1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Jeffrey Epstein is Dead

« on: November 19, 2019, 10:24:20 PM »

The linked article basically says that Meghan is popular among young people but unpopular among the old. Are you lumping yourself in with the old people when you say "We hate her"?

Why would we care about the opinions of young people? They don't know anything. 

More seriously, though, I don't see how anyone would have any leverage to extort Andrew or the royals. The accusation has already been made; the damage is done. They can't put the genie back in the bottle.

Let's be clear, no one is saying he is a paedophile. Not officially anyway. But he has shown himself to be a complete idiot.

Today, pretty much every charity he is associated with, told him to do one and a university of which he is a patron is under pressure from its student union to ditch him.

Bizarrely, he told the Queen the interview went really well. He might be a pathological liar. But it still doesn't mean he touches children. Only that if he did touch children, he'd lie to you about it.

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Jeffrey Epstein is Dead

« on: November 17, 2019, 11:49:09 PM »

Prince Andrew also said that he was his business partner or something of that nature, and that he was learning a lot from Epstein. I think that much is true.

It could be that Prince Andrew is being specifically targeted because he is a son of the Queen, who controls vast resources. Once Prince Andrew outlived his usefulness in whatever business venture they had together, it was time to go for the gold.

It may have been easier or less risky for Epstein just convince Prince Andrew to take a picture with a girl who "wants a picture with him" than to reveal himself in any manner by offering her services.

If the story is true, on the other hand, and Prince Andrew did do it, I am still fairly certain that they are going all out, contacting police and newspapers and giving interviews, to make it as public as possible so that the Queen is forced to step in. It is quite possible that all of the parties involved are bad people.

Well being as I am an Englishman and know more about the royals than the average merkin, let me square a few things away.

The Duke of York is the 3rd child of the Queen. He is and has always been pretty unimportant, more so once William and Harry were born. Even less so now William has 3 children. He's 8th in line to the throne now.

He wasn't a business partner of Epstein. The Duke of York doesn't really have many important businesses. His brother Charles has a huge estate to make money from called the Cornish Duchy, but the Duke of York has sod all by comparison. He's not going to be king next. Andrew is actually a business emissary. He is supposed to promote UK businesses around the world, much like an ambassador. But rather than be an ambassador to say India, he's ambassador to everywhere, promoting only business. He's also shit at it. Has always been shit at it. Adds no value whatsoever.

Andrew has a number of personality traits that make him terrible for a public relations job. The first is that he's arrogant. The second is that he is a narcissist. The third is that he's not very bright. The fourth being that he is deeply unpleasant.

He has been hated wherever he has gone. The navy couldn't wait to get rid of him.

I doubt very much anyone is targeting Andrew to get at the Queen. She's bullet proof. And she'd throw him under the bus to protect the dynasty in a heartbeat. There is very little 'gold' in showing the DoY for the arsehole that he is. Everyone already knows he is an arsehole. He's right up there with Meghan Markle for unpopularity amongst the public.
https://www.iheart.com/content/2019-11-04-meghan-markle-prince-andrew-are-most-unpopular-royals-in-new-poll/

Yeah, sorry America, we hate her.

As for forcing the Queen to step in, she's not going to. She has a mantra that Andrew would have done well to adhere to ... "never complain, never explain". She's not going to comment. She never comments. And if Andrew hadn't commented, Twitter wouldn't have been chewing his arse off yesterday.

He isn't going to be prosecuted. He could spend an afternoon shooting commuters at Trafalgar square and he's not going to prison. Its like hoping Tony Blair will be tried for war crimes. It will be deemed "not in the public interest" to pursue such and important person. But the Queen won't be getting involved. She'd let him hang before she'd intervene.

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Jeffrey Epstein is Dead

« on: November 17, 2019, 04:39:14 PM »

Also, Prince Andrew is a shitbag. He's always been a shitbag. He's a deeply unpleasant man.

