government building spy tools, they fund startups to build them, then buy the contracts. Anthony Finkelstein is a mentor there; Lord Daniel Finkelstein (close to the Cameron/Osborne circle) operates within the same neoconservative network that overlaps with Peter Thiel’s Palantir. Epstein's personal hacker, Vincenzo Iozzo, too was a CyLon mentor. Mandelson and Blair are very large bridges.

Keir Starmer, as a dutiful Blairite, is undoubtedly aware of this architecture. Spain is now importing this exact model.

Artigas as the "Dual-Use" Agent Carme Artigas’s receipt of the Gran Cruz del Mérito Militar (Grand Cross of Military Merit) is the smoking gun. Publicly, she was a civilian Secretary of State; in reality, the award proves her primary success was integrating civilian tech into military command. This is the "Palantirization" of the Spanish military—shifting from heavy hardware to software (AI/Data).

Crucially, Artigas led negotiations for the EU AI Act, where she helped carve out exemptions for national security. This ensures that while consumer AI is strictly regulated, defence AI—where the profitable contracts lie—remains largely untouched. It effectively creates a slush fund moving public monies to private companies and back again.

The "Sideways" Move to the UN Artigas’s subsequent move to the UN, via a stopover at the Belfer Center, was not a sideways career step. The Belfer Center served as the ideological bootcamp. Under the late Ash Carter (former US Secretary of Defense) and Eric Rosenbach (former Pentagon Chief of Staff), the Center focuses on "The Tech-Security Dilemma"—ensuring European regulation does not hamper NATO’s ability to compete with China.

Artigas bridged this gap, ensuring US defence companies were not regulated "too hard." Her role at the UN is now about Global Standardization. Future defence contracts (autonomous drones, predictive policing) require interoperable global standards. By setting these standards at the UN level, only massive incumbents like Microsoft, Google, Palantir, and Indra can afford to comply. This effectively kills open-source competition and secures the market for the "approved" vendors.

Sánchez’s government is not "socialist"; it is the local franchise for this global alignment.

ALT

Opfoss , 6 days ago to random

Skyball time.

#ITAvSCO

Opfoss , 9 days ago to random

Other conversations have suddenly brought to mind an ex-workmate in the education sector, who was a collegiate athlete and on track for US Olympic selection for women's hammer throw, until her foot exploded, twice, which retired her from competition.

Strong.

I once remember the little adolescent boys not understanding what strength was, and telling her to "prove it", as obviously she was chunky, so they didn't believe her. She one-hand yoinked a four person desk above her head as if it was a sheet of paper.

Now, the desk may not be heavy, as such, but it is unwieldy, and takes ludicrous wrist and grip strength to clean that into the air.

I laughed like a drain in the corner, and they shut the fuck up.

Opfoss , 9 days ago to random

You know what? If all you are arguing is a constructed Black history versus an equally constructed White history, and you cannot see how they continually co-construct one another—setting the grounds for racism, diminishing voice within the macro-construct, and agglomerating difference into nothing more than a non-existent binary—you can get in the fucking bin.

You cement the semiotic reinforcement of racism simply by occupying either of these binary poles.

You cannot have a history of ‘Whiteness’ without a history of ‘Blackness’. They were invented at the same moment, by the same people, for the same economic purpose. To narrate them separately is to ignore the mechanism of their invention.

Every time you invoke Blackness, you invoke Whiteness. Every time you invoke Whiteness, you invoke Blackness.

I am done with anyone mining this. Decolonisation is local, small, and ethnographic. The former are macro-classifiers designed to construct and reinforce specific political policies, compressing and minimising the local and the individual.

To accept a binary as glib as Black versus White is merely to place oneself in a convenient administrative unit for the benefit of those who profit from it.

"I do not want to be the victim of the deceit of a black world... I am not a black man; I am a man. There is no white world, there is no white ethic, any more than there is a white intelligence."
— Black Skin, White Masks, Frantz Fanon

"There is no Negro mission; there is no white burden... I find myself suddenly in the world and I recognize that I have one right alone: That of demanding human behavior from the other."
— Black Skin, White Masks, Frantz Fanon

There is only the micro-politics of the particular. The macro-politics of the universal—or any bipolar state—is the violence of agglomeration, where the disparate becomes bound as a unit due to pigmentation.

