#shareholder distributions

[colitcomedia]

Calima Energy Limited, an Australian oil and gas exploration and production company, is committed to responsible development and the maximization of shareholder value. Under the astute leadership of Chairman Glen Whiddon, the company is strategically focused on optimizing asset valuation and achieving operational efficiencies. This article delves into the insights of Calima Energy Limited, sheds light on Glen Whiddon's extensive experience, and explores the company's plans to enhance its position in the energy sector.

Glen Whiddon: A Seasoned Professional in Investment Management

As the Principal and Founder of Lagral, a family company specializing in investment management activities, Glen Whiddon brings a wealth of experience to his role as Chairman of Calima Energy Limited. With his diverse background in executive leadership roles and expertise in the mining, energy, and property sectors, Whiddon is at the forefront of driving Calima Energy towards maximizing shareholder value.

Maximizing Shareholder Value: Distributions and Share Buy-Back

Calima Energy Limited is committed to delivering value to its shareholders. The company plans to execute its second distribution of AUD 3 million to shareholders, with the aim of increasing the frequency of distributions in the future, subject to market conditions and commodity prices. Furthermore, Calima Energy may restart a share buy-back program, prioritizing continuous delivery of distributions to supportive shareholders.

Optimizing Drilling and Operational Expenses

In the face of increased capital and operating costs, Calima Energy Limited has devised plans to optimize drilling and operational expenses. By strategically reducing activity during the Canadian winter and standardizing operations, the company aims to improve efficiencies and achieve greater returns on investment in future drilling programs. These measures are part of the broader strategy to enhance asset valuation and drive sustainable growth.

Investor Outlook and Financial Performance

Based on the positive response received, Calima Energy anticipates potential inquiries and proposals from external parties regarding the acquisition or utilization of its assets. The company's forecasted Q2 production remains on track, with an average of around 4,125 barrels of oil equivalent per day (BOE/D). Furthermore, Calima Energy expects to generate approximately AUD 7.5 million in free cash flow for the quarter. With a current share price of AUD 0.094 per share, a 52-week range of AUD 0.093 – AUD 0.175, and a market capitalization of AUD 57.6 million, Calima Energy is poised for success.

Calima Energy: Positioned for Success in Western Canada

Calima Energy Limited is a prominent player in Western Canada's energy sector. The company generates stable production from its Thorsby and Brooks assets, primarily focusing on conventional oil and gas. With a low decline rate of approximately 65%, Calima Energy ensures consistent performance. Moreover, the company holds over 34,000 acres of Montney rights in the "liquids-rich" fairway, positioning itself to capitalize on the potential of the Montney formation and leverage the growing demand for liquid-rich natural gas in both domestic and global markets.

Conclusion

Led by Chairman Glen Whiddon, Calima Energy Limited is dedicated to maximizing shareholder value through responsible oil and gas exploration and production activities. With a strong emphasis on optimizing asset valuation, managing operational expenses, and exploring potential asset sales, the company aims to achieve sustained growth and create value for its stakeholders. As investors consider their options, it is crucial to conduct thorough research and seek advice from financial advisors before making investment decisions.

#Glen Whiddon #Calima Energy Limited #ASX: CE1 #OTCQB: CLMEF #oil and gas exploration #production projects #asset sales #Canadian entities #valuations #Australian Securities Exchange #Toronto Stock Exchange #undervalued assets #shareholder distributions #share buy-back #drilling optimization #operational expenses #investor outlook #financials #Montney operation #Western Canada #Thorsby assets #Brooks assets #Montney rights #liquids-rich fairway #asset valuation #energy sector

[superchat]

Nijisanji goin THRU IT

#Its insane how massive the response has been #Several merch distributers dropping them #Several niji en accounts losing like 3k subs #Anycolor makes a statement to shareholders that stocks will be fine #(NOTICEABLE DROP in anycolor stocks too)

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Apple fucked us on right to repair (again)

Today (September 22), I'm (virtually) presenting at the DIG Festival in Modena, Italy. Tonight, I'll be in person at LA's Book Soup for the launch of Justin C Key's "The World Wasn’t Ready for You." On September 27, I'll be at Chevalier's Books in Los Angeles with Brian Merchant for a joint launch for my new book The Internet Con and his new book, Blood in the Machine.

Right to repair has no cannier, more dedicated adversary than Apple, a company whose most innovative work is dreaming up new ways to sneakily sabotage electronics repair while claiming to be a caring environmental steward, a lie that covers up the mountains of e-waste that Apple dooms our descendants to wade through.

Why does Apple hate repair so much? It's not that they want to poison our water and bodies with microplastics; it's not that they want to hasten the day our coastal cities drown; it's not that they relish the human misery that accompanies every gram of conflict mineral. They aren't sadists. They're merely sociopathically greedy.

Tim Cook laid it out for his investors: when people can repair their devices, they don't buy new ones. When people don't buy new devices, Apple doesn't sell them new devices. It's that's simple:

https://www.inverse.com/article/52189-tim-cook-says-apple-faces-2-key-problems-in-surprising-shareholder-letter

So Apple does everything it can to monopolize repair. Not just because this lets the company gouge you on routine service, but because it lets them decide when your phone is beyond repair, so they can offer you a trade-in, ensuring both that you buy a new device and that the device you buy is another Apple.

There are so many tactics Apple gets to use to sabotage repair. For example, Apple engraves microscopic Apple logos on the subassemblies in its devices. This allows the company to enlist US Customs to seize and destroy refurbished parts that are harvested from dead phones by workers in the Pacific Rim:

https://repair.eu/news/apple-uses-trademark-law-to-strengthen-its-monopoly-on-repair/

Of course, the easiest way to prevent harvested components from entering the parts stream is to destroy as many old devices as possible. That's why Apple's so-called "recycling" program shreds any devices you turn over to them. When you trade in your old iPhone at an Apple Store, it is converted into immortal e-waste (no other major recycling program does this). The logic is straightforward: no parts, no repairs:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/yp73jw/apple-recycling-iphones-macbooks

Shredding parts and cooking up bogus trademark claims is just for starters, though. For Apple, the true anti-repair innovation comes from the most pernicious US tech law: Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

DMCA 1201 is an "anti-circumvention" law. It bans the distribution of any tool that bypasses "an effective means of access control." That's all very abstract, but here's what it means: if a manufacturer sticks some Digital Rights Management (DRM) in its device, then anything you want to do that involves removing that DRM is now illegal – even if the thing itself is perfectly legal.

When Congress passed this stupid law in 1998, it had a very limited blast radius. Computers were still pretty expensive and DRM use was limited to a few narrow categories. In 1998, DMCA 1201 was mostly used to prevent you from de-regionalizing your DVD player to watch discs that had been released overseas but not in your own country.

But as we warned back then, computers were only going to get smaller and cheaper, and eventually, it would only cost manufacturers pennies to wrap their products – or even subassemblies in their products – in DRM. Congress was putting a gun on the mantelpiece in Act I, and it was bound to go off in Act III.

Welcome to Act III.

Today, it costs about a quarter to add a system-on-a-chip to even the tiniest parts. These SOCs can run DRM. Here's how that DRM works: when you put a new part in a device, the SOC and the device's main controller communicate with one another. They perform a cryptographic protocol: the part says, "Here's my serial number," and then the main controller prompts the user to enter a manufacturer-supplied secret code, and the master controller sends a signed version of this to the part, and the part and the system then recognize each other.

This process has many names, but because it was first used in the automotive sector, it's widely known as VIN-Locking (VIN stands for "vehicle identification number," the unique number given to every car by its manufacturer). VIN-locking is used by automakers to block independent mechanics from repairing your car; even if they use the manufacturer's own parts, the parts and the engine will refuse to work together until the manufacturer's rep keys in the unlock code:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/07/24/rent-to-pwn/#kitt-is-a-demon

VIN locking is everywhere. It's how John Deere stops farmers from fixing their own tractors – something farmers have done literally since tractors were invented:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/05/08/about-those-kill-switched-ukrainian-tractors/

It's in ventilators. Like mobile phones, ventilators are a grotesquely monopolized sector, controlled by a single company Medtronic, whose biggest claim to fame is effecting the world's largest tax inversion in order to manufacture the appearance that it is an Irish company and therefore largely untaxable. Medtronic used the resulting windfall to gobble up most of its competitors.

During lockdown, as hospitals scrambled to keep their desperately needed supply of ventilators running, Medtronic's VIN-locking became a lethal impediment. Med-techs who used donor parts from one ventilator to keep another running – say, transplanting a screen – couldn't get the device to recognize the part because all the world's civilian aircraft were grounded, meaning Medtronic's technicians couldn't swan into their hospitals to type in the unlock code and charge them hundreds of dollars.

