When I was 4 or 5 , traveling cross country..I saw a beautiful long blonde hair woman in a long sleeved long dress with tiny flowers print standing in the middle of a flat golden plain with the wind blowing her hair and dress and I KNEW she had died by a wildfire soon after. ( I still remember the image and thought later, maybe reincarnation memory). 9 yo..AF Brat we visited Ephesus, Turkey..there was a tunnel leading up to the colosseum grounds from the cages and prison cells below and I saw a woman in traditional biblical garb with a blue shaw over her hair bent over with her hand on the wall for support, blinking up into the bright sunlight ..I had the overwhelming urge to touch the Wall were her hand had been. (Just my imagination?)
Years go by and I am diagnosed with an incurable eye desease ..my sister and I go on a road trip, for historical sites while I still can, and then I KNEW this was a ghost energy. Shiloh National Cemetery Park Walking around I saw a copse of trees with 1 Confederate marker among Union Markers and I wondered how he got there. Suddenly (,in my minds eye?) I SAW a very young slim man with dark hair stumble out of the dense brush and be confronted by the sight of Union men sitting around a fire. (Imagination again?) Later my sister and I were standing at the dedication plaque podium and my sister said how sad this place made her feel ..suddenly I felt a sense of Pride and said How proud that their sacrifice was being honored ..then felt joy and laughed and tried to shoulder bump the Confederate ghost... I KNEW, but could not see, standing beside me. Sight deteriated fast, facial recognition gone. It's a blurry world. Btw I can only type on my phone close to my face. Black screen. White lettering. Allen, Texas standing outside grocery store waiting on my ride, I look up and not 2 feet from me is an older gentleman with full head of grey hair and bushy mustache smiling and staring at me..not saying a word..at the time I didn't wonder HOW I could see him so clearly..minutes go by..silence..I'm wondering if he is just standing there judging me, my attire, etc. I turn my back on him and ignore him. Thought no more about it UNTIL..2 years later living in Mabank, Texas AGAIN outside waiting for my ride..Hes THERE.. 2 feet from me, silent and smiling at me..75 miles distance from Allen..thats when I realize I can SEE him as I did in Allen because I RECOGNIZED him from Allen, remember facial recognition is gone, I can't even see myself in a mirror. That shocked me. I don't know him. I walked away. Now you are going to say I'm crazy or hullicinating ..4 years later I'm living in Kentucky and I visit an Amish Store as I'm waiting in line at cashier I see an Amish couple in traditional garb standing perfectly still staring at me I see her clearly with her bonnet and long dark green dress, slim with hard lines on her face (wrinkles) she barely comes to her husband's shou, I look at him and see his white shirt and red suspenders BUT there is a black blob that covers his face and part of his shoulder..ok I think, blind spot from my eyesight, not wondering why I can SEE her so clearly, turn to look at cashier and I can SEE her plump, blonde middle age with glasses smiling at me and I suddenly think..she is connected to the couple..then Memory lapse..until I found myself with a receipt in hand saying "It will be okay, It will be okay" to a crying cashier who won't look up at me. Last experience was December 5th 2023 Weekend getaway with my sister and her DIL. Nashville, TN, Broadway St. Bar hopping, I had slowed down drinking and had switched to water as we walked into Blake's Place. DIL was very drunk and got nose to nose with bouncer..suddenly I felt such Pride for the bouncer and could see him and DIL clearly.,he stood there stoic and unresponsive to DIL barrage of drunk BS till she gave up and moved on. He had a black stocking cap and heavy coat and gloves on, roundish face but not fat..small nose and thin lips. I went to the back of the dance floor and planted myself there so my sister would know where I was and listenened/enjoyed the band, with my water. To the right of me I saw, as if in a spotlight a tall blonde man, in a Red short sleeve t shirt and huge biceps standing there just staring at me, not drinking or moving to the music as the blurry guys behind him were..song after song, he just stood there watching me.. I felt a little self conscious.. I am now 60 so WTH? Eventually my sister came to tell me it was time to leave to get DIL to hotel. Memory lapse..(not drunk, had been on water)..dont remember anything until we were outside on sidewalk when the bouncer came running out to me and grabbed my arm and with a shocked expression on his face demanded.."What did you just say tome! What did you just say to me!" ...I DONT KNOW! I sheepishly say "Best Band" and he stood back and watched us as we moved on down the road. I beleve Red shirt was a ghost connected to him and said something to him thru me. But unlike Shiloh, but like Amish Store..I don't know what the message was.was. If I hadn't effected these two people the way I had, I would think I had had hulicinations or a very vivid imagination..but seeing the stoic bouncer so shook up..convinced me..and I am trying to find explanation/validation that I am not crazy.