Opfoss , 11 days ago to random

On the one hand, I was looking at purchasing a cheap computer to cobble into my own Mastodon server with Wordpress federation and maybe a sneaky Peertube.

On the other hand, why bother?

Opfoss , 11 days ago to random

You could sign, develop, release, and empower new artists.

Or you could have Fred Armisen do a puff piece on your catalogue to generate profit from your "legacy" artists.

Fuck off. Get in the fucking bin, you pile of hedge fund shit.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcberman1/2026/02/01/cnn-and-universal-music-group-partner-on-new-docuseries-exploring-the-worlds-largest-music-archive/

Opfoss , 12 days ago to random

ALT

Opfoss , 12 days ago to random

RE: https://c.im/@Opfoss/115996454084725799

Pay for a fucking Fedica account and syndicate from central, instead of RSS feeding from Xitter.

Seriously, you want to run on a platform of equality and equanimity, then get the fucking basics right.

Opfoss , 12 days ago to random

Until the @ZackPolanski bot can alt-text, the Zack Polanski bot remains blocked.

Opfoss , 13 days ago to random

A pitch room, Hollywood.

"Here’s the setup: We take the absolute worst-case scenario—the nightmare fuel of the internet conspiracy boards—and we make it the status quo. We have an administration, right? The President, the VP, the Cabinet—the whole executive branch is effectively an elite, billionaire paedophile ring. I’m talking a 'Who’s Who' of Super-Injunctions. And the First Lady? She’s not arranging flowers; she’s a high-class escort. It’s Caligula, but in the West Wing.

But hang on—stay with me—here’s the engine. Who’s funding this car crash? The Tech-Bros. The Silicon Valley oligarchs. The sort of blokes who want to upload their consciousness to the cloud just to escape the age of consent laws. They are bankrolling this entire circus to institute a sort of... techno-fascism. Digital serfdom. You don't vote; you simply click 'Accept All Cookies' and forfeit your soul.

[Writer stops, staring intensely at the producer.]

Now, how do they sell this to the punters? This is the kicker. They run on an anti-paedophile ticket.

The irony is absolutely radioactive! They are screaming 'Save the Children' whilst wiping their own hard drives! And the base? Oh, the base is magnificent. We’re talking about a demographic of largely illiterate 'Christians' who treat the Sermon on the Mount like the Terms and Conditions—they've never bloody read it. They don't want a Prime Minister or a President; they want a God-King.

So, you have these voters aiding and abetting the dismantling of the Republic—literally tearing the social fabric to shreds—because they view these monsters as divine saviours. And the twist? The properly dark joke? The base isn't tricked. Deep down, they resonate with it. Because back home, in the privacy of their own clans, they’re keeping it very much in the family, if you catch my drift.

It’s a feedback loop of absolute depravity. The leaders are noncing the kids, the voters are noncing their cousins, and everyone is screaming that the other lot are the perverts. It’s the end of history.

"Right, hold on, hold on, put a pin in the perversion for a second. That’s just the flavour; I haven't told you about the fuel. We need a schema for the money, because that is where the soul of this show lives.

You’re asking, 'Who pays for this dystopia?' And the answer is: Everybody. It’s an economic perpetual motion machine. It’s the Human Centipede, but it’s a circle, and it eats money.

Picture the economy. It’s not manufacturing; we don't make things anymore. The economy is an Entertainment-to-Tech Loop. It is a closed system.

First, you’ve got your Tech Workers. The San Francisco lot. The coders, the UX designers. They wake up, they drink their oat milk lattes, and they tell themselves they’re 'progressive.' They hate the political campaign. They tweet about how awful it is. But here’s the gag: They build the pipes. They are the technical underpinning of the entire vehicle. They code the 24-hour news algorithms; they optimize the rage-bait on the social platforms. They are paid by The Ring. Their stock options? Funded by The Ring. So they sit there, cashing checks signed by the Paedo-Oligarchs, paralyzed by their own mortgages, building the very cage they claim to despise because it keeps their wages high. They are the complicit middle management of Hell.

And who are they extracting the wealth from? Who is the battery in this Matrix? The Base. The Redneck, Football, and Christianity cousin-humpers.

