TikTok users have exposed the low-cost items that Chanel included in their advent calendar.
Customers were defrauded by the Chanel advent calendar. Tiktok users have exposed the low-cost items that Chanel included in their 2021 advent calendar. Over the past few days, TikTok videos have been surfacing of the Coco Chanel advent calendar, a calendar that’s worth over $800. Although, the gifts included have not been equalling to a value of $800.
A TikTok user, @eliseharmon shared videos of her opening the product, only to be disappointed. Each video she has shared have reached over 7 million views, while the numbers are increasing.
She found that the majority of the items were low-cost and not worth the $800 price tag. Items included in the advent calendar are; a plastic bracelet made with cheap string, stickers, temporary tattoos, and more stickers.
The only valuable items to be shown are 2 red lipsticks and 1 nail polish.
Fans have now taken it upon themselves to call out to Chanel, demanding refunds and telling them they need to release a better advent calendar. Over the past two days, Chanel received intense backlash through TikTok and deleted their account. Throughout Instagram, backlash comments are on the rise.
Chanel has yet to make a comment on the products and the videos that’ve been released. Although, they continue to try and monitor comments through Instagram, and are trying to delete them as they roll in.
Did Kim Cattrall Just Throw Subtle Shade At The Sex And The City Reboot?
The return of everyone’s favorite steamy ’90s show “Sex and the City” with the reboot “And Just Like That…” instantly generated a frenzy among fans. The tense and exciting conflicts between the characters on this supernatural drama have kept fans tuning in week after week, despite its oddness (via The New York Times). Whether you adore the reboot or despise it, seeing your favorite ladies on their television once again is exciting. Charlotte, Carrie, and Miranda walk about New York City like it’s no time since the premiere, but one glaringly obvious absence from the dynamic foursome is Samantha.
Many fans were furious when they heard Kim Cattrall wouldn’t be returning to the cast, since Samantha was beloved by many and her absence would certainly take away a significant amount of how entertaining the program was (via Cheat Sheet). However, for true fans of the program, this choice was no surprise. And Cattrall has again made it clear that she doesn’t have any regrets about not being part of the reboot.
Kim Cattrall likes tweet calling reboot ‘trashy’
Many people have been devastated by the rivalry between Kim Cattrall and Sarah Jessica Parker, which has dragged on for years. Samantha and Carrie are friendship goals, so the notion that the pair weren’t even talking behind the scenes was a hard pill to swallow (via Elle). Over the years, Cattrall has frequently spoken about her feelings for Parker, especially in her notorious 2017 interview with Piers Morgan. She labeled her costars “toxic” (via the Daily Mail).
While Cattrall wasn’t even in “And Just Like That…” her absence has nonetheless become the most discussed topic throughout the series. Parker responded to a commenter claiming she didn’t like Cattrall and that’s why she wasn’t in the reboot, saying, “No. I don’t dislike her. I’ve never said that. Never would. Samantha isn’t part of this story. But she will always be part of us. No matter where we are or what we do” (via Entertainment Weekly).
However, Cattrall’s feelings have been far less cheerful and she made it very clear by liking a rather shady tweet. With Cattrall’s new role in “How I Met Your Father” debuting, a fan tweeted, “So proud of @KimCattrall for skipping the trashy S&TC reboot and doing @HIMYFonHulu. She’s wonderful” (via Cosmopolitan). Cattrall appreciated the tweet and reignited the flame among her followers.
How Twitter may help take NFTs mainstream
Twitter began allowing select users to use non-fungible tokens as profile images today, just four months after hinting at the possibility. Subscribers to Twitter Blue, which costs $2.99 per month, may now link their crypto wallet and display any NFTs they possess in their profile. These people are easily distinguished from those who
In September, when Twitter first brought up the subject, I suggested that utilizing NFTs might help the technology go mainstream. Users have already created the hashtag, @ mention, and retweet; by displaying their (unauthenticated) NFTs via profile pictures on platforms such as CryptoPunks, Bored Apes, and other popular collectives
Twitter’s introduction of NFT profiles was met with harsh criticism, owing to the polarizing nature of blockchain-based projects in general. The technology does not live up to its own promises: verifying ownership or decentralizing power. (For the most part, NFTs today do not encode the owned media on the blockchain; instead, they provide proof of ownership. ) When considered in this light, Twitter might be accused of legitimizing a technology that exposes users to theft, fraud, and other risks.
Meanwhile, millions of prospective buyers are about to see those hexagons on a daily basis and inquire why the fuss is happening. The question is whether Twitter — and all of the other platforms racing to integrate NFTs — can brute-force digital collectibles into popularity, despite furious objections from naysayers.
We’ve already had an early test of that question in the gaming business. Several prominent developers have revealed plans to include NFTs into their games, in the form of digital items, throughout the last several months. The headlines usually include words like “explosive reaction.”
