Some of my notes on the instincts (kind long and rambly but could be helpful:
The instincts generally reflect our own personal prioritizes for having our needs met, but also manifests in how we try to mirror and channel those instincts in our relationships with others. Here’s a little bit about how being SX instinct first/second contrasts with being that instinct last in this regard. So we look after our own instinctual needs (as prioritized by our stacking) and we also extend the same priorities to others by default.
Dominant instinct is like a drug fix, we go after it and desire it so much that we develop a tolerance to it, become hard to please, addicted, constantly craving it. It starts out as a genuine/balanced need and we just take it too far (that’s how it ends up being our dominant, usually happens early in childhood, think way back).
Second instinct is more “natural”, something we do somewhat spontaneously, can be a “free/easy” space for us (depending on the relationship with the other two instincts), can sometimes antagonize the dominant or can work in synergy with it.
Last instinct is omitted from the “stacking”, and sometimes known as the blind spot. Definitely an area we are very close to literally blind in it. Blind to what it is, blind to how to take care of it, and blind within that domain in general.
We don’t see any of the instincts clearly, they’re all distorted, even the secondary – but given our priorities, the secondary instinct can be a place that we seem weirdly skilled and it’s often somewhat effortless. An example would be me, I went into a job for a specific technical skill and then was promoted as an HR person due to my social skills. No training or intention in that area, just happened naturally because I have a knack for understanding people and their potential.
SX FIRST/SECOND: offers and initiates SX with charged looks, sexual attraction gestures, erotic and emotional revelations, sexual provocations, opportunities to channel passions and chemistry, welcomes “fusion” in the form of opening/dissolving boundaries and expanding sense of self, can often take the first steps towards intimacy and push the envelope on boundaries. Readily allows themselves to be swept up in passions/impulses and invites others to do the same. Can also be overly provocative and always “on the hook/in heat” for SX stimulation. E.g. the codependency of SX comes in and they can be sensitive to your rejection or easily turned on and off (fickle, on and off, up and down, hot and cold, etc). Still, the idea is that they’re sensitive to your SX needs and look first for chemistry, attraction, charge, sexuality, repulsion, boundary-pushing, etc. in the relationships. Even if you aren’t in a sexual relationship they have an eye out for that and overemphasize SX. Can be prone to commodifying/objectifying their relationships and feelings towards others based on how many SX sparks fly in their company.
SX LAST - deprioritizes SX and can make others’ intimacy needs seem lost, unacknowledged. Can turn sexuality into something frigid/stiff/forced, forbidden, or shallowly physical and/or social (“friends with benefits”). Doesn’t naturally enjoy having mutual boundaries disturbed or expanded in real time and can seem overly inhibited. Lacks spontaneity when it comes to taking risks from an emotional or sexual standpoint. SX becomes an afterthought. All the energy is spent trying to focus on other instincts. E.g. if others are feeling comfortable/taken care of/boundary maintenance (SP) or involved/included/affiliated (SO) and SX boundary dissolution and sexual ecstatic peaks/intensities gets hung out to dry. This can lead to (at times) rather practical, mundane, efficient, boring, perfunctory, formal, lifeless relationships lacking much spark and charisma. And because SX is being repressed, it can come out in unhealthy and irresponsible ways.
SP FIRST/SECOND - naturally looks after your needs, asks if you are comfortable, produces physical sustenance and naturally provides practical help. Make strong caretakers and providers. (I stopped writing here, maybe others can fill this in, I'm not SP first or second but you get the idea. Often wants to engage others in more physical activities, like fitness, eating, exploring, going out. SP is often about "lifestyle" and SP-types can be classic "good life" people who wants to welcome you to enjoy their lifestyle with them, whatever that may be. They can really encourage you to indulge and enjoy life e.g. through food, drink, etc. An SP-first or second can have a "don't hold back" attitude that they extend towards others, like spending money shopping, food, making sure you're feeling good, looking good, etc. But it can be a bit shallow since it doesn't necessarily integrate SO and SX needs. Still, has a way of really looking at the basics of what you need and works in cooperation with you to have both of your SP needs addressed.
SP BLINDS - can make others feel neglected in SP, glosses over physical needs and forgets about practical needs and responsibilities. Has a childish quality about them, will tune out when SP responsibilities come up, will lose track of what you’re saying if it’s too focused on practicality, etc. Will often find it pretty boring and tedious to talk about stuff like finances, health, job, logistics, material needs, etc. Won’t naturally take into account your SP needs/state when trying to filter the experience, will sometimes lack some empathy e.g. if you’re sick they might dismiss you as being sick, or if you’re poor they might not realize how much worse off you are than they are, etc. This can lead to various forms of tactlessness because SP is such a central need that when it’s downplayed in importance, there’s this lack of understanding what really makes us tick and needs to be addressed.
SOC-FIRST/SECONDS - involves you in their life, welcomes you to concessions, events, causes, shares with you the latest news and brings you into their circle. SO is very much about larger groups, beyond one-to-one (where SX intimacy is dissipated and collective needs are met). It can be very relating/bonding/friendship-focused in the one-to-one sense but the topic of conversation quickly moves towards other people and broader affiliations. Usually a one-on-one relationship won’t be able to sustain if there isn’t a good bit of juice from SX. Therefore SOC-FIRSTS/SECONDS will often be skilled at connecting you, them, others, to a larger group. Often that’s where their relationships play out most vibrantly. Will invite you to the party, bring up something that’s going on in the community, ask about your friends, tell you about theirs, ask about your social groups, etc. You’ll quickly start to see that the energy is expanded beyond just you/them. And can also sometimes easily get into politics, since understanding the broader sphere becomes very important and central to the personality.
SOC-BLINDS: can be totally oblivious to larger groups like that and will downplay their importance. SOC blind can easily lump big groups of people together due to their blindness, will make generalizations about all social connections being a waste of time, etc (unless they can push SP or SX buttons). Can stereotype other people quite easily as faceless masses. Often won’t invite you along, won’t focus on broader inclusion, won’t be interested in coming along with you and others, just tends to draw a strong boundary, has limited energy or motivation to really participate in a community. Seemingly not as good relating to a group as a whole, doesn’t feel motivated or driven to talk to people, can easily remove themselves from group involvement and will often feel relieved. Can easily see SOC as a burden/waste of time. Too complicated, not enough independence/intimacy, just a general pain, obligation, etc. Also, can be quite tactless because there isn’t such a strong sensitivity of customs, traditions, manners, ethics, morals, politeness, adapting to others, can seem selfish, disinterested, and cold.

