Rejection letter for car insurance company

Alam ko I did my best during those interviews. I researched a lot about the company, the background, the position para at least may knowledge ako and i am ready once na tinanong ako. Sobrang devastated ko right now, knowing that I got rejected again. I am crying every night, even rn, if may kulang pa, ano pa mali ko, wala na ba talaga. I was questioning myself bat ganto, baka bb talaga ako. I know to myself naman that i am qualified for the job. Gusto ko nalang sabihin na can you give me a chance that I can prove that I am well-suited for the job/position. Everything can be learned naman just give chance lang.

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.

Income - 63k per year with benefits Own a car, pay for health/car insurance and have no debt.
Savings - 17k, with another 1k coming from tax returns
Location - NJ
Preferences - around $1300 per month, studio or 1 bedroom apartment. I want to live alone, but I don't mind roommates if I can't afford that. Has to be within at max 40 mins within driving distance of my work.
Pets - I just have a cat.
My options - I usually see $1300 - 1800 for studio or 1 bedroom apartments in areas I've looked at. For roommates it's $900 - $1500 Best deal I've seen for studio was $1300, but it wasnt available yet. The average price i see is usually $1400 per month for studio apartments. Average price i see for 1 bed room - $1600
With roommates best I've seen was - $900 Average price is usually $1200
Is $1400 per month doable for my income? Or should i pursue renting with roommates from my choices?

My wife just got a letter of offer for a new job. I've read all 16 pages and there's a really bizarre clause I haven't seen before, so I'm curious if it's normal and if it's regularly enforced.
Essentially, it says that after the employment ends, whether because she quit or gets fired, she's not allowed to work for a competing business in Queensland for 12 months.
Queensland can be downgraded to SEQ if the court deems it unreasonable, and again to just Brisbane if the court deems it unreasonable.
12 months can be downgraded to 6 if found unreasonable, and then to 3 if found unreasonable.
To put this in perspective, that would be like quitting Hungry Jack's and not being allowed to work at any fast food place in Queensland for a year.
My wife says that in this job people swap companies all the time so it probably isn't enforced and they might just be including it on the off chance they want to enforce it, but I'm curious if anyone has seen it enforced or seen it in a contract at all.

I'm an OLD learner. Quit trying to learn to drive a long time ago but I am required to try again after many years!
Anyway, I was looking at insurance on moneysupermarket and it seems that whether I choose a level1 Insruance car like a little mini, or something more powerful and sporty (in a 32 insurance group) my insurance is the same?? (around £1500)
Am I being stupid? Doesn't seem to make sense but that's how it looks
Also, as a side note, i'm confused why the quotes are all quite a lot lower than when I checked about 3 months ago. Again, doesn't really make sense but back then, no matter what car I put in (like an Aygo or some other insurance1 car) the quotes were always around £4000!?
Again, doesn't make sense but I know NOTHING about any of this stuff.