It was summer. He needed money to pay for school next year. He decided to get a job. He needed to apply to different places. He first made a resume. He then made a cover letter. He walked around his neighborhood.

How did yall instruct professional letters of recommendation? I’m gonna be asking a supervisor to write a letter and unlike my professors they haven’t written too many before so what should I ask them to touch on, what to avoid, etc.? I’m having them write it for one specific app. Should I just ask them to cover my work ethic, notable accomplishments, and highlight my enthusiasm for the particular school? Anything else? Also what page count should they shoot for I’m assuming one (I waived my right to see all LoRs so not sure what my other recommendations lengths were)?

I’m kinda heartbroken.
Amazing Data Engineering opportunity in central London and I had completed:

• A Phone Interview
• A Take-home Assessment
• A Company Database “Simulation”
• A Behavioural Assessment
• A Graph Reasoning Challenge
• A Final Behavioural and Company Fit

Non-FAANG, 5 or 6 rounds (think Simulation and the Behavioural Assessment might have been the same, 2.5 hour interview)
I don’t really know what to do, I feel like I’m going to be unemployed when I graduate. I have some strong qualifications for the UK (not Oxbridge, but good) a year of Agile React development experience at a large telcom and a current development position at my Uni’s Students’ Union.
Any advice? I’ve applied know to 100s of companies, keeping my CVs and Cover Letters tailored and keeping my LeetCode skills sharp. Can’t work on a new project rn because completing exams for my Master’s.
Also, sorry this was very rant-like, it can get disheartening when you sink over 6 hours into interviews and assessments at a company just to fall at the final hurdle.

This megathread is about the ongoing conflict between HYBE and the management of sub-label ADOR.
DO NOT make new posts related to this story to the subreddit. If you have new information/articles, add them to the comments below so they can be integrated into the main post.
THIS POST MAY BE LOCKED OR UNLOCKED AT VARYING TIMES based on what the moderators are able to manage during their shifts. Please be patient with us while we work to balance keeping up with the queue and our own lives.
DISCLAIMER ABOUT SOURCES: We prefer to focus on official statements from companies or other vetted sources. There will be widespread speculation and rumor-heavy articles, but until presented in an official capacity we consider them unsubstantiated. As Mods, all we can do is compile and summarize, but we are not investigators or journalists.

Summary of Previous Megathreads

MEGATHREADS ONE and TWO and THREE covered events from April 22nd to the 26th

• HYBE initiated the audit of sub-label ADOR, Min Hee Jin and ADOR's management claimed it was a witch-hunt/media play due to her frustrations with an internal complaint that new group ILLIT's visual concept was copying what she had designed for NewJeans.
  
• HYBE found further indications that ADOR's management was planning to undermine the value/function of the company and break ADOR away. Min Hee Jin held an emergency press conference for over two hours to reveal the internal politics of HYBE and her frustrations. HYBE refuted claims made during the conference.
  

MEGATHREAD FOUR provides a SUMMARY of all events so far and up to the 30th

• Various conspiracies spread online over the last weekend in April. HYBE labels BIGHIT Music and SOURCE Music released statements vowing to take legal action to protect their artists against slander and groundless rumors.
  
• A court hearing was held on the 30th resulting in schedules for upcoming meetings. ADOR's board meeting is supposedly set for May 10th and HYBE's general shareholders' meeting for sometime by the end of the month.
  

MEGATHREAD FIVE covered the first half of May.

• ADOR's meeting was set on the 10th and held, wherein a shareholders' meeting was set for May 31st. Min Hee Jin filed an injuction against HYBE with a hearing to take place on the 17th.
  
• Claims fired back and forth around HYBE continuing their audit and obtaining a personal laptop from an ADOR employee over potential embezzlement concerns.
  
• A Letter allegedly written by the parents of NewJeans and forwarded to HYBE via MHJ was made public. It included complaints about the treatment of NewJeans within the company. HYBE rebutted the letter and questioned its origins and the intentions of its release.
  
