https://jfresh.substack.com/p/zach-aston-reese-has-the-best-defensive

Here's an article from J.Fresh about ZAR. If you're not familiar with his work, he's an analytics guy, but instead of just telling you a guy is good because of his statistics, he gives a lot of context about what a guy is doing that makes his stats good.
- Tojo.

That was an awesome article. Couple of things stood out to me.

It kind of reinforces what a ton of analytics people say. Best form of defense is having the puck in the o-zone where you’re eating up possession and putting pucks on net.

Secondly, fluidity at forward is so important and I cannot get my beer league dummy linemates to understand that. My RW can’t float to the left and my center can’t, well do anything. It’s like there is an invisible force field that doesn’t allow them to move to other areas of the ice hahaha. They’ve definitely gotten better but (frank) sometimes I’m like dude just move to the open space or first forward back grab the high slot.

That's an opinion based on zero fact. We saw that line crater defensively when ZAR got hurt. We never saw what happened when it was Blueger or Tanev being out or bumped up because when healthy these guys played near every shift together and Blueger and Tanev were healthy all season.
- Victoro311

LMAO alright. I'll stick to the chemistry thing instead of ZAR being the motor of the line.

Then boycott twitter. It's amazing to me how self styled Constitution junkies don't understand 1A, given how it's probably the most straight forward amendment in the Bill of Rights. 1A doesn't allow people to say whatever they want without repercussions. It allows people to say whatever they want without interference or legal penalization by the the government. Private corporations, therefore, have the absolute right to kick people out of their shop or off their platform who they believe are not in line with the philosophy of their company or that they do not want associated with their product because the concept of corporate personhood is pretty well established in this country through decisions like Citizens United. It's the same concept as when the Supreme Court upheld the ability of a Christian bakery to refuse service for a homosexual wedding. As morally repugnant as I personally believe that is on the part of the bakery, it was the correct ruling.

The fact of the matter is that there isn't a wide market for conspiracy theories like Sandy Hook trutherism. If there were, Dorsey wouldn't be able to censor guys like Jones and keep a big enough base to profit without a competitor gobbling up market share. This basically comes down to red pillers whining that X private company isn't giving them a platform to spread misinformation, when really it's just that their ideas aren't equitable in the free market of ideas. The invisible hand doesn't care about your opinions or feelings, it just regulates. Otherwise, why isn't there some uber successful radical right wing social media site that has rivaled twitter and Facebook yet?

For the record I hate Dorsey and Zuc. I think they're scumbag profiteers who are setting bad legal precedents in the realm of individual privacy and data mining that puts us on track towards dystopia. But the constant whining about the censorship they do is ridiculous. They have the right to, and you have the right to boycott them. Use your ability as a market agent and vote with your wallet instead of trying to get the government to do something unconstitutional to create an outcome you personally prefer.
- Victoro311

Repectfully disagree, Purchasing a good/service/labor is not the same as removing someones 1A right to speak. Twitter is not the same as a local bakery.

Twitter removed the president of the United States as well as the Press Secretary's right to speak.

While they allowed the Russian propaganda flood their site for 3 years then allowed the Ukrainian propagnada to flood. A story with 0 first hand knowledge, 0 second hand knowledge of the incident in question. Then identical accusations come out from the other side, from a 1st hand source, without a single redacted line...ZAP, twitter account blocked.

Repectfully disagree, Purchasing a good/service/labor is not the same as removing someones 1A right to speak. Twitter is not the same as a local bakery.

Twitter removed the president of the United States as well as the Press Secretary's right to speak.

While they allowed the Russian propaganda flood their site for 3 years then allowed the Ukrainian propagnada to flood. A story with 0 first hand knowledge, 0 second hand knowledge of the incident in question. Then identical accusations come out from the other side, from a 1st hand source, without a single redacted line...ZAP, twitter account blocked.
- joecool2931

Again, that's not 1A. 1A isn't the right to speak in general. 1A is the right to speak without the government prosecuting you. When you are on someone else's private property, you're are subject to their rules and guidelines of what you can and can't say. If you go into a store and start yelling "PENIS!" at other customers, the manger can and will kick you out, and that is not an infringement on your constitutional right to yell "PENIS!" without going to jail or being fined.