112 Operator
911 Operator
A Story About My Uncle
Action Henk
Age of Wonders II: The Wizard's Throne
Age of Wonders III
The Amazing American Circus
Antagonist
Archangel: Hellfire - Fully Loaded
Ashampoo Photo Optimizer 7
Aurion: Legacy of the Kori-Odan
Awesomenauts Yogscast Pack - Coco Nebulon
Awesomenauts Yogscast Pack - Rocco
Awesomenauts Yogscast Pack - Skolldir
Awesomenauts Yogscast Pack - Ted McPain
The Bard's Tale
Battlerite DLC: YogYog Bear Mount
Bionic Commando
Blockstorm
Boundless
Breach & Clear
Broken Age
Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons
Car Mechanic Simulator 2018
Chime Sharp
Citizens of Earth
ClusterPuck 99
Cook, Serve, Delicious! 3?!
Corridor Z
Crashlands
Crusaders of the Lost Idols - Elite Starter Pack
Crying Suns
Cursed Castilla (Maldita Castilla EX)
Dagon: by H. P. Lovecraft - The Eldritch Box DLC
Dandara
Deadly Sin
Deadly Sin 2
Dear Esther: Landmark Edition
Defend Your Life: TD
Deponia: The Complete Journey
Draw Slasher
Drawful 2
Driftland: The Magic Revival
Dungeon of the Endless
Expeditions: Viking
Figment
Figment Soundtrack
The Final Station
Fury Unleashed
Go Home Dinosaurs
Going Under
Golf With Your Friends - OST
GRIP: Combat Racing Artifex DLC
Guns of Icarus Alliance
Guns of Icarus Alliance Soundtrack
Guns of Icarus Alliance Yogscast 2017 Costume Pack
Gurgamoth
Headlander
Hector: Badge of Carnage
Hexologic
HIVESWAP: Act 1
Idle Champions of the Forgotten Realms -- Celeste Starter Pack
The Interactive Adventures of Dog Mendonça and Pizza Boy
Iron Danger
Jurassic World Evolution - Deluxe Dinosaur Pack
Last Word
Legacy of Dorn: Herald of Oblivion
Lion Quest
Love Letter
Lust for Darkness
Lust from Beyond: M Edition
Main Assembly
Mimic Arena
Ministry of Broadcast
Mirage: Arcane Warfare
Moon Hunters
NASCAR Heat 2 - October Jumbo Expansion
NecroWorm
Neon Drive (Steam)
Neverout
Neverwinter Feywild Starter Pack
Nex Machina
No Time To Explain Remastered
Offensive Combat: Redux!
Old Man's Journey
On Rusty Trails
Orbital Racer
Out of Reach: Treasure Royale
Out of the Park Baseball 18
Pale Echoes
Pandemic: Roles & Events
Pandemic: The Board Game
Pathway
Pikuniku
Post Void
Radio Commander
Rakuen
Raw Data
Remnants of Isolation
Renegade Ops Collection
Roarr! Jurassic Edition
RPG Maker 2000
RPG Maker VX
Sanctum 2
Say No! More
Scanner Sombre
She Remembered Caterpillars
Shing!
Silence
Slinger VR
Space Gladiators: Escaping Tartarus
Spectrum
Steel Rats
Super Raft Boat
SuperLuminauts
Supraland
SYSTEM SHOCK: ENHANCED EDITION
Tales from Candlekeep: Tomb of Annihilation - Asharra’s Diplomat Pack
Tales from Candlekeep: Tomb of Annihilation - Birdsong’s Entertainer Pack