• HYBE requested an investigation regarding findings that ADOR's Vice President sold a large amount of HYBE shares a week before the audit began, suggesting he had reason to believe the company's stock price would fall.
  

Articles / Timeline

240515

• Indirectly related, HYBE will be listed as a conglomerate due to assets of $3.65 billion or larger. See Yonhap article below.
  
• Yonhap News: Regulator adds 6 more biz groups to 'chaebol watchlist,' including Hybe
  
• It was confirmed HYBE requested an FSS investigation on the 14th. It was reported they submitted concrete evidence seized during the audit of potential insider trading, arranging meetings with foreign investors, etc. and working with foreign securities analyst Mr. A. (Source: Newsis)
  

Looking ahead:

• May 17: The Seoul District Court (Civil Affairs Dept.) will investigate/interrogate regarding the injunction Min Hee Jin filed against HYBE (previously reported on the 7th)
• May 31: The extraordinary shareholders' meeting to potentially oust and replace Min Hee Jin as ADOR CEO.

Link back to MEGATHREADS ONE and TWO and THREE and FOUR and FIVE

GROUND RULES IN COMMENTS

REMINDER: If you have come to this subreddit to discuss anything, you are choosing to participate in a moderated space. This subreddit has rules of conduct, which are enforced by human beings trying to do their best. If you are not interested in maintaining civility there are many better options around the internet to express your opinion. If you are here, you are subject to the discretion of moderators to manage this space even if it's in ways you don't agree with.
BEFORE YOU SUBMIT A COMMENT, CHECK IF YOU ARE BREAKING OUR CONDUCT RULES

• Are you insulting users, fans, or artists in your comment? Are you denigrating a certain demographic of people (age, gender, nationality, etc)? Are you harassing, threatening, or wishing harm on anyone?
• Are you inciting fanwars, referencing old tribal resentments between different fandoms, or assuming the worst of fellow users?
• Are you bringing wild conspiracies from somewhere else on social media that have no clear or substantiated sources?
• Are you accusing users with a different opinion from you of being a bot or paid shill?

THE MODS KNOW there will be bots, trolls, bad actors, and oblivious new users coming to the subreddit. We will do what we can to mitigate the impact of them. But you alone are responsible for your own behavior. You can write paragraphs, making a well-founded argument or expressing your opinion, and if you have just one sentence in there breaking our conduct rules or doing the kinds of things listed above, understand that we have an obligation to remove your comment and it will never seen by anyone but some very frustrated mods.
If you can't express your opinion without breaking our conduct rules, that's your cue to take a break from the subreddit.

Any idea when the first waitlist is supposed to come? I understand that every college is trying to cover up their own waitlist movements by delaying waitlists as much as possible but TF is it with MDI? Placecom is rude, lists don't come, final placements for 24 batch haven't been posted; all traits of an all show no go institute. XL is actually pretty punctual and transparent in this regard. They barely gave any buffer calls; so much so that they had to turn some of their regret letters into waitlists. And then there's MDI pretending to be better than they actually are (they are pretty good but come on 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.

Hello people!
I had applied for a Tourist visa for 6 months and it got approved today and I got my Passport back. However the dates mentioned on the Visa are 24 May till 24 November.
The issue is while I applying I had clearly mentioned that I intend to visit the UK 2 times and had clearly given the dates as well. 1st occasion from June 1 (for the Champions League Final) and then on November 26 (for my Graduation Ceremony).
And in my cover letter, I had even mentioned that I want my 6 months to start from May 30/May 31 so that both my visits will be covered under this visa only.
But the dates are not what I had hoped and applied for as I will have to reapply and pay €300 again for Visa which I do not want to. Can anything be done now?
Thank you for your time.