Why did you go to see Mr Epstein in 2010 after he had been convicted as a sex offender?
Well, I wanted to tell him I couldn't see him any more. In person. Telling him in person, that I don't want to see him in person, is the right thing to do. Better than doing it on the phone.
But you stayed with him at his house for several days.
It was a convenient place to stay.                                          <--- I shit you not, that was his response.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Jeffrey Epstein is Dead

« on: November 17, 2019, 03:33:24 PM »

Do you remember having sex with this woman 3 times?
No. I don't remember ever meeting her. Ever.
But there's a photo. You did meet.
I don't remember. My memory isn't so great.
So what were you doing on the 10 of March 2001?
Oh, I remember that like it was yesterday. I took my daughter to Pizza Express in Woking for a party before spending the night at home.

5

Technology & Information / Re: Twitch Pricing

« on: November 15, 2019, 06:14:59 PM »

Why would Amazon want Twitch if it doesn’t make money?

FOMO.

I sincerely doubt that. You don’t become the richest man in the world by indulging FOMO over greed.

All tech companies FOMO.

Microsoft FOMO'd so hard over missing mobile they bought Nokia.
Google FOMO'd so hard over social that they spent almost $1bn on Google+
Apple FOMO'd so hard over Microsoft's Kinect system, they rushed out and spent $345m on Primesense.
Facebook FOMO'd so hard over wearable technologies that they bought Pebble.

Amazon FOMO'd over live streaming ... they bought Twitch ... and they have no idea how to make money out of it yet.

[...]

And of course something I forgot to mention - a shoutout from an Important Person live on air isn't something you can put a price tag on.

There are important people on Twitch? A girl doing squats for subs is important? A guy playing WoW with 200 viewers is important?

Pay2say might well work if I want Vin Diesel to read my question or Jennifer Garner ... but it isn't worth $3 to find out what Logan the Overwatch player from Michigan had for breakfast.

6

Technology & Information / Re: Twitch Pricing

« on: November 14, 2019, 11:17:27 PM »

Why would Amazon want Twitch if it doesn’t make money?

FOMO.

7

Technology & Information / Re: Twitch Pricing

« on: November 14, 2019, 07:57:42 PM »

You're not paying for a service, you're paying to support a streamer.

/thread

Read the OP. You are not making a donation, you are subbing ... ie giving half to Twitch. No one is 'supporting' Twitch. It doesn't need support. It has Amazon bankrolling it.

8

Technology & Information / Re: Twitch Pricing

« on: November 13, 2019, 08:11:01 PM »

Surely there will be adjustments to their revenue model as it dries, but I also suspect there must be something to it that we aren't seeing, PornHub started following it after all.

Apples and pears. Or Apples and porns.

Apple has great content. Amazon has great content. Netflix has great content. However ... PornHub has better content. A porn video can easily cost you $40 for the one video. Nothing Amazon or Netflix or Disney make can compete with that. Porn is king.

So PornHub having a model where you might pay $4.99 to a single pornstar for her content ... sure. I did elude to this above with my comment

If he was pulling his pants down in discord and stuffing enormous vegetables up his backside, maybe I could see the premium price tag for exclusive content. But was he really giving $4.99 of value?

But some girl just reading chat in a pushup bra or dancing to just dance 2020 ... she's not worth $4.99 and nothing she could do within Twitch's terms of service, is worth $4.99.

9

Technology & Information / Re: Twitch Pricing

« on: November 12, 2019, 11:17:10 PM »

But this is why I don't think Twitch will grow. All the whales are already being harpooned. And new whales won't appear.

Its not like people haven't heard of Twitch. If you are the kind of person to drop 100 gifted subs on a stream, you probably have already done that. I don't see them finding more and more people around the world because as you say ... its pretty dumb.

So your $4.99. The guy gave 'tactical advice' ... yeah ok. But I still find $4.99 a bit steep. If he was pulling his pants down in discord and stuffing enormous vegetables up his backside, maybe I could see the premium price tag for exclusive content. But was he really giving $4.99 of value?