Tales from Candlekeep: Tomb of Annihilation - Dragonbait’s Dungeoneer Pack
Tales from Candlekeep: Tomb of Annihilation - Tales of Artus Cimber’s Explorer Pack
Tannenberg
Team Fortress 2 badges - Mandrew's Munificent Mug and Israphel's Eleemosynary Expression
Team Racing League
Telefrag VR
Telltale Texas Hold'em
Tesla Effect: A Tex Murphy Adventure
This War of Mine
Tiltagon
Tiny Echo
Tooth and Tail
Tormentor X Punisher
Toy Odyssey: The Lost and Found
Treasure Hunter Simulator
The USB Stick Found in the Grass
Wanderlust: Travel Stories
Wandersong
War for the Overworld - Yogscast Worker Skin
Wargroove
Warhammer® 40,000: Dawn of War® - Game of the Year Edition
Warhammer: End Times - Vermintide
WARSAW
We Are Alright
West of Dead
World to the West
X-Morph: Defense + European Assault, Survival of the Fittest, and Last Bastion DLC
Yoku's Island Express
Zeno Clash 2
Zombie Night Terror
I also have Humble Choice leftovers from the following that I haven't sorted through yet:
APRIL 2020 HUMBLE CHOICE (Driftland, Turok 2, Truberbrook, Shoppe Keep 2, Capitalism 2)
APRIL 2021 HUMBLE CHOICE (Main Assembly, Rock Of Ages 3, In Other Waters, Aven Colony, Simulcra I+II, Colt Canyon, Skully, Popup Dungeon)
AUGUST 2020 HUMBLE CHOICE (Hello Neighbor + Hide And Seek, Littlebig Workshop, American Fugitive, The Coma 2, A Case Of Distrust)
DECEMBER 2021 HUMBLE CHOICE (Beyond The Wire, The Survivalists, Lacuna, 8 Doors, Greak, Tohu)
FEBRUARY 2021 HUMBLE CHOICE (Moving Out, The Wild 8, Train Station Renovation, Werewolf The Apocalypse Heart Of The Forest, Lovecraft's Untold Stories, Iris And The Giant, Boomerang Fu)
JANUARY 2021 HUMBLE CHOICE (Total Tank Simulator, Song Of Horror, Vampire The Masquerade: Shadows Of New York, Deleveled, The Ambassador)
JUNE 2020 HUMBLE CHOICE (Supraland, Grid, The Messenger, Felix The Reaper, Remnants Of Naezith, Overload, The Stillness Of The Wind, The King's Bird)
MARCH 2021 HUMBLE CHOICE (WWE 2k, Hotshot Racing, Peaky Blinders, Cyber Hook, Pesterquest, Boreal Blade, Ageless)
MAY 2020 HUMBLE CHOICE (Xcom 2, Niche, Swords Of Ditto, Neoverse, Horace)
NOVEMBER 2020 HUMBLE CHOICE (Darksburg, Smile For Me, Rover Mechanic Simulator, Youropa, Townsmen)
OCTOBER 2020 HUMBLE CHOICE (Iron Danger, Autonauts, Shadows: Awakening, Fantasy Blacksmith, The Suicide Of Rachel Foster, Goat Of Duty, The Uncertain, Lightmatter)
SEPTEMBER 2020 HUMBLE CHOICE (Lethal League, Fun With Ragdolls, Evoland, Yooka-Laylee And The Impossible Lair, The Occupation, The Shapeshifting Detective)
SEPTEMBER 2021 HUMBLE CHOICE (Atomicrops, Heaven's Vault, Swag And Sorcery, Fort Triumph, Orwell: Ignorance Is Strength, Framed Collection)
My region is North America.