Hey all!
I've been lurking here since I uploaded my first video on YT, and I've found some of your threads here useful. So I thought I'd give back with a write up on my monetization journey, which, although not lightning fast, has been medium-fast (two months and two weeks from my first upload).
Who am I?
I'm a fashion photographer, with 10+ years of experience in my main field, and 3+ years of experience in the generative AI field. I started working with generative AI for a project with Vogue Italia right before the main publicly available applications were released to the wider public (Dall-E, MidJourney, Stable Diffusion), and since then my work has been a mix of traditional photography and generative AI. And that's why I became a part-time Tuber.
Finding a niche
While I was implementing gen AI more and more in my fashion photography works, I was struggling to find professionally oriented tutorials on YT. There's a ton of content about gen AI, covering news, tools, and starting out with it, but there was close to no in-depth, real-world use cases focused tutorials. So I though - hey, I'm using it in my own works. I know a ton of fellow professionals who can use it too. I can't be the only one looking for this kind of content. Maybe I should create that content myself.
Now, I don't know what you're interested in, but in order to find a niche, I'd do the same: find something you like and know about, and check if there's some aspects of it which no one covers, and you know you can cover yourself.
From the comments and commission requests I've gotten in two months, I was right. Which leads us to...
Offering value
My content is long and incredibly tedious. Honestly, it's quite boring to the layman. But it's necessary for anyone who wants to learn something applicable in their own field *or* anyone who wants to start using AI tools in their own traditional workflows, so I realized those are my audience.
To those people, I'm offering value, even if the videos are long and boring. But it's the fact that they're long and boring that's giving me an edge. Let me explain how.
Basically, from the first video, I had to choose if:

• I wanted to go straight to the point and show how things were done with the tools I was using, and show real life examples, or;
  
• I wanted to spend the necessary time to explain to anyone, even those who had no skillset in the tools I was using, how things were done.
  

I decided to go with the latter. My videos are complete tutorials, A to Z, made for people who know basically nothing about generative AI, guiding them from knowing nothing to doing exactly what I'm doing, explaining how I set up things and, most importantly, why I do it the way I do it.
Now, I needed a way to not lose the attention of people who already knew how to go from A to G, but not from G to Z, so in the first minute or so I always say something along the lines of "ok, so now I'm going to build all of my workflow from scratch, so if you're not interested in how and why it works this way, you can find the timestamps here and jump ahead to the demonstration segment".
This works, and it's why my watch curve looks like a "U". A good 25-30% of people are interested in the "how it's done", while 35-40% are interested in "what it looks like".
The only negative comment I've ever received on my format, which was something like "dude, you're too slow", was followed by a comment, a month later, by the same user, saying "I get now why you're slow, not everyone's at the same level. Please disregard my previous comment".
Strategy
Overall, I upload weekly, same day, same time, unless:

• I want to stream (unscheduled, spur of the moment short streams, around 2 hours each);
  
• something huge has come out in my niche and needs to be covered as soon as possible.
  

I don't post shorts anymore, since:

• I'm not good at making them;
  
• I don't like making them;
  
• they don't provide value to my core audience.
  

The long term goal is to find new clients for my day job, and to do consulting work on the side, given that my audience perceive me as an expert in my field.
Metrics
Now, I think that the metrics I've seen both here and in the Partnered sub are completely skewed towards niches that are not appliable to me or fellow tutorial YouTubers, or for this sub in particular, are skewed towards creators who don't have large view counts.
20-30% CTR? 50% AVD? These kind of numbers, to me, would mean that I struck gold and I created something that was flying off the shelves like cakes during the French revolution (even if that never happened). Or, most likely, that no one is watching my content expect for my most hardened userbase, *and* YT didn't push the video at all to outside audiences.
My usual metrics, which are a direct result of both my very niche content and the nature of my content (tutorials), are around 8-10% CTR and 12-18% AVD. And the videos with these metrics get pushed, hard, to outside audiences.
I think YT's algorithm kind of understands that my content is not meant to be watched from start to finish, and that my audience is very selective of what it's useful to them. So either it doesn't care about the usual metrics I see thrown around here, or those metrics are inflated.
I also think (but again, sample size=1, me) that YT kind puts each and every one of us into a "box" of sorts, in terms of how much it wants to push our content. At first, my videos had a max impressions of around 10k. Nowadays, it's more in the realm of 50-200k, and it's reflected in the amount of impressions my newest videos get when they're published. The curves all look the same until one video breaks out, and a new standard is expected out of my next videos.
Also, each video is their own thing. If a video's CTR tanks in the first few hours, I can expect it to not reach the same audience that my most successful videos reach in the same amount of time, and that's because...
YouTube wants people to see (your) videos
Well, maybe not *your* videos, and maybe not *all* your videos, but the way YT works is opposite of the way IG works, for example. While IG has no monetary incentives to pushing free content, and has to push paid content in between free content, YouTube makes money out of people seeing free content, because the paid content (ADs) is embedded into the free content (videos).
So if your video is good, YT has no issues pushing it. If your video is not good, too bad, there's another content creator in your niche who has a better video, so let's push their video instead.
By providing value to your viewers, you're providing value to YouTube and their ADs, so either you and YT win, or another content creator and YT win. In the eyes of YT, everybody wins all the time.
Increasing CTR
If you're like me, you know, in your heart of hearts, that a catchy title and a great thumbnail are as important as the content of your video. If you're like me, the thumbnail's the last thing you prepare, and we're both wrong.
Seriously, get good at creating good thumbnails. Since I've started focusing more on thumbnails, my CTR has gotten, if not better in the long run (since all videos default to kind of the same CTR the longer the video has been out for and the wider the audience is), better in the first few hours and days, which increases the audience drastically.
I know this is a boring part of the creative process, but get good at it.
Also, experiment with multiple thumbnails during the first hours when a video has been published. A thumbnail you expected to do well might not be as catchy as you thought. Try 3 or 4 different thumbnails and see what sticks.
Increasing AVD
Now in my case I can't do much about it, since the format I've chosen is kind of non-negotiable and it's what brings value at the expense of AVD, but if you're:

• seeing a sharp decrease in viewers around the 00:30 mark, work on your intros and get straight into the action;
  
• seeing a below 30% retention rate throughout the video, either there was no need for this content, or you're not covering it well enough (or you're not engaging enough);
  
• overall, give the viewers a reason to stay engaged throughout the different sections of the video.
  

Streaming
I discovered streaming way too late, and I wish I did it way earlier. It would have had me monetized at least a couple of weeks sooner.
But in order to do it well, you need:

• a good userbase who wants to extract more infos and values from things you're not covering in your uploads;
  
• the skillset necessary to basically host a mini-show.
  

The latter is the hardest part, and I only know how to do it because I'm used to giving speeches and lessons. But, like all skills, it's not something you're born with, it's something you train and get good at, so if you're into it try it and get better at it over time.
Equipment
I'm lucky enough to have a day job that covers most of the equipment needed. My camera and lenses are the same I'm using for my day job, I already had a mic, my PC is an absolute beast because of the generative AI work I do, so I think I spent like 20 bucks for a mic arm and that's it.
In anyone else's case, though, the most important things to invest in is:

• a good mic, since audio quality is more important than video quality (tons of people have terrible displays, but tons of people like to hear nice audio);
  
• 8 hours in DaVinci Resolve, and I swear you don't even need the full 8 hours, you just need to understand how to trim, cut and paste clips, how to improve your audio, and how to export files;
  
• only then, and maybe, a good enough camera, good lighting (my light is literally an ikea lamp with a 5 bucks white scrim on it, I just know how to make it look good because of my day job), minimum hardware.
  

Final considerations
Some of you may have more trouble with subs, some with watch hours (in my case, I got 2.5k subs before I reached my watch hours goal), some of you may find trouble expressing yourselves in front of the camera, or talking well, or may prefer scripts rather than talking freely while doing things, but all in all:

• do what you're good at;
  
• improve what you're lacking in;
  
• know what's useless to improve.
  

Let me know if you'd like to know more, or if I missed something.
Thanks for reading!

Disclaimer: I am Chinese and cannot speak or read Uyghur. Xinjiang is a vast land, and the online communication of residents is strictly controlled, so even people from different regions are unaware of the specific situation in other regions, and there are significant differences between different regions. I tried to cross validate using sources from different ethnic groups as much as possible, but my language definitely caused some bias in my sampling.
There is a long-term tense relation between local ethnic groups, especially between the Han and Uyghur ethnic groups. A local Han who sympathized with the Uyghur told me that his American friend who visited described it as "racial segregation, and it was spontaneous among people.".
Other ethnic minorities also have resentment towards Uyghur people due to Uyghur nationalism. They also suffered from repression, although not as severe as the Uyghurs. Some blame the government, while others blame the Uyghurs.
Local Han generally believe this is what Uyghurs deserve. Mainland Chinese are generally unaware of this matter due to censorship, but no hostility towards Uyghurs.
Not all, but there are definitely some events that meet the criteria for terrorist attacks. It also involves indiscriminate attacks on other ethnic minorities and Uyghur who do not agree with them.
CPC actually tries to conceal these events as much as possible. If it is really impossible to conceal, their public deaths are much less than what actually happened, whether the deceased were Han Chinese, attacked Uyghurs, or attackers. The public parts are due to the controversy caused by the discovery of large-scale detention.
What other separatists did was also concealed as much as possible. CPC seems to primarily aim to avoid resentment towards the Uyghurs as a whole among the majority of people in China, and pretend its rule is prosperous and unshakable.
A local Hui who have been hacked by terrorists before:

If officials claim nothing happened, means manything happened. If officials claim one or two people died, means a group of people have died. If officials claim thirty people died, means a village has disappeared.
Separatists and CCP went to war, and the people suffered.