All of your complaints are indicative of a bad product, not a corporation doing something unconstitutional. In simple terms, twitter is a platform where anyone in the world can log on and write 200 letter op eds. Newspapers don't have a constitutional obligation to publish every single op ed that's submitted to them and neither does twitter. If you don't like who twitter is not publishing and find their practices hypocritical, then you have the right and quite honestly a duty to try and affect the marketplace by boycotting and taking your business elsewhere. Twitter is not a publicly owned forum subject to the strict guidelines for the government to provide protection for free speech as outlined in 1A. It's a private company providing a product that has an agenda attached to it.

EDIT: Not sure why this all came out in bold but I can't fix it.

Then boycott twitter. It's amazing to me how self styled Constitution junkies don't understand 1A, given how it's probably the most straight forward amendment in the Bill of Rights. 1A doesn't allow people to say whatever they want without repercussions. It allows people to say whatever they want without interference or legal penalization by the the government. Private corporations, therefore, have the absolute right to kick people out of their shop or off their platform who they believe are not in line with the philosophy of their company or that they do not want associated with their product because the concept of corporate personhood is pretty well established in this country through decisions like Citizens United. It's the same concept as when the Supreme Court upheld the ability of a Christian bakery to refuse service for a homosexual wedding. As morally repugnant as I personally believe that is on the part of the bakery, it was the correct ruling.

The fact of the matter is that there isn't a wide market for conspiracy theories like Sandy Hook trutherism. If there were, Dorsey wouldn't be able to censor guys like Jones and keep a big enough base to profit without a competitor gobbling up market share. This basically comes down to red pillers whining that X private company isn't giving them a platform to spread misinformation, when really it's just that their ideas aren't equitable in the free market of ideas. The invisible hand doesn't care about your opinions or feelings, it just regulates. Otherwise, why isn't there some uber successful radical right wing social media site that has rivaled twitter and Facebook yet?

For the record I hate Dorsey and Zuc. I think they're scumbag profiteers who are setting bad legal precedents in the realm of individual privacy and data mining that puts us on track towards dystopia. But the constant whining about the censorship they do is ridiculous. They have the right to, and you have the right to boycott them. Use your ability as a market agent and vote with your wallet instead of trying to get the government to do something unconstitutional to create an outcome you personally prefer.
- Victoro311

Oh I definitely don’t get any of my conservative news from Twitter/Facebook/Reddit hahah, but that doesn’t mean I don’t think they’re clowns.

That’s the problem with section 230. They were granted this special immunity which gives them immense power in moderating their platforms.

The crazy part is that these tech companies, while promoting the left wing narrative tend to be more conservative when it comes to their money lol.

Nothing made me laugh more than when the Young Turks made so many videos supporting unions and then when their
Employees wanted to form a union they were like... “nah” hahahaha scumbags.

The bigger problem to me is how they can spew garbage with a straight face. Saying they don’t suppress conservative views, that they Twitter can’t influence elections, saying they are unbiased when all of that has been proven accurate.

I’d actually prefer it if they were honest and were like “yeah we are a left wing platform.” Maybe then the right would get the point and go somewhere else hahaha.

Again, that's not 1A. 1A isn't the right to speak in general. 1A is the right to speak without the government prosecuting you. When you are on someone else's private property, you're are subject to their rules and guidelines of what you can and can't say. If you go into a store and start yelling "PENIS!" at other customers, the manger can and will kick you out, and that is not an infringement on your constitutional right to yell "PENIS!" without going to jail or being fined.

All of your complaints are indicative of a bad product, not a corporation doing something unconstitutional. In simple terms, twitter is a platform where anyone in the world can log on and write 200 letter op eds. Newspapers don't have a constitutional obligation to publish every single op ed that's submitted to them and neither does twitter. If you don't like who twitter is not publishing and find their practices hypocritical, then you have the right and quite honestly a duty to try and affect the marketplace by boycotting and taking your business elsewhere. Twitter is not a publicly owned forum subject to the strict guidelines for the government to provide protection for free speech as outlined in 1A. It's a private company providing a product that has an agenda attached to it.

EDIT: Not sure why this all came out in bold but I can't fix it.
- Victoro311

I think this is where section 230 comes in, with their immunity + moderation giving them more power than they should have, imo at least.

That was an awesome article. Couple of things stood out to me.

It kind of reinforces what a ton of analytics people say. Best form of defense is having the puck in the o-zone where you’re eating up possession and putting pucks on net.