The saving grace was an anonymous, former Medtronic repair tech, who built pirate boxes to generate unlock codes, using any housing they could lay hands on to use as a case: guitar pedals, clock radios, etc. This tech shipped these gadgets around the world, observing strict anonymity, because Article 6 of the EUCD also bans circumvention:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/07/10/flintstone-delano-roosevelt/#medtronic-again

Of course, Apple is a huge fan of VIN-locking. In phones, VIN-locking is usually called "serializing" or "parts-pairing," but it's the same thing: a tiny subassembly gets its own microcontroller whose sole purpose is to prevent independent repair technicians from fixing your gadget. Parts-pairing lets Apple block repairs even when the technician uses new, Apple parts – but it also lets Apple block refurb parts and third party parts.

For many years, Apple was the senior partner and leading voice in blocking state Right to Repair bills, which it killed by the dozen, leading a coalition of monopolists, from Wahl (who boobytrap their hair-clippers with springs that cause their heads irreversibly decompose if you try to sharpen them at home) to John Deere (who reinvented tenant farming by making farmers tenants of their tractors, rather than their land).

But Apple's opposition to repair eventually became a problem for the company. It's bad optics, and both Apple customers and Apple employees are volubly displeased with the company's ecocidal conduct. But of course, Apple's management and shareholders hate repair and want to block it as much as possible.

But Apple knows how to Think Differently. It came up with a way to eat its cake and have it, too. The company embarked on a program of visibly support right to repair, while working behind the scenes to sabotage it.

Last year, Apple announced a repair program. It was hilarious. If you wanted to swap your phone's battery, all you had to do was let Apple put a $1200 hold on your credit card, and then wait while the company shipped you 80 pounds' worth of specialized tools, packed in two special Pelican cases:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/05/22/apples-cement-overshoes/

Then, you swapped your battery, but you weren't done! After your battery was installed, you had to conference in an authorized Apple tech who would tell you what code to type into a laptop you tethered to the phone in order to pair it with your phone. Then all you had to do was lug those two 40-pound Pelican cases to a shipping depot and wait for Apple to take the hold off your card (less the $120 in parts and fees).

By contrast, independent repair outfits like iFixit will sell you all the tools you need to do your own battery swap – including the battery! for $32. The whole kit fits in a padded envelope:

https://www.ifixit.com/products/iphone-x-replacement-battery

But while Apple was able to make a showy announcement of its repair program and then hide the malicious compliance inside those giant Pelican cases, sabotaging right to repair legislation is a lot harder.

Not that they didn't try. When New York State passed the first general electronics right-to-repair bill in the country, someone convinced New York Governor Kathy Hochul to neuter it with last-minute modifications:

https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/12/weakened-right-to-repair-bill-is-signed-into-law-by-new-yorks-governor/

But that kind of trick only works once. When California's right to repair bill was introduced, it was clear that it was gonna pass. Rather than get run over by that train, Apple got on board, supporting the legislation, which passed unanimously:

https://www.ifixit.com/News/79902/apples-u-turn-tech-giant-finally-backs-repair-in-california

But Apple got the last laugh. Because while California's bill contains many useful clauses for the independent repair shops that keep your gadgets out of a landfill, it's a state law, and DMCA 1201 is federal. A state law can't simply legalize the conduct federal law prohibits. California's right to repair bill is a banger, but it has a weak spot: parts-pairing, the scourge of repair techs:

https://www.ifixit.com/News/69320/how-parts-pairing-kills-independent-repair

Every generation of Apple devices does more parts-pairing than the previous one, and the current models are so infested with paired parts as to be effectively unrepairable, except by Apple. It's so bad that iFixit has dropped its repairability score for the iPhone 14 from a 7 ("recommend") to a 4 (do not recommend):

https://www.ifixit.com/News/82493/we-are-retroactively-dropping-the-iphones-repairability-score-en

Parts-pairing is bullshit, and Apple are scum for using it, but they're hardly unique. Parts-pairing is at the core of the fuckery of inkjet printer companies, who use it to fence out third-party ink, so they can charge $9,600/gallon for ink that pennies to make:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/ink-stained-wretches-battle-soul-digital-freedom-taking-place-inside-your-printer

Parts-pairing is also rampant in powered wheelchairs, a heavily monopolized sector whose predatory conduct is jaw-droppingly depraved:

https://uspirgedfund.org/reports/usp/stranded

But if turning phones into e-waste to eke out another billion-dollar stock buyback is indefensible, stranding people with disabilities for months at a time while they await repairs is so obviously wicked that the conscience recoils. That's why it was so great when Colorado passed the nation's first wheelchair right to repair bill last year:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/06/when-drm-comes-your-wheelchair

California actually just passed two right to repair bills; the other one was SB-271, which mirrors Colorado's HB22-1031:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240SB271

This is big! It's momentum! It's a start!

But it can't be the end. When Bill Clinton signed DMCA 1201 into law 25 years ago, he loaded a gun and put it on the nation's mantlepiece and now it's Act III and we're all getting sprayed with bullets. Everything from ovens to insulin pumps, thermostats to lightbulbs, has used DMCA 1201 to limit repair, modification and improvement.

Congress needs to rid us of this scourge, to let us bring back all the benefits of interoperability. I explain how this all came to be – and what we should do about it – in my new Verso Books title, The Internet Con: How to Seize the Means of Computation.

https://www.versobooks.com/products/3035-the-internet-con

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2023/09/22/vin-locking/#thought-differently

Image: Mitch Barrie (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Daytona_Skeleton_AR-15_completed_rifle_%2817551907724%29.jpg

CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/deed.en

--

kambanji (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/kambanji/4135216486/

CC BY 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/

--

Rawpixel (modified) https://www.rawpixel.com/image/12438797/png-white-background

#pluralistic #vin locking #apple #right to repair #california #ifixit #iphones #sb244 #parts pairing #serialization #dmca 1201 #felony contempt of business model #ewaste #repairwashing #fuckery

[autolenaphilia]

Why enshittification happens and how to stop it.

The enshittification of the internet and increasingly the software we use to access it is driven by profit. It happens because corporations are machines for making profits from end users, the users and customers are only seen as sources of profits. Their interests are only considered if it can help the bottom line. It's capitalism.

For social media it's users are mainly seen by the companies that run the sites as a way for getting advertisers to pay money that can profit the shareholders. And social media is in a bit of death spiral right now, since they have seldom or never been profitable and investor money is drying up as they realize this.

So the social media companies. are getting more and more desperate for money. That's why they are getting more aggressive with getting you to watch ads or pay for the privilege of not watching ads. It won't work and tumblr and all the other sites will die eventually.

But it's not just social media companies, it's everything tech-related. It gets worse the more monopolistic a tech giant is. Google is abusing its chrome-based near monopoly over the web, nerfing adblockers, trying to drm the web, you name it. And Microsoft is famously a terrible company, spying on Windows users and selling their data. Again, there is so much money being poured into advertising, at least 493 billion globally, the tech giants want a slice of that massive pie. It's all about making profits for shareholders, people be damned.

And the only insurance against this death spiral is not being run by a corporation. If the software is being developed by a non-profit entity, and it's open source, there is no incentive for the developers to fuck over the users for the sake of profits for shareholders, because there aren't any profits, and no shareholders.

Free and Open source software is an important part of why such software development can stay non-corporate. It allows for volunteers to contribute to the code and makes it harder for users to be secretly be fucked over by hidden code.

Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird are good examples of this. There is a Mozilla corporation, but it exists only for legal reasons and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the non-profit Mozilla foundation. There are no shareholders. That means the Mozilla corporation is not really a corporation in the sense that Google is, and as an organization has entirely different incentives. If someone tells you that Mozilla is just another corporation, (which people have said in the notes of posts about firefox on this very site) they are spreading misinformation.

That's why Firefox has resisted the enshittification of the internet so well, it's not profit driven. And people who develop useful plugins that deshitify the web like Ublock origin and Xkit are as a rule not profit-driven corporations.

And you can go on with other examples of non-profit software like Libreoffice and VLC media player, both of which you should use.

And you can go further, use Linux as your computer's operating system.. It's the only way to resist the enshitification that the corporate duopoly of Microsoft and Apple has brought to their operating system. The plethora of community-run non-profit Linux distributions like Debian, Mint and Arch are the way to counteract that, and they will stay resistant to the same forces (creating profit for shareholders) that drove Microsoft to create Windows 11.

Of course not all Linux distributions are non-profits. There are corporate created distros like Red Hat's various distros, Canonical's Ubuntu and Suse's Opensuse, and they prove the point I'm making. There has some degree of enshittification going on with those, red hat going closed source and Canonical with the snap store for example. Mint is by now a succesful community-driven response to deshitify Ubuntu by removing snaps for example, and even they have a back-up plan to use Debian as a base in case Canonical makes Ubuntu unuseable.

As for social media, which I started with, I'm going to stay on tumblr for now, but it will definitely die. The closest thing to a community run non-profit replacement I can see is Mastodon, which I'm on as @[email protected].

You don't have to keep using corporate software, and have it inevitably decline because the corporations that develop it cares more about its profits than you as an end user.

The process of enshittification proves that corporations being profit-driven don't mean they will create a better product, and in fact may cause them to do the opposite. And the existence of great free and open source software, created entirely without the motivation of corporate profits, proves that people don't need to profit in order to help their fellow human beings. It kinda makes you question capitalism.