And to be clear, I'm not blaming the streamer. He is giving as much value as he can. My point is he can't set the price to something a bit more realistic ... like say $0.99. And I didn't miss the word niche either ... I get that when fewer people want to support something they have to find the cash between them. But can this guy keep giving you tactics, worth $4.99 a month for several months?

I didn’t really miss the fiver and it was good to give something to him.

I'm totally on board with this. You want to support his work. But you didn't gift $5 to his patreon each month or give him direct donations. You subbed to him. You actually only gave him $2.50 and gave the other half to Twitch. A multi-billion dollar business with Amazon as its parent company that clearly doesn't need 'support'.

My issue is not with supporting streamers. It is with the sub model of every single streamer requiring their own $4.99 sub if you want to watch ad free, and Twitch taking half of that. I don't want to 'support' Amazon. Obviously.

Why can't I just pay $4.99 to Twitch and that's it ... ad free for all streams ... and then donate what I want to who I want without Twitch taking half after that? Instead of being a willing viewer who throws a few bucks to streamers i like now and again, I'm turned off, thinking Twitch only wants whales and I don't want to be spending hundreds of dollars a month on one service.

10

Technology & Information / Re: Twitch Pricing

« on: November 12, 2019, 10:02:34 PM »

You dont get ads that often on twich and many streamers have patreon so you can support them outside the platform.  I have one streamer I give my twitch prime to, and I just have something else to look at while ads roll. 

Stop being such a boomer, Thonk.

Ok, so interesting points. Which is unusual from you so I'll take the time to answer them.

1. I'm not a boomer. I am generation X ... I'm just a couple of years too old to be a millennial ... thank God. I'm nowhere near a boomer. My parents are boomers.
2. How often you get ads really depends on how many twitch has sold. They recently got a deal with OMEN PC and just spammed the shit out of everyone with b-roll footage of ugly gamers folding their arms and looking intense. I can see why most companies use models. Gamers are fugly. They also plug amazon TV a lot when they have nothing else to advertise. It looks as if very few brands want to advertise on such an unsafe medium where the streamer could be doing or saying Lord knows what. So when they have ads, they'll spam you with them and when they have nothing, you get some peace and quiet.
3. Twitch Prime ... a huge and unsustainable subsidy from parent company Amazon to streamers. There will be a Twitch Prime apocalypse at some point that will wipe out many shitty channels. Currently Amazon are paying 50% (half the sub) out to the streamer. So anyone with an Amazon Prime can just point at a streamer and say 'give that one $2.50 for me every single month'. Clearly as the platform grows and more Prime members start using those subs, there will come a point where Amazon say this is getting too expensive and Twitch is now big, so lets kill it. No one buys Amazon Prime to get a Twitch Prime Sub. Its a giveaway that will end.


But you aren't really addressing my point. Is there a single channel on Twitch worth $4.99 a month? I'm making the case I don't believe there is a single channel worth even $0.99. I think their business model is whack.

11

Technology & Information / Re: Twitch Pricing

« on: November 12, 2019, 07:56:21 PM »

>imagine unironically using twitch

I'm down with the kids. 

12

Technology & Information / Re: Twitch Pricing

« on: November 12, 2019, 07:25:06 PM »

There is no adblocker for Twitch.

A stream is literally timed out until the adverts complet, so even if you block the adverts (difficult as they use dynamic links that change all the time), the stream would still not start until the ads are finished and you just have a black screen. So if twitch was going to serve you 1:52 of ads, even if you block them the stream won't send you data for 1:52

Its not youtube. Twitch is super aggressive on adblock.

13

Flat Earth Community / Re: Anyone for an interview?

« on: November 12, 2019, 06:19:25 PM »

Sounds like a typical lazy student.

Apparently, my being able to rant about earth being flat to a sane person should be motivation enough. So I should get to it and decide what topics, get my evidence together, work out the format, get in my car and go to Canterbury to get this guy an A+. He already did enough. He wrote a few lines on the forum. 

14

Technology & Information / Twitch Pricing

« on: November 12, 2019, 05:25:53 PM »

Twitch pricing is outrageous. There, I said it. 

