#Dec 02 | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

Visit Blog

Explore Tumblr blogs with no restrictions, modern design and the best experience.

Fun Fact

Forty percent of Tumblr users are between the ages of 18 to 25.

tron20emails · 1 year

Text

Note: This email has been corrupted in TRON 2.0's lore. Within emails and text strings, Corruption appears as random ASCII characters inserted into the text in between words and sentences. For readers who struggle with parsing random characters, such as screen reader users, a "clean" version of this email can be accessed here.

Subject: Nothing but a smoke screen!

To: [email protected]

From: [email protected]

Date: Dec-02

I've been po)($.king my nose around the labs concerning these Correction algo*&@!rithms. I personally feel it's a bunch of po$*<litical gibberish in*$itiated by Mr. Bradley to help sustain the generous a><mount of funding that goes into his department.

The Correcti#(on algorithms are nothing mo)re than a smoke screen. T)!(@here is no reason to delay the scheduled test run.

J.D. Thorne

Chief of Se*(&^curity

#nothing but a smoke screen!#[email protected]#[email protected]#dec 02 #thorne's internal partition #alliance #seth crown #thorne #alan bradley

0 notes

snkrbonbon · 5 months

Text

Grinch x adidas Forum Low

#Grinch #adidas Forum #Forum #adidas #adidas Sneaker #Sneaker #Sneakers #2023 #Green #ID3512 #02 Dec #$130

27 notes · View notes

emberwexley · 3 months

Text

Who: @skylerb Where: Skylers Apartment When: Dec 15

"Okay so.... I know this is like silly and everything..." Leaning flirtaciously against the frame of his door, Ember held up the box of mac and cheese and gave it a little shake. "So... I heard that your oven might still be plugged in, and I was just thinking... maybe you could teach me how to make this stuff. I'm trying to leave all that old... being served everything life behind, and... well... Charlie told me that maybe you'd be able to help... like... teach me to cook or whatever."

#skylerb #Skyler 02 #Skyler's Apartment #3rd Floor #Dec 15

4 notes · View notes

mrwexleysr · 3 months

Text

Who: @rioreeve Where: Mr. W's Office When: Dec 14, 2023

"Thank you for coming in, Zach. Now, let's go chat in my office, there's business to be had." Motioning for the younger man to follow him, Tobias headed toward his office, chatting as he went. "Also thank you for bringing coffee. I haven't managed to get downstairs for one and it's been a long morning. Somehow it's harder to wake up with how quiet it is now that Ember is living downstairs."

#rioreeve #Zach 02 #The Penthouse #Dec 14

5 notes · View notes

alpha-mag-media · 4 months

Text

How Ant and Dec ‘nearly left ITV bankrupt’ thanks to one show | FL79245 | 2023-12-30 05:08:02 | December 30, 2023 at 06:08AM

How Ant and Dec ‘nearly left ITV bankrupt’ thanks to one show | FL79245 | 2023-12-30 05:08:02 Read More … Check full articles at Source: ALPHA MAG

View On WordPress

#How Ant and Dec ‘nearly left ITV bankrupt’ thanks to one show | FL79245 | 2023-12-30 05:08:02 #Politics #ShowBiz #Sport #Tech #UK #US #World

0 notes

where-does-the-heart-lie · 7 days

Text

Get art studied, idiots.

Make sure to turn off your blue light filter to look at Ace’s pic

References used:

#my art #one piece #sabo #monkey d. luffy #asl brothers #one piece fan art #portgas d. ace #sabo the revolutionary #art study

1K notes · View notes

spnscripthunt · 5 months

Text

realmarksheppard: You’re not going to believe this! Was on my way to an appointment yesterday when I collapsed in my kitchen. Six massive heart attacks later, and being brought back from dead 4 times I apparently had a 100% blockage in my LAD. The Widowmaker. If not for my wife, the @losangelesfiredepartment at mullholland and the incredible staff @providencecalifornia St Joseph’s - I wouldn’t be writing this. My chances of survival were virtually nil. I feel great. Humbled once more. Home tomorrow! #spnfamily