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.

Articles / Timeline

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, wherin 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.
  

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.

Hey everyone,
My mind is set on buying a used Tiguan within the EU. As I'm buying it with my company, my top limit is 24000€, so after tax returns and import duties it should come down to 20-22k€. I'm not a car guy and I'm a bit confused with all the nuances between the available models and production years. Is there a guide to everything? Or could someone explain this to me?
What yeamodel is the best option?
What are some things to look out for when buying a Tiguan?
Which EU country has the cheapest Tiguans? Where to look for them?
Any other tips?

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.

We got married Friday the 10th of May!
On the day, everything that could go wrong in the morning, went wrong. My HUSBAND had to take our dog to a dog hotel to spend the night, he calls me from the car almost in tears that he didn't like dropping him off. He was supposed to stay there one night cause we were sleeping at the venue. We agreed, he turned back to pick him up.
My hair ended up not being exactly what I wanted but make up was on point!
My husband had to drop the cake off at the venue and calls me again, that our pillars and vases for the ceremony had not been delivered.. Call the company and it got delivered. My friend did our flowers and they were INSANELY BEAUTIFUL!
When I arrived at the venue to finish getting ready/take getting ready pics, they were still cleaning it... Room was lovely, photographer was already there cause I was late...
The little cakes that were supposed to be served with the cake/coffee and wine when guests arrived were not there... Call my mom, who was still at the hotel, to bring them from the bakery nearby.
She came and brought the cakes. Everything was ok... I thought.
We got ready and had some lovely pics. 30 minutes before the ceremony, my husband calls me, "I can't find my shoes. Did we bring them?". We slept at his parents the night before and had brought all our stuff there.. I was like "shit, I think they're still in the closet at home". He then had to drive home cause everyone was already at the venue. We live close by but it's spring and here in our province in the Netherlands, there is a lot of water and people sail a lot. So of course every bridge was open.. I sent down one of my bridesmaids to tell the officiant that he was late.
Finally, he's there (15 min late) and we can get started.
At this point I was sweating.. Music started and the bridesmaids start crying. They walk out and I'm getting ready to walk out and then it hits me.. Shit, it's happening!
I walk out (we got married outside on the water).. Everyone is looking, sun is shining, husband is crying, EVERYONE is crying actually and everyone and everything looks so gorgeous. I start crying.
Ceremony was so sweet. Our 2 year old was walking around during. Sat between us inbetween her little shenanigans and honestly it was so cute. Everyone loved it, including us.
After the ceremony was toasts and cake and pics. The venue was perfect. A beautiful renovated farm with grass and water all around. The boys played football and the girls on the swings. Couldn't have asked for a more perfect location. So family friendly and that was our main priority. Celebrating with our whole families.
Dinner was incredible and the "afterparty" was out of this world.
Everything went wrong but nobody noticed. Everyone loved it so much. People still messaging me saying how they are still on cloud 9 after the wedding.
A lot of things went wrong, it was not "perfect" but it was perfect for us.
Everyone says the day goes by fast and oh my god is that true. When we were welcoming the evening guests, I was like "what the fuck, it's already almost over". I loved and enjoyed every damn moment. Wish I could relive the whole thing.
Our photographer already sent a few sneakpeaks and the pics look incredible. I can't wait to see the rest.
I'm leaving the sub! Thanks for all the good advice. Good luck to everyone with wedding planning and ENJOY THE DAY CAUSE IT'S OVER IN THE BLINK OF AN EYE!

Hello fellow Dashers,
There's been a lot of noise about the new DoorDash tier system, particularly around fairness. As a platinum driver, I'm stepping in to clear up some misconceptions. This system isn't here to punish; it rewards genuine effort and dedication. If you're not at platinum, maybe it's time to ask yourself why.
Earning Platinum: Achieving platinum isn't about luck; it's about commitment. It's about taking the small orders along with the big ones and delivering consistently high service every single time. No cherry-picking, no slacking. The arguement about the depreciating value of your car makes no sense when 1. I’m making $70k a year picking up these $2.00 orders that you complain about and buying a new car every year and 2. You drive a 1994 Saturn.
Deserving Better Orders: We platinum drivers have proven our reliability and dedication. It’s only fair that we get first dibs on larger, more lucrative orders. We've shown up and put in the work, day after day. Why should someone who picks and chooses their orders get the same opportunities?
To those feeling left out or treated unfairly by the system, consider this: maybe it’s not the system that’s the issue. Are you really taking every opportunity to work, or are you holding out for what you deem worthy? The tier system is straightforward—work more, earn more, get better opportunities.
I invite everyone to reflect on their own work ethic before questioning the integrity of a system designed to reward those who truly earn it. Let’s discuss this openly—how are you approaching your work, and what could you do differently?
I wake up at 4am daily. (To get the most of my day and learn discipline) I listen to Audibles while driving (I’ve read 18 books so far this year while driving) I eat healthy and meal prep so I’m not out eating Chipotle on my break. (Because I’m not walking around with an Uber belly or wasting my money) I work out daily (including yoga) so I’m not having back problems or heart issues. And this is all while I have a 4.0 GPA in a masters degree program for business. (That I work on every single day)
This is YOUR life. There’s just no excuses. Stop making up excuses. It’s work. You’re the boss. So if your employee (you) wants to slack and complain; the boss (also you) should have a talk with their employee. (Which is you)
For the layman, that means to look at yourself in the mirror and have a real talk with yourself.
I hate to be blunt but there’s a reason you’re not platinum. It’s because the company doesn’t find value in your work ethics. Let’s be honest, you’d fire yourself too.

