What do you think about survival-horror games that only have action in one large location? I mean, small projects, a couple hours long. Usually lately games try to be big, with dozens of hours of playthroughs and large spaces. But isn't the point to put the player in a position where he have to get out of, while solving puzzles? For example, the recent Alone In The Dark.
Do you think such games have the right to live in 2024?

If you are in the position to support my work, I have a patreon, venmo, and a paypal set up. Just three dollars a month makes a huge difference! No pressure though, I will keep posting these pieces publicly no matter what - paywalls suck.
You can signup to receive a monthly email with links to my posts or subscribe to Keep Track’s Substack (RSS link).

Kansas

Despite voters overwhelmingly rejecting a constitutional amendment that would have allowed abortion restrictions in the state, Kansas Republicans passed several anti-abortion bills into law late last month, overriding the governor’s veto.
The first bill, HB 2436, makes it a crime to “coerce” someone into having an abortion. Democrats attempted to widen the scope of the bill to include all kinds of reproductive coercion, like pressuring someone to become or stay pregnant and prohibiting their access to birth control, and enshrine a right to “reproductive autonomy.” Republicans voted down the amendment.
The second bill, HB 2749, requires medical facilities and providers to (1) ask patients their reason for having an abortion and (2) report the data, including personal information about the patient, to the legislature every other year. Gov. Laura Kelly (D) agreed with the objections of Democrats and reproductive rights advocates, saying when she vetoed the bill that there is “no valid reason to force a woman to disclose to the legislature why she is seeking an abortion.”

• Democrats offered numerous amendments to HB 2749, including one to require men to report to the legislature their reasons for having a vasectomy and another requiring men to report why they are seeking treatment for erectile dysfunction. Republicans rejected all of them.

Finally, the Republican legislature overrode Kelly’s line-item veto allocating $2 million to the Pregnancy Compassion Awareness Program, created last year with a different veto override. The program is run by an anti-abortion group called the Kansas Pregnancy Care Network, which refers pregnant people to crisis pregnancy centers designed to use misleading information to discourage them from obtaining an abortion.

Louisiana

Louisiana’s legislature is doubling down on its anti-abortion laws, passing bills to increase criminalization and refusing to add exemptions to its abortion ban.
Earlier this month, the Louisiana House took up a bill passed by the Senate that would make it a crime, punishable by jail time, to possess abortion-inducing medication. SB 276, sponsored by 23 Republicans and one Democrat, was initially written to create a punishment for coercing someone into an abortion without their knowledge or consent (e.g. spiking a drink). However, House legislators recently added an amendment to the bill that classifies mifepristone and misoprostol as Schedule IV substances alongside some opioids and benzodiazepines. A pregnant person possessing the drugs for their own use could not be charged, but others who intend to distribute them to pregnant people seeking an abortion or store them for their own potential future use would face up to ten years in prison.

“Neither is a drug of abuse or dependence, and that is what the controlled drug schedule is for,” said [emergency room Dr. Jennifer] Avegno of the abortion drugs. “It makes no scientific or medical sense to put these drugs in the same category as Xanax or Valium.”
Mifepristone is a drug that blocks a hormone called progesterone, which is necessary for a pregnancy to continue. Misoprostol causes uterine contractions, causing the body to expel the pregnancy tissue. Mifepristone is also used to treat Cushing’s disease, a hormonal disorder. Misoprostol is also used to induce labor, manage a miscarriage and in the treatment of ulcers. Neither are addictive. “People do not go around taking them and getting dependent and having bad outcomes because of it,” said Avegno. “It’s like saying your blood pressure medicine or insulin is a drug of abuse.”

A week later, Republicans on the House Criminal Justice Committee voted 7-4 to reject a bill to add rape and incest exceptions to the state’s total abortion ban. House Bill 164, written by Democratic Rep. Delisha Boyd, would have allowed girls younger than 17 to have abortions if they became pregnant as the result of sexual assault.

“That baby [in the womb] is innocent … We have to hang on to that,” said committee member Rep. Dodie Horton, R-Haughton, who voted against the bill. Rep. Lauren Ventrella, R-Greenwell Spring, also voted against the legislation, saying the proposed law would be difficult to enforce. Teenagers who had consensual sex might feign rape or incest in order to get access to abortion services, she suggested…
Dr. Neelima Sukhavasi, a Baton Rouge doctor specializing in obstetrics and gynecology, also implored the lawmakers to approve Boyd’s proposal. She and her colleagues have delivered babies for pregnant teenagers, including mothers as young as 13, since Louisiana’s abortion ban went into effect two years ago. These young pregnant people can experience health complications that affect them for the rest of their lives, Sukhavasi said, and sometimes don’t have the mental capacity to handle the births. “One of these teenagers delivered a baby while clutching a teddy bear,” she told the committee.

The Committee also killed three other bills: HB 56, to allow abortions in cases of spontaneous miscarriage or nonviable pregnancy; HB 63, to clarify that the removal of an ectopic pregnancy is not an abortion under state law; HB 293, to add protection for physicians who do not intend to induce abortion by prescribing certain medications.

Texas

Meanwhile, in Texas—a state that pioneered the war on women and reproductive rights—a man initiated legal action to sue people who helped his former partner obtain an out-of-state abortion.
The man, Collin Davis, filed a petition in a state district court seeking permission to launch legal depositions to collect evidence for a potential lawsuit under a Texas law that contains civil liability for anyone who “aids and abets” an abortion. According to his lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell (who crafted the anti-abortion law), Davis is seeking to sue “co-conspirators and accomplices…involved in the murder of [his] unborn child.”

“Fathers of aborted fetuses can sue for wrongful death in states with abortion bans, even if the abortion occurs out-of-state,” he wrote. “They can sue anyone who paid for the abortion, anyone who aided or abetted the travel, and anyone involved in the manufacture or distribution of abortion drugs.”
Molly Duane, a senior staff attorney with the Center for Reproductive Rights, described Mitchell’s statement and general approach as misleading “fearmongering.”
“People need to understand that it is not a crime to leave Texas or any other state in the country for an abortion,” said Duane, who is working with lawyers from the firm Arnold & Porter to represent the woman and others targeted in the Davis case. “I don’t want people to be intimidated, but they should be outraged and alarmed.” Duane described the woman’s relationship with Davis as “toxic and harmful.”

Mitchell also represents a different man who pursued a similar claim last year: Marcus Silva engaged Mitchell to sue the friends of his estranged wife for allegedly helping her obtain abortion pills. Evidence later revealed that Silva knew about the plans beforehand and did not intervene, likely intending to use the threat of legal action as a way of forcing his partner to halt divorce proceedings.

Monday’s counterclaim illustrates, in painstaking detail, exactly how Silva—aided by Mitchell—allegedly deployed this tactic. It was only after Brittni’s abortion was complete that Silva revealed he knew about the plan and, according to the lawsuit, threatened to turn her in if she didn’t submit to his continued abuse. He even showed the police photographs of messages discussing the possibility of an abortion. “Once I finally got home with the girls he had been drinking and he told me that he knew,” Brittni texted one friend. “He’s using it against me.” In another message, she wrote, “Now he’s saying if I don’t give him my ‘mind body and soul’ until the end of the divorce, which he’s going to drag out, he’s going to make sure I go to jail for doing it.” […]
The counterclaim points out another flaw in his argument: Silva himself “is responsible for the alleged injury for which he seeks to recover.” He “knew that Brittni planned to terminate her alleged pregnancy and acquiesced in accepting Brittni’s actions,” so “it would be unconscionable to permit him to benefit by changing his position now.” His claims, in short, are barred “by unclean hands,” because he effectively entrapped his estranged wife—covertly discovering her plan to terminate the pregnancy, then allowing her to go through with it for the express purpose of blackmailing her into staying with him.

Indiana

A three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals last month unanimously recognized a religious freedom challenge to the state’s complete ban on abortion.
The case, brought by Hoosier Jews for Choice and four anonymous women of various faiths, alleges that the ban interferes with “their sincere religious beliefs that require and direct them to obtain abortions” criminalized since the law took effect in 2023. According to Jewish law, a fetus does not have personhood until birth, and abortion is required if the pregnancy endangers the life or health of the mother.

Brief of Hoosier Jews for Choice (and other plaintiffs): As indicated by the declarations of numerous rabbis, Judaism teaches that a fetus becomes a living person only at birth, and prior to that is considered part of the woman’s body, without independent rights. Abortion should occur and is mandated to end a pregnancy that may cause serious consequences to a woman’s mental or physical heath. Judaism also recognizes that physical health risks are not limited to those likely to cause substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function. Judaism stresses the necessity of protecting the physical and mental health of the woman—a life—over the potential for life present in a zygote, embryo, or fetus. Therefore, restrictions that prevent a woman from obtaining an abortion where compelled by Jewish law, which mandates that the woman act to protect her physical or mental health, impose a substantial burden on that person’s religious exercise.

Under Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), “a governmental entity may not substantially burden a personʹs exercise of religion,” defined to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” This means that arguments about whether plaintiffs are strictly observant are irrelevant; the law protects sincerely held religious views regardless of whether that view is idiosyncratic or unorthodox. However, even a law that imposes a substantial burden on the exercise of religion can be enforced if it is “the least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest” (the strict scrutiny test).
The state argued that abortion does not carry “religious significance” and, even if it did, the abortion ban satisfies strict scrutiny because it is “sufficiently narrowly tailored” to “further the State’s interest” in “protecting human lives in the womb.” Throughout Indiana’s brief, the state attempts to use science to back up fetal personhood, extending developmental physiology to make unfounded claims that protected life unquestionably begins at conception:

In lower courts, the State’s compelling interest is not up for debate. In Cheaney v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court held that the State’s interest in protecting unborn children is “valid and compelling” from “the moment of conception.” …A basic understanding of biology supports these holdings. “That human fetuses are human beings is a scientific fact, not a theological claim.” Regardless whether an individual person believes this, “the scientific consensus” is that “[d]evelopment begins at fertilization,” after which the newly created “unicellular zygote divides many times and becomes progressively transformed into a multicellular human being through cell division, migration, growth, and differentiation.” …. Science thus tells us that “[t]he act of performing an induced abortion during any stage of pregnancy, from fertilization up to birth, ends the life of an innocent human being.” The State’s interest in protecting unborn fetal life at any stage from intentional destruction accordingly is nothing less than “compelling.”

A panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals—made up of a Republican appointee and two Democratic appointees—unanimously ruled against the state, upholding a lower court’s injunction against the abortion ban as it applies to the plaintiffs. In the process, the court laid out a path for religious freedom challenges to abortion bans in other states and at the federal level.

The trial court found that absent a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs would be irreparably harmed by the loss of their religious freedoms guaranteed by RFRA. A loss of First Amendment freedoms, which include the right to free exercise of religion, “for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”... Without a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs will suffer the loss of their right to exercise their sincere religious beliefs by obtaining an abortion when directed by their religion and prohibited by the Abortion Law. They also have shown their sexual and reproductive lives will continue to be restricted absent the injunction and as a result of the Abortion Law.

• Briefs can be found under case number 22A-PL-2938 on Indiana’s Appellate docket

hey sorry to ask that last minute kinda, but so i have barely done any coding in my life, but for a digital design class i need to make a clock without numbers on processing, its due today. ive got my idea almost figured out, like i want the seconds to be sort of flashing, thats done. and so far ive done pretty much the same thing with minutes and hours, although id like it to be different. id like the circle for the minutes and the one for the hours to be moving every minute/hour, just like the action of a clock you know. Could someone help me with that? So far i have placed every circle on a particular area and now idk how to adapt it so that they move. Im putting the code down so that you can see by yourselves what i mean. btw im french so there are some french words in the code, you can ask if youve got any questions but should be ok.
int secondeavant=0;
int heureavant=0;
int minuteavant=0;
boolean clignote=false;
boolean clignoteagain=false;
boolean clignotetoujours=false;
void setup() {
size (900, 900) ;
background(#dec8da);
}
void draw() {
int s = second();
int m = minute();
int h = hour();
if (m>minuteavant) {
minuteavant=m;
if (clignote) {
clignote=false;
} else {
clignote=true;
}
} else {
minuteavant=m;
}
if (h>heureavant) {
heureavant=h;
if (clignoteagain) {
clignoteagain=false;
} else {
clignoteagain=true;
}
} else {
heureavant=h;
}
if (s>secondeavant) {
secondeavant=s;
if (clignotetoujours) {
clignotetoujours=false;
} else {
clignotetoujours=true;
}
} else {
secondeavant=s;
}
translate (80, 80);
stroke (#ebeba4);
for (int ligne = 1; ligne <7; ligne++) {
for (int colonne = 1; colonne<7; colonne++) {
if ( (ligne == 1) && (colonne == 6) ) {
if (clignote) {
fill(#9a7ba8);
} else {
fill (#3c1e4a);
}
} else {
noFill();
}
ellipse(colonne*100, ligne*100, 100, 100);
if ( (ligne == 5) && (colonne == 2) ) {
if (clignoteagain) {
fill(#c5d993);
} else {
fill (#607037);
}
} else {
noFill();
}
ellipse(colonne*100, ligne*100, 100, 100);
if ( (ligne == 4) && (colonne == 4) ) {
if (clignotetoujours) {
fill(#8db6c2);
} else {
fill (#dec8da);
}
} else {
noFill();
}
ellipse(colonne*100, ligne*100, 100, 100);
}
}
}