Secondly, fluidity at forward is so important and I cannot get my beer league dummy linemates to understand that. My RW can’t float to the left and my center can’t, well do anything. It’s like there is an invisible force field that doesn’t allow them to move to other areas of the ice hahaha. They’ve definitely gotten better but (frank) sometimes I’m like dude just move to the open space or first forward back grab the high slot.
- j.boyd919

For sure. I really love watching a line just grind out possession in the offensive zone against too players. Staal line might have been the best I've seen in Pittsburgh because they did it year after year and added offense. Hoping the Blueger line can continue to do it and maybe add chip in a few more goals now that ZAR and Blueger have a full year of experience.

Then boycott twitter. It's amazing to me how self styled Constitution junkies don't understand 1A, given how it's probably the most straight forward amendment in the Bill of Rights. 1A doesn't allow people to say whatever they want without repercussions. It allows people to say whatever they want without interference or legal penalization by the the government. Private corporations, therefore, have the absolute right to kick people out of their shop or off their platform who they believe are not in line with the philosophy of their company or that they do not want associated with their product because the concept of corporate personhood is pretty well established in this country through decisions like Citizens United. It's the same concept as when the Supreme Court upheld the ability of a Christian bakery to refuse service for a homosexual wedding. As morally repugnant as I personally believe that is on the part of the bakery, it was the correct ruling.

The fact of the matter is that there isn't a wide market for conspiracy theories like Sandy Hook trutherism. If there were, Dorsey wouldn't be able to censor guys like Jones and keep a big enough base to profit without a competitor gobbling up market share. This basically comes down to red pillers whining that X private company isn't giving them a platform to spread misinformation, when really it's just that their ideas aren't equitable in the free market of ideas. The invisible hand doesn't care about your opinions or feelings, it just regulates. Otherwise, why isn't there some uber successful radical right wing social media site that has rivaled twitter and Facebook yet?

For the record I hate Dorsey and Zuc. I think they're scumbag profiteers who are setting bad legal precedents in the realm of individual privacy and data mining that puts us on track towards dystopia. But the constant whining about the censorship they do is ridiculous. They have the right to, and you have the right to boycott them. Use your ability as a market agent and vote with your wallet instead of trying to get the government to do something unconstitutional to create an outcome you personally prefer.
- Victoro311

The problem is, because of tech, Facebook/Twitter, etc have become the new "Town Square". The Government could not punish you for speaking in the actual town square, but it has been replaced with a "Virtual Town Square" through large tech companies and offered governmental protections through section 230.

They aren't liable for the speech on their platforms, yet they invoke the authority (decided by whom?) to censor speech they don't like and invoke bans (Facebook/Twitter Jail) for people they don't like

You can't have it both ways. It's a private company who has censor speech to protect itself from liability, or an entity with government protections which should then abide by government policies in regards to speech

Each platform has a block button for people to use to choose to not read speech they don't like, just like people can choose to walk away from the Town square if they do not like what is being said

The problem is, because of tech, Facebook/Twitter, etc have become the new "Town Square". The Government could not punish you for speaking in the actual town square, but it has been replaced with a "Virtual Town Square" through large tech companies and offered governmental protections through section 230.

They aren't liable for the speech on their platforms, yet they invoke the authority (decided by whom?) to censor speech they don't like and invoke bans (Facebook/Twitter Jail) for people they don't like

You can't have it both ways. It's a private company who has censor speech to protect itself from liability, or an entity with government protections which should then abide by government policies in regards to speech

Each platform has a block button for people to use to choose to not read speech they don't like, just like people can choose to walk away from the Town square if they do not like what is being said
- TheGame316

Well said

I think this is where section 230 comes in, with their immunity + moderation giving them more power than they should have, imo at least.
- j.boyd919

This is a good, brief piece on it if interested:https://www.cato.org/blog/why-section-230-unstable

Like, Twitter very clearly has the same right as any other company to moderate their content, but they have a political slant that in many people's opinions goes too far. And that's in no way unique to Twitter. To go back to my point about op Eds, every media company can select what they're going to publish and what they won't. The difference is that no one is under the delusion that anything they send into the New York Times will get published.

So the question then becomes, how much do we want to legally codify the elimination of political bias, and to what platforms does it apply to? There's obviously a practical difference between social media platforms and news papers, but legally I don't see a ton that separates them. How do we come up with amendments to 230 that only apply to social media without going down the road of eventually (frank)ing with news papers and news channels. I know, I know, they all suck so who cares, but ideologically I'm not a huge fan of this idea.