Posted on Instagram on Saturday, Dec 2 ~5pm EST

Update 02/13/2024: "MARK SHEPPARD: Coming Back From the Dead… Several Times (His Full Heart Attack Story)"

youtube

#mark sheppard #for those not on xitter or instagram #admin: lets-steal-an-archive #supernatural #leverage #firefly #battlestar galactica #doctor who #Youtube

2K notes · View notes

tron20emails · 1 year

Text

Subject: Welc&ome to the Team

To: [email protected]

From: [email protected]

Date: Dec-02

Mr. Tho@^rne,

Glad to have you on board.

We're*#&( on the brin*k of a new digital world order. What we do in the course of the next few months, may shift the structure of government ^#)^@and military power, as we know it.

But first we ne@ed to acquire)(#*)# the Digit#ization technology, and that Mr. Thorne, is where you come in. As Chief of Security, you ar>e in a unique position to gain access to technologies required to s^et our plan in motion.

I'll be pers)(onally overseeing your progr&ess. %^#*# Report to me directly of your findings.

Seth Crown III, Attorney

Corp#orate Attorney

Future Co&ntrol Industries

#welcome to the team #[email protected]#[email protected]#dec 02 #alliance #thorne's perimiter partition #thorne #seth crown #corrupted

0 notes

izzyizumi · 2 years

Text

DigiAdvs 02 ~ J.P.N Version ~ TIMELINE(?) {+Issues} + Landing on "MAIAMI..." 'Beach' - on 12-24-02 "10:15 P.M." E.S.T Time

Observations from quick re-watching: - I was thinking Daisuke had worn jacket longer (he did still wear it in immediate aftermath) but Daisuke DID take it off in-between + others too (THANKS TOEI) For Including That Minor Important Detail

- This site gave me Temp readings above According to knowledge of People I Know (This Should Be) Mostly Correct Temp readings for 2002? (People I Know: "No, that'd be perfect weather!!!") ("They {probably} wouldn't be wearing JACKETS")

- MICHAEL STILL SHOWS UP IN FULL-ON JACKET - OUTSIDE - MICHAEL I appreciate you but TAKE OFF THE Jacket mAYBE...

- There were more than 3 random people on the beach (1st img) - All of them were (for the most part) adults - THEY SHOULD Have Digis at some point probably But (Well TM) - They did see + acknowledge Imperialdramon ("A monster!!1!") - Daisuke & co. immediately put full-on outfits back on while on the way to the airport (Again Are You Still At "MAIAMI" Or Not) - Did they leave from M.I.A {airport}????? - Wow I Could Tell You Abt That Place - Ok but UNLIKELY It'd be that ... - Easy to Not Be Detected ON X-MAS EVE????? - IT WAS LIKE 10 P.M. STILL???? - But You Know Fantasy TM - Alternatively there's also F.L.L. but... Hmm - I can say there was at least one time where I Myself TM left from there at 4 A.M.~ E.S.T pretty easily that was ONE TIME Though!!! - I Don't Want To Test Otherwise - Honorifics wise, Michael uses "Daisuke" plain for Daisuke, "Ken-kun", "Yamato-san"... - I'm still mad @ Toei that we don't have more Chosen from here!!!!! - I AM Allowed My Opinions On This - Fight me once you've been to M.I.A. airport and the like - ok but no genuinely which airport is it - Do with the info above what you will - DO NOT talk to me abt this scene (or the concept of Chosen from here) unless You Want me to YELL

{IMGs by Me} @izzyizumi {DO NOT Copy} {DO NOT re-post} [This is a no-re-blogs post, sorry!! But 'Likes' are fine]