After reading the article, it looks like another misleading headline designed to generate buzz by the sales team at the WSJ.
But I still want to be cautious in my strategy and mitigate any risks.
Curious what do others think of the article?
The article needs a subscription, so I pasted the text below.
Wall Street went on a home-buying spree. Now, more lawmakers want to stop it from ever happening again.
Democrats in the U.S. Senate and House have sponsored legislation that would force large owners of single-family homes to sell houses to family buyers. A Republican’s bill in the Ohio state legislature aims to drive out institutional owners through heavy taxation.
Lawmakers in Nebraska, California, New York, Minnesota and North Carolina are among those proposing similar laws.
While homeowner associations for years have sought to stop investors from buying and renting out houses in their neighborhoods, the legislative proposals represent a new effort by elected officials to regulate Wall Street’s appetite for single-family homes.
These lawmakers say that investors that have scooped up hundreds of thousands of houses to rent out are contributing to the dearth of homes for sale and driving up home prices. They argue that investor buying has made it harder for first-time buyers to compete with Wall Street-backed investment firms and their all-cash offers.
Wall Street went on a home-buying spree. Now, more lawmakers want to stop it from ever happening again.
Democrats in the U.S. Senate and House have sponsored legislation that would force large owners of single-family homes to sell houses to family buyers. A Republican’s bill in the Ohio state legislature aims to drive out institutional owners through heavy taxation.
Lawmakers in Nebraska, California, New York, Minnesota and North Carolina are among those proposing similar laws.
While homeowner associations for years have sought to stop investors from buying and renting out houses in their neighborhoods, the legislative proposals represent a new effort by elected officials to regulate Wall Street’s appetite for single-family homes.
These lawmakers say that investors that have scooped up hundreds of thousands of houses to rent out are contributing to the dearth of homes for sale and driving up home prices. They argue that investor buying has made it harder for first-time buyers to compete with Wall Street-backed investment firms and their all-cash offers.
Share of single-family homes purchased by investors, by portfolio sizeSource: John Burns Research and ConsultingNote: Quarterly data measures the trailing 12 months. iBuyers are a type of house flipper.2016'17'18'19'20'21'22'23'2402.55.07.510.012.515.017.520.022.525.027.5%iBuyers1,000+ home companies100-99910-991-91-9 1Q 2017 18%
Investors of all sizes spent billions of dollars buying homes during the pandemic. At the 2022 peak, they bought more than one in every four single-family homes sold, though more recently their activity has slowed as interest rates rose and supply became tighter. Two of the largest home-buying firms, Invitation Homes and AMH, are publicly traded companies, while a number of other companies, backed by private equity, hold portfolios of tens of thousands of homes nationwide.
Companies that buy single-family homes say their businesses provide renters the opportunity to live in desirable neighborhoods where they otherwise couldn’t afford to buy.
With home prices and rents near record highs around the U.S., legislators and officials at all levels of government have become more active on housing issues. States have passed new measures to fund more affordable housing, to allow builders to bypass local zoning laws and to make the eviction process more favorable to tenants.
Most calls to block large companies from snapping up homes come from liberals, but some conservatives also show an inclination to crack down.
This “corporate large-scale buying of residential homes seems to be distorting the market and making it harder for the average Texan to purchase a home,” Republican Gov. Greg Abbott wrote on X last month. “This must be added to the legislative agenda to protect Texas families.”
Close to equal numbers of voting-age Republicans and Democrats said they would support a measure to block Wall Street firms from buying homes, according to a new study funded by the University of California, Santa Barbara, and the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank. The study gauged opinion from 5,000 renters and homeowners in urban and suburban ZIP Codes.
Proposals to curb investors might be popular with voters, but so far they haven’t gained much traction in legislatures. None of the bills in Congress or in any of the state houses has reached a floor vote.
Advocates for the single-family rental industry, such as the National Rental Home Council, oppose such legislation and blame rising prices on an undersupply of new-construction homes. They also point to the relatively low number of homes owned by institutional investors, defined as those companies with portfolios of 1,000 homes or more. Some research estimates these companies own 3% to 5% of American rental homes.
In some American cities, institutional investors hold a much larger share of homes than they hold nationally. In Atlanta, nearly 11% of all rental homes in the five-county area are now owned by three real-estate companies, a recent study by researchers at Georgia State University found. A 2022 analysis by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development said 21% of Atlanta rental homes were owned by some large institution.
Rep. Nikema Williams (D., Ga.), from the Atlanta area, in December co-sponsored the End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act in the U.S. House. The act “won’t solve all of the problems, but it will definitely make an impact,” she said in an interview.
Critics of regulation note that many of the largest investors have bought very few or no homes in the past year. “The great trade is done,” said John Burns, founder of the eponymous housing research and consulting firm. “So what are you trying to stop?”
Smaller investors that own between 10 and 99 homes have stepped up their share of home buying this year, Burns said. Some of the proposed legislation would also target these smaller investors.
The bills in the House and Senate would cap rental-home ownership at no more than 50 homes for many companies, requiring them to sell off any more they already own. A bill in Minnesota, meanwhile, would limit ownership to 20 homes.
Bills to block landlords in the Ohio and Nebraska state legislatures were written in response to a small number of investors buying up hundreds of homes in a handful of Cincinnati and Omaha neighborhoods.
Louis Blessing III, a Republican representing suburbs of Cincinnati in the Ohio Senate, introduced a bill to tax large landlords so heavily that they would likely feel compelled to sell their properties. Blessing said he is concerned about real-estate companies developing monopoly power in some neighborhoods, while putting starter homes further out of reach for home buyers.
“It’s an antitrust in spirit bill,” he said.

The tensions with Opposing Empire have gone beyond mere mutual enmity. This is a conflict of economies, ideologies, and clandestine efforts, fought across our empires in the hearts and minds of our citizens. With some carelessness, or perhaps deliberate actions, it could quickly become a full-fledged military conflict.
^{(Note: this is a sneak peak into a larger Diplomacy DLC concept I am designing. Also disclaimer: I am not a game designer, I intentionally did not provide numbers, just ideas! Feel free to suggest or criticize.})
When two empires are Rivals a while, both sides will have the option to escalate the Rivalry into a Cold War, which costs Influence. If either side does this, a Situation that is shared and progressed by both sides is created. This situation is intended to provide more RP and mechanical freedom for empires to either diplomatically mend relations, prepare a leadup to war, or perhaps make gains without resorting to warfare.
Cold Wars, like many situations currently in the game, operate on a line between two endpoints, representing the tensions between the two empires: Reconciliation (-100) to War (100).
By default, the Situation will start at 0 and remain stagnant in the middle. Both sides will have access to four Approaches which have different bonuses and effects on the Situation:

• Seek De-Escalation: costs Unity to upkeep. Increases Opinion of the opposing empire, and progresses the Situation towards Reconciliation. (Our simmering conflict with Opposing Empire must be reconsidered. We will extend diplomatic tendrils in hopes of reducing tensions and reconciling our two empires.)
• Maintain Status Quo: costs no upkeep, has no effect. (The current friction with Opposing Empire works to our advantage. We will focus on our own affairs.)
• Clandestine Effort: costs low Energy Creds to upkeep. Moderately decreases the cost of running Spy Operations in the target empire and slightly increases their effectiveness. Slowly progresses the Situation towards War. (We have no desire for a large scale armed conflict with Opposing Empire at this time- instead, we will use... other methods to improve our position.)
• Prepare for Hostilities: costs more Energy Creds to upkeep. Increases Military Ship and Defense Platform build speed, and more quickly progresses the Situation towards War. (We have had enough of the thinly veiled hostilities with Opposing Empire. War is inevitable- and we will lay the groundwork for victory!)

Progress: there are also other factors which will influence the progress of this situation:

• Either side being Militarist or Xenophobe will add base progress towards War, increased if Fanatic.
• Insults will bump the scale towards War.
• Military buildup/border friction, as well as the currently existing Conduct Fleet Exercises event, will move the scale towards War.
• The opinion of either side decreasing further (ex. Harm Relations) will move the scale towards War- this also means a 3rd party could use Spy operations, like the existing Diplomatic Incident or Smear Campaign, to push the outbreak of hostilities!
• New Cassus Belli gained by either side against the other will push the scale towards War- for example, taking a Civic that grants CB, or becoming a Hegemon. So will Declaring War on a Vassal or Ally (provided this doesn't immediately pull the empire in).
• HOWEVER:
• Either side being Pacifist or Xenophile will add base progress towards Reconciliation, increased if Fanatic.
• Cassus Belli becoming invalid will push the scale towards Reconciliation- for example, Impose Ideology becomes invalid if the target adopts matching Ethics.
• Improving Relations by any means will move the scale towards Reconciliation. Eventually, Embassies and other Diplomatic actions can end the Cold War.
• De-Escalation can be traded under Actions- normally, Rival AI empires will never be willing to trade, but an exception can be made here, to for example allow one side to Trade systems, resources, etc as concessions in exchange for X progress towards De-Escalation. The AI may offer such deals if Inferior or Pathetic, and may request concessions to reduce tensions if Superior or Overwhelming.

Events: as with most Situations, the Cold War could feature various events for RP and mechanical purposes. Here are some examples I thought up:

• Fraternization with the Enemy (either empire is some degree of Spiritualist, Xenophile or Pacifist): Despite the tensions with Opposing Empire, news reports and viral videos have recently been circulating of groups of both Our Species and Their Species activists united in song and demonstration on multiple planets. Apparently, these individuals seek an end to the hostility between our empires.
  • [Support these noble and righteous souls.] - bumps the scale towards Reconciliation. Gain temporary Ethics attraction for the corresponding Ethic.
  • [Ignore these misguided fools.] - situation does not change. Gain temporary Happiness debuff for pops of the the responsible Ethic.
  • (Militarist, Xenophobe, or Authoritarian) - [Arrest as many of the wicked traitors as we can identify!] - costs Influence, bumps the scale towards War. Gain temporary Ethics attraction for the Ethic you used to take this choice.
• Arms Race Breakthrough (is currently using the Prepare for Hostilities approach, increased chance if Materialist or Technocracy): Amidst the large-scale preparations for possible conflict with Opposing Empire, a small team of scientists has independently developed a new military technology and presented it to our government for use.
  • [Excellent.] - bumps the scale towards War, and gain a low-mid tier military tech that was not yet researched. If no valid options, gain some Engineering research instead.
• Pro-War Rally (has any Xenophobe or Militarist leader): Recently, in front of massive crowds on Planet Name, Leader Name delivered a rousing speech extolling the glorious virtues of Our Empire and denouncing the horrific threat presented by Opposing Empire. It would seem many have been swept up in this pro-war fervor and are demanding action from our government. However, foreign emissaries and more moderate elements have cautioned against supporting such explosive, radical rhetoric.
  • [We stand with Leader Name! To war!] - bumps the scale towards War, changes our approach to Prepare for Hostilities if it isn't already, and gain Unity and temporary Ethics Attraction to Leader Name's Ethics. BUT reduces the Opinion of Opposing Empire and any empires Cordial or friendlier to them.
  • [Heads must be kept cool, and Leader Name must be reprimanded.] - costs Influence, but the situation does not change.

And now, for the conclusions of the situation:
Reconciliation Finisher (or if empires somehow become overlord/vassal or allies via external circumstances)
Both Empires get the Event: De-Escalation Successful
In a significant diplomatic achievement, the heated tensions with Opposing Empire have been comprehensively defused! Perhaps this will pave the way for friendlier relations and better days ahead.
If the Situation reaches Reconciliation, the Cold War and Rivalry will immediately be ended, with all their bonuses and effects. Both empires will gain a moderate lump sum of Influence and Unity, as well as a small burst of increased Opinion for each other.

• [That was a close one.] - default option, overwritten by others if applicable
• (Pacifist or Xenophile) [A glorious day!] - the rewards are increased
• (Militarist or Xenophobe) [Disappointing.] - the rewards are decreased

War Finisher (or if empires are pulled in by other factors)
Both Empires get the Event: Cold War Turns Hot
The heated tensions with Opposing Empire have ignited! Negotiations have broken down, and fierce border skirmishes have erupted. The truth is now undeniable: we are at war.
If the Situation reaches War, the Cold War and Rivalry will transform into an actual, normal war. Both empires will gain a small lump sum of Influence and Unity and will have a window to pick from their available Cassus Belli and call in allies before the battle begins.

• [To battle stations!] - default option, overwritten by others if applicable
• (Pacifist or Xenophile) [Well, we tried...] - the rewards are decreased
• (Militarist or Xenophobe) [Long have we waited for this moment!] - the rewards are increased

And that's all I've got for you all today. Thanks for reading and please send any suggestions or feedback! Here's a bonus: a new achievement based on the irl Soviet Colonel who may have saved the world
Legacy of S'tann Pet'rovv: De-Escalate a Cold War after tensions had at one point reached 95 or higher.

I have been working at a big company for 1.5 years now part time while doing my master's. My job is software development. This is my first professional job.I'm particularly good at the frontend side of things and find myself do my tasks quite well. I obviously make mistakes here and there but that's part of the job. I try nonetheless to polish my skills and I have learnt lots of stuff in this job and grew some confidence in my craft. The team I work for basically tries to solve or support in new ideas in form of design, POCs, MVPs and other stuff. Our development team is small. We are four who actually code and one tech lead with a decade of software development experience. He doesn't code anything though but just reviews code and is very opinionated. He always wants to have winning word. I'm constantly being asked by him to wear different hats. I find myself thrown on AI, backend, DevOps or frontend work. Sometimes I get tasks that are really difficult that I soend days and never get anything when I ask him he also doesn't know. He asks me to work in stuff that I have expressed multiple time I'm not interested in. In my view, I want to be focused on something so that I can good at it. Then I can explore other things. He recently asked to take mentor new commers and take more responsibility. Is this normal part time work or is it too much for someone my experience. I don't know what to do. I can't tell you how many times I doubted myself because I'm being assigned tasks way out of experience. I successful finish them most of the time but I take so much time resulting in me working until late at night. I can't quit I need money for now.

