After Bitcoin crashed below the fabled $40,000 ($55,989 AUD) mark late last month on Jan. 21, crypto investors everywhere began to watch the charts with increasingly pained expressions. A few days later, Bitcoin had continued its collapse to reach a new yearly low of $33,495 ($46,883 AUD). Since then, Bitcoin has rallied just over 20% and is currently trading for $44,090 ($61,812 AUD). 

This recent recovery above $40,000 has been met with a mixture of relief and apprehension by investors. While crypto investors are undeniably relieved that a short-term reversal may be underway, Bitcoin still has a long way to go before officially re-entering “bull territory” and many experts fear that it may be too soon to celebrate. 

As analyst Justin Bennet puts it:

“BTC needs to close consistently above the $42,000 area to confirm a bullish breakout and expose $45,000-$46,000”

Bitcoin Falls Below 50-Day Moving Average

All assets, whether that be gold, oil, Facebook shares or Bitcoin, all have their own unique set of historical patterns that experienced investors can read to better predict price action. When it comes to Bitcoin one of the favored technical indicators is its array of Moving Averages (MA), in this case specifically, the 50-day moving average. 

For the first time in just over 2 years, Bitcoin has traded below its 50-day moving average. Bitcoin has only ever traded below its 50-day moving average three times in the past (2014, 2018 & 2019), each of which was followed by a significant and prolonged tumble in price. 

Could This Actually Be A Bull Signal?

While Bitcoin’s brief dip below its 50-day moving average may be certified bearish news for some traders, others are looking for different interpretations of this indicator. 

https://twitter.com/BTC_Archive/status/1491004845943586816

Looking at the trends from BTC Archive, we can see that merely dipping below the 50-day moving average, may not be completely conclusive evidence that a crash is inbound. In fact, when Bitcoin continues to close above the 50-day moving average (which it currently is), short-term bull runs are often expected.

Ultimately, there’s still a very strong chance that this current Bitcoin rally is what traders call a ‘bull trap‘ or a ‘dead cat bounce‘. This is where a short-term gain in price creates a false signal that leads less experienced investors to ‘FOMO-buy’. Unfortunately, these investors get caught holding the bag, and have to watch their portfolio continue to slide further into the red…

It goes without saying, but unless you have a solid understanding of reading financial charts and a very healthy appetite (& bank account) for risk, it’s probably a good idea to not bet the house on a technical indicator that can be read both ways…

DISCLAIMER:

This article is not intended as definitive legal, financial or investment advice and should not be construed or relied on as such. Before making any commitment of a legal or financial nature you should seek advice from a qualified and registered legal practitioner or financial or investment adviser.

Read Next

• I Bought $1,000 Worth Of Cryto Currency. It Was A Huge Mistake
• Best Crypto: 3 Best Cryptocurrencies To Buy Right Now

The post ‘50 Day Signal’ Suggests Another Bitcoin Crash Is Coming appeared first on DMARGE Australia.

Celebrity biohacker Dave Asprey has hit out at what he sees as Australian government overreach, writing: “I’m hoping people stay away from tourism in Australia until the government apologizes and returns power back to the people where it belongs,” on DMARGE’s Instagram page.

Asprey is a health hacker who claims to have saved Joe Rogan from kale, recommends wearing blue light blockers before bed, and has a popular bulletproof coffee company. He has 527k followers on Instagram. He’s also a big proponent of intermittent fasting, the keto diet and grass-fed beef.

Asprey’s comment was left beneath a DMARGE post announcing the opening of Australia’s borders to vaccinated international tourists on February the 21st.

One Instagram user responded to Asprey: “I’m hoping unvaccinated ignorant people stay away from Australia.” Another said: “If your [sic] not Australian don’t comment on what you don’t understand.”

Another came to Asprey’s defence, writing: “Vaccinated or not, you can spread and carry covid?”. This Instagram user didn’t mention, however, is that there is mounting evidence to suggest COVID vaccines reduce transmission.

Another Instagram user wrote: “Vaccinated people can carry Covid and get sick. Australia: welcome! Unvaccinated people can carry Covid and get sick. Australia: stay away!”

RELATED: Is Joe Rogan A Public Health Menace Or A Modern Version Of Plato? An Investigation

What this Instagram user didn’t point out is that the main purpose of vaccination is to prevent people from getting really sick with the virus – something vaccines are highly efficient at doing.

According to The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners, “Efficacy against symptoms of the disease in clinical trials has ranged from 50% (Sinovac) to 95% (Pfizer/BioNTech), and similar effectiveness has been reported in the real world.”

While there are breakthrough infections in vaccinated people, their symptoms are typically much milder, and they are far less likely to be hospitalised and to put strain on the medical system.

This, it seems, is the logic behind the Australian government’s decision to let only vaccinated travellers into the country. It’s either that or that they are simply reading the room regarding public sentiment (or maybe both).

The debate over whether Australia’s government went too far in the last couple of years (in terms of lockdowns, and shutting our international borders) is a popular talking point in both Australia and America. In this writer’s experience, many Australians, despite being angry with the errors, heavy-handedness and political posturing that came with it, seem happy with many of the calls our authorities made (perhaps Western Australia and occasionally Queensland notwithstanding) to make the most of the position we found ourselves in, where for a long period of time we were able to avoid COVID completely to buy time to vaccinate everyone who wanted to be.