Uyghurs mainly reside in the southern Xinjiang region and are mainly poor farmers. Most areas in southern Xinjiang are mainly Uyghur, although Han immigrants have appeared in urban areas in the past two decades. Before the crackdown, a rural Uyghur may have never seen any native Chinese speakers in their lifetime. When I visited there last year, most adult Uyghurs can't speak Chinese at all, and most who speak fluent Chinese are businessperson. I visited there with the company of a local Uyghur friend(abbreviated as T). Most of the repression was lifted in 2021, and what I saw was a mild version:

Small mosques are demolished or sealed off. The landmark mosques has been preserved, but locals dare not enter because it poses a risk of getting them into trouble. Inside are mainly tourists. All Arabic slogans have been covered or replaced with Uyghur versions. Halal symbols are prohibited. Some tourists are Uyghurs from northern Xinjiang. They have greater freedom. Locals are not allowed to wear Ḥijāb or grow large beards. Uyghur ethnic clothing without religious significance is also taboo. The stores sell them, but only for tourists. All cutting tools on the street are restricted to fixed objects with iron chains. Economic decline. Not many locals consume. During the period of severe repression, people had no income. Even civil servants are owed wages by the government due to financial constraints. Before 2017, schools almost exclusively taught Uyghur language, and local teachers were also Uyghurs who did not speak Chinese. Now it's almost pure Chinese. T is worried about the hidden camera when speaking. All taxis have prominent cameras. All polices are Uyghur. T claims that after 2021, who is visible on the streets is not police, but just security guard disguised. The real police are either undercover or hiding. All signs are bilingual or in Chinese. Simple Uyghur language signs are prohibited. Ethnicity can be distinguished by appearance. When others notice that we are a mixed ethnic team, they will be surprised.

The riots were mainly initiated by Uyghurs from rural areas in southern Xinjiang. This place has been subjected to the most severe repression.
The total population of Uyghurs is over 10 million. No one can be certain how many had entered the camp. They don't have an interconnected database for this. I read a local official privately claiming that perhaps 500,000 are a close number. When I mentioned that Western media claimed the number was one million, and T felt it was an underestimate. Another Uyghur from a northern city think this is an exaggeration.
As of now, Uyghurs, even if living in mainland China, dare not post too many opinions on these matters through online. Others lives Xinjiang cannot either. When they post content that the local government deems inappropriate, they may be knocked on and asked to delete their posts. This is highly unlikely to happen in other regions.
A local programmer told me, if the photos you take accidentally include any part of camps, when it is post online, it would disappear directly.
In the past few years, the density of Uyghur people visible in the inland has significantly increased. Young people from various ethnic groups in Xinjiang seem to be generally trying to leave Xinjiang due to limited freedom and insufficient income. Riots and repression have both led to loss of the Han population. A resident of Urumqi told me that the actual population here may only be half of what is recorded on paper. Xinjiang government is attempting to recruit Han Chinese from mainland China to settle down.
In mainland, when reside in hotels, Uyghurs will be registered by the police. Only specific qualified hotels are allowed to accept them. Several male Uyghurs said they may have been raided and inspected by the police at night.
Uyghurs have different opinions. I do know three Uyghurs clearly express that CPC's suppression is generally good, although they still complain. This includes T, whose father was once detained in a camp. I don't know the proportion of different opinions. The random Uyghurs themselves seem unclear about this too.
The camp seems to have different levels. My data point from Uyghur in rural area of southern Xinjiang and specifically, there was indeed a terrorist attack carried out by the residents from this town, so this is the most extreme situation. By T, camp and repression were described as:

In 2017, if you are an adult male and not in school or college, likely to enter a camp. This is about 80% of men. It almost came to an end after September 2019. Two thirds of them had returned. (The rest are mainly sentenced, with a few deaths) Pure torment. Later, the government was afraid of the West, and people gained meat in their diet and skill training. (about diet, I explain as the financial difficulties faced by the Xinjiang government. After the camps attracted international attention, they received more funding from the central government.)
Government know they just need to persuade the househead. Women and children will obey him. Many excuses be used to get you into the camp. Sometimes it's intentional to provoke you, and when conflicts occur, they tell you that your viewpoint is flawed (needs to be modified). They will inquire and analyze from neighbors what you have done before and recently. If you lie, they will find out. TBH, Han cadres are most rational. The main ones bullying us are Uyghur cadres.
Submissive people were released after one or two years. Disobedient people were sentenced to prison. Who completely disobeys had died. There are an average of 400 families in the village. They would receive seven or eight corpses from the camp. Those sentenced families have had difficult times. Only women and two children in the family, difficult to survive. Women are easily bullied, children do not obey her, wander around and do not help her with work. The villagers did nothing wrong. My father is not interested in religion. When he returned from the camp, he spoke Chinese more fluently than me. Outsiders recruiting locals for terrorist attacks, then they fled, and locals were retaliated against. Many people here are uneducated. They are easily deceived by outsiders (to create a terrorist attack/riot). This is brainwashing to prevent them from being deceived by outsiders. I hate those outsiders. They have caused many families to break down, and give us Uyghurs a bad reputation. Islam is good, distorted by these people. I dislike the local extremist religion before. I was not even allowed to sing.

He described the welfare policy:

The government has established new villages. You only need to pay a small fee to move over. Most of the expenses are subsidized by the government. They have carried out infrastructure construction. Our living environment has improved a lot. But the economy has not been developed, and our income has not increased. If your family is considered trustworthy, you may be helped to start a business in mainland. If someone is sentenced, their family will receive financial assistance.

He is a firsthand witness to the terrorist attack that occurred locally:

This has been reported as the death of thirty Hans. It's completely different. Terrorists intercepted the road and killed all Han trapped in the convoy. The Uyghur who resisted them were also killed. The actual number of deaths is over a thousand. I can't believe my childhood friends would kill people. The next day, the tank arrived at our village. All participants had been captured. The rest of us were frequently visited by cadres. Terrorists intercept convoys by chopping down trees. So the government forced the people to cut down the trees next to the road a few years ago.

First time taker here and was finishing up my 3L year. Just graduated May ‘24 and was an out of state test taker for Texas. Studied for 5 weeks and passed the Texas Bar and did about 200 hours on BarBri. For me, the issue with the Bar was learning and remembering the law and so I focused on the barbri lectures and MC.
MEE/MPT
I did not write out a single MEE as writing has never been an issue. I’m assuming most people in law school can write well and thus the issue with the essays are issue spotting and knowing the black letter law. This is why I focused on LEARNING the law through the lectures and MC questions instead of wasting hours writing essays. Something I found helpful was looking up the model questions and then reading the selected answers. This gave me an idea of how to structure my essays and see what the examiners liked.
For the MPT, all I did was watch BarMD free video on YouTube and then I read the library portion of a sample MPT to get a feel for issue spotting. One thing I found helpful during the exam was that I would read the cases first and immediately type out the Rules into the test document. I would then just copy and paste the rules when needed which saved me a ton of time as I didn’t have to re-read the case etc. Ultimately, the MPT is all about time management as we all have learned how to issue spot by being in law school.
MBE:
I don’t really know what to say other than just to study. Do a ton of MC to get familiar with the format and also to help get exposed to the more nuanced areas of the law. I did some BarBri MC but what I found helpful were the MC questions from the ncbe themselves. They are fairly cheap and well worth it as they come from the source themselves and are how the questions on the bar are worded. Now, these MC’s by the ncbe are on the easier side but they give you a feel for the formatting of the Q’s. I also just hated Barbri questions which is probably why I liked the ncbe Q’s so much.
Overall, don’t stress about not studying enough/ not completing your course. A lot of the bar prep courses allot a ton of time to writing essays for every subject and for writing MPTs. Personally, I’m a believer that if you know the law then the MEE’s won’t be bad and thus just focus your time on learning the law and practicing the MC Q’s.
Hope this is helpful