Introduction

In this post, we'll be discussing something called "Virtue Ethics." This is a normative theory of ethics that's most associated with Aristotle, though has in recent times experienced a resurgence of sorts from modern philosophers, some of whom have tweaked and modified it, and in doing so have created different branches on this tree of moral theory. We will be comparing these different flavors of Virtue Ethics to that of the New Testament's, pointing out where they're similar, as well as highlighting where the NT differs (and is actually superior) from the heathens' views.
I want to preface all this with a verse and a warning:

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."-Colossians 2:8

The entire Bible, over and over again, warns against syncretism. It's a running theme throughout to condemn the practice, with this verse being one of the more explicit ones to do so.
Mapping the ideas of Pagans (and especially Greek philosophers) onto the Scriptures has always resulted in people severely misinterpreting the Bible, as looking at the Word of God through a Hellenistic lens is and always has been extremely innapropiate to the author's original intent.
Whenever Greek philosophy or ideas are referenced, they're always portrayed in a bad light or otherwise used to make a point. Examples of the latter could be found in the apostle Paul's writings, as he was a fully educated Roman citizen of his day, and so he made use of known Hellenestic philosophy and literature (that he would have been familiar with) by redefining their terms and ideas in a way that would be consistent with the theology of his own religion. The apostle Peter did the same within his own epistles whenever he mentioned "Tartarus," the abyss/prison for certain disobedient angels that rebelled against God, despite the fact that the word has its roots in Greek mythology and not Hebrew religion (though, the belief that there were a group of spiritual beings that rebelled against the highest authority in the heavens was one technically shared between the two ancient cultures; even if the parties involved were vastly different, as well as the contexts of the rebellion itself).
The affect Hellenstic philosophy has had on the way people think (even subconsciously) can still be felt to this day, and can be seen in the confusion modern "Christianity" has brought on through its adoption of Gnostic teachings such as Dualism or the inherently fatalistic views that many unknowingly hold due to the error of Classical Theism.
While yes, I will be commending the heathen (unbeliever) whenever they are right with their ideas as pertaining to this subject, I will also show where they are wrong.
Let's begin.

"What Is Virtue Ethics?"

First, we need to define some terms and point out the differences between this view and others within the larger debate of normative ethics.
There are three major approaches in normative ethics, those being: Consequentalism, Deontology, and Virtue Ethics. The following are definitions of the terms:
Consequentialism – a class of normative, teleological ethical theories that holds that the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for judgement about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct.
Deontology – theories where an action is considered morally good because of some characteristic of the action itself, not because the product of the action is good. Deontological ethics holds that at least some acts are morally obligatory regardless of their consequences for human welfare.
Virtue Ethics – theories that emphasize the role of character and virtue in moral philosophy rather than either doing one’s duty or acting in order to bring about good consequences. The virtue ethicist would argue that actions themselves, while important, aren't as important as the character behind them. To the virtue ethicist, consequences are also important, but they would say that good consequences ultimately flow from a virtuous character who has made virtuous decisions. Theories of virtue ethics do not aim primarily to identify universal principles that can be applied in any moral situation, instead teaching that the best decisions can vary based on context, and that there are only some actions that would be universally evil, only because those actions could never flow from a virtuous character in the first place (e.g., rape).
Aristotle's idea of ethics is in an important respect different from most people's, especially today. Heirs as we are to Kant’s idea of duty – there is a right thing that one ought to do, as rational beings who respect other persons – and to Mill’s idea of utility – the right thing to do is that which produces the greatest good for the greatest number – most of us see ethics as concerned with actions. "The function of ethics is to help me see what I ought to do in a given situation," the modern says. Aristotle’s approach was different. His ethic is not so much concerned about helping us to see what we ought to do, as about what sort of person we ought to be.
Aristotle was concerned with character, and with the things that go to make up good and bad character; virtues and vices. His sort of ethic does not look at our action to see if it fulfils our duty, or produces a certain outcome, such as the greatest good of the greatest number, and therefore merits approval. Instead, it looks at us; at the character behind the actions, to see whether we merit approval.
Comparing Virtue Ethics with philosophies such as Deontology and Consequentialism, we are able to divide ethical theories into two kinds; act-centered theories and agent-centered theories. Kant’s (Deontological) and Mill’s (Utilitarian) approaches are act-centered, because they concern themselves with our actions, whilst Aristotle’s is agent-centered because it concerns itself with the character of a person, which in his view was ourselves and our own dispositions that prompt our actions.
Both approaches have ardent present-day advocates, and so both are alive and well. Virtue Ethicists are dissatisfied with the answers ‘modern’ act-centered philosophy offers, and look for a more flexible, person-centered approach that takes more account of the subtle varieties of human motivation. Those in this camp see ethics as being about people – moral agents – rather than merely about actions. Of course, your actions matter. But, for Aristotle and his present day advocates alike, they matter as expressions of the kind of person you are. They indicate such qualities as kindness, fairness, compassion, and so on, and it is these qualities and their corresponding vices that it is the business of ethics to approve or disapprove.
All this seems simple and uncontroversial; there are two ways of looking at an action to evaluate it morally. You can take the action in isolation and judge it, or take the agent and judge him or her.
Virtue ethicists argue that act-centered ethics are narrow and bloodless. What is needed is a richer moral vocabulary than just ‘right and wrong’. There are subtle but important differences between actions that are good because they are kind and those that are good because they are generous, and those that are good because they are just. Likewise, there are subtle but important differences between actions that are bad because they are selfish and those that are bad because they are cruel and those that are bad because they are unfair. These, and many other, distinctions are lost when we talk simply about doing one’s duty, or promoting utility. Questions of motive and of character are lost, in these asceptic terms. Modern moral philosophy won’t do: it is cold, technical and insensitive to the many kinds and degrees of value expressed in human actions. Ethics is more than just thought experiments and hypotheticals about what would be the right course of action to take in any given situation we might conjure up from the comfort of our armchair. Ethics is about doing, and about context and character.

The Different Kinds of "Virtue Ethics"

Virtue Ethics has has been developed in two main directions: Eudaimonism, and agent-based theories.
Eudaimonism (Aristotle's view) bases virtues in human flourishing, where flourishing is equated with performing one’s distinctive function well. In the case of humans, Aristotle argued that our distinctive function is reasoning, and so the life “worth living” is one which we reason well. He also believed that only free men in the upper classes of society (i.e., the aristocrats) could excel in virtue and eschew vice, being that such men had greater access to the means in accomplishing this task as they had the wealth and resources to better perform their distinctive function of 'reasoning,' and thus "live well." For the Eudaimonian, inner dispositions are what one ought to focus on in order to cultivate virtuous traits, and thus a virtuous character.
In contrast, an agent-based theory emphasizes that virtues are determined by common-sense intuitions that we as observers judge to be admirable traits in other people. There are a variety of human traits that we find admirable, such as benevolence, kindness, compassion, etc., and we can identify these by looking at the people we admire, our moral exemplars. Agent-based theories also state that the motivations and intentions behind an action are ultimately what determine whether or not said action is actually virtuous. Whereas Eudaimonism understands the moral life in terms of inner dispositions or proclivities to act in certain ways (whether righteous or wicked, just or unjust, kind or cruel, etc.), agent-based theories are more radical in that their evaluation of actions is dependent on ethical judgments about the inner life of the agents who perform those actions, that is, what the motivations and intents are of a person.
[Note: While both Eudaimonism and agent-based theories are both agent-centered, Eudaimonism is not to be confused with an agent-based theory. Both branches concern themselves more with agents rather than acts themselves, but Eudamonism focuses on the self to improve whereas the agent-based theory focuses on others to improve.]

Common Critcisims Toward Secular Forms of Virtue Ethics

Firstly, Eudaimonism provides a self-centered conception of ethics because "human flourishing" (here defined as simply fulfilling our base function as humans, which is "reason" according to this view) is seen as an end in itself and does not sufficiently consider the extent to which our actions affect other people. Morality requires us to consider others for their own sake and not because they may benefit us. There seems to be something wrong with aiming to behave compassionately, kindly, and honestly merely because this will make oneself happier or "reason well."
Secondly, both Eudaimonism and agent-based theories also don't provide guidance on how we should act, as there are no clear principles for guiding action other than “act as a virtuous person would act given the situation.” Who is a virtuous person? Who is the first or universal exemplar?
Lastly, the ability to cultivate the right virtues will be affected by a number of different factors beyond a person’s control due to education, society, friends and family. If moral character is so reliant on luck, what role does this leave for appropriate praise and blame of the person? For the Eudaimonian, one ought to be born into a status of privilege if they wish to excel in being virtuous. For the proponent of an agent-based theory, one ought to be born into a society or family with good role models and preferably be raised by such, else they have no moral exemplars to emulate.

The New Testament's Virtue Ethic

The New Testament authors didn’t sit down and do a self-consciously philosophical exercise, for this was not what they were concerned with. They were concerned with giving practical instruction to disciples of the faith, and merely trying to express the ethical implications of their spiritual experience. That being said, we know the apostle Paul was familiar with the writings of Aristotle. We can actually identify places where Paul displays knowledge of Aristotle and incorporates some of the philosopher's ideas into his own epistles. Before we do this, however, it's important we refute common misnomers about what the Bible teaches concerning ethics in general.
You probably have heard many attack the ethics of the New Testament as being primitive and simplistic. "God dictates universal commands to follow: 'do not lie,' do 'not divorce,' 'do not insult.' And the only motivating factor is escaping hellfire and obtaining the reward of eternal pleasure." But in reality, this is a gross misrepresentation of the ethics laid out in the NT. I will argue the NT advocates for a form of virtue ethics, instead of claiming the NT contains a form of deontic ethics, as it is so often assumed.
Elizabeth Anscombe was one of the most influential virtue ethicists of the 20th century. Her work helped to revive virtue ethics in the modern era, however she also criticized the ethics of the Bible for promoting a form of ethics different than what Aristotle promoted:
"...between aristotle and us came Christianity, with its law conception of ethics. For Christianity derived its ethical notions from the Torah. (One might be inclined to think that a law conception of ethics could arise only among people who accepted an allegedly divine positive law..." (Modern Moral Philosophy, vol. 33, no. 124, 1-19)
We've already dealt with the issue of the Torah in another post. The Torah is not laying down moral laws, but describing justice in the form of ancient Near Eastern wisdom literature. But does the New Testament teach a deontic form of ethics? Anscombe might appear justified in her claim, as some "Christian" theologians have explicitly taught the ethics of the NT is deontic.
However, other theologians have argued the ethics of the NT is best characterized as a form of virtue ethics. In a study of the NT, we'll support this notion. As noted earlier, one of the central features of this approach to ethics is that the aim of ethics should be on living a virtuous life. Other forms of ethics focus on directing actions when confronted with a moral dilemma, but for virtue ethics every action is a moral or immoral action because all of our actions contribute or do not contribute to living a virtuous life. In other words, for a virtue ethicist, everything we do will contribute to living a fulfilled life. Now, the NT promotes a similar idea with a slight modification. The NT changes the distinctictive function and purpose for man in Eudaimonism from "reasoning" to loving God and others instead, and thus "living well" is changed from self-centered 'flourshing' (as defined by Aristotle) to glorifying God instead. The apostles taught everything we do contributes to living a life that glorifies God:

"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."-1 Corinthians 10:31
"And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him."-Colossians 3:17

So we see the same idea in Paul, that everything we do can be seen as a moral or immoral action. Everything we do should be seen as contributing to living a life that glorifies god or not. As a believer, the aim is not just doing good actions to avoid punishments, but to see everything we do as glorifying God. On secular virtue ethics, all our actions are either advancing a good life or not: nourishing your body contributes to living a good life. In a Biblical context: taking the time to properly dress contributes to living a good life, and not giving into the sin of sloth. So all our actions can be moral actions in this context, and so likewise for Paul and Jesus, all we do can contribute to living a life that glorifies God.
Since God made our bodies to thrive and enjoy life, we should nourish our bodies so we can thrive as God intended for our bodies to do, thus ultimately glorifying Him. Since we were created to experience and feel enjoyment, laughing and enjoying things throughout life glorifies God as well since we're experiencing emotions that God created to be experienced. Everything we do should be to glorify God, and often all that is is living our lives in the way that they were intended to be lived. Biblical ethics is very much more than merely performing right actions, but living a virtuous life that brings glory to God.
As Jesus said:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind."-Matthew 22:37b

It is also important to focus on what it means to love, which is an important aspect of what it means to be a believer. Paul makes the radical claim that to love is the entirety of the law of God:

"For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."-Galatians 5:14

Jesus also taught that to love God and love others were the two greatest commandments (Mark 12:28-31, Matt. 22:34-40). He also extends the commandment to love beyond one's brethren, and to love our enemies (Matt. 5:44). Loving those around us is central to what it means to be a believer (John 13:34; 15:12-17, Rom. 12:10; 13:8, 1 Cor. 13:1-8; 16:14, 2 Cor. 8:8, Eph. 4:2; 5:2, Phili. 1:9, Heb. 10:24, Jam. 2:8, 1 Pet. 1:22, 1 John 2:10; 3:23).
One might suggest this is no different than the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do to you," or a Kantian rule: "I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law." In other words, "to live well is to perform good deeds or actions and nothing more." But an important point about loving someone is it cannot be done through actions alone. For example, one could buy a gift for their spouse to cheer them up. However, one could perform this action merely because they value performing right actions without any love for the person. One could donate to charity because it is the right thing to do, and not because she cares for the people who would benefit. In such scenarios, they can be seen as idolizing moral laws, not necessarily caring about helping others.
But to love someone requires more than merely performing right actions. You cannot love someone and not care about who they are as a person and where they are heading in life. To love is to will the good of the other. Jesus chastised the Pharisees of his day for only performing right actions, but not loving their brethren in their hearts. His criticism follows Matthew chapter 22, where Jesus says the greatest commandments are to love. The implication is the Pharisees perform proper actions, but have the wrong motivations for doing so. James Keenan puts it like this:
"Essential to understanding this command is that we love our neighbors not as objects of our devotion, but rather as subjects; that is, as persons. Thus, we cannot love others only because God wants us to do so, since then we would love them as means or as objects and not as persons. We can only love one another as subjects, just as God loves us." (Jesus and Virtue Ethics: Building Bridges Between New Testament Studies and Moral Theology, pg. 86)
A critic may bring up that verses of the NT are still phrased as commands, and therefore the structure implies duties were the central aspect of Christian ethics. But the importance of duties is not foreign to Virtue Ethics. Instead of being central to the ethical framework, duties flow from a virtuous character. Virtues are active and have certain demands for which a person must fulfill in their active behavior.
According to Aristotle, knowledge of the virtues gives us practical wisdom in how to properly act. Duties flow from the understanding of the demands of virtues. To put it another way, for virtues to manifest in persons, they have certain demands that must be fulfilled. For the believer, the command of love flows from being virtuous and aligning oneself with the character of God. Commitment to the character of Christ, who perfectly carried out the will of the Father, allows us to perform right and proper actions.
The NT also contains lists of virtues the believer ought to emulate, the most famous of these is in Galatians chapter 5:
"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law." (vss. 22-23)
Now, the connection with Aristotle cannot be more pronounced. The Greek phrase "against such there is no law" is almost identical to what we find in Aristotle's politics (3.13.1284a). It seems clear Paul is teaching a similar ethical framework to what Aristotle advocated for. Paul is teaching that the believing community ought to be persons who display key virtues, and that their conduct would not need to be regulated by a law. Instead, their character should be the standard others can measure themselves by. Romans chapter 2 is also a place we see references to Aristotle, where Paul notes that when Gentiles do what the law requires, they are "a law unto themselves" (vss. 14-15). In other words, they do not need to be told to act a certain way. They have the proper virtuous character that directs their actions, to do the good the law requires. Paul is advocating in Galatians that believers should think in a similar way.
So in Galatians 5, we have affinity with the teachings of Aristotle, and in other lists of virtues throughout the NT we see a similar idea, which is that Christians were meant to display virtues primarily (Rom. 5:3-5, 1 Cor. 13:1-8, Col. 3:12-17, 1 Tim. 3:2-3; 4:7-8, Jam. 3:17-18, 2 Pet. 1:5-8). From that, good deeds will properly manifest in our actions.
Anscombe made a great point on what the focus of ethics should be:
"It would be a great improvement if, instead of 'morally wrong', one always named a genus such as 'untruthful', 'unchaste', 'unjust'. We should no longer ask whether doing something was 'wrong', passing directly from some description of an action to this notion; we should ask whether, e.g., it was unjust; and the answer would sometimes be clear at once." (Modern Moral Philosophy, vol. 33, no. 124, 1-19)
Interestingly enough, Paul lays out a similar idea in explaining Christian ethics:

"Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you."-Philippians 4:8-9

In other words, the central aspect on living a Christian life was on what is virtuous, not on what is lawfully right or wrong. Right actions flow from whatever is honorable, true, and pure. Correlating with this is how Paul responds to the Corinthians who claimed that "all was lawful." Paul reminded them the emphasis is not on what is lawful, but on what is good for building a virtuous character:

"All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not."-1 Corinthians 10:23

One's main focus ought to be on what is good, not on laws that dictate behavior.
One of the key aspects of Virtue Ethics is the idea we ought to learn from virtuous teachers and imitate them. A virtuous character is obtained by imitating what a virtuous person does. This parallels a key aspect of Christian ethics. Imitating Christ was (and still is) crucial to living a virtuous life:

"For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:"-1 Peter 2:21

Paul says in Romans 8:29 that Christians were predestined "to be conformed to the image of his Son." Jesus often taught his followers to do as he does (Matt. 16:24, Mark 8:34, Luke 6:40; 9:23, John 13:15, 34). Paul says in 1st Corinthians 11: Be ye followers [i.e., imitators] of me, even as I also am of Christ" (vs. 1). Hebrews 13:7 says to imitate the faith of the patriarchs. 1st Thessalonians 2:14 says to imitate each other. And jesus taught to imitate the good Samaritan from his parable (Luke 10:37). Imitating virtuous teachers was key for Christian ethics.
Aristotle tended to compare acquiring virtues with that of learning a practical skill, like playing an instrument or learning how to become a builder. Such practical skills are best picked up when trained by a master of that particular skill, because a teacher can always provide more insight through lessons they learn from experience. For example, an expert salesman can provide examples from his experience of what works with specific customers that a sales textbook could never provide. Many professions today require on-the-job training or experience before even hiring an applicant. The reason is: experience is key to learning a profession. Merely acquiring knowledge from a textbook or an instruction manual is often insufficient to master a skill, so why would mastering the skill of virtue be any different?
In the NT, a believer is to see the world through the eyes of Christ and to love as he loved. One cannot learn how to be a virtuous person without knowing what that life would look like. A key component of Christian theology is that the Messiah perfectly represented the Father and His will on earth, to show us how to properly live as God intended for man. This central tenet of the NT aligns well with agent-based theories of Virtue Ethics, and modifies it so that the person of Jesus Christ is the universal exemplar that one is meant to emulate. We are called to imitate him through our actions, thoughts, and desires, and to conform ourselves to the way he lived. As Paul said:

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."-Galatians 2:20

If learning from Christ is key, we should briefly take a look at the Sermon on the Mount, which is said to be one of Jesus' most important series of teachings. Daniel Harrington notes:
"The sermon begins with nine 'beatitudes' (see 5:3–12) in which Jesus declares as 'happy' or 'blessed' those who practice certain virtues, and promises them an eternal reward and the fullness of God's kingdom." (Jesus and Virtue Ethics: Building Bridges Between New Testament Studies and Moral Theology, pg. 62)
Jesus laid out what a life for those that follow him look like in detail. One ought to be merciful, pure in heart, a peacemaker, thirst for righteousness, etcetera (Matt. 5:2-10). The Sermon does not merely include what right actions are, but includes sections on proper desires. Not only is it wrong to murder, but it is wrong to desire to murder or wish ill on someone (Matt. 5:22). Avoiding adultery is good, but one also should not covet after another man's woman in their heart (Matt. 5:28). In other words, merely avoiding immoral actions is not enough. One must also not desire vices. A believer is called to desire what is good.
The Sermon is not necessarily laying down universal moral commands. For example, Matthew 5:9 says, "Blessed are the peacemakers," but this doesn't imply absolute Pacifism, as it would contradict passages in the Old Testament where it explicitly says there is a time for war (Ecc. 3:8). The point of the Sermon is to teach what a virtuous life ought to look like. A follower of Christ ought to use reason to know what is proper to do in various circumstances. For example, in Matthew chapter 6, Jesus offers guidance on how one ought to pray by presenting the Lord's prayer (vss. 9-15). This is a model of how to pray. It's not a command for followers to always pray in this exact way.
In reality, the Sermon on the Mount mixes in exhortations, parables, hyperbole, declarations, commands, etc. It is best understood as displaying what a virtuous life ought to look like. It's not a law code. Building on this, it's important to understand a proper action is context sensitive. Under Virtue Ethics, one should not necessarily apply a universal maxim to every situation. Sometimes the proper action will depend on what is at stake, who is involved, what is the background, etc. Aristotle advocated against the idea there were fixed universal laws that dictate actions, and instead he argued the right action would depend on the circumstances one finds themselves in. Although the ethics of the NT may be a bit more strict, it still places an emphasis on being sensitive to the context of situations.
In 1st Corinthians chapter 8, Paul lays out instructions on how to deal with meat that has been sacrificed to Pagan idols. Instead of stating an absolute prohibition against meat sacrificed to idols, Paul instructed Christians to use reason to come to the proper ethical decision based on context. In other words, the right action is not determined only by a law. Instead, the Christian had to make the proper decision based on the context: if eating caused another to stumble, then you ought to abstain; if not, then there's no harm done. The value of the action depends on the context.
A Deontologist might reply that there's still a universal law given here: that one should always abstain if it's going to cause another to stumble. This objection can be addressed by asking: how are we to know if eating the meat will cause another believer to stumble? To answer such a question, one must be sensitive to the context, which in this case would be knowledge of the fellow believer and your relation to him. It is the context that determines the right action, not a universal law. Moreover, Paul states that the primary goal for the believer should be to love (1 Cor. 13). The first consideration is once again not the rightness of action, but having love for one another. From this, knowledge of the proper action will follow.
Paul often explains that living a proper life as a believer will take work and practice. He reminded Timothy to attend readings, practice what these things mean, and keep a close watch on himself (1 Tim. 4:13-14). Elsewhere, he directs that all believers must work on their faith (Phili. 2:12). Beyond this, he also noted that not all Christians would have the same gifts, and to accept that this was normal (1 Cor. 12). For some, certain things may be a hindrance, whereas for others it is acceptable (Rom. 14:2-4). What matters is that we love and build one another up (1 Thess. 5:11). Right actions flow from love and knowledge of virtue. Rules are not the primary motives that dictate our actions; rules are secondary in this regard.
An interesting case can be studied with regards to divorce in the Gospels. Jesus preaches against divorce (Mark 10:7-9) and it is often interpreted to mean "divorce is always wrong, regardless of circumstances." However, it should be noted the prohibition on divorce is not a universal law. The context can affect whether or not a divorce is permissible. Jesus says that one can divorce over sexual immorality. Paul also has a situation where divorce is permissible, namely if one spouse is an unbeliever and wishes to leave (1 Cor. 7:15). The implication one can derive is divorce is not ideal, but there are circumstances where it may be the proper action to take. Given the other features of Christian Virtue Ethics we already covered, the proper action to take will depend on the circumstances and what the virtuous agent thinks is the most loving thing to do. A universal prohibition on divorce is not a Christian ethic. Instead, one ought to discern the proper action from circumstances. However, it's clear in most cases divorce would not be the virtuous thing to do.
Building on this, it's important to note that within NT ethics, certain acts are always wrong. For example, idolatry and sexual immorality are always wrong (1 Cor. 10:14, Col. 3:15, 1 Pet. 4:13). There are no possible scenarios where it would be okay to rape, because such an act would never flow from a virtuous character. But this concept is not foreign to theories of Virtue Ethics. Aristotle noted that for some actions, no qualifications could make them virtuous. Actions such as rape or murder are always wrong, because they would never flow from a virtuous character. So it's not as if a Virtue Ethicist cannot claim that some actions are always wrong. They simply are qualified as being unable to flow from virtue, whereas actions like lying or waging war could be considered virtuous for the right reason.
Now, despite Christian Virtue Ethics having many similarities with Eudaimonism (Aristotelian ethics), there are also numerous differences beyond what we've already noted. One of the deficiencies of how Aristotle lays out his ethical theory is that it is essentially an all-boys club. Aristotle writes mainly to aristocratic men, excluding women and slaves. In his view, women were inferior to men and slaves lacked the necessary rational faculty. But the Christians rejected this mentality, as the teachings of Christ and the apostles were available to all (Matt. 28:19). Paul said, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal. 3:28). Peter wrote that all Christians were part of the priesthood of Christ (1 Pet. 2:5). Jesus had women followers (Luke 8:2-3), and they were entrusted with delivering revelation (Mark 15:40–16:8). What we find throughout the NT is a radical change to how women were viewed in the ancient world. Paul is also likely building on Aristotle's household structure and refining it. David deSilva says the household codes of the NT are "...following the pairs laid out as early as Aristotle to such a degree as to suggest that these were standard topics in ethical instruction" (Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, pg. 231). But Paul adds an important preface: submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ (Eph. 5:20-21). DeSilva says:
"...husbands, we cannot then ignore the distinctively Christian addition they bring to this arrangement; husbands are to be subject to their wives as well." (Honor, Patronage, Kinship & Purity, pg. 233)
Thus Paul doesn't break down the traditional perspective on the structure of the family, but he does add the idea that we all must submit to each other in reverence, love, unity, and cooperation because all are equal before God. There is no explicit mention in the NT calling for the abolishment of slavery, but it should be noted that Paul taught that slaves should be seen as equals. In the letter to Philemon, Paul is clear that his slave is no longer "as a servant, but above a servant, a brother beloved" (vs. 16). Thus, within Christian ethics class distinctions were supposed to evaporate. All were brothers and sisters of one family.
An important aspect of Christian ethics is that it wasn't a standalone ethical theory. It's embedded in the larger Christian worldview. The ethical framework is dependent on Christian doctrines. For Aristotle, his ethical theory is for men who were raised well. This is why these specific men desire to be virtuous and perform right actions. As for why the believer does good and desires to be virtuous, it's not because one was raised well, but because they have been activated by the power of God's Spirit (John 3:6, 1 Cor. 12:13). For believers, the reason as to why we desire to be good and virtuous is because the Spirit of God has regenerated us. He loves us so we can love others (1 John 4:19). One is meant to look to the life of Christ and what he has done by dying on the cross, to know that we are loved and forgiven. This in turn is meant to activate a good life, having seen what we have gained and been forgiven of. He calls and activates us to do similar to those around us. This is a more open system for people of all groups and classes. One only has to call upon the name of the Lord to be included. It does not require a specific gender or to be raised a certain way.
The goal of Aristotelian ethics is to achieve 'eudaimonia.' However, within the Bible the goal is as the Westminster Shorter Catechism puts it: "Man's chief end is to glorify God, and enjoy Him forever." Since the central aspect of Biblical Eschatology is that humans will continue on forever in resurrected bodies, the aim of ethics is more than living a good life presently. Living a good life now is important, but it was only one aspect in the Christian worldview. Humans are meant to live beyond this life, so the aim is also about building virtuous souls that will continue on. The importance of this is more crucial than it may seem at first. Paul said that we must all appear before judgment, so that "every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad" (2 Cor. 15:10).
Being a virtuous person requires integrity, because one will still have to answer to God after death. If one can commit an evil act and no one finds out, then from the outside perspective he or she may still appear virtuous. Culturally speaking, the ancient world was very different from our own. All wrongdoings centered around public honor and shame. One did good to receive public honor, and one did not do what was bad to receive public shame. Right and wrong were connected to one's public honor and shame in the ancient Greco-Roman world. Thus good and evil were public ideas, not personal ideas. Ethical demands were grounded in the community in one's public appearance
The Biblical idea of an omniscient God who cared about our ethical status laid a foundation for integrity and personal guilt to emerge. Now one ought to do good because he is beholden to God, not just the community. Believers are to remain focused on God's approval and on the actions that lead them, regardless of the world's response. This lays down fertile ground for integrity to emerge. So the Biblical worldview has another important element built in that encourages ethical behavior, regardless of the honor it brings. One ought to do good because of a commitment to God not, because it might bring honor to one's name publicly.