As a long time contributor, member, and an investor in the Donut ecosystem, I believe I have the right to express my opinion, regarding the proposed comment2vote program. Please note that it is not my intention to manipulate the public opinion, nor to incentive brigading parties against the concept. This is just a (very much necessary) con-argument, as it seems everyone's just jumping on board without considering all the variables.
I believe we are focusing on the wrong thing.
The new program aims to fight manipulation. Let me say that nothing will change in that regard, as there will always be upvote manipulation. This will still happen, could be on a smaller scale, or not.
Commands such as !tip [X] are still being abused, even though it's on a much smaller scale, with alt accounts engaging in tipping manipulation for the receivers' bonus. Sometimes "evidence" is presented to the moderation team, and allegedly nothing happens. What guarantees the governance that it will be any different with comment-to-vote?
Additionally, I firmly believe this will limit the sub to insiders (as in EthTrader active members; also approved users), at least in terms of tokenized rewards. Only insiders will know about this program, thus limiting outsider users who do not know how the system works.
Plus, the fact that only approved users would be able to upvote, kind of puts away new users or not so active users who casually enjoy to participate in EthTrader.
There is another thing the governance needs to keep in mind. The people who actually upvote in this sub are not the participants, it's the outsiders. When certain keywords are used in threads, the algorithm picks the post up and recommends it to external users. These are the ones who often genuinely engage and upvote. And we'd be penalizing OPs, by not including their upvotes in the distribution score.
I believe every project, individual, or company should focus on finding solutions. But such solutions must not be made "in a hurry".
The comment-to-vote is a rushed mechanism. I have a feeling this is something that is now being actively worked on in a rush, even though it has been under discussion for quite some time. Such a big change for the sub, and its way of functioning, should be, must be, carefully worked on, and in due time. It should not be something that must happen right away, because of external attacks.
I believe this new program will clog comment sections... again! We recently managed to tackle down the tip spamming, by removing incentives to send tips.
Lately, as you can see, comment sections are a lot more cleaner and not full of tips with ridiculous amounts, as little as under 1 single Donut. By implementing this, we would get right back to where we started.
On a not so engaging topic, I guarantee we will see comment sections full of: "[Top comment] !upvote / !uv / !up / !tip -> [Reply] Thank you bronut!".
Outside users, and even EthTrader contributors, found the tip spamming frustrating, because it degraded comment sections. Myself included.
This will happen again, if the program goes live.
One of the pro-arguments is that this will increase visibility, by taking away the financial incentive to downvote. Once more, I disagree.
Downvotes will exist any way, they always did, and always will. This is how Reddit operates. We do not know who downvotes. So even though we remove the financial incentive to downvote, people will do it either way.
No matter if it's EthTrader users or outsiders, the visibility would not be increased. I would say that visibility would be higher, if we had more GENUINE users, and actually expand the content and topic of discussion, not restricting it to a single thing, like we just did.
Look at CryptoCurrency's example. They have been dealing with upvote manipulation on a far larger scale than ethtrader, and it was a lot worse in comments. High quality comments would sit at -2 score. This isn't something that happens in ethtrader.
They always had downvotes, and yet the average mid-quality thread used to have hundreds of upvotes. ethtrader's high quality threads can barely get past 10.
The main suspects are the manipulators who have a financial reason to do the downvoting. I would argue that if the moderation team concentrated some of their efforts to tackle down these users, (PERMA) banning them from the subreddit, the mass downvoting would drastically decrease. Some users understand what I'm talking about here. EthTrader does not have more than 100 genuine, active users. You can bet on that.
Then there's the privacy aspect of the subject. Voting SHOULD BE anonymous. That's how Reddit works.
Even though I'm in favor of a transparent voting mechanism, which would allow us to see who is upvoting who, we are removing a small layer of privacy from users.
Whether it's upvoting or downvoting, (non-malicious) users have the right to keep their votes to themselves. I understand this may sound controversial, believe me I do. But in the event of having a public voting system, there are absolutely no guarantees that manipulators would be taken down.
Plus, what evidence would we have that we don't already have? Our regular users can already identify activity patterns and anomalies in the data.
Another question to address is, if two different users constantly upvote each other, assuming they're both known within the DAO and are obviously two different people who sympathize with each other, would this be manipulation? Manipulation, in this case, would be subject to the moderators' / governance's interpretation.
From a contributor's point of view, I will say this is just extra work. What I mean is people are already super stingy with their upvotes, and the (current) process is as simple as tapping a button.
Adding an extra layer of effort, such as having to type a command, will reduce the changes of OPs getting upvotes. And since the average number of upvotes per thread is already low enough, this would decrease drastically, making it not worth it to spend time creating threads (assuming they're not link submissions).
Most people would not be upvoting, which brings me to the next topic.
As a meme artist, memes are my strong point in this subreddit. It is what I post the most, and it is what earned me my fair share of DONUT-CONTRIB throughout the years as a contributor.
Implementing this system would hurt people like me the most. People who spend hours in a day on photoshop creating a meme, only to me subject to a penalized flair.
I can confirm you that my memes already earn me between 10 to 50 Donuts, rarely more than 50. Under the new system, along with the drastic reduction of upvotes due to the command requirement, I / we would earn a lot less.
Remember, Comedy flairs have a 0.10 multiplier, and according to the (new) Pay2Post fee, we need 25 upvotes to break even. I am willing to bet that we would definitely not be getting 25 upvotes under this new program. I would argue that the highest quality "Hot" thread would get probably a max of 10.
So where does that leave us meme creators? We rely on external interactions to succeed. Most of the upvotes on memes are given by outside users, users that would be out of EthTrader's system, under this new program. Not only that, but this would also drastically decrease earnings for all genuine, active contributors, and would probably make them leave.
This is getting perhaps a bit too long, I'm sorry but there's no short way of sharing this.
I believe this is just a detour in our path, or taking the long road as one would say. Cheaters will stop at nothing, some of them have been farming RCPs for YEARS, possibly relying on it in terms of income. Nothing will stop them and they will always find a way to circumvent any new rule or program.
So this would only really add an extra layer of difficulty for outsiders or new users to participate, whilst benefiting those with "groups of friends".
I want to flush out manipulators as much as the next guy, but this is not the way to do it. This would drastically reduce contributors' earnings, the subreddit's accessibility, and wouldn't be user-friendly at all.
This wouldn't be required if moderation took a more proactive approach towards trying to detect, monitor and PERMABAN manipulators, as these are the ones who have more incentive to downvote, more than any other user. By getting straight to the root of the problem, the mass-downvoting would be largely reduced. Not completely stopped, as it is a natural, organic part of Reddit and they will always exist, but reduced nevertheless.
So what am I trying to achieve with this thread? What do I want?
One simple thing: Time.
I would like to ask the governance for time, before rushing into implementing this new mechanism. We recently passed proposals to reduce spam, and have some on the way to reduce the incentive to cheat as well. Proposals such as a cap of 3 threads per day, per user, removing the tipping bonus for senders. On the way we have the reduction for the Daily's comment rewards, and finally a comment cap per day, per user.
I believe THIS is the way to address foul play, proposal by proposal. Not through some major change that alters the entire way of operating.
I would like to ask the governance for 3 to 6 months, to evaluate how the distribution scores perform, how the ratios fluctuate with these new proposals, before doing this. I am confident that with these new proposals, the general status of the sub will improve, and organic, active users will earn more.

So I made a custodial brokerage account for my step son a few years ago and recently just bought him a car. When I check on how I could use that money towards reimbursing myself, it just says before he turns 18, it has to be used for his benefit. Does the broker asks questions about this or the government? I'm in the US.

What a nightmare.
So, my story and process is very similar to this thread, but I figure it's worth sharing just to give a bit of hope and info on the process.
April 30th, I wake up to find I'm logged out of my Facebook account, and attempts to log back in reveal it's been disabled for inappropriate Instagram content. To appeal, I need to log in to the Instagram account, which is a Vietnamese username I don't recognise. Familiar story to many, I'm sure. This disabled page gives you the option to download some of your Facebook account, and I believe this was key- the access logs show exactly when and where it was hacked.
My own Instagram is not suspended, but has been unlinked from two accounts at the same time- I assume the hacker's IG and my Facebook.
Fruitlessly search Facebook's FAQs, end up here. Email the support addresses that are listed, no reply at all.
Get Meta Verified through IG to communicate with a human, at £9.99/month. Thinking about it, I should cancel that now.
Go through Meta Verified to communicate the Facebook issue. Raised approximately 20 tickets, but actually found that replying to the same one was more effective in getting replies. Each and every time, they send me links to the Facebook pages that do not work. The loop. I cannot upload ID to verify my identity as it wants me to log in, I cannot log in because it's disabled. I also, as stated, cannot appeal through IG by logging in to the hacker's IG. Each and every time, they try to close the ticket. Replying reopens it.
Eventually, I was escalated to a manager. I work in customer service, I know they'll all have scripts to follow and limits to what they can do. At no point am I getting angry or abusive, but I am making it clear that I have repeated the process, and I screenshot everything, showing my attempts to follow their instructions. I ask them for another way to be put through to the appeals team, because their form will not let me. No dice. Dead end after dead end.
So I come here again, and see the EU reporting form:
https://facebook.com/help/contact/837980354337486
You can't access it from the UK, just clicking it gives a page error. You need to use a VPN and put your location in Europe. Thanks, Brexit. I installed the Opera browser, which has a free VPN built in.
THIS WORKED.
I received a ticket from a support agent asking me for:

• Username
• Date the account was hacked (attached the access log)
• Current email/phone associated with it
• A new email address, never associated with Facebook

This email was replied to on Thursday 9th. By Sunday 12th, I had received an email at the new email address. This was from the "Facebook Community Operations Team", not Meta Support. They wanted a complete, detailed overview of what had happened, with ID, including the issues I'd encountered trying to report through the Facebook links. This felt like less of a template email reply and that progress was being made.
So I gave it to them. I also gave them some very specific details of the Facebook account- specific photo album names and status updates, information about Events I had previously organised through Facebook, what the banner picture was- anything extra that I thought could sway them to believe I was who I said I was. I underlined how the "permanently disabled after 30 days" part would mean losing all contact with specific people on the account, and I told them I'd travel to Facebook HQ to verify my identity face to face if need be. I didn't know what the hacker may have done with any of those things, but I included anything I thought could be reviewed and proven as true. I again attached the access logs and disabled screenshots.
Within 12 hours I had a reply stating they had secured my account with the new email address and a password reset link. It worked. The EU link through a VPN worked for me.

I appreciate the story probably ends there for most people, but since regaining access, I looked into what had been done by the hacker. They had added someone Vietnamese (themselves?) as a Facebook friend, who I have obviously now reported and blocked. They had not touched my wall, friends, photos or statues.
More importantly, and probably their whole aim, they set up a Facebook Ad Account under my name, and started spamming paid ads for something Vietnamese. They used someone's credit card details to do this, for about US$300- the details were not mine, so I guess someone else got a shock and cancelled the payments when they noticed.
However, my linked PayPal account was listed as a backup payment account, and my home address listed as the business account address. As I did not authorise the payments with PayPal, no funds left the account, and because the payments failed, the ads were suspended- I discovered this from notifications that they had on Facebook.
I am obviously taking steps now to close that Ad Account with Facebook.
And, as far as I can tell, that's it. My Facebook account was a perfectly normal, standard personal account. I'm going to spend today backing up photos on it, because it has made me very aware of just how much I'd have list if I hadn't found a way to resolve this.

Hi, my name is Jay and I'm currently located in Oklahoma (CST/GMT-6).

