Sensitive content

This media may contain sensitive content.

Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Zur Startseite

Desperate lady is a complete sucker for BBC 😈 She’ll take it anywhere. Full uncut video in bio 👉 #bbcflash #dickflash #cockflash #publicflash #uflash #bbcflashtv #luxuryflashtvhd #publicporn #cockshock #bbclover #milflover #jerkoff #masturbation #nsfwtwt

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

let’s start where this actually lives, not where you want it to live. with the math. the last three weeks of dynamite: 👉 765k 👉 730k 👉 654k that is not a ramp. that is not momentum. that is not “heating up” into a conversion window. that is a decline into it. you are looking at a -111k drop in two weeks, roughly 14–15% contraction from the high to the low, at the exact point where a traditional ppv cycle should be stabilizing or expanding. instead, you have compression. average those three weeks and you land at roughly ~716k linear viewers. that is your real, observable, measurable audience. not hypothetical reach not cumulative impressions not social engagement proxies actual people sitting down and watching the show in the time slot that matters for conversion. i’ve already laid out in detail what the max numbers actually represent and how simulcast behavior works, so i’m not going to re-litigate all of that here. but it matters enough to say again clearly: max is not a second audience at scale. it is a distribution extension that splits the same audience. it does not double your reach. it does not materially expand your funnel. it shifts a portion of existing behavior from one pipe to another. the short version is already established: 👉 max is not additive at scale 👉 max is a split of the same audience 👉 max realistically contributes ~50k–150k, ~75k center so your total reachable audience on a good night is: 👉 ~790k–800k all-in that’s the funnel. that’s the ceiling. that’s the number you are working from. that’s the universe that can possibly convert into a paid transaction. not hypothetical not inflated not “what if” that is the real audience number. now take the number dave is floating: 👉 ~143k ppv buys run the only equation that matters: 👉 143k ÷ 800k = ~17.9% conversion stop there for a second Dave Meltzer is unironically asserting that nearly 1 out of every 5 viewers is converting into a $40–$50 transaction in 2026 in a market with: – no centralized ppv infrastructure – subscription-first behavior – widespread piracy – fragmented pricing (domestic, max discount, vpn international) – a declining weekly audience trend that is the claim. not “strong performance.” not “better than expected.” not “up year over year.” the claim is nearly 1 in 5 viewers converting into a $40–$50 transaction in 2026. this is where the conversation should end, because that number does not exist anywhere in modern media behavior. it doesn’t exist in boxing. it doesn’t exist in ufc. it doesn’t exist in any scaled transactional model operating in the current environment. and more importantly, it didn’t exist consistently even when the infrastructure supporting it was intact. again, this is the part people either don’t understand or choose to ignore: ppv is not just a pricing model. it is an infrastructure model. and that infrastructure is gone. for decades, the backbone of ppv was inDemand. that system wasn’t just pushing content out to cable homes. it was aggregating buys, standardizing reporting, and creating a reconciliation layer that allowed promoters, distributors, and networks to operate off the same dataset. if you were serious about this business, you could triangulate numbers. you could get within a narrow band of reality because the pipes were real and the accounting was shared. that system shut down in 2025. 👉 143k ppv buys is not an aggressive take 👉 it is not an optimistic take 👉 it is a structurally impossible take because we know what real conversion looks like. we do not need to guess. it has been modeled across combat sports, boxing, ufc, and multiple transactional platforms. the ranges are stable: 👉 1–3% → normal 👉 3–5% → strong 👉 5%+ → elite and rare, reserved for events with massive cultural heat and crossover appeal those ranges were established when the infrastructure was intact, pricing was more controlled, piracy was less frictionless, and distribution was more centralized. today, every one of those conditions is worse. pricing is fragmented. you have $49.99 standard, $39.99 through max, international pricing accessible through vpn, and a piracy environment where high-quality streams are available instantly. that is a high-friction, high-leakage system. so conversion should compress, not expand. now apply real-world conversion to your real audience: 👉 800k × 2% = 16k buys 👉 800k × 3% = 24k buys 👉 800k × 5% = 40k buys that’s your range. 👉 ~15k–35k realistic 👉 ~20k–30k as the most defensible center 👉 ~40k reasonable given the strength of the headliners now invert the math, because this is where the claim completely collapses. if you want to justify 143k buys at even a healthy 3% conversion rate, you need roughly 4.7 million engaged viewers. so the question becomes extremely simple: where are the other four million people? 👉they are not on linear television. 👉they are not on max. 👉they are not showing up in any digital engagement metrics that correlate with that level of demand. 👉they are not visible anywhere in the ecosystem that would need to exist to support that level of conversion. 👉👉👉👉👉 they do not exist. and this is before you even account for the trend line moving the wrong way. you are not converting off a growing base. you are converting off a shrinking one. you are not building urgency. you are losing reach. that matters, because conversion does not happen in a vacuum. it happens on top of momentum, visibility, and audience expansion. when those inputs are declining, conversion does not spike to historic highs. it compresses further. the biggest fights in the world are no longer relying on ppv as their primary distribution model. they are moving to platforms that guarantee reach and revenue up front. the most recent example should end this conversation for anyone actually paying attention: netflix just locked tyson fury vs anthony joshua for a major global fight this august. that is one of the biggest possible matchups in boxing. in any previous era, that is a premium ppv event with massive buy expectations, heavy marketing, and a full transactional rollout. instead, it is going to a subscription platform. why? because the economics are better. the reach is global. the friction is lower. the platform values engagement at scale over one-off purchases. that is where the industry is. so when you are being asked to believe that a weekly wrestling property with a ~700k linear audience, declining into its ppv window, is somehow generating six-figure transactional buys inside a subscription platform in 2026, you are not just being asked to accept a number. dave is asking you to ignore the direction of the entire market. and that’s before you even bring in platform behavior. max is not a live sports-first platform. it does not behave like one. when max has something it cares about, it promotes it aggressively. homepage rails. push notifications. press releases. talent integration. cross-platform amplification. you do not see that here. and that absence is not accidental. platforms surface what they want you to see. they amplify what drives engagement and revenue. if ppv at scale were happening inside that ecosystem, it would be visible. it would be part of the narrative. it would be monetized loudly. it isn’t. and that’s before you even factor in the other variables i’ve broken down in detail before: 👉 i’ve already debunked why the max numbers people are throwing around don’t make sense 👉 i’ve already explained what the linear number actually represents and what it doesn’t 👉 i’ve already mapped the media rights landscape in 2026, including how these properties are being evaluated ahead of the paramount–wbd merger the wsj reports could close as early as july so when you’re being told by dave that a property with a ~700k weekly audience trending downward into a ppv window is generating six-figure transactional buys at premium pricing inside a subscription platform in 2026, you’re not being given data. you’re being given a number that does not reconcile with anything else in the system. that’s math. stop it - 45