Implications for Preterists

Paul believed that the Second Coming would happen in his generation, and prescribed certain things in the NT on the basis of that belief. An example of an exhortation that would no longer apppy to us today would be 1st Corinthians 7:24-29, where Paul argues that the times him and his fellow Christians were in called for celibacy, being that the Lord was fast approaching. It wasn't a sin if you did get married, of course; it was just harder to serve the Lord in this context if you had a family to worry about. Thus, Paul encouraged being single.
So, we need to be careful when reading the NT and determining what prohibitions or exhortations are still applicable to us today. Context is key.

I've always preferred black women. All my friends know this. I've dated a few in the past but the last couple girls I've been with weren't black. One of my friends has been with his black girlfriend for a while. Now I duno where where fuck they got the nerve, but in the past few months 2 of my other close friends have gotten into relationships with black women.
I'm worried how this might effect my chances with black girls in the future. I'm at the age where most of my socializing is everyone bringing their girlfriends out and hanging out as couples. These are some of my closest friends and it's very plausible that the first time a potential black girlfriend would meet my friends, it would be 3 other non-black guys with their respective black girlfriends. I'm in a place where black people are a very small percentage of the population. It will be weird for them. Get Out vibes. It reminds me of a Matt McCusker joke, it's okay to be in an interracial relationship but when your friends are in the same ones you start to look like "enthusiasts". One or two other black girls in a bigger, multicultural group would probably make them feel comfortable. But being the fourth one out of a much smaller group has a very different connotation.
It will probably be a non issue anyway, knowing my luck I won't even get a chance with another black girl again. I'll have to settle for off brand versions. Cambodians and Isaan girls. The blacks of Asia. "We have black girls at home" ass bitches. Maybe I'll get lucky and get a Polynesian. They're pretty black-coded. Or black-adjacent. Whatever you wana call it. They got black girl energy

Hi there everyone we are a group of students wanting to help make GP easy for all JC students. All it takes is 3 minutes a week to ace your GP paper.
Our newsletter will differentiate you from the rest of the students not reading our newsletter. In just 3 minutes a week, you will be in the know of all the biggest news and become smarter in just 3 minutes. The best part of it all is that we compile all the latest news from various sources and rewrite them such that it is more useful for your GP paper in a fun, easy-to-read format.
​
Join today and get exclusive access to our newsletter, thousands of students are already loving our newsletter:
https://bizbrew-worldnews.beehiiv.com/
​
Here are some snippets from our stories :
1. Unmasking the Deepfake Nightmare: When Tech Goes Too Far 💻
So, you know how sometimes technology can be super cool? Well, sometimes it’s not so cool. Take deepfake apps, for example. Teens are using these apps to make fake nude photos of their classmates and share them around. Not cool, right?📸
What’s the Deal? At high schools in places like Washington and New Jersey, guys are using these apps to take photos of girls and make them look naked. Then they share these fake photos with everyone. It’s causing a lot of trouble. 😱Why is it a Problem? Imagine someone using a fake photo of you without your permission. It's not just embarrassing; it’s a type of sexual abuse. That’s why people are trying to stop it. Laws have been passed in some places, and more are in the works.
But here’s the thing: some people think these laws aren’t enough. They say we need to crack down on the apps themselves. If we make it harder to use these apps, then there won’t be as many fake photos floating around. What Can We Do? So, how do we stop this? ...( read more on our student newsletter)
​
2. Rioting Farmers Derail Europe's Green Dream 🌍💥
Imagine this: Lyon, France, 2021. The mayor decides to take red meat off school menus, not just for fun, but because it's safer and saves time during a pandemic. But oh boy, did the farmers lose it! They rolled into the city with tractors and cows, yelling about ideology on kids' plates 😱.
But Lyon was just the beginning. All over Europe, farmers revved up their engines, protesting against new eco-friendly rules and demanding more subsidies 💰. From Paris to Brussels to the Netherlands, it was a tractor-tastic rebellion.Europe had big plans to fight climate change with a Green Deal 🌍. But farmers weren't having it! They wanted all the perks of government help without any strings attached. And guess what? They got their way!
You see, for years, the EU has been giving farmers tons of money 💸. But here's the twist: most of these farms aren't exactly eco-friendly 🌱. They guzzle water, spew greenhouse gases, and use a truckload of pesticides 🚱.
But despite their small economic footprint, farmers in Europe have a HUGE say in politics 🚜. They've been getting away with demanding subsidies and blocking eco-friendly rules for ages! So when the EU proposed new laws to clean up farming, like using less pesticides and raising animals more humanely, farmers went ballistic! 💥
And guess what? They won! Politicians caved...( read more on our student newsletter)
​
3. How AI is Cooking Up Food Innovation!
Hey foodies! Ever wondered how those tasty treats in your pantry get their delicious flavors? Well, buckle up because Unilever's spilling the beans on their secret ingredient: Artificial Intelligence!
Picture this: instead of chefs slaving away in the kitchen, Unilever's whipping up new recipes with the help of super-smart AI models. 👩‍🍳 These digital wizards predict how new products will taste, feel, and even behave on factory lines—all without breaking a sweat! 💡
But wait, there's more! Unilever's not just cooking up yummy snacks; they're also making them healthier, planet-friendly, and affordable! 🌍 With AI in their toolkit, they're cracking the code to create the perfect balance of taste and sustainability.
Take Knorr's Zero Salt Bouillon Cubes, for example. 🍲 By harnessing the power of AI, Unilever crafted a sodium-free sensation that's just as tasty as the original—no salt shaker required! 🧂 ...( read more on our student newsletter)
​
4. Crime and Perception: Are People Reacting to the Wrong Alarm?
​
Lawmakers have two main jobs: reducing crime and making people feel safe. But sometimes there's a big gap between what's happening with crime and how people feel about it.
For example, a Gallup poll showed that more Americans than ever—63 percent in 2023—think crime is a big problem, even though crime rates have actually been dropping. It's like thinking the house is on fire when it's just the toaster burning your toast.🍞 This gap between reality and what people think is a big deal. It affects what laws get made. Lawmakers don’t always look at what’s really happening; they also look at what people believe is happening.
So, when people feel scared about crime—maybe because of news reports about a rise in crime that isn't really there—lawmakers often feel pressured to act. This has led to some places passing tough laws that bring back the harsh punishments of the 1980s and '90s. They're trying to fix a problem that's already getting better... (read more on our student newsletter)
Join today and get exclusive access to our newsletter, thousands of students are already loving our newsletter:
https://bizbrew-worldnews.beehiiv.com/
(Do give us an upvote and share this with your friends so we know you find this useful )

Visit this page for Foot Action Discount Code for May 2024. The website offers a wide selection of coupons, promo codes, and discount deals that are updated regularly, just visit the website to find the perfect one for you.

I've had 2 pretty bad burnouts in the past 10 years. Chronic fatigue has massively effected my life, and I've been left with lingering chronic migraines which don't seem to want to quit.
I have, however, mostly got out of the fatigue part of the trap. Other than therapy and changing my life in a few ways (work, relationship, location - basically reducing stress), nutrition was for me, absolutely key in coming back from the brink.
Yesterday I shared the 30 supplements I'd tried over these years, and tried to order them in terms of efficacy. It was awesome to hear about other people succeeding partly due to nutrition, and you all seemed to get some use out of the list, so I thought I'd write another post sharing how I benefited from hiring a nutritionist.
First up, I was reluctant to spend the money on a nutritionist to begin with - I was wiped out and as a solopreneur had cut back my working week to 3 days writing code and doing entrepreneur stuff - at that point money was tight. I thought I knew what I should be eating and amidst CFS everything felt overwhelming and difficult.
But eventually I gave in to those around me and signed up for a consultation with a nutritionist which my sister suggested.
She wasn't super expensive. She was super experienced. My nutritionist had worked for 8 years at a burnout clinic in a big city. She knew her stuff.
Over the years I had 3 'Consultations', each with a follow up or two. They always looked similar, like this:

• Sends over a prior health questionnaire.
• Sends over a questionaire, where you have to enter your typical diet for a hypothetical 5 day week.
• Decent hour-long holistic chat about all the key points in your health journey (potential origins, gut health state indicators, medications etc.), and my aims (which were obviously, get out of the CFS hole).
• Suggests taking bicarb (baking soda) stomach acid test.
• Suggests a number of supplements for you to get.
• You go away and try to inject some of the wisdom and supplements into your daily life.
• Follow up comes around way too fast, you kick it back a few weeks to more fully try the changes.
• Follow up call holds you accountable, discusses what's worked, what hasn't.
• A new plan is made, and so on.

This probably seems like a lot of work if you're currently in CFS. I feel you. But broken into little steps, it is digestable; and for me at least, it was crucial to recovery.
I learned all the ways I wasn't helping myself. I had thought that I was quite savvy with food, but I had my macro's (fat/protein/veg etc. %) all wrong. My blood sugar was out of whack, my cortisol graph was a rollercoaster.
Before enlisting the nutritionist I took supplements, but I did so haphazardly. Same with diets. Keto, vegan, etc.
With the nutritionists guidance I:

• Corrected my macros (still not perfect)
• Thoroughly gave up caffiene
• Mostly gave up alcohol
• Let go of the processed foods and sweet 'treats'
• Ate lots more (organic) vegetables
• Found the supplements which genuinely helped my body not feel abysmal
• Took some tests and promptly saw data I could use (not in 2 years like the NHS here in the UK would have me)
• Learned more about the science of CFS, metabolism, allergens etc.

Pitfalls of the experience:

• Their help is only as good as your commitment to change
• Some food choices are socially reinforced, and hard to change
• I fell over a few times, needed a few extra calls to correct course

For me the real benefits were:

• Actual trained knowledge (not instagram influencer 20s clips)
• Made me look at what I was putting in my body more clearly
• Support & Care (when in CFS we just need help, sometimes)
• Accountability (knowing there's a follow up made me endeavour to try the dietary changes seriously)

... and most importantly, it was part of what worked for me. I am no longer stuck in bed. I'm fitter than I was at the start of this forsaken part of my journey. I'm way more holistic, and I know my body far better.
As I read back through this I'm trying to find my point; and I think fundamentally it's this: When you're in Burnout it can feel like you'll never get free. It can feel like nobody can help you. It can feel fatal and exhausting. I can say, for me at least, after years of feeling that way, (dreadful), there is hope. Take small steps. Work on your mental health, your sleep, your gut, and your physhical health. Getting help from qualified, kind practitioners where you can; it's worth it.
... and finally I realise that I am privileged in being able to get this support, and that it's not available everywhere and to everyone. I hope you find the support you need to start stepping out of your abyss - either way, don't overlook your nutrition.

I've had 2 pretty bad burnouts in the past 10 years. Chronic fatigue has massively effected my life, and I've been left with lingering chronic migraines which don't seem to want to quit.
I have, however, mostly got out of the fatigue part of the trap. Other than therapy and changing my life in a few ways (work, relationship, location - basically reducing stress), nutrition was for me, absolutely key in coming back from the brink.
Yesterday I shared the 30 supplements I'd tried over these years, and tried to order them in terms of efficacy. It was awesome to hear about other people succeeding partly due to nutrition, and you all seemed to get some use out of the list, so I thought I'd write another post sharing how I benefited from hiring a nutritionist.
First up, I was reluctant to spend the money on a nutritionist to begin with - I was wiped out and as a solopreneur had cut back my working week to 3 days writing code and doing entrepreneur stuff - at that point money was tight. I thought I knew what I should be eating and amidst CFS everything felt overwhelming and difficult.
But eventually I gave in to those around me and signed up for a consultation with a nutritionist which my sister suggested.
She wasn't super expensive. She was super experienced. My nutritionist had worked for 8 years at a burnout clinic in a big city. She knew her stuff.
Over the years I had 3 'Consultations', each with a follow up or two. They always looked similar, like this:

• Sends over a prior health questionnaire.
• Sends over a questionaire, where you have to enter your typical diet for a hypothetical 5 day week.
• Decent hour-long holistic chat about all the key points in your health journey (potential origins, gut health state indicators, medications etc.), and my aims (which were obviously, get out of the CFS hole).
• Suggests taking bicarb (baking soda) stomach acid test.
• Suggests a number of supplements for you to get.
• You go away and try to inject some of the wisdom and supplements into your daily life.
• Follow up comes around way too fast, you kick it back a few weeks to more fully try the changes.
• Follow up call holds you accountable, discusses what's worked, what hasn't.
• A new plan is made, and so on.

This probably seems like a lot of work if you're currently in CFS. I feel you. But broken into little steps, it is digestable; and for me at least, it was crucial to recovery.
I learned all the ways I wasn't helping myself. I had thought that I was quite savvy with food, but I had my macro's (fat/protein/veg etc. %) all wrong. My blood sugar was out of whack, my cortisol graph was a rollercoaster.
Before enlisting the nutritionist I took supplements, but I did so haphazardly. Same with diets. Keto, vegan, etc.
With the nutritionists guidance I:

• Corrected my macros (still not perfect)
• Thoroughly gave up caffiene
• Mostly gave up alcohol
• Let go of the processed foods and sweet 'treats'
• Ate lots more (organic) vegetables
• Found the supplements which genuinely helped my body not feel abysmal
• Took some tests and promptly saw data I could use (not in 2 years like the NHS here in the UK would have me)
• Learned more about the science of CFS, metabolism, allergens etc.

Pitfalls of the experience:

• Their help is only as good as your commitment to change
• Some food choices are socially reinforced, and hard to change
• I fell over a few times, needed a few extra calls to correct course

For me the real benefits were:

• Actual trained knowledge (not instagram influencer 20s clips)
• Made me look at what I was putting in my body more clearly
• Support & Care (when in CFS we just need help, sometimes)
• Accountability (knowing there's a follow up made me endeavour to try the dietary changes seriously)

... and most importantly, it was part of what worked for me. I am no longer stuck in bed. I'm fitter than I was at the start of this forsaken part of my journey. I'm way more holistic, and I know my body far better.
As I read back through this I'm trying to find my point; and I think fundamentally it's this: When you're in Burnout it can feel like you'll never get free. It can feel like nobody can help you. It can feel fatal and exhausting. I can say, for me at least, after years of feeling that way, (dreadful), there is hope. Take small steps. Work on your mental health, your sleep, your gut, and your physhical health. Getting help from qualified, kind practitioners where you can; it's worth it.
... and finally I realise that I am privileged in being able to get this support, and that it's not available everywhere and to everyone. I hope you find the support you need to start stepping out of your abyss - either way, don't overlook your nutrition.