#international chosen #international chosen children #international digidestined #international digi destined #02 locations #izzyizumi posts #izzyizumi chatter #izzyizumi gifs #izzyizumi 02 gifs #02 timeline #02 timeline issues #advs timeline #advs timeline issues #c: michael #daisuke and michael #02 timeline: dec 2002 #(LOOK IT JUST BUGS ME)#(I HAVE TO YELL)#(Every TIME I re watch these scenes)#(DONT @ ME)#(From the scenery too it looks like THEY DID LEAVE from)#('MAIAMI')#(Still and I still laugh at the spelling to this day)#(People I Know 'I dont remember ANY year where we needed full on winter clothes #(ME ' YEAH..... YEAH ')#(THEY DONT EVEN SHOW IT BEING WINDY ON THE BEACH After landing and they kinda temporarily take off jackets SO.....)#(In Which I Yell About 02 Timeline Things BECAUSE I CAN)#(T0EI if I don't see 'MAIAMI' CHOSEN IN THE NEXT THING-----)#(To this day I wonder how many here still have the misconception youd wear full on winter clothing in 'MAIAMI' in even Winter)#(ALSO apparently there was NO precipitation AT ALL I Deadstare)

1 note · View note

mostlysignssomeportents · 3 months

Text

Big Tech disrupted disruption

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/2024/02/08/permanent-overlords/#republicans-want-to-defund-the-police

Before "disruption" turned into a punchline, it was a genuinely exciting idea. Using technology, we could connect people to one another and allow them to collaborate, share, and cooperate to make great things happen.

It's easy (and valid) to dismiss the "disruption" of Uber, which "disrupted" taxis and transit by losing $31b worth of Saudi royal money in a bid to collapse the world's rival transportation system, while quietly promising its investors that it would someday have pricing power as a monopoly, and would attain profit through price-gouging and wage-theft.

Uber's disruption story was wreathed in bullshit: lies about the "independence" of its drivers, about the imminence of self-driving taxis, about the impact that replacing buses and subways with millions of circling, empty cars would have on traffic congestion. There were and are plenty of problems with traditional taxis and transit, but Uber magnified these problems, under cover of "disrupting" them away.

But there are other feats of high-tech disruption that were and are genuinely transformative – Wikipedia, GNU/Linux, RSS, and more. These disruptive technologies altered the balance of power between powerful institutions and the businesses, communities and individuals they dominated, in ways that have proven both beneficial and durable.

When we speak of commercial disruption today, we usually mean a tech company disrupting a non-tech company. Tinder disrupts singles bars. Netflix disrupts Blockbuster. Airbnb disrupts Marriott.

But the history of "disruption" features far more examples of tech companies disrupting other tech companies: DEC disrupts IBM. Netscape disrupts Microsoft. Google disrupts Yahoo. Nokia disrupts Kodak, sure – but then Apple disrupts Nokia. It's only natural that the businesses most vulnerable to digital disruption are other digital businesses.

And yet…disruption is nowhere to be seen when it comes to the tech sector itself. Five giant companies have been running the show for more than a decade. A couple of these companies (Apple, Microsoft) are Gen-Xers, having been born in the 70s, then there's a couple of Millennials (Amazon, Google), and that one Gen-Z kid (Facebook). Big Tech shows no sign of being disrupted, despite the continuous enshittification of their core products and services. How can this be? Has Big Tech disrupted disruption itself?

That's the contention of "Coopting Disruption," a new paper from two law profs: Mark Lemley (Stanford) and Matthew Wansley (Yeshiva U):

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4713845

The paper opens with a review of the literature on disruption. Big companies have some major advantages: they've got people and infrastructure they can leverage to bring new products to market more cheaply than startups. They've got existing relationships with suppliers, distributors and customers. People trust them.

Diversified, monopolistic companies are also able to capture "involuntary spillovers": when Google spends money on AI for image recognition, it can improve Google Photos, YouTube, Android, Search, Maps and many other products. A startup with just one product can't capitalize on these spillovers in the same way, so it doesn't have the same incentives to spend big on R&D.