Hi, My company headquarters is in germany, and I have to travel multiple times to germany in a year, I live in UK. I need to get a long multiple entry visa. But there are no available german vfs appointments. I contacted an agency and they dont have any as well. What they are suggesting is to obtain a Netherlands business visa by submitting an invitation letter from NL branch of my company and use that. Do you think getting a year long multiple entry Netherlands visa would be okay to travel to germany? Note that I wont be traveling to netherland for business trips, only to germany would this be a problem at the immigration?

i’ve manifested pretty much everything i have wanted - i’ve been to both of the best schools in my country, have an amazing group of friends (so amazing that sometimes i cry just thinking about how happy 16 year old me would be knowing this), do not struggle for money, and i really like the way i look and dress. apart from one thing - i’ve never been in a proper relationship. this is literally all that i feel is missing from my life.
no matter how much i manifest, it just doesn’t seem to happen for me. i spent 3 years genuinely believing that it would happen one day, not worrying about it, and suddenly im 22 and nothing has happened.
im having doubts right now, because i asked out my SP - he’s a good friend, and i really thought he had been flirting with me for months, as did my other friends. i asked him out because i felt we kept missing what would be ‘our moment’ where something would happen naturally, and i know he’s a pretty shy guy himself. also, because we graduate in a couple of months, so i felt that time was running out. he initially said yes, but called me a few days ago to say that he’s thought about it and changed his mind, he doesn’t want to ruin the friendship - and he seemed genuinely surprised when i said i thought he’d been flirting with me, and said he didn’t mean to give those signs.
i see posts and videos online of people who are 30, 40, 50 and have never been in a relationship, and i worry that that will be me. i worry that even if i live in my belief that it is for me, 20 years will go by with nothing, as 3 years already have. it’s all i want in the world, but no matter what i do - love letter method, whisper method, self concept, detachment theory - it doesn’t come to me. which means i start having doubts about the law.
does anyone have any pearls of wisdom? sorry, i think i just need some reassurance, or maybe some explanation as to why this just isn’t working for me. what did i do wrong with SP? is there any hope, given that he’s rejected me and we are moving to different places in a couple months time? is it a sign from the universe that he’s not right for me?

It amazes me how city council is screwing with the market rebuild by rejecting the most qualified management company for this project.

I love how many different outfits the Owl House cast are shown in. Usually, cartoon characters are designed for iconicity, precisely so that you don't have to keep relearning how to draw the character when they wear something different. It's really impressive that The Owl House's artists went through all that.
On that note, I think Luz' 'Spellraiser' outfit from Reaching Out goes underappreciated.
Having messed with her should be a legal reason for a health insurance company to deny you coverage for life-saving surgery.
I actually prefer her keeping her shorts over the cargo pants she later wore the college jacket with, and the combed hairstyle and knuckle tapes are simple, but serve well to show a side of Luz that's not obvious, but totally there. She isn't just a courageous, self-sacrificial, heroic bisexual icon, but there are darker aspects to her. She's quick to assert judgment and even resort to violence, and we know how much trauma and depression she carries behind that sunshine demeanor. I think she also has a lot of repressed rage from those things, and the 'Spellraiser' outfit, to me, looks like Luz in the mode in which she decides to take out that rage. A mode in which no one should mess with her.
I do also like Luz' outfit at the end of Season 2. The ponytail, cargo pants and combat boots make her look like a soldier, and a bit uniform at that. To me, it says that Luz didn't want this fight, didn't want any of this to happen, but has decided that she has to see it through. This is contrasted perfectly by her literally becoming the Warrior of Peace, the Good Witch Luz she always wanted to be, later. And then that gets subverted with Titan Luz, who looks similar to the fantasy Luz had wanted at the start of the show, but more wild and real. It symbolizes her character arc and the story as a whole.

