'Pet Psychic' Has Incontrovertible Proof Dead Pets Are Watching You From Beyond The Grave
Get ready to become a believer.
There is no better scam going than "pet psychic." It's so much better, even, than being a real psychic because A) Who is gonna tell you you're wrong? The cat? The cat can't talk, and B) The kind of people who would hire a freaking "pet psychic" are going to believe you no matter what you say. You don't even have to become an expert in doing cold readings, because there's practically no way you can go wrong. Unless, you have ethics of some kind. I would be a terrible pet psychic for that reason, but a very good one otherwise because I would get very creative. All your pets would have incredibly rich inner lives along with hobbies, interests, and well-thought out opinions on human events.
So there are a lot of pet psychics on TikTok who tell stories about the discussions they have had with people's pets, both alive and dead. It's a perfect venue to advertise these services because not only is the pet unable to refute you, there's no one to say you didn't talk to them in the first place. Any of us could make an account and start making videos about the conversations we've had with entirely non-existent labradors. Also, all the pet psychics say the same two things — Your Pets Pick YOU! (But You Already Knew That!) and that all of your dead pets are watching you. I very much hope this isn't true because I still have nightmares about a cannibalism incident involving the pet gerbils my sister and I had as kids and I don't want their evil little spirits anywhere near me.
I came across an article today on a site called One Green Planet titled "Pet Psychic Shares Proof That Deceased Animals Can Still See Their Humans" and I clicked on it immediately. Why? Because I am very open-minded and if there is indeed "proof" of this sort of thing, then I am certainly willing to consider it.
Now, I'm gonna warn you — this is a little hard to watch. Not because of the content so much as because the audio is so incredibly out of sync with the video.
@nikkivasconez If you learn one thing from me, make it this 🙏🏻 #petpsychic #animalcommunicator #petlosssupport #catmommalife
The gist of former property lawyer and current pet psychic Nikki Vasconez's story is that one time she was having a talk with someone's cat, and then later she found out that the cat was dead.
If you’re missing a pet in heaven I wanna share a story with you that’s going to show you that your angel is still with you, they see you, they hear you and this is how I know for sure.
Two and a half years ago I learned that animal communication is possible, that humans can telepathically talk to animals. This isn’t something I always knew humans could do. I started practicing and I did a session with this girl’s cat, and after the session, every time the mom was talking about her cat she kept saying “my kitty used to do,” “my kitty loved that,” everything was in the past tense.
And I said “Hey! Why is everything in the past tense?” And she said “Oh, kitty died in March!”
And then the cat untied the green ribbon from around her neck and Haley Joel Osment over here suddenly realizes that Mrs. Snickerdoodles was dead the whole time.
“What? When I connected with this cat and she told me very specific details about her human’s life right now, the cat died four months ago. I never would have tried connecting with this cat if I knew she had already passed, so I’m thankful it happened the way it did.
Well, if that entirely, unconfirmed story being told by a random lady on Tiktok (who also claims that your pets choose how they are going to die based on what life lessons they think you need to learn) is not proof of life after death for pets, I do not know what is. That being said, I would have to imagine that pets would probably not like having to sit up there in heaven (do all dogs go to heaven?) staring at us all day. Wouldn't that be boring for them? I don't see my parents' West Highland terrier sitting still for that long, and I would certainly hope that my deceased cat, Mr. Catface, would be involved in more intellectual pursuits.
I guess if people want to believe that kind of thing, it's fine — whatever gets them through the day — though I do hope they're not paying very much for it.
Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!
Oh Christ, Now Elon Musk Wants To Charge Businesses $1000 A Month For Fancy Gold Checkmarks
It's just pathetic.
On Friday, the news broke that Twitter is being sued by Innisfree, which is not in fact the company that makes Cherry Blossom Dewy Glow Jelly Cream (my preferred springtime moisturizer), but rather an advisory company the site owes a ton of money to. Innisfree M&A Incorporated advised the social media site last May while it was negotiating the sale to Musk for $44 billion.
“As of December 23, 2022, Twitter remains in default of its obligations to Innisfree under the agreement in an amount of not less than $1,902,788.03,” the lawsuit says.