#my writings #free and open source software #linux #mozilla firefox #software #technology

[possumcollege]

NOBODY needs to be defending these people. Major publishers, studios, streaming services, Tesla, Apple, Adobe, Amazon, social media companies- there isnt a single altruistic bone caught in their teeth. Profit from the output of exploited and captive labor IS their product now. When their contacts look like the one in question, the company is clearly stating that shareholders are the customers, not us!

Why else would it be anything but a stupid idea for Amazon to just nuke the majority of Comixology's self-published titles when they consolidated their services? If our experience was really foremost in their minds, why would they repeatedly purge, censor, demonitize, bury, and delete popular accounts with robust followings if not to allay the moral brainworms of shareholders and investors?

Forfeiting rights to our IP is not a "shitty deal," it's surrendering any potential ability to make money off of your own creative work. It's selling your property to a board of accountants to pitch into a portfolio. It's theirs to trot out as long as it's profitable and bury the instant its projected profit dips too close to the cost of maintenance. Hell, we've seen services drop popular series just because their projected profits started to flatten out! Mothballing it also has the added bonus of removing it from the market to further minimize potential competition. Like how there just weren't spider man movies for ages because the owner of the property didn't think it was worth developing but worth too much to sell.

They will make more money from suing you for trying to reclaim IP they mothballed than you did selling it to them in the first place. I guaranteee their budget for lawsuits is a lot deeper than the one they pay their "original" artists from.

By virtue of being a big, profitable, corporation, "their" IP is going to have an astronomically higher value in a court of law than any individual creator. The financial "damage" will be higher for infringing on their copyrights than any amount you can claim on your own. When it becomes theirs, their connections, their infrastructure, their reputation makes it an asset with much more value than you or I can possibly claim. So if you try to steal a bite back from them it's a bite of a *potentially* multimillion-dollar series. In their eyes, they bought the totality of your work, which you agreed was worth the price they gave you. It's value becomes more dependent on who owns it than whether it's even good.

You may not have the same potential to become flash-in-the-pan, short-term succesful without their resources, but you will still own your rights to distribute, alter, preserve, promote, and negotiate your share if you still own your work. That is worth everything as a creator who is passionate about what you've made and committed to protecting it.

The most effective power we can exercise as artists is our ability to say, "no" when someone else wants to pay us a disadvantageous fraction of our worth. You may lose potentially lucrative opportunities but "opportunities" presented by companies like Facebook or Twitter, whose real product is a platform for ads and data collection, with content as bait, are not opportunities to thrive on as independent artists. This specifically is an opportunity for the company to acquire property.

The myth that the publisher's strength is something for us to exploit, without them getting the lion's share is a trap that they feed from at will.

People like the poster up top are opportunists who see the process as a pipeline towards trading low-investment content for financial treats and maybe a share of ad revive. They're stalking horses for companies to exploit more talented but less experienced artists who are facing a daunting and overwhelming market where their work becomes harder and harder to show, let alone sell. A quick deal may feel like a win but it's selling the cow to save money on bottling the milk. Artists like this serve the publisher by making it seem like signing away your rights are just a necessary part of the game. However it's a game they are playing with exceedingly cheap stakes that weren't going to succeed on their own merit. So what if Mr. Business Perspective loses rights to his sexy Mario Bros. parody to a huge company? The point was always to unload it because it's a product, a bartering chip, a trinket. He's a Business Man, so he sees tactics that maximize profits to the business as maximizing their ability to buy whatever shiny tripe he cranks out. The business is his customer, not the reader. The business is his ally, not the creative community. Fuck him and fuck anyone who tells you the exposure is worth a damn if you don't retain rights to your work.

#comics #rant

[moo-blogging]

Hey, could you write a story between levi and reader , where levi has to get married to a girl (because she's a rich girl and he is a ceo of a huge company) but he's already dating reader. So.. in this story reader and levi are just passing their last night together before the wedding?

Btw: I really like your posts!!

You knew, very well, that money was powerful. Money run the world. Money was the new God.

That was why you were determined to make it in life, living with the financial freedom you didn't have growing up. And you made yourself proud. You managed to put a roof over your head, put decent food on the table, and afford little things that priced more than they were worth, but oh they made you so happy.

And you had Levi. Oh Levi Ackerman, the youngest CEO of the century who did not inherit the multi-million company from his family. It was a miracle how you met him. A wrong cup of tea. A misspelt word. A heartfelt laugh. The rest was history.

You thought nothing could come between you. You wouldn't doubt Levi's love for you and yours him. Levi was your one true love. He moved in with you. You went shopping for a big bed together, trying on every mattress in different stores, imagining the rest of your lives together. Things doubled up in your house: double plates, double mugs, double toothbrushes standing next to each other on the bathroom basin. You house felt smaller, cramped with more stuff but warmer with love and Levi in it.

You were the happiest person in the world.

And then, an emergency meeting was held in Levi's company. A man became the major shareholder of the company, owning more than 50% of the company's shares and he insisted on the meeting. He insisted that Levi should marry his daughter, who was head over heels Levi when she first saw him on the news. The man threatened to buy more shares and liquidate the company if Levi refused to marry his daughter. This would affect the employees as they lost their jobs, as well as the suppliers and distributers that signed contract with the company.

Although Levi was considered wealthy, he could not buy all the man's shares. When this news broke, people found out that Levi was dating you. Desperate people stopped you by the road and asked you to leave Levi as you weren't as compatible to Levi as the rich girl was. People called you names, begged and yelled at you to leave Levi because a lot of people's lives depended on this company.

This had caused a lot of pressure on you and your relationship. Levi promised to not leave you but you knew he wouldn't let the innocent people suffer as well. You saw the helplessness in his eyes. His peers suggested that he continued taking you as his mistress as "all rick people has mistresses anyway". But he didn't want you to be a mistress. You were the love of his life. You were the only one who was worthy to walk down the aisle and take the holy vow of eternal love with him.

After days of locking yourselves in the house, discussing and crying, you came to agree that Levi should marry the man's daughter.

.

It was hard seeing Levi became other person's husband to be. Levi never proposed to her, but the man and his family had made an a official notice to the press that Levi would marry his daughter soon.

Levi was photographed with the girl. The girl was awfully young and so beautiful as the exact opposite of you. They were photographed to be shopping together, branding them the "perfect couple". They were photographed ring shopping together, checking out the wedding venue together, meeting her parents and extended family. What would had been yours were robbed away and advertised everywhere.

Still, Levi came home to you every day. But you knew, after Levi got married, he would never step foot in this house again. Just the thought of this made you break down crying regardless where you were. Sometimes when you came home to a quite dark house, you would sit on the hard floor, sobbing. This was how it would be after Levi left. It felt like someone took the sun from your world and you would be frozen in the winter.

The night before Levi were to marry, the house was filtered with gloom and you sat with your puffy eyes staring at the ground. You couldn't look at Levi. You knew you should, but you couldn't bring your eyes to his as he spoke.

Gently, Levi led you to the balcony and pulled out three rings: an engagement ring, a promise ring and a wedding band. You started shaking as you laid eyes on the rings.

Levi got on one knee and asked for your hand in marriage. You were shaking so much, and he asked "please say yes, please." You nodded your head. With shaky hands, he slid the engagement ring over your finger.

Levi stood and wiped your tears off your face. He lovingly held your wet cheek.

"My darling, I don't need a pastor to marry you. Or people to witness our love. Tonight, the stars shall watch as we get married. They say that stars are million light years away from here, and our love shall travel for a million light years from now, forever alive even after Earth ceased to exist."

Levi then slid the wedding band over your finger. You eyes blurred with hot tears as you sucked in air from your runny nose. Levi's cheeks were wet with tears too. He pulled you, crashing your lips into his as you shared a deep, passionate kiss. Your eyes closed and eyebrows frown as you savoured this kiss. You pulled away, watching each other through red, blurred eyes.

Laying on the big bed, you were in each other arms. Levi asked if you would like to make love. "No," you shook your head, "I just want to hold you one last time."

Levi slipped his fingers into your scalp and pulled your head into his chest. He kissed your forehead before resting his tear stained cheek on your head, "we will hold each other again. I will come back to you. I promise you with my life." You felt the cold promise ring in your finger, but you wished for Levi instead.

All you could do was hold onto Levi while praying that the morning never comes.

PS: thank you beautiful stranger for sending me this ask and telling me you like my thoughts. you had made my week :) love you

#is it sad enough? #i think its sad enough #let's cry together #levi ackerman #levi x reader #levi ackerman x reader #levi heichou #levi x y/n #midnight thoughts #levi x you #aot x y/n #levi ackerman x you #levi drabbles #ceo levi

[robertreich]

How the Corporate Takeover of American Politics Began

The corporate takeover of American politics started with a man and a memo you've probably never heard of.

In 1971, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce asked Lewis Powell, a corporate attorney who would go on to become a Supreme Court justice, to draft a memo on the state of the country.

Powell’s memo argued that the American economic system was “under broad attack” from consumer, labor, and environmental groups.