I genuinely want to hear people's thoughts on the sustainability of the constant inflation of the UK housing market;
I viewed small 2 bed terrace (located in the Midlands). It was brought 10 years ago for £90,000 and is now on the market for £180,000 (protentially going for more).
It was a standard small terrace (so one rug up from a flat on the scale of things) with terrible parking and no real garden.
The Point is that is a 100% increase, So in another 10 years are we protentially looking at paying £360,000 for a bottom end terrace?
Surely this is unsustainable? The entire market would essentially become rentals, only rents will become even more astronomical to match the houses inflation costs. I despair thinking about it. It's something that doesn't really hit you until you try finding a home on the bottom end of the market.
How do people think the future will play out for the market? Will it pop or will it just keep going up infinitum. Will government action ever happen? (if there brave enough to actively devalue the main voter boomer demographixs assets).
It seems an issue which we hear about but no one is actively doing anything about it. All new builds are hugely over priced (for starter homes) Which you basically end up paying three times for. You buy half a house via shared ownership, on top that a mortgage and then even if all that gets paid off the developers still withold the land ownership underneath, so you habe to pay a leasehold (i think the may be stopping that) but all leaseholds prices are now sky rocketing for millions. So they are not really an option for working class first time buyers.
I've even heard that the end goal for the banks is multi generational mortgages, so your kids will forced to take on your mortgage!
Interested to here what people think to this and what they predict will happen.

I’ve been through a lot of the ‘beginners guides’ in the wikis and links from various comments in the beginner threads which have been very useful, but I have some really practical (and probably very basic) questions that a lot of the guides don’t quite answer (or I haven’t got to that part yet!) or I still just don’t understand.
I’ve never camped before - apart from one night in my partners back garden when we were teens - and we don’t have a garden to practice in.
My child is 3 and most hotels/BnBs in places I’d like to visit are over £110pn, so I thought camping would be a great way to get out and explore much more. We also just got a car for the first time so we will be car camping and I’d like to start in a campsite with showers etc.
Our flat is small so we don’t have a lot of room to store lots of equipment. We have a storage locker so I can store some stuff away but I’m also nervous about buying tons of expensive equipment in case we end up disliking it and never using it again.
I’m not planning on cooking, just packing/buying sandwiches and snacks etc as I don’t want to buy tons of cooking equipment for reasons above (unless we genuinely love it and then it could change in future).
I’m lucky enough to be a SAHP so I feel like we could do tons of camping before my little one has to go to school. I just need to figure out how. I’ll also be doing this on my own during the week while my partner is working.
We’ll be travelling around South East England (UK).
Here are my basic questions:
We’re in England so the weather is often rainy. Can you fix a tarp over the tent to help keep the rain out without trees? Is there such a thing you can buy that goes over the tent? I keep seeing advice not to lay the tarp directly over the tent and to use poles, but what poles? I can’t figure this out. Is sealing the seams worthwhile to a new tent?
How do groundsheets work? Do you fix it to the tent somehow? My brain cannot understand this concept. Or if the tent comes with a footprint are they attached? Do you just peg it to the ground? Is there anything you should look out for on the ground aside from pointy rocks etc? Is it as simple as pegging it to the ground and the tent goes on top?
Sleeping - is it best to have separate sleeping bags and one double mat? Is that a thing? Or is it best to have two mats and two bags? Or should I go for 2 cots? I’m heavy (100kg) so I’d worry about it breaking.
Is a silk/cotton insert for the sleeping bag worth it?
Are there any tips/advice I need to be aware of with a toddler?
Since we are unlikely to buy cooking equipment - is there anything I haven’t thought of here? I plan to go to a supermarket to buy packaged food, bottles of water etc.
Despite not wanting to buy lots of ‘cooking’ equipment, is there anything that I should consider bringing aside from mugs or plastic plates dish soap etc?
Is it worth bringing a metal kettle/pot and oven gloves or something to heat water on a fire? Is a stove best to do this with rather than relying on a fire pit?
Do sites tend to have a place to wash up dishes etc?
Showering - do you tend to get dried in the shower cubicle? Is it big enough for a 3 year old to shower together? Would you go there in flip flops? What’s the best way to transport fresh clothes and shower stuff from the tent to the shower block? Plastic bag would do?
I plan to bring toys, battery twinkle lights, marshmallows etc to try to keep it fun. Torches and headlights etc. is there anything else non standard to consider bringing for a kid?
I’ll have our car to lock valuables away - is that enough? Do you have to ‘lock’ your tent when you’re away?
Is there any pearls of advice you could tell a beginner that isn’t covered by manuals, but that you learned through practical experience?
Is this a terrible idea to do on my own with a 3 year old as a complete novice? 😅
Sorry if some of these are simple, I worry and panic a lot about sometimes really easy concepts.
Thank you for any links, advice and thoughts. I really appreciate it!

I'm putting fake names... (A lot of the timelines are spread out but they talk about those specific moments, I hope they make since)
I have a friend, I'll call her J. I have known J for almost 9 years. She and I grew up pretty close and we were inseparable. Over the first few years of our friendship she had lost my parents trust from an incident involving a boy, she wasn't allowed to stay over for sleepovers and I practically lost my whole summer that year. I was pretty angry at my parents and blamed things on them. I regret my actions and I did learn but in my mind I thought J was the only person who understood me.
After the whole incident settled down. School started up again and she would jokingly push me into a boy or a locker. She started putting her arm around my neck, trying to choke me. She would continuously punch me or smack me on the head. I honestly got annoyed by it but I acted like it was nothing. She had suddenly became obsessed with TikTok and she posted a whole TikTok about her friends, their was a video of me that stood out. I wasn't wearing a shirt. Which completely made me uncomfortable because I wasn't wearing a shirt and she took the video while I was changing. She didn't take it down. She also would post photos without my consent. Like ones that made me feel ugly or disgusting. And I would tell her how they made me feel. But she would still post them. I started telling her no when she asked for photos and she always would sneak one when I wasn't looking. She doesn't take no for an answer. She will start whining when you don't listen. I used to trust her with my feelings and I would tell her about everything. And now I feel like she knows too much.
This past school year all of my friends (king, J, Joe, Bell) and I went to SDYC. And well when we went J was lying a bunch and starting a bunch of drama and it threw all of my friends off. We all didn't trust J and Joe that well during that time. I felt like the only people I had was my friends King and Bell. Because they both understood how I felt.
After that. King, J, and I had a sleepover. During the middle of the night I was watching a movie and J began to bug me. She started pushing on me saying I was taking up too much room. But honestly I was the one who was sleeping in between two couches there's no way I was taking that much space because I was falling in the crack. She then proceeded to call me a fat roll. I said "no your a fat roll" jokingly. And then she freaks out and she went to tell her boyfriend. It annoyed me because all her boyfriend knows how to do is talk bad. After that sleepover. She started working at the same place as me and I told her about my big crush on this coworker of ours. And so then she decided to start flirting with him in front of me. She would throw something at him jokingly and giggle. I didn't try to think anything of it. But then when we were talking about him the next thing she decided to say was, "your just jealous because he talks to me and not you". The thing is I don't want to talk to him that's why I don't try to talk to him. He has talked to me before, but I rather admire him from afar. He's like 13 years older than me. He was just hot to me at the time.
I'll just say I am lighter than a 5'6 girl. I might have a little bit of belly fat but that's just my body. And I do have an eating disorder. I don't eat enough, I practically starve myself. J honestly made me feel worse and I started having moments where I would basically pass out from no iron in my body. J continued to body shame me even from the amount of food I would eat. She straight up made is feel like she was calling me ugly and fat. It hurt and it made me angry. I told my dad and he said she's just jealous and not to worry about it. I brushed it off but she basically would say something everyday. It got to a point where I was crying all the time.
During my last year of highschool J didn't have a vehicle. So she would ask me to drive her places. I didn't mind because we would be going to the same places. And I started offering to pay for her drink or something. I didn't think much of it in tell I was always taking her places and buying her drinks but she still wanted me to pay her back for stuff when I didn't have much money. She managed to buy a vehicle for a small price by saving up the money she didn't spend. I feel stupid for offering. One day her mom even texted me asking for the small money I "owed" J. But my parents think I don't owe her anything because I have given her most of my money and that she owes me money.
J also does this thing where if you don't give her your attention she'll keep tapping you. Over and over again. Everytime she asks for my attention it's always for something so pointless and stupid. Nothing serious. And everytime I ask for her attention she'll ignore me. She does it a lot. She only wants to have the attention. I stopped telling her about how I feel because all I know is she'll either use it against me or not actually listen and move past it. Like once she asked me how I felt and when I told her that I cried about something she moved on from it into her talking about her crying over some movie she watched.
The way she treated me made me so angry that I texted her boyfriend anonymously asking him to control his girlfriend and get her to be nicer to others. He didn't like the message and told his girl on the spot and J tried to call my fake number. I didn't answer and then she ran to me to tell me the tea. She later assumed it was a boy she was flirting with that she pushed away.
I hate her boyfriend but he deserves better.. because she has talked to another boy behind his back. When I started liking this one boy. I told her about it and then she began to tell me how she met this UK boy and she thinks he's all that. She later found out he was lying about his age and she got back to reality before she lost her in person boyfriend.
She told king I was flirting with this one dude but I wasn't. J told me to add this guy she found on Facebook on snap, I said okay and I called the dude a nickname like a Grandma would call their grandchildren. And I thought it was funny and the guy thought it was chill. I didn't think anything of it and then I blocked him because I didn't want to talk to him. She then decided to add the guy on snap. And she starts talking to him. The amount of times she has lied is crazy. I blocked him but she still has him on snap. For what reason I don't know.
J and Joe and I have recently had a lot of problems with each other. It's always J and Joe fighting and I'm between listening to them both argue about each other. I was getting tired of it. J hit my breaking point when she decided to ask me for my boyfriends sisters snap. You don't just ask your friend for her boyfriends sisters snap. That's weird. She also asked for my boyfriends and she looked him up when I told her no and she added a bunch of dudes with the same name. She didn't find him but there is no way I want her knowing him or his sister. I have too many trust issues with her. She's the main reason why a lot of my relationships didn't work out. They didn't like her and she manipulated me into saying things that upset them. She makes me so uncomfortable. She made me seem lesbian once when I know I'm not. But she made a TikTok about it and a lot of people from my school saw it. I don't like false accusations. I'm pretty sure she used it for clout. But also my parents think she's inlove with me because she can never leave me alone and she always HAS to hold hands or hug.
J doesn't understand a lot of things. And she calls me stupid. I honestly want karma to come get her but that's bad and I don't mean to say that. It hurts a lot.
I had blocked J on everything. But since I worked with J I saw her and she started bawling her eyes out at me saying she did nothing, I felt bad but I was annoyed because she kept bugging me. So I unblocked her. I decided to block her again after because my boyfriend said she was manipulating me. And well the more I had her blocked the nicer she was. After a while Joe did something to make me give up on my friendship with her too and J expected that to be a chance to get me back. And well she did practically. She was a lot nicer and I felt like she changed. But Man was I wrong.. Just today I was working my second night shift. I said something as a joke because I was hoping J would get what I meant. Her boyfriend was on the call... He took everything out of context and said something that made me feel less about myself. I already feel like crap being the person I am. I want to better myself but the more people say things the more I give up. I want to be encouraged not dragged down. I don't know why he has to be so mean. I never did anything to him. I don't know why they both have to be... I listen to her call people ugly all the time. Like just stop. I want her to stop. I'm leaving for the military soon, and she said that I can't get rid of her. That sounds psycho. And it honestly makes me want to get away more. I'm tired of the toxic environment and I want to get away. But she's everywhere. She knows everything about me. She has photos of me I hate. She has so many things she can use against me. I'm honestly scared. I want to block her again but I know she's just going to keep bugging me about it. And she might turn people against me. She's good at talking to people. I'm not I'm an introvert. I don't want her ever find me again once I leave. But I know she might try. People always find a way. And she's creepy. Because I know she'll be able to. But I just want to move on with my life. I don't know how to remove her from my life. What should I do?

I live with my wife and my mother together. Since my father died couple of years ago and we had loans and bills to pay, I started coding and started earning when I was just 17. Now that I am 21, I earn well and I married my girlfriend of one year.
I am coming from a third world country, it was really difficult to manage everyone for this wedding. But we did and it was all going well but my mother started getting angry even at the smallest of things.
Whenever I bought nice things for my wife, she would get really angry, when we got out and got a bit late she got angry, when we wanted to sleep more in the morning she got angry.
Not only that she openly insults me and my wife in front of me. Initially I have had a soft soft for my mother as she has no one, my father died and she suffered a lot, then my sister got married and went to a different country and she has issues with pretty much everyone and she physically gets sick and tired when she travels so she sits home all day.
Looking at her behaviour we both tried everything, we tried to talk to her but she kept showing her anger, didn't talk back, or if she talked back she showed arrogance and chose difficult words for both of us to consume.
Now my wife doesn't want to live with my mother, honestly I don't too and I know that my mother will get more and more complicated over time and will say things that will be very difficult to listen to, she did the same thing with my sister. But since my father died I wanted everyone to live together and I wanted to take care of her but if she is like this, we won't be able to live the life me and my wife dreamt of.
We are looking at houses in the city so we can go to her house and she can visit ours, we will do everything to fulfill our duty but I know that me moving out will hurt her a lot and even though she has treated us both bad in the last month she worked really hard to raise me, even though her actions hurt me a lot overtime but I am someone who doesn't want to hurt people and I just don't understand why there is not a common ground here.
TLDR: Mother treats me and my wife rudely and doesn't like us doing anything, so we are planning to live in a different house and I feel bad because my father died so she will be alone for the 12-15 days.
AITA for leaving my mother?