Now, $2 million is pocket change to Musk, personally, but this is far from the only company suing Twitter for unpaid bills. Musk has generally avoided paying the site's bills. Vendors have gone unpaid, rent has gone unpaid, and the severance to former Twitter executives and other employees has gone unpaid. And still, by his own estimation the site is hemorrhaging $4 million a day.
It's not going well!
By what we must assume is sheer coincidence, Musk has started back on his checkmark bullshit.
On Twitter, social media consultant Matt Navarra shared a screenshot of an email from Twitter product manager Evan Jones to an unknown business, in which the business is advised that a special gold checkmark — the checkmark that Twitter invented for businesses and media outlets — will soon cost $1000 a month.
Thanks for your interest in Verified Organizations. We're now opening the gates forearly access to our Organization plan.
As an early access subscriber, you'll get a gold checkmark for your organization and affiliation badges for its associates. Next week, we'll onboard you to our administration portal and you'll be eligible for Tweet Boosting, which will increase the reach and distribution for your organization and its affiliates whenever you tweet.
If you'd like to subscribe, Verified for Organizations is $1,000 per month, and $50 per additional affiliated handle per month with one month of free affiliations.
Let me know if you're interested and I can get you set up with a payment link.
Yeah ... that's not a thing a whole lot of businesses or media outlets are going to pay for, particularly with the way Musk is dutifully turning the site into a trash fire.
Also on Friday, Musk announced in a tweet that "[s]tarting today, Twitter will share ad revenue with creators for ads that appear in their reply threads," but that "[t]o be eligible, the account must be a subscriber to Twitter Blue Verified."
In response to a comment asking if accounts that are currently verified the normal way will lose their verified status if they subscribe to Twitter blue and then unsubscribe, Musk responded that "Twitter’s legacy Blue Verified is unfortunately deeply corrupted, so will sunset in a few months." Musk has yet to offer any proof that there was any actual "corruption" happening with regard to accounts that were verified prior to his Twitter Blue nonsense.
First of all, as someone with intimate knowledge of what advertisers pay for ad on online media these days, it's probably not going to even cover the $8 a month these suckers are spending on Twitter Blue.
But let's reason this whole thing out. Musk is going to take verified marks away from actual celebrities, journalists and others who met their previously set notability guidelines who don't want to cough up $8 — or look like the kind of suckers who would. Then he is going to take away checkmarks from businesses unless those businesses pay $1000 a month for a checkmark. Then he is going to try to sell ads with the appeal being that businesses will have their advertisements featured under the tweets of people who pay $8 a month to have a blue checkmark and are not in fact celebrities or notable in any way.
He also expects people to continue paying for a status symbol after it is no longer a status symbol. It's like ... people who are just looking for a status symbol aren't going to go out and pay retail for higher end Michael Kors products because Marshall's and TJ Maxx are full of the lower-end Michael Kors products. No one is going to look at someone wearing something with a Michael Kors label or a Calvin Klein label and assume that they have money, whereas that might have been the case many years ago.
So far, Twitter Blue doesn't seem to have been as popular as Musk had hoped. In fact, nearly all of the accounts I clocked smugly tweeting about how THEY are the celebrities now when Twitter Blue just launched no longer have their bought and paid for blue ticks. Clearly it was not as quite as exciting as they had hoped it would be, probably because no one actually did assume they were celebrities and treat them accordingly. This will be even less likely to happen once he takes the blue checkmarks away from all of the actual celebrities.
This is part and parcel of the Right's culture war. One of their biggest issues and pet peeves has always been the fact that movie stars, musical artists and other people with that kind of celebrity influence tend to skew liberal. What Musk wants is to replace actual celebrities with people who will pay him $8 a month and, more than that, he wants people to go along with him. He wants advertisers to go along with him. He wants advertisers to shell out piles of money to be featured under CryptoBro423792379's latest tweet. He wants people to look at those who pay $8 a month the way they look at movie stars or pop stars. Or credible journalists.
But that's probably not going to happen, because as all of his nonsense so far has proven, you can't just replace people who are actually interesting to others with Folger's Crystals and expect no one to notice. (Also something outlets hoping to replace writers with AI ought to consider)
OPEN THREAD!
Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons.
Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!
In Which The Dilbert Guy Gets Some Advice About Cars And Ladies
Is he planning his mid-life crisis?