My (30m) twin is in a shitty, dangerous situation in his relationship and wants me and our family to just overlook the severity of it in hopes that everything will just be peachy.
He started talking to a girl over Instagram while living with my parents getting his life back together after a very messed up situation he put himself in with our older brother where he was in danger. My older brother is crazy, controlling, and can physically harm family but needed help and my twin thinks he’s here to help everyone.
This girl (Sally) was verbally, mentally, emotionally abusive before they had even met in person. My mom got to hear them fighting constantly but he’d defend her when anyone would ask or show concern. He shared many very worrying details with me like her telling him he’s basically a loser, and many things she didn’t like about him. He’s already so into her at the time and believes it’s a challenge to overcome that he wants to prove himself. He’s constantly sending these letters and flowers confessing his love.
They finally met where she lives multiple states away. She’s told him multiple times since then in different ways if he didn’t do these trips he couldn’t afford, that she would stop talking to him and that happened any time she’d get mad at him.
She also got him to work for their family business for almost nothing, building their website, selling, communicating with customers online. She didn’t want to keep doing it because she has her own business in shitty art you’ve seen on Instagram a thousand times. But people buy it so good for her, I guess.
When her parents and her happened to be going by where my parents live on a business trip, she asked him to get my parents to lie to hers about their relationship and pretend they were just business partners. My parents were obviously appalled and didn’t agree. They never met.
He eventually moved to her state after maybe 6 months of randomly meeting/dates and her parents being told a lie about the development of their relationship. She refused to stay at his apartment until he had furnished it. This whole time we’re warning him that these are serious red flags and sometimes he would tell her he’s not ok with them. She’d say she has trust issues and when he moved that would go away or some other insecurity or she’ll stop something, but she always got what she wanted.
His lease runs out and they end up getting a pretty expensive place together, plus he’s put a bunch of furniture and a car on credit that he can’t afford because she also tells him if they don’t on enough dates she’ll leave him. She had him get the car because she didn’t drive. You name it. So he’s drowning in debt constantly now for the first time in his life.
Then we start hearing really weird shit. He has to get a new work laptop because he spilled water on it. When my brother finally gets to see me, she tells him she doesn’t trust me and doesn’t leave him alone starting drama the entire trip. They break up and I’m getting verbally abusive messages about how I’m a loser and my relationship will never be as good as theirs. Then veiled threats through apology texts when they get back together. Turns out she poured water on his laptop. She’s been verbally abusing him, calling him a “beta cock loser”…she screamed that he was running her over when she wouldn’t let him drive away, threatened to tell police he was abusing her, he later told me they’ve become physically abusive towards each other.
One day he calls me and tells me to keep a recorded phone call he had with her. She was threatening him, telling him he needed to leave the apartment or something bad was going to happen to him. She threatened other things including using her brother’s connection with the cartel to hurt me and my girlfriend’s family in Mexico where we’re living.
This was the final straw for me and my parents. She’s been blocked everywhere and will never be near us again.
My brother, however, even forgave her for this and kept trying to work on the relationship. Later he did temporarily leave and stayed at my parents house but after she kept calling using different numbers and even emailing him telling him she’d bought self help books, he fell for it and went back.
I quit working with my brother and resigned from our company we started, and have since barely spoken to him except when he texts me he loves me. He thinks we can have a normal relationship and even forgive her too. He thinks everyone should believe her that she’s changing. They went to one therapy session. She barely started one of the audio books (I saw the progress on audible).
I feel like he has no self respect or respect for his family or my girlfriend’s, who loves him by the way. I think he’ll end up in jail, hurt, or continuing with her feeling like a loser and being abused. We’ve tried to help and been there for him countless times but he never chooses us. That’s actually something he’s been doing his whole life.
TLDR: My twin brother is being abused and is ruining his life but thinks he’s in love.