PORTFOLIO

With a degree in accounting and roughly a decade of full-time experience managing businesses ranging from startups to publicly traded corporations, not only do I come with a better understanding of your product needs outside of just the code, but I can help you plan your project in a way that makes sense for you or your business, including:

• Tech/idea feasibility and advice
• Time/cost/benefit analysis regarding different approaches
• Product release stages and planning (including which might be necessary)
  • MVP (minimum viable product/proof of concept)
  • beta
  • alpha
  • full release
• All initial discussion and advice comes free of charge. Not a penny is accrued until a contract is signed.

Skills and Experience

I have been programming for 9 years, freelancing for 8, and working full-time as a Software Engineer for 6. All skills listed come from successful professional experience and represent technologies I'm fully comfortable building from scratch and deploying (in no particular order).

• Frameworks
  • React for web
  • React Native and Expo for mobile and web
    • See my most recent expo project here with both web and mobile functionality
  • Native iOS/macOS/Android
  • .NET, both for APIs and Windows applications/automation
  • Microsoft Office applications/automation
  • Classic ASP
• Languages
  • Typescript
  • Javascript
  • Swift
  • C#
  • C++
  • VBA/VBScript
  • PHP
  • Python
• Database Technologies
  
  • SQL
  • MongoDB/NoSql
  • GraphQL
  • Third party solutions like FireBase and AWS
• Previous Project Examples
  
  • iOS/Swift security framework
  • Product/venue revue and rating app/website
  • Movie scene location finder and shot replicator camera image overlay
  • Job tracking and inventory management app/website for moving companies with QR generation, printing, and scanning for boxes
  • Native iOS and Android buy/sell app for luxury watches
  • Social media apps with posts, comments, likes, friends, follows, #hashtags, @user tags, and live chat
  • Native iOS chatroulette/omegle clone
  • Farm harvest tracker with CSV exports
  • Pharmacy price tracker with chat between pharmacists and customers

Work and Availability

I can work with any time zone (located in US Central) and offer both hourly rate contracts and fixed-quote contracts.

• How hourly contracts work $60 USD
  • Higher hourly rates come with higher familiarity of the project technology
  • Fairly simple contract outlining app concept and hourly rate
  • Product and codebase are available to you throughout the project
  • Invoices are sent on a regular schedule
    • Time is tracked online and a detailed report is sent with each invoice
• How fixed/quote-based contracts work
  • More initial conversation/planning required in order to:
    • compile a quote price
    • outline in-depth list of deliverable features on the contract
  • Material scope/feature changes will require contract amendments
  • 3 payments due at start, midpoint/MVP, and completion
    • Product available for testing at milestones, code made available after final payment
• If you have a hard set budget...
  • ...and are comfortable disclosing it, I can work with you on outlining a version of your product that can be properly built within that budget, even if that includes helping you find other vendors more suited for your price range.

Contact Me

You can reach me here on Reddit, through my website, or by email at jay@doan.works

Introduction

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

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

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

"What Is Virtue Ethics?"

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

The Different Kinds of "Virtue Ethics"

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

Common Critcisims Toward Secular Forms of Virtue Ethics

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

The New Testament's Virtue Ethic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Implications for Preterists

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

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

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

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

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

Pitfalls of the experience:

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

For me the real benefits were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pitfalls of the experience:

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

For me the real benefits were:

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

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

I’m a native and current resident of Pune, India. When I decided to advance my career, I chose the Simplilearn Post Graduate Program (PGP) in Data Analytics. I felt like I had reached a saturation point in my career and was not seeing any potential for growth. I realized that my career had reached a plateau and that in order to grow, I needed to upskill.
With a master’s degree in physics and hopes of obtaining a Ph.D., my career path didn’t immediately lead me to the data analytics field. It wasn’t until financial constraints kept me from doctoral studies that I began considering how I could incorporate my interests in data analytics into my career.
Data science and data analytics were a backup in case I was not able to do my Ph.D. So, even when I joined ZocDoc, I joined on the condition that I would get to explore data analytics or SQL. I was able to get some hands-on experience there.
A determining factor for my choice to upskill with Simplilearn’s PGP in Data Analytics was the program’s close partnership with world-class leaders in higher education and technology. I read several Simplilearn reviews that highlighted the program's excellence and strong industry connections. There were so many other platforms on the table. But the course at Simplilearn was in collaboration with IBM and Purdue University, which ultimately influenced my decision.
In addition, the projects that students complete throughout the program—which include real-world data from businesses like Google, Walmart, and IBM—provided the hands-on experience I needed before entering a new field. Simplilearn reviews often mention how these practical projects are instrumental in gaining real-world skills.
Simplilearn’s career service support also helped me navigate career advances and changes with confidence. The Job Assist program helped me revise my resume so that I would be more prepared for interviews while looking for a job. During the interview, the questions that were asked had all been covered in the course. Everything that I needed for the interview was in the course LMS. Simplilearn reviews frequently commend the comprehensive support provided by the career services.
The new skills I added to my portfolio helped me break through career stagnation and secure a position where I enjoy my work and am able to excel. Simplilearn reviews consistently reflect the success stories of learners who have achieved similar breakthroughs.
While I believe that choosing the right platform is a crucial step to upskilling, I’d advise that taking ownership and initiative to learn something new is the first step to career success. If you're considering upskilling, check out Simplilearn reviews to see how others have benefited from their programs.

My spouse and I have been working in a small software business for a few years. The team I was on completed a multi-year project (on time). As part of this multiple year project, as an incentive, I was supposed to get a substantial bonus/payout next month, and then another moderate bonus in a year if I stayed and moved over to the new company. However, the agreement with the third-party company somehow collapsed. Though they were essentially paying us the entire time for the dev work, they decided they now want to throw it all away and are not going to go through with the acquisition leaving the software company I work for, which nearly exclusively relied on this client, essentially out of business.
My goal is to somehow figure out how to rework my entire financial position to see if any of this is salvageable with the time I have left.
I could find another role but I may have to take a substantial pay cut for a short time just so I can quickly ramp up on technology that is desirable in my area and get some skin on my very barren resume as I've been with one place for so long writing very niche software for a niche platform. I'm just worried about survivability even if it's 6 months. Also burning through any retirement is truly terrifying to me at this point in our lives and I just assume I'm working until at least 67.

The good:

• I have a paid-off cabin + property in a desirable location that I could sell for at least $60k+ (maybe a little more if I didn't want to sell it quickly). I could maybe rent the cabin but I'd want to do it long term, and that would maybe bring in $6k a year? Renting doesn't seem viable, but who knows. It's too far away to make AirBNB manageable.
• I have some pretty substantial physical assets that I know I could sell off quickly if I absolutely had to for another $50-60k.
• I have other smaller assets that I could liquidate that would take time, but I could maybe get another $20k+ out of them but not quickly. It would take a chunk of time.
• I could move the family member in the rental into our current home which has essentially a separate apartment in the basement at the same rate. Combined the rental could bring in $1.5k a month, the family member would add $500/mo for a few years while they're getting on their feet, that could add $2k a month to the income stream.
• We have about $360k in total retirement, $225k in stocks, $65k is in 401k/Roth/SEP, $40k in a VUL, and $30k left in a money market account for emergencies. Also about $20k in HSA.
• There is a slim possibility I might get at least $100k, but it's all conjecture at this point and I can't make big decisions on that or trust that it will happen. From what I understand I'd have to take a hit on taxes for this money as now it'd come in as cash income instead of a stock conversion.

The Bad:

Job market collapsed in my area in '09. BK in 2010. Lost everything including a house I had moderate equity in. Had to live off 100% of my 401k withdraws and lost 10 years of retirement and equity because where I lived at the time it was so bad I couldn't even get a job at a grocery store and I had two babies at the time. I wasn't just broke, I was super-broke for an extended period of time. I still feel the scars from this.
Eventually dug myself out, learned new skills, and moved to a different area with more job options but I was still behind both in salary and definitely in retirement for years after that. This bonus was supposed to help me recover my retirement and debt from the crash + BK. Now I'm in my mid 40s, my partner is in their early 50s and we've only recently gotten ourselves to a place that started to feel safe for retirement and back on track and started putting away in our Roth + HSA regularly and wanted to start maxing that out asap.
And now it feels like quicksand all over again.

