All the teams I want to win the Stanley Cup, ranked and categorized:
Want to to win, could actually win:
1. Edmonton Oilers
2. Seattle Kraken
3. Florida Panthers
4. Dallas Stars
Don’t want to win, could (and probably will) win – most to least hated:
1. Vegas Golden Knights
2. Carolina Hurricanes
Want to win, no chance in hell:
· New Jersey Devils
Don’t want to win, no chance in hell:
· Toronto Maple Leafs
Reasoning:
- Oilers: Fuck it, lets get the best player in the world his prize this year and give Canada it’s long-overdue cup back. Now that I no longer have to fear them following the Bruins first round exit (sigh), I might as well root for McDavid & crew, right? Draisaitl’s contract is up in two years and when that happens the Oilers are going to have to start paying him what he’s worth, so the window for them to make a run before cap considerations weigh them down feels shortened.
Speaking of Draisaitl … he’s making a serious case for himself as the best player in the world as of this moment - leading the NHL in both playoff points and sheer, unbridled handsomeness. Leon, you hot bitch!
- Seattle Kraken: Who doesn’t love an underdog? Especially one in a new market like Seattle, with fans as passionate as theirs. They’re not an all-star roster but they’re a team that shows up and gives the big dogs problems – just ask Boston (who they gave hell during the regular season) and the reigning Stanley Cup champion Colorado Avalanche, who they knocked out in an unlikely first round upset. And they’re giving the very, very good Dallas Stars a serious challenge in the second round, getting blown out but also dishing blowouts in return. A SCF run for them - however unlikely - doesn’t feel impossible at this stage of the game, like it does with some other teams.
I like the Kraken; I like their fans, I like their city, I like their hutzpah, and I like the idea of an expansion market Cinderella story.
- Florida Panthers: Why (as a Bruins fan) would I say something so controversial and yet so brave? Because fuck it, this team has shown that they want to be here and that they’ve got the guts to get it done. Did they knock the Bruins out of the first round, and with them all my hopes, dreams, and happiness for the future? Yes. Were they the better team? No. Did they still find a way to win fair and square? Yes.
The Florida Panthers are nothing if not scrappy and resourceful, and they beat the Bruins by forcing the Bruins to play down to their level. They pressured Boston, and now Toronto, to give up weak goals on bad turnovers as a result of a relentless forecheck that I’ve seen accurately described as a “pack of hyenas.” Yes, they occasionally cross the line from scrappy to dangerous, but that’s a tough line to walk during the Stanley Cup playoffs and few teams do it perfectly. Too aggressive and you’re dirty, too cautious and you’re soft. The Panthers err on the side of aggression and agitation, but can you blame them when they’ve gotten these kinds of results?
Speaking of agitators, I’d like to address the rat in the room, Matthew Tkachuk. Is he infuriating to play against? Yes. Did I want to slap the mouthguard right off his smug face during the first round? Of course. Do I hate him, think he’s a bad player, or want to see him receive the full punitive wrath of the league for his antics? No, I don’t. I can’t - after 14 years of watching and loving Brad Marchand - begrudge Tkachuk for walking that line of agitator and highly-skilled difference-maker so effectively without being a massive hypocrite.
Plus … if they take out the Leafs in the second round it would be so fucking funny. I hope they do.
- Dallas Stars: Full disclosure: this one I’m more apathetic about than probably any other team, but since I’m not actively rooting against them, they made my “teams I’m rooting for” list.
Ok, ok, ok … something to say about the Dallas Stars. Tyler Seguin won a cup with Boston, and he’s cool, so that’s a point in their favor. Doesn’t seem right for him to have 2 cups and Bergeron only has one though, so that’s a point against. They’re a perennial cup contender who still hasn’t had their moment yet, so that’s another point for. All my other critiques are either baseless, superficial, or uninformed (don’t like the Cowboys, boob jobs sitting behind the bench is distracting, Dallas isn’t a “real” hockey market) so that leaves the Stars with one point leftover in the “for”column. Go team! (God, I hate the 2023 Stanley Cup playoffs so much.)