To subscribe to a streamer you can choose

Tier 1 - $4.99
Tier 2 - $9.99
Tier 3 - $24.99

Let us ignore Tier 2 & 3 as just fantasy land. Let's look at Tier 1.

For $4.99 per month you can remove the adverts, get access to 'emotes' and if the streamer happens to have it on, use 'subscriber chat'. That's the value proposition. For one account, for one streamer. If you wish to subscribe to more streamers, the price keeps going linearly so subscribe to just 3 streamers and you are paying $14.97 per month. To watch 3 different people in their bedrooms play computer games, yawn and eat their dinners.

I would also argue that for $4.99 per month you could instead get Apple's new streaming service. Which is an account for the entire family and has millions of dollars of new content such as Jason Momoa in 'See'. How does a streamer compete with that?
Its a direct competitor. Same price, wants my eyeballs.
Clearly I can't subscribe to everything. I need to make choices. Netflix, Amazon Prime, Apple TV+, Disney TV etc etc. Why do I choose a streamer on Twitch? And how the hell are any of them worth $4.99?

I don't understand why Twitch would have such a stupid business model. If it was $4.99 for Twitch ... ie the entire site and I get to watch ad-free for $4.99 ... OK, if I'm spending enough time there, that might be worth it. Apple TV vs Twitch ... sure ... they could both be worth $4.99. But a single streamer? This is madness. And I think deeply unfair on the streamers. To expect them to generate $4.99 worth of content per month.
"Hey, woman in her bedroom who bodypaints herself on Twitch, Disney just added all their Marvel back catalogue, their national geographic documentaries, their stars wars and Pixar content and all the Disney films and cartoons for me to watch this month. Just $6.99. What are you going to do to compete this month?"

How can it be that 2 streamers cost more that Netflix?

Netflix is 24/7. A streamer needs to sleep, take days off, have holidays. Let's say they stream a staggering 60 hours a week ... well my new Apple TV+ account is available 108 hours a week more! Most of the time, a streamers account isn't even on ... their channel is off ... a channel I might be paying $4.99 a month for. And why would I be interested in watching a single individual for say 20 hours a week unless I had a weird obsession with them? If I'm only watching 5 hours a week I'm not really getting my money's worth, am I?


Now there is the argument that you are 'supporting' the streamer. Sure. Why can't I do that via donations? Why is the subscribe 'support' the 50% goes to Twitch bit? Am I supporting Twitch? A multi-billion dollar platform whose parent company is Amazon? Surely amazon doesn't need my 'support'. If I'm just supporting I can donate, like I would to a busker.

I do not see how Twitch can scale under this model. Sure, there will always be people who will pay over the odds as money isn't really an object. But for most people it is. If you were going to subscribe to say 3 streamers a month and throw $15 at twitch every month, now I have to choose 3 streamers? And stay committed to those ones and only watch those ones for a whole month? The entire thing is bizarre. It is like being subscribed to Netflix and only being allowed to watch Breaking Bad and absolutely nothing else for $4.99 and if I want to watch say Sense8 ... another $4.99 and then I want to watch Orange is the New Black ... yup another $4.99.

Twitch should either be $4.99 for access to the whole site and you can tip streamers individually, or you set the price to what they are actually worth. About $0.10 a month each.

Even at $0.99 I could almost say "expensive for what it is, but its only $0.99 and I might watch say 5 streamers regularly a month and 5 bucks ... fine". But I'm not paying $25 a month to watch 5 different streamers.

And if you are reading this thinking "just watch with the adverts" then you aren't someone who has ever tried to watch Twitch and been smashed with 5 ads on the bounce every 5 mins. And its not like TV where the program stops during the adverts. Oh no. The stream goes on only you can't follow it until the ads are over.

Twitch is a stupid business model that vastly over-prices and puts unrealistic pressure on streamers to deliver content, that is just impossible for them to compete with other streaming services. Prove me wrong.

