British racist person Daniel "Danny Tommo" Thomas is an expert in both British and Maritime law. He therefore knew exactly what charges and penalties could be brought against him for live streaming himself on Facebook slashing a dinghy with a knife in the English Channel. He also knew these charges wouldn't incur substantial, if any legal costs, and that he will eventually get a suspended sentence.
The entire thing was carefully done to give the impression of expensive legal difficulties so he could run a GoFundMe to rake in thousands of pounds from his supporters (who are idiots) to cover his non-existent legal costs which he will spend on a holiday to Gran Canaria and a new TV.
This is my favourite coffee mug. Yesterday evening I went out, when I came back and went to use it I immediately realised it was wrong as soon as I touched it. To all intents and purposes it is the same mug, but its also not the same mug. I suspect the gnomes of Thesus have snuck in and replaced my mug with an identical mug.
I'm not sure what their wider plan is here. I only noticed because I feel a deep connection to this mug, and I so I could tell although it is physically the same, spiritually it is not. The implications are obviously that given many people will not have the same spiritual discernment that this could be much more widespread than one mug. Nothing is safe.
Rejection for inaccessible private property for a wayspot inside the National Maritime Museum in Amsterdam.
I've felt for a while now its odd that if people submit something incorrectly the barrier to it being flagged as "abuse" seems pretty low, but its not uncommon to get reviewing which is arguably "abusive".
At best some reviewing displays a lack of knowledge of the basics of criteria, or a lack of attention in the review, that seems to defy any reasonable explanation. At worse it would a deliberately, arguably abusive, manipulation of the review process to reject eligible nominations (for unclear reasons). To be clear I don't believe the later IS what is happening, but it seems on submitting the worst is readily assumed when an inconsistency is spotted. But in reviewing not only is the same standard not applied, but there doesn't seem to be any process for identifying inexplicable review malpractice.
I don't rule out that I'm missing something profound in the title/description as I don't speak Dutch. But the photo is of a fire escape and it seems to be indicating this is an apartment block?
Spotted in Amsterdam yesterday.
I feel this must have been discussed before, but I had a random bank holiday thought about how nuanced Bill Paxton's performance as Private Hudson is in Aliens as an ADHD coded character.
When I actually thought about it in depth I recognised all the subtle stuff and the range of things portrayed. Particularly the way the other characters in the Marines interact and react to him, especially Hicks as his corporal. Not necessarily diagnosis criteria, but the stuff that is just life living with ADHD.
Non-exhaustive list
* Obviously the general hyperactivity!
* Inability to restrain implusively speaking out or cracking jokes
* The way the first point in the movie when you see that he's a technical specialist he's call up to run a bypass on a security door and is instantly locked into his task from being goofy just beforehand. No-one seems to have a doubt that when he's asked to do his job he will be able to focus.
* When he's freaking out when they are barricaded in the facility and Hicks assigns him a complex piece of work looking through the blueprints, with a specific tasks and he instantly hyperfocuses on it. (See also hyperfocus when he's asked to first access the colony computer & find them).
* The way he seems to have no concept or respect for hieracy and (mostly) seems to see everyone as an equal, both being able to relate to non-marines and the kid Newt, but also getting into trouble for not respecting Marine rank.
* The way he has more trouble than any of the others in processing emotions - often having an extreme, inappropriate reaction and then quickly calming down. And the way this is mostly outside of an immediate crisis; when the adrenaline is flowing he's more focused on the immediate crisis.
* His general challenges in reading an emotional situation, especially with not recognising when his usual method of relating to his squad mates (wise cracks, making fun of people) is not appropriate and going too far.
* And the way his squad mates let him know to knock it off without really getting angry or whatever. Showing an understanding of how his brain works.
I think its impressive because its so old, and I don't think we get many good, nuanced ADHD coded performances now. A lot is down to Bill Paxton's performance, but it must also have been written with it in mind.
That's not to say that I think it was written/performed so Hudson is *supposed* to be ADHD necessarily. But the character is at least very likely to be based on a real person or people who were ADHD, whether they, or the writers, or Bill Paxton knew it. So even if it isn't intentional I still think it counts.
Thanks for listening to my essay. Might go get some sunshine now.