hello people
i want to make it short
is there any manufacture you know can make the universal 7 inch round lights housings for the 2nd gen
picture as an example

Hi all! I had a few days of headache with a new build recently using the B650 PLUS WIFI motherboard and I wanted to share what I tried and what worked for me!
Basically, the problem was that I was able to boot into windows just fine if I used my integrated graphics from my CPU. While in windows, I could move the HDMI from the motherboard port to the graphics card, and everything worked as expected with my GPU being recognized and working great. If I tried to turn on the computer with the HDMI cable plugged into the graphics card, the VGA LED on the motherboard would stay on and the computer would not boot.
It turns out my TV was not sending a signal (or strong enough signal) for it to clear POST. I fixed this by forcing my TV to used HDMI 2.0 (by turning off compatibility mode).
If you are having the same issue as I was, these are all the things to try. It's possible any one of these methods will be the solution for you:

1. Make sure your monitor is on before turning on your computer.
   
2. If it is on, check your monitoTV settings to force HDMI 2.0 with a compatible HDMI cable.
   
3. Unplug and re-plug in your GPU power cable, try a different cable if your PSU is modular.
   
4. Remove your CMOS battery for 10 seconds to reset your motherboard settings.
   
5. Switch your GPU between the available PCIe slots.
   
6. Try a few things with your RAM. Remove and re-seat. Use only one stick. Switch which stick is in which slot, and be sure you are using the right slots. (Example: using 2 sticks, my model required them to be in the second and fourth slot counting from the CPU)
   
7. Update your motherboard BIOs, be sure to get the right model! I tried the B650 PLUS on accident when I needed the B650 PLUS WIFI bios... No damage was done in case you get this wrong too!
   
8. Try booting with a different GPU, then switching back to your desired GPU.
   
9. Power cycle to drain your motherboard circuitry: Turn off computer and switch off PSU. Hold down power button, and switch the PSU on and off quickly 5 to 10 times.
   

If anyone else has any advice, please share here! At first, I tried everything except for number 2, which wound up being the solution for me! -_- I did not see anyone mention this possibility online, so hopefully this is everything you can try just short of RMAing the motherboard!
I hope this helps! ☺

Any language is fine. Any format is fine: Documentary, indie, fiction, short, feature. For example: Fight club or schindler's list, both good movies, would be a more direct social commentary and not what I'm looking for. Trying to make a documentary, and want to know if there is a precedent and how its been done before.

Would appreciate your thoughts on something I was thinking of doing, particularly with new bottles that tend to be disappointing until they have been open for more than a few weeks or so. 1. Transfer first 4 ounces from new bottle to 8 ounce bottle and do not use the new bottle until those first 4 ounces have been consumed. 2. Maybe pop the cork on the new bottle periodically, at least perhaps when taking a pour from the 8 ounce bottle, to let out the trapped gasses in exchange for new air. 3. After consuming the first four ounces, consider repeating the process with another 4 ounces if, for example, the first 4 ounces were consumed in a short period of time and/or a taste from the new bottle indicates that the liquid in the new bottle has not opened up as nicely as the last pour from the 8 ounce bottle. Thanks for your input or suggestions.

Hi all,
I want to make a career change in a few years, and was considering teaching at a University abroad. I am a native English speaker, who holds a PhD in Public Policy, and at the time will have 10 years experience as a Data Science manager in Human Resources.
I never really was drawn to academia despite several publications due to the "publish or perish" research focus. My passion is teaching, and am 36 currently. At 41 (or sooner) I'll have locked a small pension from my company, I am a FIRE proponent so have saves a fair amount, and would like to live abroad a bit at a cheaper rate and also just cause America is tiring me out (politics, mentality, etc). I've always been happiest abroad and in Asia feel a certain sense of peace...not sure why exactly.
My overall question is, is there opportunities for this type of life in countries abroad and in your experience where is best? I have travelled a lot of the world, most of Europe, lived in Taiwan, and did a month in Vietnam last year which I fell in love with. I'd like to not "Teach English" I'd like to teach my subjects of expertise in some way management, HR, data analytics, etc, which may be the limiting factor. Would be open to other consulting jobs as well.
Among my favorite countries are below but would be open to others, Thailand for example seemed nice from my short stay there. Vietnam
Taiwan
Italy
Portugal
Czech Republic
Anyway haven't had much luck perusing advice so thought I'd ask

Hi guys! Got a couple TS items and they are all spot on when it comes to sizing. But with the swim trunks I’m confused, I wear 34” jeans. And when I measure other shorts they are all between 45 and 48 cm. The sizing chart says XL. But…. I never wear shorts XL, sport shorts for example are all L.
What do you guys think? Thanks!

Probably somebody who is fluent in Japanese and English would be better to analyze this movie but I will try anyway.
The movie is about poor communication and disconnection. Originally I thought it was just describing culture shock and the overload of being in a foreign country. But there are numerous examples of “lost in translation” as a metaphor. Watching Bill Murray view an old SNL skit in Japanese is a bit surreal. When his character is trying to finish a commercial shoot the translator gives him short instructions to a lengthy response from the director. When some fans recognize him drinking at a bar Bill Murray just smiles and walks away.
Both main characters are in unhappy and disconnected relationships. Giovanni Ribosi plays a busy photographer who gives little attention to Scarlett Johansen. Later Scarlett goes to a Buddhist temple and watches a ceremony. When trying to describe her lack of feeling about it to her mother back in the states she becomes tearful and this ends the call abruptly.
There is not a lot of dialogue overall in the movie. But one person who does talk incessantly is Giovanni Ribisi’s ex played by Ana Faris. Her character is quite vapid and annoying. This is to contrast the main characters who are insular and contemplative.
What does Bill Murray say at the end of the movie? Well I can’t read lips. But we are supposed to fill in the blanks since the movie is at its core about difficulty communicating, especially in relationships.

Introduction
Someone reading this book may wonder what sort of audience is being targeted here. They may also be confused as to what the endgame is behind such a book. The aim of this book is to parallel the different religious & mystic traditions & connect them to the tropes that we find near death experiences propagate. They often are reconnecting us with what ancient texts have said but in the modern secular world where materialism is the norm we have become numb to the meanings & impact behind such text. These texts are often considered archaic & primitive. Unable to contribute much to the modern world they may only be useful in prayer chants.
Thus I aim here to revitalise the spirit of these traditions and connect them to what many call the modern day scriptures. The study of near death experiences, neuroscience, consciousness & other paranormal phenomena.
The endgame of the mystic is to connect, achieve union, knowledge and self growth. Thus by approaching all these texts and the various evolving thought that emerged from it, we can explore the parallels and connections that bridge the gap between traditions. The beauty of mysticism and perennial philosophy is the freedom it offers in interpretation.
This book doesn't focus on the question of whether scriptures are divinely inspired, man made tools written for sociological and political agendas or some sort of corrupted divinity. That discussion is a debate that will never end. Rather the focus here is on the possible wisdom & theological beliefs which parallel and mesh together well in forming a higher meaning & connection to the divine. Whether it be a higher power, an all pervading source or a metaphysical truth. You aren’t required to literally believe the divinity of these texts. A simple level of curiosity & intrigue is sufficient.
However one may contend that it is easy to parallel traditions when they are in harmony but when they differ they directly contradict rendering these connections meaningless and superficial. Therein lies the limitations of this book. Therefore the following concepts won’t be discussed in here. These are mainly :

• Unverifiable supernatural claims such as ancient miracles for instance Moses parting the sea, Jesus walking on water, resurrecting etc. For someone expecting this book to be a source of evidence for a specific religion it unfortunately won’t be. However there are multiple correlations and connections and these may act as subtle signs of evidence for a specific faith or multiple of them.
  
• Reconciling contradictions between belief systems and scriptures. For example whether the Divine is a trinity or a unity. Whether a certain sage was superior to another. For instance comparing the personality of Jesus with Muhammad, whether the Bible is morally perfect or not & a plethora of other beliefs that may not agree with one another. The book simply assumes they all are imperfect systems.
  