15

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Star Citizen

« on: November 10, 2019, 12:02:43 PM »

Did they ever finish and/or commercially release this thing?

Is the Pope a Muslim?

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: A question to our resident Brexiteer

« on: November 07, 2019, 03:28:30 PM »

You are basically saying "Look Englishman, you should trust the French and Germans."

And I'm saying "Erm, they aren't usually nice to us. I'd rather not, if that's ok".

And you are saying "But they've changed and you are being mean not letting them be in charge of you"

And I'm saying "Being Polish, can you honestly say putting your faith in Germans is historically a good idea?"

And you are saying "But I need you to let the Germans rule you, so that I can work here as a foreigner"

And I'm saying "You're not really my biggest concern here. You can go live anywhere under German-Franco rule if you please. But its not for me".



... I think remainers are naive. I think they forget the lessons of history. Soon the EU wants an EU army, to control our troops, ever closer integration, to eventually control our money and make us use the Euro, our tax affairs, our trade, our economy. They want to run it all. And the more we give, the harder it is to ever reverse as they have all the power. If it goes to shit, there will be no way out.

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: A question to our resident Brexiteer

« on: November 07, 2019, 03:01:32 PM »

The EU doesn't restrict your or my freedoms - it restricts the freedoms of MPs

Again, UK governments are already doing that. If anything, the EU has at least imposed some means of redistribution. If the government had its way, all of the UK's wealth would get sucked into London/Panama. The EU forces them into spreading it at least a little bit. Perhaps if we had more trustworthy governments (n.b. I'm not just talking about Tories here, Labour were not better), I'd be more willing to accept that giving them more power is a good idea.

If the British don't like a government, they can vote them out. If we hate Boris, we can get rid of him. You can't vote out Verhofstadt, Tusk and Shultz. 


As for 'The EU protects you from your own government' that's the most ridiculous thing you have said so far. The EU wants to usurp London as a financial capital. They want to introduce all kinds of laws making London uncompetitive with the long term goal being to move the Financial Capital to Frankfurt. They want to take our wealth.

Europeans are not our friends. They are our rivals. They have been for thousands of years. They'll happily kill us over money. You think the smiling Nazis and polite Normans want us to be happy and wealthy? That we should trust the friendly Vikings, welcome the joyous Romans, open up our waters to Spanish fishing Armadas and our markets to Dutch East India Companies?

They are Europeans. They fucking hate us, and the only way we have ever been able to stop them coming here and taking everything we own is by being the biggest, nastiest, most frightening superpower on earth. Nothing else works. They haven't all just changed. It is so naive to think Europeans have our best interests at heart. They don't. And we should keep them at arms length as we always have done ... or better yet, at a swords length.

You don't let down your guard and give your enemies the keys to your kingdom. They'll ruin you.

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: A question to our resident Brexiteer

« on: November 07, 2019, 02:14:11 PM »

Well, we're clearly in very different mindsets about this. You view it primarily as an issue of sovereignty (and I respect that, your explanation makes sense), whereas my primary concern is with maintaining a high quality of life.

Its the same thing. How can you maintain a high quality of life when you are not free? When someone else makes your laws, taxes you and spends your money as they like? You no longer have your own destiny in your hands and must rely on the benevolence of foreign powers. And frankly if we are going to look at history, placing our future in the hands of the French and Germans isn't going to be good for us. They don't like us. They are very happy to have wars with us to get their own way. Imagine if they can do what they want and we just have to accept it without a shot fired?

The EU will vampire the wealth out of the UK as fast as it can once if gets its teeth into her juicy neck. And care for her and her people the we way it cares for the Greeks and the Italians. Its a German-Franco Empire. Nothing more. Anyone else is a vassal.

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: A question to our resident Brexiteer

« on: November 07, 2019, 01:43:26 PM »

I view it as an ideological battle. Who has sovereignty in the United Kingdom? Who is in charge? Its the most important thing you could fight for. If you aren't in charge and someone else is, now whatever they say goes. You have no say on anything else anyway. You'll be dictated to.