But as of now, none of this is codified, so legally and constitutionally, Twitter is 100% in the clear with what they're doing. I'm not saying that it's a good thing, I'm saying that people saying it's an infringement on 1A and illegal are super wrong.

The problem is, because of tech, Facebook/Twitter, etc have become the new "Town Square". The Government could not punish you for speaking in the actual town square, but it has been replaced with a "Virtual Town Square" through large tech companies and offered governmental protections through section 230.

They aren't liable for the speech on their platforms, yet they invoke the authority (decided by whom?) to censor speech they don't like and invoke bans (Facebook/Twitter Jail) for people they don't like

You can't have it both ways. It's a private company who has censor speech to protect itself from liability, or an entity with government protections which should then abide by government policies in regards to speech

Each platform has a block button for people to use to choose to not read speech they don't like, just like people can choose to walk away from the Town square if they do not like what is being said
- TheGame316

Was trying to type this up...you said it much better.

The problem is, because of tech, Facebook/Twitter, etc have become the new "Town Square". The Government could not punish you for speaking in the actual town square, but it has been replaced with a "Virtual Town Square" through large tech companies and offered governmental protections through section 230.

They aren't liable for the speech on their platforms, yet they invoke the authority (decided by whom?) to censor speech they don't like and invoke bans (Facebook/Twitter Jail) for people they don't like

You can't have it both ways. It's a private company who has censor speech to protect itself from liability, or an entity with government protections which should then abide by government policies in regards to speech

Each platform has a block button for people to use to choose to not read speech they don't like, just like people can choose to walk away from the Town square if they do not like what is being said
- TheGame316

The point you make is enticing on face value, but I get into this same type of argument with my liberal friends who try to grill me on the Catholic Church and specifically Notre Dame for not providing birth control to their employees. The point they make is that in many places, the Catholic Church is the majority employer or the only institution that provides X service, so since they are the go to for so many people for either employments or a service, it should be illegal for them not to comply with certain federal healthcare mandates. My argument is that it's not the Catholic Church's fault that private society or the public sector have not provided suitable alternatives within the market for people to turn to if they want these sorts of services, which the Church is very well within their right to decline. This is a failure of private innovation and public policy, not the successful entity that is doing something you don't like.

It's definitely not good that Twitter and Facebook are defect town halls now. It's not good that there's a big brother aspect to the main way people participate in public discourse. But that's a fundamental issue with the tech age and the rout our society went. There's not really any legal basis for telling a company "Well you're now the go to for what used to be this public good, so now you need to comply with the way this public good used to be distributed." The only real alternative is for viable alternatives to come up, but let me know when there's a private corporation that's interested in setting something up like this without the aim to slant public opinion one way or another. And a government run Twitter alternative? Hahaha, no.

I think that society's turn to social media was just fundamentally bad and there's no real way of getting around its issues besides just going back to not using social media anymore.

The point you make is enticing on face value, but I get into this same type of argument with my liberal friends who try to grill me on the Catholic Church and specifically Notre Dame for not providing birth control to their employees. The point they make is that in many places, the Catholic Church is the majority employer or the only institution that provides X service, so since they are the go to for so many people for either employments or a service, it should be illegal for them not to comply with certain federal healthcare mandates. My argument is that it's not the Catholic Church's fault that private society or the public sector have not provided suitable alternatives within the market for people to turn to if they want these sorts of services, which the Church is very well within their right to decline. This is a failure of private innovation and public policy, not the successful entity that is doing something you don't like.

It's definitely not good that Twitter and Facebook are defect town halls now. It's not good that there's a big brother aspect to the main way people participate in public discourse. But that's a fundamental issue with the tech age and the rout our society went. There's not really any legal basis for telling a company "Well you're now the go to for what used to be this public good, so now you need to comply with the way this public good used to be distributed." The only real alternative is for viable alternatives to come up, but let me know when there's a private corporation that's interested in setting something up like this without the aim to slant public opinion one way or another. And a government run Twitter alternative? Hahaha, no.

I think that society's turn to social media was just fundamentally bad and there's no real way of getting around its issues besides just going back to not using social media anymore.
- Victoro311

Oh society has been ruined by social media in so many ways. I completely agree with that 100%.

