I accidentally came across Massive Studios by searching for a game with a similar name to their beautifully designed Super Mega Monsters. Released nearly a year ago, the cascading reels feature captures that Candy Crush style of gameplay where one spin can lead to multiple drops of disappearing symbols. Apparently, I'm not the only person fond of this game as there are several videos of gameplay with enthusiastic commentary.
Founded in 2022 with headquarters in Melbourne, Australia, Massive Studios has already released 7 quality titles in that short span. As a web designer, I really respect their dedication to formatting the games to different devices and aspect ratios. Characters and elements that appear next to the reels in landscape mode seamlessly move from top to bottom when changing the orientation of your phone.
Much like our developer from last week, the company maintains a very active profile on LinkedIn. Things must be going very well as they recently posted about an animator job opportunity. Innovation is a huge priority and given their recent accomplishments the future looks very bright for this young company.

Games That Stand Out

While the library of games is small, Massive Studios has no problem exploring different themes and topics. Sure, a few of them are in the horror category but there are other quality choices too. Although, I definitely need to start out with the game that got my attention.
Super Mega Monsters
There's a lot to keep an eye on (no pun intended) when playing Super Mega Monsters. As mentioned in the introduction, the cascading reels keep the action going with each successive drop of matching symbols. A history bar on the left begins to grow while on the right side each of the monster's five eye balls start to fill. If you're feeling lucky a buy feature allows you to activate a game enhancer mode or apply 2 specific bonus attributes.
https://preview.redd.it/nkz23ojk9m4d1.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d3e3a9bd56a87bae77c50a316b505a1c0c7d924e
Bonsai Banzai
As soon as you start this game you may choose your character and the level of volatility. Will you play it conservatively and select the option for high volatility and normal wilds OR extreme volatility and multiplying wilds? Fortunately, you can easily switch between the two mid-game with the click of a button. I caught myself doing just that several times in a row to activate leaves fluttering in the background and the accompanying sound effects.
https://preview.redd.it/mxgmasf5bm4d1.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=daf54aee3acd9b5f2276c42630451e275afe0bb0
Drac's Stacks
Take on Dracula in this spooky-themed slot game featuring fun symbols like mirrors, garlic, holy water and more. The buy feature has not 1 but 2 game enhancers along with 2 bonus options to opt for. While stunning for sure, it's the music that really sets the tone of the game. It's a track that would fit right in with any other ambient Halloween music.
https://preview.redd.it/b17kdgyedm4d1.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6b5922ce539e3ee075eb1fa052878ed88dd705e7
You can play these and other games from Massive Studios right on their website. For any 2D artists, make sure you bookmark their LinkedIn as their team continues to grow and seek new talent.

Missouri’s Constitution has banned noncitizens from voting since 1924. And state law requires individuals to verify they are a U.S. citizen in order to register to vote.
But GOP lawmakers contend the constitutional and statutory language isn’t strong enough. Instead of saying that “all citizens” can vote, Republicans argue the state constitution should be changed to make it clear that “only citizens” can vote.
So on the final day of the 2024 legislative session last month, the GOP pushed through a proposal that would, among other things, ask voters to change “all” to “only.”
“If they become a citizen, then absolutely I would welcome their engagement in our electoral process,” state Sen. Ben Brown, a Republican from Washington, said while presenting the bill to a House committee. “However, what I aim to do is to prevent the dilution of the voice of U.S. citizens.”
Critics painted the proposal as nothing more than “ballot candy” designed to stoke anti-immigrant sentiment and trick voters into signing off on the amendment’s other provision — a ban on ranked-choice voting.
Marilyn McLeod, president of the League of Women Voters of Missouri, called the proposal a “red herring” at a legislative hearing last month.
“It’s already against the law,” she said.
The idea that noncitizens could be illegally voting has become an election-year talking point for Republicans across the country, often echoing the baseless conspiracy theory spread by former President Donald Trump that millions of undocumented immigrants voted in the 2016 election.
A nationwide survey by the Brennan Center for Justice found the number of noncitizens suspected to have voted in the 2016 election was only around 30. A national database run by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, shows that there have been fewer than 100 cases of voter fraud tied to noncitizens since 2002, according to a recent count by The Washington Post.
The Ohio Secretary of State’s Office this year announced only 137 suspected noncitizens were discovered to be on that state’s rolls out of roughly 8 million voters. And the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office found that 1,634 noncitizens attempted to register to vote over a 25 year period, but all had been blocked by local election officials.
Yet in some states, even though noncitizens are prohibited from voting in federal elections, they have been permitted to cast a ballot for local candidates.
In 16 cities and towns in California, Maryland and Vermont, noncitizens are allowed to vote in some local elections, such as for school board or city council. In 2022, New York’s State Supreme Court struck down New York City’s 2021 ordinance that allowed noncitizens to vote in local elections, ruling it violated the state constitution.
State Sen. Bill Eigel, a Weldon Spring Republican and a candidate for governor, said the language in the Missouri Constitution designed to prohibit noncitizen voting is similar to other states where the practice is taking place locally.
He believes Democrats in Missouri could follow suit.
“So do I think that if (St. Louis) Mayor Tishaura Jones thought that there was an opportunity to start engaging noncitizens to vote in local St. Louis city municipal elections, would she do it using the same procedure that’s happened to these other states?” he said. “I absolutely think she would. So for me, it’s important to put these additional protections in the constitution.”
Already illegal? In 1865, Missouri voters approved a new constitution abolishing slavery. The 1865 “Drake Constitution,” written by what were called Radical Republicans, took the vote away from former Confederates and extended it to immigrants who were not yet citizens but who had declared their intent to become one.
The provision rewarded the largest immigrant group in Missouri at the time, Germans, who were among the most anti-slavery, and therefore Radical Republican voters.
The franchise was taken away from noncitizens in 1924, when newcomers were more likely to come from eastern and southern Europe, in an amendment proposed by a state Constitutional Convention passed with 53.5% of the vote.
In addition to the century-old constitutional prohibition, state law also requires Missourians to declare whether they are a U.S. citizen when registering to vote. And Missouri Secretary of State Jay Aschroft, a Republican and candidate for governor, has repeatedly clarified over the years that state law says “you have to be a citizen to register to vote.”
Much of Missouri’s debate this year about noncitizen voting took place as part of a session-long fight over a Republican push to make it harder to amend the state constitution through the initiative petition process.
A campaign to legalize abortion up to the point of fetal viability submitted more than 380,000 signatures to the Missouri Secretary of State’s office, paving the way for the proposed constitutional amendment to potentially land on the November ballot.
In response, Republicans hoped to raise the threshold for amending the constitution from a simple majority statewide to both a majority of votes statewide and a majority of votes in five of the state’s eight congressional districts.
Under that proposal, approximately 23% of voters could theoretically control the outcome, where a vote against an amendment in four districts would be enough to defeat it statewide.
Many Republican proponents of raising the bar for amending the constitution acknowledged its chances of winning voter approval was slim.
“Raising the threshold is a loser and various states have proven that’s a loser,” Tim Jones, state director of the Missouri Freedom Caucus, said earlier this year.
So to bolster the amendment’s chances, Republicans added the noncitizen voting provision.
Senate Democrats refused to allow the proposal to go to the ballot with the noncitizen language, arguing it was deceptive. They staged a 50-hour filibuster that ultimately killed the proposal amid Republican infighting.
“It’s in there to deceive voters,” state Sen. Karla May, a St. Louis Democrat, said during the filibuster about the noncitizen voting ban. “It’s already law, but they want to trick voters into thinking it’s not law. It’s deceiving language added to the bill.”
Gov. Mike Parson, a Republican, seemed to agree, telling a reporter from Nextar Media Group that “it’s already illegal for an illegal to vote in the state of Missouri. We’ve already got that part.”
With the Senate mired in gridlock, the House picked up and passed the rank-choice voting amendment that included noncitizen provision. After months of heated debate over the issue, it was barely mentioned when the rank-choice voting ban was sent to the ballot on the session’s final day.
“It seems like we’ve been wringing our hands for about a week or two on this particular issue,” state Rep. Brad Banderman, a St. Clair Republican, said during the House debate, “but on this day, on this Senate Joint Resolution, the other side of the aisle doesn’t seem to be standing at mics complaining.”

Hello i’ve recently purchased these 304L cold drawn stainless steel metal bars to use them in confectionery work like sugar candy and caramels (you arrange the bars to form a square frame on the worktop and then pour the hot molten mix, as you can see in the second image as an example).
I didn’t inform myself properly so they’ve arrived in their raw state which is not safe for direct contact with food products. How do i make them smooth and ready for food work, as any other metal kitchen utensils? They don’t need any specialized treatment right? Just sanding and polish i assume

I love her expressions..those protein bars are so good, right Jessica? Yeah,I see it on your ugly face

https://preview.redd.it/kqo80sx4ug4d1.jpg?width=4000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2d8af14b7624b7da8e6adf304041653643fc6f88
This is my unicorn whisky
Tokyo day 2
Clynelish 1965 Scotch Malt Sales: Japan exclusive 27 years old Bottled 1992 51%
Others may seek out old Bowmore or Laphroaig but pre-Brora Clynelish will most likely be my favourite whisky of all time. (Clynelish from the old distillery before it was renamed to Brora).
I have seen a 1972 and pale vatting of 1965 before but i have never seen this bottle.
A friend tells me that it was probably from the first batch of 500ml bottles that Scotch malt sales ever got from Signatory vintage. To my knowledge, a picture or write up of this bottle didn't exist on the internet at all.
When I found out this bottle was for sale from a private collector, I planned a trip to travel over and collect it. (Convinced my wife that Tokyo is a nice place for our honeymoon 😆🤭)
https://preview.redd.it/fzxr8iolug4d1.jpg?width=4000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b0144bc3af6ccfedf5b9c333611173a3ed39f79a
Tonight we cracked it open on the spot and tasted it together with the bar owner that hosted us.
Old pre Brora Clynelish at cask strength and as a single cask is a rare sight. This bottle taken from Signatory Vintage stock and I suspect this was never bottled as a single cask apart from this 500ml version and was one of the first bottles ever bottled for Scotch Malt Sales. It’s completely understated in its packaging and appearance and many might glance over it if they didn’t know what they were looking at.
It is important to note that these 500ml bottles were never sold with seals or capsules - this means that it can easily be opened and refilled. Provenance and trust is of utmost importance when seeking out these bottles for Scotch malt sales. The seller acquired it from a stockpile of bottles that he bought over from a Bar owners private collection.
when we tasted it together, it was unmistakably old clynelish. I shall refrain from giving tasting notes until I am able to taste it in a more conducive setting but for now it’s feeling like 96/97 points. Stunning whisky…
The whole experience of travelling down to another country, meeting the bottle owner, sharing the liquid, a few laughs and deep discussion about the whisky alongside a knowledgable bartender made the whole experience amazing.
What is your unicorn whisky? please let me know
Part 2
Sharing the bottle:
The next day, i met up with a friend for a pre Brora Clynelish vertical that I’ve been dreaming of tasting. 🐈

1. Clynelish 1965 Scotch Malt Sales 27 year old 51%
2. Clynelish bottled 1971 for Giaconne 56.9% “long cap
3. Clynelish bottled 1973 for Giaconne 56.9% “Bicolour”
4. Clynelish 1965 Signatory Vintage #666 50.7%

https://preview.redd.it/ot1rlsynug4d1.jpg?width=4032&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c6ef611cc861757ce7f5866473ccfe576219d998
To compare them side by side provided a lot of context that I feel would be missing if tasted individually and helped me to develop a deeper understanding about the essence of old Clynelish distillate. The discussion was also insightful and lovely - a whisky nerds dream.
https://preview.redd.it/7lu3m4jqug4d1.jpg?width=2843&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5554ed050b038bfaba9b26fceae6c15fdce39f57
Some bonus tasting notes of #666 which i brought a sample back with me:
Clynelish 1965 Signatory Vintage Cask #666 28 years old Bottled July 1993
A month after Tokyo....
I tried this one when it was freshly cracked in Tokyo thanks to a friend who kindly brought it to share. I brought 2 small samples back and shared one of them with a close group of friends who polished it off way to quickly before it had time to develop in the glass Haha.
Today, I spent 2hrs tasting the last sample I have. Once again, a big thank you for sharing this whisky with me!
Initially when I tried it freshly cracked in Tokyo, it was quite resinous and sherry forward. Stripped bark, charred walnuts, oily perfumed wood resins, boot polish, flambeed brandy, cherries and engine exhaust dominated the nose and all hinted towards an old style sherry cask that also leaned towards dryness. To be honest, I struggled with it quite abit and the palate had some wood spice and leafy notes that seemed to clash with the spirit and obscured the clynelish distillate. It was a good sherried whisky but I hard a hard time finding the old clynelish distillate.
Now with air in the sample bottle and time to develop in the glass, this has blossomed into the old style clynelish I have come to love, with an extra dimension from the sherry cask that I do not find in the other pre Brora clynelishes I’ve had. The dry elements have transformed into lush and warmer hues. Candied tangerines, a stunning soft minerality in the form of beach pebbles, limestone, warm sea breeze, the smell of warm earth baking under the afternoon sun, very ripe mangoes and plums 1960s bowmore style (is this from the sherry cask?) and a lovely note of old oily resinous oak that has become an anchoring base note that uplifts the other flavours rather than obscuring them.
As it sits, Wow wow wow the mango notes and candied minerals are getting immense. In fact if I were to reduce my tasting notes into 4 words, it’ll be - mineral, incense, mango and wax.
This was far in flavour and aroma from #667 when I first tried it but now the flavour profiles are getting closer and closer. This one is definitely has more sherry influence in comparison which I initially thought would subtract from the experience but I was wrong. The sherry here is providing the ripe exotic yellow and orange fruit notes and a beautiful soft but aromatic wood influence. In time it melds with the soot and soft mineral notes and becomes incense like. The only aspect that is missing would be the immense linseed oil, coal and precise mineral purity that I found in other pre brora clynelish (Giaconne 12s & 1965 CA 51.7) . Its less forceful, is rounder and less phenolic from the time it’s spent in the cask.
The palate is more powerful than the nose would suggest. Here the old clynelish distillate really asserts itself. Soot and old workshop tools are drenched in tangerine and mango syrup with the texture of warm bubbling wax that sits on the tongue. Fat and velvety distillate. Its creamy in texture with tropical fruit syrup, spices and mineral studded gloopy waxes that glue to the tongue with notes of wood resins intermingled with vibrant minerals, oyster brine and green herbal liqueurs.
Initially a 89 when I tried it freshly cracked, to a 91 when revisited with friends and now to a 94. This really shows that reviews of whiskies done from samples can really differ and the most reliable reviews are from people who have journeyed with a full bottle… ha I wish I have a full bottle!
And wow I think this is the longest review I’ve written 😅
Sorry for the long rant!
P.s. : For those who would like to try this bottle, I will be sharing it at The Malt Affair Singapore. do come down to say hi and discuss this whisky with me!
more thoughts and ramblings at: https://www.instagram.com/thedrinkingewok/