• The scientific debate on whether NDEs are classified as hallucinations or genuine supernatural occurrences. Whilst an interesting topic in itself, it is out of the scope of this book with many other books discussing the science behind ndes. However when necessary nde claims will be contrasted with naturalistic explanations.
  

The primary focus is in following a don't throw the baby out with the bathwater approach. Some may also contend that this book follows a shopping cart style of cherrypicking from texts and discarding beliefs from texts one subjectively finds inappropriate. To this I would simply say that the approach here is one of finding the parallels that align well together and acknowledging when a belief doesn't align well. Not necessarily a pick and choose system. An approach I would call the rational mystic.
The rational mystic is one who is simply open to what may be beyond their senses. They may be mystically inclined, fascinated and open to the plethora of supernatural ideas. However they will not blindly believe any and all beliefs. They will discern using rational faculties what of mysticism is most compatible with reality, what the data or evidence shows & what is more probable than not. I believe people of all beliefs or no beliefs can fit this definition. Whether you identify by a religion, as spiritual but not religious, non religious, atheist, deist or agnostic. Thus a skeptic or believer may able to gain an appreciation for these belief systems.
This book dives into the verses and parallels of ancient texts such as the Old Testament, Gospels, Quran, Hadith, Bhagwad Gita, Dhammapada, Tao Te Ching & Gathas of Zoroaster. Other older parallels such as from Vedic India, Ancient Egypt, Greece & Mesopotamia may be referenced.
Alongside that are the testimonies of NDEs and how they may parallel or differ to these texts. This book also attempts to provide commentary on major philosophical themes & elaborate on various exegesis, mystical traditions such as Kaballah, Sufism, Advaita Vedanta, Neoplatonism & Chinese thought. Since mysticism is ultimately about experience it relevant and useful to enhance these discussions by contrasts to various scientific ideas, philosophy & pop culture.
NDE Filter Methodology
One of the problems with ndes is the fact that they are subjective experiences which we cannot objectively verify or replicate. This makes them a weaker form of evidence compared to empirical studies which can replicate the results. These present a challenge. An individual nde may therefore be subject to embellishment, fabrications & delusions. Therefore in picking our choice of NDEs here we can only look at ndes as a whole in terms of statistical patterns that form. This is the methodology used in NDE literature by various academics including neuroscientists & philosophers researching the phenomenon.
To elaborate we therefore will discard testimonies that appear embellished with fantastical details. These fantastical details may also be subjective from person to person. Calling an otherworldly journey fantastical is simply irony. However in following the certain patterns that appear cross culturally in ndes it is much easier to identify reports that are considered fantastical. The following tropes appear the most across multiple nde studies.

• Out of Body Experience
• Tunnel of Light
• Meeting deceased relatives or unknown beings
• Perceiving a highly luminous pervading light
• Feelings of absolute peace, comfort & love
• Arriving at an otherworldly place ie a meadow, garden etc.
• Life Review
• Border of no return
• Pluralistic message about love & wisdom

There are of course other concepts that ndes reference which appear from time to time. These allow ndes to be flexible and not rigid experiences. After all no two nde experiences are the same. However using these motifs listed we can filter through unreliable ndes. These include

• NDE reports that are highly coloured with religious fundamentalist tropes particularly tropes promoting an exclusivist attitude to religion.
• NDEs that appear too detailed, fantastical & unrestricted appearing more like a science fiction or fantasy novel. For example nde claims of multiple lives on other planets or large scale prophecies & apocalyptic predictions & generally things that differ wildly from the core themes
• NDEs that talk too much about one specific spiritual concept, portraying themselves as special, prophets or mediums turning their nde into a narcissistic or monetary agenda through spiritual coaching, multiple books etc.

Finally one may say that the chapters of this book attempt to hint at the veracity of a religion & this book is a subtle attempt to proselytize that faith. I will reiterate that this book isnt trying to prove any specific religion. There may be subtle signs from one faith that fit better with the nde phenomenon than others. The following theories I would say explain these subtle signs. I leave it up to the reader to decide what they feel is the best explanation.

• Universal Divine Theory : This is the idea that prophets, mystics & sages from different cultures have been inspired through revelation from the same source & this explains the shared insights of a religion & ndes.
  
• Mystic Wisdom Theory : This simply means that certain religious writers and founders were simply wise spiritual men, mystically inclined honing on their intuition & knowledge.
  
• Intertextuality Theory : Each new religious founder simply built of older religious ideas assimilating it into their theologies.
  

Whilst these theories may suggest a subtle spark of corresponding truths, generally NDEs dont explicitly point to any religion. Some say its simply the case that a Christian will see Jesus, a Muslim will see Allah, A Jew sees Yahweh & a Hindu sees Krishna. This of course is not entirely true. The portion of ndes that claim to see Jesus form a minority & interestingly they too dont point at specific doctrines. NDE experiencers may simply describe a sentient light they perceive to be God. This being doesnt tell anybody that I am Yahweh or Allah. Experiencers will say that religious texts fall short of describing this being. It is beyond what people are taught in religion.
Those who are familiar with NDE reports and studies will know that NDEs tend to be very religion agnostic and at best subtly imply a religious correlation but rarely do we find massive amounts of nde reports cross culturally presenting exclusivist dogmas such as follow holy book x or you will burn, believe Jesus died for your sin or you will burn for eternity. When an nde does present this its seen as a red flag since this doesn't occur with the majority of other ndes. The most we have are subtle religious correlations. However NDEs do present us with certain philosophical dilemmas when it comes to religion.

• If NDEs are vague about religion how are we to interpret these religions ? Are we to see them as man made socio-cultural constructs ? Are we to see them as inspired by God but limited to their time ? Are we to see them as partially divine partially man made scriptures ?
  
• If NDEs prove that religions are man made we must ask what purpose the creator has behind the nde. If the creator has allowed man made cultures to negatively influence and control the world throughout history and has not intervened or communicated with humanity one must wonder what point there is in a nde being a message in the 21st century. So on one hand the NDE presents us with a deistic God who doesnt intervene and let false religions begin and on the other hand the God of the NDE seems very personal, involved in human lives, keeps tracks, feels love and joy for humans etc
  
• If one, many or all religions are truly divinely inspired why do NDES never directly point to this ? NDEs seem more concerned in lessons but not in pointing people to a religion.
  

Some may ask what difference does it make that it doesnt point to a religion. if anything NDEs show us that God is far beyond the narrow confines of religions. It makes an immense difference when we factor the fact that religions have influenced entire cultures and civilisations in good and bad ways. Religions have been used to wage war, cause destruction, control the masses, brainwash, confuse and build fear into the human subconscious. And on the good side religions have given hope to the world that suffering isnt in vain, that life has meaning & that justice and ultimate happiness exists.
For alot of people the need to connect to the transcendental is insatiable and religion provides a whole structure of beliefs that one can organise themselves on. For some this is very restricting and enforces a cultural dogma on to everyone. They may prefer a shopping cart version of religion where they take whats good for them and discard what they disagree on. For others they prefer to deny all religious concepts as dogma and cultural beliefs. One could argue that humans need the cultural clothing of customs and traditions to keep their lives going, something which they can use to relate with to the divine. Not everyone can believe in an abstract deity that they cannot conceive of in the absence of symbols such as scriptures.
Religious texts provide at the very least a gateway to which one can relate through stories of heroes, morals and metaphors of the divine. Of course none of this leads us to whether said divine being has revealed these texts, whether they are inspired but corrupted by man or fully man made. These symbols act as aids in feeling like we have a piece of the divine soul with us thus giving comfort and hope. Thus whilst some have no need for religions, for the masses religions have immense value.
So why dont NDEs prove religion ?
There are no clear answers to this (unless somebody has an nde and asks whoever they speak with to tell them in specifics what religion is from God and whats not) all we can do is speculate. The ndes that do ask or do mention a scripture are so few that we cannot form any conclusion on this.