These people have zero tech know-how. They are economically destitute. But what do they do? They consume. They are addicted to the drip-feed. They sit there on a Sunday, watching the Football and the Fire-and-Brimstone sermons, all streamed on digital platforms owned by the Paedo-Oligarchs.

Do you see the beauty of it? The Base is paying a subscription to their own brainwashing! The Oligarchs use the platform to sell them 'Anti-Paedo' hysteria. The Base clicks, the Base watches, the Base pays. That money flows up from the trailer park, through the hands of the cynical Tech Workers—who take their cut to keep the servers running—and lands right in the pockets of the Billionaire Ring... who use it to fund the campaign that keeps the Base angry, illiterate, and glued to the screen!

It’s perfect! The cousin-humpers are funding the very tech-bros who despise them, and the tech-bros are building the pulpit for the fascists they claim to hate. It’s an impressive, unbreakable loop of wealth extraction and moral bankruptcy. Nobody can stop it because everybody is getting something out of it: the Base gets a God, the Techies get a Tesla, and the Ring gets the White House.

It’s not just a government, it’s a subscription service for the end of the world! Tell me that doesn't have legs!"

[Writer stops. He stares intensely at the producer, panting]

[The producer ponders]

"I don't know how we would get that past the regulators...

[A phone rings. The producer answers]

"Jeffrey! Little Saint James? Yes, Yes!"

Opfoss , 14 days ago to random

"Anything identifying victims, depicting child sexual abuse or death, or jeopardising an active investigation has been removed."

DEATH?

Snuff or gore?
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cvgn8wzjzrvt

Opfoss , 15 days ago to random

"ICE agents blocked from entering Ecuadorian Consulate in Minneapolis, ministry says
Law enforcement is generally prohibited from entering consulates or embassies without permission. Ecuador’s Foreign Ministry said it had filed a formal diplomatic protest."

During the exchange, an ICE agent was recorded telling the staff member, "If you touch me, I will grab you." The staff member stood their ground, citing the building's diplomatic status, and the agents eventually left without entering.

So, to clarify, ICE potentially fucked the Consular diplomatic status of the U.S., everywhere.

The protection of diplomatic missions is governed by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963). It is a severe breach of protocol.

Article 31 outlines the inviolability of consular premises, and states that "authorities of the receiving State shall not enter that part of the consular premises which is used exclusively for the purpose of the work of the consular post except with the consent of the head of the consular post."

Diplomatic immunity is fundamentally reciprocal. If the U.S. allows its law enforcement to breach foreign sovereign soil (which a consulate legally represents), it weakens the protections afforded to U.S. Consulates and diplomats abroad. This potentially creates a "fair game" scenario on U.S. diplomats, exposing U.S. personnel in hostile nations to similar incursions under the guise of local law enforcement.

Consulates are not required to comply with domestic warrants unless there is a specific waiver from the head of the consulate or in cases of extreme emergency (like a fire), though the latter is often debated.

Consulates are permitted to​ grant sanctuary to their own nationals inside the building. Once an individual is inside the consulate, U.S. law enforcement cannot enter to arrest them without the Consul’s express permission.

The Consulate is well within its rights to bar entry and insist that law enforcement leave, or face diplomatic escalation, which includes: expulsion (Persona Non Grata), the recall of Ecuador's ambassador, and International Legal Action, where Ecuador could theoretically take the U.S. to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for breaching the Vienna Convention, seeking a judgment that the U.S. violated international law (similar to Mexico's lawsuit against Ecuador after the 2024 embassy raid in Quito).

Diplomatic bags would remain protected in transit, as these are protected under the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and are absolute. Article 27 states they "shall not be opened or detained."

Consulate bags, however, could become fair game, as their protection is the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. This protection is weaker. Article 35 states that if authorities have "serious reason to believe" the bag contains non-official items, they can request it be opened.

This means that any Ecuadorian Consulate doing business with the U.S. could simply state that it believes there is contraband within the baggage or documents of US personnel entering the premises and demand it be opened. If they are refused, they can deny entry.