In reality, these groups were doing nothing more than enforcing the implicit social contract that had emerged at the end of the Second World War. They wanted to ensure corporations were responsive to all their stakeholders — workers, consumers, and the environment — not just their shareholders.

But Powell and the Chamber saw it differently. In his memo, Powell urged businesses to mobilize for political combat, and stressed that the critical ingredients for success were joint organizing and funding.

The Chamber distributed the memo to leading CEOs, large businesses, and trade associations — hoping to persuade them that Big Business could dominate American politics in ways not seen since the Gilded Age.

It worked.

The Chamber’s call for a business crusade birthed a new corporate-political industry practically overnight. Tens of thousands of corporate lobbyists and political operatives descended on Washington and state capitals across the country.

I should know — I saw it happen with my own eyes.

In 1976, I worked at the Federal Trade Commission. Jimmy Carter had appointed consumer advocates to battle big corporations that for years had been deluding or injuring consumers.

Yet almost everything we initiated at the FTC was met by unexpectedly fierce political resistance from Congress. At one point, when we began examining advertising directed at children, Congress stopped funding the agency altogether, shutting it down for weeks.

I was dumbfounded. What had happened?

In three words, The Powell Memo.

Lobbyists and their allies in Congress, and eventually the Reagan administration, worked to defang agencies like the FTC — and to staff them with officials who would overlook corporate misbehavior.

Their influence led the FTC to stop seriously enforcing antitrust laws — among other things — allowing massive corporations to merge and concentrate their power even further.

Washington was transformed from a sleepy government town into a glittering center of corporate America — replete with elegant office buildings, fancy restaurants, and five-star hotels.

Meanwhile, Justice Lewis Powell used the Court to chip away at restrictions on corporate power in politics. His opinions in the 1970s and 80s laid the foundation for corporations to claim free speech rights in the form of financial contributions to political campaigns.

Put another way — without Lewis Powell, there would probably be no Citizens United — the case that threw out limits on corporate campaign spending as a violation of the “free speech” of corporations.

These actions have transformed our political system. Corporate money supports platoons of lawyers, often outgunning any state or federal attorneys who dare to stand in their way. Lobbying has become a $3.7 billion dollar industry.

Corporations regularly outspend labor unions and public interest groups during election years. And too many politicians in Washington represent the interests of corporations — not their constituents. As a result, corporate taxes have been cut, loopholes widened, and regulations gutted.

Corporate consolidation has also given companies unprecedented market power, allowing them to raise prices on everything from baby formula to gasoline. Their profits have jumped into the stratosphere — the highest in 70 years.

But despite the success of the Powell Memo, Big Business has not yet won. The people are beginning to fight back.

First, antitrust is making a comeback. Both at the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department we’re seeing a new willingness to take on corporate power.

Second, working people are standing up. Across the country workers are unionizing at a faster rate than we’ve seen in decades — including at some of the biggest corporations in the world — and they’re winning.

Third, campaign finance reform is within reach. Millions of Americans are intent on limiting corporate money in politics – and politicians are starting to listen.

All of these tell me that now is our best opportunity in decades to take on corporate power — at the ballot box, in the workplace, and in Washington.

Let’s get it done.

#youtube #videos #video #powell memo #corporations #wall street #finance #corruption #politics #lobbying #government

[karlamon]

The destruction of any form of innocent art should be illegal. But under David Zaslav's incompetent mismanagement of Warner Bros. Discovery, no production is safe. Coyote vs. Acme was a Looney Tunes project with a lot of promise. It had a clever premise, highly-respected names attached, scored very highly with test audiences, and streamers were very interested in buying the distribution rights. Zaslav, on the other hand, has a mindset so corrupt, that he thinks erasing years of work will afford him his fifteenth mansion or something. He did this to Batgirl, Scoob! Holliday Haunt, and now this. Why he didn't do the same with The Flash is beyond my comprehension. This heinous act is not just an insult to both our culture and WB's legacy, but also to every crew member of the production. So much time, passion, and effort down the drain. No royalties to be gained, no proof to put onto their resume, nothing. All destroyed in the worst form of capitalism made to benefit one horrible CEO and some of his shareholders. Who on earth is going to want to work for this studio if nothing there is guaranteed to be released? As long as Zaslav is still in charge, I certainly wouldn't.

#coyote vs acme #warner bros #david zaslav #looney tunes

[cock-holliday]

“How would you personally solve the insulin supply chain issue” reminds me so much of how every time an article comes out like “Scientists Discover Way To Make Blue Raspberry Taste More Blue” people crawl out from under their rock to go “wow! Fucking selfish, I guess this is what they’re doing instead of curing cancer.”

By treating scientists as a homogenous blob, or Society as a homogenous blob, people miss that every field and every large scale community is made up of many micro-fields and many micro-communities. And what impedes them is someone outside of a specific group (or unrelated to any of these groups) deciding with no knowledge how to dictate the actions of the in-group.

I do not know how to make insulin. I do not make it. I do not make the vials it is stored in. I do not ship the boxes it goes in. I do not test the quality. I do not currently have to inject it for anyone. On a given day, insulin and its related parts never touch my hands. So my input on its production and distribution counts for little to nothing against people who currently make and distribute it now.

But I bet they and I could heartily agree that shareholders, patent lawyers, pharmaceutical CEOs, and most politicians know about as much as I do and interact as much as I do in the production and distribution.

So maybe none of us should be the highest authorities about how this works perhaps, and leave it to the people IN those fields right now to be the authorities on what needs done.

#LJsm

[colitcomedia]

Calima Energy Limited: Glenn Whiddon Leading the Path to Optimizing Asset Valuation

Calima Energy Limited (ASX: CE1 / OTCQB: CLMEF) is an Australian oil and gas exploration and production company that focuses on responsible development of high-quality assets, primarily in Western Canada. Under the leadership of Chairman Glenn Whiddon, Calima Energy is committed to maximising shareholder value through successful exploration, development, and production activities in the energy sector. This article provides insights into Calima Energy Limited and highlights Glenn Whiddon's extensive experience and the company's plans to optimise asset valuation.

About Glenn Whiddon

Glenn Whiddon, the Chairman of Calima Energy Limited, is a seasoned professional with a diverse background in investment management and executive leadership roles. He is the Principal and Founder of Lagral, a family company focused on investment management activities in the mining, energy, and property sectors. With his extensive experience and leadership, Whiddon drives Calima Energy towards maximising value for shareholders.

Distributions to Shareholders and Potential Share Buy-Back

Calima Energy Limited intends to execute its second distribution of AUD 3 million to shareholders, as announced in the third quarter of FY2023, with the record date to be announced. The company aims to increase the frequency of shareholder distributions, subject to prevailing market conditions and commodity prices. Additionally, Calima Energy may restart a share buy-back program, prioritising continuous delivery of distributions to supportive shareholders.

Plans to Optimize Drilling and Operational Expenses

Calima Energy Limited has faced an increase in capital and operating costs over the past 18 months. However, recent stabilisation and slowing of inflation have led to more settled prices. The company plans to improve efficiencies by reducing activity during the Canadian winter and standardising operations. These measures aim to maximise value and achieve greater returns on investment in future drilling programs.

Investor Outlook and Financials

Based on the interests received, Calima Energy anticipates additional inquiries or proposals from external parties regarding the acquisition or potential utilisation of its assets. The forecasted Q2 production is on track, with an average of around 4,125 barrels of oil equivalent per day (BOE/D). The company expects to generate approximately AUD 7.5 million in free cash flow for the quarter. Calima Energy's share price is AUD 0.094 per share as of June 28th, 2023, with a 52-week range of AUD 0.093 – AUD 0.175. The company's market capitalization stood at AUD 57.6 million as of June 28th, 2023, with 612.7 million shares issued.

About Calima Energy Limited

Calima Energy Limited is a Canadian oil and gas-producing energy company focusing on responsible development of high-quality assets in Western Canada. The company generates stable production from its Thorsby and Brooks assets, primarily conventional oil and gas, with a low decline rate of around 65%. In addition, Calima Energy holds over 34,000 acres of Montney rights in the "liquids-rich" fairway, known for its abundant liquids, providing an upside opportunity in domestic gas and global LNG markets. With its substantial acreage position, Calima Energy is well-positioned to capitalise on the potential of the Montney formation and leverage the growing demand for liquid-rich natural gas.

Conclusion

Under the guidance of Chairman Glenn Whiddon, Calima Energy Limited aims to maximise shareholder value through its oil and gas exploration and production activities. The company plans to optimise asset valuation by improving operational efficiencies, managing costs, and exploring potential asset sales. With a strong focus on responsible development and a strategic position in Western Canada's energy sector, Calima Energy continues to drive growth and create value for its stakeholders.

#Calima Energy Limited #Glenn Whiddon #ASX: CE1 #OTCQB: CLMEF #oil and gas exploration #production projects #asset sales #Canadian entities #valuations #Australian Securities Exchange #Toronto Stock Exchange #undervalued assets #shareholder distributions #share buy-back #drilling optimization #operational expenses #investor outlook #financials #Montney operation #Western Canada #Thorsby assets #Brooks assets #Montney rights #liquids-rich fairway #asset valuation #energy sector.