RELATED: Yet Another Video Has Americans Up In Arms About Life In Australia

Though many Australians enjoy saying to each other “you know other countries think we’re small-minded and coddled,” in order to make themselves feel ‘large minded’ and worldly, when push comes to shove, it seems quite a small minority of people who think we really should have just let COVID rip, and kept our right to travel.

Reading the room, from this writer’s anecdotal experience of having lived in Australia during COVID, the main issue most Australians I’ve talked to have is the heavy-handed approach to zero-COVID (and perhaps the strictness of the international travel ban’s exemption system), which saw many people miss key milestones in their friends and families lives (from weddings to funerals) who lived overseas.

Basically, in my opinion, the popular consensus is that the government did the right thing, but was too slow to lift heavy-handed rules and focussed on COVID-zero for longer than was sensible. As Traveller asked in an article in 2020: “So, what’s going on here? We flattened the curve in Australia when we were called to do it. We bought ourselves time. When COVID-19 struck we banded together as a society to keep case numbers low and give everyone a fair chance. But now what are we doing?”

The Traveller article continued: “Australia seems to have a problem. Politicians will tell you over and over again that we’re not aiming for elimination of COVID-19 in Australia, which sounds reasonable enough. Except that everything those politicians are doing seems to be aimed at zero-tolerance of the virus. Only zero cases will do. Anything else is unthinkable and requires drastic action.”

“And so we have Melbourne in an intense lockdown situation. We have restrictions of movement on all Australian citizens that are among the most repressive in the world right now.”

“We have state borders closed across the country. We have families separated. We have relationships split. We also have the sort of unhinged parochialism among the ruling class that culminates in the likes of Queensland premier Annastacia Palaszczuk turning a Ballina-based expectant mother away from emergency surgery in Brisbane, saying Queensland hospitals are ‘for our people only.'”

“And the obvious elephant in the room is that we as a country will probably never get to zero cases of COVID-19. Even New Zealand has had outbreaks. But we’ve become conditioned to believe that that is the only solution, that that is the only goal worth pursuing.”

I’m not sure we’ve paid enough attention to how creepily excessive it is that we’re banning Australians from leaving the country. It’s supposedly tied to the issue of our capacity to handle returning travellers if/when they need to come back

— Nick Casmirri (@ncasmirri) August 17, 2020

Even this though, people are conflicted about, recognising the benefits the basic premise of these rights restrictions (or as some would call it, violations) brought (even if they were far from perfectly implemented). Also, the fact there was nuance at all (Australians with good reason to leave the country were allowed to apply for an exemption, something many Americans don’t mention when talking about how we were ‘locked up’), even if many Australians reckon that nuance wasn’t good enough, is something many Americans often fail to recognize when talking about how badly our rights were removed.

What’s a more interesting discussion, from a utilitarian point of view, is whether the results obtained are worth the costs (economic, mental health, etc.). This is a debate many Americans are not willing to enter into though, as they believe you should never sacrifice your ideals of freedom – or at least the level of freedom they are accustomed to – regardless of the result. Basically: they aren’t utilitarians.

Speaking of America, Australian journalist Josh Szeps, who has spent much of his adult life working in America, recently said it’s not just American right-wing provocateurs who think Australia has lost some serious rights in the last few years, but even his Obama-voting “aunts and uncles” have expressed their sympathies for him for being Australian.

Szeps said on The Briefing podcast that this lack of understanding between countries has come, in part, “because of the misalignment of the way our [Australia’s] COVID experience mapped onto the American experience.”

“They had a very front-loaded crisis that then sort of just petered out into successive waves of somewhat normal infection. Not to say the infection rates aren’t very high over there but it’s become a backdrop to normal life.”

He added: “When Delta hit here [in Australia] and we had our big lockdowns over winter there was a lot of bafflement in America about why our police were being so strict…”

“What’s important for Aussies to understand when they think about these moments is the fundamental difference that’s going on between the world views of Australians and Americans here. I don’t want to speak on behalf of all Australians. I’ve been called an authoritarian bootlicker nazi, and so on, who is just an apologist for a fascist regime in Australia – many of these [comments] are from Australia so there’s definitely a minority of people here who think it’s totally ridiculous the extent to which the police have been enforcing arcane rules about contact tracing and isolation.”

“They think it’s ridiculous that any individual would be forcibly detained or incarcerated in a quarantine facility simply for being a close contact of someone with COVID, and they think that that’s gone off the deep end and all over the states from so many people would speak to me as if I just lost a loved one – my aunts and uncles who are solidly Obama voting anti-Trump people would hold my arm and look at me deeply in the eyes and say: ‘I’m so sorry about what you guys have been through. I can’t believe you’ve had to endure that level of government intrusion.’”

“In the US it is really fundamental to think that the government is basically broken and the government is basically antagonistic towards you and it’s sort of your duty to make sure you oppose government overreach at every step and the idea that government would – beyond what is absolutely critical to prevent a public health emergency – that once you’ve got reasonable rates of vaccination and reasonable hospital capacity and ICU bed capacity, the idea that the government would continue to nitpick and micromanage your life with QR codes and isolation and so on is anathema to Americans.”

“So I think it would be a mistake for example for us to characterise the American narrative about Australia as wholly similar to QAnon or capital rioters on January 6th of last year or something like that. It is a widespread general perception that at this point it’s ridiculous for places not just to be living with COVID.”

That being said, it cuts the other way too. Like Australians sometimes struggle to truly understand the American psyche, many American commentators have made themselves look foolish by pontificating about Australia without knowing the full context. As this article in Quillette by Matthew Blackwell, an Australian writer and Outback Drug and Alcohol Case Manager & Educator in the Northern Territory, explains, there are a bunch of conspiracy theories flying around Twitter about an alleged prison camp in The Northern Territory in Australia, which are, to anyone with boots on the ground, ridiculous.

“This all began when Cole posted a series of videos in which he held forth about the COVID-19 outbreak in the Northern Territory’s Aboriginal communities of Binjari, Robinson River, and Rockhole in the Katherine region, where I live and work,” Blackwell wrote, talking about a conspiracy theorist in the Northern Territory.

“In his most popular viral video, he addressed his audience from in front of an Aboriginal flag, and surrounded by likeminded associates,” Blackwell wrote.

“From a distance of more than 300 kilometers, Cole denounced the Australian Defence Forces for rounding people onto trucks with military force and vaccinating them against their will. He also criticized the government for locking these communities down and forcing the people to flee to find food. He demanded foreign intervention. In another video, Cole described vaccines as an act of genocide and anticipated the death of 15 million Australians.”

“These statements are par for the course from Cole, and as usual, they didn’t attract much attention in the Territory. However, across the Internet, his videos were seized upon by credulous commentators for whom any anti-lockdown agitprop, no matter how outlandish, is just grist to their ideological mill.”

“For several years now, David Cole has been a minor celebrity in the Northern Territory of Australia on account of his colorful conspiracy theories. While few people take anything he has to say seriously, many of us in the Territory enjoy wondering what he’s going to come up with next,” Blackwell wrote earlier in the piece. He also cited community leaders praising the Northern Territory government’s efforts to keep COVID at bay.

A Binjari man known as Billy is very disappointed by the conspiracies. “Whoever’s spreading bullshit, keep it to yourself. You don’t know what’s going on here, it’s just us, we deal with it.” Authorities “have gone above and beyond.” pic.twitter.com/7YowAIyncM

— Matthew Blackwell (@MBlackwell27) December 4, 2021

Blackwell wrote in Quillette: “When I spoke to one of the community leaders of Binjari and told her what an American YouTuber was saying, she giggled: ‘We’re being very spoilt, believe me.’ When asked about the mistreatment of residents during the lockdown, a resident of Binjari told ABC Radio, ‘Those people who don’t know what’s going on, you have no shame or no morals to say that they’re doing that to us, because they haven’t. They have gone above and beyond, and I’m pretty impressed—not just me, it’s my whole community members.'”

Quarantines tend to be mandatory. Sane people have always understand that they’re necessary and spending 2-3 weeks watching TV in a hotel room is not a human rights violation.https://t.co/I6818EIx3b

— Substack Neil Young filling in for Chuck Fina (@clifford_banes) November 29, 2021

The gist of it, basically, is that the Howard Springs quarantine centre, which a bunch of Americans thought was like a concentration camp, is actually pretty luxurious. It’s where returning Olympians have quarantined – and it’s got Netflix.

Getting back to Dave Asprey though, and his comments on Australia as a whole (not just the Northern Territory), and his hope that tourists stay away until the government apologizes and “returns power back to the people where it belongs,” we’d really like to know what he’s referring to? Is it the Melbourne lockdown? The Sydney lockdown? This debunked Howard Springs conspiracy theory? The international travel ban? Without knowing specifically what Asprey wants the government to apologise for (though we assume it’s the international travel ban), it’s hard to theorise, and we won’t make any aspersions as to what he means.

But if the government were to give the power back to the people, it’s hard to say how different Australia’s response to COVID would have been. Are we en masse more of a utilitarian nation that America? Or are we just easily led? Who knows.

RELATED: The European Freedom Australians Can’t Handle

What we will say is that there seems to be a parallel between how many Americans were fooled into believing one thing about The Northern Territory, when people on the ground could easily see it was another, and how many Americans, without living the situation in Australia, blindly assume that international travel ban was definitely wrong.

That’s not to deny the anger many Australians feel about the heavy-handedness and political posturing that has come alongside the lockdowns and international border closures (and their length). But many Americans don’t appreciate Australia’s different context of actually having the ability to avoid massive numbers of COVID at the beginning of the pandemic by implementing these measures.

And surveys have suggested a majority of Australians were actually in favour of the travel ban. As SBS reported in May 2021, “More than a year after the nation’s borders were closed, preventing Australians from travelling overseas without an exemption, a Lowy Institute poll has shown only two in 10, or 18 per cent of people, feel all Australians should be free to leave the country.”

“The survey was conducted between 15 and 29 March 2021, with a sample size of 2,222.”

“Almost half of those polled – 41 per cent – agreed with the current policy that requires people to have special exemptions to be allowed to leave the country.”

“But equally, 40 per cent also believed those who have been vaccinated should be free to leave.”

“Vaccination as a prerequisite for international travel was largely supported by most older Australians, with those aged over 60 more likely to support the idea.”

“Only a third of Australians aged 18-59 said those vaccinated should be free to leave now.”

SBS continued: “Natasha Kassam, the director of the Lowy Institute’s public opinion and foreign policy program, said while most people appeared to be impressed by Australia’s handling of the pandemic, there were signs of frustration with the length of time borders have been closed.”

“While many Australians may think of closed borders as a limitation on tourism or business travel, it’s important to remember that a third of Australia’s population was born overseas,” she told SBS.

“Many families have been separated during this pandemic.”

What both Australians and Americans can probably agree on, is that they were separated for too long.

Read Next

• Iconic French Riviera Photo Reveals The Freedom Europeans Have No One Else Does
• This Bizarre Contraption Could Be The Solution To Bad Posture, According To Health Hacker Dave Asprey
• Health Hacker’s Sleep Advice Leaves American Couples Divided

The post Celebrity Biohacker Dave Asprey Says He Hopes Tourists Boycott Australia appeared first on DMARGE Australia.

Eileen Gu is almost unfairly talented. Despite being only 18 years old, she’s not only one of the world’s top skiers, but she’s also an IWC Schaffhausen ambassador, Victoria’s Secret model, been admitted into Stanford University and made the Forbes 30 Under 30 list.Now, she’s added yet another string to her already impressive bow. The American-born athlete, who has competed for China since 2019, has just become the youngest ever gold medalist in freestyle skiing, winning the big air event – in seriously dramatic style – at the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics.Watch the jump that secured Gu the gold below.

That’s what you call a double cork 1620 – a truly impressive jump. Even more impressive is that was the first time Gu ever attempted the trick… And she nailed it on her first try. Talk about talented.She’s also only the second woman to have ever successfully pulled off the trick, the first being France’s Tess Ledeux – who nailed the trick earlier in the same event and ultimately won silver to Gu’s gold.RELATED: Lewis Hamilton Shows Off ‘Desert Storm’ Edition IWC Schaffhausen WatchGu took to Instagram a few hours ago to celebrate the win, saying she’s “in absolute disbelief still.”“Thank you friends, family, and fans for all the support and thank you, skiing, for the experiences you have given me. Best day of my life. And to Tess Ledaux and Mathilde Gremaud [the Swiss skier who took bronze] thank you for pushing women’s skiing to the level it’s at now, and for inspiring me for so many years.”Read Next

• Ash Barty Wears Signature Rado Watch In Australian Open Final Win
• Meet The IWC Watch Built To Withstand Toto Wolff’s Biggest Tantrums

The post Eileen Gu Makes Olympic History With Insane Ski Jump appeared first on DMARGE Australia.

For over a century, the Michelin Guide has been the world’s pre-eminent authority on fine dining. Prestigious, thorough and notoriously secretive in its approach to reviewing establishments, receiving (or losing) a Michelin star can radically affect the fortunes of a restaurant. Not bad for something that originally started out as a promotional ploy by a tire company to get more people buying cars.

While Michelin initially focused its efforts on reviewing the restaurants and guest houses of Europe, recent years has seen Michelin offer guides for cities across the world, including multiple cities in Brazil, China, Japan and the United States.

But there’s one part of the world that’s not yet been graced with a Michelin Guide that arguably really ought to have one: Australia.

No Australian city boasts a dedicated Michelin Guide, nor is there a country-wide or even a region-wide Michelin Guide covering Australia. The closest city/country to Australia to have a Michelin Guide to is Singapore (which boasts 49 starred restaurants, including 3 3-star restaurants).

While there are plenty of countries that don’t have Michelin Guides that arguably really deserve one – Canada, Mexico and Vietnam immediately spring to mind – it seems to be a real abberation that Australia doesn’t have a single guide either.

DMARGE spoke with Australian celebrity chef and author Tobie Puttock – who’s worked in Michelin-starred restaurants himself – who thinks it’s bonkers that Michelin hasn’t deemed Australia fit to receive a guide yet.

“It’s totally crazy. Everywhere has the guide except Australia and we have such a strong food scene, with some of the world’s best restaurants… Surely it will come this way in the next [few] years.”

RELATED: Celebrity Chef Tobie Puttock Shares Surprising Truth About Steak Every Australian Should Know

But the real question is this: does Australia even need a Michelin Guide? Is it something we, as fine dining aficionados, should really aspire to?

Many Aussies would argue that we’re already well-served by local restaurant guides, such as Gourmet Traveller or the confusingly similarly-named Australian Good Food Guide and The Sydney Morning Herald’s Good Food (which both, rather bewilderingly, use a three hat system analogous to the Michelin Guide’s star system).

The other argument is that a Michelin Star isn’t necessarily anything to aspire to. As one commenter on Chowhound has adroitly put it, “Michelin’s apparent judging criteria are the antithesis of Australian dining; people would be knocked down a star or two because the service staff didn’t refold the napkins every seven point two minutes.”

RELATED: I Tried Australia’s Most Expensive Sashimi & OMFG

They continue: “let’s be ruthlessly honest here – we’d be looking at maybe four or five two stars and a couple of dozen one stars across the whole of Australia… Australia doesn’t value the precision and consistency required to make the star ratings.”

That’s nothing to be ashamed of, either. The Michelin Guide is a thoroughly French publication that definitely has a bias towards French standards and techniques. Australian culture, and dining culture specifically, is nowhere near as stuffy and formal. Vive la difference.

There are plenty of restaurants in Australia that, if there was a Michelin Guide, would easily make the cut, including a selection of the best restaurants in Sydney and Melbourne.. But maybe we should be less hung up about restaurant guides, and spend more time discovering great dining spots ourselves.

Read Next

• Sydney Claims Shock Victory Over Melbourne In 2021’s ‘Best Bars In The World’ Ranking
• Food Critic Stages Hilarious Kebab Stunt Outside Salt Bae’s London Restaurant

The post Australia Doesn’t Have A Michelin Guide… But Who Cares? appeared first on DMARGE Australia.

We might intellectually know it’s ok for men to be vulnerable in this day and age, but how you (or your date) really feels about your heart-on-sleeve antics, having been raised in a different world, can be quite a different thing.

Let me preface this by outing myself as a non-lover of Married At First Sight (MAFS). To be completely honest, I think the show and its premise are trash and I genuinely don’t understand how people can endure watching it.

However, the last few episodes – last night’s in particular – have sparked a massive debate online and highlighted a serious societal issue: whether ‘real’ men are ‘allowed’ to be vulnerable.

Of course, real men are allowed and, frankly, should be encouraged to be vulnerable and sensitive despite what contestant (I don’t watch this show; are they all contestants? Is there a prize?!) Selin Mengu said on national television. Selin married Anthony Cincotta this season and at the beginning of the latest episode described her new husband in an extremely harsh way:

“He’s really sensitive. Like, it doesn’t [to me] seem like he’s a man.”

The show then cuts to Anthony who, while he doesn’t hear this remark, describes that he’s disheartened with Selin constantly ridiculing him for being in touch with his feelings and allegedly calling him ‘princess’ off-camera.

“After being vulnerable, it just kind of kept getting thrown back into my face.”

Anthony, upset with Selin’s comments and behaviour, decided to leave their honeymoon a day early. From what I can tell – aside from this one, I have not watched a single MAFS episode in my life – both Anthony and Selin have done wrong.

Selin didn’t like some of the playful things Anthony did on their honeymoon and rather than talking to him about it she decided to make snarky comments that upset him. Then when he got upset, she made derogatory comments about his vulnerability (not cool). However, Anthony should’ve tried to talk to Selin and explained why he was upset and why it’s not okay to make those types of comments rather than just leaving.

Then after a whole bunch of drama, worthy of a high-school playground, last night’s episode ended with the newlywed couple going to have a ‘private’ (or as private as it can be with cameras rolling and roughly 1 million Aussies watching at home) chat to discuss their issues.

Selin voices that she’s frustrated that Anthony left the honeymoon early as it denied her the chance to communicate with him and potentially fix up their tiff. She then says all she wants is an apology. Actively listening, Anthony says:

“I understand that and I’m sorry for that,” which is an 11/10 apology; Anthony made absolutely no excuses and sincerely apologised. However, Selin doesn’t acknowledge the apology, clearly doesn’t listen to Anthony and refuses to own up to or apologise for her own horrible behaviour.

Viewers quickly took to Twitter to voice their outrage at the way Selin acted.

REAL MEN CAN CRY AND SHOW VULNERABILITY. IT DOESN'T MAKE YOU ANY LESS OF A MAN.

PLEASE NORMALIZE THIS!#MAFSAU #MAFS #MAFSAustralia

— Married At First Sight Experts (@mafsexperts) February 3, 2022

Selin has a lovely guy who’s strong, communicative and caring. When will she understand that being vulnerable takes incredible strength, it’s not a weakness. Men need to be able to express vulnerability otherwise it can lead to negative expressions of emotions. #MAFS #MAFSAU

— Artemis (@easytiger7777) February 7, 2022

is selin seriously blaming it on anthony’s lack of ability to communicate…? when he did communicate his feelings she belittled his masculinity sooo #MAFS #MAFSAU

— Olivia Perry (@0liviaperry) February 7, 2022

I have to admit, after watching the episode I definitely sided with Anthony but then this morning on the Fitzy & Wippa radio show, Selin defended herself saying that “viewers have got to understand they see one per cent of everything that has happened.”

Selin also explained that she tried to talk to Anthony earlier in the evening but he brushed her off, so when they finally did talk later (which is what viewers saw) she was a few wines deep and felt that his apology was too little, too late. Now I’ve decided I don’t particularly want to take sides as I can appreciate, as a woman, that perhaps Selin has been edited to look like a villain and Anthony has been edited to look like a saint.

We will never know what happened off-camera or what’s been edited out. Perhaps Selin never called Anthony a ‘princess’ and perhaps Anthony has some red flags that have been cut out of the show. Truth be told, I don’t care about the individuals involved in this, for lack of a better word, feud. I care about the bigger issue at hand.

MAFS is perpetuating a damaging notion; that men who are sensitive are not ‘real’ men and that women will treat you horribly and call you names if you do show your vulnerable side.

An independent study DMARGE conducted found that 33% of people believe that men should figure out their problems without asking for help and talking about personal issues is weak. This outdated way of thinking is harmful and is undoubtedly a contributing factor as to why men die by suicide at a higher rate than women.

Therefore, it’s imperative that we, as a society, encourage men to openly share and discuss their feelings. MAFS’ narrative concerning Selin and Anthony is potentially scaring and warping more than 33% of people into thinking ‘being vulnerable is weak’.

#MAFSAU problem is this show is normalising this sort of behaviour. Call it now and remove her from the show.

— Dogs Brekky (@steveswannie) February 8, 2022

Honestly, my takeaway from my first ever MAFS viewing is don’t marry a stranger on a ridiculous reality show; it’s so edited and scripted and over-dramatic that in this instance I’m not entirely sure who’s to blame; although Selin really needs to stop making disparaging comments that suggest real men don’t have emotions and if they do, don’t express them.

And, to end on a more serious note, both men and women need to be educated about toxic masculinity and it needs to be made clear that being sensitive and vulnerable is in no way, shape or form ‘weak’ or ‘unmasculine’.

Read Next

• You Don’t Need A Psychology Degree To Ask A Mate If They’re OK
• Best Series & TV Shows To Watch On Netflix Australia

The post Last Night’s MAFS Episode Suggests Australia Isn’t Ready For Vulnerable Men appeared first on DMARGE Australia.

Growing up in a small country town, I was very late to the sashimi game; I was seventeen years old when I tried raw fish for the first time. But I instantly loved sashimi as well as pretty much all Japanese cuisine. Now, I regularly indulge in a bento box paired with a good sake or a fine Japanese whiskey, so you can bet I instantly said ‘yes’ when I was offered the chance to try Sydney’s most expensive sashimi plate.

Sokyo, the grandiose Japanese restaurant located in Pyrmont’s The Star Sydney Casino, boasts an impressive 4.5 out of 5 stars rating on Google Reviews and is currently offering a new menu item, the ‘Opulent Sashimi Platter,’ to celebrate the Lunar New Year.

Video: Sokyo’s Sashimi Platter Arrives At My Table

Upon arriving at Sokyo, which has a cool, trendy, almost-New-York vibe to it, I was instantly ushered to my table and offered water and a cocktails list; in other words, the customer service was impeccable. I was enjoying my delectable ‘Ocean’s 15’ – a Suntory Roku Gin based cocktail – when the sashimi platter was brought out. And, oh boy, was it a sight to see.

Two staff members carried the huge platter out, and a third set off an impressive dry ice effect. The people sitting at the table next to mine audibly gasped and then asked what I had ordered, looking longingly at the behemoth sashimi plate that sat before me. Excited by the whole spectacle, I enthusiastically grabbed my chopsticks (after taking the obligatory Instagram photo of the food, of course) and dug in.

And, my god. Every ingredient on the platter, which included Tasmanian live lobster, caviar, toro, Japanese tuna belly, ocean trout, scampi, scallop, kingfish, snapper, caviar and assorted sashimi, was simply prepared to perfection; the tuna belly in particular, just melted in my mouth. Honestly, if you consider Japanese food your favourite cuisine, do yourself a favour and treat yourself to the Opulent Sashimi Platter. Words simply don’t do it justice.

After the delicious meal that I enjoyed at Sokyo on Friday night, I awoke Saturday morning feeling hugely satisfied… I then spent my Saturday afternoon reminiscing about Sokyo’s succulent tuna belly – clearly my favourite from the Opulent platter.

If you’re wanting to try the most delicious sashimi Sydney has to offer you better book in quickly, as it’s only available for lunch and dinner until the 15th of February. And I will warn you, the platter will set you back a cool $688.80, but it’s worth every damn penny if you’re a sashimi fiend like me.

Read Next

• Penfolds’ $400,000 Wine Sale Is Actually The Bargain Of The Century
• I Got Stood Up. It Turned Into The Best Date Of My Life

The post I Tried Australia’s Most Expensive Sashimi & OMFG appeared first on DMARGE Australia.

Salomon Brothers, a Wall Street company famous for its excesses and scandals, which has featured in such books as “Liars Poker” and “Barbarians At The Gate,” is now being revived in 2022.

Salomon Brothers was founded in 1910 and was one of the biggest investment banks on Wall Street. It was best-known for its fixed-income trading department. Salomon Brothers went wild in the heydey of Wall Street in the 80s, then became embroiled in controversy and eventually came a cropper in the 90s.

As a result of various controversies, it went through a series of acquisitions and mergers between 1981 and 1997. Eventually, it merged with Citigroup, adopting its name in 2003.

Even since then though, the name “Salomon” has retained a pull. According to Wall Street Journal, even after the merger, investors (as late as 2009) would call Citi and ask for “Salomon.”

Seeking to play off this, a group of former employees is now using the storied name to launch their new firm.

The “full-service investment bank” will target New York State middle market firms and is looking for US $3 million to $300 million in equity capital, according to a public statement. The statement also said Salomon Brothers plans to hire hundreds of staff in the next few years.

Its president, R. Adam Smith, also said: “Salomon Brothers is a legendary name that has a tremendous following” in an interview.

“We have the honor to carry that legacy on our shoulders and to share that with bankers.”

Smith said the idea for Salomon 2.0 happened about three years ago, and that his group acquired the trademark from an undisclosed third party. He didn’t share the terms of the deal.

On Smith’s LinkedIn profile, he says the new incarnation of Salomon Brothers will provide corporate finance and capital market services, and will help New York companies recover from the pandemic.

“Salomon Brothers is an independent investment banking firm. The firm provides corporate finance and capital markets services. It has launched a major initiative to help New York companies recover from the pandemic and its affiliate provides an advanced fintech trading platform to quote New York companies.”

His profile also states: “The modern Salomon Brothers plans to grow rapidly and to honor the legacy of Salomon Brothers that as founded in 1910 and was once one of the largest Wall Street bulge bracket financial service companies. For over 25 years that firm was consistently among the top ten in the league tables for banking and capital markets. The firm was combined with Travelers in 1998 and eventually merged with Citigroup.”

He adds: “Today, the modern Salomon Brothers is an independent firm that is unaffiliated with any bank. With over 7,000 living alumni, many who are top in their field, the firm plans to grow rapidly. We are determined to see the Salomon Brothers name again at the top of the rankings.”

This isn’t the first time modern bankers have looked to leverage history to gain an edge in the contemporary market.

As Fortune reports, “Kingswood Capital Markets purchased the trademark for the name of famed brokerage EF Hutton last year so it could rebrand. Meanwhile, investment bank Independence Point Advisors jokingly used the code name ‘Salomon Sisters,’ referencing both Wall Street history and the fact that the firm is primarily owned and managed by women and minorities.”

Read Next

• I Bought $1,000 Worth Of Cryptocurrency. It Was A Huge Mistake
• ‘Costly’ Crypto Tax Mistake Catching Australian Crypto Investors Unaware

The post Salomon Brothers Revived After 20 Year ‘Death’ appeared first on DMARGE Australia.

For those unfamiliar with the world of luxury watches, the whole Rolex buying process is incredibly confusing. Not only are the retail prices of even the brand’s most affordable watches prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of the human population, buying a Rolex isn’t as simple as just walking into a store and plonking down a fat wad of cash.No, if you want to get a Rolex – especially popular models like stainless steel Daytonas or Submariners – you need to build up a purchase history with an authorised dealer (AD). Even then, you can expect to spend a long time on a waiting list before you get the chance to buy the watch you really want.Alternatively, if you can’t wait, you could try buying a watch on the grey market – but that’s a sucker’s game. Not only are aftermarket prices ludicrously expensive, but most watch resellers won’t provide a warranty, or transfer the Rolex factory warranty to you. Buying Rolexes on the grey market can be a very risky enterprise for a number of reasons.To make matters worse, the world’s in the midst of a Rolex shortage. Despite the fact Rolex has produced hundreds of thousands of watches a year for decades, demand has always outstripped supply. The COVID-19 crisis has added extra pressure: not only has it sparked even stronger demand for luxury watches (alternative asset classes are in, baby!) but it’s also dealt a hammer blow to Rolex and other watch manufacturers’ supply lines and manufacturing capacities.In short, it’s never been tougher to get your hands on new Rolexes. But there’s a solution to this growing problem that’s been staring all us watch fans in the face for ages: we just need to stop being so poor.

Now, we’re not entirely just being provocative with that statement… Or just stating the obvious.Conventional Rolex buying wisdom suggests that the way you get into an AD’s good books is by buying up less popular models (typically hard-to-move women’s models like Lady Datejusts) over a long period of time, working your way up through the Rolex ranks before landing on your GMT-Masters and Submariners.But as a DMARGE correspondant who works for one of Sydney’s biggest watch boutiques has shared with us, another tactic that’s successful is just to go in and buy the most expensive Rolex in the boutique. They shared an anecdote where a buyer with no previous purchase history simply walked in to the Rolex boutique, bought a platinum Daytona ref. 116506-0002 (a roughly AU$350,000 watch) and instantly found himself placed at the tippy-top of all the desirable waiting lists.Other incredibly expensive Rolex models that could net you the same effect, we wager, include the Pearlmaster 39 ref. 86409RBR-0001 (~AU$290,000) or the ultra-exclusive Daytona ‘Eye of the Tiger’ ref. 116588TBR (~AU$310,000), which doesn’t even appear on Rolex official catalogues.RELATED: Rolex Secretly Offers A New Version Of Their Most Luxurious Watch EverSo rather than spending six figures over a couple of years on a bunch of undesirable, smaller watches, the better tactic is to just bellyflop in and splash your cash all in one go on a super expensive piece. At least, that’s the theory.

Of course, the other solution to this perverse state of affairs, as jeweller and watch journalist Joseph Adams has suggested, is for Rolex to relax their notoriously strict control over retail prices and let ADs markup watches however they like – like how car dealers do.“If manufacturers allow dealers to mark up watches to what the market will bear it would solve the current shortage in one fell swoop… They reduce access to a simple metric that everybody can understand,” he argues. “Every other way of selling sought-after watches is cronyism of the worst sort… All of us – from the manufacturer to the consumer – should embrace it.”RELATED: The Radical Solution To Fix Rolex’s Biggest ProblemWhich brings us back to our central thesis… Maybe you just need to stop being so poor.Speaking of stupidly expensive watches, check out our guide to the most expensive Rolex watches of all time below.

Read Next

• Fake Rolex Watches Have Become In Vogue For The Ultra-Wealthy
• What The 2022 Rolex Price Increase Means For Australian Consumers

The post The Solution To The Rolex Shortage: “Stop Being Poor” appeared first on DMARGE Australia.

Spoiler alert: the following article contains spoilers for John Wick: Chapters 1, 2 & 3 – Parabellum.

If you’re anything like me or Alice from Alice in Wonderland, you’re a curious person who regularly goes down various rabbit holes; in my case, internet rabbit holes. The other night, I somehow came upon an old theory on Reddit by user ‘coces’ that I feel needs to be shared and explored.

The Reddit post suggested that the popular John Wick franchise, starring Keanu Reeves as the titular character, will consist of a total of five films and each film will represent one of the five stages of grief. Naturally, I became fascinated and decided to dig deeper to see if this theory could be true.

Firstly, in case you’re unfamiliar with the term, the ‘five stages of grief’ concept was developed by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross in the 1960s and, originally, the concept explained the various feelings people with terminal illnesses go through while processing their imminent death. Today, medical professionals agree that most people who are dealing with grief in general, experience the five stages, which are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

So far, three John Wick films have been released and a fourth is on the way… but so is a fifth. Lionsgate announced way back in 2020 there would be a fifth John Wick film – currently titled John Wick: Chapter 5 – and Lionsgate’s CEO John Feltheimer also said the studio hoped to shoot the fourth and fifth John Wick films back to back.

Of course, John Wick: Chapter 4 was delayed repeatedly due to COVID-19 but is finally confirmed to currently be in post-production and is slated for a March 2023 release date… so, Reeves could be secretly filming the fifth instalment right now. Ultimately, the confirmation of a John Wick 5 – paired with the fact that a sixth John Wick hasn’t been rumoured or announced – means that there are officially going to be five John Wick films, which perfectly aligns with the five stages of grief.

If you’re still not convinced that this genius theory will turn out to be true, prepare to be amazed because the existing first three John Wick films already seem to represent the first three stages of grief.

The first film starts with John attending his wife, Helen’s funeral; so obviously, John’s dealing with grief. But he’s also clearly in the first stage of that grief: denial. John continually flashes back to memories of when Helen was alive; as if she never died. Then, he spends the whole film distracting himself, rather than dealing with and accepting Helen’s death, with a difficult time-consuming task (tracking down and killing those that were involved with the theft of his car and the murder of his puppy).

The second John Wick film sees John experience a blind rage or, you know, the second stage of grief: anger. John is forced to call upon his assassin skills and complete a kill but upon doing so is betrayed. John then becomes so angry he irrationally kills on Continental Hotel grounds – an unbreakable rule of the underworld – which leads to a huge bounty on his own head and losing all access to underworld resources.

Finally, for almost the entirety of the third film, John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum, John is bargaining; the third stage of grief. He constantly has to make deals and negotiate – with both old connections and The High Table – to stay alive. Plus, the film’s name ‘Parabellum’ is derived from the Latin saying ‘si vis pacem, para bellum’ which roughly translates to ‘if you want peace, then prepare for war’ and honestly, that whole phrase sounds like bargaining to me.

We’ll have to wait until the 23rd of March next year to see if the fourth John Wick film represents the fourth stage of grief: depression. As there are next to no details available surrounding John Wick: Chapter 4’s plot, it could be entirely possible.

And if John Wick 4 does explore depression, then obviously for this theory to work, the fifth film – whenever it gets released – would have to explore the final stage of grief, acceptance… which you have to admit would neatly wrap up the franchise. Especially, if the fifth and final John Wick film ends with John finding peace and accepting Helen’s death, as it would perfectly mirror the first film which practically starts with a note from Helen telling John “now that I have found my peace, find yours.”

Of course, this theory could just be a coincidence or easily disproved if Lionsgate announces a sixth film –something that’s not totally out of the question considering how popular and successful the John Wick franchise is and the fact that Reeves told GQ in 2019 he’ll happily keep making John Wick films as long as the fans want them.

As Marcus wisely says to John in the first film, “there’s no rhyme or reason to this life” and, hey, perhaps there’s no reason or rhyme to this theory… But I’m convinced it’s brilliant and will turn out to be true.

Read Next

• Everything You Need To Know About Marvel’s New Hero ‘Moon Knight’
• Daniel Craig Teases ‘Knives Out 2’ Will Be Released Sooner Than We Think

The post If This Theory Is True, John Wick 4 Will Be An Extremely Depressing Film appeared first on DMARGE Australia.