Ecuador could claim they have "serious reason to believe" every single U.S. consular bag entering Quito contains contraband. The U.S. would then face a choice: allow their confidential bags to be searched, or have them all sent back to Washington, effectively freezing U.S. diplomatic work in Ecuador without Ecuador technically breaking the treaty.

If the U.S. ignores the "Inviolability of Premises" (Article 31), hostile nations (like Russia or China) may decide the U.S. has abandoned the conventions entirely. They could use this as a pretext to ignore the stricter Diplomatic Bag protections, forcibly searching U.S. Embassy pouches under the guise of "national security," citing the Minneapolis incident as justification that the old rules no longer apply.

The U.S. has far more personnel and sensitive material exposed abroad than Ecuador has in Minneapolis. By eroding this norm, the U.S. creates a massive strategic vulnerability for its own intelligence and diplomatic corps.

Congratulations to ICE. While this will be glossed over, you have provided succour to foreign nations.

Opfoss , 15 days ago to random

​SNP, Scottish Government, Scottish Water bastards and their 8.7% price hike.

​It’s outrageous, isn’t it? I mean, look at the numbers. We’re getting slapped with a £42 rise this year, taking the average bill up to £532.

Meanwhile, look at the poor, suffering souls down in London. Thames Water customers are only seeing a rise of 0.4%. That’s a measly £3 a year.

​Clearly, this is proof that the Scottish nationalised model is failing and we should be looking jealously at the efficiency of the private sector down south. The gap is narrowing! We’re losing our advantage!

Except, if you actually scratch the surface it is easy to see "efficiency" has absolutely nothing to do with it.
​The reason Thames Water is only raising bills by 0.4% isn’t because they’ve discovered a magical, cost-free way to purify water. It’s because they are currently operating a literal shit show.

​And I don’t just mean that as an insult; I mean it as a regulatory fact.

​Here is the reality of that "value proposition" down south:
​1. The "Discount" is actually a fine.

In England, prices are regulated by Ofwat using a system of "Outcome Delivery Incentives" (ODIs). Basically, if you do a good job, you can charge more. If you miss your targets—like, say, spewing record amounts of raw sewage into rivers or losing oceans of water to leaks—you get penalised.
​Thames Water’s 0.4% rise is effectively a massive real-terms price cut. But it’s not a gift to the customer; it’s a punishment for the shareholder. They have been fined into suppressing their prices because they are failing.

​So when you compare Scotland’s 8.7% rise to Thames’s 0.4%, you aren’t comparing like-for-like.
​Scotland is paying the actual cost of fixing pipes and keeping the water clean.

​London is receiving a near price-cap for a broken service.
​
We’re might hear a lot of noise from some politicians about how the price gap between Scotland and England is "narrowing." And mathematically, it is. The difference used to be bigger.
​But context is everything. The gap is narrowing because the English system is in distress. If Thames and others were actually hitting their performance targets—fixing leaks, stopping spills, and actually investing—their bills would be skyrocketing way past inflation to pay for it (plus the standard shareholder dividends, which we don't pay up here).

​Instead, their prices are being artificially depressed by the regulator as a sanction for underinvestment. This has lowered the overall price rises in England and Wales, and narrowed the gap. Thames Water is huge, serving around 16 million. If they had been unpunished, and their prices rose inline with other English and Welsh companies:

Severn Trent: +£52 (10%)
United Utilities: +£57 (9%)
Hafren Dyfrdwy: +£54 (9%)

We would then be looking a 16 million people on a 9% rise. Thus, if Thames had risen by £55 instead of £3, the national average increase would likely have been around £47 - £48. That adjusted reality: would be closer to Scotland (+8.7%) vs. "Functioning" England/Wales (+7.8%). The difference is negligible.

This is the bit people forget. Scottish Water is a public corporation. It doesn’t have shareholders screaming for a return on equity. It operates on a cost-recovery basis. That 8.7% hike? That’s what it actually costs to run the system and invest in the infrastructure right now. Every penny of that £42 goes back into the pipes.
​Down south, the model is designed to extract profit. When that model fails—as it spectacularly is doing in the Thames region—the regulator steps in to stop the bleeding, creating these weird price anomalies where a failing company looks "cheaper" on paper than a functioning one.
​
So yes, let’s shout about the 8.7%. Nobody likes a bill going up.
​But let’s be very clear about the alternative. I’d rather pay the fair price for a utility that puts the money back into the network, than pay a "discounted" rate for a private monopoly that’s currently being fined for turning its own catchment area into an open sewer.
​Scottish Water is still over £100 cheaper a year than the English average (£532 vs £639), and we aren’t paying for dividends.
​The price gap might be narrowing, but the competence gap is a canyon.

