extremely costly

Jay Gatsby spoils Nick Carraway, a lot. Always takes him out for really expensive dates and buys him stuff that is extremely pricey. 

And Nick is totally flattered by it, but at the same time he feels bad because he doesn’t want Jay spending all of this on him and besides, he can’t pay him back. Nick is by no means poor, but he definitely has less fortune than his boyfriend, and he certainly can’t afford the same stuff that Gatsby can.

Sure, Gatsby can afford everything just fine without having to be paid back but that fact doesn’t really ease Nick’s guilt.

So one day after Gatsby does or gets something extremely extravagant and costly for Nick, Nick just freaks out like, “I love you and I love this but at the same time just please actually buy me something that’s cheap because I feel so so awful about being unable to ever pay you back for this stuff!” And then Gatsby just smiles and asks Nick, “Doesn’t this make you happy, though?” and Nick is all like “yes, but-” and then Gatsby says, “in that case, old sport, you’ve already repaid me, because your happiness is the best gift I could ask for.”

(Nick then rolls his eyes and calls Gatsby the most corny man he’s ever met, but he also doesn’t let prices bother him too much after that.)


so Civil War has just been put on Netflix (yay) and I’ve just realised, when Tony is explaining B.A.R.F he says. 

“An extremely costly method of hijacking the Hippocampus, to clear traumatic memories” 


Do you realise that Tony might just possibly have the key of removing the trigger words and memories that Hydra put in Bucky’s mind? What if T’challa and co can’t figure out how to help Bucky and they (somehow) come across B.A.R.F and Steve realises that he needs Tony more than Tony needs Steve!  Steve’s last words in his end monologue. 

“I promise you, if you need us, if you need me, I’ll be there.”


“Oh yeah I have a thing for that, it’s called B.A.R.F” 



Originally posted by alaskadiangelo


Originally posted by ultimatedragonlord


Cutting Science Funding Today Costs Us More Overall

“How much money will we save by cutting funding to the EPA? To NASA Earth Science? To the National Institutes for Health? Take all those numbers for all those organizations that the proposed federal budget would slash and add them up. Now, do the math on the other side. What’s the cost of environmental pollution? Of unclean, unsafe water? Of air that puts us at risk of health problems like asthma, lung disease and COPD? Of a loss of Earth monitoring for extreme weather, climate change, sea level rise, droughts, and natural disasters? Of the cessation of medical research, working to fight preventable diseases, and working to cure some of society’s greatest afflictions such as cancer, heart disease, alzheimers and more?”

The President of the United States just released his proposed budget for the next fiscal year, and there are some big losers in the scientific world. The EPA, the NIH, NASA Earth Science and many other organizations that exist for the benefit of America and all of humanity are poised to lose a significant amount of federal funding. This doesn’t simply affect the scientists who lose their jobs. If we take as a given that the projects that these organizations invest in are vital at some level, and that they will need to be accomplished at some point, we’re actually making it far more expensive in the long run. The loss of expertise, the cessation of production and the exodus of the team that would provide scientific continuity are all extremely costly, and will make all of these projects cost us more than they would have overall. We saw this lesson firsthand just a few years ago with James Webb. 

Are we really willing to throw away so much money and time now just to shave a tiny bit off the deficit for the short-term?

“We have the only health care system in the advanced world that is based overwhelmingly on virtually unregulated private health care, and that is extremely inefficient and very costly.”

Noam Chomsky

Disney Streaming Service Details and Name Revealed : Disney Play

In a world awash in streaming video, Disney no longer needs to rely on Comcast and DirecTV and a host of international distributors to deliver its TV shows and (post-theatrical) movies. Netflix eliminated middleman distributors, slashed the monthly price (compared with cable) for a robust content package and made all of its content available 24/7 in a commercial-free, on-demand format.

But as with any historic shift, change won’t come easily — or cheaply. To build their own platforms, Disney, AT&T and others will have to invest billions of dollars in high-end content while at the same time forgoing much if not all of the traditional licensing revenue that they would have commanded by selling rights to third-party networks and distributors.