Finally, big companies have access to cheap money. They get better credit terms from lenders, they can float bonds, they can tap the public markets, or just spend their own profits on R&D. They can also afford to take a long view, because they're not tied to VCs whose funds turn over every 5-10 years. Big companies get cheap money, play a long game, pay less to innovate and get more out of innovation.

But those advantages are swamped by the disadvantages of incumbency, all the various curses of bigness. Take Arrow's "replacement effect": new companies that compete with incumbents drive down the incumbents' prices and tempt their customers away. But an incumbent that buys a disruptive new company can just shut it down, and whittle down its ideas to "sustaining innovation" (small improvements to existing products), killing "disruptive innovation" (major changes that make the existing products obsolete).

Arrow's Replacement Effect also comes into play before a new product even exists. An incumbent that allows a rival to do R&D that would eventually disrupt its product is at risk; but if the incumbent buys this pre-product, R&D-heavy startup, it can turn the research to sustaining innovation and defund any disruptive innovation.

Arrow asks us to look at the innovation question from the point of view of the company as a whole. Clayton Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma" looks at the motivations of individual decision-makers in large, successful companies. These individuals don't want to disrupt their own business, because that will render some part of their own company obsolete (perhaps their own division!). They also don't want to radically change their customers' businesses, because those customers would also face negative effects from disruption.

A startup, by contrast, has no existing successful divisions and no giant customers to safeguard. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain from disruption. Where a large company has no way for individual employees to initiate major changes in corporate strategy, a startup has fewer hops between employees and management. What's more, a startup that rewards an employee's good idea with a stock-grant ties that employee's future finances to the outcome of that idea – while a giant corporation's stock bonuses are only incidentally tied to the ideas of any individual worker.

Big companies are where good ideas go to die. If a big company passes on its employees' cool, disruptive ideas, that's the end of the story for that idea. But even if 100 VCs pass on a startup's cool idea and only one VC funds it, the startup still gets to pursue that idea. In startup land, a good idea gets lots of chances – in a big company, it only gets one.

Given how innately disruptable tech companies are, given how hard it is for big companies to innovate, and given how little innovation we've gotten from Big Tech, how is it that the tech giants haven't been disrupted?

The authors propose a four-step program for the would-be Tech Baron hoping to defend their turf from disruption.

First, gather information about startups that might develop disruptive technologies and steer them away from competing with you, by investing in them or partnering with them.

Second, cut off any would-be competitor's supply of resources they need to develop a disruptive product that challenges your own.

Third, convince the government to pass regulations that big, established companies can comply with but that are business-killing challenges for small competitors.

Finally, buy up any company that resists your steering, succeeds despite your resource war, and escapes the compliance moats of regulation that favors incumbents.

Then: kill those companies.

The authors proceed to show that all four tactics are in play today. Big Tech companies operate their own VC funds, which means they get a look at every promising company in the field, even if they don't want to invest in them. Big Tech companies are also awash in money and their "rival" VCs know it, and so financial VCs and Big Tech collude to fund potential disruptors and then sell them to Big Tech companies as "aqui-hires" that see the disruption neutralized.

On resources, the authors focus on data, and how companies like Facebook have explicit policies of only permitting companies they don't see as potential disruptors to access Facebook data. They reproduce internal Facebook strategy memos that divide potential platform users into "existing competitors, possible future competitors, [or] developers that we have alignment with on business models." These categories allow Facebook to decide which companies are capable of developing disruptive products and which ones aren't. For example, Amazon – which doesn't compete with Facebook – is allowed to access FB data to target shoppers. But Messageme, a startup, was cut off from Facebook as soon as management perceived them as a future rival. Ironically – but unsurprisingly – Facebook spins these policies as pro-privacy, not anti-competitive.