It's not as if Scottish Water doesn't have problems, but at least it isn't turning its equivalent of the Thames basin into an open sewer, while profits are on hold for a suitable period of "mea culpa".

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn56p0qkky7o

Opfoss , 20 days ago to random

For those who love the fire.

ALT

Opfoss , 22 days ago to random

ROOON YE!
#ScottishFitba
#ScottishFootball

Opfoss , 26 days ago to random

Your cut-out and keep guide to The Nandy Doctrine of who decides on Self-determination.
(Image generated).

ALT

Opfoss , 29 days ago to random

RE: https://mas.to/@SmudgeTheInsultCat/115900603890978701

I mean, can we play this by Pangea rules, and have Africa, Europe, and Greenland just claim the U.S., given that the East Coast of the US (from New England down to Florida) was directly tucked against Northwest Africa (modern-day Morocco, Mauritania, and Senegal), when the Appalachian Mountains and the Atlas Mountains in Morocco were once part of the same continuous mountain range.

The Northeast US and Canada were connected to Greenland, Great Britain, and Scandinavia.

While largely connected to Africa, the northern edge of South America (Venezuela/Colombia) was nestled against the Gulf Coast region.

Make the US Venezuela again (and not vice versa).

Opfoss , 1 month ago to random

I have been reliably informed by boozebags in the know that the Hearach is "fucking mint". So, get it before its probable price hike, seeing as it is the gift bag for the Golden Globes.

Here ends the Booze Reviews.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/scotland-now/whisky-scottish-island-features-golden-36543338

Opfoss , 1 month ago to random

"BBC viewers fume over 'worst 30 minutes in TV history' as they switch off."

It was Celebrity Mastermind. It must have been truly terrible, as I watched episode four of Stranger Things earlier, and it was so bad I insulted my T.V., twice, for the same thing.

The worst scriptwriting I have recently seen, and I watched that Harlan Cobden shit with Bill Nighy.

Opfoss , 1 month ago to random

Just think, if all those years ago Amy Winehouse had sung, "they tried to make me go to rehab, and I said, yes, yes, yes", she might now be carving a nice little career Jane McDonalding on the cruise ships.

Maybe even a shot on Strictly.

Opfoss , 1 month ago to random

Disallowed for a foul?
Brother Beaton must hate Fernandez more than he loves The Rangers.

#ScottishFitba
#ScottishFootball

Opfoss , 1 month ago to random

Martin O'Neill has come to shitpost.

Celtic in a 3-4-2-1.
#ScottishFitba
#ScottishFootball

ALT

Opfoss , 1 month ago to random

By the way, I expect the headlines tomorrow to be Well Fried Nancy.

He has nothing positive he can take out of this. Nothing.

Not a single statistic.
Not one decision.
Time he was gone.

#ScottishFootball
#ScottishFitba
#BaguetteTaeFuck

Opfoss , 1 month ago to random

He's changed the team again. Formation likely remains the same.
#ScottishFootball
#ScottishFitba

Opfoss , 1 month ago to random

Celtic on 2 goals from an xG of 1.78
Livingston on 2 goals from an xG of 0.24.

It's like being back in the days of The Sieve.

But we were skint then and near bankruptcy.

#ScottishFootball
#ScottishFitba

Opfoss , 1 month ago to random

ALT

Opfoss , 1 month ago to random

We are up to the Jane part of the early evening. You may know another version.

https://youtu.be/4vgcYBwyw28

Opfoss , 1 month ago to random

Cracks neck. "Yeah, I'll play."

Greta Thunberg was arrested under the Terrorism Act for displaying a sign that read: "I SUPPORT PALESTINE ACTION PRISONERS".

The police allege she was displaying support for a proscribed (banned) organization. However, a linguistic analysis reveals a critical distinction. The police are reading keywords; grammar dictates she was supporting people, not an organization.