Moreover, the emphasis on launching attractive DTC alternatives will likely hasten the pace of cord cutting. That will only put more pressure on the billions of dollars the congloms take in annually in carriage fees from cable operators for channels that may no longer be first in line for the hottest properties coming from their parent studios.

In short, the evolution of the DTC marketplace for content will be costly, messy and risky. For starters, Disney will say goodbye to about $300 million in annual revenue it currently gets from Netflix for pay-TV rights to its theatrical releases, starting with its 2019 movie slate. Those movies — including “Captain Marvel,” “Dumbo,” “Toy Story 4,” “The Lion King,” “Frozen 2” and a new “Star Wars” installment — will now be key selling points for the new service Iger has referred to as “Disney Play.”

Also headed to Disney Play are series inspired by some of Disney’s biggest IPs, including new TV series based on Disney-Pixar’s Monsters, Inc., tween favorite High School Musical, and an all-new Marvel series

Disney intends to adhere to quality over quantity with Disney Play so as to not compete with Netflix’s ever-expanding offerings of original movies and television shows. The company will also avoid pulling Disney-owned and Fox-owned content from existing streaming video on demand and international licensing deals because such a move would be “logistically difficult and extremely costly.”

Famous “Dung Chair” in the Vatican Museums, the original use of which has been much debated by scholars.
It was probably used as a toilet in antiquity by members of the Roman imperial family or by the emperors themselves, since by law nobody but members of the imperial household were permitted to own or buy porphyry objects. Porphyry was an extremely costly material, chosen for its extreme hardness and similarity in color to the famed Tyrian purple dye, which was also exclusively used by the imperial house. All imperial porphyry was imported from a single quarry in Egypt.
This chair, along with a similar one, was used by the popes as the throne during the ceremony of taking possession of the cattedra (throne) in the Basilica of St. John Lateran.
The chair was popularly associated with the legendary female Pope Joan who would reign in the year 853/855. Legend has it that, to avoid a repeat of the election of a woman, each new pope was subjected to a thorough examination while sitting on this chair to make sure it was not a woman disguised.

This gets into pretty tricky counterfactual territory pretty quickly, but from a pure cost-effectiveness perspective, I’d doubt that there’s any way at all to justify putting as much resources as we do into stopping terrorism, seeing as that money could almost certainly be far more effectively spent in saving lives in other ways. But terrorism isn’t really about costs and benefits as much as it psychological warfare. 

I remember talking with a guy who worked in national security when I was in DC, and I asked him why we don’t see more terrorism like the Chilean grape scare, when someone allegedly (later research puts doubt on whether it actually happened or not) put cyanide in two grapes at the top (so that they would be easily found when testing was done) of a crate of grapes being exported from Chile to the United States, and then called into US embassy telling them Chilean grapes had been poisoned. No other poisoned grapes were found, but the FDA shut off the import of grapes from Chile for a while as a result of it, allegedly causing over $200 million in damage to the Chilean economy. For about $0.12 worth of cyanide, someone was able to damage the Chilean economy to the tone of $200,000,000, meaning that if the scare had been called in as a form of economic terrorism, it would be the most cost-effective terrorist attack in human history.

His answer was so simple I hadn’t thought of it: terrorists don’t care about the actual value of the damage they do, in lives or dollars. Al Qaeda never had anyone sitting around with calculators and Excel spreadsheets. What they care about is just creating an environment of fear and psychological anxiety over an entire region or nation, something extremely costly in a way that can’t be properly measured. The point of a terrorist attack isn’t the lives lost, it’s the anger and the fear of losing life that the attack generates after the fact.

Kara Eaker Beam D-Score Breakdown

If her D-Score was fully credited:

Switch Split Leap Mount (D) + Split Ring Leap (D) 0.2

Y Turn ©

Front Aerial (D) + Split Ring Jump (D) + BHS (B) 0.4

Side Aerial (D) + LOSO © + LOSO © 0.4

Split Leap (B) + Side Somi (D) 0.1

Switch Ring (E) + Korbut (B) 0.1

Switch Split Leap © + Johnson © 0.1

Round off (B) + BHS (B) + 2.5 Twist (D) 0.1

E, D, D, D, D, D, D, D = 3.3

CV = 1.4

CR = 2.0


What her D-Score was originally credited as:

Switch Split Leap Mount (D) + Split Ring Leap (D) 0.2

Y Turn ©

Front Aerial (D) + Split Ring Jump (D) + BHS (B) 0.4

Side Aerial (D) + LOSO © + LOSO © 0.4

Split Leap (B) + Side Somi (D) 0.1

Switch Split Leap ©

Korbut (B)

Switch Split Leap (Repeat, No Value) + Johnson ©

Round-off (B) + BHS (B) + 2.5 Twist (D) 0.1

D, D, D, D, D, D, D, C = 3.1

CV = 1.2

CR= 1.5 (No Leap Series)


What her D-Score was credited as after the inquiry:

Switch Split Leap Mount (D) + Split Leap (B)

Y Turn ©

Front Aerial (D) + Split Ring Jump (D) + BHS (B) 0.4

Side Aerial (D) + LOSO © + LOSO © 0.4

Split Leap (Repeat, No Value) + Side Somi (D)

Switch Split Leap ©

Korbut (B)

Switch Split Leap (Repeat, No Value) + Johnson ©

Round-off (B) + BHS (B) + 2.5 Twist (D) 0.1

D, D, D, D, D, D, C, C = 3.0

CV = 0.9

CR = 1.5 (No Leap Series)


Basically in real time the judges didn’t credit the Switch Ring + Korbut. It didn’t get 0.1 CV cause it clearly wasn’t connected but that’s not a big deal. The Switch Ring (E) got devalued to a Switch Split Leap © which is extremely costly, since it invalidated her leap series. The Switch Split Leap + Johnson didn’t count as a leap series since the first element was repeated, so she lost 0.5 in CR + 0.1 in CV. She lost 0.9 in difficulty rightfully since the switch ring position was bad even in real time. This routine composition is TERRIBLE. If the Switch Ring was done AFTER the Switch Split Leap + Johnson, she would only lose 0.2 in d-score from counting a C skill instead of an E skill. But since she does the Switch Ring BEFORE, she loses an entire composition requirement (leap series) + the 0.1 CV for the series. USA’s inquiry led to another look at her entire routine and the judges downgraded the Split Ring Leap (D) to a Split Leap (B) as well. She lost 0.4 from losing 0.2 in the element downgrade and 0.2 in CV from the mount series & the Split Leap (now a repeated element) + Side Somi. If Kara’s routine construction was better (aka the leap series before the switch ring) and team USA wasn’t dumb enough to inquire over 2-3 tenths (aka get the split ring leap invalidated as well), she could have had a 6.4 d-score and scored 14.466 (6.4, 8.066) instead of 13.466 (5.4, 8.066).

  • me: I was wondering if we could explore my pain management options again, I can no longer bear the high pain levels I've been experiencing on a daily basis
  • doc: like what, lol
  • me: I don't know that is where you come in???
  • doc: well you could do this extremely costly procedure that you can't afford and has a small probability of helping you or I could refer you to another physical therapist
  • me: greeeeat.
Re; the lawsuit

I in no way know what’s going on, but this sounds like a situation of Robbing Peter to Pay Paul. As in, Tobias was spending money he really didn’t have to get the band where he wanted it to go. It’s expensive to haul equipment and go on tours and produce merch and create albums.

I’m working under the assumption that he did not pay them, which I cannot accurately decide because I’m not privy to what is going on.

I find it worth noting that Martin Persner is NOT part of this suit, which sounds like to me that the suing party is comprised of Priest.

In 2012 where was Ghost? They had one album out, pushing themselves to get out there to get as much attention as possible. Tobias probably really couldn’t afford those expenses but he made them anyway so that the band COULD afford those expenses later - as in so that the band could be exposed to more and more people quickly, and quickly garner revenue to recoup those costs and create surplus so that then the band could afford to go on more tours and create more merch and afford all the travel expenses that go into being in a band.

Being a touring band isn’t profitable. There’s no real money in it unless you’re what I like to term a “Legacy” band - Slayer, Metallica, etc. the BIG names in Metal. A lot of bands have to self finance to afford to tour and get attention, but it’s extremely costly for a band to do that, and it can lead to break ups (look to Newsted for a further example) - the money is in merch and song writing. That’s it. CDs don’t sell, vinyl records don’t sell - people mostly do digital downloads which means the profits go 20 different ways and the band gets pennies on the dollar.

