unicorn

Thanks. I did a search on OF, but separated his name, entering the search as "Kurts Adams," instead of one word, as he appears to be listed. Not that I'll subscribe, but I was curious as to whether or not he had bowed out in order to pursue formal Olympic training. I would think that a more discreet and socially accepted way of leveraging his looks for financial gain would be to advertise on Seeking Arrangements, if they're still around. I presume they also hook people up whose genders are different, serving both straight and gay, depending on his sexual orientation. I agree that £16,000/year is barely helpful to help him sustain himself, and that he has to have some other source of support.

With all of those statements, when they were said and in what context is what matters. The violence was pretty much limited to Sunday, and during the daylight hours, not at night (though I realize that in Russia, daylight is present for almost 24 hours in June, but not in LA, when the violence was quelled by around 7 PM). And, of course, carrying a flag is never illegal in the US, though of course that doesn't extend to vandalism and/or violence. Try to carry a rainbow flag in Russia, though, or even wear a small one on your shirt, and see what happens.

Yes, hopefully he can get some sponsors instead. It sounds as if he doesn't have family, so £16,000 can't cut it regardless of the city. The choice is not as clear-cut as it sounds. After all, he's not on the team yet. So far he's only been given the opportunity to train for the Olympics--he'll have to try out for the team in 2 to 3 years. Absent a corporate sponsor, I'm sure he could find a nice older man to take care of him, without his having to bare himself to the public. Just a possibility. I did try to find him on OnlyFans, and couldn't, so maybe he's found another solution? Was I really the only man here who tried to find him on OF? 😉

22 year-old British canoeist Kurts Adams Rozentals appears to have been given a stark choice between being on the UK team and continuing his OnlyFans career. But he seems to be unable to fund his paddling vocation without OnlyFans. Which would you choose? Would you give up your Olympic dream? Of course, what he was doing on OnlyFans isn't illegal, and could actually lead to more interest in watching the sport? https://www.pride.com/olympic-hopeful-kurts-adams-rozentala#rebelltitem2 Rozentals has now publicly addressed the controversy, telling BBC Sport, “I’ve been posting videos that are consciously made to be edgy in order to drive conversions to my ‘spicy content page’ to fund this ultimate dream of going to the Olympics.” He said the £16,000 ($21,552) annual grant he received from Paddle UK “is certainly not” enough to cover rent, travel, and living costs for a full‑time athlete based in London. Rozentals estimates he has earned more than £100,000 ($134,704) in under six months on OnlyFans, where he posts uncensored footage and self‑promotional clips on Instagram to steer followers toward the platform. “I did whatever it took to never be in that position,” he told Sky News. “Was it unconventional? Sure. But to ban me from racing… that’s f**king insane.”

Downtown Los Angeles was blocked off yesterday due to violent protests of Trump's immigration actions. Waymo vehicles were especially targeted, for reasons not clear to me (perhaps because they're driverless, so nobody gets hurt?).

https://www.cyber.gc.ca/en/guidance/security-considerations-qr-codes-itsap00141 Are QR codes risky? QR codes can contain personal information. They can also execute an action, such as opening a fillable PDF or online form, that prompts you to enter personal information. Once this information has been entered, scanning the QR code will display the stored information on your device. Some online forms also create a QR code once completed. By scanning a QR code, you could be susceptible to the following risks: Tracking of your online activity by websites using cookies, meaning your data can be collected and used for marketing purposes without your consent Collecting metadata associated to you, such as the type of device you used to scan the code, your IP address, location and the information you enter while on the site Exposing financial data, such as your credit card number, if you used it to purchase goods or services on the website The actions the QR code performs can also pose risks, such as allowing threat actors to leverage QR codes to infect devices with malware , steal personal information, or conduct phishing scams.

QR codes can introduce malware into your phone. They provide minimal savings for restauranteurs. Unless I have no other restaurant choices, I see no need to take on a risk for the minor convenience the business enjoys. I see no reason to help someone spy on me.

Not the first time I've seen his stubbornness.

I think you mail have hit the hammer on the nail. Interestingly, they seem to understand (apparently) that their demographic wants to hear '70s and '80s music (see prior post about my wondering why no more recent music at the evening entertainment), but don't seem to understand the demographic when it comes to their surveys. Or maybe they really aren't interested in hearing their guests' opinions.

Interesting. I looked at their reviews and, indeed, close to half of the reviews seem to be written by 1-time reviewers. That being said, there are quite a few 5-star reviews from established reviewers. But there can be little doubt but that the hotel writes its own reviews much of the time.

I use Tripadvisor to my benefit, but I know to ignore all postings made by those with fewer than 10 prior posts, and pay most attention to those posts made by posters with at least a few dozen reviews. I will tend to avoid hotels, restaurants, etc., which clearly add a lot of fake positive reviews to dilute the negative ones. One problem with TripAdvisor is that they don't weight reviews by experienced posters more heavily. Unfortunately, one can't just go by numbers of stars. One has to go through a few pages in order to determine if that business has mostly genuine reviews, or if they load up with BS reviews.