Here is how Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL)—a tool used to analyse how language functions in real contexts—deconstructs the sign to show why the arrest is linguistically flawed.

In English, when we group words together to name something (like "Red delicious apple" or "Palestine Action Prisoners"), there is always one word that anchors the meaning. We call this the Head or the Thing. Everything else is just decoration or categorization.

Let's look at Greta's object of support: "Palestine Action Prisoners"

The Head (The Thing): PRISONERS

This is the core reality of the sentence. The physical beings she is referencing are incarcerated people.

The Classifier: PALESTINE ACTION

In grammar, this functions as a Classifier. Its only job is to tell us which type of prisoners we are talking about. It restricts the category.

To prove this, we can swap the classifier for something else. This is called the commutation test.

If she wrote "I support [remand] prisoners," she is not saying she "supports remand" (keeping people in jail). She is supporting the people subject to that condition.

If a lawyer says "I defend [murder] suspects," they are not "defending murder." They are defending the suspects.

The police have conflated the Classifier (the label) with the Thing (the people). Linguistically, you cannot simply lift the modifier "Palestine Action" out of the phrase and claim it is the object of her support. It is glued to the word "Prisoners."

Linguists use a system called Transitivity to map "who does what to whom." It traces the energy of the verb.

The Actor (Doer): "I" (Greta)

The Process (Verb): "Support"

The Goal (Target): "Prisoners"

Imagine the sentence as an arrow. The arrow of "Support" is fired by Greta. It flies over the words "Palestine Action" and lands squarely on "Prisoners."

Grammatical Reading: Greta → Support → Prisoners (who happen to be associated with Palestine Action).

Police Reading: Greta → Support → Palestine Action (the organization).

By ignoring the word "Prisoners," the legal interpretation creates a new sentence that Greta did not write. She is validating the human rights of the individuals (the Goal), not the manifesto of the group (the Classifier).

Language doesn't happen in a vacuum. We must look at the second line of the sign to understand the first. This is called Appraisal Analysis—how we judge value and stance.

The sign reads:

"I SUPPORT PALESTINE ACTION PRISONERS"

"I OPPOSE GENOCIDE"

The second line acts as a "decoder key" for the first.

"Oppose Genocide" sets a moral framework. It is a statement about humanitarian law and saving lives.

Because the bottom line is about human rights (opposing death/genocide), the top line must be read in the same context.

She is not supporting "Palestine Action" because she loves their logo or their specific tactics; she is supporting the prisoners because she views them as victims of the same system she is critiquing in line two. The sign frames the prisoners as humanitarian subjects (people suffering), not political agents (people acting).
The Verdict

The arrest relies on "Keyword Searching"—seeing a banned word and acting on it. But grammar relies on structure.

Structurally: She supported Prisoners.

Semantically: She supported Human Rights.

By ignoring the grammar of the Noun Group, the authorities effectively erased the word "Prisoners" from her sign, changing her statement from a defence of human rights to an endorsement of a banned group. 1/2
#HumanRights
#FreeSpeech
#RightToProtest
#CivilLiberties
#UKLaw
#GretaThunberg
#PalestineAction
#Activism
#SocialJustice
#PoliticalPrisoners

#LanguageAndPower

ALT

Opfoss , 1 month ago to random

RE: https://tech.lgbt/@Natasha_Jay/115758074509122949

This also needs stuff I once knew, but fell out of my ear. Stuff I thought I knew, but was grossly mistaken about, and stuff I said I knew, but actually had no clue about.

Opfoss , 1 month ago to random

I know that this is probably Flashscore just buggering up the positions, but also, Luke McCowan could be at CB, with Ralston on the rightwing, and Johnny Kenny in left mid.

#ScottishFootball
#ScottishFitba
#BaguetteTaeFuck

ALT

Opfoss , 1 month ago to random

This is your reminder that, among many, many others, Go (1999) and Brazil (1985) are Christmas movies.

Opfoss , 1 month ago to random

Spiderdong,
Spiderdong,
flaccid, it's 12 inches long

ALT

Opfoss , 1 month ago to random

Firstly, this is what happens when you hand your radio station over automated streaming.