Nick LoPiccolo

20,695 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

CBC's lo longer fact checking election statements. They are lazily attacking anything they view as an attack on Liberals and their decade of economic mismanagement. Watch the first video is from the massive Edmonton rally where he describes the difference in Canada between a decade ago and now: low inflation, declining taxes, balanced budget, crime rate had fallen 25%, rent was low, take home pay was up, And in video 2, CBC's 'fact check' attacks this cherry picked line "The New York Times had just declared that Canada had the richest middle class in the world." How is it wrong according to CBC's Jonathan Gatehouse? "It was in the context..." It is context independent Finally he cherry picks a 'median household net-worth' statistic that claims Canada is doing just fine Canada's middle class has shrunk but Gatehouse's excuse "it isn't limited to Canada" & "there is no way of measuring the middle class" So his fact check is "I GIVE UP BECAUSE I AM TOO LAZY TO FIND THE NUMBERS BUT I HAVE GIVEN THE IMPRESSION OF A FALSE STATEMENT" Then he muddles it with an NDP ban... finished with a Liberal pledge - complete clustershmuck! Now notice Gatehouse didn't contest any of Poilievre's other points: low inflation, declining taxes, balanced budget, falling crime rate, low rent, or rising take home pay. This is not a fact check but a CBC paid Liberal excuse for a decade of Liberal economic decline. These have been going on through the whole election campaign... they will get more and more desperate as polling numbers tighten Someone please complain to the Election Commissioner CBC News Brodie Fenlon

cbcwatcher

22,010 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

The Road to Recovery: Understanding Burnout Healing Timelines TLDR: It takes about 2 years of diligent work to recover from burnout... but you can absolutely make it take longer... The burnout recovery timeline nobody tells you about... After struggling with burnout for almost a decade, I've finally mapped the real recovery journey. It's longer than most people think, but understanding these timelines saved my sanity. Mild burnout can resolve in about 6 months with proper rest. My first burnout took 4 months of doing absolutely nothing but playing video games before I started feeling better. Severe burnout? That's a 2-year journey with the right interventions. Without them, it can become permanent - I learned this the hard way when I still wasn't better after 3 years of "trying to recover." CFS or complete collapse is a 3-5 year road, sometimes with permanent changes. Each system in your body recovers at its own pace: Your gut might take 2 weeks to clear pathogens, but 6 months to heal damage and 2 years for complete microbiome restoration. Your adrenals respond to adaptogens within weeks, but need 2 years for full reconditioning as your brain physically remodels and stress hormones normalize. Your nervous system takes 2-4 weeks for initial stabilization, 3-6 months for improved vagal tone, and 1-2 years to reprogram anxiety responses. Your mitochondria (energy factories) recover fastest - noticeable improvement in 2-4 weeks, and major function returned in 2-3 months with proper support. Your immune system takes 1-3 months to begin reducing inflammation, 6-12 months to calm brain inflammation, and 18-24 months for complete balance. The #1 recovery killer? Impatience. I kept my burnout going by always pushing through, exercising harder, working more. Your body knows how to heal - you just need to create the right conditions and give it time.