A fanfiction of The Nature of Predators by SpacePaladin15 https://www.reddit.com/HFY/comments/u19xpa/the_nature_of_predators/
Previous Prologue Next
Memory Transcription Subject: Slanek, Venlil Space Corps
Date [standardized Earth time]: August 21, 2136
Walking into the lab, we were welcomed by a Pokemon that looked oddly familiar to me, a pink creature with predatory eyes and small wings that looked completely vestigial. It wasn’t until I saw the Human inspecting a large screen embedded in the wall that I recognised them. Lilith and Sara, who were among the first Terrans to have visited Venlil Prime. Lilith, whose species was the ‘Clefable’ if I remember correctly, gestured for the three of us to come further into the lab.
“Hello there, thank you for coming so soon after settling in! It seems a lot of Venlil are quite excited to do the Infinity Energy tests.”
I give a slightly nervous ear flick in response.
“I uh, really just wanted to get this over and done with.”
“Right, well in that case you’ll be glad to know that this takes no time at all. It’ll be over before you know it, and you’ll have your exchange partners beside you through the whole process.”
I look up at Marcel and Felix, who both give me further reassuring glances. Marcel seems a little nervous though, awkwardly standing just in front of the door and obviously having no idea what he should be doing. As the Clefable leads me over to a chair and gestures for me to take a seat, she passes over a piece of paper and a pen.
“This is the consent form, please read it out completely and carefully before writing your basic information and signature.”
Lilith then bounds away to converse with Sara, who is still looking at the large screen teeming with strange writing and graphs. As I read through the consent form, I only grow more worried.
‘Permanent Infinity Energy infusion.’
‘Monitored for remainder of Space Corps service.’
‘Possibility of previously unknown side effects.’
I look over to Marcel and Felix, beckoning them over with a wave of my tail. Marcel kneels down beside the chair, bringing the three of us to roughly eye level as Felix rests on his shoulder.
“Sorry, but can you two just… stay close? This seems a bit more intense than I was expecting.”
Felix nods furiously, followed by Marcel giving a small, closed mouth smile.
“Of course, we’ll be right here.”
“After this is over, we can all get some food from the cafeteria. A nice salad or something, alright?”
The Human’s suggestion sounds nice, and my tail sways in agreement. I sign the form after reading through it a second time, and Lilith soon comes over to collect it. As she does so, I see Sara walking over with some wires and wool clips. She places them on a nearby table before turning to finally address me.
“Hello Mr Slanek, sorry for the wait. It’s just, the data we’ve gathered so far from the other Venlil is beyond fascinating. It's an amazing opportunity to investigate how life not native to Earth reacts with Infinity Energy and uh… you probably don’t care, sorry.”
With a lightly red hue showing in her cheeks, she grabs the wires and clips, and gets started on attaching them to various points on my body. From my knees to my paws, snout, ears, stomach, chest, tail… almost everywhere, really. This all only makes my nerves grow even more.
“Now, just as a warning, this will probably hurt a bit. It’s only for a moment though, and it just means that everything is working.”
As Sara attaches the last clip to the wool on my back, she walks back over to large screen on the opposite wall, which I am surprised to find now displays a wireframe model of myself. I notice my paws are beginning to shake slightly, and I turn towards my exchange partners, hoping to find solace. Not so long ago, I would never have even fathomed the idea of looking to predators for comfort, but now…
I reach out a shaking paw towards them. After hesitating for a moment, a look of surprise coming over his face, Marcel reaches out and takes hold of it. Felix scurries down the Human’s arm and places his own small paw on top of mine as Marcel gives it a gentle squeeze.
Turning back to the rest of the lab, Sara is swiping her hand to rotate the wireframe model of my body, while Lilith is retrieving something from a large, formerly locked box nearby. She pulls out a small yellow crystal, and walks back over to me. Sara sidles up beside her partner, and double checks the wire clips one last time as the Clefable holds out the crystal to me.
“This is a revive, which will inject Infinity Energy directly into you. Make sure you hold onto it tight, ok?”
I take a deep breath, giving Marcel’s hand and Felix’s paw a gentle squeeze as I do so.
“Understood.”
I reach out with my other paw, and grab onto the revive. For a moment, nothing happens, but then the revive begins to glow. I shut my eyes tight against the blinding light, and tighten my grip on the crystal. A strange sensation, like waves of pressure, emanate from where the revive touches my paw. Through my arm, across my chest, up my neck and down my navel un-
“BRAKH!”
I cry out as pain suddenly engulfs my snout and legs. A loud beeping noise comes from the clips attached to them, which I silently pray means that everything is working as it should. It feels like my legs are trying to rip themselves apart at the knees, and I understand instantly why I’m sat down for this. My snout too lights up, as if on fire without the heat, forcing me to grit my teeth until my jaw starts hurting as well from the preassure alone. I tighten my grip on both the revive and my partners. I feel weight shifting, and Felix’s paw disappears. Not a moment later, something warm and fuzzy jumps up onto the chair beside me, reaching up to rest a paw on my shoulder.
“It’s alright, we’re right here.”
I go to wrap my tail around him, only to find something strange. My tail has gone numb. The mixture of sensations, from numbness to pain, continues for a little while. As the revive breaks down into grey dust, I can finally open my eyes and unclench my teeth. Steadily, the searing pain fades, leaving my tail numb and my snout and legs sore. I breathe deeply again, and I turn my attention to Felix and Marcel. I retrieve my paw from Marcel’s grip and Felix hops back down from the chair. The Human reaches over to lightly pat me on the back.
“There we go, all over now. You did great, Slanek.”
“Th-thanks.”
Lilith comes over and begins detaching the clips from my wool, while Sara is already tapping away at the screen, the wireframe model of my body now looking very different than it was before. The majority of it is now coloured a stark white, although notably my snout and legs are a dimmer shade of muted grey. The only splash of actual colour is in my tail, the entire limb a vivid purple, most intense at the tip. After inspecting it for a moment, Sara turns back around to address me.
“Thank you for coming, Mr Slanek. The full results of this test will be sent to your holopad shortly, but I’ll give you the most important information now.”
Sara taps the screen a few times, and labels written in Venscript appear as a key for the colours.
White – Mixed
Violet – Poison
Grey – Unknown
“Your results are consistent with what we’ve seen in all the other Venlil that have been tested so far. Most of your body contain a mixture of all Types of IE, similar to Humans. Different Venlil seem to have the Poison IE concentrate in different areas of the body, I’ve seen it in arms, abdomen, throat, wool and elsewhere. For you it’s in the tail, which so far seems fairly common. The grey zones are the most interesting, as they’re in the same areas for each and every Venlil; the snout and legs. Combine that with how this energy isn’t quite Normal but also not Typeless, not to mention it’s almost complete lack of reactivity to external or internal stimuli… it will certainly be an area of research I'll happily dive into soon.”
As Sara explains the results of the test, Marcel helps me to stand up again. At first, I’m a little unsteady as my legs still feel slightly odd, but leaning on his arm helps. The numb feeling in my tail slowly fades, and I experimentally shake it back and forth a few times. There is… Poison in it? It doesn’t feel any different, at least at the moment. After Lilith and Sara once again thank me for my cooperation, the three of us are ushered out of the lab, left standing together in the hallway as another mini herd files in after us. I turn to look up at my companions, a slight bloom making its way onto my face.
“Hey, uh, sorry for what happened in there. To predators it’s probably a show of weakness to need someone sticking nearby but-”
“Okay, we’re nipping that ‘weakness’ shit in the bud right now.”
Felix’s surprising angry voice catches me off guard, and for a second I’m worried that I said something to make him mad. I realise that, in a way, I had… but not for the reason I thought.
“Needing a friend ain’t weakness, Slanek. Just look at Marc and I!”
Marcel smiles at the Buizel, before turning his gaze back down at me. His predatory gaze seems stern, and yet somehow friendly, despite that being essentially oxymoronic.
“Slanek, if I’ve learned anything from my time in the military, it’s that ‘weak’ and ‘strong’ are meaningless words in isolation. People can only reach their full potential when they have others lifting them up, whether they be a Human or Pokemon. I doubt Venlil are any different.”
Something flashes through my mind, a memory that Marcel's words invoked. Of course. One of the first pieces of Terran media I saw after First Contact; 'The Power of Us'. Felix nods along excitedly, jumping down from the Human's shoulder to be a bit closer to my level.
“Never call yourself weak again, alright? Marcel and I were already growing stronger with just the two of us, but now we have a brand-new friend? The three of us together will be unstoppable!”
Marcel snickers slightly.
“Not really the angle I was going for, but sure. Anyway, that packet of chips wasn't nearly enough. Like I said earlier, let’s go grab something from the cafeteria, alright?”
Seemingly immediately forgetting the previous topic, Felix’s eyes light up and his tails whir into action.
“Oh! I hope they have Wacan berries!”
As Felix rapidly ascends back up onto Marcel’s shoulder, my own tail begins to sway back and forth again. The predators’ kind words lifted my spirits and cast aside the embarrassment I had felt, spurring me to happily step forwards and follow the Human’s lead towards the station’s cafeteria.
As we made our way through the halls, I paid more attention to the various pairs and trios we passed. The Venlil all ranged from bubbling with excitement, a spring in their step as they walked joyfully beside their partners, to barely containing their fear, shaking slightly as they stuck close to the walls and avoided looking at most of the more predatory looking Pokemon. I wasn’t at either extreme, though I was leaning towards the former. I strode beside Marcel with contentment, mentally thanking my past self for signing up for the program. I was nervous to meet them at first, but it took almost no time at all for me to recognise the friends I had already been speaking to over text for whole herds of paws at this point.
When we reached the cafeteria, the place was already alive with many Terrans and Venlil. Some sat just with their exchange partners, while others gathered into larger herds, with the countless conversations happening between them melding together with the clinking of cutlery. Even out here on this station, with by far the strangest creatures in the Universe, the sound of people enjoying each other’s company was oh so familiar.
The three of us collected our meals and decided just to sit by ourselves, eventually finding a spot near a rather short Venlil sitting with a large, purple serpentine Pokemon that was presumably their partner. As Marcel and I set our meals down on the table, Felix quickly grabs a pastry from Marcel’s tray.
“I call dibs on the Wacan muffin!”
Marcel has selected some sort of soup for himself, while I chose a simple bunt leaf salad, although my serving seemed to have some sort of fruit in it that I didn’t recognise. I prodded the yellow chunks around, trying to determine if I had gotten some underripe juicefruit or something, catching Marcel’s attention.
“That’s Shuca berry. Not really my thing, but it’s decently popular.”
“Oh, it’s an Earth fruit?”
“Yep, looks like the kitchen’s experimenting with mixing cuisines. This soup is… surprisingly spicy.”
Looking up at the Human, I find that his face has turned a slight reddish hue, the flush no doubt signifying that he was struggling. A quick peek at the contents of his meal provides an answer, making me whistle slightly in laughter.
“Ah, that would be firefruit. Fitting name, isn’t it?”
“Fuck, you can say that again.”
As I watch my Human partner gulp down his glass of water, I pick up a few bunt leaves along with a small chunk of the Shuca berry and pop them in my mouth. The yellow fruit goes well with the bunt leaves, providing a mild but nice sweetness with the slightest kick of spice. Though, obviously not nearly as much as Marcel’s firefruit. The Human soon excuses himself to refill his water, Felix throwing a teasing quip his way between bites of the muffin.
“Fire Type doesn’t suit you, Marc!”
While trying to stifle my laughter at my friend’s misfortune, a slightly alarmed, raspy voice coming from my right catches my attention.
“Ssssevik, are you alright?”
Turning to my right, I find the large serpent Pokemon sitting nearby looking at her Venlil partner with concern. He is holding a paw over his stomach and groaning slightly.
“Y-yeah Arbok, I’m fi-fi -hurk-”
He gives a horrible sound somewhere between a burp and a retch, grabbing the attention of a few other people around us.
“Wassss it the berriesss?”
“N-no it’s -hurk- I think is the Pois- -hurk-“
Thinking quickly, one of the nearby Humans passes the Venlil a plastic bag. He accepts it and tries to thank them, only for his attempt to be interrupted by more retching. Just as he seems to lose control of his meal completely, he cries out.
“Gastro Acid!”
Instead of the typically yellowy green, the Venlil expels a thick, deep purple fluid into the bag. After a single powerful heave, the Venlil looks back up, seemingly slightly dizzy. A moment later, a sizzling sound can be heard coming from the bag, the bottom of which soon breaks. The acidic substance spills onto the floor, having corroded through the plastic like it was nothing. For a while, nobody makes a sound, nor barely moves. Venlil, Human and Pokemon alike in our little section of the cafeteria are all staring at the poor little Venlil who in turn has his eyes glued onto the now useless plastic bag. As for the purple acid, it soon fizzles away into nothing, leaving the floor spotless with no evidence that it ever existed.
The sound of approaching footsteps makes me turn around with a slight jump, finding Marcel returning with a new glass of water. His eyes dart first to the silent crowd, then to the small Venlil, then finally to me and Felix.
“Uh, did I miss something?”
Previous Prologue Next
~~~~~~~

NoPokedex

Humans - Typeless
Gojid - Steel/Rock

• Sovlin: Metal Claw & Rollout

Venlil - Normal /Poison

• Kam: ??? & Poison Jab
• Slanek: ??? & ???

Arxur - Dragon/???

• Isif: Dragon Pulse & ???

Tilfish - Bug/Dark
Zurulian - ???/???
Farsul - ???/???
Kolshian - ???/???
Yotul - ???/???
Mazic - ???/???
Dossur - ???/???
Sivkit - ???/???
Krakotl - Flying/???
Harchen - ???/???
Duertan - Flying/???
Thafki - Wate???
Sulean - ???/???
Iftali - ???/???
Drezjin - Flying/???
Jaur - ???/???
Letian - ???/???
Leshee - ???/???
Yulpa - ???/???

I'm putting fake names... (A lot of the timelines are spread out but they talk about those specific moments, I hope they make since)
I have a friend, I'll call her J. I have known J for almost 9 years. She and I grew up pretty close and we were inseparable. Over the first few years of our friendship she had lost my parents trust from an incident involving a boy, she wasn't allowed to stay over for sleepovers and I practically lost my whole summer that year. I was pretty angry at my parents and blamed things on them. I regret my actions and I did learn but in my mind I thought J was the only person who understood me.
After the whole incident settled down. School started up again and she would jokingly push me into a boy or a locker. She started putting her arm around my neck, trying to choke me. She would continuously punch me or smack me on the head. I honestly got annoyed by it but I acted like it was nothing. She had suddenly became obsessed with TikTok and she posted a whole TikTok about her friends, their was a video of me that stood out. I wasn't wearing a shirt. Which completely made me uncomfortable because I wasn't wearing a shirt and she took the video while I was changing. She didn't take it down. She also would post photos without my consent. Like ones that made me feel ugly or disgusting. And I would tell her how they made me feel. But she would still post them. I started telling her no when she asked for photos and she always would sneak one when I wasn't looking. She doesn't take no for an answer. She will start whining when you don't listen. I used to trust her with my feelings and I would tell her about everything. And now I feel like she knows too much.