Secondly, more programming like this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g402jy23ro

Opfoss , 1 month ago to random

Back. Back to Donald Trump. The absolute shit-filled skin-bag. As promised, here is the continuation of Trump dancing on Rob and Michele Reiner’s graves.

So, Interpersonal Grammatical Metaphors. It sounds academic and fancy, but it is essentially dead simple. At its root, you use one linguistic structure to say something entirely different in terms of pragmatics. It is a syntactical rendering which is inconsistent with its pragmatic function (It says one thing/it does something else), yet we all (most of us) instinctively understand it.

The classic example is the irritated parent speaking to a child:

"Is that your coat on the floor?"

Syntactically, what is happening here is a binary interrogative designed to elicit information. The flow is: Coat > Yours > Yes/No.

Now, does anyone think the parent is genuinely interested in the ownership of the coat? Fundamentally, that depends on context, but let’s assume no. If the answer is "yes," what is the child expected to do? Confirm it and walk away?

Of course not. They are expected to pick the thing up.

Pragmatic rendering: coat>pick it up

What is happening is that the interrogative syntactical structure (a question) has been swapped out to act as a completely different structure: an imperative clause (a command). The meaning is not "tell me about the coat," it is "pick your coat up."

That is an Interpersonal Grammatical Metaphor.

This makes fuller sense when you look at Trump’s "eulogy" for Rob and Michele Reiner.

Look at the final line—the Coda:

"May Rob and Michele rest in peace!"

On the surface (the Congruent Realisation), this is a Benediction. It is an optative mood, a standard religious or respectful wish for the repose of a soul. Syntactically, it belongs to the genre of the condolence.

But look at the context. He has just spent the entire paragraph diagnosing them with a "mind-crippling disease" (TDS) and claiming they died of their own "raging obsession."

Because of this toxic context, the grammar undergoes a metaphorical shift.

The Syntax says: "I pray for their peace."

The Pragmatics scream: "I am fucking glad they are dead."

The exclamation mark is the tell. You don't enthusiastically shout for someone to rest in peace unless you are relieved they are finally gone. It is a Declaration of Victory dressed up as a prayer. He isn't wishing them peace; he is celebrating the fact that the "illness" (their criticism of him) has been "cured" by their death.

That is the power of the Interpersonal Grammatical Metaphor: it allows him to dance on the grave while technically maintaining the posture of a statesman offering condolences. It is plausible deniability, weaponised.

Opfoss , 1 month ago to random

Apropos of nowt.

ALT

Opfoss , 2 months ago to random

RE: https://assortedflotsam.com/@NewsBot/115696832826484811

Cheaper than a U.S. hospital, I suppose.

Opfoss , 2 months ago to random

Here's Dick Mills explaining the process. That original Doctor Who theme is by far the most technically difficult of them all.

It is by far the best.

https://youtu.be/usdlV55eIOw

Opfoss , 2 months ago to random

RE: https://c.im/@Opfoss/115606176549112588

I’d like to address the claim below that Gershon Kingsley’s Popcorn is the world’s first electronic hit single. It is not a claim I necessarily agree with.

The definitions of "hit" and "electronic" are key here. I feel the uploader is using a definition of "synthpop"—where all instruments are synthetic—as a shorthand for "electronic".

I won’t go into too much depth, but suffice it to say: Del Shannon, The Tornados, Delia Derbyshire and Ron Grainer (Doctor Who), Barry Gray (Fireball XL5 / Captain Scarlet), Perrey and Kingsley’s The In Sound from Way Out! (notably "Baroque Hoedown"), The Rolling Stones' "2000 Light Years From Home" (Mellotron), Wendy Carlos (Switched-On Bach), and Silver Apples' "Oscillations" all have a valid claim. All were released prior to 1969.

It is really an issue of how we define an electronic musician.

Take Delia Derbyshire as the prime example. Her process was incredibly time-consuming, requiring the wrangling of Jason AG-10 audio generators, B&K Beat Frequency Oscillators, and intense tape manipulation to render the original Doctor Who theme. For me, that theme remains the genuine high point of the show.

To understand her achievement, you have to realise she didn't just play a keyboard; she effectively engineered Grainer’s orchestration from scratch. She used sine-wave generators, found sounds, tape machines, razor blades, and chinagraph pencils to make that theme happen.