• The simplest answer is that all religions are man made for good or bad intentions but this would of course lead us to the philosophical deist dilemma.
• Perhaps the NDEs message focuses on the lessons and ideals itself and sees scriptures and religions as redundant (even if there is a divine hand behind some) After all these are mainly symbols and cannot compare to a direct mystical experience (something fundamentalists struggle with)
• Perhaps an attempt to promote any specific faith would lead to an assumption that the nde message is about exclusivist salvation and leading to the worship of scriptures/religions (something fundamentalists struggle with)
• Perhaps this proves that religions are limited to their century and context and that we should only look to them for the universal timeless message they offer not the specifics. After all all major scriptures teach the core values that NDEs have revitalised ie love, mercy, kindness etc

Do NDEs support materialism or not ?
While the aim of this book isnt to debate the afterlife or brain hypothesis, I will say that at the time of this being written, my view on ndes is to say that I consider them a plausible source of evidence towards consciousness surviving death & the afterlife existing. This view of mine may change in time towards either side. The following are some reasons I would argue for them being plausible.
1 Veridical NDEs : Numerous NDES report out of body experiences including witnessing of events in an environment when this should not be possible. More than 100+ veridical cases have been documented. Not to mention veridical cases from across different countries which further strengthens the case. We would have to be radically skeptical to consider all of these testimonies fabricated.
2 Lucid narrative : NDERS experience a highly lucid narrative that usually doesn't end in the middle or chaotically unlike dreams or hallucinations. Their ndes tend to be structured with a beginning, middle and end where they are either told, know or are sucked back into the body. This is quite a strange experience compared to delirium, delusions, hallucinations etc.
3 Deceased Relatives : Most NDES claim to see deceased relatives rather than alive people supporting the afterlife hypothesis. We should expect a mixed cocktail of alive & deceased people appearing in ndes if this was a case of dreams or hallucinations. The population that do claim to see a mixed group of alive and deceased is quite a small proportion of total ndes.
4 Intuitive Reality : NDERS are very convinced that they are in a hyper real reality that makes this world seem black and white, like a dream/illusion as some would say. They are intuitively convinced they are in something real the way we might be talking in person, as opposed to it being just a dream. In one study its believed that nders brain recollect their nde as if it's a real world memory.
5 ESP claims : NDERS may perceive no time at all, may experience a life review such that they can feel the feelings of others and recall memories long forgotten. They may feel like they intuitively know things without needing to learn. Some may report greater vision and detail than waking life, ability to hear thoughts, instantaneously appear, be in two places at once or pass through solid walls.
5 Religious Expectations : NDES often may contradict the beliefs of many Christians, Atheists and Muslims who have varying beliefs about the afterlife. Some may be surprised to experience the things they see & are particularly surprised at the ESP abilities as these are not predicted by religions. Particularly interesting are religious conservative ndes with more exclusivist beliefs who are surprised and end up becoming more pluralist and liberal.
6 Clinical Death Scenario : The best NDE studies focus on scenarios whereby the person undergoes cardiac arrest and thus clinical death. At this time a person has no heartbeat, no breathing, dilated pupils, no light reflex, no gag reflex and EEG reading of little to no brain activity. This is consistent with unconsciousness as no blood and oxygen can fully reach the brain. Furthermore the fact that most undergoing clinical death dont report any experiences means NDEs are odd occurrences & consciousness should not occur.
7 Transformation : NDERS often are transformed in their beliefs with less to no fear of death, detachment from the material, more interest in altruism and spirituality and are impacted by their NDE for decades, remembering it far more than a hallucination or dream. They see it as the most important experience of their life.
8 Double edged sword : The fact that not everyone has an nde may support the idea of nde being more than brain activity. After all if the nde simply was some evolutionary dying mechanism we would expect everybody to have one. This point could also support naturalistic hypothesis (See below)
However there is still uncertainty regarding the nde phenomenon and further data, & studies are required to build a case that is greater than just plausible. These are some opposing reasons to consider doubt in them valid
1 Embellishment : NDEs are unverifiable and therefore we cannot verify which ndes are authentic or which ndes are embellished over time with the nders own thoughts, interpretations or exaggerations. This makes it easier for fabrications and frauds to claim an nde experience.
2 Brain Activity : Since NDES happen during clinical death or unconscious states where a persons brain can be returned to living we cannot be sure that there isnt some deeper brain activity that causes an nde. We also cant be sure than an nde isnt happening in the window where cerebral blood flow hasnt ceased or in the window where CPR leads back to cerebral blood flow. EEG machines also have certain limitations such that they cannot detect deeper brain regions due to the skulls electrical resistance. EEG spikes may occur due to muscle twitches & electrical noise which can often make it harder to differentiate whether this is due to the NDE or not.
3 Cultural/Religious Contradictions : If we keep an open mind, its entirely possible that a Western nde could see Jesus, an Indian nde see Buddha or an Indian nde see Jesus & a Western nde see Buddha. It seems this can be reconciled by the idea that ndes are customized to fit what comforts people subconsciously. Japanese NDEs for example see a bridge/river symbolizing journey to another world, Westerners a portal/tunnel. Westerners relate best to Jesus, Easterners to other figures. However some ndes provide conflicting metaphysical views. This can be an issue with some ndes if nde 1 says they were told to keep reincarnating until they reach nirvana, nde 2 says something more fitting to abrahamic faith. nde 3 says hell doesnt exist and nde 4 says they saw hell realms.
4 Double edged Sword : This point can be argued for ndes (See above) but also against ndes. Only a small percentage 10-20% of those under cardiac arrest are said to have experienced an nde. This point leaves questions as to why aren't all people experiencing an nde. Should we not expect a larger proportion say more than half of people to experience an nde ? If there is a realm beyond the material should we not expect every person to experience an nde. A low proportion may mean that the nde is some sort of brain anomaly. We only have speculations as to why all dont get an nde.
5 Future Science : Current materialistic explanations may be inadequate to explain ndes but this doesnt mean that future understanding of the brain may not yield a new theory/explanation that explains it away. Thus it remains a potential argument.
All of these points are worthy discussions on their own and can be found in various other valuable books. The above points are simply a valuable framework by which the reader may be able to take away what they value out of this book. Everything written is simply my own research into the subject & I always advise people to take it with a grain of salt unless it makes rational sense to you & appeals to your intuition.
Diving into the depths
Spirituality & mysticism can be thought of as two sides of the same coin with philosophy the ring that runs the circumference of the coin. While spirituality deals with the human aspects such as soul, spirit, ego, morality & purpose, mysticism deals with the divine aspects of things such as essences, attributes, metaphors, realities, realms, entities, space, time, substances etc. We aim to dive into the following themes in this book.
The Divine Source : Everything relevant to defining the higher power & source of existence including essences & attributes.

Consciousness & Spirit : Everything relevant to the nature of consciousness, qualia, perceptions, the spirit & soul.
Reality : Everything relevant to the nature of perception, illusion, concepts, space, time, substances, modes, forms & realities.
Spirituality & Purpose : Everything relevant to the nature of human meaning, objectives, purpose & suffering.
Morality : Everything relevant to values, ideals, ethics & morals.
Knowledge & Truth : Everything relevant to the nature of seeking truth, seeking knowledge & attaining wisdom. These include concepts such as beliefs, truths, axioms, speculations, nature of inspirations & revelations.
Awakening & Dark night of Soul : Everything relevant to the nature of materialism, spiritual awakening, seeking inner peace, anxieties, depression, remorse, angst & layers of the psyche.
Divine Sorrow : Everything relevant to the nature of the eschatological souls corruption, redemption, purification, punishment, divine justice & mercy including modes & forms.
Divine Bliss : Everything relevant to the nature of the souls destiny, ultimate peace, happiness, bliss & divine love including modes & forms.