The Ugly:

The stupidest thing I did was because we'd reached this milestone towards the end of last year and I stupidly assumed it was a done-deal -- I rewarded myself by going out and getting a vehicle I'd always wanted. I paid into it with some down payment to get me in it at 3%, but because of market conditions and other programs that reduced the value of the vehicle a few months later -- even if I sold it 3rd party I'm probably at least $25k upside down in if i tried to sell it outright.
We now live in a HCOL area so housing is kind of outrageous. Due to a medical emergency with my spouses parents we had to purchase a house quickly a couple years ago to accommodate her parent with pretty significant medical issues on very short notice so we took a bit of a bath to acquire it quickly. Because of the timing we had to float mortgage payments at two properties for almost a year which burned a lot of our emergency savings and then some of the profit from selling our previous house. Also lost the 2.75% rate 😭.
She also couldn't work during most of the year so she could take care of them which didn't help.
We were able to find our current home on short notice that met their needs at the time, but then her parent died less than a year later and now we are in a house that's way more expensive and way larger than we really need. Also we are now back to the beginning of the new mortgage where we're paying almost all interest even with 20% to avoid PMI. With the market going up and what I have in it, even with the couple years of almost all interest payments, I could maybe get $150-$175k out of it if I had to sell.
We have a rental property that is nearly paid off (maybe $60k left?). We had good tenants for quite a few years, but the last one was horrid and basically destroyed it. I just put a bunch of remodeling into the house to update it and make it easier to transition between tenants if we had to. But because I'd assumed I was going to be paying it off with the bonus, I'd paid for a lot of the first round of work with cash and put the materials on a CC. Also in the process another family member was struggling with a life change so to help them get on their feet and have a second set of eyes on the property while it was all happening -- we let them stay in the house for the last year at cost (only charged them the mortgage). With that all wrapped up, now I'm in the position where it's technically costing me money to have them in there even at cost. They can't afford regular rent. That agreement is technically up in July.
I have about 40k in misc high-interest debt from material costs from the remodel.
How:
I'm trying to determine what the best course of action is at this point. I'm concerned about keeping my head above water on monthly expenses as it's going to quickly snowball to an unmaintainable nightmare if I don't get things under control fast. But at the same time I do not want to jeopardize our retirement. But I absolutely have to reduce the monthly burn rate to make this work. If anyone has insights or suggestions, I'm all ears.

1. I have to get all the high interest debt paid off first ASAP. It's more than 15% of our income per month if I don't take care of it soon. Because I depleted most of my emergency savings, should I take the rest of the cash out of the emergency fund? I could spend a couple months selling the larger assets, and either replenish the MM or go ahead and max out Roth's for the year then replenish or switch to HYSA for a couple percentage points?
2. I really don't know what the best approach on the vehicle is. I could try and see what a dealership might do on a much more sustainable vehicle for 1/3 the payment, but at the cost of throwing away $30k in cash most likely. I don't want to finance the delta as it completely defeats the point. Should I just pay it off so it's not taking up 20% of the income per month and keep it until the wheels fall off?
3. From what I understand, I assume my VUL is completely pointless at this point. The whole purpose was to provide a vehicle for the large bonus. Should I move the value in it to a more traditional investment since all the benefits were reliant on the bonus lump sum? I didn't really like the VUL as it seems insanely complicated anyway. Not sure if this should be more of a financial advisor question or not.
4. Should I keep the rental property or sell it and put that towards my current mortgage to try and greatly reduce the monthly cost of my home? With maybe $1.5k a month in rental income -- paying off my current house would save me almost $2.5k a month. Even ideally, the rental income would take 10yrs before I got the same benefit. However one of the reasons I might want to keep this property is if things got truly dire over the next few years I could throw the bulk of my stuff in storage and we could move into it if absolutely necessary because it's only about $400/mo in taxes and insurance where our current home is more like $1.2k. If I had no other choice, that is at least someplace I could always live a few years and squirrel almost everything away.
5. The mortgage is the biggest expense in our budget and at nearly $4k/mo, it is almost 1/3 of our combined current income (if nothing changes). If I take a hit on salary in the short term it could be 1/2 or MORE of current income at least for some short period of time. Does it make sense to keep it for x years and then sell since I'm already a few years into the loan and just figure out how to accelerate the principal so we can stay in it long enough to not completely have wasted the last few years of payments? Then hopefully 1031 it into a more affordable home in prep for retirement?
6. In a world where I got the $100k or more, is it worth while to pay towards my current home & do a recast, or put that in an investment? I'm a little worried about binding it up in the house, but the long term benefits may be worth while in a few years if I can just bust my ass and get the delta covered and get it to a point where I'm not burning money only on interest.
7. Literally any other suggestions! Especially the most effective uses in the case of the much smaller bonus if it does come in and what I should do with that given the current scenarios.

I knew the night before mediation that she was up to no good. I was provided a copy of her financial affidavit two weeks after it was filed with the court. It was supposed to be provided to myself and my attorney at the same time as filing with the court.
STBEX populated her affidavit with grossly inaccurate figures, in every case these inaccuracies provided benefit to herself. When asked where she got these wildly different numbers compared to my filing, she said she used the information I gave her. I forwarded the sole email in which I provided her with screenshots and PDF files from the various online portals to both attorneys and the mediator. The mediator pressed, now asking her why she blamed me when her figures were nowhere to be found in the information I provided. When asked why she lied about it being my fault, and where did she actually get her figures, she refused to talk.
It also came out that she failed to disclose $15k of income that occurred just two months prior.
I came to learn almost accidentally that her Mother purchased a $500k house for her a month prior to mediation. It’s in her mom’s name, but, I’ve learned that she will be living in a newly built-out basement apartment and will be renting out the main living space. In our town, that would likely provide $3-4k/mo of income, while she lives for free downstairs.
I am now reflecting on all of this, as well as how I was refused alimony despite the court calculator saying otherwise, and her “child support” payments to me don’t even cover one half of our kids’ portion of my health insurance.
Specifically about the house purchased for her to live in and collect rental income from, was this a significant issue, that she didn’t disclose this?
I had been advised to not even discuss the possibility of purchasing a multi-unit after the divorce was finalized until the divorce was finalized, because she could easily be entitled to a portion of my profits, and it would also hurt me in calculations while dividing assets.
Her financial affidavit doesn’t mention anything about anticipated rental income, housing with no cost, etc. In fact, it is populated with grossly large numbers describing her cost of housing, which impacted many aspects of the settlement.
I suspect that she provided figures reflecting the cost her mother is paying on the house, to make her cost of living higher, while omitting the substantial income the property would provide her. Plus a free place to live.
Is there a legal issue with these failures to disclose and filing an affidavit under penalty of perjury that contained more the 12 examples of falsified amounts?
While far, far less than many stories I’ve read, I did get the shit end of the stick in this process. She came out around $30k over me in the balance sheet. It put me in bad shape financially, while she’s enjoying significant upgrades to her financial standing.
Is this something a family court would take seriously and hold her accountable to at least rectify the harmful effects caused by her acts of perjury? Is this worth addressing and revisiting the settlement agreement to provide an honest, transparent representation of her finances and costs?

I don't need to tell anyone here that housing affordability is bad right now so I'll cut to the chase...
What can be done about it?
I got seven proposals to address the problem.
But first.. lets talk about what I call 'Non-Solutions'.
A Non-Solution is something that feels like a solution but isn't. For example: Scratching at itchy skin isn't a solution to a rash.
There's a few Non-Solutions I'm going to be avoiding with my proposals:

• Price Fixing: Simply mandating that X costs $N, at a government level, doesn't fix anything. Ask USSR. Prices determined by markets are not 'fair', but they are realistic outcomes to the situations which created them, whether it's a lack of regulation, lack of supply, etc. High prices are a symptom of bigger problems that need to be addressed.
• Free Money: While it seems like an easy fix, just handing out money until everyone can afford everything, you don't need to be an economist to know that doesn't work. Prices are a function of purchase power. If you increase everyone's purchase power equally, prices will adjust to match. We've all seen this, the inflation we're experiencing right now in Australia is likely a direct outcome of the spending during the pandemic.

Instead solutions need to be formed through means such as:

• Using the tax system to incentivise behaviour that results in cheaper housing, and de-incentivise behaviour that results in more expensive housing.
• Adjusting laws that result in more expensive housing, removing laws that are an obstacle to cheaper housing.
• Creating alternatives to the existing housing stock in the market.
• Government initiatives that increase housing stock.

So - what could we do?

Proposal 1 - The AAHC

I call it the 'Australian Affordable Housing Construction Company', aka, AAHC Co.
Government initiated housing construction company, similar to the NBN Co.
It has one goal: Build houses and sell them. It has a target rate of 'houses/quarter' it aims to construct houses at. That rate is set by an independent body that aims to keep the cost of housing to a fixed level relative to incomes, and controlled in a fashion similar to the official interest rate. Another lever on the economy. The rate increases when housing supply is low, and decreases when housing supply is high.
The AAHC builds houses. Then sells them. Simple as that. No other purpose. The goal is to break even, build houses, sell them at market value (no profit). The great thing is, this means the AAHC has a net zero funding cost for the tax payer - literally costs nothing to run, because it pays for itself through sales of houses.
The actual construction would be done by external private construction companies under contract who compete under bids to build suburbs worth of houses in large projects. Which is another benefit. Lots of jobs creation, a big boon for our local manufacturing and construction industry, and any related employment opportunities (construction companies don't just hire builders after all, they hire graphic designers, accountants, managers, receptionists, etc).
As additional benefit, because the government is building the houses, it can ensure the houses meet conditions and standards we the people want to see applied to future housing construction. So it could be mandated for example, every new home constructed must have air conditioning, must have solar panels, etc.
The AAHC Co in summary:

• Allows for a market based approach to control the cost of housing.
• Costs nothing (to the taxpayer) to run, self funded.
• Reduces the single largest expense we have in life (housing).
• Would create tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of jobs.
• Can improve the quality of our supply of houses in the market by building better houses.