This was not an easy feat. There are three distinct layers of music on the original Doctor Who theme (Bass, Melody, and Noise/Effects), yet she was working with mono tape machines. This meant she had to create separate "makeup" tapes for each element.

As her assistant Dick Mills has described in interviews (such as for the Masters of Sound documentary), the final mixdown was a "crash sync". They had three source machines loaded with these reels. Delia and Dick stood next to them, counted down, and hit the 'play' buttons simultaneously to mix them down to a master recorder.

The machines had no sync. Everything was done manually. Every calculation. Every edit. Every noise. She had to physically cut lengths of tape and stick them together to determine the duration of every single note.

This was the arduous process of Musique Concrète.

Opfoss , 2 months ago to random

I saw mention of Popcorn by Hot Butter, and was reminded it was not the first. From the album Music To Moog By, here is Gershon Kingsley - Popcorn.

https://youtu.be/bjT7ECeCKO0

Opfoss , 2 months ago to random

The Internet of Things: A Hall of Shame

I recently saw a post describing a "smart" kettle that required an app or voice command to boil water. The user noted, "I can have tea as long as they have a wifi connection. Welcome to the 21st century."

This is the defining characteristic of modern tech-horror: a device made functionally inferior to its "dumb" ancestor by the addition of a microchip. The failure mode of a normal kettle is a pot; the failure mode of a smart kettle is a brick.

If you think the kettle is bad, here are five devices that prove we have peaked as a species and are now sliding rapidly backward.

1. The $400 Bag Squeezer (The Juicero)

Price: $400 (Launch price: $700) The Superior Alternative: Dieter Rams’ classic Braun Citrus Juicer ($60) or Human Hands ($0).

Juicero was a Wi-Fi-connected cold-press juicer. You bought proprietary bags of chopped fruit, put them in the machine, and it pressed them.

The "Smart" Feature: It read a QR code on the bag to ensure it hadn't expired. If the internet was down or the bag was expired, it would refuse to make juice. It is vital to note that the QR code checked the expiry of the bag, not the actual juice quality.

The Stupid Reality: Bloomberg News revealed that if you just squeezed the bag with your hands, you got the same amount of juice in the same amount of time. It was a $400 rolling pin that required a software update to function.

Furthermore, the machine’s refusal to operate on "expired" bags highlights a fundamental misunderstanding of biology. The main selling point was the ability to bulk-make juice to store. But juice is already pre-stored in nature's perfect packaging: fruit. An unpeeled orange is essentially juice with a shelf-life, contained in a biodegradable wrapper. The Juicero was a subscription service for squeezing a bag, offering less functionality than a mechanically rotated plastic cone from the 1970s.

2. The Bluetooth Salt Shaker (Smalt)

Price: $199 The Superior Alternative: Peugeot Paris u'Select Salt Mill ($45) + JBL Go Speaker ($30) + LED Candle ($10). Total: $85.

"Smalt" is a large plastic centrepiece that holds salt. It looks like an "ergonomically" designed, off-brand Waterpik.

The "Smart" Feature: It has a Bluetooth speaker (because you want your salt to play the soft jazz of Kenny G) and mood lighting, because you want your salt shaker to be a candle too. You can "dispense" salt by pinching a circle on your smartphone screen or asking Alexa to "dispense one teaspoon of salt."

The Stupid Reality: It requires batteries and a firmware connection to use gravity. The dispensing mechanism is a study in anti-ergonomics. To use the app, you must hold the heavy dispenser over your food with one hand. You must hold your phone with the other. However, a "pinch" gesture requires two fingers on the screen. Unless you place the phone on the table—taking your eyes off the food—or have a prehensile tail, the geometry of seasoning your soup is ridiculous.

Alternatively, you can talk to it. Because nothing kills the vibe of a dinner party faster than shouting commands at your table setting. This is objectively less functional than an electric button-mill (one thumb), a manual mill (two hands, one action), or the pinnacle of culinary interface design: putting your fingers in a bowl of salt.

#InternetOfThings #IoT #TechFail #Enshittification #SmartHome #TechCritique #Smarter #iKettle #RightToRepair #TechHorror #CloudFail #Abandonware

1/2