Long ago a friend of mine moved to a remote cabin in New England to commune with nature. There was a pond on the property and, it being summer, he went for a refreshing dip every day. Summer turned into fall, and the water got colder. My friend persevered and kept up his daily swim routine. Then came the day that he ventured to the pond and saw a sheet of ice covering it. Undeterred, he found a large rock, broke the ice, and entered the frigid water.
"I learned something very valuable that day," he told me. "When Mother Nature sees fit to cover the water with a barrier that the animals can't get through...she is trying to tell you something."
When I began in astanga I erred on the side of more is better. More flexibility is better. But I eventually learned that's not so. Our joints and muscles aren't simply knots of stiffness that are to be conquered. They all have their inherent barriers and boundaries, set in place by Mother Nature. Learning and practicing each asana isn't simply about going farther into the stretch; they're also about respecting these boundaries.
The million dollar question is how does one know the difference between stiffness to stretch through, and an anatomical boundary that should always be backed away from? I would say the short answer is to trust yourself. You may see advanced students or teachers doing things and think you should do likewise. But if it doesn't feel right, or seems unwise, it's best to err on the side of caution.
For example, when I was beginning astanga I'd often watch my VHS tape of Richard Freeman doing 1st series. No doubt, Freeman is a legend in astanga, one of the most impressive practitioners ever. But I'd see him crank his neck backward when doing prasarita padotanasana. OK, we're supposed to tilt our heads likewise and crank our necks back to the max. Or so I thought. Looking closely at a photo of Freeman in this asana, I see he was actually just doing a very deep upper body backend that only made it appear he was cranking his neck. In other words, Freeman was doing the posture correctly, but I was making a false assumption about how to properly do this asana.
I had a chiropractor friend who told me that most of his yoga patients visit his office because they hurt their necks doing setu bhandasana. And I must say, when I look at Freeman doing this asana, his neck does seem to be at maximum range of natural motion. I never hurt my neck doing yoga, but there's an extremely small difference between doing setu bhandasana correctly and hurting your neck, perhaps for life. The more distal a joint is, the less it feels pain when pushed to its limits. Until snap.
I feel that the same principle applies to heat in yoga practice. Heat is a very useful part of astanga yoga, and over time I've found that the vinyasas can work like heat regulators to provide the correct amount of heat. For example, if the room is cold, a minimum of 5 suryas and perhaps even full vinyasa until one feels hot enough. But when too hot, I found it's best to back off. Though experience I found that if I get too hot, it's time to stop or take a break; if it try to power though the heat, my body will just quit on me. One time I took a class in Hawaii with one of PJ's original students, and she had us doing the entire 1st series with full vinyasa (this basically means coming back into standing after every pose and doing a full surya). It being midday in Hawaii, this cooked me quick! I bowed out of class, which at the time I felt bad about, but it was just too much heat for me.
More heat isn't better. I've seen some people hardly sweat in a room like a sauna, while I was dripping. Speaking of saunas, I recently heard Joe Rogan say that he does an extreme heat sauna every day, at some absurd temperature, just to test his limits. I have great respect for Rogan, but there was another martial artist by name of Bruce Lee who probably died because of too much heat. In any case, I now feel that yoga is much more about working well within my boundaries, rather than trying to crash though those boundaries.

I'm sure many of you have come across "trad-wife" content at some point or another online. I've been fed this content more and more lately, which had me thinking about what this "trend" means for mothers and families, and what impact it has overall for the mothers who are still "in the trenches" today. Whether it's a trend you participate in, or one you roll your eyes at, I think for the most part, it garners an emotional response from women, especially mothers, in either a positive or negative light. I also want to make it clear that "trad-wives" and SAHM are NOT the same thing at all, and should not ever be used interchangeably. These are two completely different things. A SAHM is still a working independent woman whos job inside of the home to be viewed equally as important as any work outside of the home.
I fall under the category of someone who is triggered by "trad-wife" content and generally have a pretty negative, critical response every time I run into it. But today, as I came across a video of yet another "trad-wife" influencer, who was defending her lifestyle, and call to "traditional" ways, I decided to stop and actually take a minute and be honest with what emotion I was really feeling when I come across this content. It isn't actually rage, disappointment or fear, like I tell myself it is. It's jealousy.
The truth is, my first reaction is jealousy and a sense of inadequacy that feeds off of my deepest insecurities as a mother. Jealousy for the mothers that can stay at home all day with their children, who can clean, bake, garden and cook with their little ones at their side. And as someone who is a working mum, but not by choice, I feel jealous of the extra time these women can spend with their children during these short pre-school years. I feel inadequate because I secretly fear I am failing as a mother by choosing a double income, over the financial insecurity of a one-income household. Inadequate because my house is a mess and I'm burned out from work from a job I hate by the time I get home, that I worry my children aren't getting the best version of me.
After the initial emotional response of jealousy, my logical brain kicks in and reminds myself that this lifestyle they are showcasing isn't reality. Most SAHM's aren't baking sourdough on homesteads all day. They aren't showing the 3AM wakeups or the teething drama. This isn't an accurate representation of motherhood for 95% of us. This leads me to my next emotional response, which is to then to substitute jealousy for criticism. I begin to list all the ways their lifestyle is flawed, naive and unsustainable to give myself some false sense of superiority to these women who are essentially just cosplaying.
I'm sure this reaction isn't uncommon. I feel it's a natural response for people to substitute the emotion of jealousy with criticism to justify their own lifestyles and choices that feel attacked. You could argue that the "trad-wife" movement is just that--a way for some SAHM's who may feel the need to justify their lifestyle and choices of not be in the work force, when surrounded by a world that places outside work in higher esteem than domestic work.
However, I would like to clarify that just because I feel jealous when watching this content, doesn't mean I wish I was a "trad-wife". I find the entire concept to be just as toxic as the "hustle"/"girl boss" culture they are fighting against. Not to mention, a completely misinformed and myopic view of what a "traditional" wife or family looked/looks like throughout the world. The "traditional" wife they are cosplaying as is just ONE example of a historic "traditional" family and a woman/mothers role within one. Yes, women have always been charged with domestic duties and childrearing. The home has always been where women have traditionally been taught to focus on, however, women have also ALWAYS worked outside of the home too—either on farms, factories or kitchens (etc). And women have ALWAYS outsourced childrearing to either a nanny or governess (if wealthy) or they had their eldest kids stay home and look after the younger ones. Working mothers, and hired childcare are not new concepts to the female history.
But, I do see how this trend came about. It’s an allergic reaction to the extreme push for women to get out of the homes and into the workforce. To climb the corporate ladder while breastfeeding. To pity the girl with the college degree and spit up stains on her shirt at home with unused potential. To take “equal rights” so literally we act like a man’s life or parental journey is identical to our own. Ignoring our monthly hormonal fluctuations and pretend we're fine to sit through that 2 hour meeting while popping Midol. That we add more value to society as another cog in a machine sitting in a cubicle, then managing your home and family, because that's just "sitting at home" all day, right? And maternity leave is really such an inconvenience…
Looking at both extremes, I found it funny how both sides share the same core issues/beliefs which do nothing but hold mothers, and families on both ends of the spectrum back. This is what I found were the major issues in the perception of motherhood at both extremes, when I took a step back and away from my own biases as a working mother.