Proposal 2 - Nationalised Definitions of 'Tiny Homes', and Easing Of Laws Regarding Them

The reality is, there is such a shortfall of housing in Australia, that it may take a decade or longer to address the problem, even if we started implementing the right policies to do so today.
What people need is alternatives. Today.
Such as 'Tiny Homes'.
Tiny homes can be constructed in larger quantities, prefab, for cheaper than a house, and constructed on a trailer frame which allows them to be easily moved and transported.
They can be significantly cheaper than a house, and moved easily, opening up prospects for someone to own reasonable housing in Australia for a fraction of the cost of buying an established constructed house, by buying very cheap land, a cheap 'Tiny Home' and parking it permanently on their land. Then eventually moving it on, selling it even, once it comes time to upgrade to a permanent fixture house, or move into a larger fixed house.
Because they're legally defined as caravans, they subject to all the same rules.
The first problem is, those rules vary depending on where you live. Not just for each state, but even depending which council you live in. Some councils have no clear regulations at all, making matters worse. A nationalised definition of a 'Tiny Home', and national laws regarding them, would make life easier for everyone.
The second problem is, because currently Tiny Homes are defined legally as Caravans, they are subject to the same restrictions, which can be stifling, such as, subject to location (state or council laws vary). Here are some of the worst restrictions found around the country:

• Can not be placed on a vacant block of land without an existing dwelling
• No more than 1 is allowed on residential land
• Contains no more than 2 bedrooms
• Requires development approval every time they're moved
• May result in additional charges for council rates

A nationalised legal framework for tiny homes, and easing of laws around them, to make them easier and cheaper to obtain, install and live in, would open up possibilities for alternative means of housing to ease the burden on the existing housing market.

Proposal 3 - Housing Super Fund

Super is a well established method for ensuring individuals can afford their retirement without resorting to giving people free money or price fixing the cost of retirement. It forces employers to make contributions to employee's super funds, that then collect interest, grow, and eventually can be accessed at retirement age.
This is a mechanism we can borrow to achieve a similar result for renters, to allow them eventually afford housing.
I call it a 'Housing Super Fund'.
How it could work is like this:
Every tenant in Australia, could have a 'housing super fund' set up for them when they start renting. Every time a tenant pays rent, the land lord receiving the rental payment, could be required to deposit 5% of that payment into the tenant's housing super fund.
Land lords will insist, argue, that they will put up rents by 5% to compensate. But this is a lie. Prices are determined by customer purchase power. Renters will not have any additional purchase power as a result of this change. Rents won't go up in real terms over a long period of time, instead this change eats a cut away of rents from landlords and invests it on the behalf of tenants.
The housing super fund could be made accessible if and when a tenant is making their "first home purchase". If that never occurs, the funds could available automatically at retirement age instead.

Proposal 4 - Increased Property Taxes for Landlords & Elimination of Negative Gearing

While some people are facing the prospect that they may NEVER be able to afford a house in their lifetime - other individuals, might have as many as 7 properties, and are currently shopping for their 8th.
It's obvious, that the system strongly favours those who already own houses and have capital, ahead of those who don't.
So, simple solution, is to increase taxes for being a landlord.
Property taxes faced by individuals could be higher for those who own more than one house, and increase with each additional house owned.
And, Negative Gearing, eliminated, since it creates such a massive financial incentive to own more than one house.

Proposal 5 - 'Owner Occupier Only' Zoning

A new type of residential zoning.
Houses constructed in one of these zones, can not be used as investment properties. They can only be occupied by the owner of the home and with high taxes on vacant homes. This would remove some properties from the investment market entirely, freeing them up to be bought and lived in by people rather than rented out by landlords.
This new type of zoning could help first home buyers enter the market and create a market of houses that are free from the speculative nature of property investment.
An ideal goal would be to have at least 20% of residential zones rezoned to this new type of zone.
How would rezoning work? Existing rental properties in an area rezoned as 'Owner Occupier Only' could remain as rental properties throughout the duration of the remainder of the tenants stay in the property. After that however, it would no longer be possible to rent out the property, it would have to be either sold to an owner occupier, or moved into, or face high taxes for vacancy.

Proposal 6 - Harsh taxes on empty resident housing

A simple proposal.
There are empty houses across Australia.
Tax the owners until they either rent them out or sell them or move into them.

Proposal 7 - Housing HELP Loan

Saved the best for last. Got a HELP Loan? Then you know how this loan structure works.
You borrow money from the government to pay for education, and then pay off that help loan in your taxes, if and when your income is above a minimum threshold. In the mean time, the loan amount is adjusted based on interest rates at the end of each financial year.
There's no reason why we can't have a similar loan structure made available for housing.
'Housing HELP Loan' could be made available to cover up to 75% of the purchase price of an individual's first home, with the remaining 25% required as an upfront deposit. The loan then can be paid off as part of the individual's taxes if and when their income is above a minimum threshold.
This would enable millions who currently can't get a home loan to finally get one, and ensure the debt of a home loan isn't financially crushing when individuals end up in a situation where they are temporarily unable to pay off their loan due to loss of employment.
That's 7 proposals to fixing housing affordability in Australia.
Which ones do you think would work?
Which ones do you think would stand a chance politically of being supported by a major party and made into reality?

By my count, there are 15 T5 ships available for just dilithium or a level 40 token, which someone might want a starter build for to help them finish off the episode missions and start the reputation grind. My Strict Budget Build covers the three science vessels, the Baby Step series covers the three cruisers with tactical ensigns, Quick Looks 1 and 2 cover the Hegh'ta Bird of Prey and the Jem'hadar Escort, and there's definitely an argument to be made that some are just bad choices. But there was one more I wanted to take a look at here. This series will not be as thoroughly researched as those previous series, and it will not feature optimized skill builds (there are many resources for that), but the builds will be proven in the Badlands Battlezone and in solo Defense of Starbase One Advanced, as well as extensively parsed in the Wanted (Argala System) patrol with comparisons to similar builds. That should adequately demonstrate that they can get you whatever reputation marks you need, using only mission, basic (generally Mk XII uncommon) Exchange, and Phoenix Store items. Each build will be allowed one Mk XV item to maintain parity with the Strict Budget Build, usually a forward weapon. It's also easy enough to put these together that I could be persuaded to do more if there's a ship that deserves it.
So, why the Vo'Quv? Well it's in the name, it's a carrier. Hangar bays are expensive to boost in this game, but that means they have to be balanced to have pretty good base damage. In this case the two hangars did more than half the damage of most of the other builds in this series with hardly any support for them. The downside to carriers is that they often sacrifice a lot for those hangars. Not so for Flight Deck Carriers, which are pretty much full cruisers, or any of the single hangar types, but the science carriers like the Vo'Quv don't really have an obvious path to getting ship damage, especially on this budget. Their turn rate is terrible, which is a problem for most things, they have only 6 weapons so getting a lot from energy weapons is out, and they don't have a secondary deflector, which did do more on my science vessel build than the hangars did here.
So where did I end up, then? Well, with 6 science ability slots and not a ton of options I couldn't see not using them for some direct exotic damage. And since that required me to face forward, and the turn rate was terrible and I couldn't do much about it, I concluded that I'd have to use turrets in the rear with either beam arrays or single cannons forward, the two widest arc weapon combinations possible apart from pure turrets, although their damage potential is limited. The Chronometric set also seemed like a must have, providing a large amount of EPG and some Polaron cat1 from the tac console, and a bit of aux power from the 2 piece, but I wasn't sure whether I'd want the Morphogenic set or not, since it would mean sacrificing a cannon. Then, I went to the TRINITY DPS Calculator from STO BETTER and started plugging in some rough options. Single cannons outperformed beam arrays even with the Chronometric 3 piece, so that settled that, and getting the crtd from the Morphogenic 3 piece and Cannon Scatter Volley was well worth losing a forward cannon for the torp. Attack Pattern Beta proved a bigger contributor than expected thanks to boosting the exotic damage as well, which is why that's at 2 and CSV is at 1, and easily outperformed including a Torpedo Spread as well. Finally I switched the power settings away from a balanced configuration toward weapons over aux and aux over weapons, and the high aux version did best. So that was the build.
How did it perform? Well it was sluggish, obviously, I expected that. But the DPS was pretty impressive and was reflected in how quickly it got kills. And the survivability was pretty good, with a lot of hull and pretty good healing I really couldn't complain, except that it was so sluggish it was hard to run out of range and heal if I needed to. On the other hand when I did withdraw the fighters kept fighting, contributing to the highest Wanted Elite DPS of any of the builds in the table with only one attempt needed to survive the whole mission (the science vessel could do better by charging in and dying a couple of times, but needed to play cautiously and sacrifice its CPB to survive). They were even powerful enough to handle the Birds of Prey in Starbase One Advanced without any help from the mothership, potentially even without player input, which could be convenient.

