All Activity

more meat on cheeks means more suction power

cheeks damn bak bak siaaaa

Err Boss @kokleong, is there an alternative way for us to regroup just in case they kick down your door and you need to run road to a non-extradition country?

The Online Safety (Miscellaneous Amendments) law kicked in on Feb. 1, 2023. But what does it change? Announced and passed in 2022 To get you up to speed, the law was first announced during the Committee of Supply (COS) debate in March 2022, before it was passed in Parliament on Nov. 9, 2022. The law, which builds upon the existing Broadcasting Act (BA), seeks to hold social media platforms, otherwise known as Online Communication Services (OCS), liable if they fail to protect local users from online harms. Those who fail to comply may face a fine of up to S$1 million, or a direction to have their social media services blocked in Singapore. Targeting Online Communication Services OCS are electronic services that allow users to access or communicate content via the Internet or deliver content to other users and are regulated by the BA. Within the OCS group, those with "significant reach" are called Regulated Online Communication Services (ROCS), and are required to comply with a Code of Practice (COP), which consist of measures limiting the exposure to egregious content online. Also within the OCS group are Social Media Services (SMS), electronic services with a sole or primary purpose that allows two or more users to interact online, such as sharing and communicating content with one another. Examples include Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok. Groups with large memberships can be directed by IMDA Groups with "very large memberships" on private messaging services, such as WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger, also fall under the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA)'s jurisdiction under the law. This includes those labelled as private, and/ or those where the public can become a member easily can be considered non-private communication on an SMS. The IMDA, which enforces the law, can direct the OCS to disable access to egregious content and prevent specified accounts with such content from communicating in the event that the exchange of egregious content is found. Examples of egregious content include but are not limited to those advocating suicide or self-harm, physical or sexual violence, and terrorism, as well as content that depicts child sexual exploitation, poses a public health risk in Singapore, or causes racial and religious disharmony in Singapore. IMDA can also instruct internet access service providers, such as Singtel, StarHub and M1, to block non-compliant OCS, which stops users in Singapore from accessing the service. Besides that, IMDA will also engage services that do comply with COP or with their directions and dole out fines of up to S$$1 million if there is no "meaningful response or mutually acceptable solution" and the services continue acting in breach. Protecting young Singaporeans The law will have additional safeguards to protect young users in Singapore. This included minimising their exposure to inappropriate content and providing tools for children or their parents to manage their safety online, and mandate services to provide differentiated accounts to children. These differentiated accounts will have default safety settings that are robust and set to more restrictive levels that are age-appropriate, where individuals will be warned of implications if they opt out of these settings. On a broader level, Singapore users will have tools to manage their own safety and will be equipped with the information needed to make informed decisions when using online services, while online services will be held accountable for their systems, processes, and actions. The government will step in to protect users where there is egregious content that undermines racial and religious harmony. https://mothership.sg/2023/02/online-safety-bill-singapore-explained/

@classyNfabulous @CannotTahanLiao @ExTreMisTxxx see the zhup overflow from the xlb