[frydawolff]

Sharing this today because I don't think enough non-actors know: To qualify for SAG health insurance, you have to make at least $26,470 per calendar quarter. i.e. If you can hustle $26,470 in a quarter, you have health insurance for a year. At the end of that year you need to make another $26,470 in that next calendar quarter. (The bigger issue is the obvious need for universal healthcare, but, America.)

This is what the WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes are really all about:

SAG insurance is hard to get, even harder to keep if you develop a chronic illness that prevents you from working, or just haven't booked in a while, etc. Broadcast residuals were meant to help with that, with passive income to keep you qualified for insurance. Streaming's refusal to distribute broadcast comparable residuals has resulted in even high profile, heavily awarded, multiple season jobs not being enough to earn healthcare.

The cast of Orange Is the New Black essentially worked for exposure, as have the rest of us since then.

This is why we've been yelling about AI:

Gift link, no paywall: https://wapo.st/43rubnB

Opinion  It’s fine. We don’t need human actors.

"My dear shareholders! Do not worry about the fact that all the screen actors and screenwriters are on strike.

If there is one thing I have figured out about the meaning of life and the meaning of art, it is that art is something that should be entirely the product of machines and robots while people march around with picket signs and complain that they cannot afford food and housing. Also, no one should ever be paid a residual, whatever that is. I just don’t like the sound of it.

When our ancestors sat around the cave fires at night, sure, they told stories. Certainly, they scrawled on the walls of their caves, but as an executive, I know for a fact that they hated that part of being alive so much. They said to themselves, “Someday, when we have indoor plumbing and can live as we choose, we will be able to delegate this tiresome dreaming and telling of stories entirely to robots and billionaires. The only good part of drawing mammoths on the walls of caves is the fact that I, the illustrator, am not being compensated monetarily in any way for doing so.” (This primal yearning for people to not be compensated for their creative efforts except in exposure is something that has driven artists for a long time and we hope will continue to drive them, in case our AI idea backfires.)

We will be fine without these humans with their so-called faces and voices and acting. If Marvel films thus far have not been populated entirely by CGI characters, it is only for want of sufficient motivation, and I’m sure we can fix that."

#sag strike #ai

[mostlysignssomeportents]

It was all downhill after the Cuecat

Sometime in 2001, I walked into a Radio Shack on San Francisco’s Market Street and asked for a Cuecat: a handheld barcode scanner that looked a bit like a cat and a bit like a sex toy. The clerk handed one over to me and I left, feeling a little giddy. I didn’t have to pay a cent.

The Cuecat was a good idea and a terrible idea. The good idea was to widely distribute barcode scanners to computer owners, along with software that could read and decode barcodes; the company’s marketing plan called for magazines and newspapers to print barcodes alongside ads and articles, so readers could scan them and be taken to the digital edition. To get the Cuecat into widespread use, the company raised millions in the capital markets, then mass-manufactured these things and gave them away for free at Radio Shacks around the country. Every Wired and Forbes subscriber got one in the mail!

That was the good idea (it’s basically a prototype for today’s QR-codes). The terrible idea was that this gadget would spy on you. Also, it would only work with special barcodes that had to be licensed from the manufacturer. Also, it would only work on Windows.

https://web.archive.org/web/20001017162623/http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/sep2000/nf20000928_029.htm

But the manufacturer didn’t have the last word! Not at all. A couple of enterprising hardware hackers — Pierre-Philippe Coupard and Michael Rothwell — tore down a Cuecat, dumped its ROM, and produced their own driver for it — a surveillance-free driver that worked with any barcode. You could use it to scan the UPCs on your books or CDs or DVDs to create a catalog of your media; you could use it to scan UPCs on your groceries to make a shopping list. You could do any and every one of these things, because the Cuecat was yours.

Cuecat’s manufacturer, Digital Convergence, did not like this at all. They sent out legal demand letters and even shut down some of the repositories that were hosting alternative Cuecat firmware. They changed the license agreement that came with the Cuecat software CD to prohibit reverse-engineering.

http://www.cexx.org/cuecat.htm

It didn’t matter, both as a practical matter and as a matter of law. As a practical matter, the (ahem) cat was out of the bag: there were so many web-hosting companies back then, and people mirrored the code to so many of them, the company would have its hands full chasing them all down and intimidating them into removing the code.

Then there was the law: how could you impose license terms on a gift? How could someone be bound by license terms on a CD that they simply threw away without ever opening it, much less putting it in their computer?

https://slashdot.org/story/00/09/18/1129226/digital-convergence-changes-eula-and-gets-cracked

In the end, Cuecat folded and sold off its remaining inventory. The early 2000s were not a good time to be a tech company, much less a tech company whose business model required millions of people to meekly accept a bad bargain.

Back then, tech users didn’t feel any obligation to please tech companies’ shareholders: if they backed a stupid business, that was their problem, not ours. Venture capitalists were capitalists — if they wanted us give to them according to their need and take from them according to their ability, they should be venture communists.

Last August, philosopher and Centre for Technomoral Futures director Shannon Vallor tweeted, “The saddest thing for me about modern tech’s long spiral into user manipulation and surveillance is how it has just slowly killed off the joy that people like me used to feel about new tech. Every product Meta or Amazon announces makes the future seem bleaker and grayer.”

https://twitter.com/ShannonVallor/status/1559659655097376768

She went on: “I don’t think it’s just my nostalgia, is it? There’s no longer anything being promised to us by tech companies that we actually need or asked for. Just more monitoring, more nudging, more draining of our data, our time, our joy.”

https://twitter.com/ShannonVallor/status/1559663985821106177

Today on Tumblr, @wilwheaton​ responded: “[T]here is very much no longer a feeling of ‘How can this change/improve my life?’ and a constant dread of ‘How will this complicate things as I try to maintain privacy and sanity in a world that demands I have this thing to operate.’”

https://wilwheaton.tumblr.com/post/698603648058556416/cory-doctorow-if-you-see-this-and-have-thoughts

Wil finished with, “Cory Doctorow, if you see this and have thoughts, I would LOVE to hear them.”

I’ve got thoughts. I think this all comes back to the Cuecat.

When the Cuecat launched, it was a mixed bag. That’s generally true of technology — or, indeed, any product or service. No matter how many variations a corporation offers, they can never anticipate all the ways that you will want or need to use their technology. This is especially true for the users the company values the least — poor people, people in the global south, women, sex workers, etc.

That’s what makes the phrase “So easy your mom can use it” particularly awful “Moms” are the kinds of people whose priorities and difficulties are absent from the room when tech designers gather to plan their next product. The needs of “moms” are mostly met by mastering, configuring and adapting technology, because tech doesn’t work out of the box for them:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/05/19/the-weakest-link/#moms-are-ninjas

(As an alternative, I advocate for “so easy your boss can use it,” because your boss gets to call up the IT department and shout, “I don’t care what it takes, just make it work!” Your boss can solve problems through raw exercise of authority, without recourse to ingenuity.)

Technology can’t be understood separately from technology users. This is the key insight in Donald Norman’s 2004 book Emotional Design, which argued that the ground state of all technology is broken, and the overarching task of tech users is to troubleshoot the things they use:

https://pluralistic.net/2020/04/29/banjo-nazis/#cuckoos-egg

Troubleshooting is both an art and a science: it requires both a methodical approach and creative leaps. The great crisis of troubleshooting is that the more frustrated and angry you are, the harder it is to be methodical or creative. Anger turns attention into a narrow tunnel of brittle movements and thinking.

In Emotional Design, Norman argues that technology should be beautiful and charming, because when you like a technology that has stopped working, you are able to troubleshoot it in an expansive, creative, way. Emotional Design was not merely remarkable for what it said, but for who said it.

Donald Norman, after all, was the author of the hugely influential 1998 classic The Design of Everyday Things, which counseled engineers and designers to put function over form — to design things that work well, even if that meant stripping away ornament and sidelining aesthetics.

https://www.basicbooks.com/titles/don-norman/the-design-of-everyday-things/9780465050659/

With Emotional Design, Norman argued that aesthetics were functional, because aesthetics primed users to fix the oversights and errors and blind spots of designers. It was a manifesto for competence and humility.

And yet, as digital technology has permeated deeper into our lives, it has grown less configurable, not more. Companies today succeed where Cuecat failed. Consolidation in the online world means that if you remove a link from one search engine and four social media sites, the material in question vanishes for 99% of internet users.

It’s even worse for apps: anyone who succeeds in removing an app from two app stores essentially banishes it from the world. One mobile platform uses technological and legal countermeasures to make it virtually impossible to sideload an app; the other one relies on strong-arm tactics and deceptive warnings to do so.