- Vegas Golden Knights: I don’t want them to win because I don’t want Bruce Cassidy to get the last laugh here. It’s as simple as that. I’m a hater.
- Carolina Hurricanes: They’re boringly competent and I don’t like watching them play. If they wind up in the SCF with Vegas I will kms or die from boredom before I get the chance.
- New Jersey Devils: Look, I’m not deluding myself into thinking this team is beating the Hurricanes and making it out of the second round. Their advancement out of the first round after an electrifying, unlikely come-from-behind upset over the New York Rangers (yes, I know they were seeded higher, but the Rangers team was far more stacked and had veteran playoff tenure and were absolutely the favorite) was incredible to watch. It’s also, more likely than not, as good as it will get for the Devils this season.
And that’s ok, there is no shame in that! They’re a young team, still in their rebuilding and development process, with so much promise and some top talent geared to light it up for them in the future. They’ll probably go down, but they’ll go down swinging having got way further in these playoffs than anyone would have thought a few years ago. Even if they go out in 5 to the more polished and defensively-sound Hurricanes tonight, they showed some grit and dignity in the second round with a game 3 blowout of the Canes and a refusal to get swept. I like these kids, I just don’t think it’s happening this year.
Also, it’s the internet, so I’d be remiss not to mention Jack Hughes. What can I say? He’s a generational talent with so much skill and guts despite his tiny stature and a pitifully adorable face (even more pitiful and even more adorable sans-jib). Plus, his mom is Ellen Hughes so I’m left with no choice but to love him.
every word out of guillermo del toro’s mouth is the most hardcore thing i’ve ever heard and he says it all so casually like he doesn’t even realize how much of a gothic visionary he is
“Since childhood, I’ve been faithful to monsters. I have been saved and absolved by them, because monsters, I believe, are patron saints of our blissful imperfection, and they allow and embody the possibility of failing”
I STILL THINK ABOUT THIS EVERY DAY OF MY LIFE
Yo okie Guillermo has some of the best quotes and lines I’ve ever heard, here are just a few of his quotes that have me questioning life:
“What is a ghost? A tragedy condemned to repeat itself time and again? A moment of pain, perhaps. Something dead which still seems to be alive. An emotion suspended in time. Like a blurred photograph. Like an insect trapped in amber.”
“I knew that monsters were far more gentle and more desirable than the monsters living inside ‘nice people.’ Accepting that you are a monster gives you the leeway to not behave like one. When you deny being a monster, you behave like one.”
“When you see something or experience something extraordinary, you can’t go back to normal… I think that that’s the way I see the supernatural-as happening in mundane circumstances or to people who are unprepared”
“To learn what we fear is to learn who we are. Horror defines our boundaries and illuminates our souls”
“Any legend, any creature, any symbol we ever stumble on, already exists in a vast cosmic reservoir where archetypes wait. Shapes looming outside our Platonic cave. We naturally believe ourselves clever and wise, so advanced, and those who came before us so naïve and simple…when all we truly do is echo the order of the universe, as it guides us…”
And the last but certainly not the least:
“In fairy tales, monsters exist to be a manifestation of something that we need to understand, not only a problem we need to overcome, but also they need to represent, much like angels represent the beautiful, pure, eternal side of the human spirit, monsters need to represent a more tangible, more mortal side of being human: aging, decay, darkness and so forth. And I believe that monsters originally, when we were cavemen and you know, sitting around a fire, we needed to explain the birth of the sun and the death of the moon and the phases of the moon and rain and thunder. And we invented creatures that made sense of the world: a serpent that ate the sun, a creature that ate the moon, a man in the moon living there, things like that. And as we became more and more sophisticated and created sort of a social structure, the real enigmas started not to be outside. The rain and the thunder were logical now. But the real enigmas became social. All those impulses that we were repressing: cannibalism, murder, these things needed an explanation. The sex drive, the need to hunt, the need to kill, these things then became personified in monsters. Werewolves, vampires, ogres, this and that. I feel that monsters are here in our world to help us understand it. They are an essential part of a fable.”
everyone these days is so worried about making art “tasteful” as if “tasteless” art isn’t almost always more fun and compelling and cathartic. telling people who are expressing their trauma through art that they can’t express that and find catharsis through “tasteless” creation is like telling them to be a good victim, and fuck you if you do that.