This past school year all of my friends (king, J, Joe, Bell) and I went to SDYC. And well when we went J was lying a bunch and starting a bunch of drama and it threw all of my friends off. We all didn't trust J and Joe that well during that time. I felt like the only people I had was my friends King and Bell. Because they both understood how I felt.
After that. King, J, and I had a sleepover. During the middle of the night I was watching a movie and J began to bug me. She started pushing on me saying I was taking up too much room. But honestly I was the one who was sleeping in between two couches there's no way I was taking that much space because I was falling in the crack. She then proceeded to call me a fat roll. I said "no your a fat roll" jokingly. And then she freaks out and she went to tell her boyfriend. It annoyed me because all her boyfriend knows how to do is talk bad. After that sleepover. She started working at the same place as me and I told her about my big crush on this coworker of ours. And so then she decided to start flirting with him in front of me. She would throw something at him jokingly and giggle. I didn't try to think anything of it. But then when we were talking about him the next thing she decided to say was, "your just jealous because he talks to me and not you". The thing is I don't want to talk to him that's why I don't try to talk to him. He has talked to me before, but I rather admire him from afar. He's like 13 years older than me. He was just hot to me at the time.
I'll just say I am lighter than a 5'6 girl. I might have a little bit of belly fat but that's just my body. And I do have an eating disorder. I don't eat enough, I practically starve myself. J honestly made me feel worse and I started having moments where I would basically pass out from no iron in my body. J continued to body shame me even from the amount of food I would eat. She straight up made is feel like she was calling me ugly and fat. It hurt and it made me angry. I told my dad and he said she's just jealous and not to worry about it. I brushed it off but she basically would say something everyday. It got to a point where I was crying all the time.
During my last year of highschool J didn't have a vehicle. So she would ask me to drive her places. I didn't mind because we would be going to the same places. And I started offering to pay for her drink or something. I didn't think much of it in tell I was always taking her places and buying her drinks but she still wanted me to pay her back for stuff when I didn't have much money. She managed to buy a vehicle for a small price by saving up the money she didn't spend. I feel stupid for offering. One day her mom even texted me asking for the small money I "owed" J. But my parents think I don't owe her anything because I have given her most of my money and that she owes me money.
J also does this thing where if you don't give her your attention she'll keep tapping you. Over and over again. Everytime she asks for my attention it's always for something so pointless and stupid. Nothing serious. And everytime I ask for her attention she'll ignore me. She does it a lot. She only wants to have the attention. I stopped telling her about how I feel because all I know is she'll either use it against me or not actually listen and move past it. Like once she asked me how I felt and when I told her that I cried about something she moved on from it into her talking about her crying over some movie she watched.
The way she treated me made me so angry that I texted her boyfriend anonymously asking him to control his girlfriend and get her to be nicer to others. He didn't like the message and told his girl on the spot and J tried to call my fake number. I didn't answer and then she ran to me to tell me the tea. She later assumed it was a boy she was flirting with that she pushed away.
I hate her boyfriend but he deserves better.. because she has talked to another boy behind his back. When I started liking this one boy. I told her about it and then she began to tell me how she met this UK boy and she thinks he's all that. She later found out he was lying about his age and she got back to reality before she lost her in person boyfriend.
She told king I was flirting with this one dude but I wasn't. J told me to add this guy she found on Facebook on snap, I said okay and I called the dude a nickname like a Grandma would call their grandchildren. And I thought it was funny and the guy thought it was chill. I didn't think anything of it and then I blocked him because I didn't want to talk to him. She then decided to add the guy on snap. And she starts talking to him. The amount of times she has lied is crazy. I blocked him but she still has him on snap. For what reason I don't know.
J and Joe and I have recently had a lot of problems with each other. It's always J and Joe fighting and I'm between listening to them both argue about each other. I was getting tired of it. J hit my breaking point when she decided to ask me for my boyfriends sisters snap. You don't just ask your friend for her boyfriends sisters snap. That's weird. She also asked for my boyfriends and she looked him up when I told her no and she added a bunch of dudes with the same name. She didn't find him but there is no way I want her knowing him or his sister. I have too many trust issues with her. She's the main reason why a lot of my relationships didn't work out. They didn't like her and she manipulated me into saying things that upset them. She makes me so uncomfortable. She made me seem lesbian once when I know I'm not. But she made a TikTok about it and a lot of people from my school saw it. I don't like false accusations. I'm pretty sure she used it for clout. But also my parents think she's inlove with me because she can never leave me alone and she always HAS to hold hands or hug.
J doesn't understand a lot of things. And she calls me stupid. I honestly want karma to come get her but that's bad and I don't mean to say that. It hurts a lot.
I had blocked J on everything. But since I worked with J I saw her and she started bawling her eyes out at me saying she did nothing, I felt bad but I was annoyed because she kept bugging me. So I unblocked her. I decided to block her again after because my boyfriend said she was manipulating me. And well the more I had her blocked the nicer she was. After a while Joe did something to make me give up on my friendship with her too and J expected that to be a chance to get me back. And well she did practically. She was a lot nicer and I felt like she changed. But Man was I wrong.. Just today I was working my second night shift. I said something as a joke because I was hoping J would get what I meant. Her boyfriend was on the call... He took everything out of context and said something that made me feel less about myself. I already feel like crap being the person I am. I want to better myself but the more people say things the more I give up. I want to be encouraged not dragged down. I don't know why he has to be so mean. I never did anything to him. I don't know why they both have to be... I listen to her call people ugly all the time. Like just stop. I want her to stop. I'm leaving for the military soon, and she said that I can't get rid of her. That sounds psycho. And it honestly makes me want to get away more. I'm tired of the toxic environment and I want to get away. But she's everywhere. She knows everything about me. She has photos of me I hate. She has so many things she can use against me. I'm honestly scared. I want to block her again but I know she's just going to keep bugging me about it. And she might turn people against me. She's good at talking to people. I'm not I'm an introvert. I don't want her ever find me again once I leave. But I know she might try. People always find a way. And she's creepy. Because I know she'll be able to. But I just want to move on with my life. I don't know how to remove her from my life. What should I do?

I'm putting fake names... (A lot of the timelines are spread out but they talk about those specific moments, I hope they make since)
I have a friend, I'll call her J. I have known J for almost 9 years. She and I grew up pretty close and we were inseparable. Over the first few years of our friendship she had lost my parents trust from an incident involving a boy, she wasn't allowed to stay over for sleepovers and I practically lost my whole summer that year. I was pretty angry at my parents and blamed things on them. I regret my actions and I did learn but in my mind I thought J was the only person who understood me.
After the whole incident settled down. School started up again and she would jokingly push me into a boy or a locker. She started putting her arm around my neck, trying to choke me. She would continuously punch me or smack me on the head. I honestly got annoyed by it but I acted like it was nothing. She had suddenly became obsessed with TikTok and she posted a whole TikTok about her friends, their was a video of me that stood out. I wasn't wearing a shirt. Which completely made me uncomfortable because I wasn't wearing a shirt and she took the video while I was changing. She didn't take it down. She also would post photos without my consent. Like ones that made me feel ugly or disgusting. And I would tell her how they made me feel. But she would still post them. I started telling her no when she asked for photos and she always would sneak one when I wasn't looking. She doesn't take no for an answer. She will start whining when you don't listen. I used to trust her with my feelings and I would tell her about everything. And now I feel like she knows too much.
This past school year all of my friends (king, J, Joe, Bell) and I went to SDYC. And well when we went J was lying a bunch and starting a bunch of drama and it threw all of my friends off. We all didn't trust J and Joe that well during that time. I felt like the only people I had was my friends King and Bell. Because they both understood how I felt.
After that. King, J, and I had a sleepover. During the middle of the night I was watching a movie and J began to bug me. She started pushing on me saying I was taking up too much room. But honestly I was the one who was sleeping in between two couches there's no way I was taking that much space because I was falling in the crack. She then proceeded to call me a fat roll. I said "no your a fat roll" jokingly. And then she freaks out and she went to tell her boyfriend. It annoyed me because all her boyfriend knows how to do is talk bad. After that sleepover. She started working at the same place as me and I told her about my big crush on this coworker of ours. And so then she decided to start flirting with him in front of me. She would throw something at him jokingly and giggle. I didn't try to think anything of it. But then when we were talking about him the next thing she decided to say was, "your just jealous because he talks to me and not you". The thing is I don't want to talk to him that's why I don't try to talk to him. He has talked to me before, but I rather admire him from afar. He's like 13 years older than me. He was just hot to me at the time.
I'll just say I am lighter than a 5'6 girl. I might have a little bit of belly fat but that's just my body. And I do have an eating disorder. I don't eat enough, I practically starve myself. J honestly made me feel worse and I started having moments where I would basically pass out from no iron in my body. J continued to body shame me even from the amount of food I would eat. She straight up made is feel like she was calling me ugly and fat. It hurt and it made me angry. I told my dad and he said she's just jealous and not to worry about it. I brushed it off but she basically would say something everyday. It got to a point where I was crying all the time.
During my last year of highschool J didn't have a vehicle. So she would ask me to drive her places. I didn't mind because we would be going to the same places. And I started offering to pay for her drink or something. I didn't think much of it in tell I was always taking her places and buying her drinks but she still wanted me to pay her back for stuff when I didn't have much money. She managed to buy a vehicle for a small price by saving up the money she didn't spend. I feel stupid for offering. One day her mom even texted me asking for the small money I "owed" J. But my parents think I don't owe her anything because I have given her most of my money and that she owes me money.
J also does this thing where if you don't give her your attention she'll keep tapping you. Over and over again. Everytime she asks for my attention it's always for something so pointless and stupid. Nothing serious. And everytime I ask for her attention she'll ignore me. She does it a lot. She only wants to have the attention. I stopped telling her about how I feel because all I know is she'll either use it against me or not actually listen and move past it. Like once she asked me how I felt and when I told her that I cried about something she moved on from it into her talking about her crying over some movie she watched.
The way she treated me made me so angry that I texted her boyfriend anonymously asking him to control his girlfriend and get her to be nicer to others. He didn't like the message and told his girl on the spot and J tried to call my fake number. I didn't answer and then she ran to me to tell me the tea. She later assumed it was a boy she was flirting with that she pushed away.
I hate her boyfriend but he deserves better.. because she has talked to another boy behind his back. When I started liking this one boy. I told her about it and then she began to tell me how she met this UK boy and she thinks he's all that. She later found out he was lying about his age and she got back to reality before she lost her in person boyfriend.
She told king I was flirting with this one dude but I wasn't. J told me to add this guy she found on Facebook on snap, I said okay and I called the dude a nickname like a Grandma would call their grandchildren. And I thought it was funny and the guy thought it was chill. I didn't think anything of it and then I blocked him because I didn't want to talk to him. She then decided to add the guy on snap. And she starts talking to him. The amount of times she has lied is crazy. I blocked him but she still has him on snap. For what reason I don't know.
J and Joe and I have recently had a lot of problems with each other. It's always J and Joe fighting and I'm between listening to them both argue about each other. I was getting tired of it. J hit my breaking point when she decided to ask me for my boyfriends sisters snap. You don't just ask your friend for her boyfriends sisters snap. That's weird. She also asked for my boyfriends and she looked him up when I told her no and she added a bunch of dudes with the same name. She didn't find him but there is no way I want her knowing him or his sister. I have too many trust issues with her. She's the main reason why a lot of my relationships didn't work out. They didn't like her and she manipulated me into saying things that upset them. She makes me so uncomfortable. She made me seem lesbian once when I know I'm not. But she made a TikTok about it and a lot of people from my school saw it. I don't like false accusations. I'm pretty sure she used it for clout. But also my parents think she's inlove with me because she can never leave me alone and she always HAS to hold hands or hug.
J doesn't understand a lot of things. And she calls me stupid. I honestly want karma to come get her but that's bad and I don't mean to say that. It hurts a lot.
I had blocked J on everything. But since I worked with J I saw her and she started bawling her eyes out at me saying she did nothing, I felt bad but I was annoyed because she kept bugging me. So I unblocked her. I decided to block her again after because my boyfriend said she was manipulating me. And well the more I had her blocked the nicer she was. After a while Joe did something to make me give up on my friendship with her too and J expected that to be a chance to get me back. And well she did practically. She was a lot nicer and I felt like she changed. But Man was I wrong.. Just today I was working my second night shift. I said something as a joke because I was hoping J would get what I meant. Her boyfriend was on the call... He took everything out of context and said something that made me feel less about myself. I already feel like crap being the person I am. I want to better myself but the more people say things the more I give up. I want to be encouraged not dragged down. I don't know why he has to be so mean. I never did anything to him. I don't know why they both have to be... I listen to her call people ugly all the time. Like just stop. I want her to stop. I'm leaving for the military soon, and she said that I can't get rid of her. That sounds psycho. And it honestly makes me want to get away more. I'm tired of the toxic environment and I want to get away. But she's everywhere. She knows everything about me. She has photos of me I hate. She has so many things she can use against me. I'm honestly scared. I want to block her again but I know she's just going to keep bugging me about it. And she might turn people against me. She's good at talking to people. I'm not I'm an introvert. I don't want her ever find me again once I leave. But I know she might try. People always find a way. And she's creepy. Because I know she'll be able to. But I just want to move on with my life. I don't know how to remove her from my life. What should I do?