Captain Details

Captain Name	Stilt
Captain Career	Science
Captain Faction	Federation
Captain Race	Vulcan
Primary Specialization	Temporal	The best specialization for exotic builds, as well as for ground builds and a good generalist option, it provides debuffs, damage boosts, EPG, and survivability

Space Skill Tree

Rank	Engineering		Science		Tactical
Lieutenant		Advanced Hull Capacity			Advanced Energy Weapon Training	Advanced Projectile Weapon Training
Lt. Commander	Improved Electro-Plasma System Flow	Impulse Expertise	Improved Control Expertise	Drain Expertise	Targeting Expertise	Defensive Maneuvering
			Control Amplification	Drain Infection
Commander	Hull Plating				Advanced Weapon Amplification	Advanced Weapon Specialization
Captain	Defensive Subsystem Tuning		Advanced Exotic Particle Generator	Advanced Long Range Targeting Sensors	Advanced Hull Penetration	Advanced Shield Weakening
Admiral					Coordination Protocols	Advanced Tactical Readiness
					Defensive Coordination
					Offensive Coordination
1 Points Left	8		11		26

Space Skill Unlocks

Purchases	Engineering	Science	Tactical
2	Hazard Emitters III	Science Team III	Tachyon Beam III
5	Battery Expertise	Sector Space Travel Speed
7	Feedback Pulse III	Photonic Shockwave III	Jam Sensors III
10		Maximum Shield Capacity
12			Tractor Beam III
15		Control Resistance
17			Viral Matrix III
20		Shield Drain Resistance
24 (Ultimate)			Focused Frenzy
25 (1st Ultimate Enhancer)			Frenzied Assault
26 (2nd Ultimate Enhancer)			Team Frenzy

This skill tree is my generalist one from Strict Budget Build part 2, and it pretty much needs to be. This build relies on both energy weapon and exotic damage, so it can't afford to neglect either one. There are other generalist skill trees, of course, but that is what you'll need to be looking for, any single purpose tree isn't going to get the job done.

Ship Loadout: Vo'Quv Carrier

Slot	Item	Notes
Fore Weapon 1	Polaron Cannon	The one Mk XV, single cannons are usually a poor choice, but they will outperform beam arrays forward/turrets aft and provide 180 degrees of firing arc
Fore Weapon 2	Polaron Cannon	The Vo'Quv suffers from terrible turn rate so it doesn't want weapons with narrow arcs, but it needs to face forward for the exotic damage
Fore Weapon 3	Morphogenic Polaron Energy Torpedo Launcher	Here for the 3 piece set bonus providing 30% crtd to the whole ship
Aft Weapon 1	Heavy Chronometric Polaron Turret	Mostly need a turret, 2 piece provides some aux
Aft Weapon 2	Morphogenic Polaron Energy Weapon	Another turret, and contributes to the 3 piece
Aft Weapon 3	Polaron Turret	Just a turret
Deflector	Solanae Deflector Array Mk XII Very Rare	Provides more EPG out of the box than any other mission reward
Impulse Engines	Sol Defense Impulse Engines Mk XII Very Rare	With the bonus from getting hit this does just provide the best total turn rate out of the mission rewards at 14.7 degrees/s, replace with Fortified Competitive rep engines
Warp Core	Obelisk Subspace Rift Warp Core	This build only hits 122 aux so this doesn't actually help, could consider Deuterium-Stabilized but the benefit is minimal
Shields	Sol Defense Covariant Shield Array Mk XII Very Rare	2 piece is nice for survivability, alternative would be Jem'Hadar 2 piece for a bit of Polaron cat1.
Devices	Exotic Particle Flood	Crafted in Science R&D. I do have to admit that the materials are a little hard to come by, and Admiralty (with account unlocked ships) is the best source I've found.
	Deuterium Surplus	Evasive Maneuvers in battery form, and you can collect 4 per day from the Alhena system.
	Delta Alliance Reinforcements Beacon	Handy damage boost
3 Engineering Consoles	Console - Engineering - Trellium-D Plating Mk XII Very Rare	Good survivability console, could use a Neutronium instead
	Console - Engineering - Polaric Modulator Mk XII Very Rare	Boosts Inertia, which is rare, as well as turn rate, and slipstream turn rate at warp
	Console - Engineering - House Martok Defensive Configuration Mk XII Very Rare	Boosts turn rate and provides some survivability, an RCS would work too
4 Science Consoles	Console - Science - Temporal Disentanglement Suite Mk XII Very Rare	Nice crit and durability boost, plus some power.
	Console - Science - Temporally Shielded Datacore Mk XII Very Rare	Slightly less EPG than Particle Generators but it makes up for it with the CtrlX
	Console - Science - Particle Generator Mk XII Uncommon	Just need EPG
	Console - Science - Particle Generator Mk XII Common
2 Tactical Consoles	Console - Tactical - Morphogenic Matrix Controller Mk XII Very Rare	For the 3 piece and some polaron cat1
	Console - Tactical - Chronometric Capacitor Mk XII Very Rare	Good EPG, some aux from the 2 piece, and some Polaron cat1, and this build uses all of it
2 Hangar Bays	Hangar - To'Duj Fighters	These provide more DPS than any other hangar that's available by default, and they come with the ship, they will die in heavy AoE content, otherwise use two
	Hangar - Delta Flyers	These have slightly less DPS than To'duj but almost never die in any content, but do require a level 65 KDF character for Cross Faction Flying. Could substitute B'rels for more DPS loss

Officer Details

Bridge Officers
Lt. Commander Tactical	Tactical Team I	Shield distribution and debuff clear, may cause firing cycle problems but I haven't seen it
	Cannon: Scatter Volley I	Excellent weapon damage buff and also spreads APB to up to 3 targets
	Attack Pattern Beta II	Unusual to slot this above the firing mode, but it boosts every damage source and weapon damage is only ~1/4 of the total
Lt. Commander Engineering	Emergency Power to Engines I	More than doubles speed and provides +2 turn rate, essential mobility for any build
	Auxiliary to Structural I	Excellent heal and damage resist, and on a very short cooldown
	Emergency Power to Weapons III	Major energy weapon damage boost
Commander Science	Hazard Emitters I	Good hull heal and debuff clear
	Destabilizing Resonance Beam I	Good exotic damage, used with GW
	Photonic Officer II	Cooldown reduction
	Gravity Well III	Good exotic damage and control
Lieutenant Science	Science Team I	Shield heal and debuff clear
	Tyken's Rift I	Exotic damage, alternate with GW

Traits & Duty Officers

Trait	Name	Description	Notes
Personal Traits	Astrophysicist		A little bit of EPG
	Cannon Training		A little more cannon damage
	Conservation of Energy		Significant exotic damage while solo, but stacks don't last long
	Deft Cannoneer		Boosts turn rate by 1, on this build we need it, from Cannons R&D
	Fleet Coordinator		One of the best traits in the game when on a team
	Give Your All		Excellent hull damage resistance, from Engineering R&D
	Operative		Some extra crit
	Particle Manipulator		The most powerful trait for exotic damage, +50%/+29.6% crth/crtd on this build, from Science R&D
	Photonic Capacitor		Extra Photonic Fleet is nice to have
Starship Traits	None		Unconventional Tactics from completing Strategist is definitely worth slotting here, but I kept it cheap.
Space Reputation Traits	None		You'll start picking these up very quickly, Precision and Advanced Targeting Systems are top picks.
Duty Officers	Projectile Weapons Officer		"Law" from A Fistful of Gorn, a bit of a pain to get there, but worth having
	Projectile Weapons Officer		A common included in my first duty officer pack
	Astrometrics Scientist		Uncommon, also in my first pack, handy to have set
	Conn Officer		From Phoenix, a must have for mobility in any build

This table shows all damage sources in one Wanted Advanced run, with multiple lines from the same source summed together.

Source	DPS
To'Duj Fighters	6594
Delta Flyers	4504
Gravity Well	3571
Photonic Fleet	3170
Polaron Cannons	2889
Destabilizing Resonance Beam	1728
Chronometric Turret	1156
Polaron Turret	1001
Morphogenic Turret	994
Morphogenic Torpedo	855
Tyken's Rift	839
Drain Infection	708
Entropic Rider	144