The office building at 461 Park Avenue South in Manhattan, owned by Catherine Nelson Brown of Brown Companies, secured an $8 million loan from Symetra Life Insurance Company for a refinance deal closed on April 11, 2024.

Summary of transaction details:

• Property Type: Office
• Transaction Amount: $8,000,000
• Address: 461 Park Avenue South
• Market: Park Avenue South, Manhattan
• Lender: Symetra Life Insurance
• Landlord: Catherine Nelson Brown - Brown Companies

Catherine Nelson Brown, representing Brown Companies through Gammon Enterprises, LLC, successfully secured the $8 million loan from Symetra Life Insurance for the office building located at 461 Park Avenue South in Manhattan, emphasizing the strategic financial management involved in the deal.
Learn More: Catherine Nelson Brown Secures $8M Refinance Loan For Park Avenue South Office

Just got scammed, day light robbery, caught with my pants down, raped or whatever else you want to fucking call it.. ARE YOU FUCKING NUTS THE PRICE US FUCKHEADS HAVE TO WAY TO OWN A MS3 IS THE UK IS ACTUALLY CRIMINAL.. FUCKING £715 FOR FUCKING ROAD TAX... WHEN ALL THE ROADS DO IS DESTROY CARS SINCE THEY are like the surface of the moon and or there is traffic for days 😭 AND THERE WAS ME THINKING £600 was CRIMINAL FUCK OFFFFFFF!
Imma go run myself over now, see ya in hell lads 😘
Ps. Dont even get me started on MOT or insurance.. (for you fuckers that live out the uk and dont know what I'm talking about, consider yourself lucky!)

Hi, I don't post on Reddit much, but I've been stressing over this for way too long and need some input. I'm 30 years old, single, have a BS in Physics. Since I graduated, I've worked at factories in the area for about 5 years. Two years of that I worked as a process engineering technician, the other 3 years have been spent as a machine operator. I bought into the whole "get your foot in the door" and "these places love to promote from within" rhetoric and have started from entry level, but, without naming companies, recent management changes have made that essentially impossible and the culture has shifted towards just slapping associates with write ups at the drop of a hat, negating any ability to move up or around within the company. My resume isn't anything spectacular, but I have excellent manual dexterity, observational skills, upper level math/science, computer skills stemming from being around computers since I was able to read. My college capstone was in Optics, and my senior year my team delivered a presentation at the Society of Physics Students conference in Ft. Lauderdale on testing the reliability of pulse lasers. I'd like to think I have a decent spread of hobbies as well that could at least point towards other skills and aptitudes that don't come with a certification, such as electric guitar repair including wiring, I have a project car I bought non-running and have repaired the wiring and engine parts to have it now running reliably, I recently assembled an entire Warhammer 40k army and painted it myself, and dabble in video editing/photo editing in Adobe suite for personal video game funny videos/montages or what have you.
I'm looking at relocating, but trying to narrow down where I would want to move to and find jobs there with no responses through Indeed has been emotionally exhausting. I'm afraid I've wasted the last five years working entry level when I could have been doing something else to develop skills in an industry or something. I don't have involved parents or a support system either, which makes this all the more difficult.
Thank you for reading all of this even if you don't have any input. Feels good just to get some of it typed out. 🤷‍♂️