Do not vote on this poll. Restrain yourself. Hold back your curiosity. Tamp down your defiant streak. Feel free to interact with the post in other ways — but whatever you do, do NOT vote.<br><br>Check back in a week to find out how good Tumblr users are at delayed gratification.
Hey remember when Tumblr banned porn and everyone fled to Twitter and the internet by and large became that much more insufferable?
Yeah well, we’re about to get the sequel no one’s been waiting for
A recent lawsuit is calling into question the very law that makes user-generated content possible on the internet and it’s going before a bunch of old people who have no idea how the internet works.
If Section 230 gets repealed or modified, the internet as we know it will radically change forever. Content policing will be that much worse; and either the guidelines will be so restrictive it’ll squeeze the life out of their sites, or sites will close their doors all together by not being able to meet the moderation demand and not wanting to risk being liable.
Unlike SOPA way back in the day, this one is quietly flying under everyone’s radar so there’s no big pushback like last time, so there is a very real possibility this goes down in the worst way possible.
So Yeah Ya’ll may want to start saving your favorite content if you feel it’s going to go bye-bye
This video goes more in depth as to why it is so important Section 230 stays unchanged.
*a bunch of old people who know exactly how the internet works
NECESSARY CLARIFICATION BEFORE YOU FREAK OUT!!
LegalEagle (who I like!) makes a false implication in this video, and you can see that same idea in the CNN article as well. This ruling would not “obliterate” section 230. It adds an interpretation to it that was not considered when the law was written back in 1997: the role of recommendation algorithms in defining whether or not a website is acting as a publisher. This wasn’t necessary in 1997 because those algorithms didn’t exist.
This is a ruling that would NOT negatively impact sites like Reddit or Tumblr, which don’t rely on recommendation algorithms to operate.
Supreme court cases like this operate in a very narrow scope. The question in this case is not “is section 230 legal?” or “are websites culpable for user content?” The question is “does a recommendation algorithm constitute an active promotion of third party content that moves a site from the role of host to the role of publisher?” This is very different from the question of good faith moderation that he discusses in the video, though he conflates the two.
If your website actively selects articles to post, you’re a publisher and liable for the articles you post. If you’re a user content-based site and not moderating at all, you’re a host. You’re not responsible for any of it. Section 230 says that if you attempt to moderate the user-generated content on your platform in good faith, which involves setting a TOS and trying your best to weed out content that violates the TOS, even if your moderation isn’t great, that doesn’t mean you’re endorsing something that you fail to remove.
Saying, “Since you liked this video about ISIS, we think you’d be interested in this video about how to build a bomb,” isn’t as active and intentional as choosing and publishing that video, but it’s also not as neutral as just failing to remove the video from your platform. Even if a human never made the decision to promote the material, the site’s AI did. That’s a big deal.
If this ruling was made, sites that currently rely on recommendation algorithms (YouTube, Facebook, TikTok, Twitter, etc.) would have a choice: to massively rework their algorithm’s parameters for what gets promoted to do a better job of weeding out content that violates the TOS…. or to stop using an algorithm. LegalEagle makes it sound like this would be IMPOSSIBLE, like this would kill all of those websites forever!! They just can’t work without an algorithm.
If you’re on Tumblr, you know that it IS possible to have a large user-generated site without a recommendation algorithm. You probably agree that it’s better. You choose what content to follow based on word-of-mouth recommendations and text searches. Nothing gets shoved in your face as an “WE THINK YOU’D BE INTERESTED IN…”
This ruling would be a huge blow to websites that use these algorithms to create a passive content-consumption audience. It would probably make the rest of the internet better, though. It would definitely strengthen platforms that prioritize user communities and active participation.
Some very wealth companies stand to lose a LOT of money if this ruling goes against them, and there is going to be a TON of astroturfing, propaganda, and misinformation campaigns out there telling you this will be the end of the internet forever. PLEASE be skeptical.