Gamers’ gripes are easy to understand. The gaming business has moved from a model of charging you a one-time fee to own a game to one in which you may be charged for it several times (to download new expansions, or buy cosmetic items); or continually (by subscriptions). Loot boxes, which give players things at random, have
Some have also claimed that if you aren’t ready to get into the nitty-gritty of technical details, then why even bother? Playing a game in the future might require connecting a crypto wallet, paying hefty fees just to trade on the market, buying rare digital goods, and then protecting them from robbers — so it’s not clear how this would make
And so, after Ubisoft revealed a plan to include NFTs in its action game Ghost Recon Breakpoint, it was roasted. Square Enix, the creator of the Final Fantasy series and others, came under fire for implying that it might possibly provide crypto tokens in the future. Zynga, a mobile gaming firm known for building games around making frequent
For would-be NFT platform operators, the backlash represents more than a string of bad public relations cycles. The metaverse, as we have taken to calling the next version of the internet in Silicon Valley, is based on video games as the device that will entice people to buy augmented and virtual reality headsets. The concept, as Mark Zuckerberg explained it to me last summer, is that you’ll buy virtual clothes or other digital goods as NFTs and use them from VR experience to VR experience, starting with games.
If players despise NFTs for all time, the metaverse will change dramatically. Developer teams that have raised billions of dollars based on the promise that games would bring trillions of people onto web3, such as the team behind Axie Infinity, will suffer.
It’s not just players who are skeptical. In a survey published today by the Game Developers Conference, 70 percent of studios said they have “no interest” in NFTs. -Here’s Jay Peters’ column at The Verge:
“When asked how they felt about the possibility of cryptocurrency or NFTs in games, a few called it ‘the future of gaming,’” the survey said. “However, a vast majority of respondents spoke out against both practices — noting their potential for scams, overall monetization concerns, and the environmental impact.”
Many quotes directly from developers were scathing. “How this hasn’t been identified as a pyramid scheme is beyond me,” one wrote. “I’d rather not endorse burning a rainforest down to confirm someone ‘owns’ a jpeg,” said another. “Burn ‘em to the ground. Ban everyone involved in them. I work at an NFT company currently and am quitting to get away from it,” said another.
Of course, another way to interpret this information is that almost one-third of today’s game developers are at least interested in NFT integration. However, for the time being, they are in the minority.
We’ve already seen how the NFT market will change, but now we’re going to look at what that might mean for Twitter. There are some crucial distinctions between games and tweets: gamers despise NFTs because they believe they may be compelled to buy them; on Twitter, purchasing and displaying any digital art you acquire would be optional. And while
Today I saw reactions of two kinds: from crypto skeptics, dunking on hexagons; and, from crypto enthusiasts, dunking on people who are mad at hexagons.
Who will win?
Technology may be so reviled from the outset that it is forced outside of polite society. Inquire with anyone who wore Google Glass into a bar in 2013 about how that turned out.
But, sometimes — and this is especially evident on Twitter -— things are ridiculed into legitimacy. (People who study extremism have a name for the technique by which jokes are frequently used to smuggle ideas into the mainstream: irony poisoning.) And crypto enthusiasts have been excellent at co-opting insults hurled at them into badges of pride. When critics
It’s possible that Twitter will be the last to try and take NFTs mainstream. On Thursday, The Financial Times stated that Meta is planning to allow customers to generate and sell NFTs on its platforms. Google now has a blockchain department, and it’s likely YouTube will be included in its strategy.
It’s far too soon to tell how effective any of these initiatives will be, which are still in the early stages. However, we may regard Twitter’s hexagonal release as the day when NFTs became accessible to a broad, mainstream audience.
We’ll have to wait now to see whether the general public actually desires them.
According to researchers, they’ve discovered the individual who betrayed Anne Frank and her family to the Nazis.
A new team of investigators claims that a Jewish notary betrayed Anne Frank’s hiding place to safeguard his family from deportation after two prior searches in 1947 and 1963.
A symbolic tombstone at the former Bergen-Belsen concentration camp in Lohheide, Germany, where Anne Frank and her sister perished of typhus in 1945.
When the Nazis invaded Holland, Anne Frank was 10 years old. The clever young Jewish girl spent two years in hiding before they discovered the hidden Amsterdam attic in 1944. Since her diaries, The Diary of a Young Girl, was published in 1947, researchers have sought to determine who gave away Anne Frank.
Pankoke’s team found evidence suggesting that van den Bergh was the man who most likely betrayed Anne Frank. It included psychologists, historians, archivists, war crimes experts, and criminologists, as well as pointing to a Jewish notary named Arnold van den Bergh.
To reach their conclusion, the researchers combed through numerous primary sources and investigated approximately 30 suspects in 20 different scenarios. Van den Bergh was a Jewish member of the Council who is said to have known the area’s secret locations — and he sold them to the Nazis in order to protect his family.
“There’s no indication that he knew who was hiding at any of these locations,” Pankoke added. “When van den Bergh lost his series of immunities exempting him from having to go to the camps, he had to offer something valuable to the Nazis in order for him and his wife to stay safe.
What Happened to Anne Frank?