We recently took a cruise with a cruise line we haven't cruised with before, Regent Seven Seas, a line which caters to older passengers. In the past, we've mostly cruised with Celebrity Cruises (which also caters to an older crowd), and Royal Caribbean. On the other two lines, we're invited to fill out surveys online, via e-mail. I was surprised on RSS, however, when I found out that the only way to complete their survey was to scan a QR code, which was available at the Guests' Services desk or in the Library, and complete the survey on one's phone. This did not seem appealing to me. In fact, at the final evening entertainment, the cruise director announced that only 80 of the ship's 750 passengers had completed the survey, and asked others to participate. In asking, I verified that scanning the QR code and doing the survey on the phone was the only way to complete the survey--and it had to be done prior to disembarking. That seemed to me to be a way of discouraging passengers from filling the survey--and to get only brief responses. This seemed especially true given the cruise line's demographic: mostly baby boomers and older. I was one of the younger passengers, probably in the lower 10%, and my hubby definitely in the lower 5%. So was I just being an old fuddy-duddy myself, or did it seem the cruise line didn't want to hear what the passengers had to say? Although my experience was mostly positive, I did have a couple of potentially helpful suggestions. I suppose I could do it the old-fashioned way and write a letter? I don't have the energy to do a YouTube blog like a younger generation might.

I sometimes fly Alaska Airlines, although I do it the other way around: as a code-share American Airlines passenger. My husband and I generally fly them when we go to Puerto Vallarta, which is almost annually, and when we've gone to Alaska or otherwise up the coast (once to Seattle, once to Victoria BC, or from Burbank to Oakland). I have to give it to them: they often upgrade us based on our OneWorld status, over their own customers with lower status. They're a good airline, but with a caveat: their best seats are domestic first-class seats, which are comfortable for up to 6 hours. There's nothing to compare with AA's business class, much less Flagship First class. It's an interesting strategy to join Alaska's club, but never fly their aircraft, only codeshare. I'm surprised OneWorld lets them get away with what they do--both allow full credit for flying other airlines, then allow them an apparent generous ability to fly other airlines with miles. Generally, when I fly code-share on other airlines' aircraft, there's a bit of a premium to pay. I haven't researched that the other way around (i.e. if I were to fly on American flights via the Alaska website). I do get some benefits from sticking with AA. For one, I'm now a Million Miler™ with them, which means lifetime gold, and hope to make Two Million Miler™, or lifetime Platinum with them with the next several years. Also, they give Systemwide Upgrades, which recently got me upgraded from London to LAX from Flagship Business to Flagship First on a 777, which was extraordinarily luxurious. At the Flagship First lounge, I had venison loin for lunch (how they got venison in early June is mysterious to me) with a Moet-Chandon kir royale, then for dinner on the plane a lobster salad followed by monkfish main dish, which is very expensive and difficult to find in the US. Alaska's network is definitely more limited: I can definitely understand joining Alaska's program, but hardly ever flying with them. If One World cracks down on them, however, one will end up with a lot of loyalty to an airline with limited options itself. That would always make me nervous.

Interesting. I guess I'm the exception rather than the rule in that my favorite artists these days are Sabrina Carpenter, Lizzo, Chappell Roan, Dua Lipa, and the like. And I suppose that explains why these cruises never have any music from the 21st Century...

You hit the hammer on the nail. This is why it's important to try to seek the actual science and facts of the matter. Just because someone in a position of power says something, doesn't mean it's true. This is especially true of matters which we firmly wish were true (such as a heavenly afterlife, immigrants are the cause of one's strife, I don't want to get a shot, and so on). If you firmly want to believe something, you can always find a charismatic leader to convince you that you're right, even though the truth is more difficult to accept. Trump is the ultimate master of deceit. He's especially convincing with the feeble-minded, and tells the most bold-faced lies with complete sincerity. Blame your economic woes or missing pet on foreigners. Come up with "easy fixes" (which will only make matters worse). You don't even need to take your shots. Shots are bad for you. Who wants to believe hard truths? Similarly, it's much easier to say "Get this simple blood test. It'll protect you from prostate cancer." Believe me, it's much faster, easier, and financially rewarding to say that, instead of taking the time to try to educate patients that the issue is far more complex than this. And when the results come out positive (because it will if you keep checking), it's easier to say "Eeek! Get it taken out!" rather than point out that in most cases (especially Gleason scores of 7), it's probably wise to see if the cancer regresses, rather than take aggressive action. And if action is taken, it's more financially rewarding to tell the patient the half-truth that if you get radiation, then you won't be able to have surgery later--but failing to mention that in localized cases radiation failure is virtually unheard-of. People want to believe we know what we're doing with PSA screening, so they'll believe the slick talkers, as well as the testimonials of the many men who (usually falsely) believe their lives were saved by PSA screening. Again, so many will believe what they want to believe, rather than what the experts and the science tell us. Getting people to face unfortunate truths is usually an uphill battle.

We're halfway through a 2-week cruise, on a voyage where most of the guests are in their 70s and 80s (neither of us is). The evening entertainment consists mainly of shows containing music of the 70s and 80s, when most of the guests would have been in their youths. There doesn't seem to be any music from the last 30 years. Well, I'm in my early 60s, yet I usually listen to more contemporary music. Yes, sometimes I listen to music from my youth, but less often. I don't necessarily listen to every latest song, but I prefer listening to more current singers. Obviously, the cruise line tries to cater to its target passenger, but is it really the case that older people aren't interested in what's currently playing? Am I unusual in having interests in recent hits, in addition to older music? I have an old (well, very old) friend who was born in 1919 (as of last December, at least, she was still alive). She lives on the opposite coast, and when we got together we would enjoy going to jazz clubs together. It wasn't until my husband and I met her that we mused "Well, I guess that's the music which was popular in her youth!". Do you older men mostly enjoy the music from when you were young, or do you more often listen to the latest hits?