These data policies cast a long shadow. They don't just block existing companies from accessing the data they need to pursue disruptive offerings – they also "send a message" to would-be founders and investors, letting them know that if they try to disrupt a tech giant, they will have their market oxygen cut off before they can draw breath. The only way to build a product that challenges Facebook is as Facebook's partner, under Facebook's direction, with Facebook's veto.

Next, regulation. Starting in 2019, Facebook started publishing full-page newspaper ads calling for regulation. Someone ghost-wrote a Washington Post op-ed under Zuckerberg's byline, arguing the case for more tech regulation. Google, Apple, OpenAI other tech giants have all (selectively) lobbied in favor of many regulations. These rules covered a lot of ground, but they all share a characteristic: complying with them requires huge amounts of money – money that giant tech companies can spare, but potential disruptors lack.

Finally, there's predatory acquisitions. Mark Zuckerberg, working without the benefit of a ghost writer (or in-house counsel to review his statements for actionable intent) has repeatedly confessed to buying companies like Instagram to ensure that they never grow to be competitors. As he told one colleague, "I remember your internal post about how Instagram was our threat and not Google+. You were basically right. The thing about startups though is you can often acquire them.”

All the tech giants are acquisition factories. Every successful Google product, almost without exception, is a product they bought from someone else. By contrast, Google's own internal products typically crash and burn, from G+ to Reader to Google Videos. Apple, meanwhile, buys 90 companies per year – Tim Apple brings home a new company for his shareholders more often than you bring home a bag of groceries for your family. All the Big Tech companies' AI offerings are acquisitions, and Apple has bought more AI companies than any of them.

Big Tech claims to be innovating, but it's really just operationalizing. Any company that threatens to disrupt a tech giant is bought, its products stripped of any really innovative features, and the residue is added to existing products as a "sustaining innovation" – a dot-release feature that has all the innovative disruption of rounding the corners on a new mobile phone.

The authors present three case-studies of tech companies using this four-point strategy to forestall disruption in AI, VR and self-driving cars. I'm not excited about any of these three categories, but it's clear that the tech giants are worried about them, and the authors make a devastating case for these disruptions being disrupted by Big Tech.

What do to about it? If we like (some) disruption, and if Big Tech is enshittifying at speed without facing dethroning-by-disruption, how do we get the dynamism and innovation that gave us the best of tech?

The authors make four suggestions.

First, revive the authorities under existing antitrust law to ban executives from Big Tech companies from serving on the boards of startups. More broadly, kill interlocking boards altogether. Remember, these powers already exist in the lawbooks, so accomplishing this goal means a change in enforcement priorities, not a new act of Congress or rulemaking. What's more, interlocking boards between competing companies are illegal per se, meaning there's no expensive, difficult fact-finding needed to demonstrate that two companies are breaking the law by sharing directors.

Next: create a nondiscrimination policy that requires the largest tech companies that share data with some unaffiliated companies to offer data on the same terms to other companies, except when they are direct competitors. They argue that this rule will keep tech giants from choking off disruptive technologies that make them obsolete (rather than competing with them).

On the subject of regulation and compliance moats, they have less concrete advice. They counsel lawmakers to greet tech giants' demands to be regulated with suspicion, to proceed with caution when they do regulate, and to shape regulation so that it doesn't limit market entry, by keeping in mind the disproportionate burdens regulations put on established giants and small new companies. This is all good advice, but it's more a set of principles than any kind of specific practice, test or procedure.

Finally, they call for increased scrutiny of mergers, including mergers between very large companies and small startups. They argue that existing law (Sec 2 of the Sherman Act and Sec 7 of the Clayton Act) both empower enforcers to block these acquisitions. They admit that the case-law on this is poor, but that just means that enforcers need to start making new case-law.

I like all of these suggestions! We're certainly enjoying a more activist set of regulators, who are more interested in Big Tech, than we've seen in generations.