That means that when a modern Coupard and Rothwell decides to unfuck some piece of technology — to excise the surveillance and proprietary media requirements, leaving behind the welcome functionality — they can only do so with the sufferance of the manufacturer. If the manufacturer doesn’t like an add-on, mod, plug-in or overlay, they can use copyright takedowns, anticircumvention law, patent threats, trademark threats, cybersecurity law, contract law and other “IP” to simply banish the offending code:

https://locusmag.com/2020/09/cory-doctorow-ip/

Many of these laws carry dire penalties. For example, distributing a tool that bypasses an “access control” so that you can change the software on a gadget (say, to make your printer accept third-party ink) is a felony under Section 1201 of the DMCA, punishable by a $500k fine and a 5-year prison sentence.

If Cuecat’s manufacturers had simply skinned their firmware with a thin scrim of DRM, they could have threatened Coupard and Rothwell with prison sentences. The developments in “IP” over the two decades since the Cuecat have conjured up a new body of de facto law that Jay Freeman calls “felony contempt of business model.”

Once we gave companies the power to literally criminalize the reconfiguration of their products, everything changed. In the Cuecat era, a corporate meeting to plan a product that acted against its users’ interests had to ask, “How will we sweeten the pot and/or obfuscate our code so that our users don’t remove the anti-features we’re planning to harm them with?”

But in a world of Felony Contempt of Business Model, that discussion changes to “Given that we can literally imprison anyone who helps our users get more out of this product, how can we punish users who are disloyal enough to simply quit our service or switch away from our product?”

That is, “how can we raise the switching costs of our products so that users who are angry at us keep using our products?” When Facebook was planning its photos product, they deliberately designed it to tempt users into making it the sole repository of their family photos, in order to hold those photos ransom to keep Facebook users from quitting for G+:

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

Companies claim that their lock-in strategies are about protecting their users: “Move into our walled garden, for it is a fortress, whose battlements bristle with fearsome warriors who will defend you from the bandits who roam the countryside”:

https://locusmag.com/2021/01/cory-doctorow-neofeudalism-and-the-digital-manor/

But this “feudal security” offers a terrible temptation to the lords of these fortresses, because once you are inside those walls, the fortress can easily be converted to a prison: these companies can abuse you with impunity, for so long as the cost of the abuse is less than the cost of the things you must give up when you leave.

The tale that companies block you from overriding their decisions is for your own good was always dubious, because companies simply can’t anticipate all the ways their products will fail you. No design team knows as much about your moment-to-moment struggles as you do.

But even where companies are sincere in their desire to be the most benevolent of dictators, the gun on the mantelpiece in Act I is destined to go off by Act III: eventually, the temptation to profit by hurting you will overpower whatever “corporate ethics” once stayed the hand of the techno-feudalist who rules over your fortress. Under feudal security, you are one lapse in corporate leadership from your protector turning into your tormentor.

When Apple launched the Ipad 12 years ago, I published an editorial entitled “Why I won’t buy an iPad (and think you shouldn’t, either),” in which I predicted that app stores would inevitable be turned against users:

https://memex.craphound.com/2010/04/01/why-i-wont-buy-an-ipad-and-think-you-shouldnt-either/

Today, Apple bans apps if they “use…a third-party service” unless they “are specifically permitted to do so under the service’s terms of use.” In other words, Apple specifically prohibits developers from offering tools that displease other companies’ shareholders, no matter whether this pleases Apple customers:

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#intellectual-property

Note that clause 5.2.2 of Apple’s developer agreement doesn’t say “You mustn’t violate a legally enforceable term of service.” It just says, “Thou shalt not violate a EULA.” EULAs are garbage-novellas of impenetrable legalese, larded with unenforceable and unconscionable terms.

Apple sometimes will displease other companies on your behalf. For example, it instituted a one-click anti-tracking setting for Ios that cost Facebook $10 billion in a matter of months:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/02/02/facebook-says-apple-ios-privacy-change-will-cost-10-billion-this-year.html

But Apple also has big plans to expand its margins by growing its own advertising network. When Apple customers choose ad-blockers that block Apple’s ads, will Apple permit it?

https://www.wired.com/story/apple-is-an-ad-company-now/

The problem with app stores isn’t whether your computing experience is “curated” — that is, whether entities you trust can produce collections of software they vouch for. The problem is when you can’t choose someone else — when leaving a platform involves high switching costs, whether that’s having to replace hardware, buy new media, or say goodbye to your friends, customers, community or family.

When a company can leverage its claims to protecting you to protect itself from you — from choices you might make that ultimately undermine its shareholders interests, even if they protect your own interests — it would be pretty goddamned naive to expect it to do otherwise.

More and more of our tools are now digital tools, whether we’re talking about social media or cars, tractors or games consoles, toothbrushes or ovens:

https://www.hln.be/economie/gentse-foodboxleverancier-mealhero-failliet-klanten-weten-van-niets~a3139f52/

And more and more, those digital tools look more like apps than Cuecats, with companies leveraging “IP” to let them control who can compete with them — and how. Indeed, browsers are becoming more app-like, rather than the other way around.

Back in 2017, the W3C took the unprecedented step of publishing a DRM standard despite this standard not having anything like the consensus that is the norm for W3C publications, and the W3C rejected a proposal to protect people who reverse-engineered that standard to add accessibility features or correct privacy defects:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/09/open-letter-w3c-director-ceo-team-and-membership

And while we’re seeing remarkable progress on Right to Repair and other policies that allow the users of technology to override the choices of vendors, there’s another strong regulatory current that embraces companies’ ability to control their users, in the hopes that these big companies will police their users to prevent bad stuff, from controversial measures like filtering for copyright infringement to more widely supported ideas like blocking child sex abuse material (CSAM, AKA “child porn”).

There are two problems with this. First, if we tell companies they must control their users (that is, block them from running plugins, mods, skins, filters, etc) then we can’t tell them that they must not control their users. It comes down to whether you want to make Mark Zuckerberg better at his job, or whether you want to abolish the job of “Mark Zuckerberg.”

https://doctorow.medium.com/unspeakable-8c7bbd4974bc

Then there’s the other problem — the gun on the mantelpiece problem. If we give big companies the power to control their users, they will face enormous internal pressure to abuse that power. This isn’t a hypothetical risk: Facebook’s top executives stand accused of accepting bribes from Onlyfans in exchange for adding performers who left Onlyfans to a terrorist watchlist, which meant they couldn’t use other platforms:

https://gizmodo.com/clegg-meta-executives-identified-in-onlyfans-bribery-su-1849649270

I’m not a fan of terrorist watchlists, for obvious reasons. But letting Facebook manage the terrorist watchlist was clearly a mistake. But Facebook’s status as a “trusted reporter” grows directly out of Facebook’s good work on moderation. The lesson is the same as the one with Apple and the ads — just because the company sometimes acts in our interests, it doesn’t follow that we should always trust them to do so.

Back to Shannon Vallor’s question about the origins of “modern tech’s long spiral into user manipulation and surveillance” and how that “killed off the joy that people like me used to feel about new tech”; and Wil Wheaton’s “constant dread of ‘How will this complicate things as I try to maintain privacy and sanity.”

Tech leaders didn’t get stupider or crueler since those halcyon days. The tech industry was and is filled with people who made their bones building weapons of mass destruction for the military-industrial complex; IBM, the company that gave us the PC, built the tabulating machines for Nazi concentration camps:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust

We didn’t replace tech investors and leaders with worse people — we have the same kinds of people but we let them get away with more. We let them buy up all their competitors. We let them use the law to lock out competitors they couldn’t buy, including those who would offer their customers tools to lower their switching costs and block abusive anti-features.

We decided to create “Felony Contempt of Business Model,” and let the creators of the next Cuecat reach beyond the walls of their corporate headquarters and into the homes of their customers, the offices of their competitors, and the handful of giant tech sites that control our online discourse, to reach into those places and strangle anything that interfered with their commercial desires.

That’s why plans to impose interoperability on tech giants are so exciting — because the problem with Facebook isn’t “the people I want to speak to are all gathered in one convenient place,” no more than the problem with app stores isn’t “these companies generally have good judgment about which apps I want to use.”

The problem is that when those companies don’t have your back, you have to pay a blisteringly high price to leave their walled gardens. That’s where interop comes in. Think of how an interoperable Facebook could let you leave behind Zuckerberg’s dominion without forswearing access to the people who matter to you:

https://www.eff.org/interoperablefacebook

Cuecats were cool. The people who made them were assholes. Interop meant that you could get the cool gadget and tell the assholes to fuck off. We have lost the ability to do so, little by little, for decades, and that’s why a new technology that seems cool no longer excites. That’s why we feel dread — because we know that a cool technology is just bait to lure us into a prison that masquerades as a fortress.

Image: Jerry Whiting (modified) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CueCat_barcode_scanner.jpg

CC BY-SA 3.0: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

[Image ID: A Cuecat scanner with a bundled cable and PS/2 adapter; it resembles a plastic cat and also, slightly, a sex toy. It is posed on a Matrix movie 'code waterfall' background and limned by a green 'supernova' light effect.]

#pluralistic

[fallloverfic]

Nimona, the 2011-14 webcomic by ND Stevenson, turned into a graphic novel published on May 12, 2015, and adapted into a full cast audiobook on October 4, 2016, has been adapted into an animated movie!