I don’t know how much Ghost makes. The band is probably in a more profitable position NOW than they were in 2012, with 3 albums under their belt instead of 1, Grammis and Grammys to their name. But it’s still expensive to be a touring act and they are only getting bigger, which means more costs.

I KNOW from my own personal experience with a small, regional touring band that you’d be lucky to make $100 after a gig in the 90’s.

I can only imagine that it’s not much of a difference now, where bands have to brand themselves and make as much profit as they can to make a decent living. For instance, each member of Slayer makes about the same much as my dad does, and he works as a forensic scientist making around $75K a year. One of the biggest metal acts in existence makes $75K A YEAR. That’s not a lot.

All I’m saying is, I’m trying to understand the much larger context of this situation, and I don’t think this is in any way Tobias’ fault. It’s a fault of the monster that is the music business.

I saw Caissie’s latest IG story and tweets from yesterday. The ones regarding the person who filmed the entire show in a very obvious manner and nearly broke her concentration. Upon reading some of the comments on her tweet, I’ve decided to offer my two cents.

Don’t film shows. Not on your phone, not on your camera, and definitely not on your iPad. I know it might seem tempting. I know you might think you’re doing other people a favour by recording a bootleg to post online for all the poor people who can’t afford tickets. I know you might want a way to preserve the show forever. But it’s distracting, not just to the performers but also to the people around you. And I say this as a poor person who can’t afford to see the show, and has now missed the opportunity to see most of the original cast.

Broadway shows should absolutely be doing something to make things less elitist, I get that. But individuals going in to film the shows on their phones aren’t doing anything to convince the show management to create their own filmed productions. Put pressure on these organizations, sure, but bootlegs aren’t how you are going to do that. Bootlegs are shitty quality to begin with, they’re acquired in an illegal and frankly rude fashion, and they are almost always taken down from youtube the moment they are detected. I get that they are often the only way some people might be able to see a show they really want to see, but if there isn’t a large enough demand on the shows themselves to provide filmed versions, and instead that demand gets spread out to all these various bootleggers, then the shows are never going to take the time to actually film their productions. And that alone is a complicated issue, as a lot of Broadway shows are designed to make use of the theatre itself, making a filmed version extremely difficult and often costly to do. If people aren’t going to be willing to pay money even for that, then they won’t see any reason to bother at all.

But more importantly, to the people telling Caissie to suck it up because she’s an actor and that being filmed is part of her job: shut the fuck up. She’s a Broadway actor, where it is typically assumed that you will not be filmed during a show. Sometimes the knowledge that you are being filmed, especially by someone you’ve never met and you have no idea what they’re going to do with the footage, can throw you off. It can be distracting. She’s been filmed doing stuff from Frozen before, but during productions where she knew beforehand that she was going to be filmed and could mentally prepare for that. Most shows aren’t meant to be recorded, so normally that shouldn’t even be a concern for her. On top of that, when you make it obvious that you’re filming it becomes an even bigger distraction. Suddenly that camera is the only thing you’re looking for. Cameras have a way of just standing out, and if you’re not prepared for them then they can really be distracting.

Finally: you’re going to bitch and complain about paying so much for an orchestra seat yet you’ll spend the whole time watching the show through your screen instead of actually experiencing it? Seriously? Good for you, I hope you enjoyed the show. And I hope you’ll enjoy the shitty, grainy, shaky recording of it with the poor audio quality and the blown out bits from the scenes with harsh lighting. Because you won’t remember too much from the actual show, and you’ll only have that shitty recording as proof you paid that much for your ticket. Oh, and the people behind you, and the people on either side of you, probably wanted to kill you the entire show. Ditto for any of the actors who noticed you from the stage. Or anyone in the balcony seats who could have also seen your screen. So not only did you ruin your experience, but also a bunch of other people who may have scraped and saved as much as they could for their own tickets. You aren’t doing anyone a favour for recording a Broadway show. You’re just being disrespectful to a whole theatre full of people.