The point you make is enticing on face value, but I get into this same type of argument with my liberal friends who try to grill me on the Catholic Church and specifically Notre Dame for not providing birth control to their employees. The point they make is that in many places, the Catholic Church is the majority employer or the only institution that provides X service, so since they are the go to for so many people for either employments or a service, it should be illegal for them not to comply with certain federal healthcare mandates. My argument is that it's not the Catholic Church's fault that private society or the public sector have not provided suitable alternatives within the market for people to turn to if they want these sorts of services, which the Church is very well within their right to decline. This is a failure of private innovation and public policy, not the successful entity that is doing something you don't like.

It's definitely not good that Twitter and Facebook are defect town halls now. It's not good that there's a big brother aspect to the main way people participate in public discourse. But that's a fundamental issue with the tech age and the rout our society went. There's not really any legal basis for telling a company "Well you're now the go to for what used to be this public good, so now you need to comply with the way this public good used to be distributed." The only real alternative is for viable alternatives to come up, but let me know when there's a private corporation that's interested in setting something up like this without the aim to slant public opinion one way or another. And a government run Twitter alternative? Hahaha, no.

I think that society's turn to social media was just fundamentally bad and there's no real way of getting around its issues besides just going back to not using social media anymore.
- Victoro311

The issue is when you become that big you become a sudo monopoly. Sure "someone else" can make a new Facebook, but even if it's a better Facebook, The current Facebooks reach is so vast that it's not true competition

Kinda like if because of it's sheer size every store everywhere became a Walmart. Sure, you *COULD* open a competitor and there would be no law to stop you, it doesn't mean that WalMart wouldn't have secured a market monopoly and the government would/should have to step in

We have a law in Canada about grocery stores. 1 Company cannot own above a certain percentage of (ether locations or square footage) with in a certain radius. When mergers happen, some of these companies literally have to sell locations to their competitors to remain in legal standing. This is a good thing

The Facebook/Twitter thing would be like asking someone to make a new free speech town square (because speech at the existing town square is being moderated) at the edge of town near the landfill in the middle of nowhere and expecting people to congregate there and calling it fair and even

The issue is when you become that big you become a sudo monopoly. Sure "someone else" can make a new Facebook, but even if it's a better Facebook, The current Facebooks reach is so vast that it's not true competition

Kinda like if because of it's sheer size every store everywhere became a Walmart. Sure, you *COULD* open a competitor and there would be no law to stop you, it doesn't mean that WalMart wouldn't have secured a market monopoly and the government would/should have to step in

We have a law in Canada about grocery stores. 1 Company cannot own above a certain percentage of (ether locations or square footage) with in a certain radius. When mergers happen, some of these companies literally have to sell locations to their competitors to remain in legal standing. This is a good thing

The Facebook/Twitter thing would be like asking someone to make a new free speech town square (because speech at the existing town square is being moderated) at the edge of town near the landfill in the middle of nowhere and expecting people to congregate there and calling it fair and even
- TheGame316

Hey, you know, if Twitter and Facebook got trust busted tomorrow I would not lose any sleep over it. At all. The problem is that even in a free market, some sectors really lend themselves to monopolies or duopolies, like trains, and there's not a ton you can do about that besides making them public. Social media is like this, because what's the point of being in a social media platform if all your friends aren't on it. That's fine for something like trains, and it's worked well in Europe, but a public alternative to social media scares me. What we have now is bad, but that can be way worse.

I don't know how you do that market share regulation with a social media platform. Maybe capping users? That would probably kill social media, which I mean, personally I think makes the world better but I don't like the idea of governments implementing policies specifically tailored to killing an industry that the market would still support if unregulated.

Hey, you know, if Twitter and Facebook got trust busted tomorrow I would not lose any sleep over it. At all. The problem is that even in a free market, some sectors really lend themselves to monopolies or duopolies, like trains, and there's not a ton you can do about that besides making them public. Social media is like this, because what's the point of being in a social media platform if all your friends aren't on it. That's fine for something like trains, and it's worked well in Europe, but a public alternative to social media scares me. What we have now is bad, but that can be way worse.