this might be a lot and not the place for this but someone bear with me (22m) please ;_; was talking to my family about my experiences with magic mushrooms, and my grandfather (mom’s side) said something like “be careful, my brother had a schizophrenic episode after taking lsd- we found him rambling about the molecule and he had poorly drawn out a picture of the molecule on the ground.” but i don’t think there’s ever been a conversation about him having schizophrenia? anyway then he went on to ramble about the “this is your brain on drugs”/scrambled eggs commercials that would come on tv a long time ago. and given our family histories which i will elaborate on, i feel like this is a conversation that should have happened much sooner?? or maybe he was just talking out of his ass idk lmao
mental illness seems to run in the family on both sides with alcoholism being pretty prevalent in a lot of both my mom and dad’s relatives. my dad’s brother killed himself with a gun when they were in highschool and my dad found the body. ultimately he became a pretty abusive alcoholic, and he was really prone to mood swings looking back at it. I was put in therapy after my mom divorced him but we never really talked as a family. my older sister inherited his hip deformity that made him unfit for the catholic high school his brothers all went to, and a virus that caused her to have emergency surgery at birth (which left her deaf in both ears, and she stands 4’7” at 25 years old) he picked on her and our older brother a lot, and we all struggle socially. My brother kept to himself a lot until he died at 19 in a freak car accident on a road trip with his friends. Guy with dementia snuck out and got in a car with his dog at like 2am, took an exit ramp onto the highway going the wrong way right as they took the same one, spun out and all then all lights went out, so they got rear ended by a tractor trailer. that model of jeep had a defect where the trailer hitch would break and push in to the gas tank, causing an explosion. happened a couple times prior and was actually almost recalled years before (-: trucking company policy was call your superiors before anyone else, phone records reflected that phone call did in fact happen while those kids were burning to death. i dont blame that poor driver knowing what little i know about trucking and their work conditions, and i got half of a music degree paid for by my share of the settlement. i’ve always felt like that would not have happened if these were not several upper middle class suburban families who were affected by the tragedy, who could afford to pursue legal action for years against an entity like that. I think the community rallied to donate some but even then, it was a fairly affluent community
the last time i saw my dad was at my brothers funeral. i was 14 and it had been a couple years already, but he aged so poorly much i mistook him for his dad who had died a decade prior. i don’t think we spoke until a few years later on the phone, and it was the last time we spoke. he was antagonizing my mom with his usual nonsense that she was making him out to seem like a bad guy to us, and that she was secretly in love with her cousin (who she has always been very close to) — i told him to go fuck himself — that was a reccuring taunt of his our whole childhood, which i always thought was weird but never thought much of it. eventually my brother no longer wanted to visit my mom’s extended family once he had a say in it, and he never really wanted to talk about it either. a few years after my brother died, we were visiting the cousin in question, when i woke up just in time to see them kiss. I went back to sleep like I saw nothing and my sister texted me in the morning telling me she saw the same thing.
Apart from the yknow, incest, she remarried two years before my brother died- so naturally we confronted her about it and she just sort of fawned and said she had too much to drink and that it won’t happen again. they always get too drunk together at family events and I have glimpsed kissy face emojis and other suggestive language on her phone that she obviously was trying to shield with her hands.
Now I’m questioning pretty much everything. I don’t think it was long after that when my dad went missing, which my mom only noticed because he hadn’t sent birthday cards for a whole year, and within a year of that he was found in florida, dead on the street with fentanylin his blood. he was either dosed or killed himself. My family told me he died of natural causes accelerated by his alcoholism when it first happened and didn’t mention the fentanyl until very recently. Im wondering what else could they have they lied about or just have not told me because they don’t think I need to know?
One thing I try not to think too much about is something my mom said just once when I was little, about how when my sister was born the Doctors advised them not to have more kids bc it would be risky, “but I turned out fine” or something. My dad never came to visit our family on my mom’s side that i can remember, and when I was really little we spent a lot more time with her cousin doing a lot of quality time stuff; movies, mini golf, etc. The guy also drank a lot but he’s had better luck kicking the worst of his habits I guess.
JFC what do i make of all of this
….
i also sometimes feel like i’m getting schizo-baited by all of my targeted adds and articles on all of social media and sometimes i feel like im being watched so i don’t go anywhere or talk to my friends much at all. i went to a protest the other day and saw the typical undercover cop in his “hello fellow kids” getup, next day I step out of work to go to a coffee shop and the same dude in the same outfit is sitting next to the door when i go to leave. anyway please advise