Yesterday on Twitter, recently divorced Dilbert Guy Scott Adams asked "Ladies" — you know it's gonna be good when it starts off with ladies — "If a man is picking you up for a first date, what vehicle type do you most hope he pulls up in?" We can assume that he is crowdsourcing to find a car that will impress the ladies because he wants to date girls who are too young to know what his cartoon is.
For now, we will put aside the fact that only truly acceptable answer to that question is "That literally would not happen because I don't get in cars with people I am going on first dates with, because I don't want to be murdered and have my lifeless body thrown in the trunk of said car. Or trapped indefinitely with someone who is super boring," because the responses to this were hilarious.
Aside from a few women who were clearly of the right-wing persuasion who tried to be all "Yeah I like big manly trucks and SUVs" and "pick me" about things, nearly all of whom were subscribers to Twitter Blue (in fact, if you want to know where all the people paying $11 a month for an emoji are, they are all in Scott Adams' replies.)
I have an extension that labels all Twitter Blue subscribers "Sucker" and it is very satisfying, if you are wondering what that is about
There were a few "I don't care as long as it's clean?" and "Don't get into anyone's car or let them know where you live!" responses from women who were clearly very sincere and probably had no idea who Scott Adams even is.
The best responses were, however, from men who all told the same folktale their incredible plan to trick women into revealing that they are shallow, gold-digging whores who only want them for their money. Or something like that.
OK, so I had no idea what a Chevette is and had to Google image search it. Is this supposed to be a bad looking car? I don't normally drive and I really don't care about cars, but those cars are cute as shit. I would love a car that looks like that. In fact, that might be my dream car (especially with the wood paneling!) I know what a Bugatti is. It is a car for douchebags and people about to be sent to Romanian prisons on sex trafficking charges.
1976 Chevrolet Chevette Woody Two-Door Coupe | This rather r… | Flickrwww.flickr.com
This guy here was very worried that ladies would only like him for his bitchin' Camaro. Probably because they wanted him to buy them Motley Crüe t-shirts down by the shore. (Am I going too far with this?)
This guy has a "friend."
And that friend's name was ... George Santos. Or Abraham Lincoln. Or Albert Einstein. One of the three.
I don't know if this is quite the same bit but this guy's "friend" is absolutely a murderer.
Not only do I not believe that this has absolutely never happened outside of the imaginations of weird dudes on the internet, I think the entire idea that men can buy cars to attract women is something made up by men who are holding out hope that women care about their cars and want to hear them talk about their cars. Probably because they are not funny. I would assume they also like the idea of being able to say that the reason someone didn't like them was because that person was an evil slattern who was only after his gold, rather than that they were otherwise terrible or chewed with their mouth open or gave a weird speech about how they don't believe in tipping or refused to stop trying to explain calculus on cocktail napkins.
There is one trick, however, to being sure that no one is only dating you for your money or your car or for any other weird reason like that, and it is there actually being other reasons to date you. Like maybe you are nice and interesting and can hold a conversation. Alas, this is probably not in the cards for men who follow and seriously respond to Scott Adams on Twitter.
I'm not sure where else I can go with this, so here's some Dead Milkmen. Enjoy your OPEN THREAD!
Dead Milkmen Bitchin' Camaro Livewww.youtube.com
Do your Amazon shopping through this link, because reasons.
Wonkette is independent and fully funded by readers like you. Click below to tip us!
Bob Loblaw's Law Bot (Not) Coming To Supreme Court Near You!
Even a manically depressed law robot is better to talk to than nobody.
Move over, Elon, there's a new tech douche in town, and he's coming in hot!
Friends, meet Joshua Browder, the 26-year-old CEO of tech startup DoNotPay. Browder founded the company as a teenager, when his professed inability to operate a motor vehicle and comprehend street signage inspired him to write a chatbot to contest his numerous parking tickets.
“I couldn’t afford to pay these tickets as a young person, so I became a legal expert about all the reasons why people could get out of parking tickets," says the son of famed hedge fund manager Bill Browder, who earned hundreds of millions of dollars in Russia then went on to spearhead the Global Magnitsky Act after his accountant Sergei Magnitsky caught the Russian state looting businesses and died in prison.
Naturally Silicon Valley couldn't swipe right fast enough on a dork who can't drive, so here we are.