I don't know how you do that market share regulation with a social media platform. Maybe capping users? That would probably kill social media, which I mean, personally I think makes the world better but I don't like the idea of governments implementing policies specifically tailored to killing an industry that the market would still support if unregulated.
- Victoro311

That's the thing, all government has to do is a) remove protections if a private entity wants to moderate their own content in a way that is counter to 1A or b) allow protections if they are operating as a free market in terms of speech. Let the company choose or or the other

If they want the Governmental protections, I still believe they could have moderation, but it would have to be through some kind of 3rd party and policies/guidelines would have to be consistent with 1A. The same way you can have free speech in the Town Square, but are subject to charges/arrest if that free speech is inciting violence, etc in the "Town Square"

The problem is, because of tech, Facebook/Twitter, etc have become the new "Town Square". The Government could not punish you for speaking in the actual town square, but it has been replaced with a "Virtual Town Square" through large tech companies and offered governmental protections through section 230.

They aren't liable for the speech on their platforms, yet they invoke the authority (decided by whom?) to censor speech they don't like and invoke bans (Facebook/Twitter Jail) for people they don't like

You can't have it both ways. It's a private company who has censor speech to protect itself from liability, or an entity with government protections which should then abide by government policies in regards to speech

Each platform has a block button for people to use to choose to not read speech they don't like, just like people can choose to walk away from the Town square if they do not like what is being said
- TheGame316

Yes. Perfect explanation. I'd add... The tech companies have long had this immunity because they've always claimed they're not "publishers". They say they're simply passing on the information and therefor can't be liable for their content. If you start to censor/edit the content....well, that's the act of a publisher. As you say... You can't have it both ways.

Oh society has been ruined by social media in so many ways. I completely agree with that 100%.
- j.boyd919

Agreed as well. I liked people so much better when I didn't their opinions on every (frank)ing thing. We didn't know nearly as much about each other until social media and I mean in that in a good way.

Agreed as well. I liked people so much better when I didn't their opinions on every (frank)ing thing. We didn't know nearly as much about each other until social media and I mean in that in a good way.
- Rinosaur

Hahahah yup. 100%.

Agreed as well. I liked people so much better when I didn't their opinions on every (frank)ing thing. We didn't know nearly as much about each other until social media and I mean in that in a good way.
- Rinosaur

"I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then"
-Bob Segar

One of the greatest lines in music history and I reference it often the older I get

Hahahah yup. 100%.
- j.boyd919

FYI I follow that cookie thing on IG you sent me and my lord. That's all social media should about.

FYI I follow that cookie thing on IG you sent me and my lord. That's all social media should about.
- Rinosaur

Hahah yeah I’m tellin you, they are insane. Order them and you won’t be disappointed.

1. Peanut butter s’mores
2. Peanut butter and jelly
3. Apple pie
4. Strawberry Cheesecake
5. Cannoli cookie

I think those are my top 5. Although the cinnamon roll cheesecake was solid too. The new birthday cake one looks amazing too.

Hahah yeah I’m tellin you, they are insane. Order them and you won’t be disappointed.

1. Peanut butter s’mores
2. Peanut butter and jelly
3. Apple pie
4. Strawberry Cheesecake
5. Cannoli cookie

I think those are my top 5. Although the cinnamon roll cheesecake was solid too. The new birthday cake one looks amazing too.
- j.boyd919

Did you see the Campfire Cuddles? That thing looks nuts.

If you want to drool, check out fedoroffsroastpork on IG. It's a place in Brooklyn that's insane.

Hey, you know, if Twitter and Facebook got trust busted tomorrow I would not lose any sleep over it. At all. The problem is that even in a free market, some sectors really lend themselves to monopolies or duopolies, like trains, and there's not a ton you can do about that besides making them public. Social media is like this, because what's the point of being in a social media platform if all your friends aren't on it. That's fine for something like trains, and it's worked well in Europe, but a public alternative to social media scares me. What we have now is bad, but that can be way worse.

I don't know how you do that market share regulation with a social media platform. Maybe capping users? That would probably kill social media, which I mean, personally I think makes the world better but I don't like the idea of governments implementing policies specifically tailored to killing an industry that the market would still support if unregulated.
- Victoro311

Do you consider what Twitter did election interference?

Did you see the Campfire Cuddles? That thing looks nuts.

If you want to drool, check out fedoroffsroastpork on IG. It's a place in Brooklyn that's insane.
- Rinosaur

Campfire cuddles is awesome too. That was one of the first ones I got from her but in the recent order we got last week I asked her to do a peanut butter s’mores one (which you see now with the Reese cup on top).