1. We need to recognise that both lifestyles come with the enormous privilege many women don't have-- The ability to live off of one income is a privilege just like having enough money for childcare or family support is a privilege. For many, our family set up wasn’t a choice, it’s a necessity. The reasons to be or not to be a SAHM are not always a choice or preference. A lot of times these are hard decisions that include major sacrifices. Before you judge either lifestyle, acknowledge the privilege you might have in the CHOICE to follow either life path. A woman who HAS to work to keep her family fed, even if all she could afford were Poptarts for breakfast, is just as good of a mum as the one who made fresh sourdough that morning. The mum who has to go back to school shopping at the second hand store, and mend hand me downs to dress her kids on one income is just as good of a mum as the corporate baddie who bought her kids the trendy shoes their kid asked for. Both kids are fed, both kids are dressed, both kids are loved.
2. No matter what they say, we all love our kids, and how they turnout does NOT come down to your choice to work in or outside the home -- At the end of the day, I don’t think kids of working mums turn out much differently than kids of SAHM. I think we all know personal examples of rotten kids or adults with both types of mothers. Neither dictates your relationship with your child. As kids get older, they naturally drift away from us. The truth is we may mess up in ways we didn’t even consider. Our kids may always blame us for being overbearing by not having a life outside of the home. Or resent us for never being around because of work. Bad/toxic mothers can be found both in the home or the work force. Just think back to how the adults in our lives talk about their mothers--sometimes it was "mum had 6 kids at home, but she somehow managed to keep us all fed and cared for", or "mum had to work a full day cleaning houses, but she'd always make sure we read a book together after work". All mothers make sacrifices, no matter what type of sacrifice it is. Our kids aren't going to love or resent us for our choices to work or stay at home, but how we show up for them. Don't underestimate our children's ability to recognise our sacrifices on either end.
3. Full time domestic work and homemaking is a real full time job that hold just as much value as working outside of the home and should be treated and respected as such.-- Childcare is a full time job. Full time nanny's and daycares prove that. Homemaking is a full time job. We hire cleaners, interior designers and household staffs that prove it. Cooking, is a full time job. We hire chefs and nutritionists that prove it. So, when a woman is a SAHM does one (or more likely) all of the above jobs for her family, it’s given lesser value or consideration than someone who works outside the home? You hear “I like to get dinner ready and the house clean for my husband who worked all day he deserves to relax when he gets home”, as if you sat around watching tv all day? Just because you enjoy it, or it’s for your own benefit doesn’t make it any less of a real fulltime job. You deserve sick days and breaks throughout the day like any corporate job would...except you never actually get them. The person bringing in a paycheck doesn’t contribute a greater value to your family than you. And same goes for working mums—you already have one full time job, don’t discredit the work left at home as just “chores” that you additionally take on as “lesser value” expected tasks. If two people work outside of the home then two people need to be responsible for domestic work. These are full time jobs. Spouses cutting the grass and taking out the trash is not equivalent to cooking, childcare and cleaning. We need to stop ignoring the home in the overall picture of a healthy family life. We all need a safe place to live that is clean, we all need to eat nutritious food, and our children NEED someone to look after them. These things have a real invaluable place in society. As a working mum, I'm finding more and more how hard it is to bridge that gap, to manage two workplaces essentially, the home AND the outside work. All attention and focus goes to work outside of the home, but the home life doesn't just sustain itself. We are neglecting the importance of our domestic life in favour of the outside working life. This goes for both working mums and SAHM's. We need to stop ignoring that piece of the puzzle if we want to create the complete picture. As it stands now, most working mums cannot afford help in the home which is effecting our mental and physical health--SAHM's don't get any sort of financial nest eggs or assistance at basically working for free, which makes them more vulnerable to abuse.
4. Men need to be included in the domestic work in a way that sets them up for success. You are doing your family or spouse more harm than good by taking it all on yourself. -- By not giving dads a real opportunity to be involved in domestic duties you are depriving them and the children the full depth of a parent child bond and perpetuating that domestic life isn’t as valuable as outside work, or that domestic work is strictly a "woman's" domain. If you are a SAHM, and your job is to care for the house and kids, you just worked a full 8 hour day, just like your spouse. Because you stayed at home all day, most likely the basic chores have been done (though, kids are wild and even things like unloading a dishwasher can't be tackled), and maybe dinner is cooking. That alone is taking so much off of your spouses plate. Every family situation is different, every work situation is different, however, both you and your spouse are entitled to decompress a little after a full day. Dads need to be incorporated into the childcare aspect at the very least when they come home. Maybe since you spent all day with the kids, your husband gives them a bath and puts them to bed. Or, if you are a dual income house, maybe you split the bedtime duties, giving you the chance to spend SOME time with your children, after being gone all day--and just "play time" alone isn't enough or fair. I think a big way we fall down in including men into the domestic responsibilities, is for the same reason working mothers are struggling. The workforce was never set up with women or mothers in mind, and homemaking was never set up with men in mind. Now, some people will use this as an excuse to perpetuate that it shows that "a woman's place is at home", but studies have shown that over and over again, that fathers who are more involved at home make happier, more successful children. Children gain an enormous value from having fathers be just as involved in their upbringing as the mothers. And, I argue that men also gain just as much value from this. My husband is an equal partner in childrearing, and I'm in awe to see how much he has completely flourished and grown in this role. The truth is, most of us don't find fulfillment in our jobs. It's a paycheck. But a lot of us do find fulfillment in parenting. But to my point, we aren't setting men up to be successful in these roles, because men don't always think or approach things the same way as women. How many times have we had arguments with our partners because they ignored a mess, or didn't clean/do something properly, or we had to "nag" them to follow up on a chore...I know I have. But then I decided to take a step back and change my perspective on the home and family, and look at it as almost a military or corporate environment. Women don't thrive on deadlines and assigned tasks. We are better able to multitask, switch gears. To be too hyperfocused on one thing doesn't work so well when you have so many jobs to tackle at once. But men seem to work better with structure and direction. I feel like women see the big picture, and can zoom in from there, but men need to break things into smaller tasks before they can see the bigger picture. When a man retorts with "I'm not a mind reader", they are being just as dismissive to your needs and views as you would be by saying "you should just know". The truth is we are different. We were raised different, our brains function differently...but, I've found my partner excels in the household if he is given clear directions and expectations within the household. If instead of viewing it as two separate worlds, work and home, I approach it as equal sectors of one unit. Like how accounting is just as valuable to a corporation as their sales team. We are all operating for one goal, and one greater good. If your partner works outside the home, and you stay at home, then you need to view yourself as the manager of the home and delegate accordingly. How can you help your partner in their work day, and how can they help you in yours? You are on the same team. If you both work outside of the home, then you both need to take equal responsibility for the domestic work. You are both managers of the home, how can you support each other? What does one person do better than the other? Being passive aggressive because your spouse doesn't naturally see what needs to be done like you do, doesn't help anyone. Your spouse becomes defensive, and never learns, and feels out of place in home where you have inserted yourself as manager instead of an equal partner.
5. Other people’s choices don’t discredit yours no matter what they say. -- Everything seems to be a targeted attack these days. People can’t seem to live in a way that makes them happy without you feeling threatened by it. If a woman is happiest at home catering to their husbands whims, that has no effect on your choice to be a stay at home dad. One is not a threat to the other unless you begin to feel superior to another. That the way you choose to live your life is so superior you want to control the narrative and influence personal choices of others in your life by attacking someone else to lift yourself up. I can’t help but ask myself who is benefiting from staging us against each others? Definitely not the mothers. Lumping one group as “those people” keep us divided. Each side more extreme in their POV echoed by peers and targeted social media. We have been fed that it's an "us" versus "them" issue. That one side is pushing us back into the stone age, and undoing all the progress we have made in the feminist movement. The other side feels attacked for finding joy and value in living a life at home and as a mother, that society has stopped valuing their contribution...really, society as a whole hasn't changed much in the past 40 years. The workforce has more working mothers than ever before, but work culture and regulations have not changed to accommodate that. We have to change to accommodate them. SAHM's have always existed, but we have not elevated their status to show the equal contribution they have in our society. In the end, society is still just exploiting women. A capitalistic profit driven society benefits more from more people in the workforce. I think we are all angry at the same thing, a lack of choice and a lack of respect. Women fought hard to enter the workforce and gain independence and equal rights so that we could have the CHOICE of what our life would look like. But are choices are still being under attack. Being a SAHM or a working mum is no longer a choice for a lot of us. We are being goaded into believing one is more valuable than the other, and that's just not true. If you find peace and fulfillment at home, that doesn't make you any less educated or independent of a woman. And if you love your career and thrive in your work, that doesn't make you any less feminine (because apparently we can't be feminine and work anymore according to some...) or as good of a mother. We are humans and multifaceted and cannot and should not be defined by one singular role.