#in case this gets longposted: please read the whole post. the addition at the end clarifies this doesn’t mean internet censorship.
#it means possibly shooting algorithms in the kneecap
^tags you can copy into your reblogs if you want to!
Also its worth noting that the REASON that these changes are being put forward is because of a legitimate act of terrorism that has happened in part by youtube’s algorithm promoting ISIS. It’s not a figurative – actual violencehas happened. And it’s the affected families who are pushing for this modification!
“If your website actively selects articles to post, you’re a publisher and liable for the articles you post”
This is the key. Tumblr is a host. It does provide the platform, the users follow accounts, post and reblog, There’s even a semi sort of linear timeline. Blogspot, Wordpress, any website with a html front end, that can be a host. You put content up, content is the problem of the author.
Facebook is most clearly a publisher that’s trying to hide from publisher responsibility. It prides itself on being a self publishing engine where money makes the content go around. Particularly when you post to Facebook for a group or a page, it asks you for money to show the content you’ve created to the people who followed you to see that content. That’s an intermediary publishing business bay-bee! Pay per play selectivity! Just add algorithm that also editorialises the site by selecting content to push to wider audiences, and would you look at that? Even if the little sulky software set is just moving content that gets reactions to eyeballs, it’s being selective, and that’s editorial judgement.
Instagram selects content to push to you. TikTok has the “For You Page”. Twitter has Elon’s Thought of the Day. All of these devices are currently hiding behind “Code did it” as a way to deny they’re editorial decisions. Elon, less so, because he’s genuinely so bad at this, he’ll shout “I R ELON, I R PUBLISHER, RAWR!” and then discover that wasn’t good for Twitter, just days after 40 thousand people had said “hey dumbass, here’s the dumbest way forward for you”.
The key is - if you’re going to be a publisher, and push content on differential basis, it’s a pros and cons scenario. If you’re moderating the content by pumping some up, and holding some down, that’s editorial judgement, and that’s your responsibility coming to the fore. Going “oh no, I can’t be held responsibility for the site’s content where it costs me money, I can only be responsible if it benefits me” isn’t going to fly that well.
If Twitter just runs as a linear timeline, with periodic advert insert, side bar advertising, it’ll be fine.
Google though? Google gonna find that pushing the paid placement adverts forward to the front of the search page makes them a content publishers, so either the real results go first, or Google has to deal with the consequence of publishing the Google Results Gazette just like any other publisher would.
In somewhat irony, OnlyFans may not be screwed at all if it’s just a content hosting platform. Which, in a lot of ways, would be nice to see a content platform come out on top versus the recommendation driven publisher platforms.
Memo to the Venture Capitalists and CEOS: Bow to the altar of the algorithm recommendation god, expect to have to pay the publisher tithe.
jokes aside i think it’s amazing and heartwarming to see like 4chan incel bros perform the miracle of crawling out of that hole and becoming real human beings and chronicling their journey to realizing that they can be well adjusted happy normal dudes
Where’s the post about the guy who turned his life around bc of his shrimp? Bc that’s very relevant here
Hey remember when Tumblr banned porn and everyone fled to Twitter and the internet by and large became that much more insufferable?
Yeah well, we’re about to get the sequel no one’s been waiting for
A recent lawsuit is calling into question the very law that makes user-generated content possible on the internet and it’s going before a bunch of old people who have no idea how the internet works.
If Section 230 gets repealed or modified, the internet as we know it will radically change forever. Content policing will be that much worse; and either the guidelines will be so restrictive it’ll squeeze the life out of their sites, or sites will close their doors all together by not being able to meet the moderation demand and not wanting to risk being liable.
Unlike SOPA way back in the day, this one is quietly flying under everyone’s radar so there’s no big pushback like last time, so there is a very real possibility this goes down in the worst way possible.
So Yeah Ya’ll may want to start saving your favorite content if you feel it’s going to go bye-bye
This video goes more in depth as to why it is so important Section 230 stays unchanged.
I’m so tired of the fact that a half-dozen old white foagies in a country I’m not even living in get to decide what I do on the internet.