^{Table formatting brought to you by ExcelToReddit}
Now, let's talk keybinds. In STO on PC you're going to want to learn keybinding eventually, and most of it's not too hard and can be done through the chat window (although it is arguably better to create a separate text file with your binds, that's more complicated). The first thing I always do is to set up a secondary fire weapons button through settings, usually V, just in case I screw up and my intended fire keybind doesn't work. While I'm there I usually set Distribute Shields to Left Shift, it's a pretty good survivability boost, although a lot of people do say it can mess up firing cycles, but personally I've never noticed a problem. Then, the commands you'll want to know are "FirePhasers" or "FireAll", "+power_exec Distribute_Shields", and "+TrayExecByTray # #", where # is a number. Note that the list of commands needs quotation marks around it, and commands should be separated by "$$". So if you typed the following into the chat: /bind y "+TrayExecByTray 0 0 $$ +TrayExecByTray 0 1 $$ +TrayExecByTray 1 2 $$ +TrayExecByTray 1 3" That would create a keybind so that y would activate the first and second abilities in the row labeled 1, and the third and fourth abilities in the row labeled 2 (0 in a keybind means 1 in the UI, 1 means 2, 2 means 3, etc., that's just how it works), starting with the fourth ability in 2 and then proceeding backwards. From there on in it's personal preference, put things where they feel natural to you, where you're used to them being. What I use has evolved naturally over time, I make no claims that it's efficient, just that I'm used to it, and I use it on everything. For fire weapons, distribute shields, Emergency Power abilities, cooldown reduction, often Aux to Structural, and anything else I just want to keep active I use spacebar, like this: /bind space "FireAll $$ +power_exec Distribute_Shields $$ +TrayExecByTray 6 0 $$ +TrayExecByTray 6 1 $$ +TrayExecByTray 6 2 $$ +TrayExecByTray 6 3 $$ +TrayExecByTray 6 4" That's the first 5 slots in row 7, which is usually enough. Then for my firing modes, Attack Pattern Beta, and so on, things with short cooldowns I activate as I attack, I use the 7 key, no good reason for that it just happened, and the first 4 slots in row 3: /bind 7 "+TrayExecByTray 2 0 $$ +TrayExecByTray 2 1 $$ +TrayExecByTray 2 2 $$ +TrayExecByTray 2 3" And finally for my exotic builds I always put Gravity Well and Destabilizing Resonance beam on 2, using the next two slots in row 3, although it is true that the usual logic behind that doesn't apply here, I just did it out of habit: /bind 2 "+TrayExecByTray 2 4 $$ +TrayExecByTray 2 5" That's all the keybinds I use, everything else I activate manually, one at a time, but it does compress 13 keys I might want to be pressing down to 3, which helps a lot.
Now, the difficult thing about this build is that I really don't know how to suggest upgrading it, apart from the obvious necessity of some Competitive Reputation engines to get their Overcharge to improve turn rate, I made sure to use Aux to Structural to pair with the Fortified version of those. The damage is very divided between different types, with about 40% from hangars, 25% from exotics, and 21% from energy weapons, and it's not getting a lot out of any of them, but I'll provide my own ideas and the STO BETTER Basics links for all three. Currently the biggest damage source is the hangars, but trying to improve those would be expensive. Ideally you'd like to pick up Superior Area Denial from the Mirror Strike Wing Escort lockbox ship, or at least the Independent Wingmate space trait, but those are very expensive compared to this build. Even the more minor and less powerful Advanced Engineering – Hangar Craft Power Transmission consoles are starting at 1 million energy credits each on PC for either a Mk XII with a useless mod or a Mk II with an [EPG] mod, or 5 million for a Mk II with [Polaron], while Swarmer Matrix is going for 7 million. If you wanted to work on exotic damage you could of course pick up the Temporal reputation two piece, and then you might want Subspace Vortex or Very Cold in Space to replace the heals with some more damage, but those will cost you 9 million each, and really you'd want to pair them with Spore Infused Anomalies from the Somerville or Batlh C-store ships for a truly potent source of exotic damage. You might be able to get good exotic damage out of the Gravimetric Photon and Particle Emission Plasma torpedoes after picking up the Competitive engines, and those aren't as expensive, but they do give you a much narrower arc. And if you wanted to improve the energy weapons, of course there are reputation items you can pick up starting with the Discovery reputation shield, but you're pretty limited by the combination of poor turn rate and forward firing exotics. You could try to switch to dual (heavy) cannons, probably moving the torpedo to the rear and dropping the plain turret, but I don't think I'm a good enough pilot to pull that off even with Competitive engines, which would leave you with single cannons which have underwhelming base damage and very few set items to support them. I just don't know what direction to go in to make a really impactful improvement in this build.
Finally, here's the table of DPS testing in the Wanted patrol for all five equivalent budget builds. The Luna used the original, unaltered Strict Budget Build, using the mentioned swap of Emergency Power to Shields instead of Aux to Structural for better survivability against non-Borg. The Vor'cha sat somewhere between parts one and two of the Baby Step series, meaning it had exactly the same consoles as the Hegh'ta BoP and similar ones to the Jem Escort, and the beam equivalents of the phaser weapons, with exactly the abilities and personal traits in the Baby Step posts. It must also be said that the Vor'cha and Vo'quv were the only builds to never die on elite difficulty, and the Vor'cha was definitely the toughest, although all the builds took about 20 minutes to get through the mission so using them at that difficulty is a bad idea. The Hegh'ta of course used the Quick Looks 1 build, and the Jem Escort used the Quick Looks 2 build.

	Elite (DPS thousands)	Advanced 1 (DPS thousands)	Advanced 2	Advanced 3	Advanced 4	Advanced Average
Hegh'ta Heavy BoP	20.0	20.1	21.5	22.5	23.2	21.8
Jem'hadar Escort	19.3	23.4	20.6	21.8	19.7	21.4
Vo'quV Carrier	27.3	26.3	28.2	26.6	25.2	26.6
Luna Science Vessel	24.8	31.4	28.3	27.9	27.0	28.6
Vor'cha Battlecruiser	15.1	15.0	14.1	14.8	14.6	14.6

^{Table formatting brought to you by ExcelToReddit}

I know it was your first relationship. At 28, you had already been through so much, having been on your own for 13 years. You were forced to grow up too fast, and had to prioritize yourself, building a life from nothing. I get it. It was your fierce independence that made me fall for you in the first place.
I always knew that trying to build a life with you was going to be a struggle. I thought it would be worth it, for both of us. You deserve to have someone in your corner, that always has your back. You shouldn’t have to be alone. I don’t know if you believed the same.
I think I gave up too much of myself for you. Was that my mistake or yours? Did you really ask for too much, or did I give too freely without expectation for anything in return? Maybe both. Probably more on me. I’m not perfect by a long shot.
Compromise. It really does all come down to that. I tried to show you its importance, but in the process I ended up being the only one willing to do it. Me getting to pick what movie we watched or getting to plan a date became something I only got to do on special occasions. You said you felt like you didn’t know me, but so many times in so many ways I offered up little pieces of me to you. I share myself by sharing the things I love with the people I love. But more and more towards the end, all you’d say was “no”. Ignoring any context. Ignoring those pieces of me.
I know you don’t like movies about kids. I know asking to watch Home Alone during Christmas was a big ask. But it was a tradition that I shared with my dad, who I lost just over a year before. I know you think that traditions are pointless, but it was important to me. My earliest memories are of that. I needed to continue on, but I couldn’t bring myself to do it alone. I needed you there, your support. It was such a small gesture I was asking of you, but all I got was “no”. Instead we watched a movie you picked: Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone. A movie made by the exact same people that made Home Alone, and with even more kids.
We wanted to go to Ireland. Personally I’ve been wanting to go for years, but couldn’t because of my dad’s illness along with everything else going on. You knew that in the last 3 years I lost all of my grandparents, two uncles, my dad. I couldn’t risk going so far away for so long while everyone was sick. My mom saw me giving up the latter half of my 20s for my family, when she was hoping I would be enjoying life and seeing the world. That’s why she was happy to give us the money to have the trip of our dreams. I explained all of this to you while you were struggling to find a way to save for the trip. All my mom wanted in return was a single nice photo of us. That wasn’t even a requirement for the money. She just wanted to see me with the person that I love making our dreams come true. I know you hate having your picture taken. The only attention your dad ever gave you was when he wanted to test a new camera. It’s a trauma trigger. But I was only asking for one picture. You’d compromise for your friends, you’d compromise for your sister. You’d take pictures with them. Why wouldn’t you compromise for your partner, and the other most important person in your partners life? After a year, we have 3 pictures together, none of which are very good. I know that I was asking for a lot, but I felt so less important than everyone else in your life. Maybe you felt that as your partner, I was to be held to a higher standard? I honestly don’t know. All you said was “no”.
You admitted yourself I was so supportive. I always prioritized you. From always making your tea before mine, to giving you the better looking plate at dinner, to planting all of your favorite flowers in my garden. I always complemented you, how smart you are, how beautiful you are, how driven and independent you are. Your friend needed a ride to a 5k and someone to cheer them on? I was there. You needed someone to drive you around while your car was in the shop for 2 months? No problem. Accidentally overdrew your account again, and you couldn’t afford the late fees? Here’s $50. Need to move on short notice? I’m the guy tearing apart and moving your furniture. You have a migraine so bad you can’t eat? I’m bringing you pedialyte and sleeping on your couch, even though I didn’t actually get any sleep. I learned all your rituals so not to trigger your OCD. There are countless other examples. I never said no. I never complained. You rarely said so much as “thank you”.
The big one. The thing that ended us. You’re right, we did sit down like adults time and time again and talked things out. You said you needed me to anticipate your needs. You’d get overwhelmed, and couldn’t articulate what you needed from me. You couldn’t stand being asked what you needed. You just needed me to start helping. “Mental loads” and all that. I took that to heart. But I’m not perfect. Sometimes I’d miss the mark. Tried to support you, but in the wrong way. Even in my failures I showed effort, but you never seemed to see that. You only focused on how I failed.
We recognized that this was a problem caused by both of us. The communication wasn’t getting through. But I had already adapted to your communication style as much as I could. My exited, rambling, almost impulsive way of generating ideas became slow, methodical, thoughtful. I put intention behind everything so not to overwhelm you. I learned not to jump at the obvious solution.
Yes, we sat down like adults and talked things over time and time again. You told me what you needed from me, but I also told you what I needed from you. If I was missing the mark, please just guide me to what you needed. I’m not a mind reader. I did it for you all the time. You were honestly awful at anticipating my needs too. If I was venting, had a bad day, all you’d say was “I’m sorry”, and pat me on the back like a puppy. No effort to dig deeper. No words of support or encouragement. So I had to show you how I needed support. I just needed you to do the same for me. “No”. Again.
One final time, I sent you words of support when you were having a bad day. It wasn’t enough, you wanted more. A phone call? For me to come over so you could vent in person? Did you actually want me to directly help for once? I don’t know. You never told me. Instead of guiding me to what you needed, you immediately shut down. Full silent treatment. I’ve been in abusive relationships where the silent treatment was welded as a weapon. I know you didn’t mean it in an abusive way, you were just overwhelmed again. But I never expected it from you. I didn’t see it for what it was. I only ever asked one thing from you to save us. I put in the work, got us 80% of the way there. I knew I couldn’t bridge the gap on my own. I wasn’t even asking you to put in effort on my behalf, it was for your benefit. I begged you time and time again for help. To communicate. Not to put it all on me, because I couldn’t do it on my own. But instead, you did the opposite.
You said that you felt like you were putting more effort into the relationship than I was. I’m sorry, but I can’t see that effort. I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I can’t. Maybe you mean you put effort into forgiving me every time I messed up? Maybe you mean that you were always planning dates, always picking what we watched, where we went, what we ate, what we drank? Again, mental loads and such. But I had things that I wanted to do and share with you that you always turned down. You only had to plan everything after my plans were rejected. It would have been more efficient for you to show love, patience, and compromise. Maybe we would have worked out then.
But then you left.