The movie premiered at the Annecy International Animation Film Festival in France on June 14, 2023. Netflix released a teaser trailer on May 18, 2023, a clip on June 8, 2023, a full trailer on June 14, 2023, another big clip on June 21, 2023, more footage on June 22, 2023, and another big clip on June 27, 2023. The movie released in select theaters starting on June 23.

The movie released on June 30, 2023 on Netflix for streaming! You can also view the movie for free, legally, on YouTube, until February 26th, 2024. Netflix also released a free-to-read digital-only multimedia 358-page artbook for the movie.

For simplified background, Disney cancelled the movie in 2021, but on April 11, 2022, it was announced that Annapurna would produce the movie, DNEG would animate it, and Netflix would distribute it for streaming sometime in 2023. I'm seeing a lot of confusion out there, so I'll make a summary of what else we know. I also keep the Nimona movie fanwiki page up to date with more info as it releases. Other good places to get news: ND Stevenson's twitter, his Tumblr, his personal site, the savenimona twitter, and the movie page on Netflix. While managing the fanwiki I found that Wikipedia's reference articles for the movie were kind of terrible and often quoted things not being said in the articles being quoted, even in their archive versions, so I would stick with first-hand accounts where possible, particularly what's coming from folks working on the movie and the companies making it. Below is a more detailed summary of info.

Nimona by ND Stevenson began life as a school project while Nate was in college. He was a tumblrite and posted the first pages on Tumblr on December 14, 2011. On June 19, 2012, he began publishing the webcomic in full on its own site. Sometime before November 2012, it was contracted for publication as a graphic novel after completion. The webcomic ended on September 30, 2014, and was released as a single graphic novel in entirety on May 12, 2015. It has currently been translated into 16 languages. Nate adapted it into a full cast audiobook that released on October 4, 2016 (you can hear a preview and purchase it via the link above). The graphic novel and audiobook are still available for purchase.

Apologies for maybe getting studio names wrong, some have changed over time. Anyway: the movie rights for Nimona were acquired by 20th Century Fox Animation in June 2015, to be produced by Blue Sky Studios. In June 2017, Fox scheduled the movie to be released on February 14, 2020. Patrick Osbourne was brought on as director, and it was planned to have the movie in the style of Paperman (Osbourne was animation supervisor of Paperman (2012), and went on to direct Feast (2015), which used the same style). After Disney acquired 20th Century Animation (as it was later called), the movie was delayed to March 5, 2021. There was reportedly pushback for queer stuff in the movie. Blue Sky is publicly stated to have shutdown due to the pandemic and money issues, which isn't relevant here, and I would be careful spreading rumors it was for other reasons. A lot of "successful" US companies shut down studios and departments en masse for other very dumb reasons, particularly in recent years, sometimes just because they aren't making as much money as their parent/shareholders wants them to and cutting salaries makes your profits look better to shareholders. The important part is: Blue Sky was being shut down, and Disney officially cancelled the movie in February 2021.

At some point around the cancellation, a video compilation of early release footage and sculpts seemingly from someone involved in the movie's production was released online. It was later taken down, but put back up by iO9 after the Annapurna, DNEG, Netflix production was announced.

After Disney shuttered Blue Sky, according to Variety, the Nimona crew, "led by former Blue Sky co-presidents Andrew Millstein and Robert Baird, shopped the animatic around town. The film caught the attention of Annapurna CEO Megan Ellison, who was familiar with the film and had been tracking the project. “I think anyone who has ever felt misunderstood or like an outsider will connect with N.D. Stevenson’s story like I did,” she said in press material for the film. “When I watched the storyboard reels I immediately fell in love with it. Nothing about it felt conventional or built off market research. It’s bold and mischievous and full of love. Nimona has such a powerful voice.”

Annapurna stepped in and signed up Millstein and Baird as executive producers. They created Shapeshifter Films so the team could finish “Nimona,” and subsequently joined the company, forming Annapurna Animation.

DNEG Animation was hired in the spring of 2021 to help with the animation, becoming collaborators on the film."

On April 11, 2022, it was announced that the film would be produced by Annapurna, animated by DNEG, and distributed by Netflix. Netflix also shared the first summary:

"A Knight is framed for a crime he didn't commit and the only person who can help him prove his innocence is Nimona, a shape-shifting teen who might also be a monster he's sworn to kill. Set in a techno-medieval world unlike anything animation has tackled before, this is a story about the labels we assign to people and the shapeshifter who refuses to be defined by anyone."

Between Netflix's posts and DNEG's Nimona page, as well as folks involved with the film talking about it, and new info released after the Annecy Film Festival announcement, we knew it would release in Summer 2023. Netflix released a primary cast article with images of what the characters look like from Netflix (be warned, both are very spoilery).

What is also interesting about the cast listings is that Ballister's last name was changed from Blackheart to Boldheart.

Sources for Business Insider said that Blue Sky's work would be incorporated into the film somehow. The second production seemingly wasn't started from scratch, and members of the Blue Sky production stayed on to work on the project. This makes sense, given the art was quite similar to what was in that footage released around the film's cancellation in 2021. DNEG crew have stated repeatedly, though, that although they did have a lot of material from the Blue Sky production, they had to make a lot of things from the ground up.

Quane released an official shot from the film on January 4, 2023:

It was announced that the movie would premiere on June 14, 2023, at the Annecy International Animation Film Festival in France. (Post on Annecy's site, post on DNEG's site)

Two new stills were also released on April 25, 2023, with the Annecy Film Festival announcement:

On May 10, 2023, Netflix posted a new image for the movie:

The May 10 article also had a new movie summary:

"When Ballister Boldheart (Riz Ahmed), a knight in a futuristic medieval world, is framed for a crime he didn’t commit, the only one who can help him prove his innocence is Nimona (Chloë Grace Moretz), a mischievous teen with a taste for mayhem — who also happens to be a shape-shifting creature Ballister has been trained to destroy. But with the entire kingdom out to get him, Nimona’s the best (or technically the only) sidekick Ballister can hope for. And as the lines between heroes, villains and monsters start to blur, the two of them set out to wreak serious havoc — for Ballister to clear his name once and for all, and for Nimona to… just wreak serious havoc.   

Directed by Nick Bruno and Troy Quane, Nimona is an epic tale about finding friendship in the most surprising situations and accepting yourself and others for who they are."

Netflix released another still on May 17, 2023. On May 18, they released their teaser, the movie's first poster, and the announcement of the June 30, 2023 general streaming release date!

Netflix also added a new preview image to the Nimona page on the app, featuring Ballister and Ambrosius facing off behind Nimona.

And Netflix started selling Nimona plushies! Amazon (and possibly other vendors) are also selling shirts/jackets with official movie art!

Netflix released more footage of the movie on May 24, 2023! (it's around 6:31 in the video).

Empire magazine released another still for the movie on June 7, 2023, as well as an article in their June 8, 2023 issue.

Variety released a new still on June 11, 2023.

Netflix released a new poster on Jun 13, 2023!

More stills were released in an Entertainment Weekly article on June 14, 2023. And Netflix released even more. More teasers were put up on the Netflix app (though these are quite spoilery, so I'd advise avoiding them). The cast and crew did press tours throughout June 2023.

Again, the Nimona movie fanwiki page has more detailed info on all this.

#Nimona #NIMONA #ND Stevenson #animated films #2023 animated films #Nimona film #Nimona film information post #Nate Stevenson #Nimona webcomic #Nimona graphic novel #Nimona movie #Ballister Blackheart #Ballister Boldheart #Ambrosius Goldenloin

[mudwerks]

(via Music Licensing Powerhouse BMI Is Being Sold to a Private Equity Firm | Pitchfork)

BMI, the music licensing agency that represents thousands of songwriters, has announced that it will sell to the private equity firm New Mountain Capital, The New York Times reports. Terms of the deal have yet to be disclosed; in August, Billboard cited sources claiming the deal could be worth $1.7 billion. The sale needs to be approved by shareholders and undergo “customary regulatory approvals.” The two sides expect the deal to close by the end of 2024’s first quarter.

After announcing that it would change over to a for-profit model before considering a sale of the company, BMI faced scrutiny over the change from songwriter groups. BMI and ASCAP are the two major licensing agencies which distribute royalties to songwriters and publishers from songs being played via the radio, online streaming, and in retail settings.

#BMI Is Being Sold to a Private Equity Firm #what the hell #music #licensing #money

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Today, President Joe Biden signed the continuing resolution that will give lawmakers another week to finalize appropriations bills. Lawmakers will continue to hash out the legislation that will fund the government. 

Republicans have been stalling the appropriations bills for months. In addition to inserting their own extremist cultural demands in the measures, they have demanded budget cuts to address the fact that the government spends far more money than it brings in. 