Now, we are led to believe, that the people of the UK are sovereign. Not the Queen. Not Parliament. The people. And once every 5 years they vote and place sovereignty in the hands of representatives to run the country for them. The law states that sovereignty must be returned in full to the electorate 5 years later so that they have the ability to choose who to represent them next. We have a Parliamentary democracy. This is important because our politicians have been giving away our sovereignty without our permission to the EU. They can't do that. Its against the law. Cameron rightly said ... well if the EU wants these extra powers, you have to ask the people for them, they aren't mine to give. The people said no. Parliament is trying to give away the people's sovereignty without their permission. Its not something parliament can do.

Ever since the Maastricht Treaty of 1992, which created the modern EU, there have been those calling for another vote to take into account how things have has changed, with Eurosceptics claiming that membership now represents an unacceptable transfer of powers from our Parliament to Brussels. It has been a running sore for the Conservative Party in particular, with many MPs and much of the membership never fully reconciled to our membership.

That's why we had a referendum in the first place. If we said yes, we want to be members, we would have consented as a people to giving Brussels power. That's why it was a matter of referendum and couldn't just be passed as a bill. MPs can't give away sovereignty, only the people can. Same for Scottish referendum. A transfer of sovereignty from Westminster to Holyrood. The Scots chose to leave sovereignty with Westminster.

Now, with that said, parliament therefore does not trump the will of the people. If the people vote out, parliament cannot and should not be able to stop that. Parliament are representatives, not dictators.

However, parliament has decided to ignore what the very people who placed them there want them to do. They have created a paradox. They claim "we are in charge because the people who are all knowing and all wise put us here" and also claim "the people have no power whatsoever and don't know what they are talking about and we'll ignore them and do what we want". Remainers are legally in the wrong. They are trying to transfer power without consent. To steal the soverignty of the British people.

So when you say "Sure, there's a side that comes across to me as more reasonable, but they're also the only side that will normally talk to me." ... how are they more reasonable? How is giving away sovereignty that is not yours to give reasonable? How is ignoring the will of the people in favour of a tyrannical parliament reasonable? How is ignoring a democratic instruction reasonable?

Something you must consider. We shouldn't have entered the EU without consent in the first place. They should have had a referendum in 1992 to ask if they can give away sovereignty. Its not a question of 'should we leave?'. They have no permission at all to have placed us in the EU. They have been caught acting against the interest of the people. If we'd voted remain ... it would have been all over forever. The EU would have the sovereignty of the British. But call it the wisdom of crowds or whatever you like ... the British said no fricking way. And that must be respected.

This is also why 'the deal' is unacceptable. You can have a deal swapping tarifs and access and whatever else. But you can't swap sovereignty. Its not your to give. No ECJ. No Customs Union. No Single Market.

And you see, this is the wicked and cynical thing about the EU. It is not a nation. It doesn't need anything. It doesn't need British fish or German cars. It acts as a middle man. It says "we'll swap access to British waters for lower tariff German cars ... and as middle men we'll take a little something from both of you ... power". That's all the EU wants. That's all it will trade for. It doesn't need to trade for anything because it is not a country with citizens. It is an entity that only desires power over Europe. Why is every deal about handing over powers? Why can't we just have trade deals? Answer: Because the EU doesn't need anything via trade. It only wants power over you. If you won't give it that, it won't trade.

*as an aside, when we have a perfectly good political forum, why would you choose complete nonsense as a place to debate such matters?

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: A question to our resident Brexiteer

« on: November 07, 2019, 10:18:17 AM »

What happens if there's a second Brexit referendum and the result is Remain? Which referendum should be respected then?

That would pretty much be the BSOD for our democracy. I think at that point the head of the armed forces needs to march into Westminster and give our democracy a hard reset. I think back to 1653 the last time Parliament started doing whatever it wanted and Oliver Cromwell marched in and booted the lot of them out. The words he used on that day are more or less perfect for the problems we have today.

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.

Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.

Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?

Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?

Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.

Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.

I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.

Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go!