David Shapiro (L/0)

18,832 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Many people in Zim-dancehall do not want to hear this, but it is a local genre that will not go anywhere unless the artist is extremely talented, like Stonebwoy. This Jamaican aunty in the video is an example of why certain genres of music only make sense when performed by people from where they originated. Picture this aunty at Murambinda Growth point, Mbembesi, or Nkandla in KZN—she is able to deliver the bars because it is their music. They grew up listening to it from day one, and it uses their local language, it is like what Amapiano is to South Africans. How does a Zim-dancehall artist compete with the authentic thing on the global stage? Shabba Ranks once commented on how reggae dancehall has been murdered abroad. It is a bit like Swahili, it was made in Tanzania, killed in Kenya and buried in Uganda-ok, that is an East African joke. But seriously, while Zim-dancehall artists can draw inspiration from various sources and adapt different styles, there is undoubtedly a certain authenticity that comes from growing up immersed in the culture and language that shape a particular music genre. It is difficult for artists from other backgrounds to replicate the genuine connection and understanding that Jamaican artists have with reggae dancehall, given its roots is in their local language and culture. This inherent advantage makes it challenging for Zim-dancehall artists to achieve the same level of success and recognition on the global stage. I must take my hat off to artists like Stoneybwoy and Winky D, who have contributed to the evolution and growth of the dancehall genre by bringing new perspectives and creative ideas to the table in the Ghanian and Zimbabwean contexts respectively. Zim-dancehall artists have carved out a space for themselves within the genre and made a meaningful impact in Zimbabwe, especially those who focus on socio-political issues like Winky D, but international success will always be minimal if not elusive compared to their counterparts in Jamaica where the genre originated. Every genre needs to be international if the artists are going to get enough cheese. Whenever I am in Rwanda or Kenya or Nigeria, Amapiano will blares from car radios, wine bars and clubs, it is because it is authentic to South Africans. There is that one in a hundred artist, like Lucky Dube, Snow, or Alpha Blondy, who will break the mould, but they are outliers. This Jamaican aunty who is a vendor will bury the best we have in a sound clash, it is their music, it is their culture, it is their heritage. So let us dance along to Zim-dancehall, knowing full well that it will remain within the confines of our borders. Until such a time when our Zim-dancehall artists can go and play a show to a non-Zimbabwean audience, they remain local, not international! Zim-dancehall sounds the same way Chimurenga music or Sungura sounds to a Zimbabwean when being sung by a European or American, it doesn’t sound authentic at all outside our borders! Part of dancehall’s authenticity is the language used, Jamaican patois, we speak it like a child is learning to speak bar for a few who have lived in England or Jamaica and have mastered the language.

Hopewell Chin’ono

60,094 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

🚨 Any pro-life leader who still believes women are “second victims” of abortion should watch this video from Tennessee, in which a woman brazenly takes abortion pills during a gender reveal. In the full video, the woman is seen complaining about her “baby daddy,” whooping and shouting “thank you Jesus” as she takes the abortion pills, and dancing to degenerate music as she celebrates the willful murder of her own baby. Other women are meanwhile heard behind the camera yelling “kill it” and giving her instructions on how to take the abortion pills, indicating they also have experience with obtaining the substances and murdering their babies. In an interview after the gender reveal, the woman admits to drinking alcohol throughout her pregnancy and further celebrates her abortion. ⚖️ Tennessee is a conservative state where many pro-life leaders and lawmakers insist that abortion has been outlawed. But this woman cannot be held accountable under the current pro-life laws of Tennessee, which grant complete immunity to women who willfully have abortions. Just a few months ago, Tennessee lawmakers had the chance to support a bill enacting equal protection of the laws for preborn babies and criminalizing abortion for everyone involved, but none of the Republicans on the committee had the courage to motion for the bill to be heard. While pro-life leaders claim that granting women complete immunity for abortion as “second victims” is rooted in empathy and compassion, refusing to equally protect preborn babies only leaves them vulnerable to murder, and encourages the sickening abortion culture seen in this video.

Ben Zeisloft

56,010 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten