#that implies it's all COMPETELY arbitrary!

[old-school-butch]

Age identity

I have found that racial identity is highly political concept that many people hesitate to argue around when they are making argument about gender identity. I’ve made more progress using age as a foundational argument and thought I'd share some of the parallels that can be made.

I begin with the request that my birth certificate should be amended to reflect my trans-age and not chrono-age. My reasons:

I have extreme dysphoria about growing old. It gives me panic attacks, it creates a morbid obsession about my impending mortality and I need emotional relief. I might kill myself if my aging continues. Many, many studies demonstrate that suicide rates jump in middle age. Age dysphoria a significant mental health risk. Discrimination against older people in the workforce is also systemic and significant. It hurts my employment prospects to force me to continue conforming to an oppressive and arbitrary system of temporal measurement.

I’m not alone in my views. Our movement has been ignored in order to exploit our oppression. Rates of age dysphoria among the chrono-elderly are near universal and increase with chrono-age. The vast market of botox, anti-aging creams, surgeries and other treatments are witness to the pain and suffering of age dysphoria, but we are forced to bear the costs out of our own pockets, harming every trans-age person and creating barriers to those unable to access age-euphoric treatment. It’s time that we recognize ageism and age dysphoria as the next important social movement, and you should be on the right side of history.

The mere existence of adult babies is not a fetish, but part of age identity has existed for centuries. It is a severe form of age dysphoria that is accommodated only during the extremes of chrono-age (the very young and very old), but diaper-wearing may be a source of age-euphoria at any chrono-age. Other trans-aged people might feel more comfortable in a post-toddler range, and there’s no reason to prevent them from enrolling in elementary schools or competing in those sports teams. Again, once we acknowledge that ‘age identity’ is an arbitrary measurement, you will agree that some chrono-aged 8 year olds can run faster than trans-aged 8 year olds and therefore there’s no conclusive evidence that so-called ‘adults’ differ in any systemic way from ‘children’ and that age-identity is more of a spectrum than scientific reality.

Age identity is a culturally determined construct, where in reality one day merges into the next with no clear universal progression or timeline for development. Progeria, ‘old souls’ and emotional ‘immaturity’ co-exist without regard to commonly-held age identities. Widely held beliefs like  ‘middle-age’ persist even through it’s impossible to identity without knowing your ultimate time of death. Even my doctor says I have the heart of a 30 year old . In fact, I’m more fit than many people younger than me. I’m healthier than I was at 45 now that I’ve fully recovered from cancer. Why can’t I return to the age of 39, which I feel best expresses how I feel on the inside? Sports competitions grouped by chrono-age should be inclusive of the trans-aged since there is no clear definition of the impact of age-identity on the human body.

Additionally, it should be obvious that ‘age of consent’ laws are discriminatory and not inclusive of trans-aged individuals. They should be repealed.

I’d also like to point out that trans-aged people do not all skew in a reductive temporal direction. There are many chrono-young but trans-aged people who feel they would be treated more in line with their age identity that is older than their chrono-years would imply. Again, workplace discrimination, dating discrimination and even fundamental civic rights are denied to many trans-aged individuals.

As a tiny ask, I would like to be referred to as ‘young miss’ in my interactions. That’s how I was addressed when I was chrono-young and I’d like to return to those happier days. I might kill myself if this request is ignored, so please check your age-privileged attitudes. Once age dysphoria is fully acknowledged, hate speech against the trans-aged will constitute a hate crime.

[thedawnofcrime]

To the gender criticals out there, know that when we say “let trans people in sports”, we are not suggesting that we should end the conversation at that. We are suggesting that with the topic of trans people in sports, y’all are not going in the right direction.

You cannot identify womanhood by any given trait or feature, besides the fact that somebody feels like a woman. That is what makes them feel comfortable in society and their bodies.

Not all cis women have uteruses. Not all cis women produce estrogen. Not all cis women have breasts. Not all cis women even have XX chromosomes.

These women are biologically female, and their womanhood should not be defined by arbitrary traits that you assign them. Besides, to imply that they are worthy of womanhood, and trans women are not, is hypocritical.

Gender isn’t just a social construct, it’s the way our brains perceive ourselves and our role in society from birth. You cannot be critical of things that are not subjective concepts. That is called ignorance.

The issue with trans people in sports (and I know there is one) is not that they’re a danger to sports, it’s that the system we compete based on is outdated, and biased towards a very stereotypical type of man and woman.

The solution is not banning a minority from something built for enjoyment, the solution is to abolish the system that they, along with many people outside of the minority, do not fit into.

There is no one-size-fits-all for sports separation, and different sports can be separated in different ways. If your system is built to regulate womanhood, it is not a system of protection, it is a system to oppression. We are all humans, and every day the excuses of “gender ideology” and “gender confusion” become more and more absurd.

Think for yourself. If you were born with something that made you different than other men or women, would you really be okay with everybody excluding you? From children’s soccer teams? From high school basketball practices? From putting in the years of effort to compete in the Olympics? All because you were born “imperfect” by their standards.

This isn’t something I’m willing debate. If you disagree with including minorities in sports, or allowing intersex people to compete, you need to do some long, individual reflection on why you care so much about how limited of a human experience a minority should have. Don’t try to reword yourself into the hero. Use some critical thinking.

#transgender #lgbtq #trans #lgbt #queer #trans sports #gender criticism #gender critic #gender critical

[dailyanarchistposts]

Chapter VI. Fourth Period. — Monopoly

MONOPOLY, the exclusive commerce, exploitation, or enjoyment of a thing.

Monopoly is the natural opposite of competition. This simple observation suffices, as we have remarked, to overthrow the utopias based upon the idea of abolishing competition, as if its contrary were association and fraternity. Competition is the vital force which animates the collective being: to destroy it, if such a supposition were possible, would be to kill society.

But, the moment we admit competition as a necessity, it implies the idea of monopoly, since monopoly is, as it were, the seat of each competing individuality. Accordingly the economists have demonstrated — and M. Rossi has formally admitted it — that monopoly is the form of social possession, outside of which there is no labor, no product, no exchange, no wealth. Every landed possession is a monopoly; every industrial utopia tends to establish itself as a monopoly; and the same must be said of other functions not included in these two categories.

Monopoly in itself, then, does not carry the idea of injustice; in fact, there is something in it which, pertaining to society as well as to man, legitimates it: that is the positive side of the principle which we are about to examine.

But monopoly, like competition, becomes anti-social and disastrous: how does this happen? By abuse, reply the economists. And it is to defining and repressing the abuses of monopoly that the magistrates apply themselves; it is in denouncing them that the new school of economists glories.

We shall show that the so-called abuses of monopoly are only the effects of the development, in a negative sense, of legal monopoly; that they cannot be separated from their principle without ruining this principle; consequently, that they are inaccessible to the law, and that all repression in this direction is arbitrary and unjust. So that monopoly, the constitutive principle of society and the condition of wealth, is at the same time and in the same degree a principle of spoliation and pauperism; that, the more good it is made to produce, the more evil is received from it; that without it progress comes to a standstill, and that with it labor becomes stationary and civilization disappears.

#organization #revolution #anarchism #daily posts #communism #anti capitalist #anti capitalism #late stage capitalism #anarchy #anarchists #libraries #leftism #social issues #economy #economics #climate change #anarchy works #environmentalism #environment #solarpunk #anti colonialism #mutual aid #the system of economic contradictions #the philosophy of poverty #volume i #pierre-joseph proudhon #pierre joseph proudhon

[a-secret-bolton-vampire]

I have my own criticisms of House of the Dragon, mainly that there isn't much room for certain characters to get good characterization and they could've done with either more episodes of splitting the first and second half into two seasons. I also think the Rhaenys breaking through the floor scene of the Dragonpit just did not make any sense (I mean, disregarding conveniently leaving the greens alive, how did Rhaenys not get crushed from going through the floor???)

On the other hand, there is criticism of the story that feels almost arbitrary or just straight up lying about the source material. For the record, I'm not really on team green or team black, but Fire and Blood gives the blacks all the best characters and the greens are just universally shitty and evil. But honestly, no matter which side each character is on, they are still pretty fucking flat.

Rhaenyra is like a more incompetent Cersei but with a dragon. All the big decisions made by the head of the blacks is made by Jacaerys instead because Rhaenyra is too busy all upset that Luke died to rule effectively (wtf??? Are you serious??? Aegon is actually proactive after Blood and Cheese but both Rhaenyra and Helaena are too emotional to do anything... it's not a good look).

Alicent is like a competent Cersei. I love Cersei, but Alicent is also very much the "bitch stepmother" stereotype and another example of George writing women as being unable to be friends. I'd rather if Alicent wasn't a Cersei clone with a colour scheme change. Then Aegon is just a lazy drunk, and Aemond... Aemond is like a shōnen anime character with all the nuance that implies.

Helaena gets zero characterization, other than "she was beloved, she's not as pretty because she's fat, and then she goes mad and kills herself the end." And then there is Daemon, the pedophilic child murdering power hungry narcissist that George calls "one of the greyest characters," which honestly makes me question if he even knows what moral greyness even is.

In general, the book version of the characters are just all around awful, unlikeable and devoid of nuance or complexity. And if the response is "but that's the point"... then idk what to say other than there is a difference between characters being morally bankrupt and characters being likeable. For instance, I love Daemon! He's one of my favourite characters! I am also aware he is an unrelenting piece of shit. It's part of why I adore him on page (but more so in the show).

The criticism, then, that I've seen, is that House of the Dragon is picking sides, whitewashing Rhaenyra and the blacks and shitting all over the greens. There are also complaints that the show made Daemon too evil and removed all his complexity, and Alicent is too innocent and not nearly as interesting as book Alicent. The thing is... the show characters are infinitely better than the book characters, in every conceivable way, and it pains me to hear people say otherwise.

Yes, the greens are still more villainous than the blacks. It's unavoidable when one of the core beliefs of the greens is "but muh male primogeniture." And yet the show definitely does a ton of heavy lifting to add complexity to the greens. Aemond, Alicent, and yes even Aegon, are given great, sympathetic backstories and are now rich, three-dimensional characters.

Aemond is still edgy. Again, unavoidable given he has an eyepatch (oh my god imagine a fem!Aemond... that's doing things to me). But he was bullied by Rhaenyra's kids as children, and Luke did cut out his eye. Worse still, Luke is never punished for it. So Aemond has good reason to be resentful of the blacks, and of Luke. But the show also makes it clear that the rivalry with Aemond and Luke is basically a very drawn out childhood spat. Case in point, the look on Aemond's face after Vhagar vhagarizes Luke and Arrax. He didn't want Luke dead, he just wanted his eye. And well, when you act like a child with WMDs... doesn't end well.

Aegon is still a piece of shit. The show didn't necessarily "add" him being a rapist, it's implied he's one in the book anyways. But again, the show does incredible heavy lifting for Aegon's character! He's a bad person still, and a villain, but the show expanded upon how Aegon became that way.

From an early age there was a pressure put onto him by Alicent to be prepared to rule. However, he seems to have not been very good at understanding the lessons. Viserys was an absentee father, doted on Rhaenyra but gave little attention to the rest of his children. He is constantly criticized for his faults by Alicent, and he takes Viserys's actions as him thinking he is an unworthy person. That feeling of disappointing his father, wanting his affection that he never gets, turns to self loathing and self-destructive behaviours.

Alcoholism, reckless behaviour (especially sex, he doesn't care about the consent of the women he sleeps with; also running off and hiding when he hears his father is dead), depression, laying in bed all day and having to be forced to wake up... these are not things a person with a good upbringing experiences. Yes, he is privileged, that doesn't help. But when you are so self-hating and do things to actively make yourself feel worse with no time spent thinking of consequences, that is something you see in people who have trauma from childhood abuse.

(I'm familiar with how this works as someone with borderline personality disorder. Neglect, abandonment, and harsh imposing of rules fucks up your ability to lead a normal, happy life. I need to clarify this because people will think I'm defending him, but this isn't a defense, it's an explanation for why he acts this way.)

Only when he's crowned and the crowd cheers for him does he finally feel as though he is loved for the first time. And that, of course, will have dark consequences down the line...

But the best example of lifting the greens to become more likeable and interesting is Alicent. One of the best show changes was making Alicent and Rhaenyra childhood besties. I know not everyone liked this decision, but it was crucial that this change happen for several reasons; 1) Female friendship is so rare in A Song of Ice and Fire. Like, think about it. Cersei has no female friends because she's a misogynist herself. Catelyn seems to only think about women with descriptions of child-bearing hips (wtf??) but at least she has Brienne, I guess, and Lysa hates everyone. We have some examples of actual friendship between women, but it's pretty rare. 2) It makes Alicent more sympathetic. This is huge because Fire and Blood gives her pretty much nothing. Making her younger, and have less agency, with a neglectful father, allows for her to be more understandable and complex. 3) It makes the rivalry between her and Rhaenyra all the more tragic. They are great friends (history might even call them "good friends") who are driven apart because of the misogynistic society they live in, which is very fitting for the themes of the story.

Yes, Alicent is whitewashed in the show. But, and this might be controversial, whitewashing isn't necessarily a bad thing. The fact Alicent has less agency is also fitting with the themes of the story. Making the story centered around both her and Rhaenyra's relationship is interesting and honestly, for the better. Aegon and Rhaenyra, both in book and show canon, don't interact much. They just hate each other. Making it about Alicent and Rhaenyra adds more emotional intensity to it all. And again, focus on the relationships of female characters is imo, a good thing!

Alicent and Rhaenyra are absolutely incredible character foils too. Both have lost their mothers. Rhaenyra is allowed much more freedom by her father. However, Alicent isn't given much freedom by her father. Rhaenyra indulges in the pleasures of life, but Alicent sacrifices that to be a dutiful wife and queen. Rhaenyra wants to break barriers on gender norms, while Alicent has internalized misogyny and believes in male primogeniture. When Viserys dies, it is Alicent and Rhaenyra who try to keep things peaceful and diplomatic, whereas the men in their lives (Otto and Daemon, respectively) do everything they can to push for war.

Finally, it is implied by Rhaenys that Alicent is using Aegon as a way to have power on the Iron Throne. Very hard to get into this briefly (I've already gone on so much longer than I wanted to), but I think she can both believe in male primogeniture and be resentful that she doesn't get the same power that Rhaenyra does. In this way, she is somewhat using Aegon as a way to get to power.

Compare this with Rhaenyra and Daemon. Rhaenyra is Viserys's chosen heir. Daemon is resentful that he was no longer the heir, and it's pretty clear that he wanted to marry Rhaenyra to get closer to the Iron Throne as well. As much agency as Rhaenyra has, she is still being used by the men in her life. And this is where we segue into the final topic of this; House of the Dragon's portrayal of Daemon Targaryen.

I already feel like I'm going to inflame a fandom war given everything I've said, but I'm going to say it anyways! Daemon is my favourite character in the show. Seriously, he's so fucking good! He is an absolute joy to watch onscreen. He is exactly how he is in the books; charismatic, mercurial, violent, impulsive, and cruel. You never quite know what he's thinking, what he's going to do, how he's going to fuck shit up.

On the other hand, there is some disappointment that Daemon is made perceptively more evil in the show. We know of a few scenes that showcase Daemon's humanity that the show cut. The most likely reason is simply for time and pacing purposes. I don't think there is secretly a conspiracy to make Daemon look worse (honestly it's a bit absurd to think this). And even if those scenes were added, it wouldn't change the fact that Daemon is not a morally grey character, and in fact, one of the central villains of this story.

He canonically loves taking girls virginity. The book makes it clear it's like, young teen girls. The show has only a throwaway line that Mysaria could bring him "a maiden," which is likely reference to that. Daemon is also the Commander of the City Watch. He's the coppiest cop that ever copped. ACAB includes the gold cloaks, all of them, including Daemon. They are all bastards, but Daemon is known for his sadistic pleasure of inflicting cruel punishments onto criminals.

He hurts his brother, repeatedly. He makes fun of Baelon's death the night of his funeral. He steals a dragon egg, lies about Mysaria getting pregnant, just to get Viserys's attention, and when Otto comes he nearly instigates a war against Viserys before Rhaenyra intervenes to stop the two. Mysaria is very much not happy about being used, as she easily would be killed, and Daemon knows this, he's not stupid.

When he learns Viserys is sending him help, Daemon gets so fucking pissy he beats the messenger to death because he wants to prove himself and not be helped by his big brother. He returns to King's Landing and reconciles with Viserys... except no, he hasn't. Viserys welcomes him with open arms, is jovial, loving. And Daemon repays that kindness by grooming and seducing his daughter, ruining her reputation, and then has the nerve to ask to marry her just so he can be close to the Iron Throne.

Daemon murders his wife. Is bold enough to almost kiss Rhaenyra in front of Viserys at her wedding. Doesn't allow Laena to go home. Rejects Viserys's help again at her funeral. Just murders a guy at court before the king. Goes more than a little mad upon Viserys's death, ignores Rhaenyra's commands, does everything he can to instigate war, and even strangles Rhaenyra.

In no universe does this ever get justified as "but he really does love his family." If he loved his family, he wouldn't hurt his brother so much over and over and over, for years. Sure, he probably loved him in his own way, but the way he treats Viserys and Rhaenyra is absolutely abysmal. He's a terrible brother, a terrible husband, and would make a terrible king.

This doesn't even cover Blood and Cheese, one of the most disturbing things any character has ever done (he wasn't there but he's responsible for it). Him killing Aemond at the end isn't even close to a redemptive act. That one act does not wash out the inordinate amount of evil things he's done.

I know I made a post recently about how love is love and it shouldn't be turned into something dark and sinister, but there are exceptions. If you ship Rhaenyra and Daemon, good for you! I don't really care what people do. But this relationship is pretty obviously abusive. More obvious in the book but still present in the show, Daemon groomed and sexually abused Rhaenyra. He does seem to like her, in some way. He has genuine affection for her, no doubt. He can both be using her and care for her at the same time.

But just because he loves her doesn't mean he won't hurt her. Look at how he hurts Viserys. It's why I really don't think Daemon strangling Rhaenyra in the show was "character assassination." It fits perfectly with the character that has been established. Sure, more moments of humanization would've been nice, but it wouldn't change the fact he is, and has always been supremely evil, book or show.

I know I just shat on Daemon a ton, but he is still my favourite character. He's such a joy to watch, he is undoubtedly complex and entertaining, and he has such charisma and swagger, played expertly by Matt Smith. But there is really no excuse for his actions. You can enjoy villains all you like, nothing wrong with that. We just can't excuse them to justify why we like them. Villains are very fun, and often get to be more dynamic than heroes!

So now comes the end of my mini-essay... this is just half-cobbled together stream of consciousness crap, because I got a little ticked off at how many people just say things about House of the Dragon "ruining characters." Some of these characters are George's. Some of them aren't; they are way better.

(I didn't even get to talk about Viserys! The second best character in the show and one George openly has said was better than his version.)

#asoiaf #asoiaf discourse #house of the dragon #daemon targaryen #alicent hightower #aegon ii targaryen #aemond targaryen #fire and blood

[thosearentcrimes]

The Sherlock Holmes stories by Arthur Conan Doyle are serviceable detective fiction in themselves if you don't mind bigoted stereotypes in lieu of characterization. A detective story does not have much time and has a lot to say, so most characterization will be extremely stereotypical, with the possible exception of the character of the detective (and even then the demands of serialization are considerable), but the specific kinds of stereotype Doyle uses are quite unpleasant. It is generally not possible for a reader to figure out the mysteries, which almost always hinge on hidden information and counter to the presentation tend to privilege an arbitrary and often highly illogical interpretation of the part of the evidence that is provided, but you do occasionally get to feel clever (I knew it was a jellyfish!), and the stories manage to build suspense well enough.

But of course I did not read the entirety of Sherlock Holmes because I wanted to enjoy some detective fiction, really. I persisted in reading it because I felt like it was an interesting testament to elements of late 19th century British society, and who doesn't love the deranged ramblings of an empire that doesn't quite understand it's doomed? I have touched on the use of bigoted stereotypes. I do not think dwelling on Doyle's moral status is particularly useful, though it is worth remarking that on a handful of occasions he attempts to be actively progressive with his writing. From other 19th century British work I would guess that the beliefs implied by the stories are reasonably similar to the beliefs of 19th century Britain, except in the case of a handful of Doyle's eccentricities that are mostly identifiable from the text.

Doyle gives us an image of a society which is obsessed with phrenology, race science, misogyny, and free trade. I do not mean merely that the narrative treats phrenology, race science, and misogynistic pseudopsychology as useful pieces of information about the world, though it does to a genuinely shocking degree (it also validates graphology, because Arthur Conan Doyle was just incredibly gullible in general). What I mean is that when Arthur Conan Doyle looks for some arbitrary and thematically irrelevant topic of discussion for some men of culture to embark on, they will more likely than not discuss the latest developments in those fields. Is this just a particular preoccupation on the part of the author? I don't have a representative sample of other texts from the time to compare to, but it sure is remarkable.

The thing I find interesting about Sherlock Holmes is that the point is at least nominally the immense power of reason. So it is interesting to observe which people reason is attributed to, and which people it is not. In particular, reason is only rarely displayed by foreigners, especially not displayed by non-whites, extremely rare if at all possible among the lower classes, and highly unusual in women (children are not sufficiently prominent to determine). Any intelligence or competence displayed by these groups is almost certain to be described as the result of "cunning", probably by reference to animal metaphors. Reason is predominantly the province of Anglo-Saxon upper-middle and higher class men, though of course they may or may not actually display it. As a side-note, it doesn't seem that what we would now regard as mental illness is regarded as particularly significant in this respect, it is not necessarily disqualifying and the absence of it is no guarantee of ability. Mental illness is socially constructed, what else is new.

There is an interesting quirk as regards America, actually. In America, you do not need to be high in the class structure to be rational. It appears that America is considered not a classless society but one in which class is less important, even as regards mental faculties. There is another peculiarity of the United States in the novels, there is one story in which Holmes proclaims himself a partisan of Anglo-American unification and world conquest under a flag incorporating both the Stars and Stripes and Union Jack. This was a real but fringe position at the time, based on the much more common (and also evident in the stories) belief in the superiority of the supposed Anglo-Saxon race. One of the traces of Doyle's more esoteric political beliefs there.

I think the a priori exclusion of people from reason displayed in the Holmes stories is a matter worth considering for those who feel reason has been unfairly maligned by society. If you were similarly excluded, how would you feel about the social institutions of reason and reasonableness? Irrationalism is a refuge of scoundrels, but is it possible that at least some of the critics of reason correctly judge that they are considered to be excluded in this way? Food for thought, perhaps.

#book report

[hrblusky]

Payroll Management Software System – A Significant Investment for SMEs 

The UAE market has seen an incredible blast in recent years. Particularly after some strategy reorganization, the UAE economy, particularly Dubai, has been developing exponentially. With more adaptable beginning up and business laws, an ever-increasing number of organizations are building up in UAE each spending year. These fuels the economic growth of the country and more noteworthy extent of extension; it likewise implies more prominent rivalry and work of greater human resources. 

Regardless of the size of your organization, your business can generally benefit from an advanced payroll management system. However, it gets hard for the human management system resources to distinguish what precisely should be changed and what must be implemented. Basically, rolling out arbitrary improvements won’t advantage your association. For your finance, the board framework upgrades to be successful; you must address the general cycle, what sort of innovation you are utilizing and what the prescribed processes are that should be executed. Presently, at this developmental phase of booming SMEs in UAE, clearly you need the help of innovation to assist you with keeping up the movement and keep your business from self-destructing, any sort of mismanagement can easily bring in huge penalties and destroy your growing reputation. With an advanced payroll management system, entrepreneurs of UAE would have substantially less stress over in the human resource management of their organizations. 

Why is the Payroll Management System Significant for SMEs in UAE? 

Dynamic labor laws in UAE: The very changing nature of the UAE’s law amendments creates the need to set up our on-going business process update all the time. The labor laws are broad as they are sometimes evolving. Besides, the arrangements probably won’t be all inclusive or natural. Along these lines, it will be dreary and wearisome to watch each guideline at each degree of business and the executives. Also, for outside nationals and organizations working in Dubai, finance guidelines in Dubai will be appropriate. A decent HR finance programming in Dubai would be now modified and refreshed by the regulations in Dubai. 

Importance of labor law in UAE: Dubai is the juncture for most of the global talents. Many industries of UAE are labor intensive. Varied industries require various stages and procedures of human resource management starting from recruitment to payroll management. In such a situation, precise and immaculate payroll management is beyond the realm of imagination without an effective and very much planned payroll management system. 

Wage protection system: UAE has legislation which is endeavoring to secure the employees. This is the reason Dubai is a broadly favored workplace. The Wage Protection System sets down different payroll management systems met by organizations, for instance, exchanges through nation ledgers, paid occasion arrangements, etc. Additionally, for medium and enormous scope firms, it turns out to be excessively significant (for legitimate and from the representative perspective) to have the installments overseen directly on pay days. Reliable payroll management system like the one delivered by HRBluSky, which is well-designed for the SME organization registered in UAE. Reliability is one of the important factors when choosing payroll management software. 

Updated with all advancements: The UAE is very known for its rapidly growing environment; the aspect of its rapidness creates the demand to run the business with maximum efficiency and to the fullest use of the technology. Using the best payroll management system has its own importance in competitive workplaces. This helps the small and medium enterprises to compete in the global market and speed up the productive time for the resources in the organization. 

Benefits of having Payroll Software 

There can be some chaos and start-up hitches when you are new to the payroll management system. You may be pondering about certain choices and steps required for implementation of the payroll system in the organization. Here are a couple of focuses that may be useful while you begin to oversee remuneration through the HR payroll management system. 

Types of employees: Most of the payroll management systems these days have arrangements to list different kinds of employees and their significant data. You should have the rundown prepared while actualizing the finance programming. With a finance framework, you will have the option to effectively and consummately isolate subtleties to different classifications of employees that a SME has hired, their working hours, employee’s base pay, and so on. 

Decision of payment cycle: Every month the decision of payroll processing is made with so much effort and time. It will be a good decision to reorganize the existing payroll management system of your organization. Employers failing to pay their employees or not paying on time will draw legal penalties to the company. As a SME organization, this adds up to a huge financial problem and reputation problem. Hence, a small delay in the payroll cycle can cause serious damage. Hence, an organized payroll management software can save you from all this chaos. 

Assess the requirements: It is significant that you precisely set out your expectations and necessities from the product. On the off chance that you go for something less, you're efficient with regards to viability and on the off chance that you go for something else, you may wind up causing additional expenses unnecessarily. So, sit back perhaps in discussion with the experts and specialists as well, and rundown down absolutely what you would require from the payroll management system. 

Clarity on budget: For everything without exception, an error-free budget is essential. Realize that the buy cost isn’t the main cost associated with actualizing a finance framework. You can talk about it with the specialists and comprehend the costs in question if you are new to any BPM systems. Nonetheless, it is critical that you have a reasonable financial plan to ensure you are settling on an all-around thought-out and educated choice. 

Choose a reliable and easy software: Payroll management system you planned to add in your organization, but it shouldn’t add up your time and effort in setting it up, maintaining and training your employees. Hence the use of an advanced payroll management system provided by HRBluSky, is on highly secured AWS cloud and compatible to use without any special hardware requirement. Hence, choosing a payroll management system for your organizations must be taken with caution. Do you want to know the extraordinary benefits of choosing HRBluSky’s payroll software over others? Don’t stop reading here. 

HRBluSky – Advanced Features of our Payroll Management System 

One myth that everyone has created around us is that payroll management system is only meant for the bigger organization. Payroll management software isn’t based on the number of employees of your organization or even the revenue that you generated last quarter. It is based on the diversity of labor that you are employing and the process that you must undergo based on the nature of the industry. 

Cost-effective Payroll Solution 

By implementing robust payroll management, it saves the hiring of third-party vendors for your company to manage and maintain the mechanism.  Payroll management not only does the job right but also sends us alerts on time to manage any employee-related processes on time. A professional approach to the entire mechanism was maintained very well when compared to the manual vendor. 

On-time Alert System 

A big drawback of the manual handling payroll system is that we might miss updating things on time, which will end up in serious monetary or non-monetary penalties. The advanced payroll management system like the one provided by HRBluSky will provide you with timely alerts and notifications to avoid missing out on any information. 

Enhanced Security Component 

In payroll management, we might have to deal with the confidential document of every employee. Even though the payroll management activities are handled in-house most of the time, data security becomes vital to protect our employee details. Outsourcing the payroll management to the third-party company holds a huge risk of leaking crucial data about your employees. Hence, having automated payroll management software which follows the high standard of security management with less maintenance. 

Integrated Attendance & Leave Management System 

No matter the number of employees in an organization, tracking the time of entry and the attendance is the vital process to monitor an employee, based on which the payroll must be rolled out. Automated attendance tracking system in the workplace helps us in calculating the overtime pay, leave deductions, deductions based on late or exceeded permission hours and so on. Hence a well-designed and integrated payroll management system like HRBluSky will let you handle all the HR related activities in one place. 

Every business is unique and taking a very different turns posting this pandemic. Hence, every growing small and medium enterprise is in demand of unique requirements to meet and we, at HRBluSky well-designed our automated payroll management system integrated with the contactless attendance system also. In addition to this, we also take up the customized requests of our customers and upgrade it as per the need. We provide you with a highly flexible and accessible system to use, with customer satisfaction as our utmost priority! Click here to know more about our service. 

#Payroll Management Software System

[isaiahbie]

What Makes Marriage Unique?

What is the difference between marriage and non-marriage? What makes marriage unique and distinct from other relationships, such as friendships, business partnerships, roommates, or even just sexual lovers?

There must be a non-arbitrary distinction between marriage and other kinds of relationships in our minds and in our laws if we are to fashion any sensible marriage policy. Otherwise, the concept of marriage has no meaning and serves no purpose.

In addition, any such distinction should make sense of our moral intuitions about what the critical features and norms of marriage are, such as sexual activity, monogamy, exclusiveness, fidelity, and permanence. For example, most people agree that married people should stay together unless there are very good, overriding reasons to separate. Most people presume that married partners are (or at least have been) sexually active. Most people presume that marriage relationships are exclusive in regards to those sexual activities. Why? Any good view of marriage must identify what about marriage that makes sense of these norms.

Essentially, there are two competing views of marriage: the conjugal (or traditional) view, and the revisionist (or modern) view.

The Conjugal View

In the conjugal view, marriage involves two partners sharing a domestic life that is directed towards and naturally unfolds into procreation and child raising. That is, partners in a marriage unite—or coordinate—towards procreation. In this view, marriage is different from all other relationships because its unifying good is procreation. No other relationship, be it roommates, siblings, best friends, or boyfriend/girlfriend, share that unifying good.

This unifying good (that is, procreation) explains why marriage implies sexual activity: in order to bring children into the world. That would make sense of why we presume marriage partners are sexually active. In addition, this unifying good explains why monogamy is expected of married people: because two and only two people, one man and one woman, can biologically create children. This also explains the expectation of fidelity and permanence: because bringing children into the world requires life-long support and undivided commitment both towards each other as spouses and towards shared offspring.

So the conjugal (or traditional) view of marriage offers a meaningful distinction that both distinguishes marriage from broader forms of companionship and makes sense of important marriage norms. Marriage is an institution that enwraps norms of permanence, fidelity, monogamy, etc. around the sexual act that has potential for procreation, and procreation calls for those norms.

The Revisionist View

On the other hand, in the revised view of marriage, the view that makes room for same-sex marriage, marriage is thought to reflect a deep emotional connection between partners. From this view, romantic love is the crux of marriage—marriage is simply your “number one relationship.” Instead of procreation, the unifying good of marriage (from the revised view) is mutual personal fulfillment. However, many non-marital relationships—such as chess partners, dating relationships, or best friends—can also share a deep emotional connection, coordinate towards mutual fulfillment, and be a person’s “number one relationship.”

When marriage is viewed in this light, there is no particular reason why marriage ought to be sexual—if the purpose of sex is to build the relationship and to seek personal fulfillment, why can’t it be interchangeable with non-sexual romance, other affectionate activities, or other relationship-building pursuits? There is also no reason why marriage ought to be monogamous—why can’t three or more individuals also share a deep, mutual fulfilling, emotional connection? There is no reason for fidelity or exclusivity to be obligatory—many couples claim that their emotional connections are strengthened as they seek sexual satisfaction with partners outside the marriage relationship. And lastly, there is no particular reason why marriage ought to be permanent—emotional connections come and go, and a relationship that is fulfilling one year might not be the next.

From the revised view, marriage can be sexual, monogamous, exclusive, and permanent, but there is just no reason to say that marriage ought to be those things (since marriage is whatever the partners want it to be). In other words, there is no reason for these to be marriage norms (that is, expectations of married people), rather than matters of personal preference. And there is no basis in law to distinguish marriage from other relationships where those norms are not essential (such as friendships, housemates, etc.).

So we have no meaningful distinction, and any distinction that does exist from the revisionist view provides no good reason for important marriage norms. These norms should, from the revisionist view, just be matters of preference, rather than expectations.

If our view of marriage does not offer a meaningful, non-arbitrary distinction between marital and non-marital relationships, and if that distinction is not strongly connected to central marriage norms such as sexual activity, monogamy, fidelity, and permanence, then our view of marriage more than likely gets marriage wrong.

The conjugal view gets marriage right in ways that the revisionist view gets marriage wrong. The conjugal view explains how marriage is different from other relationships in a non-arbitrary way, and makes sense of the norms that most people associate with marriage. The revisionist view does neither.

Objections and Replies

1. “What about infertile or older couples? Are their relationships disqualified from marriage?”

No, they are not. The conjugal view holds that procreation is the unifying good of a marriage relationship—it does not hold that marriage is only a human good insofar as couples successfully procreate. That is, marriage is that type of union in which the partners coordinate towards the good of procreation; this does not mean that partners are not legitimately married if they do not succeed in the desired end. The idea of a practice having a unifying good that defines the practice, but which does not require success (or even the expectation of success) is not an aberration in human affairs—it is so common that it is virtually unnoticed. Consider some other examples:

People engaged in commerce are uniting towards the unifying good of making money or creating value in the world, but this does not mean that people are engaging in commerce only insofar as they successfully make a profit.

The unifying good of an election campaign is to get a candidate elected to public office. If you and your team advertise, solicit votes, participate in debates with other candidates, etc., but you don’t win the seat, you are still engaging in campaigning.

The purpose of hunting is to kill and/or capture an animal. If you carry weapons into the wilderness, stalk prey, take shots at them, etc., but you never bag an animal, you are still engaging in hunting.

Seeking an education is an activity coordinated towards a specific end (learning), but may be considered an intrinsic good even if the ends are not fully realized. A student may not master her textbooks, but this doesn’t mean that her school experience wasn’t an educational experience. But we might not consider her experience an educational one if the activities of the day were not at least coordinated towards the good of learning. In such a case, the student would no longer be participating in the institution of education, but in something else altogether (a youth club, a day care, or some other social practice).

Scientific research, the practice of systematically testing truth claims against empirical evidence, can be considered an intrinsic human good coordinated towards the pursuit of new knowledge. Such activities constitute a practice wholly distinct from merely counting bacterium colonies in a petri dish for fun, or preparing to perform a magic show using chemistry (two activities that are similar in form). But the intrinsic good of the practice is not realized only if new discoveries result; rather, it is intrinsically worthy (and still considered scientific research) even if the participants fail to produce any illuminating data.

2. “Isn’t this essentially a ‘slippery slope’ argument, and therefore a logical fallacy?”

No, this is not a slippery slope argument. I am not arguing from the basis of historical inevitability, but on the basis of philosophical consistency. I am not saying that other unions will be formalized as well—only that the revisionist view offers no compelling reason why they shouldn’t be. The distinction between conjugal marriage and all other companionate relationships is non-arbitrary, while the distinction between companionate marriage and all other companionate relationships is arbitrary. Philosopher Patrick Lee explains:

“Suppose Joe, Jim, and Steve have a committed, stable, romantic-sexual relationship among themselves—a polyamorous relationship. On what ground can the state promote the relationship between couples, but not the relationship among Joe, Jim, and Steve? The argument here is not a slippery slope one. Rather, the point is: There must be some non-arbitrary features shared by relationships that the state promotes which make them apt for public promotion, and make it fair for the state not to promote in the same way other relationships lacking those features. Without this the distinction is invidious discrimination.

The conjugal understanding of marriage has a clear answer: (a) marriage is a distinct basic human good, that needs social support and that uniquely provides important social functions; (b) marriage’s organic bodily union and inherent orientation to procreation distinguish it from other relationships similar in superficial respects to it. But the same-sex marriage proposal’s conception of marriage has no answer. In fact, its conception of marriage is actually an arbitrarily selected class, and so the enactment of this proposal would be unjust.”¹

Many vocal supporters of same-sex marriage have already openly admitted that the revisionist view of marriage does not provide a compelling reason why we shouldn’t formalize polyamorous or even non-sexual unions. In short, there is no non-arbitrary reason why a marriage relationship should be confined to two people, or even to sexual partnerships. This is not a slippery slope claim, but a requirement of logical consistency.

3. “Isn’t personal fulfillment an important part of marriage?”

A good marriage can—and probably should—be personally fulfilling. There is nothing about the conjugal view that shuns or even downplays some of the most enjoyable aspects of a marriage relationship. We can value personal fulfillment in marriage, and even value it highly—the conjugal view simply states that it is not the highest good or the defining feature of the institution. Personal fulfillment can and most often does flow from marital relationships, but it is not the overriding good of marriage.

Think of it this way: if personal fulfillment were the unifying good of a marriage relationship, as soon as the relationship becomes less enjoyable (and other, more enjoyable prospects arise), there is no basis on which one can say that the couple ought to stay together. Thus, the norms of permanence and fidelity become less important. But if the unifying good of the marriage is procreation, the oughtness of permanence and fidelity makes much more sense.

Notes:

¹ Patrick Lee, “The Same-Sex ‘Marriage’ Proposal is Unjust Discrimination,” Public Discourse, January 30, 2012.

[knifejaw6]

Population Pharmacokinetics involving Fluorouracil within aReal-World Scenario

This example statement features an uncommon reason behind a compound burn which could be normal with raising usage of conventional remedies worldwide. (J Burn off Proper care Res 2009;25:1046-1047)Within the Ultimatum Online game, a pair of players can be obtained to be able to earn a new pie. The actual proposer implies how you can separated the cake. The actual responder either can acknowledge or perhaps refuse the sale. Appears to be deal isn't arrived at, neither person becomes something. Each video game principle as well as major game concept forecast your logical answer the proposer provides tiniest feasible reveal and also the -responder will take that. Equity as a result calls for further elements for normal selection #Link# in order to like the idea. Research thus far presumed that people get competed for that fixed height and width of cakes, throughout razor-sharp contrast together with true scenarios, where randomness is common. Ideas read the effect of arbitrary allocation involving cakes for the progression associated with justness from the Ultimatum Game. Curiously, we find how the development of justness may be advertised from the randomness linked to the sized cakes, devoid of the support associated with a added evolutionary mechanisms.History: Nearly all developing areas of the world are generally starting gradual #Link# epidemiological cross over leading to higher stress involving both communicable as well as noncommunicable diseases. This particular affects the design involving loss of life in this region. Aim: The goal of this study is always to determine the causes of dying in the health care of the University or college involving Africa Training Medical center, Ituku/Ozalla, Enugu, South-East Africa through 1995 to 2010. Resources and techniques: Files have been obtained retrospectively from The month of january 1994 in order to Dec The year 2010. Statistical Analysis Utilised: Mathematical Bundle with regard to Social Sciences (SPSS Corporation. Chicago, Illinois, United states) model Seventeen.Zero was used. Easy detailed stats were done. Pupils t-test was applied that compares way of constant specifics, while Chi-square analyze was applied to try significance of distinctions between a couple of size. Benefits: Your fatality charge had been Twenty-two.8% (6250/27,514) admission. A man to be able to feminine ratio had been One.Several:One. Microbe infections (Something like 20.2%) were the most typical cause of death. Nevertheless, chronic renal illness #Link# was the only most frequent ailment organization leading to dying (14.3%). Various other crucial reasons for death as a way regarding epidemic have been cerebrovascular accident (15.5%), received immune system deficiency syndrome as well as t . b sometimes on it's own or even while co-infection (15.3%), coronary heart failure (Eight.8%), continual liver organ illness (Seven.0%), septicemia (6.5%), the respiratory system malfunction (A few.3%), diabetes mellitus (Four.6%), heart arrhythmias (2.9%), and primary liver mobile or portable carcinoma (Only two.

#Adagrasib #Fluorouracil #methylhexanamine

[jedidruid]

A thing I’m glad is no longer canon: “Aging Out” of the Jedi Order.

I’ve never found the idea of Jedi Initiates either “aging out” of the creche to be very... in line with the Jedi’s teachings. The first time I heard of it I kind of just shrugged and ignored it since it didn’t really make sense to me. But know that I’ve read some more into fanfics that features it, I’m pretty glad that it got the axe. 

I. Unnecessary Competition (Aka did you forget they’re Space Monks?) 

A pretty big reason for my side eye for the concept of aging out is that it puts a ton of emphasis of competition between Initiates to secure a spot as a Padawan. Given all that we see about the Jedi, like their focus on communal teaching and living, their constant efforts to learn and educate oneself, and their commitment to helping others in whichever way they’re able, the idea that you’d need to ‘compete’ to be a Padawan sticks out like a sore thumb. 

I think it had something to do with the fact the in Episode I, the council said a Jedi could have only one Padawan at a time?  But that doesn’t imply a surplus of initiates or a lack of teachers, so why would they impose such an almost Darwinist mindset? It such a leap of logic to assume that about the Jedi. 

I mean, the Jedi don’t ever seem to compete with each other outside of informal duels, fun/joking bets between friends, or other such things. Most of their culture is center upon improving oneself rather than one-upping others to get attention. 

II. Different Lifecycles (Aka there are other species besides humans, remember?)

The other main thing that firmly confused me was the arbitrary age limit. Like, 11 to 13? That’s a very limiting range isn’t it? Why not longer? Or starting them when an initiate was older and better able to handle the trials of padawanship? (You know, the whole planets being held captive by corrupt organizations and aggressive negotiations and all those fun Padawan things?)  

And sure putting how already stupidly limiting that age range is, it further falls apart when you consider the fact that different species, ya know, exist. 

What about Yoda’s Species who age really slow and live for ages? What about the Wookies or any of the other species that live for centuries? Do they have a longer selection range, given that they’re ‘11′ or ‘13′ longer in respect to their natural lifespans? Or was Grogu meant to be shipped off to the Agricorps as soon as he could feed himself because he wasn’t chosen in the first 1/100th of his lifespan?

And what about shorter lived species? Do they only have a year or less to get chosen? Or maybe a species that matures really fast but lives about as long as a human? Do they get chosen when they’re mentally or chronologically ‘of proper age?’ 

It seems far too far fetched that the heavily multi-species Jedi would impose such a standard so inapplicable to a good portion of their membership. 

In short, the idea of aging out is counterintuitive to the Jedi way of life and even to the concept of different lifecycles for an large number of the universe’s sentient beings.  

#star wars #star wars meta #pro jedi #in defense of the jedi #Sometimes legends doesn't make any sense when you think about it #....at all #im tired #next time on JD rambles at 1 am #Vader vs kylo ren and why one works and the other doesn't as a good villian #i have a lot of thoughts #and some of them make sense!

[therealvinelle]

Hi, I was reading a post here in Tumblr about how Edward has two gifts, he can hear thoughts and is super fast, so I wonder what is your opinion about this topic?.

Furthermore, what others power might the Volturi's leaders and guards might have?

Edward has one gift, and it’s telepathy. Being fast isn’t a gift.

Strength, speed and even senses is varied among vampires. Some, like Emmett, are on the extreme end, but that doesn’t make Emmett gifted, nor does it mean that the rest are at an equal level. The Cullens have clear variations between them.

Physique appears to play a dominant role in how these variations play out: Alice, who was malnourished and never made it past 4′10″, is the physically weakest of the coven, while Emmett at 6′5″ and a mountain of muscles is the strongest. This is made very clear during the baseball game:

“Emmett was hovering close to third (base), knowing that Alice didn’t have the muscle to outstrip Rosalie’s fielding." (Midnight Sun, chapter The Game)

There’s also the fact that it’s taken for granted that Emmett would be intimidating to other vampires, and he is dismayed when James is more worried about Jasper, who is lean.

I suspect this disparity exists simply because a large frame means more tissue to have blood in. Newborns, animal, and human-eating vampires all having a difference in terms of strength is proof that blood has the final say in a vampire’s prowess, so Emmett being able to contain more of it than Alice and therefore being stronger makes sense to me.

This isn’t the meta for me to get into that, but I don’t think vampires have muscles in the sense we do. Or rather, we can’t know that they do. Renesmée is proof that Edward retains his human DNA, or she would be a clone of Bella. Nahuel is proof that Joham retains a Y-chromosome. Does this mean that vampires have different cell types? Does a vampire’s stone-like skin still contain human DNA? One would think yes - except, if you rip a vampire apart, you get rubble. The parts are all solid. There’s also Carlisle theorizing that vampires digest blood by absorbing it through porous tissue, which makes me wonder why he dismissed his digestive system (my guess: vivisection fun times with Aro in Volterra. Carlisle couldn’t have done it on his own, and Aro is the only one mad and curious enough to be down for that). I’m getting off-topic - what I’m saying is, we don’t know how vampires work, meaning I can’t build this meta off of the assumption that they have muscles. I simply can’t know for sure that they do.

The important thing is that a vampire’s physique is a deciding factor in how strong they are.

There’s also Laurent’s warning about James, that he has “unparalleled senses”, meaning some vampires are better at sight, hearing, and smell than others. I can believe that, because we have canon examples of vampires being bad at tracking.

There’s Edward in Port Angeles, who couldn’t track Bella’s, his singer, scent to her location, and (I admit this one is conjecture but it’s so probable that I say it goes) Carlisle’s creator, who after taking care of the mob must have realized he’d bitten one of the humans, meaning a newborn would soon be loose in London. This is punishable by death by the Volturi. The fact that he didn’t return to finish Carlisle off means that he was unable to find him. I remind the audience that Carlisle was bleeding and suffering the effects by a venom intended to paralyze the victim. To put it this way, Carlisle wouldn’t have survived James, or anybody with a trace of tracking competence. By comparison, Carlisle was able to locate a dying Rosalie by the smell of her blood, even though there wouldn’t have been a trail for him to follow, as her body had not been moved.

When it comes to these disparities in strength and speed among the Volturi, I imagine Jane and Alec are the physically weakest members of the guard, and among the slowest. They’re prepubescent, meaning no muscle for them, and their height (a humble 4′8″ and 4′10″) implies very short legs. They’re simply not going to get as far as an adult would, not in the same number of steps. Renata at 5′0″ is another tiny vampire lady who likely isn’t very strong or fast.

That’s not to say I think these physically weaker members of the Volturi guard are necessarily useless in hand-to-hand combat, Alec at least is a boy stuck in a playful age, and the males around him are trained warriors. He’s probably picked up a few things over the years.

As for the others, Aro is described as frail-looking, which hints at him being quite thin. I don’t think he’s weak, if he couldn’t win a fight he wouldn’t be around, but I do think he’s probably below average in terms of strength. Caius I picture as a Harrison Ford type, so of course I’m gonna think he’s a bit burly, but this is me headcanoning and not actually hinted at in canon. Marcus is 19, so I imagine he can only be so strong.

Back to Edward’s speed.

He’s a 6′2″ teen, that’s code for “very long legs”, though I’m actually going to go ahead and posit that he’s not actually that fast. Strap in for this next part:

The guy was a teenager who lay dying for an undisclosed amount of time. The fact that Carlisle had the time to get to know his mother points to a few weeks, at least. And Edward was very ill:

Elizabeth worried obsessively over her son. She hurt her own chances of survival trying to nurse him from her sickbed. I expected that he would go first, he was so much worse off than she was. (New Moon, page 21)

Muscles atrophy quickly, never more so than when you’re a teen ravaged by fever, on your deathbed. And as I’ve explained above, I think your physique in life ties directly into your vampiric prowess.

I think Edward is certainly the physically weakest of the male Cullens, quite likely weaker than Rosalie as well, maybe even Esme.

Now, speed is not the same as strength. However, for humans, the two are connected. It’s the muscle fibers in our legs that determine our speed. Basically, type I fibers make an enduring runner, type II fibers make a speed runner. So, assuming that vampires retain their human musculature, one could argue that Edward had a lot of type II in life. However, Carlisle when he was human was able to outrun the mob he was with:

He ran through the streets, and Carlisle — he was twenty-three and very fast — was in the lead of the pursuit. (Twilight, page 158)

Carlisle clearly had a lot of type II fibers, and unlike Edward he was in peak physical condition when he died. He was also an adult who’d had more time to develop musculature, while Edward was a seventeen-year-old. If musculature was a deciding factor, one would think they would at the very least be of equal speed, though realistically Edward should be slower.

So, if it’s not muscles, what is it that makes Edward faster than the others?

It could be a matter of technique. Except, the way Bella describes movement when she wakes up as a vampire, it’s all very automated. Her body knows exactly how to do everything, and executes it without much input from her:

After that first frozen second of shock, my body responded to the unfamiliar touch in a way that shocked me even more.

Air hissed up my throat, spitting through my clenched teeth with a low, menacing sound like a swarm of bees. Before the sound was out, my muscles bunched and arched, twisting away from the unknown. I flipped off my back in a spin so fast it should have turned the room into an incomprehensible blur—but it did not. I saw every dust mote, every splinter in the wood-paneled walls, every loose thread in microscopic detail as my eyes whirled past them.

So by the time I found myself crouched against the wall defensively—about a sixteenth of a second later—I already understood what had startled me, and that I had overreacted. (Breaking Dawn, page 251-252)

Growling, crouching - those are all distinctly vampiric, non-human ways to act. Bella didn’t learn this, her body knew it of its own accord. When she later runs, she explains it as happening the same way - she just does it.

The way Bella experiences it, vampiric movement is like a package she downloaded, and that executes her instinctual commands with no need for her to actually know how to do any of this. Her grace is another example of this - Bella Swan may be in charge of her own consciousness, but the venom is entirely in control of her body.

Given these facts, I don’t think it’s technique that makes Edward a better runner than others. His technique is likely similar to everyone else’s. If it isn’t, if technique is what makes the difference, then who is and isn’t fast is an arbitrary process.

With that, we get to my controversial theory about why Edward is the fastest Cullen: he’s not.

Running and being fast is the only thing about vampirism that Edward enjoys. This is for another meta, but Edward is extremely depressed about every single other bit of it. Every aspect of being a vampire torments him.

Except the running. He enjoys all of it, especially being the fastest, so much. And as a newborn, he would have been faster than Carlisle.

But after that, when his newborn strength faded…

I honestly think that Carlisle decided to just slow down a bit when running with him, let Edward have this. It’s no skin of his back, and it makes Edward happy, so why not.

Esme joins the family, and of course she would be down for this. Nothing is more parental, more maternal, than losing at checkers to make your child happy, after all. Could also be she’s not very fast herself, but even if she were then she would downplay it to make Edward feel like Jesse Owens.

Enter Rosalie, who would think it’s completely ridiculous, yes, but she would also recognize this excellent opportunity to call in a big favor from Carlisle later on. There’s also the fact that I think Carlisle has a gift (yes, yes, meta is coming, people) that makes him very persuasive people. And also that for all that Rose gets a lot of bad rep, she is very generous and loves her family, if being fast makes Edward happy then alright.

Emmett is an easy-going guy, he goes along with things. Alice adores Edward and would go along with it. She also has tiny matchstick legs and couldn’t outrun him if she tried. Jasper could not care less.

Bella does get outrun by Edward after waking up, but she also did zero exercise in life (listing this in case musculature matter), had Renesmée devour her from within rendering her emaciated, and then died like a slasher movie murder victim. There’s not a lot of blood in her, and what little blood there is doesn’t have a lot to work with. She does defeat Emmett at arm wrestling, so I’ll concede that. However, there are enough extenuating circumstances surrounding Bella that I think my “Edward isn’t that fast” theory survives his ability to outrun her.

So, I believe Edward is the fast Cullen because Carlisle told a white lie in 1919, no one ever corrected that, and now it’s too late.

#tumblr ate this ask and i had to spend twice as long writing it #i'm dying #edward cullen #carlisle cullen #volturi #alec #twilight vampires #twilight meta #twilight renaissance #twilight #long post #Anonymous #ask #edward speed debacle

[googledocsdyke]

hey. i was strolling through your dean studies tag and had to close it bc i was going INSANE but it also got me thinking of something. i've never taken a gender studies class and sometimes tbh i feel like i can't keep up with yall's discussions, i'm just a simple she/they biologist, but i thought i'd give my two cents from my field bc i can't stop thinking about this (in a submission bc it got long, sorry. idek if this makes sense).

there’s this book by Matt Ridley called “The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature" that goes into sexual selection, the mechanism through which females choose the males they mate with (usually) in the animal kingdom, which is tied to natural selection, and how that has carried onto humans. and it mentions male peacocks’ tails as an example of a very curious thing (this is gonna make sense). 

flashy and exuberant tails are favoured by females and there are two theories for this, literally called the sexy-son and the good-sense. sexy-son says females want sons what will attract more females (ouroboros), good-sense says flashy tails denote health. but the thing is the flashier the tail the more susceptible to predators they are. and one male can mate with several females but each female can only mate with one male. so the need to mate necessarily subjects males to violence, either at the hands of predators or amongst themselves in competition, and it’s a vicious cycle. the need to mate leads to violence and participating in the violence leads to better chances of mating. and the book argues that this is stil true in humans and our minds are the equivalent to the peacock’s tail

and i can’t stop thinking about that in terms of gender and specifically in terms of dean. he hyperperforms masculinity to the point where other men notice he’s compensating, making himself more vulnerable in an attempt to increase his chances. masculinity the way dean sees it necessarily implies violence against the world, either through aggression or projection, and subjecting himself to that violence too, and he keeps doing it, he keeps making his tail flashier, [denoting] his presence in ways where it would in theory be better for him not to be seen, because he has to keep doing it.

he overperforms bc if he doesn’t his tail won’t be flashy enough to compete with his peers (heterosexual men he needs to convince) or get him the attention of women, but because he overperforms his tail is too flashy and he gives himself away to predators (heterosexual men who see through his bluff). predator and peer are the same and dean ultimately fails his performance bc it consists of copying them, but which one is he copying? does it even matter if they’re the same?

first off even though i know it’s like a scientific term you putting dean winchester and the sexy son hypothesis in the same sentence is SENDING MEEEEEE so thank u for that

but yeah also it really is like he necessarily subjects himself to and resigns himself to violence. because the violence is not just some arbitrary result or cost of performing his masculinity, but a necessary mechanism through which masculinity is recognised realised and produced. it’s ALL about the peers

#answered #dean studies #spn #lucasllalemant

[theuniversitychallengereview]

UC 51.03 - London Business School vs Hertford, Oxford

Since it was introduced at the 1988 Olympics, every single Gold Medal in the Women’s Team event in the Archery has gone to South Korea. Including yesterday’s win that’s nine straight victories, and their period of unparalleled dominance continues. The men’s team have also won six of the nine they have contested, and a mixed team won the first staging of that event in Tokyo too. Adding their success in the individual events, South Korea have won 26 gold medals, and 42 in total, in the 43 archery events which have been thus far staged at the Olympic Games. 

As Twitter’s own @tarequelaskar pointed out in the brilliant article which alerted me to this story, this is a perfect example of specialisation, an economic concept whereby countries or companies focus intensely on one particular aspect of a given industry and come to serve that niche in such a specialised fashion that they become the ultimate experts and nigh-on irreplaceable. This is done in government and business by providing companies with incentives to specialise, and supporting those who succeed at it. 

With respect to Korean archery, similar forces are at play. There are a bunch of professional teams and leagues in the country, giving archers financial stability while they focus on their training, something not as common across the world. Said training involves such things as practicing in live baseball stadiums and replicas of the Olympic venues, to mimic first the atmosphere and then the conditions that will be present on the day of the actual tournament. 

This philosophy of marginal gains - the same system used by Team Sky and Chris Froome to win multiple Tour De Frances on the trot - puts their preparation miles ahead of the competition, which goes some way to explaining their dominance. It is not the only reason. Before the fine-tuning of the elite shooters comes the discovery of the promising young ones, and the inspiring nature of past success (along with a historic national love of the sport) helps to create a virtuous cycle which give Korea a far larger number of archers to choose from than any other country. This greater choice means that there is a greater chance of finding the next Gold medallists.

Making the argument that professional footballers are at a higher level than other elite sportspeople, Michael Cox used this same argument in a recent article for The Athletic. To summarise, he stated that because there are a far higher number of people who wish to become professional footballers, that must mean that the ones who do make it are at a higher standard than those who make it in other sports. Initially, I was drawn in by the pure maths of this point, but having thought about it some more I’m no longer sure to what extent I agree. 

Now, the fact that hundreds of millions more people play football than rugby, or basketball, will certainly confer some level of “eliteness”, but only up to a certain point. Because football has been so popular for so long, the general standard of the play, relative to what it used to be, has had longer to improve. In the same way that if you transplanted a 100m runner from the Olympic final in the early 20th century to now they probably wouldn’t even qualify for the games, a footballer from the 80s would stand less of a chance of making it were they playing today. Many other sports don’t have that level of natural progression, afforded by decades of technical and tactical advancement - at least not globally. 

But the numbers argument only goes so far, as can be demonstrated by the Korean archers. Yes, there are more archers in Korea than anywhere else, relatively, giving them a higher chance of uncovering those with a natural aptitude, but the reason behind their bow and arrow dynasty is the specialisation. The hyper-detailed level of training and focus which allows them to be the best they can possible be. 

Now, archery is unique in that there is a theoretical maximum score (I understand that this is to some extent arbitrary, and related to the rules of the game as defined by some human being, semi-randomly, but it works in terms of this argument, because it gives a percentage score of how good the archers are based on the agreed-upon parameters of the sport), which, at the Olympics, is 720. The Olympic record is 700 (held by Korean Kim Woo-jin, giving an implied “eliteness level” of 97.2%. 

The best player in the history of football (don’t @ me) is Lionel Messi, and few would doubt that he operates at or above that level of perfection in his sport. But I also don’t think you could doubt that Novak Djokovic, or Serena Williams in her pomp, were similarly magnificent at tennis. Cyclists on the Tour De France put their bodies through more in three weeks than most people endure in a decade, and have every aspect of their training and diet strictly controlled so as to bring them as close to perfection as possible. There will certainly be a higher number of these elite performers in football, because there are a higher number of paying jobs for said elite performers, and because more people attempt to become elite performers, but I don’t think that it follows on from that that they are better at their sport than other elite athletes, all of whom have undergone years and years of specialised training to get them where they are.

Does any of this matter, in terms of how each sport should be enjoyed? Probably not, but its interesting to think about, and kind of awe-inspiring to try and appreciate just how good those at the top of their respective games are. And if there is some discrepancy in the level of eliteness between the different sports it doesn’t detract from the fact that they would handily dispatch any civilian challengers without breaking a sweat. The joy comes from watching people who are good at stuff doing that stuff - and, as evidenced by the crowds which gather for non-league football, it doesn’t matter whether or not they are at the absolute pinnacle of said stuff. They’re still going to be much better than the rest of us. 

Competitive quizzing is different from the activities previously mentioned in that any normal person can have a guess at pretty much any question, with a chance that they’ll get it right. What sets the contestants apart on shows like University Challenge is the speed of their recall under pressure - the quickness of their knowledge as well as the knowledge itself. But there are plenty of armchair quizzers who think they could wipe the floor on the show, so just how good are the actual contestants? (Compared to an elite footballer or archer on an imaginary scale that accounts for relative skill in all disciplines?). I don’t know (and in case you hadn’t noticed by now I’m just fascinated by people who are really good at anything, and wanted to share some of that fascination with you all), but I’ll try and have a go at answering it anyway. 

So, the World Quizzing Championships have been dominated by British and Irish quizzers since its inception in 2003, with 16 of the 18 winners coming from either Britain or the Republic of Ireland (who have four wins courtesy of The Egghead Pat Gibson). This, in my mind, makes this neck of the woods comparable to South Korean archery. It is a hotbed of talent, and the infrastructure is in place to encourage and aid talent maximalisation. Indeed, if you scroll down the list of highest ranking players at the WQC in any given year you can see a significant cohort of UC alums, so clearly there are a number of elite quizzers who have passed through the show. 

This specialisation can be seen in microcosm with the preponderance of top-level quizzers produced by Oxford and Cambridge, who both have a long-standing culture of competitive quizzing far beyond other Universities. The debate is there to be had on the fairness of each institution having so many teams, but clearly they produce enough elite players to compete with far bigger Unis when entering as (sometimes tiny) colleges. 

In conclusion, I think it is pretty obvious that UC is a breeding ground for world-class quizzers, and though no one has won a World title straight off the bat after appearing on the show, there are top-50 and top 100 finishes abound, which is still greatly impressive, and helps to give an idea of just how good these students really are. 

Hoping to justify the 1000 words I’ve just written about their exceptional talents are two teams from the London Business School and Hertford College, Oxford. The Oxford side have never made it beyond the second round, but LBS reached the semi-finals in 2006, their only previous appearance on the show. Anyway, there is quite literally no time for me to recite the rules; here’s your first starter for ten... 

Paxman mentions that LBS were in the show in 2006, but doesn’t mention that they reached the semi final, which is lazy imo. A bunch of them are studying for MBAs, which makes sense. He doesn’t mention Hertford’s previous appearances either, but that’s more understandable.

Hertford’s Hitchens takes the first starter with Kennedy, and the Oxonians added a full set of bonuses on words made up by authors - including a couple of educated guesses. LBS hit back with the next question, but can only manage one bonus on famous scientists. One of the two they miss is Rosalind Franklin, and Paxman teases them for not spotting an apparently obvious clue within the question.

The first picture round is on national emblems, and LBS are first to recognise that of Vietnam for the starter. They don’t know Laos or Belarus, but do know that Mozambique has a machine gun on its one. Butterworth then jumps the gun with argon on the next starter, giving his answer just as Paxman says it in the question. Butterworth makes up for it with the music starter, recognising Fat Boy Slim before anyone else, and LBS know Primal Scream and Wu Tang Clan too. They’re still fifty points behind though, and will need a big second half to turn things around.

This task gets more difficult for them, as Hitchens takes another starter. Lloyd adds a second in a row for Oxford and they are nearly one hundred points clear. LBS really need to get some points on the board, and Ruess duly obliges, knowing that there is a massive sculpture of a spider called Maman, which sounds needlessly scary, to the extent that I’m not even going to google it.

The comeback is ended before its even begun as Oswald takes a starter for Hertford, which gives them the picture bonuses - the starter having been dropped by both teams. Lloyd produces another excellent guess of Reuben, demonstrating how useful it is to have vague knowledge as well as specific knowledge. This is one of probably five questions he has answered in a throwaway manner, but which turned out to be correct. 

By this point LBS seem to have accepted defeat. Ruess takes another starter, but there is little to no urgency on the bonus questions. They’re right, granted, to have none, they have no chance of winning, but if they gave it a go they might scrape a high scoring loser spot. Ruess is the only one who seems bothered, and bags himself ten more points. They have an amusing discussion about methods of poisoning in Agatha Christie novels (’it was used as a curry ingredient?’, Ruess wondered aloud, trying to figure out which spices could be poisonous, before Butterworth pointed out that it wasn’t something commonly used as a curry ingredient, prompting respectful mirth from the audience) on the bonuses, but still languish miles behind. 

Lloyd grabs the last starter of the night for Hertford, who win by eighty at the gong.

Final Score: London Business School 100 - 180 Hertford, Oxford

At the end, Paxman mentions Hertford’s stellar guesswork, which means I wasn’t chatting nonsense (at least on that front, the jury is out on the rest of it), and says that they’ve done a really good job. Incredibly effusive praise for a score of 180. He really is going soft in his old age.

Phew, that was a long one. If you made it through the intro you deserve a prize. And that prize is that you get to come back next week for the next episode of this blog!! Woop woop! 

And if this wasn’t quite enough UC content for you then you can subscribe for extra blogs on my Patreon, which features Retro Reviews from the 2015/16 series of the show. Ta x

#london business school #hertford #oxford #bbc2 #quizzy mondays #jeremy paxman

[jedi-order-apologist]

I'm gonna be honest. I've seen the ''Order 66 was necessary for balance'' statement so often I didn't think anyone else but I was against it.

It’s the worst take. In every way. Even aside from the awfulness of defending genocide, it just doesn’t make sense on any level, no matter how one looks at it.

For one thing, the idea that balance in the Force is a matter of raw numbers between two arbitrary groups of Force-users is simply absurd. What of all the Force-sensitives that aren’t Jedi or Sith? What of the far, far greater numbers of all the non-sensitives that are still bound together by the Force, because everything is? And even if we did take this ridiculous, reductive, untenable interpretation of balance - there are still more than two of each of these groups of people! Even just going by the movies, other Jedi survivors are implied - that was the reason Yoda and Obi-Wan broke into the Temple and changed the recall signal. And all the expanded material suggests quite a few more survivors.

But all of that is irrelevant because that’s NOT how balance works, and that much should be obvious even without knowing that Word of God says balance is the destruction of the Sith. How does anyone look at the rise of the Empire and call that balanced? What is balanced about a regime of fear and oppression and genocide? What is balanced about the Sith ruling the galaxy while the surviving Jedi live in exile, never able to show themselves or live according to their beliefs, or else they’ll be hunted down and slaughtered? How do people who believe that that situation is balanced reconcile the ending of ROTJ?

Balance isn’t even “equal light and dark”, because balance is about equilibrium, not equality. We’re not talking about a balanced scale (or if we are, the Jedi and the Sith do not “weigh” the same - it’s far easier to destroy than create, far easier to be selfish than to be selfless, etc, so the level of impact is very different between them), we’re talking about a balanced ecosystem. And an ecosystem is not balanced when there are equal amounts of everything in it.

In fact, if there are equal predators to prey, the predators are going to decimate the prey population and then tear themselves apart competing for the ever dwindling resources. And that’s a lot like what happens with the Sith, except that the “resource” is power, and power alone for power’s sake. They represent that overpopulation of the dark side - the dark side itself will always exist, because greed and selfishness and cruelty will always exist. It can never be eliminated (and the Jedi don’t claim to seek that elimination), but it must always be resisted, and those who would actively seek the dark side will cause imbalance because they actively make things worse and disrupt the equilibrium. That’s why the Sith will always be detrimental to the galaxy and the Force and balance, and why the Jedi themselves do not create imbalance by existing and working to resist the dark side. Note, too, that the Jedi in the films never talk about the “light side” - they always talk about seeking balance. That’s what they’re aligned with.

#discussion #on order 66 #on balance #in defense of the jedi #Anonymous

[handeaux]

Limited to 50 Members, Cincinnati’s Free Setters Had A Big Reputation

Cincinnati has hosted some unusual organizations over the years, from the Schlaraffia Society to the Night Owl Beneficial Smokers Casino to the Dry Dredgers but, even among this menagerie, the Free Setters Union stands out. Founded as a Cumminsville social club in 1886, the Free Setters earned a national reputation for bohemian hijinks, delectable dinners, prodigious beer drinking and a decidedly unconventional interpretation of Robert’s Rules of Order.

But what, precisely, is a Free Setter? Charles Ludwig, in his 1929 book, “Playmates of the Towpath,” records this explanation:

"The late C. L. Doran launched the Free Setters in 1886, the name being a play on the men of that time who would sit around saloons waiting for the beer collector to make his weekly call and treat,” said Edward Steinborn , city editor of the Times-Star, known as “Commonwealth ” in the Free Setters—for every member has a nickname. “ 'Licorice ' Doran was president of the society until his death . One of the first meetings of the order was held at Bruckmann's Brewery. Each member had a favorite song, and the custom was established of singing this song on the death of the member.”

C.L. Doran, aka “Licorice,” was Charles L. Doran who over the years worked at just about every newspaper in Cincinnati, including a couple he founded on his own. For much of its first decade, the Free Setters Union comprised journalists and brewers, but eventually accommodated a diverse cross-section of the city including business executives, city officials, theatrical stars and sports figures.

Membership was at first limited to 25, then expanded to 50. Although so restricted a membership implied that deaths or resignations were the only pathways to a vacancy, the Free Setters would frequently “promote” a member to honorary status if he moved out of town, missed a couple of meetings, became too famous, or for any real or imagined violations of club rules.

Such violations were almost exclusively imaginary, because the Free Setters actually had no rules other than arbitrary pronouncements by the President, who, for the first 40 years, was continually re-elected, despite annual campaigns by two competing candidates. No matter who won the “election,” President Doran always disqualified the votes for some capricious reason and he continued his reign as chief executive.

The Free Setters had no dues and no scheduled meetings, but they somehow organized an annual dinner that became one of the hottest tickets in town, attracting not only the entire membership but, usually, 150 to 200 guests and honorary members. The menu never changed, consisting of T-bone steak, potatoes cooked in a boiling tub of pitch, topped off by an unlimited supply of bratwurst. Every so often, someone – or everyone – shouted the secret password “Front!” requiring all who heard it to quaff a beer. Free Setter venues were consequently known as “Frontsville.”

Each year, the club projected images of deceased members on a screen and sang the departed’s favorite song. Until 1907, the images were still photos, but that year the club hired a film company to record every member so that, when the time came, a moving picture of the late member could play while serenaded by his chums.

So much singing accompanied Free Setter assemblies that some members went professional, forming the Free Setter Quartet which earned top billing on the vaudeville stages of the day. The quartet’s lead tenor, Edward Drury, went on to a long and successful solo career.

Another show business luminary to emerge from the Free Setters was Charley Grapewin, a vaudeville comedian who made the leap to film, logging more than 100 motion picture roles, including Uncle Henry in “The Wizard of Oz.”

Although the wives of the Free Setters formed an auxiliary in 1897, mostly to qualify for a bowling league, only one woman achieved full membership in the club. That was contralto Emma Carus. In 1901, most of the membership attended her performance at Heuck’s Opera House and went backstage to express their appreciation. On learning that the Free Setters were on their way to Northside to serenade an indisposed member, Miss Carus joined them and provided a sidewalk concert that earned her full membership and the nickname “Wabash.”

In 1917, the club’s annual dinner included a historic jaunt as the final passenger vessel to navigate the Miami & Erie Canal before it was drained to become Central Parkway. Charles Ludwig recalls:

“With one brewery – Gerke 's – as the point of departure and another – Bruckmann's – as the destination, the canal boat jaunt of the Free Setters, July 27, 1917, probably the last outing ever held on the stream, was a memorable expedition to mark the passing of the canal.”

An organization so devoted to beer drinking was hit hard by Prohibition and the club declared their 1919 dinner to be the final gathering before the dry desert of soft drink overtook them. Eternal President Charles Doran told the Cincinnati Enquirer [27 December 1918]:

“I fear this will be the last great reunion of the Free Setters. You see the union was founded on good fellowship, and with the disappearance of liquid cheer from Ohio the ‘Free Setters’ may collapse.”

Still, the union soldiered on, making headlines in 1922 when they hosted Babe Ruth at that year’s beefsteak.

Founder Charles Doran died in 1928 and the club went on hiatus for a few years until a reunion was organized by Charles E. “Slatebreaker” Miller, who was elected as the club’s second president. By 1936, when Miller presided over a 50th anniversary event on the roof of the Schoenling Brewery, not a single charter member remained alive. After that celebratory event, the only mentions of the Free Setters Union appeared in the obituaries of members as they departed – unsung – into the next world.

#free setters union #free setters #freesetters #c.l. doran #charles doran

[tazo123]

Decentralized Investment

we have had a genuine long incorporation in the vivacious yet unstable crypto market making some solid highs and a few lows. We promise you, at the end of the day, or affiliation hypothesis gain ground on a more extensive point of view. Work on your work and base.

Koinomo is a period of predetermination asset pioneers utilizing Smart settings controlled by Blockchain Technology. The KOINOMO token offers a reaction to an unsafe financial approach finished under the current generally cash-related construction. More than this, tokens give a road to re-make a reasonable progression of installments in the economy.

The KOINOMO token offers a reaction to problematic financial methods that are run under the current by and large money related framework. More than this, images give a road to changing the reasonable appropriation of wages in the economy. KOINOMO will zero in on developing the assortment of KMO tokens. Longer KMO pooling will give resource appreciation support which can likewise help increment and lead to more noteworthy capital inflows into the KOINOMO economy.

What is the Koinomo Fund?

Koinomo is a stage for the eventual fate of asset the board utilizing savvy contracts dependent on blockchain innovation. Koinomo means to have the best and effective Funds with the goal that clients have the best involvement with one spot. Koinomo is a Decentralized Asset Management and Investment Fund Built on the Binance Smart Chain.

Koinomo Fund Mission

Koinomo is centered around reforming the manner in which we acquire easy revenue in Crypto with the making of the world's most mechanically progressed blockchain Fund. Koinomo's organization and experience conveys unparalleled administrations to keep you and your accounts in front of the monetary business and along these lines the world.

Simply put your Bitcoin property into the Koinomo asset and they will expertly contribute and exchange your capital between various resources. The asset is consistently overseen and new coins are continually being investigated to give financial backers the best profit from venture.

Koinomo Fund Features

Decentralized Bitcoin Wallet: To make a record with Koinomo, you simply need to make your own bitcoin wallet utilizing 12 arbitrary seed keys that interface your record to your PC and are supported by 8 - 21 key passwords.

Full Protective Security: Koinomo has found a way a few ways to guarantee a protected environment for financial backers' Funds by utilizing Cold stockpiling wallets to keep financial backers' Digital Assets in care.

KOINOMO Monthly FUND Performance: At the finish of consistently, Koinomo is needed to distribute the asset record execution showing every day exchanging action and benefit/misfortune for each exchanging day.

A single tick withdrawals: Investors are not attached to any time span for their speculation which implies they can pull out any time from Koinomo FUND to their Koinomo wallet.

No Withdrawal Fees/No secret expenses: Koinomo doesn't charge any withdrawal expenses other than 8:2 benefit share (BTC financial backers) and 9:1 benefit share ($KMO financial backers).

day in and day out Online Support: Koinomo will give Live Chat nonstop on Telegram site and local area for financial backers if any assistance is required in regards to their Investment with Koinomo.

What are the fundamental hypothesis totals?

The littlest exertion on the FUND Platform is 1 BNB, in any event on the off chance that you visit the KOINOMO Brokers office, the fundamental hypothesis all out will be a lot higher. Note that visit us in case you are contributing or have contributed. Because of the wide interest of the activity program, a bigger demographic is dealt with.

Point

We plan to have the best and most competent Funds so you have the best bits of knowledge all over the place. Our affiliation and experience brings the norm of help that doesn't place you and your resources prior to uniting occupied with cash and subsequently on the planet.

In your most recent couple of months you will perceive how we don't work like the financial business and different commitments are essentially through understanding your business.

How Does Koinomo Work?

To turn into a financial backer in KOINOMO Fund, you should initially visit KOINOMO.com. Once there you explore to the information exchange button which is otherwise called "Begin Investing".

After you store your assets into the Koinomo wallet. Koinomo oversees financial backer assets through a few positions, both long and short procedures.

54.5% of the portfolio is allotted for momentary systems through the exchanging work area, where Koinomo will do ordinary exchanges various BTC to fiat and BTC to crypto sets.

Another 45.5% hold BTC saves, a place of refuge in a free from any and all harm cold wallet.

KOINOMO ascertains all benefits in USDT, which implies that once your Bitcoins are contributed, we will likely expand the FIAT Value of your bitcoins in any event, when the market is negative.

In the event that you store 1 BTC at the current cost of $38,000, Koinomo's order is to expand that measure of FIAT and Bitcoin even in negative business sectors or cycles through exchanging and contributing. On the off chance that the bitcoin value drops to $32,000, our asset produces a normal of 15% toward the month's end which gives you a benefit of $5,700 in addition to $38,000 rises to $43,700.

Benefit Distribution Process — All benefits will be separated by a proportion of 2:8 where KOINOMO takes 20% and financial backers take 80%. Your record equilibrium will be recalculated and refreshed like clockwork.

Speculations made in Koinomo's local token, specifically KMO, will have more benefit sharing, which is 9:1. Financial backers share 90% benefit and 10% Shares by Koinomo.

At the point when a misfortune happens, the worth of the misfortune will be conveyed among financial backers in relation to the level of their particular interest in the asset. The misfortune will then, at that point be refreshed in the record similarly as the addition.

What is Koinomo Token (KMO)?

The KOINOMO token or "KMO" token is a free-drifting resource dependent on the Binance Smart Chain (BSC), with its own financial strategy. KMO goes about as the local money of the Koinomo environment.

The greatest benefit of KMO tokens is that if financial backers decide to put resources into Koinomo assets through KMO tokens, they have a bigger benefit portion of 9:1, which implies 90% of the benefits will go to financial backers in the event that they decide to contribute through KMO tokens. This will assist with becoming the Koinomo biological system.

Tokonomics

Token Name: Koinomo

Ticker Token: KMO

Organization: Binance Smart Chain

All out Supply: 10,000,000 KMO

Advantages of ICO Tokens

After the IDO bid, tokens will be dropped and dispersed to our holders which will be utilized as money for our decentralized blockchain stockpiling.

Hustle along BUY $KMO Tokens for $0.15 https://Koinomo.finance

Pre-Sales and Value

KOINOMO token will be delivered dependent on BSC Network on PancakeSwap. It's symbolic similarity with outsider assistance wallets, trades and so on, and gives simple to-utilize reconciliation.

Start: September 9, 2021 (09:00 GMT)

Terminates: 16 September 2021 (11:00 GMT)

OK money: BNB

Number of tokens sold: 4,000,000 KMO (40%)

Token Presale Price: 1 BNB = 2100 KMO

Least exchange sum: 0.3 BNB

For more information please follow the link below:

Website: https://koinomo.finance/

Facebook : https://www.facebook.com/Koinomo/

Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/koinomo

Telegram: https://t.me/koinomo

Twitter: https://twitter.com/koinomotoken

Linkedin : https://www.linkedin.com/company/koinomo/

Reddit : http://reddit.com/r/koinomo

Medium : https://medium.com/@koinomo

YouTube : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNEarsppiq4rj669RkaonNA

Author:

Bitcointalk Username: tazo1995

Bitcointalk Profile Link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1739255

BEP20(BSC) Wallet Address: 0x675E5228716AE5eD31d67343A801631307931Ca4

#Koinomo #kmo #BinanceSmartChain #BSCGem #BSC #investwithkoinomo

[cloudblack]

An idle human mind, deprived of interesting or meaningful external engagement, will turn its formidable powers of analysis inward, questioning its own priorities, dismantling itself. The journey out of Hell is long, undertaken in silence and total darkness; the mind wanders.  

But the very real psychological toll of a long journey in darkness does not explain why the character of Orpheus, specifically, makes this particular choice in response to his circumstances. Why, for example, doesn't Orpheus just lay down and give up? Or, possessed by the self-destructive resolve of the depressed, direct his frustration against his own perceived weakness and drive himself to the surface? How does Orpheus, in this state of total despondency and depletion, not only manage to invert the momentum of his journey—and overcome the inertia that must tempt him to surrender entirely—but purposefully choose the most effortful option and reverse his course of action?

The answer is that, in the human mind, "go forward" and "go back" do not exist independently of one another, but are intrinsically and inextricably connected. As infants, one of our very first tools for understanding the world is by identifying distinct objects as opposites. Niklas Törneke writes that "comparative relations often include a relation of opposition. For example, if something is heavier than something else, you might say that this implies a form of opposition: One object is heavy as opposed to the other object, which is light. This might indicate that the natural learning sequence involves learning the arbitrary relation of opposition before learning to put stimuli in a comparative relation" (Learning RFT). Our relational cognitive machinery demands that "for a verbally competent human being ... things are always related to their opposites, as well as to a number of other things." Up implies down; life implies death.  

The command "I must not look back" encapsulates its own undoing; it is literally impossible to read that sentence aloud without simultaneously speaking its negative. Every time you repeat "I must not look back," you are forced to say: "look back."

So perhaps the fatal flaw of Orpheus is that, in accepting Hades’ offer, he refuses to accept the psychological cost of the undertaking. His journey so far, after all, has been a relatively easy one. For his entire life, Orpheus’ gift has proven devastatingly effective at persuading others; his voice charms Eurydice, Cerberus, Hades himself. But climbing out of the underworld, restless and uncertain, Orpheus is forced to negotiate with the one mind he cannot influence through song: his own. Alone with his thoughts, the great singer finds himself troubled by ideas he cannot simply dismiss with song. Orpheus cannot charm himself.

#this is so fake deep i love it