As soon as Mike Johnson (R-LA) became House speaker, he called for a “debt commission” to address the growing budget deficit. This struck fear into the hearts of those eager to protect Social Security and Medicare, because when Johnson chaired the far-right Republican Study Committee in 2020, it called for cutting those popular programs by raising the age of eligibility, lowering cost-of-living adjustments, and reducing benefits for retirees whose annual income is higher than $85,000. Lawmakers don’t want to take on such unpopular proposals, so setting up a commission might be a workaround.

Last month, the House Budget Committee advanced legislation that would create such a commission. The chair of the House Budget Committee, Jodey C. Arrington (R-TX), told reporters that Speaker Johnson was “100% committed to this commission” and wanted to attach it to the final appropriations legislation for fiscal year 2024, the laws currently being hammered out.

Congress has not yet agreed to this proposed commission, and a recent Data for Progress poll showed that 70% of voters reject the idea of it. 

This week, a new report from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), a nonprofit think tank that focuses on tax policy, suggested that the cost of tax cuts should be factored into any discussions about the budget deficit. 

In 2017 the Trump tax cuts slashed the top corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and reined in taxation for foreign profits. The ITEP report looked at the first five years the law was in effect. It concluded that in that time, most profitable corporations paid “considerably less” than 21% because of loopholes and special breaks the law either left in place or introduced. 

From 2018 through 2022, 342 companies in the study paid an average effective income tax rate of just 14.1%. Nearly a quarter of those companies—87 of them—paid effective tax rates of under 10%. Fifty-five of them (16% of the 342 companies), including T-Mobile, DISH Network, Netflix, General Motors, AT&T, Bank of America, Citigroup, FedEx, Molson Coors, and Nike, paid effective tax rates of less than 5%.

Twenty-three corporations, all of them profitable, paid no federal tax over the five year period. One hundred and nine corporations paid no federal tax in at least one of the five years. 

The Guardian’s Adam Lowenstein noted yesterday that several corporations that paid the lowest taxes are steered by chief executive officers who are leading advocates of “stakeholder capitalism.” This concept revises the idea that corporations should focus on the best interests of their shareholders to argue that corporations must also take care of the workers, suppliers, consumers, and communities affected by the corporation. 

The idea that corporate leaders should take responsibility for the community rather than paying taxes to the government so the community can take care of itself is eerily reminiscent of the argument of late-nineteenth-century industrialists. 

When Republicans invented national taxation to meet the extraordinary needs of the Civil War, they immediately instituted a progressive federal income tax because, as Representative Justin Smith Morrill (R-VT) said, “The weight [of taxation] must be distributed equally, not upon each man an equal amount, but a tax proportionate to his ability to pay.” 

But the wartime income tax expired in 1872, and the rise of industry made a few men spectacularly wealthy. Quickly, those men came to believe they, rather than the government, should direct the country’s development. 

In June 1889, steel magnate Andrew Carnegie published what became known as the “Gospel of Wealth” in the popular magazine North American Review. Carnegie explained that “great inequality…[and]...the concentration of business, industrial and commercial, in the hands of a few” were “not only beneficial, but essential to…future progress.” And, Carnegie asked, “What is the proper mode of administering wealth after the laws upon which civilization is founded have thrown it into the hands of the few?”

Rather than paying higher wages or contributing to a social safety net—which would “encourage the slothful, the drunken, the unworthy,” Carnegie wrote—the man of fortune should “consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer…in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial results for the community—the man of wealth thus becoming the mere trustee and agent for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer, doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves.”  

“[T]his wealth, passing through the hands of the few, can be made a much more potent force for the elevation of our race than if distributed in small sums to the people themselves,” Carnegie wrote. “Even the poorest can be made to see this, and to agree that great sums gathered by some of their fellow-citizens and spent for public purposes, from which the masses reap the principal benefit, are more valuable to them than if scattered among themselves in trifling amounts through the course of many years.”

Here in the present, Republicans want to extend the Trump tax cuts after their scheduled end in 2025, a plan that would cost $4 trillion over a decade even without the deeper cuts to the corporate tax rate Trump has called for if he is reelected. Biden has called for preserving the 2017 tax cuts only for those who make less than $400,000 a year and permitting the rest to expire. He has also called for higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, which would generate more than $2 trillion. 

Losing the revenue part of the budget equation and focusing only on spending cuts seems to reflect a society like the one the late-nineteenth-century industrialists embraced, in which a few wealthy leaders get to decide how to direct the nation’s wealth.   

[LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN: MARCH 1, 2024]

Heather Cox Richardson

+

“The crucial disadvantage of aggression, competitiveness, and skepticism as national characteristics is that these qualities cannot be turned off at five o'clock.” —Margaret Halsey, novelist (13 Feb 1910-1997)

#poverty #trickle down economics #corrupt GOP #Letters From An American #heather cox richardson #ecoomy #wealth #“debt commission” #corporations #Margaret Halsey #government for the people

[exitrowiron]

Investing 101

Part 1 of ?

A Tumblr mutual has asked me to explain brokers and stocks; I'm not an investing expert but I will share what I know (or what I think I know). The investing subreddit is a great source for those who really want to know the details.

What are stocks? When you buy a company's stock you own a small portion of the company. If a company has issued 100 shares and you purchase 1 share, you own 1/100th of the company. Most companies start out as private enterprises (i.e. owned by one of more individuals) and if the company is successful it may want to sell shares (i.e. go public). Going public is a major milestone in the life of a company. The process of issuing shares, quarterly reports, etc. is highly regulated by the SEC and requires audits, the creation of a board of directors and regular financial reporting, all in an effort to protect investors. In light of this expense, it's fair to wonder why an owner would want to go through the hassle of going public and giving up control of some (or all) of their company.

Going public (i.e. selling shares/stock) is a way of generating capital for the company. Perhaps a company needs an infusion of cash to build a new factory or expand to a new market... new stock issuances often include statements from the company about how it intends to use the proceeds. Issuing public shares is also a way to reward owners and key employees by giving them a way to get cash out of the business. Imagine you started a business 20 years ago and always funneled the company's earnings back into the business to help it grow. You may have a valuable business, but you have all your eggs in that basket and don't have cash to invest in other ways, buy a yacht etc. Likewise, you may have promised key employees partial ownership of the business, this is a way for them to cash-in also.

Regardless of the motivation, companies issuing stocks can choose to sell partial or full ownership of the company. Successful entrepreneurs often choose to retain majority ownership in the business - shareholders may collectively only own 40% of the business, for example, and have the right to elect 2 of 5 directors to the board. This kind of strategy allows the founder to have his cake and eat it too (i.e. cash-out some of the value of the business while still retaining control). A company can also sell various types of shares, each with different benefits. For example, a company may sell Preferred Shares, which are guaranteed to receive a dividend before other shares. Or the company may issue voting and non-voting shares (this is another way for a founder to retain control). Most retail investors (individuals like you and me), purchase Common Shares which have voting rights and are eligible for dividends.

What is a dividend? If you own a part of a company, it is reasonable to expect that you receive your proportionate share of the earnings right? The distribution of a company's earnings to shareholders is called a dividend. Companies may distribute dividends quarterly, annually or in the case of start-up or fast growing companies, not at all. Netflix for example, which had $8.19B in revenue and $1.49B in earnings in 2022 HAS NEVER PAID A DIVIDEND. Likewise, TESLA has never paid a dividend.

Why would anyone want to own shares in companies which don't pay dividends? It isn't at all uncommon for early stage and/or high growth companies to not pay dividends. The thinking is that the growth prospects for the company are so attractive, the money is best spent by reinvesting in the business. Of course there's an expectation that at some point in the future the business will mature and begin paying dividends. This is what happened with Microsoft and Apple for example. As long as the company continues to show accelerating growth, investors will overlook the lack the dividends, betting that the overall value of the company (and intrinsic value of the shares) will grow as well. Again, Netflix and Tesla are good examples of that.

This leads to the conclusion that there are two ways to make money from stocks - dividends and increases in the share price. I may not be concerned if I own a stock with a share price which has been stuck at $100 for the last 5 years if that company is paying me a $10 dividend every year. I'm still earning a 10% return on that investment. Conversely, I may be equally happy owning a stock which has never paid a dividend but is now worth $150 dollars versus my original purchase price of $100.

Stocks whose value is primarily derived from their reliability for generating dividends are called Value stocks. Stocks whose value is primarily derived from the growth of the stock price are called Growth stocks - Netflix and Tesla are examples of Growth stocks; Microsoft and Ford are examples of Value stocks. Admittedly this can be confusing; I remember our first broker asking if we were Value or Growth investors. It seems like a silly question; can't we have both? In truth, older investors like me tend to be Value investors... we like the reliability (and cash flow) of stable companies that declare dividends every quarter. Growth stocks can be exciting, but the stock prices can be volatile and older investors have little tolerance for volatility. Value stocks tend to be stable companies in stable industries. Growth companies are all about the future; there is an opportunity for much greater rewards, but that comes with more risk. Over a longer investing horizon (>10 years), a broad portfolio Growth stocks will likely outperform an equally broad portfolio of Value stocks. Old people don't have a long investing horizon, but young people do and each group's investment portfolio should be biased accordingly.

Next Post - how to buy stocks.