This ended up being some sort of weird feminist manifesto, which isn't want I intended, but I guess I had a lot to say on the subject. I suppose I'm just scared at how well social media has gotten at dividing us. Social media isn't inherently good or bad, it's a tool for connection, but now even mothers are being pitted against each other. We all know it takes a village to raise a family, but we've pitted the village against each other. We are too busy claiming we are "under attack" from our peers, when we're just puppets--they want us to feel "triggered", and I'm glad. Because now I'm triggered, but it's not at the "trad wife" who is harkening back to a world that never existed, but at the people who are instigating this. Who are filling women's heads with this nonsense, and trying to box up our "values" or what "femininity" means...what it means to be a woman and mother. Because being a woman and mother has meant a lot of different things throughout history. We control our own narratives. We need to stop insinuating that our way is the "right" way, or that society is faltering because women are no longer "feminine" or because women want to go back to staying at home. All of this is "right", all of this is "feminine". Being a woman can mean whatever you want it to mean, and being a mother just means loving your kids and doing your best everyday.
***NOTES: I know this was a very hetero/cis centric post that focused a lot of perceived gender norms that excludes the same-sex or trans families...even single mothers. It was written as a reaction to a "trad wife" trend that is extremely hetero/cis centric, so my reaction to it is from this perspective as a hetero/cis mother. However, I know these values and views totally effect all families no matter what they look like. So, I just wanted to put it out there that I see you, and would love to hear your voice on this as well.
Also, a lot of sweeping generalities in here as well. These are broad sweeping statements and generalisations based on societies general assumptions about genders and family life. Right, wrong or myopic, it's what we live in. My point in all this IS that every family and every person is unique, and that we can't keep functioning under the assumption that there is only one way or one family dynamic out there.

Artificial intelligent beings feature prominently in much of science fiction, but I always wonder, would we actually create them? Given the current fear of the existential risk of artificial intelligence, I don't see that that must necessarily happen.
While so-called "artificial intelligence" (AI) may surpass the human brain in computing power, it only imitates intelligence and blindly follows its programming. Synthetic intelligence (SI), on the other hand, has conciousness, intent, and qualia (that is, it experiences its existence in an individual manner). SI, by definition, therefore will have or develop goals independent of those of its creators.
Creating an SI is a vast undertaking that no single person, however rich, can achieve. Look at cancer research or manned space flight. The amount of manpower and money necessary for such an achievement requires the willingness of a whole society to pour a significant portion of their resources into it and relinquish other goals (education, health care, etc.). For that, the whole society has to develop in a direction that they perceive the creation of SI as a necessity or a significant advantage.
In a future world, where synthetic intelligences exist, to what purpose will they have been created, if it cannot be guaranteed that they will be willing to perform their intended tasks?
What would the advantage be that a large part of a future society might see in an SI that, basically, cannot be relied upon to do what it was created for?
I don't think mere scientific curiosity is enough. As the example of human space flight clearly shows, money intensive research is dependent on political decisions that rest on the situation of a society as a whole.
* * *
As a side note, when I was a teenager I was intrigued by the 1965 short story "The Accident" by Stanislaw Lem, in which a robot goes climbing without any apparent reason (that is, without being programmed to do so) and falls to its destruction. The protagonist, Pilot Pirx, believes that the robot "undertook the endeavor of its own free will, acting as an alpinist looking for a difficult climb". That short story beautifully illustrates the problem of the autonomy of SI.

This is in response to a couple of posts from the past week regarding generative AI but long and late enough I figured a separate post makes sense.
I'm a songwritemusic producer who has been pretty deeply involved in these conversations for the past year. Below are insights I've gleaned. You can also join me at artistsresist.org where you will find my more or less monthly articles on generative AI and techsploitation. You can subscribe for free or (if you’re able to and want to support this work) support Artists Resisting Exploitation (ARE) at various tiers.
That said, we don’t actually need a single leader. The scope and reach of Big Tech is so great that no single person can seriously take this issue on and win. Moreover, elected officials like Senator Chuck Schumer have too much of a vested interest in our failure (including too many personal ties to Big Tech). Therefore, despite the fact that most people think stealing from artists to train generative AI on copyrighted work is wrong, the government continues to delay real regulation and to cater to Silicon Valley and Wall Street (fintech).
What’s working, nonetheless, are the efforts of and solidarity between many artists, including visual artists affiliated with the Concept Art Association and Create Don’t Scrape, writers with the Authors Guild, well-known musicians with the Artists Right Alliance, the Recording Academy, the Human Artistry Campaign, and (I like to think) the very grassroots work of Artists Resisting Exploitation (ARE). All of these groups fight for artists’ copyrights.
Note that there are groups like Fight for the Future (which is affiliated with Union of Musicians and Allied Workers (UMAW)), which are actively anti-copyrights but not always upfront about this. (Creative Commons and Electronic Frontier Foundation are also anti-copyrights and have aligned with Big Tech corporations’ “fair use” defense of scraping copyrighted work to train generative AI models.) However, for self-serving reasons, these anti-copyrights organizations are the groups academia (full of pro-scraping, Big Tech-funded researchers), the government, and tech policy groups and think tanks often turn to for “artists’ perspectives.”
In general, I suggest avoiding AI bros and focusing on uniting with likeminded artists. I think this is a better use of time and has more of an impact than attempting to convince those who put profits over people, including those who are paid to promote generative AI, invested in generative AI stocks, or employed by exploitative gen AI companies, to do what is right.
I firmly believe that if the vast majority of artists, who tend to care about protecting copyrights, band together, we can and will get through this. Popular generative AI models could not exist without us. In essence, these corporations and their users are dependent on us. But oppressors have historically (and possibly as a defense mechanism) long disrespected and despised those they’ve exploited. This is no different. Still, they only win if we give them our power by being complacent. I personally love art and artists too much to stand by while something that is so precious to my existence and to that of humanity is grossly devalued. No art form that can be digitized, however unique or innovative, is safe. Groundbreaking work that an artist has devoted years to creating can be pilfered, increasingly, in a matter of minutes.
We need solidarity between artists of all disciplines. For musicians, this means not using AI models that were created by exploiting visual artists (for example, for album art), writers, voice actors, etc. Fairly Trained has ethically created alternatives, and we should use those if we use gen AI at all. We also need to consider ways we, like visual artists, can poison models by supporting the development of tools similar to Glaze and Nightshade.
In the short term, we must speak up on social media, leave comments on articles and videos, and (most importantly) contact elected officials. In-person advocacy is especially effective. You can find your state arts advocacy group and get involved by meeting with or, if that’s not possible, calling or emailing your local and state elected officials. For Californians, these would be Californians for the Arts and its lobbying arm California Arts Advocates. In April, ARE joined other arts groups in meeting with the offices of seven elected officials in Sacramento. Remember, elected officials want to be re-elected.
Californians for the Arts’ and California Art Advocates’ rallying cry this year is #ArtWorkIsRealWork. Spread the word and post this everywhere, please. There is nothing wrong with wanting to make a living from work that you love and that you have devoted years to studying. Moreover, the fact that AI companies need and profit from your work is evidence of its value. There is something wrong with seeking to profit from another human being’s nonconsensual, unpaid, and (therefore) coerced labor.
Again, although there are advocacy groups, this is an all-hands-on-deck moment. Fighting Big Tech corporations that have seemingly unlimited wealth to throw at corrupt government officials all over the world—much of it, ironically, gleaned through exploiting artists—is exhausting extra work nobody asked for. They hope we will tire of it and give up. Those at the forefront of this struggle need to know that there are others who can take the baton when we need a break. I think I can safely say nearly all artists doing advocacy work on this issue would rather be making art. But we see a world in which that will be, increasingly, difficult as our works are stolen to line the pockets of the wealthy and then used against us to force us out of creative industries. So, if you love your art and art, in general, please do your part.