On June 12, 1929, Anne Frank was born in Frankfurt, Germany. She lived for only a few years before world hatred against “inferiors” like Jews reached an incendiary level. Adolf Hitler was elected Chancellor of Germany in 1933. The Frank family relocated to Amsterdam the year after to start a business.
The family would hide the fruit extract pectin that Otto Frank sold at Opekta Works in Prinsengracht 263 in fear for their lives. The youngsters went to school with pleasure for a few short years before the Nazis invaded Belgium and Holland. In 1938, Otto Frank established Pectacon, a wholesaler of herbs.
The local persecution of Jews began in May 1940, when Germany invaded the Netherlands. For her next birthday, Anne was forced to attend an exclusively Jewish school, and for her following birthday, she received an autograph book she chose to use as a diary. Her family moved into their hideout on July 6, 1942.
The Anne Frank House Museum claims that the annex, which was hidden behind a false wall in the Opekta Works warehouse and included three stories, was home to eight people: Otto, Edith, Anne, Margot, Hermann van Pels (a Pectacon adviser), and four family members — Peter van Pels (Otto
Anne Frank was 15 years old when SS troops stormed the hideout and arrested all eight persons, according to The New York Times. In February 1945, both Margot and Anne died of typhus at Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, leaving the mystery of their alleged collaborator unanswered.
Was a Jewish Notary the Man Who Betrayed Anne Frank?
The only survivor of the 1944 raid was Otto Frank, who possessed the copyright to his daughter’s diary and had it published. An official inquiry into who gave away Anne Frank began in the same year, as well as the second one in 1963. However, neither managed to identify her Traitor with 100% certainty.
The bookcase covered the hidden annex where Anne Frank and her family hid from the Nazis.
The 1963 inquest was dedicated to an unaddressed communication that Otto Frank received in June 1945, which identified van den Bergh as a traitor. Pankoke’s crew utilized Dutch government archives records to confirm his suspicion by documenting the list of Jewish Council members who may have provided Nazis addresses.
“That list was offered as a means of keeping him and his family out of the extermination camps,” says Rosemary Sullivan, author of The Betrayal of Anne Frank, a new book about the investigation.
“But it mattered to me, and I think it matters to the group, that the list was anonymous. He was not betraying Otto Frank by giving his address on an unsanctioned list of houses without names.”
The Anne Frank House Museum has stated that while the number of persons who might have betrayed Anne Frank is too long to list, there were many. The most recent study looked at the 2016 hypothesis that the Nazis stumbled upon the attic by accident and investigated every person with the means and desire to betray the Franks.
Opekta Works staff member Willem van Maaren was investigated, but he was ruled out. They also disregarded Nelly Voskuijl, a Nazi sympathizer and sister of one of the secret attic builders for lack of evidence. Similarly, Jewish collaborator Ans van Dijk, who betrayed 145 people and has long been a leading
The Anne Frank House Museum is located in Amsterdam’s Prinsengracht 263, the address where Anne Frank hid.
“We’ve looked at more than 30 people in 20 different situations and determined that one scenario is the most likely,” said inquiry member Thijs Bayens. “We don’t have absolute certainty because betrayal is circumstantial.”
The most probable scenario, according to the evidence, appeared to be that van den Bergh was responsible. Jewish councils were established by the Nazis in order to govern Jewish communities across Nazi-occupied Europe. The members of the councils were exempted from being deported until 1943, when the Nazis disbanded them.
But he was allowed to remain in Amsterdam, despite the fact that van den Bergh was wanted for a crime. And now, according to the investigation team, he used lists of residences where Jews were thought to be hiding as leverage to stay free.
Why Is It Still a Mystery Who Informed on the Family’s Hiding Place?
Some experts are unconvinced that the investigation team has identified Anne Frank’s traitor, despite their certainty that they have.
According to the book’s author, David Barnouw, he had considered van den Bergh as a suspect but dismissed him. He explained that the 1945 note Otto Frank got in which his name was listed as the informant was insufficient evidence to convict him.
In an interview with the newspaper De Telegraaf, Emile Schrijver, director of the Jewish Cultural Quarter in Amsterdam, concurred.
“The evidence is simply too thin to accuse anyone,” he explained in an interview with The New York Times. “They made this huge accusation based on a slew of assumptions but is really just based on a little bit of information.”
Anne Frank died just months before the war’s conclusion.
One of the most fascinating at that time, though not so much anymore when Jan Wichert’s Underground State is now available in English and has a wealth of information about life in hiding: “Why would persons in hiding give their addresses to the Jewish Council?” Laurien Vastenhout, a researcher at the NI
Finally, because of the distance between the crime and Anne’s hiding place, the question of who betrayed her may never be fully solved. However, in a most tragic sense, the answer has always been there.
The Nazis murdered Anne Frank and more than 100,000 Dutch Jews during the Holocaust. And if van den Bergh really did reveal the family’s location, Maureen Sullivan urges caution.
“Who among us, if our families were on the line and heading to extermination camps, wouldn’t do what we could? And if what we could do would be to offer anonymous addresses, I don’t know that I know many people who could resist it,” she said.
“We went looking for a perpetrator and we found a victim.”