All around us, there are hard-luck stories of Singaporeans who cannot make a decent living or live only for today fearing what tomorrow brings. The elderly in their twilight years are still collecting cardboard and cleaning tables. People who get laid off find it tough to get back on their own two feet. A food delivery rider turns hawker – and still ends up throwing in the towel. Every so often, we get incredible numbers and motherhood stuff flung at us – 180,000 people trained in tech skills! 100,000 jobs and training opportunities created! 3.5 million jobs for 2.5 million locals! More upskilling! More reskilling! Be future ready for the digital economy! Sounds impressive! But what do they mean to the ones like the food delivery rider turned hawker and so many others like him? Shortly before the last general election, Minister Heng Swee Keat promised: “The effort to grow our economy is not just to create jobs, but to create better jobs for Singaporeans.” So where are the “better jobs for Singaporeans”? How many Singaporeans and how many Permanent Residents (PRs) get them? Ask till the cows come home and we are none the wiser. The data and statistics presented – like navigating through a maze – do not give us the picture. Pressed in Parliament for a breakdown on jobs going to Singaporeans and PRs, Minister Chan Chun Sing said: “We can get you the numbers. But let me say this: what is the point behind the question?” He answered a question with a question. Job done. However, Minister Vivian Balakrishnan did utter comforting words on the jobs front: “We should not have to apologise that we are tilting the playing field in favour of our own citizens.” But then, we have been told time and time again that Singapore has an open economy and having fewer foreigners will deprive Singaporeans of jobs and career opportunities. So which is which? To compound the mystery and the confusion, Minister Chan Chun Sing said that the ultimate competition is “Team Singapore, comprising Singaporeans, the PRs and even the foreign workforce … competing to give Singaporeans the best chance possible.” Most remarkably, the Minister’s version of Team Singapore comprises foreign workers! Is that why any breakdown of local and foreign workers for jobs created is deemed not meaningful? Minister Chan also pledged (before the last election): “We will work hard to make sure everyone who wants a job can get a job.” Words come easy, don’t they? The Ministry of Manpower yesterday warned of easing momentum in the labour market in the year ahead, noting: “With the recent uptick in retrenchments, unemployment rates could also trend higher.” If everyone who wants a job can get a job, why would unemployment trend higher? Why are people remaining jobless despite their best efforts? Which reminds us of what then Senior Minister Goh Chok Tong told us about the employment situation: “Retrenchment is good for Singapore. If there is no retrenchments, then I worry.” In that case, we should all be rejoicing now because retrenchments – especially by tech companies – have become commonplace https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2023/02/01/they-have-done-a-fine-job-of-confusing-us-about-the-jobs-situation/

@ManOfTheHour @classyNfabulous @ExTreMisTxxx @CannotTahanLiao @canot_lidat_lah

What loli?

Agree. Jyj really age like wine

Only gamers will get it

A suspicious diner in Guangdong, China, narrowly avoided death after questioning on social media if the octopus on his table at a hot pot restaurant was safe to eat In a post on Weibo on 16 January, the man posted a photo of an odd-looking octopus covered in blue circular markings among other octopuses in a basket full of ice. He asked if anyone could identify if it was a blue-ringed octopus, which is known to be one of the world's most venomous animals. "I saw this in a hot pot restaurant. Isn't this a blue-ringed octopus? Can I put it into my hot pot? I'll wait online, this is urgent," the man asked. Image via Weibo Thankfully, in less than an hour, a science education channel saw the photo and confirmed the Weibo user's suspicions The verified channel wrote, "It is indeed a blue-ringed octopus. Their venom contains tetrodotoxin. The toxins are very strong and won't be neutralised even after cooking. Even if you take it back as a souvenir, never ever eat it." In a note of warning, the channel added that others have found blue-ringed octopuses accidentally mixed in with commercially-sold octopuses before, but such cases have been rarely reported. Image via Weibo After seeing the science channel's answer, many concerned Weibo users quickly flocked to the hot pot diner's post to see if he was safe "Are you okay? You haven't eaten it, right? Quickly tell the restaurant that the octopus is poisonous and cannot be eaten," someone wrote. In a few minutes, the diner assured: "I didn't eat it. It's already been removed." Image via Weibo The post has since garnered over six million views on Weibo, with other netizens congratulating the man for being skeptical before eating the venomous creature “This shows that knowledge can change fate," said a Weibo user. Another cried, "Good on you. If it were me, I would have already eaten it." Image via Weibo Image via Weibo According to Ocean Conservancy, blue-ringed octopuses are extremely dangerous to humans even though they are merely the size of a golf ball. The octopus' venomous bite will first block nerve signals, and can cause death due to respiratory arrest and muscle paralysis within minutes. https://says.com/my/news/man-saved-by-weibo-from-eating-blue-ringed-octopus

Part time actress

Look like manly Bonnie Loo

sighhhh ji teh bin jin spoil appetite so wide face somemore

Wow... Jz wow...