Good afternoon,
NATS has really gotten into my head. I'm itching to use it for my next project.
One thing that comes up though - the 1M default max-message-size. If I were to move to replace all the other communication stacks and standardize on NATS (as that seems really cool from a decoupling & reliability perspective) - what do I do, for example, with a reporting service? It's pretty easy to hit a 1M payload for a large data fetch - a few thousand objects or events, very likely to happen.
I'd rather not:

• increase the default max message size - that is just kicking the can down the road.
• use an external S3 bucket, as the goal is to reduce complexity and # of services. And using a bucket store for a basic JSON payload (e.g. a list of events in response to an API request) seems silly.
• force the client to page it to multiple requests (if possible)

I looked at object store - but ACL for that seems.. not straightforward. How do I prevent client B from being able to read, modify or delete client A's response? "security by obscurity" isn't security. Hiding it under a GUID key and hoping another client won't stumble across it won't pass a security audit.
Unfortunately, that is one thing that REST seemed to make much simpler. GET /api/reports?year=2023 - I don't have to worry about if it's a 100MB JSON output, I just stream it out.
I'm thinking that an object store bucket with a fairly short TTL and locked down permissions for users is the answer.. but I can't find any documentation on how to set a user's PUB/SUB permissions appropriately. Something akin to an _INBOX prefix would be nice..? (Give clients the ability to read their response, and delete it when done - otherwise TTL will clean it up eventually)
Some client flavor functions around such a thing would be awesome! (like the request/reply - from what I understand it's technically just client sugar on top of basic messaging).
Anyone else run into this? how did you solve it?

We could hit $100+ next week. Just DO. NOT. SELL.
Past results are not indicative of future results, BUT if we continue with the same trajectory and essentially double the value each day we could be hitting close to $100 by next Friday…
Example-
This week: (Today)Thursday we close at $1.50 Friday we close at $3.00
Next week: Monday: $6 Tues: $12 Wed: $24 Thurs: $48 Fri: $86
This could also happen faster due to the short squeeze that’s about to pop off. 95% of the shares MUST be purchased from us and we dictate how much we will settle for. Don’t settle for spare change.
$100+ is easily days away if we hold 💎🙌🏼

For context, I’ve been with my company for over two years, progressing from interviewing, to quality assurance, and since April of last year, to management of our office. My direct boss is the Senior VP of the whole company. However, I’m increasingly concerned about my boss’s blatant disregard for the Employment Standards Act (ESA) in Ontario.
Issues:

1. Posted Policies: There are no posted policies regarding disconnecting from work or electronic monitoring (this was what my previous position, prior to management was all about), despite my repeated reminders the last two Januarys reminding him that policy updates must typically be done before February. Employees are emailing/texting me outside work hours for extra shifts, which is disruptive. While I have been told to inform them that doing so is inappropriate and could lead to consequences, I also know as there is no posted policy, so technically speaking, I do not think that I have much of a leg to stand on without the policy being in place.
   
2. Three-Hour Rule: My boss often ignores the three-hour minimum pay rule. For instance, employees called in for training sessions or meetings under three hours are not compensated as required. I’ve devised a fair workaround for the training by letting them start work 15-minutes before the shift and paying them the 0.25 for training on the new project, but it does little to remedy the lost hours of prior training sessions. To be clear, my boss has said in person and emails that the three-hour rule is to be honoured for any work-related duties, yet does not actually honour it himself.
   
3. Scheduling: I build schedules, sometimes leading to unpaid hours if shifts are canceled on the day of. My boss insists I only claim the exact hours worked, not the three-hour minimum, which feels exploitative. For example, if I start building the schedule at 3:45PM and I finish at 4:30PM, the shift starts at 5PM and ends at 9PM, then I am allowed to claim 5.25 (345-9) total hours. BUT If the shift at 5PM is canceled, I am only to claim 0.75 for the schedule. It should be 3. Although I have been doing the job for over a year now, he has only changed how I pay myself about 7 months ago. Would I still be able to claim the last 28 weeks of unpaid wages as my duties were not consistent for a straight year? The result of the above scenario is that I lose roughly 8 hours a month on my paychecks (roughly $180 a month).
   
4. Performance Reviews: Last year’s reviews were only compensated for one hour, though employees are owed three. I have emails directing me to ignore their requests for the remaining hours. My boss has explicitly stated that anyone working for any amount of time where in the shift is cut short is given three hours, but explicitly sent an email telling us to only give them one for the performance reviews, for which people are still emailing us asking about the remaining two hours almost a year later.
   

My Concerns: No HR department exists within the company to address these issues internally. I’m worried about potential retaliation or misinterpretation if I report these violations.
He has a habit of twisting words, and I fear he will accuse me of blackmailing him if I bring this up again.
Would it be advisable to contact the Ministry of Labour to report these infractions?
How should I proceed given the lack of internal HR support and my boss’s manipulative tendencies?
With no proper HR at the company, would it be an appropriate to contact the executive assistant to the president and ask them who I should speak to within the company to report these infractions?
Thank you in advance.
Edit1:fixed formatting issue with text Edit2: removed duplicate paragraph Edit3:fixed typos

Short story it never arrived so yeah. So i guess i need to just find it and buy it from my country then. The only problem I can't find it. So if anyone from Serbia is selling those devices let your brother know 😊. And another question what else do i need for the device? What will benefit more? And one last question can this device example turn on/off a TV like does it have radio signals?

Hello,
First time Reddit poster. Started watching in 1998 and wound down in 2011.
I read/hear a lot about how Shawn Michaels/HHH pulled a last minute swerve for Shawn to win the European Championship over The British Bulldog at the 1997 One Night Only PPV. The detractors say that although Shawn's excuse was that he was doing it for "heat" and to make the title mean something, he didn't really do much with it and treated it as an afterthought joke. The D-X vs Hart Foundation feud happened a little bit before I started tuning in, but over the last 10-15 years, especially with more "shoot" interviews available, books/articles published, etc. it's possible the narrative of what happened at One Night Only is a mischaracterization of Shawn Michaels.
What We Know: In 1997, The British Bulldog aka Davey Boy Smith -- a member of the heel stable, The Hart Foundation -- is the European Champion and is always expected to "go over" whenever the WWE travels to Europe. 9/20/97 is the One Night Only PPV, in Birmingham, England.
What has been said by a few sources: Up till the day of the show, Davey was under the assumption that he was not going to lose the title to Shawn Michaels, since England is obviously within Europe. What made this event extra special is that there had been a plan for him to be escorted to the ring by his sister who was sadly stricken with a terminal illness. There would've then been cheers all around for this valiant hero and the 11,000 fans would then be sent home happy with a feel-good story.
Here is where things get murky: The same sources state that Shawn and HHH decided to pull a fast one on Vince McMahon an hour or so before it was show time. The two demanded that Shawn beat Davey for the European Championship. Has Shawn or HHH ever independantly admitted that it was in that short of a turnaround and that the two went behind Davey's back? Even Jim Ross says that Davey was with Shawn and HHH when the idea to change the finish was pitched and blames Davey for not "protecting himself." That means Davey agreed and was not forced. As mentioned earlier, the excuse that has been used is that Shawn felt that it would be a great way to draw "heat" since there was very much a pro-Davey crowd watching and so the return match in the Spring of 1998 (when they headed back to not just the UK, but this time in Manchester which was The Bulldog's billed hometown) would have a massive redemption arc which would be that much greater for the fans. In the meantime, Shawn would have good matches and elevate the European Championship, something, quite frankly, he was better at than Davey. It ties into the reasoning that has been given in that Shawn (arguably being at the peak of his ability), would be able to make that title mean something (like what he did for the Intercontinental Championship).
However, because of the backstage Kliq stories which continue to come out, the manner in which Shawn later dropped the European Championship, and the fact that there really was no return match for Shawn vs. Davey since both were out of the WWE by then, many fans have pointed to this PPV as an "obvious" example of the weight Shawn and HHH carried backstage. In recent shoot interviews, Bret Hart (who would leave the WWF six weeks later in spectacular fashion) has said this match was simply a way to make Davey and the rest of the Harts look foolish.
What you can't deny is the heat in the arena, after the match, was white-hot.
Okay with that background established, let's look to see why I feel that what happened at the One Night Only PPV is a mischaracterization of Shawn Michaels:

• The Hart narrative.
  • It's hard to put a lot of stock into "he said, she said," but in case you want to take it as gospel...in Page 256 of Shawn's book (yeah, yeah, I know) Heartbreak & Triumph, he details that Davey was on board with the plans -- with no mentions of if it was pitched an hour before or days earlier. If fans are ready to believe Bret, why can't they leave wiggle room for Shawn?
    • While Shawn certainly has excuses (and apologized) for his sophomoric hijinx and makes himself sound like a creative genius, Bret has consistently come off as two things: 1) Making himself look heroic 2) Making himself look like he's had a perpetual gloomy cloud over him at every stage of life. His book, My Real Life in the Cartoon World of Wrestling, briefly mentions this match and some nonsense of how he "saw the light die in Davey's eyes that day, darkness seeping into a heart that was giving out." Statements like that (and ones he continues to say) are dangerous, essentially telling fans that Shawn is partly responsible for the death of Davey Boy, stemming from this match. Huge mischaracterization.
  • Bret points to how Davey told everyone he expected to win, promised everyone that he was going to win the match for his English fans and especially his sister...as proof that Shawn swerved plans at the last minute just to needle the Harts ("It was designed to make us all look stupid." -- Inside The Ropes ).
    • What? There's literally thousands of instances where wrestlers lose in their hometown and use real life to push stories. And finishes change all the time. The new storyline made long term sense and Vince/Creative agreed. It could have been great, but no one expected Bulldog to quit six weeks later because of the Screwjob. No one expected Shawn's back injury to happen a couple months after that.
  • Diana Hart Smith (Davey's wife and Bret/Owen's sister) in 2012 said, regarding the changed finish, you "have to do what you're told." However, she is not credible, by Bret's own words, stemming from his reaction to a largely fictional biography on the Hart Family, written by Diana (Under the Mat).
• Davey was still booked to look strong, despite losing.
  • The RAW before the event, Davey had his knee "injured" from chair shots by HBK/HHH. And yet Davey still didn't "quit" when locked into the Figure Four at the PPV (even with HBK getting help from all the members of D-X). The match was stopped, akin to Stone Cold vs Bret Hart at WrestleMania 13. Diana Hart Smith even got involved in the post match antics with Chyna.
  • I don't believe, for a moment, the Hart family -- especially Bret -- didn't fully agree to how it all precisely happened especially when you're getting non-wrestlers involved inside the ring. If they wanted to change it, they could've.
    • There's been no mention from Bret about going to bat for Davey and them getting rejected.
• Bret Hart and the Hart Foundation still had a lot of backstage influence.
  • This wasn't Savio Vega or Dean Douglas eating an unnecessary pin. There is an established history of the Harts wanting to do things their way. Bret was World Champion and by far the highest paid wrestler on the roster so although Shawn had stroke, Bret certainly did too. And Davey had been with the company and had success far longer than Shawn (though in interrupted stages). DQ/Countout results are a common occurrence for situations where two powerful wrestlers/factions don't want to "job" to one another. In fact, the 10/6/97 RAW had Bret changing a finish where he was supposed to eat a pin from HHH (via HBK interference) into a Countout.
  • Yes, certainly, maturity was something Shawn and HHH lacked but you have to remember that unlike the Harts, they were not nepo-babies raised in the industry. And they were much younger (Shawn is 8 years younger than Bret whereas HHH is 12 years younger). Even Davey could be considered a nepo-baby since Dynamite Kid was his first cousin and he debuted in the WWF largely because Stu Hart cut a deal to include his son-in-law.
• Bret's possible thought process
  • My opinion (yes, speculation) is that Bret knew he was out the door and so he didn't care too much about what happened to Davey's European Championship since he had his own issues he was dealing with, regarding WCW contracts, Wrestling with Shadows, and dropping the World Championship. He mentioned how stressful all that was. What is fact though is that Davey wasn't someone Bret held in high regard. From talking about him not being able to construct matches, to being under the influence, to personal life issues, to even forcing Davey to cut his long braided hair because according to Davey's family, Bret said it was starting to look too much like his (even though it wasn't the same type nor color).
  • I also feel that with everything that happened between that period, and to Brian Pillman, Owen, and Davey dying very young, it understandably left an awful taste in their mouths. It all gets magnified a bit. Then add that Bret's time with WCW wasn't really anything extraordinary (for his standard), and his constant reminding us of how Goldberg ended his career makes me believe that there still is a grudge with HBK/HHH which will never truly go away. And unlike Shawn who seemingly has moved on, Bret hasn't. Which is why he keeps establishing the narrative that the Hart Foundation was always in the right and the D-X was always in the wrong.
• Finances
  • 1997, the WWF was in peril. House shows and merchandise were selling, but PPVs were not. Having a swerve on a PPV makes the next one "must see TV" (again, this was a world before streaming). In this instance, the next time they came to England. Nitro was still beating RAW.
• Storyline
  • Shawn had only recently turned heel (after SummerSlam, a month earlier). The plan was established from back then to have a heel Shawn face Austin at WrestleMania XIV. This was an era where there really was only one major show per week (and some on tape delay) and most fans did not have internet access at home, so establishing quick, obvious heat was important. What better way than to "screw" Davey in front of his fans and family? Beating Davey in the USA wasn't going to do it because, remember, Davey was a heel in the USA. 9/29/97 (two days later) Davey faced Vader in New York. Vader was about to beat him clean and then the Harts stormed in and used weapons on Vader, resulting in a DQ.
    • If not beat Davey, a former Intercontinental Champion, then who? The talent roster was quite thin and a memorable Undertaker program was upcoming. Also, Shawn had not had a singles belt since Feb 1997. Nevertheless, the ratings jumped towards the end of 1997.
• Defending the European Championship
  • How many of you remember Davey ever defending the European Championship on RAW or a PPV? From the moment he won it on 2/26/97, over the next seven months, he defended it only four times on non-house shows. Even if you include house shows, the vast majority of the defenses were in the USA so it was hardly a Europe-only belt. All the four RAW or PPV matches ended in DQ/Countout type finishes. I'll be honest, I haven't watched every single one of those matches but I do see that he beat HHH via pinfall, as one of his first defenses on 2/28/97. Davey regained the belt on 10/26/99 after he came back, but lost it six weeks later on 12/12/99 as he started spiraling, defending it only a handful of times on TV.
  • Shawn, unlike Davey, really could make that belt mean something so I do believe the Manchester return match in the Spring of 1998, after he dropped the World title to Austin, would've been big (not unlike Hart vs Bulldog at SummerSlam 1992). Even his most ardent haters will admit to HBK's talent. Yes, he dropped it to HHH in a comedic fashion on 12/11/97 but what was the alternative? With Bret leaving/gone and Shawn in a program with The Undertaker (who didn't need the European Championship since he was about to face Kane), as a World Champion (earlier than he thought he was going to be -- Screwjob plans were hatched later than Sept) him randomly losing the European title would've made him look bad even if it was lost in an underhanded fashion. Losing it to Owen could've been a possibility but Owen would win the Intercontinental Championship on 10/5/97 so that wouldn't really make sense neither. That said, the two of them faced one another on 10/20/97 in a title for title clash (No Contest). Owen later beat HHH for the European title on 2/26/98 (and then lost it back) and the two later had a WrestleMania XIV match for it. So dropping it to HHH made sense. Look at the roster back then and tell me who an alternative could have been?
  • Shawn gets a lot of heat for not defending the European title as often as some feel he should have. But as of 9/20/97, the WWE didn't know what Bret was going to do. Shawn infamously won the World Championship on 11/9/97. I'm not going to rehash the backstage Montreal play-by-play but I firmly believe that if Bret stayed with the WWE for a bit longer, Shawn would have had more time to have matches for the European title. The problem is everything happened so quickly. Unlike Davey, it's not like Shawn spent seven months as European Champion and defended it only four times on TV. Shawn did defend it three times on TV but in 2 1/2 months including an epic with Shamrock on RAW on 11/3/97, before he won the World title from Bret. Between a program with The Undertaker, leading D-X, and becoming World Champion sooner than he expected, there was no time (or really justification) to defend the European title even more often, when he had a program with Austin coming (in arguably the biggest title change in history).

TL:DR Even if (big, if) the finish was changed an hour before showtime, Davey agreed to the finish (with what I believe is with the Hart family on board -- but seeing how it all played out over the next few months and years left a bad taste and narrative change). Shawn winning the European Championship was what was best for business. Therefore Shawn flexing his backstage power "just because" or "only to hate on the Harts" makes zero sense.