Greetings everyone
First of all can I say thank you to all the wonderful people who have helped in this community.
Like others before me I am seeking some reassurance that I have the correct documents for my wife and step-daughter's 2.5 year renewal. Lots of posts have been very helpful and I am confident for my wife, but want to check for my step-daughter also. For further information we also have one daughter together who is a British Citizen.
ID's -
BRP - wife and step-daughter, Passports- mine, wife, stepdaughter and daughter ,Birth certificate - stepdaughter
Language -
IELTS B1
Step-daughter -
Translated court document for custody, Notarised letter from Father, Letter of attendance from local school
Letters -
Covering letter (signed by wife and myself) Letters of character (from priest and police officer)
Proof of address -
No joint mail. Six different letters each to same address ,Title register of our home
Finance -
My (sponsor) payslips 6 months, My bank statements 6 months, P60 ,Contract Letter from Employer
Relationship -
Photos, Marriage certificate
Consent to verification
I hope that's all correct but I would love it if one of you lovely people could give me some pointers or reassurance. I've grown a little bald patch worrying about all of this and the cost of it!

So I accidentally sent in an unfinished version of my essay for the body paragraph assignment. Everything was pretty solid, but it didn’t have a proper conclusion as I was working on and finishing the cover letter at the end. And I had a completed version ready to paste in the incomplete’s place. But I accidentally sent in the original file without doing so.
Will I just get points docked and not worry about it too much? (I don’t need A’s or anything. I just make sure I pass) Or do I have to contact someone to let them know? Or is it possible to send in a new file as long as the original one isn’t graded? Or will they most likely just send it back and ask me to fix or review it?

Hi everyone - straight to the point I’m in a dilemma here, my ILR got approved through the spouse route. I am fully aware that I can apply for naturalisation immediately however there’s a snag in the application - they require my partner’s naturalisation certificate number but she can’t remember where she kept it.
Is it possible to use her passport number in that section and write a cover letter explaining the situation or are there any alternatives I can use.

Hi, I’m a student in Finland. I’m currently studying Masters, but came here for bachelors a few years back. Have been applying for jobs for a long time, and finally have an interview. It’s for an internship at a relatively large company. The job description mentioned salesforce, which I did not include in any capacity on my resume/cover letter. However, I’ve been working remotely at a job in my home country for 2 months now, and learning salesforce there. The problem is, I’m not sure if I should mention this. I have an ultra strict nda (it’s crypto industry), and am not allowed to mention that on my CV/LinkedIn, which is why I didn’t include it. I’m a bit worried that the whole situation might seem shady to the employer if I bring it up to them (it kinda is tbf). I have asked my manager if I can mention it, but he said pass the probation first (its 3 months) and we’ll discuss it later, so I don’t have a definitive answer there. The NDA only prohibits making it public knowledge thru linkedin/social media, so legally it should be fine.
So, should I mention it? Do u think it will be beneficial? Just wanted to get a Finnish perspective on this. I really don’t want to screw anything up at this point.

It was summer. He needed money to pay for school next year. He decided to get a job. He needed to apply to different places. He first made a resume. He then made a cover letter. He walked around his neighborhood.

So my sponsor (father) has a single bank account where he deposits his salary and uses it for basically everything. But his savings as shown by that account exceed his yearly income .
Would the decision makers object to the amount in the bank being greater than yearly income ?
Should i explain it in the cover letter that he uses it for both purposes? Like if the yearly income after tax deductions is 8500gbp , the account shows 17500 gbp. Like normally people would've had a current account and a savings account. But that's not the case here.

A few weeks ago, I posted about a toxic workplace, and I had no idea whether I should leave or stay until completing one year. Lately, things have become so bad that my boss gave me warnings. It happened at a party where, after work, we contributed. Then, my boss asked for my vehicle key to go to the store, and I rejected, saying I don't give my key to anyone. The following morning, he called a meeting for me and said I'm under-skilled, less talented, and don't work with the company culture. So, I decided to leave. I'm going to hand over the resignation letter after the next paycheck.
Since I don't have any savings and barely cover my living costs, I have to work as a full-time driver. One of my friends offered me a part-time job for just 35K, so I can complete my higher education without having external stress.
The only doubt is they still haven't given me an offer letter but are deducting EPT/ETF even after nine months of employment. I'm not sure if they will offer me a service letter. I want to leave here without much drama.
I don't know why I'm writing this here, but I just wanted to say.