How normal is it to occasionally steal stuff at stores? Specifically at self-checkout, where you pay for almost everything in your basket, but maybe don't scan a thing or two. I mean intentionally, not on accident.
My girlfriend and I had a disagreement recently because she went to the grocery store and did self checkout and didn't pay for a couple of things. She doesn't steal all the time, she said just on occasion, like once every couple months, if she thinks somethings overpriced maybe she'll just put it in her bag without scanning it. Or if shes spending $100 on other stuff, she wont scan a pack of gum or something like that.
I mean I *kinda* get it, I know that the stores aren't really hurting that much from the occasional $5 or $10 or $20 theft. I know that Target or Walmart or Whole Foods are our corporate overlords and fuck 'em. I know that stores account for shrinkage, and that those numbers are high so it must be common. But I kinda figured it was like a small percentage of the population that was stealing a lot. She seems to think like 90% of people are doing the same thing as her.
Maybe it's just me, but I was raised that stealing is wrong, no matter what. I don't care if something is overpriced, if I want it bad enough I'll pay for it and if I decide its not worth the price then I just won't put it in my cart. Something in me just recoils from the thought of stealing. I don't think I'm like a better person or have extremely high morals, I'm just a normal dude. I've cheated on homework and tests occasionally throughout high school and college without a second thought. I will admit, there has been a time or two where I legitimately forgot to scan something so ended up stealing, but I still felt bad about it. And I don't have a big problem with people stealing out of necessity, if they need to feed their family or whatever. But if I have means to pay, I'm gonna be paying for that shit, or else I'd just feel so guilty it would kinda ruin my day.
Am I the weird one??

I’m in a tricky spot. My ex left me out of the blue a month ago. We had a great relationship, both had faults but nothing major. We were good to each-other. We had an insanely stressful time period & we lived together for a year at this point, we were also together for 2 years. I think he just needed time away & we needed to go back to long distance for a while. Our living situation wasn’t working out at all anymore & we didn’t know how to navigate that properly.
I don’t think we (mainly him) communicated affectively enough about what needed to happen. He just got lost, confused & just kinda dipped. Then, he did/ said strange stuff & gave a million bs reasons for why he left. None of them were true. I knew exactly why he left. He was just lost. He still loves me & I know he didn’t want to breakup, he just felt he had no choice, which was dumb. I tried so hard to show him he was making a mistake & clearly just in a bad mental state, but eventually I gave up.
I went no contact & tried to move on. Then, he calls a few days ago to tell me he is deeply sorry, he took accountability for what he did & he just described it as him getting crazy overwhelmed & he felt backed into a corner. He wanted to discuss getting back together. I told him I need him to take more time to really think about that decision. While part of me wanted to just say “yes omg let’s do it come home baby” I did not. He has to prove himself to me again. It’s been 3 days since that call & we’ve barely spoken, when we have it’s not about that. It’s weird.
He reopened the wound & yes I did tell him to take them to think, but now I just feel like shit because I don’t know what is going on. I’m scared to even ask. It sucks. I’m tempted to text & call all the time but I’m not sure what to say, I need him to take the initiative but I guess it’s just a weird cross road. I could forgive him for this, I do think we needed time apart. He went about it absolutely awful, but I do believe in 2nd chances. It’s just a shame he called me saying everything I’ve been waiting to hear, but nothing has happened really. We’ve spoken each day since, but I’ve initiated contact more during this time than he has. He still says I love you & doesn’t tackle the topic again. I’m so so confused. I get that getting back together should be a slow process, I get I told him to take time to think, but I don’t know what is even going on & I NEED to know. It hurts.
So, I called him tonight & decided to open the topic. He said he was taking the time to think as I requested, he said he meant what he said the other day. He said his main issue is that he is worried about my feelings & my security. He said he feels like I will never feel secure again, he thinks everytime we argue (if we get back together) that this will be brought up against him & obviously that wouldn’t be healthy. He said he just never wants to hurt me again & while he says he wouldn’t, he knows I’ll have an underlying fear that he will one day leave. I appreciated the fact that these were his concerns, as much as it sucks that they’re his fault. He took accountability & simply stated that he just doesn’t want me to be unhappy in the long haul after what he did.
I told him I think hesitation on both sides is healthy & normal, I also told him I appreciate the fact that those are his concerns. That shows a selfless view on the situation. It shows he clearly doesn’t want to get back together strictly because he loves & misses me. I do appreciate it as much as it hurts. I told him that it’s going to be a slow process, may not work or it could be better than before. It depends. He said he wants to discuss it further & see what we end up doing. Is this a good approach? Thoughts?

I’m in a tricky spot. My ex left me out of the blue a month ago. We had a great relationship, both had faults but nothing major. We were good to each-other. We had an insanely stressful time period & we lived together for a year at this point, we were also together for 2 years. I think he just needed time away & we needed to go back to long distance for a while. Our living situation wasn’t working out at all anymore & we didn’t know how to navigate that properly.
I don’t think we (mainly him) communicated affectively enough about what needed to happen. He just got lost, confused & just kinda dipped. Then, he did/ said strange stuff & gave a million bs reasons for why he left. None of them were true. I knew exactly why he left. He was just lost. He still loves me & I know he didn’t want to breakup, he just felt he had no choice, which was dumb. I tried so hard to show him he was making a mistake & clearly just in a bad mental state, but eventually I gave up.
I went no contact & tried to move on. Then, he calls a few days ago to tell me he is deeply sorry, he took accountability for what he did & he just described it as him getting crazy overwhelmed & he felt backed into a corner. He wanted to discuss getting back together. I told him I need him to take more time to really think about that decision. While part of me wanted to just say “yes omg let’s do it come home baby” I did not. He has to prove himself to me again. It’s been 3 days since that call & we’ve barely spoken, when we have it’s not about that. It’s weird.
He reopened the wound & yes I did tell him to take them to think, but now I just feel like shit because I don’t know what is going on. I’m scared to even ask. It sucks. I’m tempted to text & call all the time but I’m not sure what to say, I need him to take the initiative but I guess it’s just a weird cross road. I could forgive him for this, I do think we needed time apart. He went about it absolutely awful, but I do believe in 2nd chances. It’s just a shame he called me saying everything I’ve been waiting to hear, but nothing has happened really. We’ve spoken each day since, but I’ve initiated contact more during this time than he has. He still says I love you & doesn’t tackle the topic again. I’m so so confused. I get that getting back together should be a slow process, I get I told him to take time to think, but I don’t know what is even going on & I NEED to know. It hurts.
So, I called him tonight & decided to open the topic. He said he was taking the time to think as I requested, he said he meant what he said the other day. He said his main issue is that he is worried about my feelings & my security. He said he feels like I will never feel secure again, he thinks everytime we argue (if we get back together) that this will be brought up against him & obviously that wouldn’t be healthy. He said he just never wants to hurt me again & while he says he wouldn’t, he knows I’ll have an underlying fear that he will one day leave. I appreciated the fact that these were his concerns, as much as it sucks that they’re his fault. He took accountability & simply stated that he just doesn’t want me to be unhappy in the long haul after what he did.
I told him I think hesitation on both sides is healthy & normal, I also told him I appreciate the fact that those are his concerns. That shows a selfless view on the situation. It shows he clearly doesn’t want to get back together strictly because he loves & misses me. I do appreciate it as much as it hurts. I told him that it’s going to be a slow process, may not work or it could be better than before. It depends. He said he wants to discuss it further & see what we end up doing. Is this a good approach? Thoughts?