But they are grossly under-resourced even without giving them additional duties. As Matt Stoller points out, "the DOJ's Antitrust Division has fewer people enforcing anti-monopoly laws in a $24 trillion economy than the Smithsonian Museum has security guards."

https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/congressional-republicans-to-defund

What's more, Republicans are trying to slash their budgets even further. The American conservative movement has finally located a police force they're eager to defund: the corporate police who defend us all from predatory monopolies.

Image: Cryteria (modified) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HAL9000.svg

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

284 notes · View notes

yoonia · 8 months

Text

Mirrors — story guide

⟶ Character | Jungkook x reader

⟶ Genre | Friends with benefits!au, Smut, Angst

⟶ Ratings & Warnings | +18 / M for Mature; appropriate warnings will be applied on each chapter whenever necessary.

— Read:

⟶ Mirrors | Part 01 ● 3,5k words — originally written & published on Dec 3rd, 2016

⟶ Summary | You thought you made the right choice to end things before it got too far, yet in the moment in need, he chose to call you, insinuating that he might not have been ready to let things go. or “Don’t argue. Just do it.”

⟶ Mirrors | Part 02 ● 5k words — originally written & published on Nov 26th, 2017

⟶ Summary | As he takes you in his arms once again, denying your escape right when you are ready to leave him for good, he helps you to realise that the mirrors are not the only things that could help you see the truth within. That you could also see the reflection of your soul…in him.

⟶ Mirrors: what becomes of us (bonus chapter) ● 8,5k words — written & published on Sept 7th, 2023

⟶ Summary | One year has passed, and the unmistakable fuzzy feelings that have nothing to do with lust continue to grow. Yet while he is able to look deep into your heart, he has yet to allow you to see what is hidden inside his. He still put up a hard front, making you believe that standing by his side may not be as different than standing in front of fragile mirrors.

— Cross-post: AO3 | Wattpad

— Main Masterlist | Taglist | Feedback | Mailbox | Ko-fi

#jungkook smut #misc: masterlist #k-vanity #bangtansorciere #jungkook fanfic #jungkook scenario #jungkook angst #jungkook fluff #jungkook x reader #bts fanfic #bts scenario #bts smut #bts angst #bts fluff #bts x reader

529 notes · View notes

kaybl · 5 months

Text

Redrawing (may/02-dec/10)

Idk how he would act, so I just followed what was on my old drawing, im guessing he would take the kiss just fine, I don't feel like he would be awkard abt it, he probably wouldn't even know what did the kiss meant lol

#welcome home #welcome home puppet show #wally darling #julie joyful #welcome home art #doodles #art #welcome home wally #welcome home julie #julie x wally #wally x julie #welcome home ship #kaybl's art #k4ybl's art

324 notes · View notes

lunarfied · 1 year

Text

WHY DIDN'T YOU STOP ME ?; masterlist

a genshin impact scaramouche x gender neutral reader ; social media au

IMPORTANT ;;

this au is DISCONTINUED. please stop asking me to be added to the taglist and for updates, it’s not going to happen.

SYNOPSIS ; SCARAMOUCHE and Y/N were once lovers. high school sweethearts if you will, but a week before your birthday, he broke up with you and disappeared from your life. you thought you’d never see the boy who broke your heart again until the new roommate moving in with you and your best friends happens to be none other than your ex boyfriend, KUNI.

WARNING ; this will contain slight heavy material at some parts; nothing is set in stone yet though & timestamps do not matter. all characters in this are young adults (18+) unless stated otherwise. written parts are marked with a ✎

GENRES ; friends to lovers, enemies to lovers, friends to lovers to exes to enemies to friends to lovers (lol) fluff, angst, hurt/comfort, social media au, modern au, college au, we will see where the vibes take us….

TAGS ; mommy issues, kinda toxic exes but it’s more of a miscommunication type thing, alcohol and drug usgae, nsfw jokes, family member death, random side ships, etc.,

STATUS ; discontinued. started [dec. 27th, 2022] and ended on [---].

PLAYLIST ; here - give it a listen pls i swear its good

TAGLIST ; closed.