DoNotPay operates hundreds of bots which perform a wide variety of tasks for subscribers. Most of these jobs fall into the category of "menial, but annoying": Want to cancel a gym membership? Close a bank account? Change your mailing address? Cool!
There's also some more specialized stuff, if you want to marry an inmate in county jail, or if your kink is ratting out people who violate Disney's copyrights.
And if you're, say, a serial killer who wants to meet your victims on Tinder without getting tracked down, DoNotPay can help you defeat the hookup site's phone verification system.
But Browder doesn't stop there. The site bills itself as "The World's First Robot Lawyer," and its founder vows to "make the $200 billion legal profession free for consumers." He offers to generate powers of attorney, divorce settlements, and binding legal contracts for his subscribers. And indeed, there are plenty of people for whom a basic legal document consistent with the laws of their state will be perfectly fine using a form populated by one of Browder's bots. But if you are the kind of person who actually needs a prenuptial agreement, you should probably talk to a lawyer. And so should your future spouse, by the way.
Joshua Browder is not a lawyer, although he was a fellow at Peter Thiel's Drop Out for a Couple Years and Break Shit Factory (not actually the real name of the program, your Wonkette is paraphrasing). Nevertheless he's certain that "lawyers are charging hundreds of dollars an hour for copying and pasting a few documents," which he can replicate with a few hundred lines of code. And he's not just planning to copypasta up a couple of wills and small claims complaints. This nerd thinks he's all ready for the big time.
\u201cWe have upcoming cases in municipal (traffic) court next month. But the haters will say \u201ctraffic court is too simple for GPT.\u201d\n\nSo we are making this serious offer, contingent on us coming to a formal agreement and all rules being followed.\n\nPlease contact me if interested!\u201d— Joshua Browder (@Joshua Browder) 1673240279
"DoNotPay will pay any lawyer or person $1,000,000 with an upcoming case in front of the United States Supreme Court to wear AirPods and let our robot lawyer argue the case by repeating exactly what it says," he tweeted, adding that "We have upcoming cases in municipal (traffic) court next month. But the haters will say 'traffic court is too simple for GPT.' So we are making this serious offer, contingent on us coming to a formal agreement and all rules being followed. Please contact me if interested!"
Ummmm....
At first blush, there appear to be one or two minor problems with this plan. First, the Supreme Court has a strict no electronics policy, which it aggressively enforces. Second, you will get arrested if you try to broadcast from inside the chamber. Third, it's malpractice for any attorney to cede his practice to an AI bot. Fourth, this plan probably amounts to the unauthorized practice of law, which is a crime. Fifth, as Browder himself conceded to Politico, it's really hard to get the chat AI to tell the truth consistently, because it's a goddamn machine.
And, PS it's probably illegal for even a pro se litigant to accept money contingent on conducting a case according to the whims of a third party. (Yes, we know Peter Thiel paid Hulk Hogan's legal fees when he sued and killed Gawker. But that didn't give Thiel the right to draft the memos.)
As for the seriousness of the offer, note Browder's response when someone pointed out the most glaring of these defects to him.
\u201c@bitcoinbella_ Ah yes how could I forget about the AirPods Security Checkpoint\u201d— Joshua Browder (@Joshua Browder) 1673240279
"Ah yes how could I forget about the AirPods Security Checkpoint," he snarked. Later he told Gizmodo that he might take advantage of disability accommodations to get an earpiece into a courtroom without detection, while insisting that “We would never do anything against the rules." But he also bragged to Vice that he'd used a deepfake program to impersonate a customer's voice and negotiate with Wells Fargo Bank, so perhaps take this dude's understanding of "rules" — not to say laws against identity theft and impersonation — with a giant grain of salt.
In summary and in conclusion, JESUS H. CHRIST, these tech dipshits need to be stopped. And if you can't tell the difference between generating pothole complaints and arguing before the Supreme Court because "whatever, it's all law," you're going to wind up in fifteen different kinds of shit before your first IPO. But good luck, dude.
Click the widget to keep your Wonkette ad-free and feisty. And if you're ordering from Amazon, use this link, because reasons.
Dear Shitferbrains: How Can You Claim Racist Slurs Are Just As Bad As MURDERRRR?